Trudy Metzger/Steve Stutzman

[mike]

From my point of view, people like Steve Stutzman who continuously defend their buddies (Leroy Miller and others) who got caught with their pants down (and worse, in some cases) are a horrible “witness”.

But when it happens in “Christian communities” and the abusers are defended, abuse is minimized, while truth tellers are ostracized, THAT is when God’s name is carried in vain.

What do you think would be adequate punishment for Leroy Miller's crimes he committed and spent time in prison for many years ago. In your opinion what punishment today would satisfy that crime? What do you think should happen to him?

And in your opinion what punishment would be adequate for Steve Stutzman?

At the bare minimum, neither of them should be in leadership positions or in “ministry”. Neither should be counseling people.

They’ve both proved themselves to be unsafe.

The public deserves to know what all went down so that we can all better protect vulnerable people from egoistical, corrupt men who prey and “pray”.

From what little I know, Leroy Miller and Steve Stutzman would be two entirely different cases.

I think it is an open question whether a person who was convicted of a crime and served prison time can be in leadership postion or ministry. I think a lot depends on the type and degree of the crime. The level of repentance can matter, but in the case of certain crimes, it does not matter how repentant one is. A sexually violent predator can never be in most leadership or ministry positions. There are other offenses where there is more of a possibility, depending on what the ministry role is. I have a friend who was a sex offender who had a successful leadership role for a period of time in a recovery facility for recently released sex offenders. But the opportunities are very, very limited.

As for Steve Stutzman, who I am not aware has been convicted of a crime, I think people are free to choose to accept or ignore his counseling or leadership as they so desire. I don't choose to accept it, for reasons that have nothing to do with whatever this current scandal is that is going on, but some do, and that is up to them. There are a lot of people whose counseling and leadership I don't like, but that doesn't mean they have no right to be in those roles.

[anndet92]

What do you think would be adequate punishment for Leroy Miller's crimes he committed and spent time in prison for many years ago. In your opinion what punishment today would satisfy that crime? What do you think should happen to him?

And in your opinion what punishment would be adequate for Steve Stutzman?

At the bare minimum, neither of them should be in leadership positions or in “ministry”. Neither should be counseling people.

They’ve both proved themselves to be unsafe.

The public deserves to know what all went down so that we can all better protect vulnerable people from egoistical, corrupt men who prey and “pray”.

Interesting how not being a pastor and a counsellor including unusual sessions with young girls and young youth boys is considered a “punishment”.

I’m not a pastor. Am I being “punished”?

None of my old speeding tickets are expunged either. I don’t feel it would be a Christian witness to do so either. I recently was convicted of 39 in a 35, too. It is public record.

I see it as more “common sense” than a punishment.

I would like to see vulnerable people protected.

[anndet92]

What do you think would be adequate punishment for Leroy Miller's crimes he committed and spent time in prison for many years ago. In your opinion what punishment today would satisfy that crime? What do you think should happen to him?

And in your opinion what punishment would be adequate for Steve Stutzman?

At the bare minimum, neither of them should be in leadership positions or in “ministry”. Neither should be counseling people.

They’ve both proved themselves to be unsafe.

The public deserves to know what all went down so that we can all better protect vulnerable people from egoistical, corrupt men who prey and “pray”.

From what little I know, Leroy Miller and Steve Stutzman would be two entirely different cases.

I think it is an open question whether a person who was convicted of a crime and served prison time can be in leadership postion or ministry. I think a lot depends on the type and degree of the crime. The level of repentance can matter, but in the case of certain crimes, it does not matter how repentant one is. A sexually violent predator can never be in most leadership or ministry positions. There are other offenses where there is more of a possibility, depending on what the ministry role is. I have a friend who was a sex offender who had a successful leadership role for a period of time in a recovery facility for recently released sex offenders. But the opportunities are very, very limited.

As for Steve Stutzman, who I am not aware has been convicted of a crime, I think people are free to choose to accept or ignore his counseling or leadership as they so desire. I don't choose to accept it, for reasons that have nothing to do with whatever this current scandal is that is going on, but some do, and that is up to them. There are a lot of people whose counseling and leadership I don't like, but that doesn't mean they have no right to be in those roles.

Steve has not been convicted of a crime; however, he has repeatedly surrounded himself with men who have committed sexual crimes, and has repeatedly defended those men.

He does not see anything wrong with grown men holding young women while counseling them.

He does not see anything wrong with having young men pay money for everytime they “fall” into sexual sin.

This is not a simple disagreement about the methods used.

Would you be okay with your daughter being counseled by this man while he holds her because he’s supposedly showing her a father’s love?!

What you are seeing on Facebook in regards to Steve and the “yes men” around him is the tip of the iceberg. I’m not Trudy, but even I have first hand knowledge of the damage Steve’s counseling methods has caused to girls.

[mike]

Steve has not been convicted of a crime; however, he has repeatedly surrounded himself with men who have committed sexual crimes, and has repeatedly defended those men.

He does not see anything wrong with grown men holding young women while counseling them.

He does not see anything wrong with having young men pay money for everytime they “fall” into sexual sin.

This is not a simple disagreement about the methods used.

Would you be okay with your daughter being counseled by this man while he holds her because he’s supposedly showing her a father’s love?!

What you are seeing on Facebook in regards to Steve and the “yes men” around him is the tip of the iceberg. I’m not Trudy, but even I have first hand knowledge of the damage Steve’s counseling methods has caused to girls.

None of that sounds good. These claims might be true, but I don't have enough information to know that for sure. But even if it is all true, it is not the same thing as being convicted of a crime and serving a prison sentence. That is my point.

[anndet92]

Steve has not been convicted of a crime; however, he has repeatedly surrounded himself with men who have committed sexual crimes, and has repeatedly defended those men.

He does not see anything wrong with grown men holding young women while counseling them.

He does not see anything wrong with having young men pay money for everytime they “fall” into sexual sin.

This is not a simple disagreement about the methods used.

Would you be okay with your daughter being counseled by this man while he holds her because he’s supposedly showing her a father’s love?!

What you are seeing on Facebook in regards to Steve and the “yes men” around him is the tip of the iceberg. I’m not Trudy, but even I have first hand knowledge of the damage Steve’s counseling methods has caused to girls.

None of that sounds good. These claims might be true, but I don't have enough information to know that for sure. But even if it is all true, it is not the same thing as being convicted of a crime and serving a prison sentence. That is my point.

I understand your point.

I would like to see the bar for church leadership and other ministry positions be much higher than “no criminal history”.

[R7ehr]

I wouldn’t oppose someone becoming a leader only for past sins and crimes. What are we doing here?

I think how it was repented of matters, openness matters, changed life matters, time matters.

[JohnH]

I understand your point.

I would like to see the bar for church leadership and other ministry positions be much higher than “no criminal history”.

And lots of people with criminal convictions would be, and are, excellent ministers. The two things are really unrelated.

In a setting where a crimimal conviction for certain types of crimes gives a high degree of confidence that the convict engaged in an activity we consider sinful, it may be quite useful for determining a minister doesn't meet the qualifications the Bible teaches for leaders in church.

Most poeple who commit egregious sexual sins, though, don't get convicted, and I would like to see a lot more effort put into preventing people with such unrepentant, sinful lives from becoming church leaders. A repentant person who has a history of engaging in sexual abuse would not even think to try to seek a leadership position, in my opinion.

[JohnH]

I wouldn’t oppose someone becoming a leader for past sins and crimes. What are we doing here?

I think how it was repented of matters, openness matters, changed life matters.

In this particular case, what I think matters is:

1. He was caught and convicted of preying on teenage girls in the community, doing something sinful. I would consider his sinful acts a permanent bar to ever being in a leadership position.
2. He ended up seeking a pastoral position just a year later, shortly after getting out of the clink.
3. He later downplayed what he did, playing word games with legal terms to claim what he he didn't involve minors, when it actually did.
4. He is attempting to expunge his record, which doesn't seem very repentant to me.
5. He has a continued history of questionable activities with teenage/youth aged boys and girls, such as the "sit girls on my lap during counselling" and "make boys with a struggle with a moral issue pay me $1,000 per incident" issues.

I would add that I think someone with a history of serious sexual abuse is not someone who ever needs to be installed as a church leader in ordained roles. I don't consider that a "punishment" either. I'm not ordained but that doesn't mean I'm being "punished".

[R7ehr]

I wouldn’t oppose someone becoming a leader for past sins and crimes. What are we doing here?

I think how it was repented of matters, openness matters, changed life matters.

In this particular case, what I think matters is:

1. He was caught and convicted of preying on teenage girls in the community, doing something sinful. I would consider his sinful acts a permanent bar to ever being in a leadership position.
2. He ended up seeking a pastoral position just a year later, shortly after getting out of the clink.
3. He later downplayed what he did, playing word games with legal terms to claim what he he didn't involve minors, when it actually did.
4. He is attempting to expunge his record, which doesn't seem very repentant to me.
5. He has a continued history of questionable activities with teenage/youth aged boys and girls, such as the "sit girls on my lap during counselling" and "make boys with a struggle with a moral issue pay me $1,000 per incident" issues.

I would add that I think someone with a history of serious sexual abuse is not someone who ever needs to be installed as a church leader in ordained roles. I don't consider that a "punishment" either. I'm not ordained but that doesn't mean I'm being "punished".

All I know of this case, is what I’ve read here. And based on this, I would oppose him being in any position of leadership, or spiritual ministry.

My comment is about pointing out that people can in fact change for the better, and become leaders - even though we should never simply whitewash over the past because the person is charismatic or popular or whatever.
There are certain sins and crimes that we hold in much stronger abhorrence than others, although era’s and locations and cultures play a role in shaping this for us.

[JohnH]

My comment is about pointing out that people can in fact change for the better, and become leaders - even though we should never simply whitewash over the past because the person is charismatic or popular or whatever.
There are certain sins and crimes that we hold in much stronger abhorrence than others, although era’s and locations and cultures play a role in shaping this for us.

Indeed. For those who say someone who has been convicted of a crime should never be in leadership, I would ask them to study the New Testament a little bit more carefully.