Trudy Metzger/Steve Stutzman

[temporal1]

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.

The deeply repentant do not resist sentences/punishments. They will self-restrain.
The not so repentant will seek every work around offered, or that can be conjured-up - human legal language, human reasoning are effective tools in this shameful process.

Yes, there are losses. For the accused-convicted and others.

The God-designed price of SIN.
He knows what is required to get through to thick heads. For His purposes.
Review Hosea and Gomer. Hosea’s faith and humility. Gomer’s thick head.

[anndet92]

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.

I should have been more specific. I think that in cases of sexual abuse, offenders (convicted or not) do not belong in leadership or ministry positions.

And like you mentioned, I don’t think that repentant offenders even WANT to be in leadership positions that put them in direct contact with vulnerable people.

[R7ehr]

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.

I should have been more specific. I think that in cases of sexual abuse, offenders (convicted or not) do not belong in leadership or ministry positions.

And like you mentioned, I don’t think that repentant offenders even WANT to be in leadership positions that put them in direct contact with vulnerable people.

Honestly, I agree with you here, on both paragraphs. But to play this out mentally and somewhat consistently, what is this based on?
Because I and others have compared sexual abuse to murder. Well then, what about Paul the Apostle?

And what exactly determines which sexual sins (or other sins and crimes) disqualify? Some are super insignificant, and almost inconsequential and are committed as children, or only once, or are consensual.
Shop lifting a pack of gum as a child vs. persistent fraudulent and business practices as an adult?

Perhaps the instruction of ordaining only men who have a good report of those outside the church is a helpful factor. And if they lose that good report, they lose their effectiveness, and should step down.

[JohnH]

I should have been more specific. I think that in cases of sexual abuse, offenders (convicted or not) do not belong in leadership or ministry positions.

More specifically... they shouldn't be in positions where they exercise authority over vulnerable people. They can, however, find other ways to minister and to serve. I don't exercise authority over other people in church or do one on one counselling with women and girls, but I find plenty of ways to minister and serve both inside church and outside of it.

[mike]

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.

Exactly. There are sins that are not crimes, that even when properly repented for and when followed by a proven track record of faithfulness, still prevent a person from being an effective leader. Ever. For example, I have a friend who committed adultery resulting in a child born to an unwed mother, who committed no crime, but who, despite sincere repentance and years of faithful living afterward, I feel is probably unqualified for a leadership position for the rest of his life. And I am quite sure he would never seek such a position out.

[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.

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”.

Yes, of course.

[Thomas_muntzer]

I want to preface this post with a comment. I believe children and women need to be protected from abuse including sexual abuse. I think all abuse needs to be reported to the proper authorities.

Over the years Trudy Metzger has been an advocate against child sexual abuse among conservative anabaptist men. She had been off social media for eight months at the advice of her lawyer. I do not know the details why her lawyer advised her to refrain from social media for a period of time.

However, she has returned with a vengeance. In the past she seemed to have a vendetta against Steve Stutzman for various things. Right now, she is targeting him again, making accusations that he protected a Michael Beiler, who allegedly abused a child. I do not know Steve Stutzman, but he feels there isn’t enough evidence to back up the claim of abuse. Trudy thinks that the alleged victim needs to be believed no matter what. To me the whole fiasco appears to be a “he said, she said” case.

How complex. There is nothing more damaging to victims than false accusations, as they discourage real victims from being believed.

It is also undeniable that in some cases, abusers in positions of power, relatives of bishops, or those holding positions of authority have been protected. That is why it is so important to take any accusation with the utmost seriousness. And where is the fine line drawn between unjustified public shaming and denouncing an abuser? It is the eternal debate of justice: what is worse, letting a guilty person go free or condemning an innocent one?

[Neto]

I honestly do not think that any man, no matter how stellar his record, and his actual conduct, should ever give private counsel to a young woman, or someone else's wife. Paul ascribes this sort of ministry to 'older women'.

Repentance. What does it look like? Once you've seen repentance that, even after decades, proves to be genuine and thorough, can one assume that another confession and repentance that looks the same is also genuine? I think not, but I confess that I cannot tell if an act of repentance is for real or not. Repentance with tears and weeping? That can also be faked, at least according to some cases I have witnessed at a distance. (I know of a case where a very 'seasoned' and experienced pastor was fooled. Weeping and signs of deep anguish over sin, but the man later said himself that it was all an act.)

I heard the confession of a man caught and sent to jail for a habit of sexual misconduct, and he made excuses during the confession, saying things like 'all men do it", etc. I remained skeptical, even though there have not been any new 'infractions', at least none that have come to light over the intervening years.

I have also cringed when a confession gets too detailed. This can cause sinful mental images to come up in the minds of the hearers, which appears to be to be bringing temptation on others. How much needs to be said? I get it (and agree), that there should never be any excuses or evasion.

School me on these questions.

[R7ehr]

It is the eternal debate of justice: what is worse, letting a guilty person go free or condemning an innocent one?

God was willing that an innocent man be condemned so that the guilty could go free.

[anndet92]

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.

I should have been more specific. I think that in cases of sexual abuse, offenders (convicted or not) do not belong in leadership or ministry positions.

And like you mentioned, I don’t think that repentant offenders even WANT to be in leadership positions that put them in direct contact with vulnerable people.

Honestly, I agree with you here, on both paragraphs. But to play this out mentally and somewhat consistently, what is this based on?
Because I and others have compared sexual abuse to murder. Well then, what about Paul the Apostle?

And what exactly determines which sexual sins (or other sins and crimes) disqualify? Some are super insignificant, and almost inconsequential and are committed as children, or only once, or are consensual.
Shop lifting a pack of gum as a child vs. persistent fraudulent and business practices as an adult?

Perhaps the instruction of ordaining only men who have a good report of those outside the church is a helpful factor. And if they lose that good report, they lose their effectiveness, and should step down.

You bring up Paul. (Formally Saul).

Here’s my take on that.

Paul, as he was murdering innocent people, thought he was doing this for god. And when God showed him otherwise, he repented. But it was many years between that conversion experience and public ministry.

In my opinion, if we are going to use Paul as an example for sexual assault cases, the ONLY time it might fit is in cases where a child abuses a child due to acting out the abuse that happened to them.

I know of people who were abused as young kids, and then abused other kids as a kid, and when they realized that abuse was wrong, they QUIT. They have no problem owning their actions, and they’ve even reported the abuse they did. They are also very insistent on not participating in kids ministries, etc. - not because they struggle with pedophilia but because they don’t feel like they should be the ones heading up children’s ministries with a past like that.

And again - I’m talking about abuse that was perpetrated between 10-13 years old. Not 17.

In my opinion, the cases of abuse when the perp is an adult is much akin to Ananias and Saphira due to how much deception/grooming etc that happens. Adults KNOW better. Yet, abusing kids is a game to them. They like to see how much they can get away with. Church is the perfect place for them to hide, because they can quickly use “forgiveness” as a way to protect themselves. They are also very good at putting on a good front - aka deception.

Again, this is my perspective.