Trudy Metzger/Steve Stutzman

[Valerie]

I’m not a fan as I real appreciate _******_ and his well known ministry, discernment, and a husband & father I admire greatly so I cannot fathom accusations that he’s as she claims in all this. It’s ridiculous to use Facebook in this way-

This is the type of thinking that allows abuse to continue - no matter whose name is in the blank. There have been plenty of powerful men who continued to abuse their power because nobody imagined they were capable of doing the wrong things they were doing behind closed doors.

Perhaps but I’ve known of Steve about 12 years and he performed the wedding of one of my friends- I’ve taken a class/seminar, read his posts a long time, he has been to Netos Church to do events with his wife, etc/ I would not say the same thing about others- sometimes the Holy Spirit just gives you inclinations about people.

[JohnH]

I’m not a fan as I real appreciate _******_ and his well known ministry, discernment, and a husband & father I admire greatly so I cannot fathom accusations that he’s as she claims in all this. It’s ridiculous to use Facebook in this way-

This is the type of thinking that allows abuse to continue - no matter whose name is in the blank. There have been plenty of powerful men who continued to abuse their power because nobody imagined they were capable of doing the wrong things they were doing behind closed doors.

Perhaps but I’ve known of Steve about 12 years and he performed the wedding of one of my friends- I’ve taken a class/seminar, read his posts a long time, he has been to Netos Church to do events with his wife, etc/ I would not say the same thing about others- sometimes the Holy Spirit just gives you inclinations about people.

The Holy Spirit gave me inclinations about Stutzman, but they were quite negative. I have interacted with him personally one on one over the last 12 years.

Incidentally, a disagreement I had with Trudy Metzger a number of years ago was that she should stop trying to cooperate/work alongside with Steve Stutzman. I had reasons for my opinion. Eventually she came to the same conclusion on her own (not because of my opinion).

I don't always agree with TM's social media tactics, but I have generally found her to have a high level of integrity, and she also does not make stuff up (despite the many accusations that she does). I think a lot of the people repeating false accusations about her should pause and consider whose side they are actually on (note: not referring to Grace when I say that... I think Grace has aired legitimate grievances about TM's tactics).

[mike]

I've supported TM in the past, and I also believe SS has a unique ministry. Looking at this particular situation, though, it appears they have reached very different conclusions about what should happen with information that is, at least from what has been publicly described, hearsay rather than firsthand evidence. Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court.

SS has publicly indicated that he was advised by legal counsel that, because he was not a direct witness, he did not have a legal obligation to report what he had heard. TM believes that information could help secure a conviction. Those are competing views, but they are ultimately questions that belong in the legal system and not in a prolonged debate on Facebook.

Another thing I struggle with is the claim that Anabaptist churches always cover up sexual abuse and never hold offenders accountable. That doesn't match what I've observed. I regularly see reports of child sexual abuse cases that result in arrests, prosecutions, prison sentences, resignations from ministry, and leaders being removed from positions of authority.

That doesn't mean every case is handled well, nor does it mean there aren't serious failures that deserve to be exposed and corrected. There clearly have been. But saying there is never accountability ignores the cases where accountability has occurred.

If our goal is justice, then we should pursue the truth wherever it leads, support victims, insist on due process, and avoid turning every disagreement into public trials on social media.

All excellent points.

[JohnH]

It seems to me we are far more consistent and comfortable making guardrails around alcohol, clothing and TV than around abusive leaders.

Is it possible that part of the challenge is that we see little danger of going to excess when we make guardrails related to alcohol, clothing and TV but it's not nearly as clear cut to say that "abusive leaders" are banned? Sort of thinking out loud here.

It's relatively easy to say "No alcohol" and "No TV", but we can't just say "no leaders" because leaders are actually a good thing. In a way the whole variety of ways of organizing congregational and conference leadership is the result of people attempting to have good leadership without abusive leadership - attempting to weigh the dangers of empowering abusive leadership against the danger of tying the hands of godly leadership.

When it seems clear that the percentage of conservative Anabaptists who are comfortable saying "no TV" is similar to the percentage that have written policies about "one strike policy" for leaders and power abuse, then I will agree.

My denomination has a one strike policy for leaders concerning sexual abuse or other sexual sins. So it is clearly possible.

TV or alcohol, on the other hand… I could have an occasional beer or watch some TV and would not even be put on repentance, although it is certainly not encouraged to do so.

I suspect other conservative Anabaptist groups may be similar - but then we won’t hear about them having goofy situations such as ordaining a man who got caught by the cops driving around with no pants on and trying to lure young girls into his car. We do hear about the denominations (or in Bethesda C.F.’s case, they appear to be independent) that do ordain such men. Perhaps it might eventually be worthwhile to clarify that we (as in the very diverse set of church that spans both you and me) are not in fellowship with churches or denominations that ordain and tolerate leaders with such questionable pasts.

Incidentally, Jeriah Mast hailed from the same general type of church as Bethesda C.F., so it appears that this type of church has some of the worst problems with this. Of course, drawing tighter fellowship lines has comes costs: what would it take for CAM to say, “We simply aren’t going to accept volunteers or even donations from your constituency?” Doing so could have meant a big difference in the lives of 200 boys in Haiti.

[ohio jones]

The thread has been cleaned up and posts not directly related to Trudy, Steve, or Leroy have been moved to the BT or split into new threads.
Especially for threads that we know are being read outside the normal forum audience, o be careful little fingers what you type.

[Szdfan]

Trudy has written a long post on her blog responding to Grace.

https://splash4ripples.com/2026/07/05/d ... el-beiler/

[ken_sylvania]

Trudy has written a long post on her blog responding to Grace.

https://splash4ripples.com/2026/07/05/d ... el-beiler/

I feel like Ernie mentioned that yesterday evening...

[Szdfan]

Trudy has written a long post on her blog responding to Grace.

https://splash4ripples.com/2026/07/05/d ... el-beiler/

I feel like Ernie mentioned that yesterday evening...

I don’t have access to the Facebook page he linked to, so I didn’t know what he posted.

[Soloist]

It almost feels like that other guy… I would say using the arm of her blog to attack someone like is kind of wrong.

If she really was sincere about meeting for coffee, why did she choose to make this sort of thing public rather than address it privately or even come here and make her own account to address it?
That sort of action doesn’t exactly endear me to her claims about her carefulness on accusations.

[Szdfan]

It almost feels like that other guy… I would say using the arm of her blog to attack someone like is kind of wrong.

If she really was sincere about meeting for coffee, why did she choose to make this sort of thing public rather than address it privately or even come here and make her own account to address it?
That sort of action doesn’t exactly endear me to her claims about her carefulness on accusations.

Grace made public accusations and criticisms of Trudy on a forum that she’s not a part of. I think it’s fair for Trudy to defend herself publicly.

Grace also chose the forum to make these accusations. Trudy isn’t a participant here. Why shouldn’t she also be able to choose how and where she responds?