You are on page 1of 132

Part 4: Exposing the Extensive Coverup of Tom Chantry’s Child Abuse by Top

Officials in the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of American (ARBCA) the
Last 18 Years
Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:15 PM

I originally called this article, “A Critical Analysis of the Administrative Council Report
– Part II.” The Administrative Council is the group of men responsible for leading the
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA). They have issued two
reports concerning Tom Chantry. Both are spurious. In this article, I expose their
second or Part II report issued on October 25, 2018.

The article I’ve written is due to the justice and providence of God. He has provided
the documentary evidence to prove the 18-year-old conspiracy by ARBCA officials
covering up the abuse of children by one of their leading pastors, Tom Chantry. "Do
not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness but instead even expose them. ... But
all things become visible when they are exposed by the light" (Eph. 5:11,13). The Lord is
not mocked by the trickery of men.

ARBCA is orthodox in its essential theology. It is, therefore, more grievous to find
pervasive corruption among its top leaders. They are present day Pharisees - orthodox
hypocrites. The glory of Christ and his gospel have been grievously reproached by
these deceitful men. They are only concerned for the protection of their pretentious
reputations, not the well-being of victims and their families. But God in his power and
holiness has determined to expose their malice and evil intent. Praise His Holy Name.

And, as is often the case in God’s plan, there has been a remnant of godly pastors and
members in ARBCA working for reform, only to be cast out or disparaged and
persecuted. The Lord bless them richly.

I have used a PDF format for this document given its length and certain features. It will
be posted soon. I am still doing some minor editing. Check back Dec. 26.

I originally sent this article to current and former ARBCA pastors on December 21, 2018
with this cover letter.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Dec 21, 2018 11:36 PM
To: Current & Former ARBCA Pastors
Subject: A Critical Analysis of the Administrative Council Report - Part II

Friday, December 21, 2018

Current and Former Pastors in ARBCA,
I hoped to have completed “A Critical Analysis of the Administrative Council
Report – Part II” sooner. I don’t prefer sending it to you before the celebration
of our Lord’s incarnation next Tuesday. Nevertheless, it is necessary because it
contains crucial evidence and vital information that has been withheld and
concealed from you. You will find it attached.

ARBCA is in need of great repentance. The reasons for this necessity will
become obvious as you read. It is my hope and prayer godly men in ARBCA
will address the corruption that exists and call for the discipline and removal of
leaders where needed.

If that is not forthcoming, I don’t see how anyone can remain in ARBCA with a
clear conscience. I desire your best; that is why I write. The same was true in
December 2016 when I first contacted you and appealed for an objective
investigation. I was condemned for being a slanderer, etc.

Two years later, I still want to see the frowning providence of God become the
smiling providence of God but that can’t happen without a Nineveh-like
turning to God.

Behold, the goodness and severity of God (Rom. 11:22).

Brent Detwiler

Please pray for the victims and their families. They continue to suffer. And pray that
ARBCA repents and makes restitution to all of them in full measure.
ARBCA Membership Process of Christ Reformed Baptist Church
Hales Corners, Wisconsin,
and the Case of Thomas J. Chantry

Administrative Council Report

Part II

October 25, 2018
PREFACE

We truly grieve for all those affected by the case of Thomas J. Chantry; and we pray that
the God of all of the earth and of all creation, who has revealed Himself as our loving
heavenly Father, will grant forgiveness and healing and will give us all the grace to seek
to honor the Lord Jesus Christ, our Mighty Savior, in how we understand and love each
other and in how we learn from our mistakes and work together for the future of our
association of churches.

Top ARBCA officials and pastors have been defending the innocence of Tom Chantry
from the time they were told he was under investigation for child molestation in July
2015. That was 3 years and 4 months ago. They learned about the investigation from
Christopher J. Marley, senior pastor of Miller Valley Baptist Church in Prescott, AZ.
They acknowledged this in their Administrative Council Report – Part I from
September 5, 2018.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388139243/ARBCA-Report-to-Churches-9-5-
2018.

Here is the excerpt.

“In July 2015, Mr. Marley notified John Giarrizzo, ARBCA Coordinator,
Douglas VanderMeulen, Chairman of the Administrative Council (AC), and
Steven Marquedant, Chairman of the Membership Committee; that a man had
recently made an allegation that Mr. Chantry had molested him several years
earlier, when he was three or four years old and Mr. Chantry was pastor of
MVBC. Mr. Marley indicated this was a new allegation and the individual
making the allegation was not named or involved in the issues described in the
report of the informal council. … In July 2015, Mr. Marley also informed Rob
Cosby, a member of the Administrative Council, of the allegation against Mr.
Chantry.”

A year later, Chantry was arrested in Wisconsin on five counts of molestation and three
counts of aggravated assault. Despite the investigation and arrest, the 2015-2016, 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018 Administrative Councils defended Chantry’s innocence. On March
21, 2018, Susan Eazer, the Deputy Attorney for Yavapai County, Arizona interviewed
Don Lindblad via phone with John Sears, Chantry’s attorney, participating. The 93
page transcript is titled “Notice of Filing Transcript of Donald Lindblad” and is part of
the public record.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388574713/2018-7-18-P1300CR201600966-
Eazer-Deposition-of-Don-Lindblad.
Here are some excerpts.

Lindblad: “Our association has gone on the record as believing that the
subsequent [molestation] charges are not true.” (p. 41, lines 1-3)

Easer: “Well I’m happy to hear that, sir, I gotta say I disagree with you and I
have five victims who disagree with you.” (p. 41, lines 4-6)

Lindblad: “I understand that.” (p. 41, line 7)

Lindblad has been the official spokesman for the Administrative Council in many
respects. He was Chantry’s “advocate” before, during and after the 2000 investigation.
Lindblad also told Eazer, ARBCA took the official position that Chantry was not guilty
of aggravated assault.

Lindblad: “Well I would say that our association has taken the position that
Tom Chantry, followed up on all that he was asked to do and, the councilor’s
report asserts that as far as he [Devon Berry] is concerned or as far as he
understands, Tom Chantry is guilty of nothing more than what he had
admitted to when the committee was there in Prescott.” (p. 46. lines 16-22 - p.
47, lines 1-2)

Chantry never admitted to spanking the children bare bottom, rubbing their buttocks as
they lay naked over his knees, threatening them not to tell anyone, causing severe welts
and bruising by using an oar and board, etc. He only admitted to “the committee” and
the “councilor” that his “mistake” “was to spank the children as discipline in the
context of teaching” for “refusing to cooperate.”

He still hasn’t admitted to assaulting the two children for which he was found guilty on
August 21, 2018 and sentenced on October 19, 2018. As a result, he is no longer allowed
to be around children except his own for the next three years.

Lindblad also stated ARBCA’s claim there has been no cover up.

Lindblad: “Well our association has taken the position that there was no cover
up, which has been the charge.” (p. 46, lines 6-8)

But there has been a cover up. For example by Douglas VanderMeulen, Steven
Marquedant, John Giarrizzo, Rob Cosby, and others. They recommended and voted
that Chantry and Christ Reformed Baptist Church be accepted into ARBCA at the
General Assembly in April 2016 even though they knew Chantry had been under police
investigation for nine months and an arrest was forthcoming. Nevertheless, they took
the official position, before and after the arrest in July 2016, that Chantry was not guilty
of aggravated assault or sexual molestation. Read this article.

Part 3: A Critical Analysis of the Administrative Council’s Report Justifying the
Decision to Withhold All Knowledge of the Police Investigation & Imminent
Arrest of Thomas J. Chantry from ARBCA Pastors
Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 12:04AM

Don Lindblad has also been a major player in the cover up employed by ARBCA. For
example, when he was recruited to help Christ Reformed Baptist Church “sort out fact
from fiction” on January 29, 2017. This was after Lindblad already had all the
“documents” from the Informal Council” except (supposedly) the “sealed document”
about “punishment for his own pleasure.” Tom Lyon, who was part of the ploy in
sending Lindblad to CRBC, gave him the “sealed document.” CRBC was asking hard
questions. Lindblad did not answer them. He refused to even read any of the
documents in his possession because they were incriminating. Instead, he defended
Chantry’s innocence. Al Huber (Chantry’s father-in-law, Chantry’s former pastor,
Administrative Council Member), Dale Smith (Chantry’s former pastor), and Steve
Martin (Administrative Council Member and ARBCA Coordinator) were present and
supported Lindblad. That was two months before his telephonic interview with Susan
Eazer. Here is another excerpt.

Lindblad: “Well I would have had all the documents anyway and the sealed
document…I was given by Pastor Lyon because I was asked to help a church
that was struggling with what was going on and it was, had the potential for
splitting the church and I was asked to come in and to help them sort out fact
from fiction at least as far as the documents.” (p. 7, lines 10-18)

The Administrative Council claims, “We truly grieve for all those affected by the case of
Thomas J. Chantry.” No they don’t! You will know ARBCA grieves when it renounces
its three year defense of Chantry and the consequent condemnation of the victims as
liars.

Read Part 1: Sexual Sadist Tom Chantry Persecuted Like Jesus, Tested Like Job, &
Betrayed Like Joseph According to ARBCA Leaders & Enablers (Sept. 26, 2018).

Furthermore, the Administrative Councils, past and present, have done nothing to
comfort the victims, commend the victims, or oppose Chantry and his supporters. For
instance, when will the current 2018-2019 Administrative Council hold the 2015-2016,
2016-2017, and 2017-2018 Administrative Councils accountable for their defense of
Chantry? They should also hold Douglas VanderMeulen, Steve Marquedant, John
Giarrizzo, Rob Cosby, et al. accountable for asking forgiveness of the victims. And
when will the current Administrative Council hold Don Lindblad, Tom Lyon and Al
Huber accountable for their ongoing, hideous defense of Chantry’s innocence? Their
churches should be removed from ARBCA unless they repent. How can they remain?
Only if you allow ARBCA pastors to defend a known sociopathic liar and sexual sadist.

We have no illusion that this report will somehow suddenly solve all the conflicts,
answer all the questions, and heal all the wounds the events of the past twenty years
concerning this case have brought upon us. Some have urged us not to publish this
second report, believing that the report itself might cause even more harm. However,
we believe that, if our association is going to grow stronger and if we, as churches, are
going to learn to live in ways more honoring to the Lord of the church through a more
robust understanding of associational life, the only path toward these noble goals is one
of transparency and striving for truth in all matters. So, we believe that we must begin
here, with the case of Thomas J. Chantry; and we should consider adopting, in our
governing documents, structures and policies designed to assure such transparency and
careful handling of truth in the future.

So much vital evidence and incriminating information is left out of this report. That is
apparent to anyone familiar with the primary source documents. There is a blatant lack
of transparency and no “striving for truth in all matters.” This Part II report from
October 25 is like the Part I report from September 5. Let me illustrate. In the latter
case, the Miller Valley Baptist Church elders were never contacted while the
“investigation” was being done by the Administrative Council. Chris Marley, the
senior pastor, wrote the Administrative Council on behalf of the elders. Let me quote
him.

“The recent report [Part I] issued by the ad hoc committee [i.e., Dale Crawford,
Steve Marquedant, Jeff Massey, and Bob Curley] investigating the involvement
of ARBCA in the Tom Chantry case has raised some serious concern. First, it is
of concern that the elders of MVBC were not contacted in the course of the ad
hoc investigation. … It is irresponsible to report on a series of events that
surround our church without ever contacting us.” (Sept. 12, 2018)

For this and eight other reasons, Marley asks, “Therefore, we ask that a letter of
redaction and repentance be sent out to all who received the report.” So much for a
“striving for truth in all matters.” The ad hoc committed didn’t even contact the elders
of Miller Valley Baptist Church where the assaults and molestations occurred while
Tom Chantry was the senior pastor.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388572391/MVBC-Objections-to-ARBCA-Ad-
Report for Marley’s letter.

Our purpose in this report is to communicate, clearly and transparently, information to
member churches about actions of the Membership Committee and the Administrative
Council of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA),
specifically in relation to the formation, conduct, and reports of an informal council sent
to Miller Valley Baptist Church (MVBC) in Prescott, Arizona, in December 2000. We
have attempted to provide an objective account of the events, circumstances,
procedures, reports, and results related to this informal council. Necessarily, we have
included a discussion of the tenure of Thomas J. Chantry during the period he was
pastor of MVBC. We have conducted a vigorous search for documentation and
information, including official reports, private correspondence, working papers, notes,
emails, and records of personal interviews. Additionally, we have included an analysis
of the information in this report, in which we have given particular attention to the
assessment of whether the evidence supports an allegation of a conspiracy to conceal
information from law enforcement or member churches of ARBCA.

This report withholds large amounts of information from the ARBCA churches which I
will demonstrate. As a result, scores of vital issues are left unclear because they are not
addressed “clearly and transparently.” For example, they don’t share Devon Berry’s
counseling report on Chantry from December 2001. That is a vital document regarding
his findings pertaining to Chantry’s sexual sadism, etc. I’ll say more shortly.

I think the primarily purpose of this Administrative Council Part 2 report is to build a
legal wall against lawsuits and keep people and churches from leaving ARBCA. It is
not about clarity and transparency.

None of the documentation relating to Mr. Chantry’s tenure at MVBC or the work of
the informal council in December 2000 was available to the current Administrative
Council or accessible until after the completion of Mr. Chantry’s trial. Moreover, we
have continued to pursue documentation that has only become available during the
drafting of this report.

This is completely untrue! The current Administrative Council is trying to claim
ignorance. “None of the documentation…was available…or accessible.” That is pure
nonsense. I wrote the following articles in December 2016 – that is two years ago. All
kinds of evidence was available at the time including police reports and the Grand Jury
indictment for five counts of sexual molestation and three counts of aggravated assault.
It was issued July 26, 2016 and part of the public court record. The police reports
covered “Mr. Chantry’s tenure at MVBC” and “the work of the informal council.”

Tom Chantry, Well Known Reformed Baptist Pastor, Charged on Multiple
Counts of Child Molestation & Aggravated Assault with Serious Injury
Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 3:51 PM

Did Reformed Baptist Leaders Cover Up Tom Chantry’s Alleged Sex Crimes &
Serious Physical Injury of Children?
Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 4:06 PM
My Letters to All Lead Pastors in ARBCA to Investigate the Past Cover Up of
Tom Chantry’s Sins & Alleged Crimes
Friday, December 30, 2016 at 4:12 PM

The Prescott Police Department Offense Reports contained overwhelming evidence of
Chantry’s crimes. For instance, the following quote comes from Officer Paul Clemens
interview of Harriet Edson and her son, Joseph on July 17, 2015. Take note, I’ve
substituted fictious names for the victims and their parents.

“He stated that he remembered being in a room alone with the then pastor of
the church, Thomas Chantry…when he pulled his pants down taking them off
leaving him naked from the waist down. Joseph stated that Chantry stood
behind him and reached around with both hands and began to fondle Joseph’s
genitalia. Joseph stated that this took place for approximately 10 minutes and
ended with Joseph putting his paints back on and Chantry telling Joseph don’t
tell anyone.”

There were 14 police reports. They were all available to the public. For example,
Anthony Battaglia posted all of them on ARBCA.org on October 13, 2017. See
http://arbca.org/tom-chantry-child-abuse-case/tom-chantry-police-report/.

He also included his interview with lead detective, Jessica Barnard-Belling from August
14, 2017.

Here is an excerpt.

Battaglia: “Hey Detective Belling, this is Anthony Battaglia, I missed your call
just a minute ago. … We are dealing with a situation to where The Association
of Baptist Churches has pretty much denied that any of their Baptist’s ministers,
the ones who investigated, or the ones from the Committee. They are denying,
I guess from the original 2000 reports that any of them had knowledge of
physical or sexual abuse in such a way that they felt compelled to actually call
law enforcement.”

Belling: “I can’t speak on behalf of what they were thinking, obviously back
then, I can just go based off of what documentation I have and in, I don’t know
who wrote it, but in one of those documents [the letter to Walt Chantry] it states
that what they were investigating was in fact child abuse and that it could have
been reported to law enforcement. … That shows they did have enough to
report it to law enforcement and that they didn’t. … The physical abuse, I
believe they did know, was actually child abuse and they did not report it. I’d
say they probably had their suspicions of other things that were going on
because the pastor was spanking these kids bare bottomed in private but I don’t
believe any of the kids had made full disclosures at that time.”

The documentation referred to by Detective Belling is the November 21, 2000 letter to
Walt Chantry from the MVBC elders, Rich Howe and Eric Owens. It was widely
distributed to ARBCA officials like Bob Selph, Tedd Tripp, Mike McKnight, Rich Jensen,
Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad, and Tom Lyon. All these
men, and more, knew Chantry was a child abuser in 2000.

Read Part 2: Walt Chantry, Miller Valley Elders, & ARBCA Officials Knew Tom
Chantry Was a Child Abuser Even Before the 2000 Investigation Began (Oct. 13, 2018).

The letter to Walt Chantry was not confidential and it was easily accessible from any of
the men above. For example, from Steve Martin who is the current ARBCA
Coordinator. And yet, the current AC claims, “We have conducted a vigorous search
for documentation” but “none of the documentation…was available…or accessible until
after the…trial.” That is pure deception. Al Huber is also on the current AC. He is
Tom Chantry’s father-in-law. He has ALL the documentation. And his fellow pastor,
Dale Smith at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Rockford, IL also has a lot of the
documentation. Chantry was a member of his church from 2002-2006.

But just as amazing is the fact that the Administrative Councils in 2015-2016, 2016-2017,
and 2017-2018 never made any attempt to talk to law enforcement! Battaglia was a
deacon at First Baptist Church in Clinton, Louisiana. It is an ARBCA church. He
wanted to know the truth. What did he do? He called the lead detective! That was in
August 2017. He posted the conversation on ARBCA.org in October 2017.

See http://arbca.org/tom-chantry-child-abuse-case/lead-detective-audio-file/.

What did the 2017-2018 Administrative Council do that same year. They took the
position Chantry was innocent of aggravated assault and sexual molestation despite the
overwhelming evidence of his guilt. They never contacted the victims, their parents, or
law enforcement. They could easily have talked to Detecting Belling like Anthony
Battaglia! They were not interested in the truth.

The 2017-2018 Administrative Council also denied a cover up and claimed, “Everyone
with knowledge of these events has operated within the parameters of the law of the
land.” The exact opposite was true. My current list of documented pastors and elders
who broke the mandatory reporting law for clergy comes to 19. That does not include
Chantry’s counselor. More on this subject later in this article.
Here are the men from the 2000-2001Administrative Council that authorize Mike
McKnight, Tedd Tripp and Rich Jensen to investigate the allegations of child abuse
against Tom Chantry.

2000-2001 Administrative Council Members
1. Earl Blackburn (Chairman)
2. David Dykstra (Chairman of the Membership Committee)
3. John Giarrizzo
4. Tom Greene
5. Jamie Howell
6. Bruce Kronheim
7. Don Lindblad
8. Tom Lutz
9. Steve Martin
10. Mike McKnight
11. Bob Selph
12. Dale Smith
13. Larry Vincent

Here are the men on the 2017-2018 Administrative Council that denied all wrong doing
and protested Chantry’s innocence. Many of them had documentation going back to
2000. For example, Blackburn, Dykstra, and Martin. Those underlined were on the
2000-2001 AC.

2017-2018 Administrative Council Members
1. Earl Blackburn (Chairman)
2. Rob Cosby (Treasurer)
3. Jack Daniels
4. David Dykstra
5. Al Huber
6. Michael Kelly
7. Steve Martin (ARBCA Coordinator)
8. Steve Marquedant
9. Jeff Massey (Vice Chairman)
10. Brandon Smith
11. Jason Walter (Secretary)

Here are the men on the 2018-2019 Administrative Council. Those underlined are carry
overs from 2017-2018. It is obvious the foxes are guarding the hen house. These men
are investigating themselves. Pastors in ARBCA have rightly called for an independent
outside investigation but that will never happen because so many power brokers in
ARBCA would be exposed.
2018-2019 Administrative Council Members
1. Bob Adams
2. Rob Cosby (Treasurer)
3. Dale Crawford
4. Jack Daniels
5. David Dykstra
6. Al Huber
7. Steve Martin (ARBCA Coordinator)
8. Steve Marquedant
9. Jeff Massey (Vice Chairman)
10. Jonathan Paul
11. Micah Renihan
12. Brandon Smith (Chairman)
13. Jason Walter (Secretary)

Al Huber is Tom Chantry’s father-in-law. He has been paying for Tom’s defense and
securing bond money to get him out of jail. David Dykstra was at the July-August 2018
trial supporting Chantry’s wicked defense comprised solely of lying. Steve Martin told
members of Chantry’s church at a meeting in January 2017 that they were guilty of a
“witch hunt” for asking probing questions about the evidence against Chantry. I could
go on and on. How in the world can anyone trust these men to produce a truthful
report?

Back to the main point. That is, the bogus assertion by the current Administrative
Council that, “None of the documentation relating to Mr. Chantry’s tenure at MVBC or
the work of the informal council in December 2000 was available to the current
Administrative Council or accessible until after the completion of Mr. Chantry’s trial.”

Here’s another illustration that refutes their claim. The five letters written by the
parents and a victim in 2000 were also available to the 2018-2019 AC. They could have
asked a host of men like Earl Blackburn or Rich Jensen for the letters. Jensen was on the
Informal Council and is still an ARBCA pastor! He has all the information about
Chantry. And yet they say, “None of the documentation relating to…the work of the
informal council…was available…or accessible.” Their “vigorous search for
documentation” was not so vigorous. Here is an excerpt from my previous article.

Part 2: Walt Chantry, Miller Valley Elders, & ARBCA Officials Knew Tom
Chantry Was a Child Abuser Even Before the 2000 Investigation Began
October 13, 2018

These were five letters written by four parents (Tyler Walsh, Luke Jones, Lois
Jones, Connie Laver) and one victim (Mark Jones). Remember, these are
pseudonyms, not their real names.
Bear in mind, all of these letters were sent to the Informal Council comprised of
Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp, and Rich Jensen before they arrived in Prescott,
AZ to do their investigation on December 13-16, 2000. The Informal Council
confirmed everything in the letters and more. McKnight, Tripp and Jensen
knew without a doubt that Tom Chantry was a child abuser!

These letters were given to Walt Chantry, Tom Chantry, Bob Selph (the ARBCA
Coordinator), and Don Lindblad (Tom’s advocate). In addition, they were
likely shared with Earl Blackburn (Chairman of the Administrative Council),
David Dykstra (Member of the Administrative Council & Chairman of the
Membership Committee), and Steve Martin (Member of the Administrative
Council). They were all heavily involved in 2000! Unlike the two confidential
reports written by the Informal Council on December 16, 2000, there were no
restrictions placed on their dissemination when written. Moreover, their
contents were freely discussed.

One final example of “documentation relating to Mr. Chantry’s tenure at MVBC” that
was part of the court record way before the conclusion of Chantry’s trial. It is titled,
“State’s Notice of Intent To Use Other Act Evidence Pursuant to 404(B) and 404(C).” It
was filed with the court on September 7, 2017. It provides a devastating overview of
Chantry’s abuse. Here are a few excerpts.

“Mark Jones was molested on a near weekly basis by the Defendant over the
course of many months. … Both victims, Jane Walsh and Wayne Walsh will
testify that they were physically abused by the Defendant on more than one
occasion. Wayne Walsh will testify that the abuse occurred on numerous
occasions, and with the exception of the use of different instruments, was
always the same type of abuse. … Daniel Laver is said to have suffered the most
extensive abuse of all the children with the exception of perhaps Mark Jones.
Daniel Laver was so severely traumatized by the abuse, that to this date, he is
unwilling to come forward and speak about the same. However, both Jane
Walsh and Wayne Walsh saw firsthand Daniel Laver get severely beaten by the
Defendant. In fact, both victims state that the Defendant would frequently
make them watch each other get beaten.”

I could go on ad nauseum. There were a couple hundred documents on public
courthouse computers available to the 2018-2019 Administrative Council before “the
completion of Mr. Chantry’s trial.” The AC is being terribly deceitful by implying they
didn’t know anything until after the trial because they didn’t have any documentation.

Much of the information in this report has been extracted from private and/or sensitive
sources and is not publicly available; therefore, any quotations from such sources have
been heavily redacted and the sources have not been included as attachments. Instead,
these sources have been identified as “Private Document” in the footnotes. Several of
these sources have already been made public by other individuals; however, in some
cases the Administrative Council has determined it inappropriate, for a number of
reasons, to publicize documents as attachments to this report. While we have decided it
would be insensitive or inappropriate to reproduce or publicize these sources, we are
able to make them available for review, under supervision, at the 2019 General
Assembly. To the extent possible, we will make arrangements for interested delegates
to review the documents by appointment during the General Assembly. Following the
General Assembly, we will attempt to make other arrangements, if necessary, for
pastors or members of churches affiliated with ARBCA to view the documents, by
appointment.

This is another false statement intended to mislead. “Much of the information in this
report…is not publicly available.” “Instead, these sources have been identified as
‘Private Document’ in the footnotes.” This is simply not true. These “private”
documents are in fact public documents. That is why I have them. How did I get
them? From the public record contained in the digital case file for Thomas J. Chantry.
All you do is go to the Camp Verde courthouse and request a CD of the Chantry files
for $30. Or call them and they will send you a copy. Then you start reading the
thousands of pages of evidence and court proceedings. The Administrative Council is
covering up. Theses private documents are not private! They should be cited in this
report. This is not “transparency and striving for truth in all matters.” It is obfuscation.

Furthermore, the AC is making it next to impossible for members to view the
documents in their possession. That’s because they are incriminating. If you’re lucky,
you’ll be able to “view the documents, by appointment.” Where? In Olmstead
Township, Ohio during the May 7-9, 2019 General Assembly at Fred Pugh’s Grace
Covenant Church. Or perhaps at the ARBCA headquarters in Carlisle, PA where all the
documents are archived.

Instead of driving to Olmstead Township, OH or Carlisle PA, drive to the Yavapai
County Superior Courthouse in Camp Verde, Arizona and get the CD! Or give them a
call at (928) 567-7741. Then you can download the approximately 400 files and forward
to all the pastors and members in ARBCA.

Here is another example that proves documentation was available to the 2018 AC
before the trial ended. It comes from the “ARBCA Announcement Concerning Tom
Chantry” that was made by the 2017 AC at the General Assembly in April 2017. Here’s
an excerpt.

“A sister church and an independent, certified (Christian Counseling &
Educational Foundation) Christian counselor judged Mr. Chantry fit to return
to normalcy. Their reports included pursuing pastoral ministry, should Mr.
Chantry believe this was God’s will. These reports were archived in the
ARBCA office, and there is an entry in official minutes to that effect.” (April 25,
2017)

The report from the “sister church” is a reference to Reformed Baptist Church in
University Place (Tacoma), WA where Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick are pastors.
That is where Chantry fled from 2000-2002. The second report is from Devon Berry,
“the CCEF certified (Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation) Christian
counselor.” Notice where his report is found. “Archived in the ARBCA office.” It is
not quoted or included in this report. More later.

Here is a final example. It also proves documentation was easily accessible because
numerous other documents were archived in the ARBCA office! But it goes further. It
illustrates the audacious lying of Don Lindblad and the audacious deceit of the current
Administrative Council. Follow along. This is important.

You are reading the Administrative Council’s second report. You must go back to the
first report and read Attachment 12. Here is the link.

https://www.scribd.com/document/388139445/ARBCA-attachments-to-their-
05SEP2018-report.

Attachment 12 is a June 17, 2015 letter from Don Lindblad to Steve Marquedant, who
was Chairman of the Membership Committee. In its original form, the letter contained
four points. In the attachment to the first report, however, point 3 was removed. I
noticed its absence immediately. Thankfully, I was able to secure the unredacted letter.
Here is point 3 with its six subpoints. It was deceitfully omitted. There is no doubt
about it.

3. The following documents are in the ARBCA archives:

a. The document signed by the elders, Tom Chantry (plus the various
families), and the counselors. This is a sealed document and is not to surface
unless Tom is charged with the same or similar sins in the future. Since this has
not happen, it is not available, and neither Miller Valley nor Tom is authorized
to publish it. Everyone agreed to that by way of signature.

b. The document signed by the elders, Tom, and myself, charting a way
forward. Tom was to join an ARBCA church, seek counseling from a biblical
counselor, and not to reenter the ministry until his church agreed he was ready.
All three counselors asserted their belief that Tom was unusually gifted, and in
time could regain his life and ministry. If further sins surfaced through
counseling, he was to contact MVBC and confess them. Nothing further
surfaced, but Tom was helped enormously through this process. This
document too has limited viewing and is not available by common consent.

c. The letter sent by the AC to all the churches. This can be read by the
appropriate committees.

d. The letter written by the CCEF counselor, stating that Tom has fulfilled
what he agreed to do. The limits of his guilt are expressed.

e. The letter from the church Tom joined, also stating that Tom has fulfilled
what he agreed to do. The church signed off on him after a year or more in that
context.

f. At Earl Blackburn’s request, I wrote a report of what occurred during the
council between Tom and MVBC.

All of these documents are on file in the ARBCA office. As noted, some are
sealed and others are available in a limited fashion.

Lindblad refers to six documents in the ARBCA archives:

a. “Confidential Report and Recommendations” (Dec. 16, 2000) – Level 1 report

b. “Report, Conclusions and Recommendations” (Dec. 16, 2000) – Level 2 report

c. “Report of the Informal Council” (Dec. 2000) – Level 3 report

d. Letter by Devon Berry the CCEF counselor (Dec. 2001)

e. Letter from Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick (Jan. 1, 2002), the elders at
Providence Reformed Baptist Church – copies were sent to Tom Chantry, Walt
Chantry, Earl Blackburn, Don Lindblad, and Devon Berry

f. “Notes on the Informal Council Regarding Tom Chantry” by Don Lindblad for
Earl Blackburn

All six documents were easily accessible to the current AC before Chantry’s July-
August 2018 trial because they were in the ARBCA office or readily available from other
people. Remember, this is the categorical claim made above.

“We have conducted a vigorous search for documentation and information,
including official reports, private correspondence, working papers, notes,
emails, and records of personal interviews. …. None of the documentation
relating to Mr. Chantry’s tenure at MVBC or the work of the informal council in
December 2000 was available to the current Administrative Council or
accessible until after the completion of Mr. Chantry’s trial.”

If “a vigorous search” were true, the first person they would have contacted was Jamie
Howell. He was the recording secretary for the 2000-2001 Administrative Council.
Here is an excerpt from a letter he sent me.

From: James Howell <jshowell3@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 5:21 PM
To: Brent Detwiler abrentdetwiler@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Did AC Receive IC Reports in 2000?

Brent,

I was the recording secretary of the AC in 2000-2001. I have all the minutes and
other correspondence that was passed around the AC at the time. We were
informed there was a problem & there would be a council on Dec. 5, 2000, and I
wrote this in a note sent to all the AC members, separate from the official
minutes, on January 6, 2001:

The AC received a report concerning the Council sent to Prescott, AZ,
concerning the difficulties between former pastor Tom Chantry and the
church. Three reports will be distributed: a general report to be sent to
all the churches, a middle level report sent to all the AC members (to
remain confidential), and a much fuller report to be given only to nine
individuals involved.

The Jan. 6 minutes contained the most general, brief, report that was sent to all
the churches (you have that, don’t you?). It doesn’t say anything more than
there was a problem, an informal counsel met with Tom & his elders to
mediate, and the issue was resolved with recommendations to be followed. We
were told in that meeting that we would receive the middle level report. I do
not have recorded in any minutes subsequent to that date that we did receive
the middle level report. (That wasn’t intended to be carefully parsed — I have
no record or recollection at all that I received the report). For years I thought I
had not seen it, and frankly forgot about it. When this whole thing came back
up in 2015, I still thought I had not seen it. I went back & searched my hard
disk & didn’t find it. Then about a year ago I did another search and I did find
it. I have no recollection of who sent it or when I received it. I would think it
had to have been in 2001, but I honestly do not recall. …
Sincerely,

Jamie Howell, Pastor
Grace Baptist Church of Taylors
www.gbctaylors.net

I could make numerous comments but suffice it to say, “Then about a year ago I did
another search and I did find it.” Howell is talking about the “middle level report.”
That is, “Report, Conclusions and Recommendations” (Dec. 16, 2000) regarding
Chantry. It is the second document referred to above by Lindblad. It is also called the
Level 2 Report. Howell found it around September 2017. In their “vigorous search for
documentation and information,” the current Administrative Council never contacted
the man with the documentation and information!

Finally, there are multiple lies by Lindblad to Marquedant in these two paragraphs.

“The document signed by the elders, Tom Chantry (plus the various families),
and the counselors. This is a sealed document [“Confidential Report and
Recommendations”] and is not to surface unless Tom is charged with the same
or similar sins in the future. Since this has not happen, it is not available, and
neither Miller Valley nor Tom is authorized to publish it. Everyone agreed to
that by way of signature.

“The document [“Report, Conclusions and Recommendations”] signed by the
elders, Tom, and myself, charting a way forward. Tom was to join an ARBCA
church, seek counseling from a biblical counselor [Berry], and not to reenter the
ministry until his church agreed he was ready. All three counselors [McKnight,
Tripp, Jensen] asserted their belief that Tom was unusually gifted, and in time
could regain his life and ministry. If further sins surfaced through counseling,
he was to contact MVBC and confess them. Nothing further surfaced, but Tom
was helped enormously through this process. This document too has limited
viewing and is not available by common consent.”

First lie. The “Confidential Report and Recommendations” was only signed by “the
counselors,” that is, Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp, and Rich Jensen. It was NOT “signed
by the elders, Tom Chantry” or “the various families.” In fact, the “sealed document”
was never given to the Miller Valley elders or parents. It contained the question, “Did
Thomas Chantry use this method of punishment for his own pleasure?” The elders and
parents told me they would have reported Chantry to law enforcement if they had been
told about this serious concern for sadism.

Second lie. The “Confidential Report and Recommendations” could be published but
only with “the express written consent of Tom Chantry and the Elders of the Miller
Valley Baptist Church.” See Attachment 1 in AC Report – Part I. Publishing the report
was not forbidden “unless Tom is charged with the same or similar sins in the future.”

https://www.scribd.com/document/388139445/ARBCA-attachments-to-their-
05SEP2018-report

Third lie. The three counselors (McKnight, Tripp & Jensen) never “asserted their belief
that Tom was unusually gift.” More importantly, it is misleading to say they “asserted
their belief that Tom…in time could regain his life and ministry.” Here is what they
said in their report.

“As part of the process of determining whether Thomas Chantry is able
to return to the ministry, the Elders who assume the oversight of him
should consider the possibility that on some level he punished children
for his own pleasure. … We do believe that the seriousness of the
allegations against Tom, the inconsistencies between the accounts of the
spankings and the apparent lack of complete repentance would
certainly prohibit any return to the ministry until these issues are
resolved by Tom and his Elders.”

They were never resolved. Chantry should never have been restored to ministry.

Don Lindblad is a prolific liar. That was readily apparent to everyone at the July-
August 2018 trial including Judge Astrowsky who reprimanded him for being “evasive
and unresponsive” to questions by the prosecutor. It is no wonder Chantry chose him
to be his “advocate” in 2000 and ARBCA has used him to be their spokesman in many
respects.

He also repeatedly lied to Susan Eazer during a telephonic deposition on March 21,
2017. Eazer addresses 13 statements “which are directly contrary to that which is
contained in the church documents” in the following court documents.

Motion in Limine Regarding Pastor Lindblad
June 29, 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/387255029/2018-6-29-Motion-in-Limine-
Regarding-Pastor-Lindblad-Redacted

State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Use of Church Documents
July 2, 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/392221224/2018-11-2-State-s-Response-
to-Defendant-s-Motion-to-Preclude-Use-of-Church-Documents-
P1300CR201600966-7-2-2018
Notice of Filing of Transcript of Donald Lindblad
July 18, 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/388574713/2018-7-18-
P1300CR201600966-Eazer-Deposition-of-Don-Lindblad

John Giarrizzo has repeatedly lied in like fashion. He was on the 2000-2001
Administrative Council and many since! His four elders and a pastoral assistant at
Grace Covenant Church in Gilbert, Arizona - Pete Smith, Mark Flin, Joe Gogal, Josh
Rusev, and Nick DeBenedetto - wrote a 46 page report titled, “Pastor John’s
Involvement in ARBCA’s Coverup of the Tom Chantry Scandal” on August 23, 2018.
Giarrizzo refused to repent for his lying and deception. He continues to cover up. As a
result, the elders resigned along with six of the eight deacons and over half the church
members left.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/389743341/GCC-Elder-Investigation-John-
Giarrizzo#from_embed.

In a similar way, Fred Malone, has also lied and covered up for Chantry and ARBCA.
He too has been on the Administrative Council over the years and is a good friend of
Walt Chantry. Anthony Battaglia was a deacon in his church. Battaglia has graciously
worked for his repentance and that of his fellow elders, Tom Hicks and Mitch Axsom.
Malone, like many other ARBCA officials and pastors, knew about Chantry’s child
abuse and was part of the “investigation” in 2000 by his own admission.

Read, “Fred Malone’s Admission of Guilt” at http://arbca.org/tom-chantry-child-
abuse-case/fred-malones-admission-of-guilt/ and other articles on Battaglia’s website.

Many more examples could be produced.

Our goal has been to provide a thorough and coherent record of the events at MVBC; of
the history, work, and results of the informal council; and of the related activities of the
ARBCA officials involved. Furthermore, we have attempted to articulate conclusions
and recommendations based on the content of this report, which we submit to the
member churches of ARBCA with a view towards correcting and strengthening our
Association. We pray that this report will provide the pastors and members of our
associational churches the information necessary to answer questions regarding this
matter and to maintain the unity of fellowship and confidence in our association.

The report is far from a thorough and coherent record of events and it does not correct
those who sinned. That will become painfully clear. As one example, they don’t even
quote from Devon Berry’s report. He was the 28 year old member of Don Lindblad’s
church with degrees in nursing that did four counseling sessions with Chantry in
November/December 2001. He was also a CCEF “certified biblical counselor” but he
was not a licensed or professional counselor. He was young, inexperienced and
untrained to deal with someone like Chantry who was suspected of sadism. Berry
cleared Chantry to return to ministry in a whitewashed report that did not address his
sadism. The report was deep-sixed. It was never used in court by Chantry’s lawyer or
ARBCA officials to justify him. I wonder why? Here’s why. Chantry promised the
counselor he would never spank again; but soon after the counseling ended, he began
“spanking” children at Christian Liberty Academy. Sadists don’t stop.

Moreover, who recommended Devon Berry? And was he part of the cover up? It
appears so. None of this is addressed in the report. They don’t even mention him by
name. There are countless other examples. If people want “a thorough and coherent
record of events” it will not come from the Administrative Council. To the studious
and discerning ARBCA pastor or member, it is apparent this report does not provide
“the information necessary to answer questions” or “maintain the unity of fellowship
and confidence in our association.” It is having the opposite effect for those who
acquainted with the evidence.

Churches are leaving. They have lost confidence. For example, Portico Church in
Orange, CA; Grace Baptist Church in Chambersburg, PA; Covenant Baptist Church in
Clarksville, TN; Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Lookout Mountain, TN; Elm Street
Baptist Church in Sweet Home, OR; and Redeeming Grace Church, Matthews, VA
(https://www.redeeming-grace.org/).

REPORT SUMMARY

Significant Findings

The Membership Committee and the Administrative Council failed to recognize the
MVBC protest of the membership application from Christ Reformed Baptist Church
(CRBC) in Hales Corners, Wisconsin, as a statement of difference or conflict between
MVBC and Grace Reformed Baptist Church (GRBC) in Rockford, Illinois, which was the
sponsoring church for CRBC. This failure resulted in the mishandling of MVBC’s
protest, the missed opportunity to address MVBC’s longstanding issues with Mr.
Chantry, and the approval of CRBC’s application without the GRBC elders possessing
knowledge of the unresolved complaints and concerns of the MVBC elders regarding
Mr. Chantry’s actions as pastor of MVBC and their belief that he had not complied with
the Informal Council’s recommendations.

This is so misleading. “The MVBC protest” was primarily “a statement of difference
and conflict” with the 2015-2016 Administrative Council (Douglas VanderMeulen,
Chairman) and the Membership Committee (Steve Marquedant, Chairman) about
accepting Tom Chantry and his church into ARBCA which they did in April 2016
knowing Tom was under investigation for sexual molestation and aggravated assault.
Read the letter to Steve Marquedant regarding “Membership application” from the
MVBC elders on August 2, 2015. It is Attachment 5 in the AC Report – Part 1.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388139445/ARBCA-attachments-to-their-
05SEP2018-report.

Here is an excerpt.

“We understand that our former pastor, Mr. Thomas Chantry, has begun the
application process for church membership in ARBCA. We would do a great
disservice to the Body of Christ and to our Association if we did not strongly
object to any consideration of Mr. Chanty as an ARBCA pastor. … With Mr.
Chantry indicating a desire to join the association, however, we feel it is our
responsibility to discreetly warn the association against such an unwise action.”

Moreover, “the MVBC protest” in 2015 was a continuation of their protest against
Chantry and the elders at Providence Reformed Baptist Church (i.e., Tom Lyon, Mark
McCormick) who failed to address all the agreed upon recommendations by the
Informal Council in 2000. Read the letter to Earl Blackburn from the MVBC elders on
February 5, 2002. Blackburn was the Chairman of the 2001-2002 Administrative
Council. It is Attachment 10 in the AC Report – Part I.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388139445/ARBCA-attachments-to-their-
05SEP2018-report.

Here is an excerpt.

“We thank you for your letter and the report by the elders of Providence
Reformed Baptist Church. ... We have some serious concerns we would like to
address. It appears that this report was not sent to the men on the informal
council. … We are greatly concerned that Tom has not sought forgiveness from
the children and the parents. … We are concerned that Tom’s counselor noted
no besetting patterns of sin such as those which would disqualify him from
ministry. … We are also concerned that Tom was preaching in October [actually
September 2001] before his counseling was completed in December [2001]… It
is our desire in bringing these concerns to you that full healing and restoration
may be brought about between Tom and the body of believers at Miller Valley.
… Thank you for your leadership in this matter. We desire to communicate
further with you regarding these issues either by phone or preferably in person.
We would be willing to meet you in Prescott [AZ], La Mirada [CA], or
anywhere in between.”
Earl Blackburn was the Chairman of the 2001-2002 Administrative Council and many
others including 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. Brandon Smith became Chairman of the
current 2018-2019 Administrative Council this past May. He is the pastor at Trinity
Reformed Baptist Church in Jackson, GA. See http://trinityrbc.org/?page_id=4.

“The MVBC protest” was “a statement of difference or conflict” with the 2015-2016
Administrative Council and Membership Committee, not the sponsoring church, Grace
Reformed Baptist Church in Rockford, IL. This is an attempt to deflect attention away
from the actions of the AC and MC.

The Membership Committee and the Administrative Council should have advised the
MVBC elders to address their concerns about Mr. Chantry and the application of CRBC
for membership in ARBCA to the elders of GRBC, which was the sponsoring church for
CRBC. While the Membership Committee and the Administrative Council lacked
authority and policy provision to take action to resolve the MVBC elders’ concerns
about Mr. Chantry, the GRBC elders could have taken steps to resolve the complaints
against Mr. Chantry and bring about reconciliation, or they could have withdrawn their
sponsorship from CRBC for membership in ARBCA. If the MVBC elders’ attempt
failed, they should have brought their differences with GRBC to the floor of the 2016
General Assembly.

I disagree that “the Membership Committee and the Administrative Council lacked
authority and policy provision to take action to resolve the MVBC elders’ concerns
about Mr. Chantry.” I will come to that later in this article; but even if they are correct,
there was a unique provision in the Level 2, “Report, Conclusions and
Recommendations” that authorized them “to take action.” It is found at the end of the
report.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388205552/ARBCA-2000-Informal-Council-
Report-Conclusions-and-Recommendations-Non-Sealed.

“We the undersigned herby agree to abide by and implement the above
recommendations made by the Informal Council of the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America to the Miller Valley Baptist Church,
December 13-16, 2000.”

It was signed by Tom Chantry, Rich Howe, and Eric Owens and witnessed by Don
Lindblad and Mike McKnight. Based on the solemn promise to “abide by and
implement” the ten recommendations, ARBCA could address “the MVBC elders’
concerns” that “Mr. Chantry” was in violation of his commitments. This is ignored in
the report, when it should be acknowledged, and an explanation provided for why the
unique provision is irrelevant and not enforceable as a matter of biblical ethics since an
oath or solemn promise was made and broken.
The MVBC elders had every reason to believe they were following proper protocols in
2015 by contacting the Membership Committee about Chantry’s church becoming a
member! It may have been a good solution for the MVBC elders to contact the GRBC
elders but the thought never crossed the minds of the men on the 2015-2016 AC and
MC. Or did it? I think they avoided such a recommendation because they were
determined to accept Chantry and his church into ARBCA even though they knew he
was about to be arrested for child molestation and aggravated assault.

In this AC Report – Part II, the Administrative Council does not answer “why”
questions. They should have asked Douglas VanderMeulen (AC Chairman), Steve
Marquedant (MC Chairman) and John Giarrizzo (ARBCA Coordinator) why they didn’t
tell the MVBC elders to raise the issues with the GRBC elders in 2015. Again, Chris
Marley, had every reason to believe the right course of action was to contact the
Membership Committee and Administrative Council and appeal the Chantry
application for church membership be rejected.

The Administrative Council issued the ARBCA Announcement to the 2017 General
Assembly without access to sufficient documentation and information to make some of
the definitive statements included in the Announcement. Consequently, some of those
statements were inaccurate, and the Administrative Council should issue a letter of
apology to member churches.

This is a reference to the “ARBCA Announcement Concerning Tom Chantry” made to
the ARBCA General Assembly on April 25, 2017. It is Attachment 12 in the AC Report –
Part II. They leave off “Concerning Tom Chantry” found in the title.

This current report should address each of the “definitive statements” that “were
inaccurate.” For example, “Everyone with knowledge of these events has operated
within the parameters of the laws of the land.” It is the most egregious “definite
statement” because no one followed the law but it goes unaddressed in this report. This
violation of mandatory reporting laws for clergy is well documented!

Everyone who knew about Chantry’s abuse of children should “issue a letter of apology
to member churches” for breaking the law! For example, Earl Blackburn, who was
Chairman of the Administrative Council in 2000-2001. He knew all about the child
abuse but did not report. And, irony of irony, he was Chairman of the Administrative
Council in 2017-2018 that made the categorical announcement to the General Assembly
that everyone followed the law. That is a lie. David Dykstra, John Giarrizzo, and Steve
Martin were also on the 2000-2001 and 2017-2018 Administrative Councils. None of this
is addressed in this report.
The ad hoc committee states “the Administrative Council should issue a letter of
apology to member churches.” That was eight weeks ago and still no letter. I doubt
they will ever issue an “apology” for their “inaccurate” statements; but if they do, I will
respond. Moreover, the inaccurate statements included lies. You don’t apologize for
lying. You ask forgiveness, and in this case, that must include forgiveness for being
deceptive.

The documentary evidence contains no allegations or information of any kind
concerning any accusation of molestation by Mr. Thomas J. Chantry.

This is technically true but not the whole story. Anyone who works with victims of
abuse would automatically have suspected sexual abuse given the children’s report of
bare bottom spankings while laying naked over his knees. The children also reported
Chantry saying he liked to see their buttocks turn red, and that only he could rub their
buttocks to make them feel better.

These are all clear evidences of sexual sadism. I think McKnight, Tripp and Jensen
suspected this but did not make it clear in their report. Instead, they left it open ended
– “for his pleasure.” They didn’t say what kind of pleasure. The AC should have asked
them and recorded their answer (or refusal to answer) in this report. I reiterate, Rich
Jensen is still an ARBCA pastor. All this information is available but I think these men
have lawyered up and been told not to answer questions.

Bob Selph also makes the following comment in his “An Explanation of the ARBCA
Informal Council conducted for the Miller Valley Baptist Church (Prescott, AZ) and
Thomas Chantry in December of 2000.” Selph talked to either McKnight, Tripp or
Jensen.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388540640/Bob-Selph-s-Explanation-of-
Chantry-Case.

“This concern is mentioned a second time in that report when it exhorts the
elders who were to take on Tom’s oversight, and his counselor, that they
‘should consider the possibility that on some level he punished children for his
pleasure.’ This concern should have been explored by the pastors [Tom Lyon &
Mark McCormick] and by the counselor [Devon Berry] who assumed Tom’s
care after he left Prescott. In speaking with one of the members of that ARBCA
Council [i.e. the Informal Council] recently, I was informed that when this was
included in the report, in their minds, it did not necessarily mean they thought
this “pleasure” was sexually motivated. They could not determine what his
motivations might have been.” (Sept. 7, 2018)

“In their minds” is a reference to all three men – McKnight, Tripp and Jensen. They did
not know for certain if Chantry was motivated by sadistic or sexual desires or a
combination of the two for his pleasure. It was “not necessarily” “sexually motivated”
but it certain could have been. And yet they did not report him to police or tell the
parents or MVBC elders about their suspicions.

The documentary record does not provide any information that supports a finding of
any conspiracy to conceal necessary information from law enforcement. All of the data
currently available shows an absence of any evidence that the MVBC elders, the
members of the Informal Council, or any ARBCA officers acted to conceal the
information about Mr. Chantry’s spanking of children from law enforcement. In fact,
the members of the Informal Counsel advised the parents of the children involved of
their right to report the spankings to the police.

Everyone involved from ARBCA made it clear to the parents they wanted ARBCA to
handle Chantry’s documented child abuse (not “spanking of children”) internally.
They never suggested or encouraged the parents to report. Instead, the Informal
Council and ARBCA officers like Bob Selph encouraged them to deal with it as a church
and association.

Furthermore, they never told the MVBC elders they were mandatory reporters though
McKnight, Tripp, Jensen, Selph, et al. certainly knew that was the case. And the
Informal Council never told the elders or the parents about their suspicion that Chantry
abused the children for sadistic and/or sexual pleasure.

Most significantly, they knowingly decided to violate mandatory reporting laws as a
group. Under the law, that constitutes a “conspiracy.” They made a collective decision
not to report. I will address this issue in more detail in a future article. When you
know the law requires you to report child abuse, and you don’t report it, then you are
intentionally concealing it from law enforcement. That is what happened!

Because the MVBC elders stated in their letter of November 21, 2000, that they
recognized the spanking could be considered child abuse, they should have reported
the incidents of Mr. Chantry spanking children to law enforcement.

“Spanking” is not considered “child abuse” under the law. Beating children with an
oar and a board that leave extensive wounds is! Yes, the MVBC elders should have
reported but they were being encouraged by Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, Steve
Martin, Don Lindblad, Bob Selph, Walt Chantry, et al, to let an Informal Council chosen
by ARBCA address the known child abuse by Tom Chantry without involving law
enforcement. Of course, this report does not make the fact known.

Nor does this report make clear the elders only learned of the definitive “child abuse”
on October 17, 2000. What did they do? They immediately confronted Chantry. What
did they do next? Got ARBCA involved and asked for an Informal Council to do an
investigation. Again, this report purposely leaves out that vital information.

This is clearly documented in the “timeline” sent to McKnight, Tripp and Jensen by the
Miller Valley elders on December 13, 2000. Incredulously, they don’t include this
document as an attachment in their AC Report – Part I or here in AC Report – Part II.
That is intentional and unscrupulous.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/392288262/MVBC-Timeline-of-Chantry-s-
Tenure-1995-2000 for timeline.

The presence of the letter from the MVBC elders in the Complete Report packet, which
shows they considered the spankings child abuse, should have alerted the members of
the Informal Council to advise the MVBC elders to report the incidents to law
enforcement.

This “letter from the MVBC elders” was to Walt Chantry. Initially, it was not
confidential. It was copied to Bob Selph and read by many people. It was the basis for
Recommendation 3 (below) in the “Confidential Report and Recommendations.” At the
July-August 2018 Chantry trial, it was commonly referred to as the “angry letter.”

“It is recommended by this Informal Council that Pastor Walter Chantry seek
reconciliation with the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church. … Portions of
the letter dated November 9, 2000, to the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist
Church by Pastor Walter Chantry may have been excessively harsh in light of
the serious nature of the matter facing the Elders at Miller Valley Baptist
Church.”

Tom Chantry solemnly agreed this “recommendation” was to be followed but no one
made any attempt to hold his father, Walt Chantry, accountable to “seek reconciliation”
with the Miller Valley elders.

The reference to “child abuse” in the letter “should have alerted the members of the
Informal Council to advise the MVBC elders to report the incidents to law enforcement”
but the Administrative Council in this report is once again leaving out the most
important and incriminating information.

The MVBC letter was send to Walt Chantry and copied to Bob Selph on November 21,
2000. Two weeks later, the MVBC elders sent Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp and Rich
Jensen, five letters from four parents and one victim documenting the horrific and
criminal abuse of Tom Chantry. The Administrative Council leaves this out of the
report entirely. Why? They are covering up for the Informal Council from ARBCA and
effectively putting the blame on the MVBC elders for not reporting. That omission is
intentional and deceptive.

The AC should make it clear the IC was fully informed of Chantry’s abuse from the
letters that were written for them! As soon as they received these letters, McKnight,
Tripp and Jensen should have reported to law enforcement or made certain others did.
Moreover, by the end of their interviews with the parents and the children on December
13, 2000, they knew more about Chantry’s abuse than the MVBC elders or parents!

This is all part of a plan to incriminate the MVBC elders and vindicate ARBCA. For
instance, consider the unjust, harsh and hypocritical condemnation by Douglas
VanderMeulen in what he wrote to all the top pastors in ARBCA on September 7, 2018
(below). VanderMeulen was the Chairman of the 2015-2016 Administrative Council
that voted to receive Tom Chantry’s church into ARBCA even though he knew Chantry
was under investigation for aggravated assault and sexual molestation and soon to be
arrested.

“This whole mess began with the action and lack of action by the Miller Valley
elders. Nothing ARBCA has done changes the fact the entire elder board of
Miller Valley is the cause of this whole mess. Everything since has only been a
reaction to the MV elders failure to protect their children over a 5-year window
and beyond.”

This is a malevolent misrepresentation of the facts! The elders are not “the cause of this
whole mess.” VanderMeulen goes on to viciously slander the MVBC elders in his email
to ARBCA pastors. He is in gross violation of the Ninth Commandment which ARBCA
officials like to use against people who expose their lies. But so often, they are the ones’
bearing false witness!

Again, let me quote a couple of descriptions of criminal abuse from the letters written
for the Informal Council and ARBCA officials by parents and a victim.

Mark Jones - Victim
November 20, 2000

Quite frankly, the switch stung like hell. My natural reaction was to rub the
part that hurt to relieve the pain. I did it with tears streaming down my face.
What else could a 10 year old be expected to do? Chantry saw and punished
me with three more swats because he said I was trying to cheat. … Chantry
made me sit on his lap. There he explained that I could not try to relieve the
pain, but he could if he chose to, and he almost always did. Yes, that does
mean he rubbed my ass after spanking me. At the time I was too young to
really understand what this meant. … I will say this clearly so that nobody will
be able [to] misunderstand me. He took my pants off and bent me over his
knee while he spanked me with his paddle. He told me that he wanted to see
my buttocks turn red while he spanked me. There was nothing between his
paddle and me. Even worse, nothing between his eyes and me. I felt sick. …
Another thing that I did not mention that I feel is very important is the reason
that he told me he began tutoring in the first place. … He said it was “Because I
like you.” … Thomas Chantry is a sick, twisted monster.

Connie Laver – Mother of a Victim
December 3, 2000

Tom proceeded to take Daniel into his bedroom, have him pull his pants and
underwear down around his ankles, put his head into a pillow so Tom (or
anyone else for that matter) couldn’t hear Daniel if he cried out. He then began
to spank Daniel ten times with a large, thick board. … He had severe bruises
that were dark purple across his bottom about 4 inches wide- also 4 inches
across his upper thighs on both legs. It was no wonder he could hardly walk.

These are just two excerpts from the five letters. They were expressly written for the
Informal Council comprised of Mike McKnight (elder & lawyer), Tedd Tripp (pastor &
well-known author on child rearing), and Rich Jensen (pastor and former homicide
detective). As David Dykstra (2000-2001 AC Member & MC Chairman) wrote in his
letter to them on December 6, 2000, “Let me being [begin] by saying that I cannot think
of a better group of men to assist in this situation.” ARBCA was sending MVBC the
best of the best! What did they do? They covered up Chantry’s child abuse in their
reports by calling it “inappropriate discipline” and they failed to report the child abuse
to police knowing it constituted aggravated assault under the law.

It is extremely deceptive for the current Administrative Council to leave out so much of
the incriminating documentation in their possession like the five letters. And it is
reprehensible not to affix justified blame to the Informal Council for not reporting to
law enforcement themselves despite their extensive knowledge of Chantry’s criminal
behavior! They were the experts. They were the official Council from ARBCA. They
knew more about Chantry’s crimes than anyone else! They strongly suspected he beat
children for his pleasure.

The actions of Mr. Selph (ARBCA Coordinator in 2000-2001), the Informal Council, the
MVBC elders, and Mr. Chantry did result in concealing the bulk of the information
about the situation and circumstances at MVBC from the Administrative Council and
essentially all of the information from member churches in ARBCA. While these
actions did result in information being withheld from the Administrative Council and
from member churches in ARBCA, the documentary record did not substantiate a
coordinated conspiracy to do so.
This is disturbing. This Administrative Council is vindicating the 2000-2001
Administrative Council by putting the blame on everyone else but in a highly deceptive
manner.

Remember, David Dykstra was on the 2000-2001 Administrative Council and he was
Chairman of the powerful Membership Committee. He told the Informal Council what
to do at the request of Bob Selph! Conveniently, the current AC claims they can’t find
his letter if it even exists (more later). Hooey, hooey!

“I believe that your goals should be to: (1) Find out the facts through careful
interviews. (2) Make recommendations to the parties involved, and (3)
Summarize your findings and recommendations in a written document you all
can sign.” (Dec. 6, 2000)

The IC was to find out the facts, make recommendations, and summarize findings in a
written document. This document was for the Administrative Council, not someone
else. Furthermore, “the parties involved” were directed by Dykstra to sign the
document, thereby agreeing to follow the recommendations!

Jamie Howell, the recording secretary for the 2000-2001 AC, wrote this note to all the
members of the AC on January 6, 2001.

“The AC received a [oral] report concerning the Council sent to Prescott, AZ,
concerning the difficulties between former pastor Tom Chantry and the church.
Three reports will be distributed: a general report to be sent to all the churches,
a middle level report sent to all the AC members (to remain confidential), and a
much fuller report to be given only to nine individuals involved.”

This arrangement was agreed to by the entire AC including Bob Selph, Mike McKnight,
and Donald Lindblad who were on the AC! Whatever was supposedly concealed or
withheld in “a much fuller report” was with the knowledge and approval of all 13 men
on the AC! They could have demanded any and all information be forwarded to the
Administration Council. Selph worked for ARBCA and McKnight, Tripp and Jensen
were authorized on behalf of ARBCA. Chantry had no say in the matter. He was the
one under investigation by ARBCA! Bottom line. The AC wasn’t ignorant because
information was concealed or withheld. If they were ignorant (and that is doubtful), it
is because they wanted to be ignorant.

The “much fuller report” was restricted by the AC but “a middle level report” was to be
“sent to all the AC members (to remain confidential).” This Level 2, “Report,
Conclusions and Recommendations” contained the ten recommendations (i.e., the
agreed upon directives) concerning Tom Chantry. If the entire AC did not receive the
Level 2 Report, that is entirely the fault of the AC! Most of the men on the AC knew
Chantry was a child abuser in 2000. They could have gotten any and all information
regarding Chantry from Selph, the Informal Council or the MVBC elders.

The perceptive reader will notice Don Lindblad is not mentioned above as one of those
concealing and withholding “the bulk of the information.” He was on the AC and
Chantry’s corrupt advocate during the IC investigation and since. Lindblad had ALL
the information about Chantry’s crimes. Why is he not called out? Here’s why!

Lindblad sent Earl Blackburn the information in the “much fuller report“ (aka, “The
Complete Report”). Blackburn was Chairman of the 2000-2001 AC. There is reason to
believe, Blackburn shared this information with some, but not all members of the AC.
Momentarily, I will show “the documentary record” does “substantiate a coordinated
conspiracy” to coverup. It was Blackburn, Dykstra, and Lindblad who were
“concealing the bulk of the information about the situation and circumstances at MVBC
from the Administrative Council.” These men have mislead the men writing the report
or else the men writing this report, Dale Crawford, Steve Marquedant, Jeff Massey, and
Bob Curley, are knowingly putting forth a false narrative in conjunction with them.
Either scenario is possible.

The documentary record shows that the appointment of this Informal Counsel resulted
from the interference of Mr. Walter Chantry with the autonomy of MVBC, a local
church of the Association. Both his letter to the MVBC elders criticizing their treatment
of Mr. Thomas Chantry and his actions to initiate the appointment of a “Council” to go
to MVBC led to disastrous results. The MVBC elders [Rich Howe, Eric Owens] should
have been left alone to pursue a process, within the local church, to address any matters
of sin or any other concerns they had relating to Mr. Thomas Chantry. If they wanted
or needed advice, they could have brought the matter to the General Assembly.

This is another bogus statement. The Informal Council would never have resulted if not
for the request made by the MVBC elders at the suggestion of ARBCA. Rich Howe and
Eric “Shorty” Owens requested it at the encouragement of Earl Blackburn, Don
Lindblad, Steve Martin and Bob Selph. They all met together to discuss the prospect on
November 14, 2000 in Escondido, CA. Six days later, “Rich and Shorty begin to pursue
an ARBCA Church Council” according to the official MVBC timeline.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/392288262/MVBC-Timeline-of-Chantry-s-
Tenure-1995-2000.

There is no question Walt Chantry tried to impose a partial Council that he thought
would vindicate his son, but that is not the whole story. You can’t blame Chantry.
Blackburn, Lindblad, Martin and Selph advised the MVBC elders to ask for an
investigative committee (Informal Council). ARBCA is primarily responsibility for the
“interference “that “led to disastrous results” because MVBC was not “left alone” by
them. And the legitimacy of the IC was rigorously argued by David Dykstra in his
letter to the IC on December 6, 2000 (I will say more later). Why is all of this left out of
the report? By now, I think you know.

Here is how Bob Selph explained the origin of the Informal Council

“Walt approached me, as I was serving as Coordinator of ARBCA, and
demanded that I send a Council to investigate and mediate the situation. I
contacted the MVBC elders and they agreed that a Council would be helpful.”
(“An Explanation of the ARBCA Informal Council…”, September 7, 2018)

This report doesn’t even quote Selph. I should also add that this is an example of
ARBCA and Selph kowtowing to Walt Chantry’s demands. Blackburn, Dykstra,
Martin, Lindblad, et al. could have said no to Walt if they thought the Informal Council
was a bad idea. They were close friends. But in fact, they thought it was a good idea!
The current AC should openly and honestly acknowledge this fact and stop blaming
Walt Chantry or the MVBC elders. They are trying to cover up how the IC came about
for legal protection.

Here is how the origin of the Informal Council is recorded in “Report, Conclusions and
Recommendations.” Walt Chantry isn’t even mentioned!

“The Administrative Council of ARBCA, the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist
Church and Thomas Chantry have all requested that the Informal Council
establish certain facts regarding the ministry of Thomas Chantry while at the
Miller Valley Baptist Church and the facts involving his resignation from the
position as Pastor of the Miller Valley Baptist Church.”

Let me also say that Walt Chantry is a terrible bully. His treatment of the MVBC elders
was awful and he never asked forgiveness or sought reconciliation. He also bullied
(“demanded”) Bob Selph, the ARBCA Coordinator. There is a lot of bullying in ARBCA
but bullying is enabled by men unwilling to confront it because they fear loss of
position, income and reputation. In the Bible it is called “fear of man,” “man-pleasing”
and “cowardice” and it always leads to compromise.

The paragraph above ends with this statement. “If they wanted or needed advice, they
could have brought the matter to the General Assembly.” The 2000-2001 AC would
never have allowed the lay elders, Howe and Owens to bring it to the General Council
just like the 2015-2016 AC did not allow full-time pastor, Chris Marley to bring their
concerns for Chantry to the General Assembly in April 2016.

The current AC is throwing Walt under the bus. Tommy boy can’t be too happy. But
the current AC will throw anyone under the bus to save ARBCA and their own skins.
The truth be told, prominent members of the 2000-2001 AC counseled the MVBC elders
to pursue an Informal Council after the elders were unsuccessful in addressing Chantry
as a local church. This quote also comes from the Level 2 Report by the Informal
Council.

“From October 17, 2000 until November 8, 2000 the Elders of Miller Valley
Baptist Church attempted to address with Pastor Chantry the issues involving
the inappropriate discipline of the children by Pastor Chantry during his
ministry at Miller Valley.” (“Report, Conclusions and Recommendations,” Dec.
16, 2000)

The “attempt” failed. The Administrative Council was called upon by the MVBC elders
to get involved. The AC appointed the Informal Council. If the IC led to “disastrous
results” it is because of the AC. Stop lying by putting the blame on Walt Chantry.

Here is Tom Chantry’s letter to “ARBCA” regarding who he approved and requested
be on the Informal Council.

For original see https://www.scribd.com/document/392220124/Thomas-Chantry-
Letter-to-ARBCA-Bob-Selph-on-3-Man-Informal-Council-Selections.

TO: ARBCA
1-717-258-0614
FROM: Tom Chantry

ATTN: Bob Selph

This morning, November 28, 2000, Bob Selph called to discuss possible names
for a private arbitration between the elders of Miller Valley Church and myself.
It is my understanding that Bob will speak to as many of these men as is
necessary to find three who can travel to Arizona to investigate the situation
here. The names mentioned were:

Mike McKnight
John Giarizo [Giarrizzo]
Fred Malone
Tedd Tripp
Dale Smith
Gordan Taylor
Rich Jensen

I told Bob that I have no objection to any of these men, but that I feel that Mike’s
unique background makes him indispensable. I agree in principle to Mike and
any two others on this list making up an arbitrating group to investigate and
make recommendations.

Tom Chantry
November 28, 2000

Here are several things to note.

1. It was sent to ARBCA and to the attention of Bob Selph, the ARBCA Coordinator.
ARBCA was in charge of the selection process and the Informal Council.

2. The Informal Council is referred to as “an arbitrating group to investigate and make
recommendations.” That is, binding recommendations laid down as the agreed
upon arbitrators.

3. John Giarrizzo and Dale Smith have claimed no memory of anything. They are
lying. More later.

4. Fred Malone of First Baptist Church of Clinton, Louisiana is on the list. He knew all
about the investigation of Chantry as a child abuser in 2000 even though he was not
selected to be on the Informal Council and was not on the 2000-2001 AC. This is
very important to note since the AC Report – Part I and AC Report – Part 2
deceptively claim no one knew Chantry was alleged to have committed crimes
except for the Informal Council and MVC elders. That is blatantly untrue.

This transcript comes from a phone conversation between Anthony Battaglia and
Fred Malone on July 28, 2017. Malone, like Giarrizzo, has repeatedly lied, in an
attempt to coverup his knowledge of Chantry’s crimes which he did not report to
law enforcement.

See “Tom Chantry Child Abuse Case” at http://arbca.org/ for more documentary
evidence.

Fred Malone’s Admission of Guilt
http://arbca.org/tom-chantry-child-abuse-case/fred-malones-admission-
of-guilt/

Battaglia: Did ARBCA know about the allegations of child abuse back in
two thousand?

Malone: Yes we sent three men to investigate it.

Battaglia: Did you know about the allegations of child abuse?
Malone: Of course I was on the investigation.

Battaglia: You went to Arizona?

Malone: No on the phone [with Don Lindblad].

Fred Malone was not technically on the investigation, like Bob Selph was not
technically on the investigation, but he knew all about it from Don Lindblad and
others like Walt Chantry who visited him in Louisiana after the IC reports came out
on December 16, 2000. Walt and Fred were close friends. Fred was part of the
coverup. He did not report the alleged crimes.

5. Tom Chantry didn’t object to anyone on the list because they were all loyal to his
father. He especially wanted Mike McKnight because “I feel that Mike’s unique
background makes him indispensable.” Mike was an elder in Walt’s church and a
lawyer who would work to keep Tom out of legal jeopardy. That is why the reports
he oversaw refer to “improper discipline” instead of “child abuse” even though
McKnight knew it was child abuse. McKnight chaired the IC.

The ARBCA Constitution makes no provision for a Church Council, an informal
council, or a fact-finding committee. Article V, paragraph D of the ARBCA Constitution
states only, “The Association will follow the procedures outlined in the (LBCF 1689)
chapter 26.” The ARBCA Policy Manual, at the time, contained no guidelines for a
Church Council. The current “Guidelines for Forming and Conducting a Church
Council” contained in the current Policy Manual did not exist; they were not
incorporated into policy until sometime after May 2002. Because of the way the process
was handled, no line of authority existed to legitimize the Informal Council; provide
oversight of the selection of the Informal Council members; provide definitive
guidance, instruction and supervision; and insure the results reflected conformity to
chapter 26, paragraph 15 of the LBCF [London Baptist Confession of Faith] 1689.

This position is a brand new position for ARBCA. The 2000-2001 AC and the 2016-2017
AC argued the exact opposite position. More later.

The Informal Council recommended a program whereby Mr. Chantry would transfer
his membership to another church. Then, in the context of the new church where he
had not sinned, his alleged sins at MVBC were somehow supposed to be dealt with
satisfactorily, and he was to be called to repentance through a process of elder oversight
[by Tom Lyon & Mark McCormick] and professional counseling [by Devon Berry], in
the absence of his accusers. Such an arrangement was devoid of the privilege and
benefits of church discipline, in which a man is called to repentance or exonerated, and,
consequently, could do nothing to resolve the effects of the sins, as understood by the
Informal Council, on the people of MVBC. This approach spawned tragic
misunderstandings, a less than beneficial relationship between MVBC and Providence
Reformed Baptist Church (PRBC) in University Place [cf. Tacoma], Washington, and a
failure of the Association to fulfill one of its fundamental functions, which is to give
advice about a matter of difference between churches without exercising authority over
the churches.

This report doesn’t tell the reader that Chantry fled MVBC in Prescott, AZ on
November 10, 2000 to be with Don Lindblad in Kirkland/Seattle, WA for fear he would
be arrested in Yavapai County. That was five weeks before he relocated to Providence
Reformed Baptist Church in University Place/Tacoma WA on December 16, 2000.
Chantry was on the run. He had no interest in staying at MVBC where he could receive
“the benefits of church discipline.” The only alternative was another church.

The current AC conceals the fact that all ten recommendations in the Level 2, “Report,
Conclusions and Recommendations” had the approval of the 2000-2001 AC. No one
ever objected to anything in the report by the IC! That includes the recommendation to
“transfer his membership to another church.” In this new church, Chantry could have
experienced “the privilege and benefits of church discipline” except for the fact that
Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick violated everything in the “recommendations” (i.e.
solemn commitments) they were required to do. I absolutely disagree with this
statement that Lyon and McCormick “could do nothing to resolve the effects of the sins,
as understood by the Informal Council, on the people of MVBC.” That is a pathetic
straw man argument contrary to the facts.

For example, Lyon and McCormick were to “address” the “serious factual differences”
between “the four children” and Chantry regarding “the purpose, frequency and
severity of the physical punishment.” It was also agreed upon that Lyon and
McCormick would “consult with the members of the Informal Council.” Lyon and
McCormick did none of the above.

There were also five sets of recommendations in the Level 1, “Confidential Report and
Conclusions” for 1) the MVBC elders, 2) Bob Selph, 3) Walt Chantry, 4) the victims’
families, and 5) the Elders who assumed oversight (i.e., Tom Lyon and Mark
McCormick). The directives and exhortations given to Lyon and McCormick are
deceptively left out of the body of this report. You only find them in the 46 pages of
attachments. Once again, the current AC passes over and does not address vital
information.

Here are the directives and exhortations in the Level 1 Report. None of them were
followed or implemented.
5. To the Elders who assume oversight of Thomas Chantry:

There were many other issues that surfaced in our interviews with
members of the congregation which the Informal Council was unable to
explore. (See statement of Connie Ann Laver, Secretary of Thomas Chantry and
Aunt of Daniel Laver, age 12.) These issues included strong evidence of some
authoritarianism and angry humiliation by Thomas Chantry of some members
of his flock while serving as the Pastor of Miller Valley Baptist Church.

[Note: “There were many other issues.” Lyon & McCormick made no effort to
“explore.” They had no concern for the effect of his “authoritarianism and
angry humiliation” on members.]

As part of the process of determining whether Thomas Chantry is able to
return to the ministry, the Elders who assume the oversight of him should
consider the possibility that on some level he punished children for his own
pleasure. In addition, the mistreatment of some members of his congregation at
Miller Valley Baptist Church should also be considered by his new Elders.

[Note: They did not “consider the possibility” that Chantry punished for
pleasure and neither did Devon Berry, the CCEF counselor. I’ve read his
report. Furthermore, Lyon & McCormick did not consider the mistreatment of
members. They contacted no one from MVBC and addressed none of the issues
above in their January 1, 2002 letter to “Brethren” (i.e., Earl Blackburn, Tom
Chantry, Walt Chantry, Don Lindblad, and Devon Berry).]

It is our recommendation that the priority in dealing with Tom should not
be placed on returning him to ministry, but in dealing with the issues of
personal sin and coming to complete and sincere repentance. This is important
for Tom as well as the young children he spanked.

[Note: It is clear from Devon Berry’s report that the priority was on Tom’s
return to ministry. Chantry did not deal with “issues of personal sin.” If he
had, he would have returned to “the young children” he physically abused and
the church members he spiritually abused. There was no “coming to complete
and sincere repentance.”]

The members of the Informal Council have not addressed the issue of
permanent disqualification from pulpit ministry for Tom Chantry. We believe
that question is rightly left in the hands of the Eldership of the local church.
However, we do believe that the seriousness of the allegations against Tom, the
inconsistencies between the accounts of the spankings and the apparent lack of
complete repentance would certainly prohibit any return to the ministry until
these issues are resolved by Tom and his Elders.

[Note: “Permanent disqualification” was in order. Chantry was a child abuser.
None of the issues were resolved in the least by Lyon and McCormick before
they sent him out to be an elementary school teacher! That is inconceivable!
They didn’t resolve the serious allegations of abuse, his lying about the abuse,
or the absence of repentance for the abuse at MVBC. No matter, he was
returned to pastoral ministry after four years of teaching in a Liberty Christian
Academy during which he continued to beat children despite his promise to
never spank any child under any circumstance except his own. He is a
sociopathic liar.]

Different interpretations of Recommendations 7 and 8 of the Informal Council’s
“Report, Conclusions, and Recommendations” resulted in misunderstandings and
strained relations between MVBC and PRBC. Although the MVBC elders requested
help from the Chairman of the Administrative Council [Earl Blackburn] to resolve the
issues with PRBC, neither the Administrative Council Chairman, the PRBC elders, nor
the MVBC elders pursued steps in conformance with the ARBCA Constitution and the
Second London Baptist Confession to resolve the matter.

Twelve months after the Informal Council’s internal investigation of criminal behavior,
Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick sent a letter on January 1, 2002 “re: the disposition of
Tom Chantry” to Tom Chantry, Walt Chantry, Earl Blackburn, Don Lindblad, and
Devon Berry. See Attachment 8 in AC Report – Part I.

https://www.scribd.com/document/388139445/ARBCA-attachments-to-their-
05SEP2018-report

In the letter they claim, “Thomas Chantry has complied with the advice of the council.”
They also assert, “We have no reservation which would prejudice or limit his future
wider usefulness in the church of Jesus Christ.” In other words, they considered
Chantry a man above reproach, and therefore, free to return to pastoral ministry and
working with children. How frightful! But in fact, Chantry did not comply with “the
advice of the council” and neither did Lyon and McCormick. These two men were
lying about his compliance and that was apparent to Informal Council and the MVBC
elders. It was not a matter of “different interpretations.”

The MVBC elders wrote Blackburn on February 5, 2002. See Attachment 10 in AC
Report – Part I. They said in part,

“We are greatly concerned that Tom has not sought forgiveness from the
children and the parents. It was the recommendation of the informal council
that Tom do this (See #8). The families and this church were grievously hurt by
Tom’s sins and are still dealing with the consequences of his actions. Not only
is this important for Tom to do before the Lord, it would be of great help to the
families to bring closure to this devastating event in their lives.”

In response, Blackburn wrote the MVBC elders on February 13, 2002. See Attachment
11 in AC Report – Part I. He said in part,

“The Council that was sent to Prescott to advise Miller Valley and Tom
Chantry’ was an informal one and, upon it signing the papers of the final report
[on Dec. 16, 2000], and leaving Arizona, it ceased to exit. Baptists have never
known, according to biblical procedure and Baptist practice, a “standing”
Council. A Council is called, does what is asked of it, makes a report, ceases to
exist, and then no long has any function or say. The way the informal Council
left matters there was no further accountability to be made to them.”

The Council may have “ceased to exist” but “further accountability” to the men on the
Council continued! The last sentence is untrue. Here are some of the ways the
accountability continued. This comes from Recommendation 6 in “Report, Conclusions
and Recommendations.”

6. That Thomas Chantry submit himself to the oversight of Elders
from a member church of ARBCA and refrain from any employment
involved in the care of children or any position as an Elder until he
receives the recommendation of the Elders of his church to resume such
positions of employment in the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is
also recommended that the Elders who assume oversight of Thomas
Chantry consult with the members of this Informal Council. We
further recommend that the Elders of his church inform the
Administrative Counsel of ARBCA prior to the reinstatement of
Thomas Chantry as an Elder or as a teaching Elder in any church.

As I pointed out in my previous blog article, the “Elders who assume oversight” (i.e.
Lyon & McCormick) never consulted with the IC. Nor did they inform the AC when
Chantry began to regularly preach in Providence Reformed Baptist Church starting
September 2001. He was not an ordained “teaching Elder” but he was clearly fulfilling
the role.

This comes from Recommendation 10.

“If there are any questions or perceived failure to implement the
recommendations as set forth herein, either of the parties may contact the
members of the Informal Council to seek their assistance.”
This comes from the solemn agreement at the end of the Level 2 Report.

“We the undersigned hereby agree to abide by and implement the above
recommendations made by the informal Council of the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America to the Miller Valley Baptist Church,
December 13-16, 2000.”

Tom Chantry and the MVBC elders were told to “contact the members of the Informal
Council” if there were “any questions or perceived failure to implement the
recommendations as set forth herein.” Why? The answer is obvious. Mike McKnight,
Tedd Tripp and Rich Jensen had an ongoing role or responsibility in holding everyone
accountable to abide by and implement the binding “recommendations.” None of this
is covered in this report. It is left out like it never existed.

In order to obtain appropriate information concerning the “serious factual differences
between Thomas J. Chantry and the four children he disciplined,” the PRBC elders
needed to contact the informal council and the MVBC elders to get specific details. Due
to their lack of contact they could not address the most serious concerns of the informal
council regarding Mr. Chantry. Although this matter should have been handled as a
church discipline issue at MVBC, the fact that the PRBC elders received both the Level 1
and Level 2 Reports and accepted the responsibility of providing oversight to Mr.
Chantry, in complying with the recommendations of the Level 2 Report, obligated them
to make serious efforts to address the central, major concern of the Informal Council.

Finally a statement with which I agree. Strike up the “Hallelujah Chorus”!

Here is what I wrote in my previous blog article about Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick
in relation to Recommendations 7 and 8.

Part 3: A Critical Analysis of the Administrative Council’s Report Justifying the
Decision to Withhold All Knowledge of the Police Investigation & Imminent
Arrest of Thomas J. Chantry from ARBCA Pastors
Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 12:04AM

7. That there still remain serious factual differences between Thomas
Chantry and the four children he disciplined during his ministry at
Miller Valley. These factual differences include the purpose, frequency
and severity of the physical punishment. It is recommended that the
Elders who assume the oversight of Thomas Chantry address these
differences because it is the opinion of this informal council that his
repentance may not be complete.
[Note: Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick never addressed the “serious
factual differences” that included “the purpose, frequency and severity
of the physical punishment.” These differences were the central issue
and would have required extensive interaction with the victims and
their parents. Lyon and McCormick never made any effort to contact
them.]

8. That Thomas Chantry endeavor to seek full repentance and the
forgiveness from each of the four children and their parents who have
been the subject of physical discipline by him. It is recommended that
the Elders who assume the oversight of Thomas Chantry assist him
with this process.

[Note: Chantry never endeavored “to seek full repentance” for himself
(thereby acknowledging his repentance was incomplete) or
“forgiveness from each of the four children and their parents.” He
solemnly promised the Informal Council and the MVBC elders he
would do so. Lyon and McCormick were to assist him in this
endeavor. That would of necessity involved interaction with the
children and parents to understand how they felt sinned against. Lyon
and McCormick didn’t care about the victims or their families. They
never talked to them.]

There is one reference to Tom Lyon by name in the body of this AC Report – Part II.
None to Mark McCormick. These men should be called to repentance and asked to
write a letter of confession to all the ARBCA churches for not following the
recommendations laid down by the Informal Council to which they agreed. They are
not men of their word.

Furthermore, they are not men with a shepherd’s heart. That was so evident in the
message Lyon preached on the “Duties of Pastors” from Ezekiel 37:1-4 at Tom
Chantry’s installation service as an elder in Christ Reformed Baptist Church on
September 22, 2007. Once in the pulpit, Lyon corrected the title given him to the “Duty
of Pastors.” That is, preaching alone.

I believe in the priority of preaching, but pastors have many other duties as defined by
the New Testament. Lyon singularly equates pastoring with preaching. That is an
entirely unbiblical position. It also a self-serving position. Pastors are called to be
among the sheep so they can individually care for the sheep. That is hard work. They
are not called to hide in their study.

Lyon is also guilty of eisegesis. That is, reading into the text, or deriving from the text, a
meaning or application that is not found in the text. He does that with Ezekiel 37. He
actually needs more time in his study, studying hermeneutics; that is, how to properly
interpret and apply the Scriptures. He is a terrible exegete in this sermon.

And he motivates by guilt. “Leave him alone. … If he is not studying, he is not doing
what God called him to do.” And don’t ask Tom for assistance or invite him over to
your house.

This message by Lyon is terribly unsound and manipulative. Here is an excerpt. You
can listen to the entire section on Todd Wilhelm’s blog in his article, “Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA) Leaders Coverup Chantry Abuse.” It
is the second of two recordings found towards the end of the article.

https://thouarttheman.org/2017/01/27/association-reformed-baptist-churches-
america-arbca-leaders-coverup-chantry-abuse/

“It is not the duties of pastors, it is the duty of pastors. If there is anything I can
do for my brother and friend Tom, it’s to tell you as the members of this church,
leave him alone. If you call him up and say, “Pastor, come over and help me
move my couch.” He will probably come over and help you. But just
remember one thing, when he is moving your couch, he is not studying. …
They [preachers] are either casting their nets (preaching) or mending their nets
(studying). Alright? If he is moving your couch he is not studying. If he is not
studying, he is not doing what God called him to do. Alright? Now he might
come, he is a nice fellow, he has helped me a lot of times do a lot of things, but
just remember he will help you, and he’ll smile, but he’s not happy. Alright?
Preaching and studying! Leave him alone! Because there is only one duty of a
pastor. Prophesy to the bones. … “To sacrifice the study for the parlor is
criminal” [quoting Surgeon]. Alright? [Don’t say] “The pastor never comes
and see us in our house.” If he comes to your parlor, he is not in his study.
Remember, he’s only got one thing to do. Preach, before, during and after. It is
the only thing that helps us dry bones to live. The duty of the pastor is to
preach.”

This is the absolutely worse counsel you could give Chantry’s church. It just enabled
his renown selfishness and indifference to people. And those that have followed
Chantry over the years, know he spent huge amounts of time on Twitter, Facebook, and
blogging, not studying, and certainly not caring for people.

This approach to pastoral ministry partly explains Lyon’s total disregard for the
victims, their families and members in MVBC. He did not care to contact them or help
them. Lyon and McCormick should return to MVBC to ask forgiveness. The current
AC makes no such recommendation.
Listing of Recommendations

1) The Administrative Council should issue a letter of apology to the member
churches of ARBCA for the inaccurate statements contained in the ARBCA
Announcement to the 2017 General Assembly.

“A letter of apology” for “inaccurate statements” will only add to the coverup.
There needs to be a letter of confession laying out all the ways ARBCA has
acted in a dishonest and corrupt manner. The pastors who are still in ARBCA
must demand an independent investigation and call for the resignations of
many top officials in the past and present who have acted corruptively. The
ARBCA house needs to be swept clean and then filled with the Holy Spirit and
heartfelt obedience to the Lord Christ of Scripture.

2) The Policy and Constitution Committee should draft a child abuse reporting
policy to be reviewed by the Administrative Council and submitted to the 2019
General Assembly.

Point 1 in the policy manual: “Obey mandatory reporting laws for suspected
child abusers.” Point 2: “Don’t do internal investigations of criminal behavior
and confuse church for state.” Point 3: “Don’t coverup for alleged abusers and
withhold evidence from law enforcement.” Point 4: “Help victims of abuse to
report and CARE for them.” Point 5: “Take a course in rocket science but only
for dummies if this doesn’t make sense.”

3) The General Assembly Planning Committee should consider including a
session on the legal definitions of reportable child abuse and of mandatory
reporters, along with related issues, at the 2019 General Assembly.

“Legal definitions of reportable child abuse and of mandatory reporters” differ
from state to state. Know the law but in some states there are clergy
exemptions for reporting. In such cases, obey the Bible! ARBCA should never
have been internally investigating crimes and then keeping the incriminating
evidence they found from law enforcement. ARBCA prides itself on its
biblicism but top leaders chose to disobey the clear teaching of Scripture in
Romans 13.

4) The Administrative Council should issue an amendment to Part I of its report to
the churches concerning the case of Thomas J. Chantry. This amendment
should clarify that the Level 2 Report may have been distributed to the
Administrative Council in 2001; however, no documentary information or
testimonial accounts of the members of the 2001 Administrative Council
confirms such distribution.
This recommendation is worthless. Numerous men on the AC in 2001 like Earl
Blackburn and Don Lindblad had the Level 2 Report and everything else of an
incriminating nature in their possession.

5) The Policy and Constitution Committee should draft a constitutional
amendment and related policy, for submission to the 2019 General Assembly,
that provides specific guidance concerning the obligation of member churches
to resolve conflicts, complaints, or difficulties of any kind between two or more
churches, which cannot be resolved by their cooperative action, by placing
those matters on the agenda for the next General Assembly.

Great! There is an ever growing list of “conflicts, complaints, or difficulties”
with the 2000-2001 and 2015-2018 Administrative Councils that are unresolved.
Bring it all before “the next General Assembly” in Olmstead Township, OH on
May 7-9, 2019. Maybe I could attend as a guest and make an independent third
party presentation?

6) The Policy and Constitution Committee should draft a constitutional
amendment regarding Church Councils for submission to the 2019 General
Assembly.

Start with the example of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and the letter they
sent to all the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Oops. Can’t do in
ARBCA.

7) The Policy and Constitution Committee should review the Guidelines for
Forming and Conducting a Church Council in the Policy Manual and revise
them to conform with the proposed constitutional amendment regarding
Church Councils and submit any proposals to the 2019 General Assembly.

It is fine to have policy manuals but they don’t mean a thing if they are not
followed. I’ve often seen that happened. But far more serious is when groups
are orthodox but their leaders don’t follow their own teaching. There is no
substitute for humility and integrity born out of a first-love relationship with
Jesus Christ. There are many New Testament “scribes” in our day.

8) The Policy and Constitution Committee should draft policy that prohibits any
form of “confidential” minutes, reports, or records by the Administrative
Council, all ARBCA committees including ad hoc committees, and any group
or individuals acting in an official capacity for the Association.
You can try to “legislate” openness and transparency but it won’t work. The
very AC making this recommendation is guilty of covering up and distorting
the truth.

9) The Administrative Council should call for a vote of confidence in the current
members of the Administrative Council at the 2019 General Assembly. The
vote would not start new terms, if approved, and should be a vote on each
individual Council member instead of the Council as a group.

All of these men should receive a vote of non-confidence and be removed.
They have worked in concert with each other in issuing AC Reports – Part I &
II. That disqualifies them. These reports are full of deceit and misinformation.

Administrative Council
1. Bob Adams
2. Rob Cosby (Treasurer)
3. Dale Crawford (Ad Hoc Committee)
4. Jack Daniels
5. David Dykstra
6. Al Huber
7. Steve Martin (Coordinator)
8. Steve Marquedant (Ad Hoc Committee)
9. Jeff Massey (Vice Chairman) (Ad Hoc Committee)
10. Jonathan Paul
11. Micah Renihan
12. Brandon Smith (Chairman)
13. Jason Walter (Secretary)

INTRODUCTION

The delegates to the General Assembly of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches
of America (ARBCA), which met in April 2016, voted to approve Christ Reformed
Baptist Church (CRBC) of Hales Corners, Wisconsin, for membership in ARBCA. In
July 2016, Thomas J. Chantry, pastor of CRBC, was arrested and subsequently charged
with five counts of child molestation and three counts of aggravated assault. The
charges stemmed from the period of time he was the pastor of the Miller Valley Baptist
Church (MVBC), Prescott, Arizona, from June 18, 1995 to November 8, 2000. No police
report concerning Mr. Chantry was filed during this time. In July 2015, a new allegation
[of sexual molestation] was made about Mr. Chantry’s actions as pastor at Miller Valley,
which resulted in a criminal investigation and his arrest.

After his arrest, a number of pastors and members of churches affiliated with ARBCA
understandably questioned whether the Membership Committee and the
Administrative Council were aware of the allegation against Mr. Chantry and the
existence of a police investigation prior to the General Assembly. They also questioned
why CRBC was recommended for membership in ARBCA, if the Membership
Committee and the Administrative Council did possess this information. The
Administrative Council has addressed these questions in Part I of its report to member
churches dated September 5, 2018.

This is my response to Part I of its report to member churches.

Part 3: A Critical Analysis of the Administrative Council’s Report Justifying the
Decision to Withhold All Knowledge of the Police Investigation & Imminent Arrest of
Thomas J. Chantry from ARBCA Pastors
Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 12:04AM

Other questions concerning the actions of ARBCA officials emerged while Mr. Chantry
was awaiting trial and during the trial. The questions all focused on whether or not
ARBCA officials took action to conceal the accusations made against Mr. Chantry
during his tenure at MVBC from law enforcement and from the member churches of
ARBCA, both in December 2000 and for the successive seventeen years. The
proliferation of these questions, as well as selective aspects of the trial, has resulted in
both concern and some confusion in some churches of our association. Consequently,
the Administrative Council received requests to provide a full written report
concerning this matter to ARBCA member churches. Out of concern for possibly
affecting the judicial process in some way, the Administrative Council deferred such a
report until the completion of the trial.

On August 21, 2018, a jury in the Yavapai County Superior Court in Camp Verde,
Arizona, announced its verdict in Mr. Chantry’s case. The jury found Mr. Chantry
guilty of two counts of aggravated assault, not guilty on one count of aggravated
assault, and not guilty of one count of child molestation. A mistrial was declared on
four other charges of molestation. Since sworn testimony of all the principles in the trial
and other evidence related to the charges are now public record, the Administrative
Council can provide a report to the member churches of ARBCA.

The mistrial on “four other charges of molestation” will be retried. Only one juror of
the 12 jurors held out on a guilty verdict.

As soon as the trial ended on August 21, 2018, the Administrative Council began the
preparation of a two-part report regarding the membership process of CRBC and the
Thomas J. Chantry case. Part I addressed ARBCA’s actions between the April 2015 and
the April 2016 General Assemblies. Part II will cover the work of an ARBCA informal
council requested by MVBC in November 2000 and the subsequent ARBCA actions
related to the results of the informal council’s assistance to this church. This is Part II of
the report. A new trial is pending concerning Thomas J. Chantry, but sufficient
documents have been released that it is appropriate to make this evaluation at this time.
Furthermore, additional time may create greater problems within our association and
its churches. Therefore, we have proceeded with this report.

PART II

A lot of what follows has already been covered above. The repetition in this report will
drive you crazy.

This part of the report contains a discussion of the tenure of Mr. Chantry at MVBC, a
review of the formation and conduct of the informal council, a description of the
informal council’s reports and their distribution, an account of Mr. Chantry’s
compliance with the informal council’s recommendations, a critique of the
Administrative Council’s announcement to the 2017 General Assembly, an analysis of
the diverse elements of this information, as well as conclusions and recommendations.

This report makes no attempt to evaluate, in any way, or make judgments regarding
Mr. Chantry’s actions or performance during his tenure at MVBC or the statements of
parents and children who were affected by his actions. The report focuses exclusively
on presenting information and analyzing that information within the context of the
activities and responsibilities of ARBCA officials involved in this matter and ARBCA’s
Constitution and Policy Manual.

This makes the report irrelevant and basically worthless. The Administrative Council is
not willing to give its informed opinion on the guilt or innocence of Chantry based
upon the evidence presented at the trial including the counts for which he was
sentenced on October 19, 2018. The Administrative Council should also ask forgiveness
of ARBCA churches for defending the innocence of Tom Chantry for over past 3 years
despite police reports and other evidentiary documentation in their possession. Read
the article below.

Part 1: Sexual Sadist Tom Chantry Persecuted Like Jesus, Tested Like Job, & Betrayed
Like Joseph According to ARBCA Leaders & Enablers
Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 6:58PM

Mr. Chantry’s Tenure at Miller Valley Baptist Church

In this section, the current Administrative Council repeatedly plays down the
horrendous abuse the five children suffered. They don’t begin to do justice to the
heinous crimes committed against them as depicted in the “Private Documents” they
refuse to disclose so people are unable to read them. That is intentional! Thank God we
have the documents because NONE of them are private. They are all public. I have
substituted fictitious names in the documents for the victims and their families; Todd
Wilhelm at Thou Art the Man has redacted the names; but the documents are all
available to the public.

There is also a lot of misleading and erroneousness information in this section. That is
why people must read the source material (i.e. the “Private Documents”) so they don’t
get scammed.

Here is what you need to read in order to understand what happened to these kids and
the traumatic impact it had upon them and their families. It is not worth commenting
on the whitewashed ARBCA version put forth below.

This article contains the five letters from four families and a victim that were sent to the
Informal Council in 2000 documenting Chantry’s perverse “bare bottomed” aggravated
assaults, etc.

Part 2: Walt Chantry, Miller Valley Elders, & ARBCA Officials Knew Tom
Chantry Was a Child Abuser Even Before the 2000 Investigation Began
Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 2:10PM

This article contains four victim impact statements that poignantly describe the
devastation they have suffered because of Chantry and ARBCA.

Part 5: Victim Impact Statements for Judge Astrowsky in Tom Chantry Case -
“We Gave Our Children, Unknowingly, Over to a Pedophile”
Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:19PM

This court document argues Chantry should remain in jail without bond until his next
trial. It gives an excellent overview of all the evidence against him. A must read.

Motion to Hold Chantry Without Bond – Descriptions of Crimes – Redacted
Uploaded by Todd Wilhelm on Sep 13, 2018

9-12-2018 Thomas Chantry has been charged with nine new criminal counts
and is currently jailed in Yavapai County Jail in Verde Valley. He is being held
on a $1 Million cash bond. In this document the State outlines Chantry’s
alleged crimes in detail, arguing that Chantry should be held without bond.

https://www.scribd.com/document/388479059/Motion-to-Hold-Chantry-
Without-Bond-Description-of-Crimes-Redacted
The elders of MVBC invited Mr. Chantry to visit and preach for the church in March
1995 for the purpose of considering him to serve as interim pastor. He graduated from
Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California, in June 1995 and began his service as
interim pastor a week later. He served as interim pastor and permanent pastor until
November 2000.1

On July 4, 1995, only two weeks after his arrival at MVBC, Mr. Chantry was accused of
striking Child A with his fist at a Fourth of July celebration. 2 The elders addressed the
accusation with Mr. Chantry, who denied hitting Child A with his fist. Subsequently,
the elders decided to recommend Mr. Chantry to the congregation as its pastor.

During the summer of 1995, the parents of Child A and Child B asked Mr. Chantry to
go to their house and spank the two siblings for fighting. The parents were not home,
and the babysitter called the parents because the siblings had been fighting.3 Mr.
Chantry went to the home and spanked the two children as requested.

In September 1995, Mr. Chantry began tutoring Child B; the parent gave him
permission to spank the child if necessary.4 In December 1995, Child B told the parents
about receiving a “bare bottomed” spanking from Mr. Chantry. The elders confronted
Mr. Chantry about the bare bottomed spanking, and he denied doing it. The elders met
with Mr. Chantry several times over the issue and decided the matter was resolved.
Mr. Chantry continued tutoring Child B but did not spank the child again. 5 By
February 1997, he no longer tutored Child B.

The people of MVBC thought highly of Mr. Chantry’s preaching and teaching, and the
elders presented him to the church for ordination. He was ordained by MVBC in
February 1996.6 In April 1997, an older elder [Rich Howe] began a series of meetings
with Mr. Chantry in order to address a variety of issues, such as Mr. Chantry’s social
behavior, philosophy of pastoral ministry and conduct, and the expectations of the
elders for each other.7

Mr. Chantry continued to fulfill his ministerial duties from April 1997 to October 2000.
Documentation reveals that some members of MVBC expressed concerns about Mr.
Chantry’s displays of anger, lack of pastoral warmth, seeming authoritarianism,

1 Private Document 1. [This is not a Private Document. They are concealing evidence and covering up by
labeling it as such. It is the timeline produced by the MVBC elders for the Informal Council. See
https://www.scribd.com/document/392288262/MVBC-Timeline-of-Chantry-s-Tenure-1995-2000. The
same is true for the remainder of the documents they refer to as private.]
2 Private Documents 2 and 5.
3 Private Document 3.
4 Private Documents 2, 3, and 5.
5 Private Document 1, 2, and 3.
6 Private Document 1.
7 Private Document 1.
inexperience, and apparent immaturity.

In January 1998, Mr. Chantry began to tutor Child C and continued tutoring Child C
until October 2000. The parents of this child did not give permission for Mr. Chantry to
discipline the child. Over the course of a year, Child C told the parents about being
spanked by Mr. Chantry. In September 2000, Child C reported receiving a “bare
bottomed” spanking from Mr. Chantry.

The parents of Child D and Child E, who were siblings, arranged for Mr. Chantry to
watch their children for a few hours a week during the summer of 1999 due to difficulty
in arranging childcare. The parents gave Mr. Chantry permission to discipline their
children. Child D and Child E were often with Mr. Chantry at the same time Child C
was with him. Mr. Chantry spanked Child D and Child E and their parents confronted
him. The parents told him not to spank their children again and continued to leave
their children under Mr. Chantry’s care.8

In October 2000 MVBC elders received their first notification that Mr. Chantry had been
spanking Child C during tutoring sessions and had allegedly spanked Child C bare
bottomed.9 The elders met with Mr. Chantry who denied the accusation of bare
bottomed spanking of Child C. Mr. Chantry admitted to spanking Child C and that it
was wrong to do so without parental consent. Mr. Chantry and one of the elders visited
Child C and the parents, and Mr. Chantry apologized.10 The elders determined Mr.
Chantry should meet with the families in the church who were aware of the incident
with Child C and apologize. Mr. Chantry and an elder did conduct these visits. The
elders then determined that Mr. Chantry should meet with all of the other families in
the church and offer a general apology. Mr. Chantry and an elder also conducted these
visits.11

After the MVBC elders were notified of the spanking of Child C, the parents of Child D
and Child E notified the MVBC elders that Mr. Chantry had spanked these two children
also.12 At the request of the MVBC elders, Mr. Chantry did not preach or attend the
meetings of the church for the next two weeks. The first week of November 2000, the
MVBC elders met with Mr. Chantry to outline a plan “to return him to his full duties
and responsibilities.”13 The plan stipulated a thirty-day probationary period for Mr.
Chantry, a congregational meeting, and a congregational vote to determine whether to
retain Mr. Chantry at the end of the probationary period. The purpose of the
congregational meeting would be to discuss various sin issues and Mr. Chantry’s need

8 Private Document 9.
9 Private Documents 1, 6, 7, and 8.
10 Private Document 8.
11 Private Documents 1, 8.
12 Private Document 9
13 Private Documents 1, 7, 8, and 10.
for repentance, along with urging the people to examine Mr. Chantry during this thirty-
day period for signs of repentance. The church would then vote to retain or dismiss Mr.
Chantry or to continue another period of examination.

On November 8, 2000, Mr. Chantry resigned as pastor of MVBC. 14 On the same date,
the MVBC elders communicated their grievances against Mr. Chantry to Don Lindblad,
who was a member of the Administrative Council. The MVBC elders stated that Mr.
Chantry was perceived as unloving, that he needed to visit families more, that he was
selective in talking to people, that he was perceived to express spiritual pride, that he
had exhibited outbursts of anger, that he was not qualified for the ministry, and that he
had spanked several children of church members.15

On November 9, 2000, Walter Chantry, pastor of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, PA,
and father of Mr. Thomas Chantry, wrote a letter to the MVBC elders strongly
criticizing their actions in relation to Mr. Chantry.16

On November 21, 2000, the MVBC elders wrote a letter to Mr. Walter Chantry, in which
they expressed their “sadness” over Mr. Chantry’s resignation, summarized their
purposes for the restoration plan they had presented to Mr. Chantry before he resigned,
and specified the sin with which they had confronted him as “inappropriate discipline
of a church family’s child.” In this same letter, the MVBC elders wrote, “Several of our
children have been ‘mistreated’. It is still incomprehensible to us as to how these
actions by Tom were justified. Legally, what Tom did would be considered child abuse
and could be subject to prosecution.”17

The documentary record shows there was no accusation of molestation by Mr. Chantry
during his tenure at MVBC, and no accusation of molestation was communicated to the
Informal Council.

The Formation and Conduct of the Informal Council

The Formation of the Informal Council

Bob Selph, ARBCA Coordinator in 2000, has asserted that Mr. Walter Chantry,
“demanded” that he (Mr. Selph) “send a Council to investigate and mediate the
situation.” Mr. Selph further stated that he “contacted the MVBC elders and they

14 Private Documents 1, 7, 8, and Attachment 1 – Report, Conclusions and Recommendation of the
Informal Council [They always leave off, “of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America”
in the title.]
15 Private Document 11.
16 Private Document 15.
17 Private Document 10.
agreed that a Council would be helpful.”18 Don Lindblad, pastor of Trinity Reformed
Baptist Church in Kirkland, WA, also indicates that the Informal Council resulted from
“the suggestion of Walt Chantry.”19

Footnote 18 comes from Bob Selph’s letter but it is not attached. Instead they attach an
email from Jamie Howell to Bob Curley that references Selph’s report. The AC
purposely does not attach Selph’s letter because it indicts the AC and ARBCA. For
instance, read the quote above in context. For the same reason, the AC does not include
Selph’s letter in their Part I Report either.

“Subsequently, Walter Chantry (pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle,
PA and Tom’s father) wrote a letter [Nov. 9, 2000] to the Miller Valley elders,
accusing them of mistreating his son. A dispute arose between them. Walt
approached me, as I was serving as Coordinator of ARBCA, and demanded
that I send a Council to investigate and mediate the situation. I contacted the
MVBC elders and they agreed that a Council would be helpful. I then
contacted the ARBCA Administrative Council and the AC appointed a three-
man committee to travel to Arizona and to meet with the parties involved. The
three men appointed were actually agreed upon by both Chantry and the
MVBC elders out of a field of fifteen possible men.”

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388540640/Bob-Selph-s-Explanation-of-
Chantry-Case for letter by Bob Selph.

Notice, the 2000-2001 Administrative Council “appointed a three-man committee” “out
of a field of fifteen possible men.” The AC is fully informed and involved. They are
also in charge and “appoint” the committee members. The “dispute...between them”
includes Chantry’s denial that he assaulted five children from four families. That is the
hub of their investigation. So many ARBCA leaders knew about the allegations of child
abuse against Chantry in 2000 despite their denials.

On November 20, 2000, the MVBC elders began “to pursue an ARBCA Church Council”
presumably after Mr. Selph called them.20 On November 27, 2000, the MVBC elders
requested Bob Selph, ARBCA Coordinator, “to organize an ‘informal’ church council for
Miller Valley.”21

This is another deceptive summary about how the “ARBCA Church Council” came

18 Attachment 5. [Is an email from Jamie Howell to Bob Curley on Sept. 7, 2018. The attachment does not
include Bob Selph’s “An Explanation of the ARBCA Informal Council conducted for the Miller Valley
Baptist Church (Prescott, AZ) and Thomas Chantry in December of 2000”.]
19 Private Document 16.
20 Private Document 1. [The Miller Valley Elders timeline sent to the Informal Council.]
21 Private Document 1.
about. It resulted from discussions with Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad
and ARBCA Coordinator Bob Selph. All these men were on the 2000-2001 AC and
Blackburn was the Chairman. See the progression below from the official MVBC
timeline sent to the Informal Council which the current AC does not provide, but hides.
One other note, Martin is the current ARBCA Coordinator. He has played a major role
in the coverup of Chantry’s crimes over the last 18 years.

12/13/00

To: Council
Fm: Miller Valley Elders
Re: Timeline (updated)

Nov 13, 2000 Rich and Shorty received a letter from Pastor Walt Chantry sent
Nov 9.

Nov 14, 2000 Rich [Howe] and Shorty [Eric “Shorty” Owens] meet in
Escondido, CA with Pastors Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin, Don
Lindblad and ARBCA Coordinator Bob Selph.

Nov 19, 2000 Following evening service [at MVBC], the elders [Rich & Shorty]
present their ideas to the body of having a church council based
on the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, chapter 26, paragraph 15.

Nov 20, 2000 Rich and Shorty begin to pursue an ARBCA Church Council.

Nov 27, 2000 Bob Selph is asked to organize an “informal” church council for
Miller Valley

In a meeting on December 5, 2000, the Administrative Council appointed Pastor Rich
Jensen, Mr. Mike McKnight, and Pastor Tedd Tripp to serve as “a fact finding
committee from ARBCA” to go to MVBC.22

Here is the much fuller quote with context from the AC minutes.

“Pastor Tom Chantry of Miller Valley BC, Prescott, AZ has resigned as pastor.
There is a remaining conflict between Mr. Chantry and the elders. The elders
and Mr. Chantry have requested that a fact-finding committee from ARBCA
help them sort out these difficulties. Pastor Rich Jensen, Mr. Mike McKnight,
and Pastor Tedd Trip are to serve on this committee. They will fly to AZ,
interview involved parties and make recommendations.” (Membership

22 Attachment 2 – AC Minutes dated December 5, 2000.
Committee – Mr. Dykstra, Dec 5, 2000)

After the Informal Council was requested, Mr. Chantry asked Donald Lindblad, pastor
of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in Kirkland, Washington, to accompany him to
Arizona to meet with the Informal Council.

The Conduct of the Informal Council

During the period of December 13-16, 2000, the Informal Council met with the MVBC
elders, Mr. Chantry and Mr. Lindblad, the parents of the children involved, and the
children who had been spanked by Mr. Chantry. They interviewed all the people with
whom they met and, with the parents’ permission, interviewed the children privately.
After conducting all of the interviews, the Informal Council met with the MVBC elders
as well as Mr. Chantry and Mr. Lindblad, to discuss their findings and present their
recommendations. On December 16, 2000, the Informal Council, the MVBC elders, Mr.
Chantry, and Mr. Lindblad met to sign the “Report, Conclusions and Recommendations
of the Informal Council.”23 Mr. Lindblad was not present during the interviews of the
MVBC elders, the parents, or the children. He was only present during the Informal
Council’s interview of Mr. Chantry and during the final meeting on December 16, 2000,
with the Informal Council, the MVBC elders, and Mr. Chantry.24 Mr. Lindblad did not
have access to the information in the Level 1 Report or the Complete Report until
January 2017 when he was called to be a witness in Mr. Chantry’s trial, at which time he
was provided a copy of these reports.

The last sentence is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT because it contains some of the most
heinous lies propagated by Don Lindblad, Earl Blackburn and the Administrative
Council. Read it again and read it carefully. It goes to the heart of the coverup in
ARBCA.

“Mr. Lindblad did not have access to the information in the Level 1 Report or
the Complete Report until January 2017 when he was called to be a witness in
Mr. Chantry’s trial, at which time he was provided a copy of these reports.”

First, Lindblad was not given the “Level 1 Report or the Complete Report” when he
was called to be a witness in Chantry’s trial. He “had all the documents” since 2000 (see
below) and was supposedly given the Level 1 “sealed report” by Tom Lyon for a
meeting at Chantry’s church on January 29, 2017 in Hales Corner, WI. During this
meeting with Christ Reformed Baptist Church (CRBC); Lindblad, Al Huber (Chantry’s
father-in-law), Dale Smith, and Steve Martin defended Chantry’s innocence in public

23 Attachment 1. [Report, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Informal Council of the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America]
24 Attachment 3. [Confidential Report and Recommendations of the Informal Council of the Association

of Reformed Baptist Churches of America]
comments and private conversations but refused to answer scores of hard questions
asked by church members.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/390594376/Questions-for-CRBC-Meeting-2
for the questions.

Here is Lindblad’s explanation for when he received the Level 1 report when deposed
by Susan Eazer, the Yavapai County Deputy Attorney, on March 21, 2018. It was not
because he was called as a witness.

“Well I would have had all the documents anyway and the sealed document
…I was given by Pastor Lyon because I was asked to help a church [CRBC] that
was struggling with what was going on and it was, had the potential for
splitting the church and I was asked to come in [Jan. 29, 2017] and to help them
sort out fact from fiction at least as far as the documents, but I never revealed,
I’ve never printed them, I’ve never revealed them, nobody else has them.”
(“Notice of Filing Transcript of Don Lindblad,” p. 7, lines 10-22)

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388574713/2018-7-18-P1300CR201600966-
Eazer-Deposition-of-Don-Lindblad for complete document.

The meeting was a disaster. Seventy percent of the church left thereafter and I have
now been told the church has dissolved and the building sold. Lindblad did not “sort
out fact from fiction.” He covered up the facts and promoted a fictious narrative.
Lindblad’s lying is second only to Chantry’s. That’s why he is such a good, I mean evil,
“advocate” for Chantry but let’s cut to the chase.

On June 17, 2015, Don Lindblad talked with Steve Marquedant about letting Tom
Chantry and his church into ARBCA. Marquedant was on the 2015-2016
Administrative Council and Chairman of the Membership Committee. After the
conversation, Lindblad sent him a review of what was discussed. It contains a lot of lies
that I’m not going to address but here is the letter in entirety. As I’ve already made
clear in this article, the current AC deceptively cut out point 3 and its six subpoints in
Attachment 12 in their AC Report - Part I. Please take special note of point 3f. It is a
reference to a report Lindblad sent to Earl Blackburn.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/395828347/Don-Lindblad-Letter-to-Steve-
Marquedant-Regarding-Documents-in-ARBCA-Archives for the original.

6/17/15

Steve,
Thanks for the time this afternoon. I certainly understand the issues and the
reservations you have as to how to proceed with Tom’s application for
membership in ARBCA.

By way of review, here are a few thoughts:

1. In talking with Tom and reflecting upon the past, I believe Tom has done
everything he was asked to do. He joined another ARBCA church, sought and
received biblical counseling, this from a CCEF counselor, and did not reenter
the ministry until such time as those responsible for him signed off.

2. As to repentance, Tom did go to each of the families he had offended as
instructed by the MVBC elders. In addition, he went as required by the elders
to all of the Miller Valley families to show repentance and contrition. In fact,
this happened even before the counselors arrived to sort out the problem. As to
subsequent repentance, nothing more surfaced under the counseling work of
the CCEF counselor and the church Tom joined. Both church and counselor
testified that they believed Tom already had confessed to all his guilt.

There is a young man living in the Boston area who called Tom several times
and asked for further resolution. The last time he called, I was part of a phone
conversation with both, in which Tom asked for this man’s forgiveness. It was
granted.

3. The following documents are in the ARBCA archives:

a. The document signed by the elders, Tom Chantry (plus the various
families), and the counselors. This is a sealed document and is not to
surface unless Tom is charged with the same or similar sins in the future.
Since this has not happen, it is not available, and neither Miller Valley nor
Tom is authorized to publish it. Everyone agreed to that by way of
signature.

b. The document signed by the elders, Tom, and myself, charting a way
forward. Tom was to join an ARBCA church, seek counseling from a
biblical counselor, and not to reenter the ministry until his church agreed he
was ready. All three counselors asserted their belief that Tom was
unusually gifted, and in time could regain his life and ministry. If further
sins surfaced through counseling, he was to contact MVBC and confess
them. Nothing further surfaced, but Tom was helped enormously through
this process. This document too has limited viewing and is not available by
common consent.
c. The letter sent by the AC to all the churches. This can be read by the
appropriate committees.

d. The letter written by the CCEF counselor, stating that Tom has fulfilled
what he agreed to do. The limits of his guilt are expressed.

e. The letter from the church Tom joined, also stating that Tom has fulfilled
what he agreed to do. The church signed off on him after a year or more in
that context.

f. At Earl Blackburn’s request, I wrote a report of what occurred during the
council between Tom and MVBC.

All of these documents are on file in the ARBCA office. As noted, some are
sealed and others are available in a limited fashion.

4. It does not seem that there is more to do, so I believe it is appropriate to
receive Tom’s application for membership in ARBCA. As suggested, it seems
wise to talk with John G. [Giarrizzo] to make sure he is aware of all this and
also to discover what, if anything, MVBC decides to do by way of protest.

Hopefully, this helps. Let me know if l can be of further help.

Don

Don Lindblad refers to six documents. “All of these documents are on file in the
ARBCA office.” Of course, the current AC has claimed they could not find these
documents and didn’t have access to them until after the July-August 2018 Chantry
trial.

It is the sixth document that is of extreme importance. “At Earl Blackburn’s request, I
wrote a report of what occurred during the council between Tom and MVBC.” This is
the only reference to such a report anywhere to be found. That is one reason this
section was cut out of Attachment 12 in the Part I report. It exposes the conspiracy to
cover up Chantry’s crimes at the very highest level in ARBCA.

Earl Blackburn has been the most powerful leader in ARBCA over the past 20 years
without a doubt. See http://hbcshreveport.com/staff/. He was Chairman of the 2000-
2001 Administrative Council. Lindblad had ALL the documents in December 2000
including the Level 1 Report and gave them to Blackburn the same month. Blackburn
knew ALL about Chantry’s crimes against the children but conspired with others not to
report him to law enforcement. He also brazenly lied about having no access to the
documents. Follow carefully.

On January 1, 2002, Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick wrote a letter to Earl Blackburn,
Don Lindblad, Devon Berry, Walt Chantry and Tom Chantry (Attachment 8 in AC
Report – Part I) claiming Tom Chantry was fit for ministry.

On February 5, 2002, the MVBC elders wrote Blackburn saying, “We have some serious
concerns we would like to address.” (Attachment 10 in AC Report – Part I).

On February 13, 2002, Blackburn wrote them back and copied Tom Lyon (Attachment
11 in AC Report – Part I).

Here are the excerpts of vital importance.

February 13, 2002

The Elders
Miller Valley Baptist Church
815 Whipple Street
Prescott, AZ 86301

Dear Brethren,

Warmest greetings in the worthy name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I received
your letter dated February 5, 2002 and wish to address a few things in it. …

Second, know that I was nothing more than a facilitator in sending Pastor Tom
Lyon’s letter to you. I have not read the final report of the informal Council,
nor was I supposed to. Pastor Lyon, nor anyone else, has shared any of the
items of the final report with me. I am in the “dark” regarding most of it. I
have only had access to the general report that was submitted to the ARBCA
Administrative Council. …

Fifth, regarding item number 3, I cannot speak for anyone else on this matter,
but it is seriously doubted that you, the former informal Council members, or
anyone else other than the Elders of Tom Chantry’s home church will be able to
see the counselor’s final report regarding the findings of his counseling. The
reason being is that most reports of this nature are generally consider
proprietary. Probably the best you can hope for is a summary of the report.
You can, however, ask to see it. I don’t know what the answer will be.” …

May the Head of the Church bless you and give you much grace as your labor
for His glory. I remain your servant
In the best of bonds,

Earl M. Blackburn
Pastor
ARBCA AC Chairman

2001 W. Oak Avenue
Fullerton, CA 92833-3624
(714) 447-3412 (Study)

cc: Pastor Tom Lyon

These statements must be carefully analyzed.

Let’s start with this foundational one. Blackburn says, “I have only had access to the
general report that was submitted to the ARBCA Administrative Council.” The
“general report” is a reference to the Level 3 Report the AC sent to all the ARBCA
churches. At the Chantry’s trial it was referred to as the “sanitized” report. It could
have been called the “dishonest” report. It claimed all the differences between Tom
Chantry and the Miller Valley Baptist Church elders were “resolved” (past tense). That
was untrue. There was much that needed to be resolved. The binding
“recommendations” in the other reports addressed those unresolved issues. This
general report totally mislead the churches of ARBCA. You will also notice the IC went
to Arizona “at the direction” of the ARBCA AC. They are liable for its work.

REPORT OF THE INFORMAL COUNCIL
Of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
December 13, 2000 to December 16, 2000
Miller Valley Baptist Church
Prescott, Arizona

At the request of the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church of Prescott,
Arizona and of Thomas Chantry, former pastor of Miller Valley Baptist Church
and at the direction of the Administrative Council of the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of American, an Informal Council consisting of
Pastor Tedd Tripp of Grace Fellowship Church, Hazelton, PA, Pastor Richard
Jensen of Hope Reformed Baptist Church, Farmingville, NY and Elder Marcus
(Mike) McKnight of Grace Baptist church, Carlisle, PA was sent to Phoenix and
Prescott, Arizona. Its purpose was to investigate certain differences which had
arisen between the Elders of the Miller Baptist Church and the former Pastor
Thomas Chantry.

The Informal Council was concluded and the differences between the
Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church and Thomas Chantry have been
resolved and recommendations of the Council have been adopted by the
parties.

Marcus (Mike) McKnight, Chairman

Tedd Tripp, Pastor

Richard A. Jensen, Pastor

Earl Blackburn was Chairman of the Administrative Councils in 2000-2001 during the
investigation and the following term in 2001-2002 when Chantry was exonerated and
cleared for ministry and yet he claims he “only had access to the general report.” In
reality, he had ALL of the documents including the Level 1 and Level 2 Reports.

He claims, “I have not read the final report of the informal Council, nor was I supposed
to.” Only a fool would believe him! Lindblad didn’t sent him all the documents so he
could put them in his desk drawer. The only report he claims to have seen and read is
the general Level 3 Report.

He continues his lying. “Pastor Lyon, nor any else, has shared any of the items of the
final report with me. I am in the “dark” regarding most of it.” Remember what
Lindblad wrote Marquedant. “At Earl Blackburn’s request, I wrote a report of what
occurred during the council between Tom and MVBC.” Blackburn wants to be fully
informed so he requests a private report from Lindblad. The report is extremely
detailed. He is not in the “dark.” He is fully informed.

Lindblad is feeding Blackburn everything. That is why Blackburn copies Lindblad on
his response to the MVBC elders. He wants Lindblad to know he is denying access to
all documents and reports except the general report even though he possesses them.
Lindblad knows Blackburn is lying but that is how these men operate.

I grieve for ARBCA. The most powerful leader throughout its history is an egregious
liar. He totally deceives the elders of MVBC into believing he is ignorant of the
evidence against Chantry and the reports written by the Informal Council that he
commissioned as Chairman. He also pretends to be a man of integrity. “I have not read
the final report…nor was I supposed to.”
This transgression of outrageous duplicity must be publicly confessed to all of ARBCA
and his local church, Heritage Baptist Church in Shreveport, Louisiana, should take
disciplinary action. See http://hbcshreveport.com/staff/.

Here is Lindblad’s report (i.e., “Notes”) for Blackburn. I’ve substituted fictious names
for the victims and their families and added notes in brackets [ ].

See https://www.scribd.com/document/395896475/Don-Lindblad-Report-for-Earl-
Blackburn-on-the-Informal-Council-Regarding-Tom-Chantry-Redacted for the original.

Notes on the Informal Council Regarding Tom Chantry
Prescott, Arizona
Wednesday, December 13 - Saturday 16, 2000

1. Phone call on 11/8/2000 with Rich Howe and Shorty Owens and Don Lindblad.
MVBC charges:
a. Unloving. Needs to visit families more; selective in talking to the people.
b. Spiritual Pride
c. Anger
d. Not qualified for the ministry.
e. Spanking children

[Note: Howe and Owens are the MVBC lay elders that brought the charges against
Chantry.]

2. The elders of Miller Valley Baptist Church requested an informal (i.e., fact-finding)
council to assist them in resolving difficulties within the church with regard to their
pastor, Tom Chantry. ARBCA Coordinator at the time, Bob Selph, selected three
respected men in the Association to serve in this capacity. All parties agreed. The
individuals included: Rich Jensen, retired lead detective in a municipality on Long
Island, New York and pastor of Hope Reformed Baptist Church; Mike McKnight,
attorney and elder at Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania; and Dr. Tedd
Tripp, renowned Christian counselor and pastor of Grace Fellowship Church,
Hazleton, Pennsylvania.

[Note: Selph did not select the three men. The Administrative Council selected
them.]

3. Pastor Don Lindblad, Trinity Reformed Baptist Church, Kirkland, Washington
agreed to come as an advocate for Tom Chantry in the following way, submitted by
Tom Chantry:
a. To act as a check on me - make certain I act in an upright manner.
b. Ensure clarity of communication - that I am understood and that I understand.
c. To clarify and support those things I know firsthand - my conversations during
the week I resigned/the meeting in Escondido.
d. To ensure fair treatment for me in all proceedings.
e. Potentially to be a future witness for me regarding all meetings in Phoenix.

[Note: Lindblad is the one writing this report for Blackburn but he does so in an
obscure fashion.]

4. Three parties submitted documents to the Council: Tom Chantry, Rich Howe and
Shorty Owens (elders), along with the parents and children. See documents
attached.

[Note: Blackburn is sent all the documents generated by Chantry, Howe and
Owens, and the parents and children. That includes the official MVBC timeline, the
angry letter from Walt Chantry, and the response to Walt Chantry by Howe and
Owens that states, “Legally, what Tom did would be considered child abuse and
could be subject to prosecution.” It also includes the five letters from the parents
and child that document the extraordinary child abuse in no uncertain terms.

5. On the afternoon of December 13, the Council interviewed Tom Chantry with Don
Lindblad present. Mike McKnight acted as chairman. All three men assured Tom
they wanted him to receive a fair hearing. They listened intently as Tom reviewed
the pertinent history:

a. Tom took the initiative and acknowledged culpability, that he had mishandled
his relationship with four children and their parents who were in the church.
He was guilty of the following: He spanked the children in a context of tutoring
with the consent (request?) of the parents, with one exception. One of the
children did not have the consent of the parents, and Tom assumed it would be
okay since he had the agreement of others. Since Tom was single, he believed
tutoring would give him an opportunity to be more involved in the lives of
church members, something the elders believed was important for his ministry.
The elders perceived Tom to be somewhat distant from people. The elders
agreed to this idea of tutoring. Tom’s mistake, by his own admission, was to
spank the children as discipline in the context of teaching. Tom found the
children refusing to cooperate. In all, Tom did not defend himself but admitted
spanking. What became the issue was motive (anger?), frequency, and intensity
of the spanking.

[Note: The only thing Chantry has ever admitted is he “spank[ed] the children
as discipline in the context of teaching.” In other words, he should not have
used spanking as a tutor. That is all. He never asked forgiveness for
“motive…frequency, and intensity.” In fact, he lied about these elements.]

b. Mark Jones was the first (age 15 in 2000), which took place in 1995. The parents
told Tom he could spank Mark if necessary. Tom insisted he always spanked
him with his clothes on, despite a particular claim to the contrary.

[Note: Three of the five children testified he repeatedly spanked them bare-
bottom. It was not “a particular claim.”]

c. Daniel Laver (age 12 in 2000). Came from a troubled home and needed help. He
too was fully clothed.

[Note: Chantry repeatedly beat and molested Daniel. Read his mother’s letter
and the new indictment against Chantry on nine counts. A date for the trial has
not yet been set.]

d. The Walsh children. This occurred in the fall of 2000. It took place in the
tutoring process, though one incident occurred when the children were in the
parsonage and one of them refused to use a coaster for a drink, despite Tom’s
request. At least, that is the child’s claim.

[Note: The aggravated assaults occurred in the fall of 1999, not 2000. Chantry
was found guilty. Read the letters and impact statements from the parents and
children. Horrendous abuse! All the letters can be read in my article, Part 2:
Walt Chantry, Miller Valley Elders, & ARBCA Officials Knew Tom Chantry
Was a Child Abuser Even Before the 2000 Investigation Began (Oct. 13, 2018).]

e. The incidents were sporadic and did not occur pervasively throughout Tom’s
ministry.

[Note: The incidents were frequent and repeated, not sporadic. They were
pervasive in 1999-2000.]

f. After making this same mistake a few times, Tom claimed to be truly heartsick
in November of 2000. He hurt the parents and the children. He never intended
to defend himself, wanted to be humble, to place himself in the hand of the
elders. He wanted to make amends and to move forward.

[Note: Heartsick” about what? Nothing. Except that he should not have used
spanking in the context of tutoring. Chantry incessantly defended himself and
falsely blamed the children for being unruly and making up lies about him. He
made no attempts to make amends and move forward.]
g. The elders sought to bring order by having Tom go to each of the families, with
at least one elder, to apologize and to seek forgiveness. Subsequently, the
elders believed that the entire church now knew and Tom was asked to visit
each of the families and seek forgiveness, all of which he did readily.

[Note: He never asked forgiveness of anyone for what he actually did wrong.
Here is what Chris Marley, the current senior pastor of MVBC wrote the current
AC. “We provided evidence that Mr. Chantry had, from the time of the council
onward, never even contacted those families, let alone expressed repentance or
sought forgiveness.”]

h. That completed, the elders then believed Tom needed to do more and
recommended a time out of the pulpit and following that a congregational
meeting where members could air their grievances and concerns. The elders
believed Tom had problems relating to people generally. He was distant,
sometimes angry, and selective in his friendships. (Was this a matter of
immaturity?)

[Note: No, it was a matter ongoing sin. He was 29.]

i. Tom finally concluded he had lost the confidence of the elders and the church,
and that he had no future in the church. After meeting with the elders to tell
them this, he resigned. It was his intention to move to Washington state, with
no particular plans, especially any immediate intention to reenter the ministry.

[Note: An accurate presentation of events is found in the MVBC timeline.]

6. The Council members thanked Tom for his candor and said they were off to
interview the elders, the parents, and the children. They would be back to pull
things together and to make a recommendation. Tom was elated, believing he had
been heard and that the Council would discover additional reasons for the dispute.

[Note: Tom was elated because he believed he had totally deceived McKnight,
Tripp and Jensen.]

7. The three men met with Tom and Don late the next day. Immediately, they claimed
they found the claims of the elders, the parents, and the children believable. Tom
should be careful what he now said. Tom was crestfallen. He was not permitted to
face his accusers or to respond to accusations. The Council recognized that Tom
had admitted to inappropriate handling of discipline in a tutoring setting (in
particular the admission of spanking Mark Jones), but they concluded that the intent,
frequency and intensity of spanking might be more than what he admitted. Again,
when Tom asked to respond, they said no. Because of Tom’s sins, the elders reacted
as they did, and therefore the real issue was Tom. The Council stated that the only
wisdom he had shown recently was to resign, and that the elders erred in wanting
him to stay. Tom remained firm with his previous admission of wrong-doing and
suggested there were additional issues with the elders to explore.

[Note: McKnight, Tripp and Jensen did find the claims of child abuse believable.
Therefore, “Tom should be careful what he now said” because it could be used
against in court if prosecuted. “They concluded that the intent [sadism], frequency
and intensity of spanking might be more than what he admitted.”]

8. At that point, the Council dismissed itself, and the three said they now needed to
consult in order to make recommendations. This, despite the fact that it was an
investigative council, not determinative. Tom was crestfallen; no one believed him.
What was worse, he had not been given an opportunity to speak. Even the guilty
have their day in court!

[Note: It was an investigative council called to study the facts and present findings
and make binding recommendations. “No one believed him.” Why? Because the
evidence was overwhelming! His explanations were lies and that was obvious.
Further, you don’t let children who have been abused and traumatized be
interrogated by their sociopathic abuser. “Even the guilty have their day in court.”
One trial is complete. One or two more trials in the works!]

9. Imagine Tom and Don’s surprise, then, when the Council came back with its
recommendation. (See three reports: one to the ARBCA churches; one to be signed
by Tom, Don, elders for themselves and the church, and the members of the
Council; and one that was to be sealed, including letters from the families, never to
be opened unless Tom repeated the very same offences elsewhere in the future.)
The Council recommended that Tom be released without discipline from his
membership in MVBC to align himself with another ARBCA church, to undergo
counseling by a Christian counselor, with reports of progress to be filed with
ARBCA and as appropriate with MVBC. Tom’s recovery and future were to be
placed in the hands of others. The elders of MVBC were counseled to help families
and children to forgive Tom, and the families were urged to do the same. Everyone
agreed not to pursue formal charges against each other. The Council believed Tom
presently was disqualified for the ministry but could not determine his future
usefulness in the ministry. He had not sinned away future usefulness. The matter
was concluded, and everyone could move on.

[Note: This report for Blackburn was written by Lindblad right after the
investigation by the Informal Council was completed on December 16, 2000.
Lindblad had all three reports including the Level 1, “Confidential Report and
Recommendations” he claimed Tom Lyon gave him in January 2017 for the meeting
at Christ Reformed Baptist Church. These men are full of lies. Nothing they say
can be trusted.

This Level 1 classified report “was to be sealed, including letters from the families,
never to be opened unless Tom repeated the very same offences elsewhere in the
future.” In other words, if Tom committed additional crimes these documents
could be accessed. The “letters from the families” were not actually part of the
Level 1 Report but they were treated like the Level 1 Report because they contained
incriminating evidence of an overwhelming nature. They too were “sealed” and
“never to be opened.” Sealed means covered up.

Notice this crucial statement also.

“The elders of MVBC were counseled to help families and children to
forgive Tom, and the families were urged to do the same. Everyone
agreed not to pursue formal charges against each other.”

McKnight, Tripp and Jensen counseled Howe and Owens to counsel the families
and children to forgive Chantry’s crimes and not “pursue formal charges” against
him. They also counseled the families directly in the same way. These “formal
charges” could be referring to criminal charges or church discipline charges. In
either case, the Informal Council appears to use “forgiveness” to prevent or
dissuade the victims from pursuing criminal prosecution and/or church discipline.
That is often done by church leaders who want to cover up the sexual abuse of
children especially by pastors. They tell the victims and families they must forgive;
and if they truly forgive, they will not report to law enforcement or press charges.
This twisting of Scripture in order to protect child abusers like Chantry is absolutely
reprehensible.

But here is the main point that must be made clear! Blackburn was given all the
documents, letters and reports in 2000. He had every bit of information in his
possession. He even asked Lindblad for a personal report in addition to the IC
reports. And yet the esteemed Chairman of the Administrative Council has been
covering up his knowledge of Chantry’s crimes for 18 years.

Members of the current AC know this incriminating report from Lindblad to
Blackburn was filed in the ARBCA archives with all the other documents. Lindblad
wrote Marquedant about it on June 17, 2015 when Marquedant was on the AC and
he is the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee writing this report. I assume the
report from Lindblad to Blackburn was read by others also. And of course,
Blackburn has a copy in his possession. All of this has been covered up.]
10. On Saturday morning the 16th, the Council, the Miller Valley elders, Tom Chantry,
and Don Lindblad met in a Phoenix church to sign the aforementioned document.
The elders, the church, and Tom Chantry agreed to abide by the terms of the
document and not to pursue matters further. It was hoped that all parties would
abide by the terms. See future documents for compliance.

[Note: “Not to pursue matters furthers.” A reference to criminal prosecution
and/or church discipline. In either the case, the goal was to prevent the evidence
against Chantry from becoming public as a result of “formal charges.”]

11. Tom Chantry then drove Don Lindblad to the Phoenix airport around noon to catch
a flight to Seattle, continued on to LA and finally to University Place.

[Note: Lindblad obscures his authorship by saying “Tom Chantry then drove Don
Lindblad to the Phoenix airport” instead of saying “Tom Chantry then drove me.”
One other point. Chantry had been staying with Lindblad in Seattle since
November 10, 2000. Now he flies to University Place, Washington near Tacoma
from Los Angeles to be with Lyon. It is December 16, 2000.]

The Informal Council’s Reports

The Informal Council prepared the following four reports: 1) Confidential Report and
Recommendations (hereinafter “Level 1 Report”), 2) Report, Conclusions and
Recommendations (hereinafter “Level 2 Report”), 3) Report of the Informal Council
(hereinafter “Level 3 Report”, and 4) Complete Report.

Confidential Report and Recommendations25 -- Level 1 Report

This report contained a detailed discussion of the Informal Council’s procedure, the
basis of their conclusions and recommendations, recommendations to the MVBC elders,
recommendations to Mr. Selph, recommendations to Mr. Walter Chantry,
recommendations to the families of the children (included as attachments),
recommendations to the elders who assumed oversight of Mr. Chantry, and a statement
of conclusions.

The MVBC elders restricted the distribution of this report to Mr. Chantry, the MVBC
elders, Mr. Selph, Mr. McKnight, Mr. Tripp, Mr. Jensen, the elders who would assume
oversight of Mr. Chantry, the professional counselor who would counsel Mr. Chantry,
and Mr. Walter Chantry.26

25 Attachment 3. This document contains a detailed report of the Informal Council’s procedure, activities,
conclusions, and recommendations. [Confidential Report and Recommendations of the Informal Council
of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America}
26 Attachment 4 – Distribution of the Complete Report
“The MVBC elders restricted the distribution of this report.” No they didn’t! The
current AC knows the elders were never told about this report and never received this
report even though it contained recommendations for them. They had no idea it
existed.

This Level 1 Report includes the questions, “Taken in entirety, the question must be
raised, did Thomas Chantry use this method of punishment for his own pleasure?
and “The Elders who assume the oversight of him should consider the possibility that
on some level he punished children for his own pleasure?”

I talked to the elders at Chantry’s July-August 2018 trial. Chris Marley told me he
discovered the existence of the report from Susan Eazer, the Deputy Attorney
prosecuting Chantry, in July 2018 before the trial. Eric Owens told me he would have
reported Chantry to police in 2000 if he had read this report or knew there were serious
concerns for Chantry being a predatory sadist.

Notice how they leave out the name of “the professional counselor.” That because the
counselor was required to report Chantry to law enforcement. The counselor’s name is
Devon Berry.

Report, Conclusions, and Recommendations27 -- Level 2 Report

This report contained the conclusions and recommendations agreed to by the MVBC
elders and Mr. Chantry. It includes the conclusions of the Informal Council and
recommendations for Mr. Chantry.

This report was included in the Complete Report file, for which distribution was
restricted, and was also supposed to be distributed to the Administrative Council in
2001 and was identified as “a middle level report to all the AC members.”28

Here is the “middle level” quote from the AC Meeting Minutes dated January 4, 2001 in
its fuller context.

“The AC received a [oral] report concerning the Council sent to Prescott, AZ,
concerning the difficulties between former pastor Tom Chantry and the church.
Three reports will be distributed: a general report to be sent to all the churches,
a middle level report sent to all the AC members (to remain confidential), and a
much fuller report to be given only to nine individuals involved.

27 Attachment 1 [Report, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Informal Council of the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America]
28 Attachment 6 – Excerpt from AC Meeting Minutes dated January 4, 2001, p. 9.
“Mr. McKnight is to e-email the public statement to be inserted. Distinction of 3
levels of reports is to remain confidential!! Only the public statement is to be
sent to the churches or noted in the public minutes.” (January 4, 2001)

The “middle level” report was “supposed to be distributed to the Administrative
Council.” Yet, Blackburn said he never received this report in his letter to the MVBC
elders. Everyone on the 2000-2001 AC knew about the three reports but knowledge of
these reports was “to remain confidential!!” and nothing was to be “noted in the public
minutes.” Why the extreme secrecy? Why two exclamation points? Why secret
minutes versus public minutes? Why were the ARBCA churches kept in the dark and
misled by the Level 3 report? It was all part of the coverup.

Rich Howell, the 2000-2001 AC recording secretary, wrote me on September 21, 2108
and said this about the reports.

Brent,

I wrote this in a note sent to all the AC members, separate from the official
minutes, on January 6, 2001:

The AC received a report concerning the Council sent to Prescott, AZ,
concerning the difficulties between former pastor Tom Chantry and the
church. Three reports will be distributed: a general report to be sent to
all the churches, a middle level report sent to all the AC members (to
remain confidential), and a much fuller report to be given only to nine
individuals involved.

The Jan. 6 minutes contained the most general, brief, report that was sent to all
the churches.

Howell confirms the public “Jan. 6 minutes” left out reference to the Level 1 and Level 2
Reports. It only “contained the most general, brief, [Level 3] report”

Report of the Informal Council – Level 3 Report

This was a brief report to all member churches of ARBCA to inform the churches that
the Informal Council had completed its work, that “the differences between” the MVBC
elders and Mr. Chantry had been “resolved”, and that the recommendations of the
Informal Council had been “adopted by the parties.”29

Attachment 7 – Report of the Informal Council. [of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of
29

America]
This report was distributed to all member churches of ARBCA.

The issues were not resolved. This was a false statement.

Complete Report

This Complete Report contained copies of the Level 1 Report, including the separate
recommendations to each family involved;30 the Level 2 Report; the Level 3 Report; and
“statements from Mr. Chantry, the parents, and one of the children; the letters that had
been exchanged between MVBC elders and Mr. Walt Chantry; and a timeline of
events.”31

Lindblad had all of this material and gave it to Blackburn after the IC investigation was
completed in December 2000.

Mr. Chantry’s Compliance with the Informal Council’s Recommendations

Mr. Chantry relocated to the state of Washington [on Dec 16, 2000]; and, on February 2,
2001, his church membership was transferred to Providence Reformed Baptist Church
(PRBC) in University Place, Washington. The elders of PRBC [Tom Lyon, Mark
McCormick] agreed to provide oversight for Mr. Chantry and supervise him while he
implemented the recommendations of the Informal Counsel. During this time, Mr.
Chantry met with a professional counselor [Devon Berry] who was a member of the
Christian Counseling Educational Foundation (CCEF).

Devon Berry was not a professional counselor. He was a nurse. This is hype! He was
certified by CCEF to be a biblical counselor but was in no way a licensed or
professional counselor. There is a world of difference. CCEF is the ministry established
by David Powlison.

The elders of PRBC sent a report of compliance with the recommendations of the
Informal Council to the Chairman of the Administrative Council on January 1, 2002.32
This letter was read to the Administrative Council during a meeting on January 22,
2002.33 This letter from the PRBC elders was also forwarded to the MVBC elders by Earl
Blackburn, AC Chairman in 2002. The MVBC elders wrote Mr. Blackburn a letter dated

30 Private Documents 12, 13, and 14.
31 Attachment 5 – Report from Bob Selph dated September 7, 2018 [No, this attachment it is an email from
Jamie Howell to Bob Curley. Once again, the Selph report is excluded from this report.]
32 Attachment 8 – Letter from PRBC elders. [Tom Lyon & Mark McCormick, Providence Reformed Baptist

Church, University Place, WA]
33 Attachment 9 – Excerpt from AC Meeting Minutes dated January 22, 2002.
February 5, 2002,34 expressing concerns about the PRBC elders’ report of compliance. In
their letter, the MVBC elders requested PRBC send reports to the Informal Council and
expressed concern that Mr. Chantry had not “sought forgiveness from the children and
the parents” (as they understood was required by Recommendation #8 of the Level 2
Report), that Mr. Chantry’s counselor had “noted no besetting patterns of sin such as
those which would disqualify him from ministry”, and that Mr. Chantry “was
preaching in October [actually in September] before his counseling was completed in
December.” Mr. Blackburn replied to this letter from the MVBC elders and informed
them that the only report he had seen was “the general report (the Level 3 Report) that
was submitted to the Administrative Council, that the Informal Council no longer
existed and no longer had any function, and that the MVBC elders would have to
contact the PRBC elders about their concern regarding Mr. Chantry’s need for
repentance and for any other issues regarding Mr. Chantry.35 Randy Jamison, Pastor of
MVBC in 2002, did call Tom Lyon, Pastor of PRBC, but none of the issues contained in
the MVBC letter were addressed. There was no further communication between MVBC
and PRBC or between Mr. Blackburn and MVBC or PRBC regarding MVBC’s concerns.

I’ve addressed most of this above.

Often in this report, the writers reference documents but do not quote the documents at
length or in context. That is like referencing Bible verses to prove a doctrinal point
without quoting the verses in context and exegeting their meaning. Take for example,
Footnote 33. It is a reference to official minutes “not for general distribution.” Here is
the excerpt to which they allude.

Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Administrative Council Conference Call Minutes
Date: January 22, 2002, 1st Draft

Pastor Tom Lyon sent a letter to Mr. Blackburn concerning Tom Chantry, which
Mr. Blackburn read to the AC, commending Mr. Chantry’s progress in spiritual
restoration, and suggesting that there is no impediment to a future wider
usefulness in the church of Jesus Christ, having completed a course of biblical
counseling recommended by the ARBCA “informal council.” This letter is to be
archived along with the prior findings of the council concerning Mr. Chantry.

Mr. Lindblad noted that in his dealings with Mr. Chantry he has found Mr.
Chantry to be quite forthcoming.

Mr. McKnight recommended that efforts continue to effect a reconciliation

34 Attachment 10 – MVBC elders’ letter dated February 5, 2002.
35 Attachment 11 – Letter from Earl Blackburn dated February 13, 2002.
between Mr. Chantry and the elders of Miller Valley Baptist Church.

Once again we see everything “concerning Mr. Chantry” was archived. It was all
available to any AC over the past 18 years. Everyone knew where to find it.

We also see that “Mr. McKnight recommended that efforts continue to effect a
reconciliation.” Wait a minute. On December 16, 2000, McKnight, Tripp and Jensen
wrote, “The differences between the Elders of the MVBC and Thomas Chanty have
been resolved.” Now on January 22, 2002, he says the elders and Chantry remain
unreconciled.

The ARBCA Announcement to the 2017 General Assembly36

After Mr. Chantry was arrested in July 2016, a few member churches in ARBCA began
to question whether the Membership Committee and the [2015-2016] Administrative
Council conspired to conceal information from member churches in ARBCA and,
specifically, delegates to the 2016 General Assembly. In addition, postings on the
internet began to accuse ARBCA of orchestrating a cover-up of the accusations against
Mr. Chantry during his tenure at MVBC.

Those “postings on the internet” are a reference to my work and the work of Todd
Wilhelm on Thou Art the Man. The fact of a coverup has been proven time and again
with primary source material. The Lord’s opposition will only increase if ARBCA does
not acknowledge the conspiracy and remove the leaders who propagated it.

The [2015-2016] Administrative Council reviewed the information and documentation
available to it at the time, as well as the procedures and discussions involved in the
acceptance of CRBC into membership in ARBCA. Based on that information, the [2016-
2017] Administrative Council made the Announcement to the 2017 General Assembly.
The [2016-2017] Administrative Council did not have access to the documents contained
in the Complete Report of the Informal Council, which are listed under the above
section titled, “Complete Report.” Additionally, the abundance of related documents,
which were acquired by the [2017-2018] Administrative Council after the trial and used
for the preparation of this Part II Report to the churches, was not known to the
members of the [2016-2017] Administrative Council or accessible by them. The
documents contained in the Complete Report were restricted to those persons listed on
the distribution list authorized by Mr. Chantry and the MVBC elders and were not
made available to the [2017-2018] Administrative Council until after the conclusion of
Mr. Chantry’s trial. The related documents obtained by the Administrative Council
were in the custody of persons involved in Mr. Chantry’s trial and were not made
available to the Administrative Council until after the conclusion of the trial. The effect

36 Attachment 12 – ARBCA Announcement to 2017 General Assembly.
of the lack of access to this information on the Announcement to the 2017 General
Assembly is discussed in the section below titled, “Discussion of the ARBCA
Announcement to the 2017 General Assembly.”

This paragraph above is full of lies (and hard to follow). I’ll address two of them. First
this one.

“The [2015-2016] Administrative Council reviewed the information and
documentation available to it at the time … Based on that information, the
[2016-2017] Administrative Council made the Announcement to the 2017
General Assembly. The [2016-2017] Administrative Council did not have access
to the documents contained in the Complete Report of the Informal Council.”

The April 25, 2017, “Announcement to the General Assembly” was summarized thusly.

“In short, there has never been any conspiracy on the part of the Association to
conceal, whether 17-plus years ago or more recently when the church Tom
Chantry served, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Hales Corners, WI, was
received into membership [April 2016] of ARBCA.”

Earl Blackburn was Chairman of the AC in 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. No conspiracy
back then! And guess who was the Chairman of the AC in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018?
You got it. Earl Blackburn. No conspiracy now or ever! And yet, Blackburn is at the
center of the conspiracy.

He has all the documents while claiming his Administrative Council didn’t have access
to the documents! And then he introduces another lie in the form a bogus explanation.
He and the AC don’t have the documents because they were not on the “distribution
list.”

“The documents contained in the Complete Report were restricted to those
persons listed on the distribution list authorized by Mr. Chantry and the MVBC
elders and were not made available to the [2017-2018] Administrative Council
until after the conclusion of Mr. Chantry’s trial.”

As has been proven above, Lindblad had, and gave, Blackburn all of documents in the
Complete Report in 2000 even though both he and Blackburn were NOT on the
“distribution list.” They were not to have these documents “without the expressed
written consent of Tom Chantry and the Elders of the MVBC.” The elders never gave
their consent. No problem, Chantry gave them to Lindblad, who gave them to
Blackburn, who not doubt gave them to others like David Dykstra. And yet, Blackburn
deceives all of ARBCA into believing he did not have the documents because he was
not the distribution list. Rarely have I seen such audacious lying and deceit by men
who make much of their godliness.

This is all an attempt to save ARBCA because “Christ … is using our Reformed Baptist
movement in some truly remarkable and amazing ways.” That comes from Blackburn’s
forward to Chantry’s and Dykstra’s book about Reformed Baptists.

Holding Communion Together: The Reformed Baptists, the First Fifty Years -
Divided & United
Paperback – May 1, 2014
Tom Chantry (Author), David Dykstra (Author), Earl Blackburn (Foreword)

Earl Blackburn closes his Foreword with these words: “Christ is still building
his church, and, believe it or not, he is using our Reformed Baptist movement in
some truly remarkable and amazing ways in this broken world; one eternal
soul at a time, one church at a time. It is our earnest prayer that all, especially
church leaders in every branch of Christendom, might carefully read, mark,
learn, and profit from this book.”

https://www.amazon.com/Holding-Communion-Together-Reformed-
Baptists/dp/1599253453

Of course, Blackburn and Dykstra have to coverup for Chantry. They wrote the book
on ARBCA!

And let me reiterate a point I’ve made in previous articles. ARBCA had access to all the
police reports which laid out the evidence against Chantry way before the trial. I first
brought these reports to their attention in December 2016. That was before the April
2017 announcement to General Assembly of ARBCA pastors. Moreover, Anthony
Battaglia posted all 14 police reports from July 8, 2015 through May 4, 2017 on October
17, 2017. That was nine months before the first Chantry trial began. The 2017-2018 AC
had this hard core police evidence despite their claim of ignorance.

See http://arbca.org/tom-chantry-child-abuse-case/tom-chantry-police-report/ for
police reports.

Analysis

Discussion of the Relevant Events at MVBC During the Period June 1995 to
November 2000

The extreme repetition continues. So do I – sorry!
The documentary information shows that the relationship between Mr. Chantry and the
other MVBC elders, as well as some members of the church, was quite strained. The
accusation that Mr. Chantry struck a child with his fist, only two weeks after beginning
his service as interim pastor, as well as Mr. Chantry’s spanking of a child in November
1995, did not contribute to a healthy relationship with the other elders or some
members of the church.

Totally misleading. It was not a “spanking of a child in November 1995.” It was the
repeated assault of Mark Jones from September - December 1995. Read Mark’s letter
(and four others) to the IC from November 20, 2000 in this article.

Part 2: Walt Chantry, Miller Valley Elders, & ARBCA Officials Knew Tom Chantry Was
a Child Abuser Even Before the 2000 Investigation Began
Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 2:10PM

Mr. Chantry admitted to spanking five children, only four of whom the MVBC elders
were aware until the visit from the Informal Council. Of these five children, the parents
of three of the children and grandparent of one child had given Mr. Chantry permission
to discipline the children. The parents of one child had not given Mr. Chantry
permission to discipline the child, although the parents knew of the spankings for
several months. As early as November 21, 2000, the central issue, which the MVBC
elders identified as sin on the part of Mr. Chantry, was the “inappropriate discipline of
children.”37 The documentary information shows that the MVBC elders were notified
of the first spanking incident in December 1995; and, after several meetings between the
MVBC elders, Mr. Chantry, and the parents, they decided the matter was resolved.
Even after this incident, the MVBC elders recommended Mr. Chantry to the church for
ordination, and the church ordained him in February 1996.

This is another watered down account of what happened. You have to read the five
letters in the article above to understand the gravity of Chantry “spanking five
children” or read the State’s motion to deny bond.

Motion to Hold Chantry Without Bond – Descriptions of Crimes – Redacted
Uploaded by Todd Wilhelm on Sep 13, 2018

9-12-2018 Thomas Chantry has been charged with nine new criminal counts
and is currently jailed in Yavapai County Jail in Verde Valley. He is being held
on a $1 Million cash bond. In this document the State outlines Chantry’s
alleged crimes in detail, arguing that Chantry should be held without bond.

37Private Document 10.
See https://www.scribd.com/document/388479059/Motion-to-Hold-Chantry-
Without-Bond-Description-of-Crimes-Redacted.

The dilution continues.

Although no other spankings were reported to the MVBC elders until October 2000, Mr.
Chantry had spanked other children during the period 1998 – 2000. Neither Mr.
Chantry nor the parents reported these incidents to the other MVBC elders until
October 2000. The children in the first spanking incident of 1998 and the last spanking
incident both reported “bare bottomed” spankings which Mr. Chantry denied.

In all of the incidents, the MVBC elders continued to support Mr. Chantry. In October
and November 2000, the MVBC elders took actions and made plans to work with the
members of the church and Mr. Chantry in order, in their view, to strive to bring about
repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation with a view towards enabling Mr. Chantry
to continue as pastor of MVBC.

This leave out a lot. Chantry was put on probation and under church discipline. This
was conveyed to MVBC at a special meeting on November 8, 2000. Here is an excerpt
from the minutes.

“Eric Owens discussed our duty in Church Discipline and discussed what our
church constitution has to say about it. … Rich [Howe] shared with the body
the reasons for the Church Discipline of Pastor Tom. The reasons being
wrongful discipline of children and spiritual pride. The Elders also shared their
recommendation, for Tom, which was a 30 day probation period. … The Elders
and body would meet again on December 6th after a day of fasting and prayer.
The body and Elders would re-visit the issues, and if there was evidence of true
repentance and reformation by Pastor Tom then they would consider the
following:
1. The necessity of dismissal.
2. The need for more time.
3. Complete restoration.”

Instead of going through this process, Chantry abruptly resigned before the November
8 meeting and flew to Seattle two days later to be with Don Lindblad. There was no
evidence of repentance or reformation, only rebellion.

The MVBC elders met several times with Mr. Chantry, after the first spanking incident
in December 1995, and eventually considered the matter resolved. The documentary
information does not record any assessment by the MVBC elders of Mr. Chantry in
relation to this incident or any of the content of their conversations with Mr. Chantry.
Nor does the documentary information provide any insight into the MVBC elders’
characterization of the spanking.

This is technically true but not the whole story. When you investigate you always look
for incriminating evidence that is left out and thereby concealed. Luke Jones was a lay
elder in 1995 when Chantry repeatedly beat his son. This was not fully known at the
time. Luke did not write about it in 1995 but he and his wife did write about it in letters
to the Informal Council in November 2000. This is omitted by the AC.

However, by November 21, 2000, after the MVBC elders became aware of the spanking
incidents with three other children, they had arrived at the conclusion that the
spankings “would be considered child abuse and could be subject to prosecution.”38

This conclusion was conveyed to the Informal Council and other ARBCA officials like
Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, Bob Selph, Steve Martin, and Don Lindblad, A score of
people knew Chantry was a child abuser even before the IC investigation began. This is
all covered in Part 2: Walt Chantry, Miller Valley Elders, & ARBCA Officials Knew Tom
Chantry Was a Child Abuser Even Before the 2000 Investigation Began.

Neither the parents of the children nor the MVBC elders reported the spanking
incidents to the police. According to a motion filed by Mr. Chantry’s attorney on June
18, 2017, the MVBC elders were “mandatory reporters under Arizona law.”39 This
motion also asserts that the members of the Informal Council were mandatory reporters
under Arizona law. There is no documentary information that indicates whether or not
the MVBC elders or the members of the Informal Council were aware of the actual law
involved or of their status as mandatory reporters.

Did you read Footnote 39? The AC is trying to pull a fast one.

“Superior Court for State of Arizona, Yavapai County, Document
P1300CR201600966. This document is not currently available in the
Administrative Council’s documentary files.”

“Not currently available…in the files.” Why’s that? Is it available otherwise? Like
outside of the AC’s documentary files? Are you claiming you don’t know what is in the
document?

These men are playing games. This document is a transcript of Chantry’s lawyer, John
Sears at an Evidentiary Hearing on November 8, 2017. It was made public on April 10,
2018. Here’s an excerpt. It explains why it’s not in the official files! Underlining is

38Private Document 10.
39Superior Court for State of Arizona, Yavapai County, Document P1300CR201600966. This document is
not currently available in the Administrative Council’s documentary files.
mine.

Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings
Evidentiary Hearing / Oral Argument
November 8, 2017

I [John Sears] think the law is unequivocal that clergy are mandatory reporters
in the stature. It doesn’t define clergy in any particular way. It doesn’t say
Arizona clergy. One easy argument is all of the people in the church council,
the elders who perform the function of clergy in a reformed Baptist church in
Prescott, Arizona are clergy in the statue; and all of the clergy members that
were brought in by others to serve as a church council are mandatory reports in
Arizona, whether they know that or not.”

The law is unequivocal (i.e., it leaves no doubt) – McKnight, Tripp and Jensen were
mandatory reporters in Arizona. So were the lay elders in MVBC.

John Sears makes the same argument in another court document made public five
months earlier. I’m sure it isn’t in the AC’s official files either – by design – to avoid
legal liability.

You can find it here. https://www.scribd.com/document/396172311/Motion-Dismiss-
Counts-Six-Seven-and-Eight

Here’s an excerpt.

Motion to Dismiss Counts Six, Seven and Eight as Barred by the Statute of
Limitations and to Declare A.R.S. 13-107(D) Unconstitutional
June 18, 2017

Here, the events in the three separate counts involving allegations of
aggravated assault on a child under the age of fifteen are said to have taken
place between July, 1995 and May, 2000. In late 2000, these same allegations
were part of a church-led investigation that included two Elders of the Miller
Valley Baptist Church, Richard Howe and Eric Owens. Both of them were
considered “clergy” at the time in that particular church, making them
mandatory reporters under Arizona law. In addition, the members of the
“church council” convened to conduct this investigation in Arizona were
likewise clergy under the law. The relevant statute provides, in pertinent part:

“Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the
victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or
neglect that appears to have been inflicted… shall immediately report
or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer, [or] to
the department of child safety,… Persons means…any peace officer,
child welfare investigator, child safety worker, member of clergy,
priest or christian science practitioner.”

Accordingly, mandatory reporters like clergy become agents of the State to
make sure that crimes against children get reported. They have the same role
as a police office in that regard, which is to receive the information and pass it
along for investigation and possible criminal charges. Therefore, when the
mandatory reporters (including the out of state clergy called in to investigate
the allegations) failed to act, the statute still began to run. The clergy may not
refuse to report, just like a police officer may not refuse to take a report from a
citizen. In fact, it is a crime for a mandatory reporter to fail to report.

I will cover the issue of not reporting by the parents, MVBC elders, the IC, and ARBCA
in a future article. Succinctly, the parents were discouraged from reporting and
encouraged to let ARBCA handle the matter internally. The MVBC elders did not know
they were mandatory reporters. Eric Owens told me at the July-August 2018 Chantry
trial, he would have reported had he known. And as soon as senior pastor, Chris
Marley learned he was a mandatory reporter in July 2015, he reported to Detective
Jessica Barnard-Belling. In contrast, I have no doubt McKnight, Tripp and Jensen knew
they were mandatory reporters. They were experts in the law. They are guilty of a
Class 6 felony in Arizona whether they know it or not!

I also find this statement by the ad hoc committee silly.

“There is no documentary information that indicates whether or not … the
members of the Informal Council were aware of the actual law involved or of
their status as mandatory reporters.”

I guess it never dawned on ad hoc committee comprised of Steve Marquedant, Dale
Crawford, and Jeff Massey to ask Rich Jensen, the distinguished homicide detective
trained by the FBI, whether he was obligated to report a known child abuser like
Chantry to law enforcement! Jensen remains an ARBCA pastor. The ad hoc committee
and current AC don’t want an answer to this simple question, especially in print; just
like they don’t want important documents about mandatory reporting available in their
files.

Importantly, there is no documentary information that shows that the MVBC elders
asked the parents not to report the incidents or that the MVBC elders advised the
parents that they could or should report the incidents. The totality of the documentary
record shows that the MVBC elders, as well as the members of the church, wanted Mr.
Chantry to repent, to be forgiven, and to serve as the pastor of MVBC. There is no
information to indicate that the MVBC elders and/or the church members conspired to
violate the law. The recorded actions show a corporate focus on spiritual concerns for
the church and for Mr. Chantry.

The MVBC elders and members did not conspire to violate the law but the Informal
Council and Administrative Council did. I will address this further in a future article.

Discussion of the Formation, Mission, and Conduct of the Informal Council

Discussion of the Formation of the Informal Council

In December 2000, ARBCA was only three years old as an organization. While a
Constitution and Policy Manual existed, these documents had been prepared with little
or no experience in associational life by the original member churches. That being so,
these documents were not informed by robust experience and, in some sections, lacked
provisions or delineated less-than-thorough procedures and guidelines. This analysis
of the formation of the Informal Council considers the implications of the conditions of
ARBCA’s governing documents in 2000.

Getting ready for the spin.

The AC trashes the 2000 Constitution BUT it is identical to the 2018 Constitution in all
respects pertaining to the grounds for authorizing “the formation of the Informal
Council.” The deception is unending.

The documentary information shows that Mr. Walter Chantry asked for a “Council” to
be sent to MVBC; that, at some point, Mr. Selph called the MVBC elders and they
agreed to a “Council”, and that the MVBC elders “began to pursue an ARBCA Church
Council” on November 20, 2000. The record shows that seven days later they requested
Mr. Selph to organize “an informal church council”; and, on December 5, 2000, the
Administrative Council appointed a “fact finding committee.” The minutes of the
December 5, 2000, Administrative Council meeting state only that “There is a remaining
conflict between Mr. Chantry and the elders.” The minutes do not indicate there was
any discussion of the specifics of the conflict or the problems at MVBC. Additionally,
several of the Administrative Council members who held office in 2000 stated in
interviews that there was no discussion of the specifics of the circumstances at MVBC
involving Mr. Chantry at the time the decision was made to send a “fact finding
committee” to MVBC.

The ARBCA Constitution makes no provision for a Church Council, an informal
council, or a fact-finding committee to be established in this way. Article V, paragraph
D of the ARBCA Constitution states only, “The Association will follow the procedures
outlined in the (LBCF 1689) chapter 26.” The ARBCA Policy Manual at the time
contained no mention of a Church Council nor any guidelines for a Church Council.

The spin continues.

People need to read the Constitution (http://arbca.com/arbca-constitution). “Article
V, paragraph D of the ARBCA Constitution” ALSO states,

“In difficult matters, member churches ought to be willing to seek and to
receive the counsel of sister congregations and be willing to give counsel when
requested. The Association will follow the procedures outlined in the London
Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, chapter 26. Details of specific cases brought to
the Association shall be published only as far as is necessary in the judgement
of the Association. Failure to exhibit the expectations of this article will be a
concern to the Association and, in extreme cases, may constitute grounds of
removal from the Association.”

This is exactly what MVBC did in the difficult matter of Tom Chantry. They sought and
received “the counsel of sister congregations” at the suggestion of Earl Blackburn,
David Dykstra, Bob Selph, Steve Martin and Don Lindblad. The men on the IC were
from three sister congregations.

ARBCA claims it has no authority over churches or pastors but when the Constitution is
not followed “in extreme cases” it “may constitute grounds of removal from the
Association.”

People need to read Article III., IV., and V. in the Constitution for themselves and not
accept the presentation and interpretation of the Constitution in this report. ARBCA
has far more authority than people realize. Here are a few excerpts.

III. The Authority of the Association

A. Source of Authority

The Association exists by virtue of the corporate authority of its local churches.

B. Limitation of Authority

2. The Association has authority to determine whether its commendation shall
be given to or withheld from an applicant church. It also has power to
withdraw commendation from a member church. The Association cannot take
anything from a local church but that which it gives to the church, namely, its
conscientious commendation
3. The Association may not interfere with the affairs of its member churches.
The Association will only offer advice to a member church when requested to
do so by a majority of duly elected officers, or by congregational request made
in accordance with a church’s own constitution or by-laws. When requested by
a church, the Association will give advice to the church but has no power to
enforce its judgment. The Association will not respond to the requests of
individuals or groups within churches unless brought through a member
church.

IV. Membership in the Association

D. Termination of membership from the Association.

2. By Exclusion

a. The Association may exclude a church from its membership. Such action
should be taken when one of the following persists in marking a church or its
officers [i.e., Tom Chantry]:

1. Deviation from the doctrinal standards of the Association.

2. Unrighteous behavior. [i.e., child abuse]

V. The Privileges and Duties of Member Churches of the Association

A. The Commendation of Churches in the Association.

Each member church enjoys the privilege of being recognized and commended
by the Association as a true and orderly church of Jesus Christ. Therefore, each
member church must be committed to promoting the peace and good name of
every other member church.

B. The Communion of Churches in the Association.

Fellowship requires a willingness to communicate to officers of sister churches
any information concerning their church’s actions which becomes of legitimate
interest to other congregations.

D. The Counsel of Churches in the Association
In difficult matters, member churches ought to be willing to seek and to receive
the counsel of sister congregations and be willing to give counsel when
requested. The Association will follow the procedures outlined in the (LBCF
1689) chapter 26.

Details of specific cases brought to the Association shall be published only as
far as is necessary in the judgment of the Association.

Failure to exhibit the expectations of this article will be a concern to the
Association and, in extreme cases, may constitute grounds for removal from the
Association.

In submission to the Constitution, the MVBC elders were willing “to communicate to
officers [pastors/elders] of sister churches” [McKnight, Tripp, Jensen] their “actions”
concerning Tom Chantry. That is why the Informal Council was set up by the
Administrative Council.

It is so deceptive of the current AC to keep this vital information out of their AC Report
– Part II.

The significance of this review of ARBCA’s Constitution and Policy Manual is that
neither the Administrative Council nor any other committee nor any other person
possessed organizational authority to appoint such a Church Council, Informal Council,
or fact-finding committee. Not even a General Assembly could appoint such a Council
without the issue being first presented to the General Assembly and discussed, and a
determination made by the General Assembly that such a Council was necessary. The
ARBCA Constitution stipulated that, “The Association will follow the procedures
outlined in the [LBCF 1689] chapter 26” when responding to situations in which
member churches requested counsel. The procedures in LBCF 1689, Chapter 26,
paragraph 15, do not describe any procedure comparable to a Church Council.
Regardless of the manner in which those procedures were implemented in the
seventeenth century, it is impossible to reasonably conclude that the process
undertaken in 2000 fits with what is described in the constitution and the confession.

This is a brand new position for ARBCA and contrary to what the Administrative
Council argued in December 2000 and what the Administrative Council affirmed in
April 2017 in their “ARBCA Announcement Concerning Tom Chantry” to the General
Assembly of ARBCA pastors.

“When difficulties between the church and their pastor surfaced, both the
elders and Mr. Chantry agreed to an investigative council from ARBCA. …
These men met with all parties over a period of four days in December 2000 and
brought recommendations to all parties. … The Association pursued the matter
with due diligence and a process was followed that conformed to biblical,
confessional, and constitutional parameters.”

The entire 2016-2017 Administrative Council told all the pastors at the General
Assembly that they “pursued the matter with due diligence” and followed a process
that conformed to the Bible, the London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, and the
ARBCA Constitution.

Therefore, the foundational authority for providing counsel to a church was breached in
the case of the MVBC Informal Council. Consequently, no line of authority existed to
legitimize the Informal Council; provide oversight of the selection of the Informal
Council members; provide definitive guidance, instruction, and supervision; and insure
the results reflected conformity to paragraph 15. Paragraph 15 states:

In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or
administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any
one church, in their peace, union, and edification; or any member or members
of any church are injured, in or by any proceedings in censures not agreeable to
truth and order: it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches
holding communion together, do, by their messengers, meet to consider, and
give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the
churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not entrusted
with any church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the
churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or
persons; or to impose their determination on the churches or officers.40

The current Administrative Council is doing all in their power to avoid a lawsuit by
making this argument. It would not hold up in court. This interpretation is foreign to
the historic interpretation of paragraph 15 found in the London Baptist Confession of
Faith 1689 in ARBCA.

One of the major requirements of the Confession in such cases is that “many churches
holding communion together, do, by their messengers, meet to consider, and give their
advice in or about that matter in difference.” The language provides that “messengers”
at a convened assembly do this work, not simply a small group of men who are not
actually representing churches.

Finally, while the members of the Informal Council were highly qualified, godly men of
impeccable character, the selection of Mr. Mike McKnight to serve on the Informal
Council strains the boundaries of good judgment. Mr. McKnight did not select himself,
so he is not responsible for the selection. The fact that, at the time, he was an elder of

40 2LBC, Chapter 26, paragraph 15.
Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where Mr. Chantry’s father, Mr. Walter
Chantry, served as Senior Pastor, placed Mr. McKnight in an extremely complicated
position. His membership on the Informal Council could certainly have had negative
effects on the elders and members of MVBC. Moreover, his service on the Informal
Council left open a door for accusations of partiality. To Mr. McKnight’s credit, the
documentary record clearly shows that he led the members of the Informal Council to
do their work professionally, thoroughly, and objectively, with the purpose of helping
the church and calling Mr. Chantry to repentance.

The current AC doesn’t reference the letter from Tom Chantry to Bob Selph requesting
Mike McKnight be on the Informal Council. His “membership on the Informal
Council” as Chairman certainly did have a negative effect on the elders, victims, their
families, and church members. He was under the control of Walt Chantry and others.
Furthermore, all the men on the IC were partial to the interests of Tom Chantry and
ARBCA as is evident in their words and actions. I will address this in a future article.
None of them did “their work professionally, thoroughly, and objectively.” If they had,
Chantry would have been reported, prosecuted, found guilty and sent to prison for life;
and all the victims and families would have received help. Instead, the victims and
families were abandoned by the Informal Council; Bob Selph, their former pastor and
the ARBCA Coordinator; and the Administrative Council.

Discussion of the Mission of the Informal Council

Neither the ARBCA Constitution nor the Policy Manual provided any instructions,
guidelines, or procedures for a Church Council in December 2000. The current
“Guidelines for Forming and Conducting a Church Council” contained in the Policy
Manual were not incorporated into policy until sometime after May 2002.
Consequently, no authorized general mission or approved system of defining the
mission of a Church Council existed in December 2000. Obviously, no procedures or
requirements existed for a Church Council at that time either. Thus, the Informal
Council suffered from a lack of well-thought, well-developed, and well-planned
regulation and oversight.

Total nonsense.

While Mr. Selph writes that “the Chairman [David Dykstra] of the ARBCA Membership
Committee, wrote a letter to the [Informal] Council stating that their “goals should be
to: (1) Find out the facts through careful interviews; (2) Make recommendations to the
parties involved; and (3) Summarize your findings and recommendations in a written
document you all can sign,” the Administrative Council’s search of Administrative
Council records, Membership Committee records, and the Complete File of the
Informal Council did not produce that statement. The failure to find the statement in
the documentary record is not a challenge to Mr. Selph’s veracity; it only indicates a
search was made for the statement without results. However, the fact is that the
Membership Committee Chairman [Dykstra] possessed no constitutional authority or
policy mandate to issue such a statement, and the statement did not flow from a
carefully considered policy construct that should have provided a Church Council with
the tools and guidance to function.

Consequently, these instructions, assuming they were issued, failed to circumscribe the
conduct of the Informal Council within the parameters of the provisions of the
Confession for providing counsel to churches.

This is another whopper of a lie! Honestly, the ad hoc committee and current AC must
think the people and pastors in ARBCA are stupid! No one can find the letter from
David Dykstra to Bob Selph regarding his directives for the Informal Council! The
current AC has looked everywhere! No sign of it anywhere! Give me a break!

Did the AC ever think to ask Dykstra or Selph for a copy of the letter? Or do they think
Selph was quoting from an 18 year old memory of Dykstra’s letter? Or did they even
bother to ask Dykstra if the words quoted by Selph are his own? No. Or if they did,
they are not telling.

In fact, the AC even questions whether the instructions given by Dykstra to the IC exist
when they say, “These instructions, assuming they were issued.” Maybe Selph made
them up!

Dykstra is a long time power broker in ARBCA. For example, he was on the AC in
2016-2107 and 2017-2018 when Blackburn was Chairman. They are protecting him and
ARBCA in the process. Of course, Dykstra has a copy of his letter. And let’s bear in
mind, Dykstra has been defending Chantry innocence from the beginning. He was
even at the July-August 2018 trial supporting Chantry’s diabolical defense comprised
solely of lying. He sat across the aisle from me.

Well, what all the most powerful men in ARBCA could not find, this outsider did find.
Here is Dykstra’s letter. Notice how carefully and extensively he argues for the
legitimacy of the Informal Council by quoting from the Constitution and contrast that
with AC critique above, “The statement [by Dykstra] did not flow from a carefully
considered policy construct.” Yes it did.

Dykstra’s position has been the historic position of ARBCA. The current AC is re-
writing history. Remember, Dykstra was on the 2000-2001 AC and Chairman of the MC
when he wrote Selph. This letter would have been shared with Earl Blackburn and
others. Below is a typed up copy. You can find the original at this link.

https://www.scribd.com/document/395896475/Don-Lindblad-Report-for-Earl-
Blackburn-on-the-Informal-Council-Regarding-Tom-Chantry-Redacted

Reformed Baptist Church of Lafayette
28 Meadows Road
Lafayette, New Jersey 07848
973-579-3067
FAX – 973-579-6095

December 6, 2000

Dear Brethren,

Bob Selph asked if I would write to provide some guidance for your scheduled trip
to Arizona next week. He did so because the membership committee of our association
has as part of its responsibilities, the duty of making sure that member churches comply
with the standards of the association, namely our Confession of Faith and Constitution.

Let me being [begin] by saying that I cannot think of a better group of men to assist
in this situation. I believe you will be fair and impartial in your interviews and
conclusions. The elders at Miller Valley have asked for assistance of this kind, and on
our most recent administrative council conference call, the council approved of your
trip. Tom Chantry has also approved of your assistance.

Our Confession of Faith deals with your duties in chapter 26 paragraph 15. Our
Constitution’s relevant material is found particularly in Article III and Article V. When
a church becomes a member in the Association it opens itself to the scrutiny of the
member churches who must be able to give or retract their conscientious
commendation. Article III, paragraph B, #2 states: “The Association has authority to
determine whether its commendation shall be given to or withheld from an applicant
church. It also has power to withdraw commendation from a member church. The
Association cannot take anything from a local church but that which is [it] gives to the
church, namely, its conscientious commendation.” Article V, paragraph B states: “It is
expected that member churches will communicate and pray for each other regularly,
will send messengers to General Assembly, and will enter the fellowship of Association
gatherings. Fellowship requires a willingness to communicate to officers of sister churches any
information concerning their church’s actions which becomes of legitimate interest to other
congregations” (emphasis mine). Paragraph D of Article V states, “In difficult matters,
member churches ought to be willing to seek and to receive the counsel of sister
congregations and be willing to give counsel when requested. The Association will
follow the procedures outlined in the London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, chapter
26. Details of specific cases brought to the Association shall be published only as far as
is necessary in the judgement of the Association. Failure to exhibit the expectations of
this article will be a concern to the Association and, in extreme cases, may constitute
grounds of removal from the Association.”

Hopefully, your group will be able to provide enough assistance to the brethren so
that no further action is needed. I believe that your goals should be to: (1) Find out the
facts through careful interviews. (2) Make recommendations to the parties involved,
and (3) Summarize your findings and recommendations in a written document you all
can sign.

Hopefully the honor of Miller Valley’s elders will be maintained and Tom will be
able to have a future in the ministry. Be assured of our earnest prayers for your attempt
to assist our brethren.

Yours in Christ,

David Dykstra

Discussion of the Conduct of the Informal Council.

Throughout the work of the Informal Council, the council members expressed their
deep concern for the children and families involved and met with them to discuss their
options, including reporting the spankings to law enforcement. One of the members of
the Informal Council was a retired detective and advised each family that they had the
right to report the spankings to law enforcement. The Informal Council also provided a
separate report of recommendations for each family.

I will address the issue of not reporting in a future article. This favorable assessment of
“retired detective” Rich Jensen does not agree with the information I’ve been provided.
Furthermore, it was woefully inadequate to advise the families “they had the right to
report.” He should have exhorted them to report and helped them to report. And if
they were not willing, then he had an obligation to report himself. Every cop in
America knows that!

As discussed previously, in the section titled, “The Formation and Conduct of the
Informal Council,” the Informal Council conducted interviews with everyone
concerned, gathered information, made recommendations to the MVBC elders and Mr.
Chantry, and prepared reports.

The documentary information shows that the members of the Informal Council
identified “issues of personal sin”41 on the part of Mr. Chantry, errors on the part of the

41Attachment 3. [Confidential Report and Recommendations of the Informal Council of the Association
of Reformed Baptist Churches of America]
MVBC elders, and error on the part of Mr. Walter Chantry. The Informal Council
prepared reports and recommendations that addressed all of these issues.

The Level 1 Report and the Level 2 Report will be discussed below. However, in
relation to the overall conduct of the Informal Council, the reports show a therapeutic
approach42 to addressing the sin issues identified by the MVBC elders and the Informal
Council, versus a strictly biblical approach to handling sin on the part of an elder. The
ultimate purpose of the Informal Council was to assist the MVBC elders and members
of MVBC in establishing peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation within the body of the
church. The only way to attempt to do that biblically is to address the sin issues
involved in the context of MVBC, the local church. Although Mr. Chantry had resigned
his position as pastor, he remained a member of MVBC. Rather than advise the MVBC
elders to proceed with church discipline and rebuke Mr. Chantry publicly, if
appropriate, as delineated in Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Timothy 5:20, the Informal
Council recommended a program whereby Mr. Chantry would transfer his
membership to another church. Then, in the context of the new church where he had
not sinned, his sin was somehow supposed to be dealt with satisfactorily, and he was to
be called to repentance through a process of elder oversight and professional
counseling, in the absence of his accusers. Such an arrangement was devoid of the
privilege and benefits of church discipline in which a man is called to repentance or
exonerated and, consequently, could do nothing to resolve the effects of the sins, as
understood by the Informal Council, on the people of MVBC. Only a biblical approach
to dealing with the sin in the context of the church in which the sin was committed
could offer the prospect of the work of the Holy Spirit and Scripture to produce the
peace, forgiveness, reconciliation, and repentance the circumstances demanded.

The AC criticizes the IC for taking “a therapeutic approach” which they define in the
footnote as “A plan designed to address behavioral problems from a treatment
perspective employing psychological counseling often combined with special living
arrangements or work settings as well as coaching and accountability.” This is not what
the IC did.

They also say, “He was to be called to repentance through a process…of professional
counseling” but the counseling he received is always referred to as “Biblical
Counseling” in contrast to professional counseling. For example, Recommendation 5 in
“Report, Conclusions and Recommendations.”

“That Thomas Chantry undergo Biblical Counseling with a counselor trained to
deal with the issues presented by a case of improper physical discipline and

42A plan designed to address behavioral problems from a treatment perspective employing psychological
counseling often combined with special living arrangements or work settings as well as coaching and
accountability.
inappropriate anger. The counseling process will be subject to the Elders who
assume oversight of Thomas Chantry.”

Most importantly, they are totally wrong about Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick, the
pastors at Providence Reformed Baptist Church, not being able to exercise church
discipline if necessary for Chantry’s unrepentant abuse of children and failure to obey
the binding “recommendations.” The AC even claims, “Such an arrangement…could
do nothing to resolve the effects of the sins, as understood by the Informal Council, on
the people of MVBC.” How absurd. Lyon and McCormick could easily have worked
with the IC members and the MVBC elders and members in addressing Chantry.

This therapeutic approach to solving the spiritual problems in the church and with Mr.
Chantry cannot be divorced from the fact that no constitutional and policy provisions
existed to establish authority, direction, oversight, assistance, and evaluation to the
Informal Council. The apparent lack of any discussion, by the Administrative Council
prior to commissioning the Informal Council, of the specifics about the spanking of
children and the issues of conflict between the MVBC elders and Mr. Chantry, also
contributed substantially to the Informal Council developing this therapeutic approach
independently. This approach spawned tragic misunderstandings, a less than
beneficial relationship between MVBC and PRBC, and a failure of the Association to
fulfill one of its fundamental functions, which is to give advice about a matter of
difference between churches.

They keep pushing “this therapeutic approach” and “no constitutional and policy
provisions” to invalidate the Informal Council which the Administrative Council
appointed and directed and from whom they required findings and reports in keeping
with the ARBBCA Constitution and LBCF. The AC is desperate and it is not working!

The AC also promotes this misleading piece of deception.

“The apparent lack of any discussion, by the Administrative Council prior to
commissioning the Informal Council, of the specifics about the spanking of
children and the issues of conflict between the MVBC elders and Mr. Chantry.”

It is possible the ENTIRE Administrative Council didn’t discuss “the specifics about the
spanking of children and the issues of conflict” but we know for a fact MANY of them
did. For instance, Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, John Giarrizzo, Don Lindblad, Steve
Martin, Mike McKnight and Bob Selph. All of these men knew about the specifics
surrounding Chantry’s child abuse and the issues of conflict.

Here is another antidotal piece of evidence. It comes from the MVBC timeline the
elders sent to the IC. “Several pastors” from ARBCA “counseled [Chantry] … to
resign.” More precisely, four out of five. I can’t imagine they did not know about the
charges of child abuse against Chantry.

Timeline
Nov 8, 2000
Elders meet with Tom at 12 noon. Tom hands them his letter of resignation.
The meeting lasts no more than 15 minutes. Tom informs the elders that he has
been counseled by several pastors to resign.
Tom spends the evening in Gilbert, AZ with Pastor John Giarrizzo.
All-church meeting begins at 6:30. Elders inform the body of the original intent
of the meeting, then announce that Tom has resigned.

Special Meeting [Minutes]
November 8, 2000

Pastor Tom responded with his letter or resignation, with no discussion, and
would not give the Elders a reason why. But that he had spoke to 5 pastors, 4
of which advised him to resign, based on what he had told them.

They must have been asking questions of others after they spoke to Chantry and in the
subsequent weeks, months, or even years.

Discussion of the Confidential Report – Level 1 Report

The Level 1 Report was included only in the Complete Report, as discussed above,
under the section titled, “The Informal Council’s Reports.” This Level 1 Report shows
that the members of the Informal Council believed Mr. Chantry was guilty of
unrepentant sin. Additionally, they postulated, in writing, that Mr. Chantry might have
used “this method of punishment for his own pleasure.”43 However, they offer no
insight or reasoning as to their basis for such a statement.

Totally untrue! They do offer “insight” and “reasoning as to their basis for such a
statement.” That is why people must read the source documents. The IC concern for
sadism was based on the fact that he continuously spanked for no reason at all except
his wicked pleasure.

“This Informal Council firmly believes that Thomas Chantry used physical
punishment as a regular part of the tutoring process with each of the children.
The inability of Thomas Chantry to provide any details of willful misconduct
by any of the children does raise serious concerns with this Informal Council. It
should be noted that all of the parties agreed that none of the four children had

43Attachment 3. [Confidential Report and Recommendations of the Informal Council of the Association
of Reformed Baptist Churches of America}
any previous serious experiences with misbehavior in their respective schools,
or in their homes, or at the Miller Valley Baptist Church. The Informal Council
members consider this pattern of behavior to be very serious. Taken in its
entirety, the question must be raised, did Thomas Chantry use this method of
punishment for his own pleasure?

In the third paragraph of section III.5. of this Level 1 Report, the Informal Council
recommends that “. . . the priority in dealing with Tom should not be placed on
returning him to ministry, but in dealing with the issues of personal sin and coming to
complete and sincere repentance. This is important for Tom as well as the young
children he spanked.” However, although Mr. Chantry preached at PRBC within eight
months after he became a member of PRBC,44 no steps were taken to seek the
reconciliation contemplated by this recommendation.

Chantry arrived in December 2000. He became a member in February 2001. He
regularly preached starting in September 2001. He had four sessions with CCEF
counselor in November/December 2001. He was totally vindicated by Tom Lyon and
Mark McCormick in January 2002.

Simply the existence of a “Confidential Report” confirms that information was
restricted and not provided to all member churches of the Association. Nevertheless,
this report contained opinions, unsubstantiated charges, and allegations against the
MVBC elders, Mr. Thomas J. Chantry, and Mr. Walter Chantry that could not have been
published and should not have been published.

“Information was restricted” because of the coverup. Don Lindblad and Chantry’s
lawyer, John Sears, did everything in their power to illegally hide this document from
the Yavapai County Deputy Attorney, Susan Eazer. It should have been disclosed.

The AC says it “contained opinions, unsubstantiated charges, and allegations.” That is
a total mischaracterization of the document. It contained factual information based
upon the evidence discovered in their investigation that resulted in recommendations
that were accepted by all.

Again, the lack of constitutional and policy provisions governing this Informal Council
proved deleterious to its work.

What “proved deleterious to its work” was all the corruption that followed the work
and continues to this day! This is a fatal (and deceptive) misdiagnosis of the problem.

Discussion of the Report, Conclusions, and Recommendations – Level 2 Report

44 Attachment 10 [MVBC elders’ letter dated February 5, 2002]
When the Administrative Council researched and drafted Part I of its report to the
churches regarding this matter, the Council determined the Level 2 Report was
distributed only in the Complete Report packet and not available to the Administrative
Council in 2001. The further research for Part II revealed that the Level 2 Report of the
Informal Council might have been provided to the Administrative Council in 2001.
During the research for Part I, the Level 2 Report was not attached to the January 4,
2001, AC Meeting Minutes that referenced the Level 2 Report as a “middle level report”.
However, these Meeting Minutes state that the “reports will be distributed”;
subsequent AC Meeting Minutes do not document the receipt of the Level 2 Report by
the members of the Administrative Council. Additionally, various members of the 2001
Administrative Council did not recall seeing the Level 2 Report. Consequently, in the
Part I Report, the Administrative Council concluded that the 2001 Administrative
Council had not received it. Although none of the 2001 Administrative Council
members recalled seeing the Level 2 Report, Mr. Selph’s report45 provided testimonial
support for the possibility that the Administrative Council did receive this report. This
Level 2 Report was not available to the Administrative Council in 2015-2017, and there
is no indication that it was distributed or available to members of Administrative
Councils subsequent to 2001.

“None of the 2001 AC members recalled seeing the Level 2 Report.” Laugh out loud!
Holy shmoly! Jumping Jehoshaphat! Add your own acclamation of shock. Not even
Mike McKnight!

But wait a minute, he headed up the writing of the Level 2 Report as Chairman of the
Informal Council AND was on the 2000-2001 Administrative Council. I guess he never
saw (let alone read) the report he produced. Bob Selph was also on the AC and was
given a copy of the report he filed in the ARBCA offices since he was the ARBCA
Coordinator. Maybe he did this with the help of a seeing eye dog since he never saw
the report. I didn’t know Bob was blind!

In fact, the 2000-2001 AC must be full of blind men. Earl Blackburn (who was given the
report), David Dykstra (who requested the report) and Don Lindblad (who passed on
the report) were also on the 2000-2001 AC. So was John Giarrizzo. He was given the
report by Chris Marley in late 2015 or early 2016. Somehow all these men had the
report but they did not see the report! That’s a miracle. I thought ARBCA was
committed to cessationism.

But there is another possible explanation. “None of the 2001 AC members recalled
seeing the Level 2 Report.” Maybe they aren’t’ blind. Maybe they are amnesiacs
suffering from a total loss of memory!

45 Attachment 5. [Mr. Selph’s report is not part of this attachment.]
They also assert, “This Level 2 Report was not available to the Administrative Council
in 2015-2017.” No, I was wrong. The problem is not blindness or amnesia, it is systemic
lying. That is the root problem in ARBCA. It has practically leavened the whole lump.

In this report, the Informal Council provides a structure for Mr. Chantry to withdraw
his charges against the MVBC elders and for the MVBC elders to withdraw church
discipline from Mr. Chantry. As addressed under the subsection above titled,
“Discussion of the Conduct of the Informal Council,” these provisions appear to have
set aside the need to deal with sin in the context of the local church, MVBC, where the
sin was committed. The end result is that the goal of the Informal Council, to bring
about repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation, was not accomplished and remains
unaccomplished eighteen years later.

Not at all the case. Lyon and McCormick were to address the sin issues. They covered
up for Chantry. Lyon is only referred to by name one time in this report. He is the
main culprit. And since Chantry is still a member is good standing in an ARBCA
church (i.e., Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Hales Corner, IW) maybe the AC could
do something about it! Correction. They just shut down the church last Sunday (Dec.
16). Wait, I thought ARBCA was going to help them prosper if Chantry was found
guilty! How could that happen? Now I wonder if the proceeds of sale of their church
bldg. (approximately 500k) will be given to ARBCA.

The report makes ten recommendations. Seven of those recommendations describe
actions the Informal Council recommended for Mr. Chantry. Recommendations 7 and 8
must be interpreted in light of the Level 1 Report, in which the members of the Informal
Council declared their strong beliefs that Mr. Chantry had not admitted all of his sin
and, therefore, had not sought “full repentance and the forgiveness from each of the
four children and their parents.”46 Recommendation 7 of the Level 2 Report reiterates
these strong beliefs of the Informal Council, “That there still remain serious factual
differences between Thomas Chantry and the four children he disciplined during his
ministry at Miller Valley.”47 This means that either Mr. Chantry was lying or the four
children were lying. Therefore, the elders of PRBC, who were to receive Mr. Chantry
into membership and provide oversight to him, were charged with a seemingly
unattainable task. They had to get Mr. Chantry to admit sin he had not yet admitted, or
to somehow get the children to admit that they were lying, and then bring about
repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation with the members of another church, MVBC.

The AC is making excuses for Lyon and McCormick. It was not “a seemingly
unattainable task.” But here’s the point, they didn’t even try. They did nothing. All

46 Attachment 1.
47 Attachment 1.
they did was find a 28 or 29 year old counselor who did four sessions with Chantry and
then wrote a whitewashed report that didn’t even address the most serious issue of
punishing for pleasure. He intentionally ignored it contrary to the binding agreement.

This AC also conveys a moral equivalence between Chantry and the four children. That
is despicable. “Either Mr. Chantry was lying or the four children were lying.” Why
don’t they reference the perspective of the Informal Council?

“With one mind, the members of this Informal Council found the interviews
with each of the children to be very helpful. Each of the children made very
credible answers to our questions. … All members of the Informal Council were
deeply moved by the words and the injured expressions of the children. We do
not believe that they had been influenced by parents, other adults, elders, or
even one another.”

Furthermore, what could the MVBC elders do? They are not to blame. Remember,
Chantry suddenly resigned at the recommendation of several ARBCA pastors. Then he
hung out with John Giarrizzo. Then he fled to Lindblad’s church. Then he fled to
Lyon’s church. The MVBC elders and members were prepared to deal with him but he
ran away because he was guilty of crimes. He escaped to Washington state to hide.

Although the task given the PRBC elders was impractical, the extremely strong
statements by the Informal Council, in both the Level 1 and Level 2 Reports, about their
suspicions that Mr. Chantry had not admitted all his sin, comprise the central theme of
both reports and the most important message the Informal Council attempted to
communicate to the PRBC elders.

The Administrative Council could have stepped in at any point and adjusted the
Informal Council. They were not working independently. They were commissioned by
the AC and accountable to the AC. That is why they were told to report to the AC.

However, the documentary record gives no indication that the PRBC elders talked with
any of the members of the Informal Council or the MVBC elders to discuss the
differences between the statements of the children and the statements of Mr. Chantry or
to try to gain more clarity or more specifics about the beliefs of the Informal Council
that Mr. Chantry needed to repent more fully. Furthermore, the documentary record
does not show that the PRBC elders specifically addressed the written statements of the
children and parents with Mr. Chantry and sought clarification of any differences they
discovered between those statements and Mr. Chantry’s account of the spankings.

The PRBC elders didn’t do anything they agreed to do except set up a counseling
appointment with Devon Berry who didn’t do what he was supposed to do. For
example, Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick were instructed to the talk with the Informal
Council. Why didn’t they do so? Of course, the current AC didn’t ask them, or if they
did, doesn’t include their answer. These men should be reprimanded by name in this
report. And yet, no “letter of apology” is recommended by the AC. Let’s stop kidding
ourselves. Chantry went to WA knowing Lyon would cover up for him. Tom Lyon
and Walt Chantry are close and longtime friends.

Lyon and McCormick didn’t talk to the MVBC elders or the IC members; but most
egregiously, they didn’t talk to the victims or their parents because they didn’t care
about them. They only cared about covering up for Chantry and getting him back into
ministry. That is evident in Devon Berry’s report.

This Level 2 Report carried the weight of the Informal Council’s therapeutic approach
to addressing their perceptions of Mr. Chantry’s sins and the conflict between the
MVBC elders and Mr. Chantry. Recommendations 7 and 8 established a procedure in
which the Informal Council vested an anticipation of success for this therapeutic
approach. That anticipation of success conveyed a strong expectation that Mr. Chantry
would, at some point, return to MVBC and fully repent and seek forgiveness, as well as
a strong implication that the MVBC elders had a right to require such action by Mr.
Chantry. Tragically, this expectation and implication flow from a misinterpretation of
Recommendations 7 and 8. Hence, a thorough examination of these two
recommendations is necessary. Here are the recommendations:

The lack of success was not result of the therapeutic approach but the failed ecclesiology
of ARBCA and the corrupt actions of leaders more concerned about the reputation of
ARBCA than the glory of God.

Notice that Recommendation 7 says in part, “It is recommended that the Elders who
assume the oversight of Thomas Chantry address these differences [between Mr. Chantry’s
description of the spanking incidents and the children’s descriptions] because it is the
opinion of this informal council that his repentance may not be complete.”
Recommendation 8 is predicated on the assumption that the elders would be successful
in uncovering what the Informal Council thought might be Mr. Chantry’s lies. The
PRBC elders, rightly or wrongly, did not find any additional sins for which Mr. Chantry
needed to repent. So, Recommendation 8 did not require action by the PRBC elders or
Mr. Chantry. This understanding and interpretation of Recommendation 8 is also
substantiated by the Informal Council’s Level 1 Report. Therefore, Mr. Chantry did not
return to MVBC to seek “full” repentance and forgiveness.

“The Elders” made no attempt to “address the differences.” That was at the heart of the
coverup. “Rightly or wrongly.” Wrongly! Lyon and McCormick agreed to follow the
instructions in Recommendation 7 but violated their word. I’ve addressed the other
distortions in this paragraph earlier in this article and in my previous Part 3 article.
The MVBC elders abdicated authority over Mr. Chantry in the Level 2 Report signed by
the MVBC elders and Mr. Chantry. Whatever concerns or complaints or accusations,
legitimate or not, the MVBC elders had about Mr. Chantry, they no longer had
authority to pursue them. The MVBC elders had no authority to determine that Mr.
Chantry had lied or had not fully repented; that authority had been transferred to the
PRBC elders. In other words, the determination whether or not Mr. Chantry needed to
return to Miller Valley and repent more or again had been placed in the hands of the
PRBC elders. And, PRBC concluded, by whatever means, rightly or wrongly, that Mr.
Chantry had not lied. Thus, the MVBC elders had no authority to decide if Mr. Chantry
needed to repent more or not. Recommendation 8 was not a commitment or a contract, on
the part of Mr. Chantry, to finally admit that he had done things that he had previously denied.
Such an interpretation of Recommendation 8 simply would not make sense, because it would
mean that Mr. Chantry signed a contract promising to come back and admit sins that he was
denying at the time he signed the contract. Again, such an interpretation simply does not
make sense. At the same time Recommendation 8 was not a commitment by Mr. Chantry to
return to Miller Valley and meet with the families a second time and seek repentance and
forgiveness for those things he had already addressed with them. That would not make any
sense either. Rather, Recommendation 8 was part of the obligations placed on the PRBC
elders and tied directly to Recommendation 7. The PRBC elders evidently found no
reason to believe that Mr. Chantry had not fully repented and fully sought forgiveness
during his meetings with the families before the arrival of the Informal Council.

The MVBC elders didn’t “abdicate” their authority over Chantry. Chantry fled and
Lindblad took him in contrary to the ARBCA Constitution and LBCF. Why doesn’t the
AC rebuke Lindblad for taking in someone under church discipline?

The MVBC elders did have “authority to pursue” the agreed upon commitments in the
Level 1 and Level 2 Reports. All parties agreed the recommendations were binding and
must be implemented.

The PRBC elders, Lyon and McCormick didn’t talk to the IC, the MVBC elders, the
victims or the parents. Neither did Chantry. Recommendation 8 in the Level 2 Report
instructs Chantry, under the oversight of Lyon and McCormick to do the following.
Both parties totally disregarded this injunction. The AC distorts the recommendation
above by intentionally omitting the word “endeavor.”

“8. That Thomas Chantry endeavor to seek full repentance and the forgiveness
from each of the four children and their parents who have been the subject of
physical discipline by him. It is recommended that the Elders who assume the
oversight of Thomas Chantry assist him with this process.”

Chantry agreed to do this and Lyon and McCormick agreed to assist him. They broke
their promises. They never “endeavored” to do anything. There is no rightly or
wrongly, only wrongly.

If they had “endeavored” and “assisted” it could have resulted in Chantry seeking
repentance and forgiveness assuming these men were honorable, which they are not.
Of course, “the PRBC elders evidently found no reason to believe that Mr. Chantry had
not fully repented and fully sought forgiveness” because they didn’t talk to the IC, the
elders, the victims or the parents!

This is critically important to understand, because all of the communications of the
MVBC elders with PRBC, the AC Chairman [Earl Blackburn] in 2002, and the
Membership Committee in 2015, concerning this matter, resulted from the anticipated
success of the therapeutic mechanism crafted in these two recommendations and the
consequent expectation of Mr. Chantry’s subsequent repentance and the implication
that the MVBC elders possessed a right to require such repentance. When the PRBC
elders found no need for Mr. Chantry to return to Miller Valley and repent more or
again, the anticipated success failed to materialize. However, the MVBC elders
believed that Mr. Chantry had committed himself to returning to Miller Valley and
repenting fully and that they retained some authority, implied in their understanding of
Recommendation 8, to determine that Mr. Chantry was an unrepentant sinner.

This is not a therapeutic mechanism in Recommendations 7 and 8. That is not the issue.
There may be a faulty ecclesiology but it is the one approved by the AC and MC in
2000.

The recommendations aside, every Christian has “a right to require such repentance”
when someone like Chantry physically, sexually or spiritually abuses them or their
children. You don’t have to be members of the same church. They also have the right
and responsibility to expose corrupt leaders in other churches who cover up for sexual
sadists who prey upon children.

The AC keeps promoting a false narrative of Chantry by using the words, “repent more
and again.” He never repented in the first place. Here is how Don Lindblad defines the
extent of his supposed repentance in his December 2000 report to Earl Blackburn.
“Tom’s mistake, by his own admission, was to spank the children as discipline in the
context of teaching.” That is all Chantry ever admitted. He emphatically denied all the
serious charges brought against him by the children and parents.

He did the same at his July-August 2018 trial. Nothing has changed over the past 18
years except that Chantry is now a convicted child abuser and awaiting another trial for
8 counts of sexual molestation, 4 counts of aggravated assault with sexual motivation
and 1 count of child abuse. I’m afraid the saintly Chantry needs to “repent more or
again”! But I forgot, he is being persecuted like Jesus, tested like Job and betrayed like
Joseph according to ARBCA. Read this article.
Part 1: Sexual Sadist Tom Chantry Persecuted Like Jesus, Tested Like Job, & Betrayed
Like Joseph According to ARBCA Leaders & Enablers
Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 6:58PM

Recommendation 8 was the central issue in the MVBC elders’ objection to CRBC’s
application for membership in ARBCA. The evidence on which the Membership
Committee relied was documents attached to the Part I Report that showed that Mr.
Chantry had met with all of the families of the children involved before the Informal
Council was sent to Miller Valley. In 2015, the Membership Committee did not have
access to the reports issued by the Informal Council that stated its recommendations.
Also, the protest to CRBC’s application from the MVBC elders did not mention Mr.
Chantry’s visits with the families prior to the arrival of the Informal Council. So, it was
true that Mr. Chantry had visited all the families of the children, as well as all the
families of the church, to express repentance and seek forgiveness. However, it was
also true that he did not visit the families after the completion of the Informal Council to
express further repentance and seek further forgiveness. The Membership Committee’s
assessment of MVBC’s objection to CRBC’s application accepted the PRBC elders’
report of compliance with the Informal Council’s recommendations by Mr. Chantry and
recognized the PRBC elders’ authority over Mr. Chantry, which accrues from the logical
interpretation of Recommendation 8 being predicated on Recommendation 7.

Of course, the 2015 Membership Committee had access to the reports. Steve
Marquedant was Chairman of the MC. Guess who is chairing the ad hoc committee
writing the words above – Steve Marquedant. He is lying.

Furthermore, David Dykstra was on the 2015 MC (along with Larry Vincent, Jason
Water, and Jeff Massey). He was the one who directed the Informal Council to send a
report of their findings to the Administrative Council.

“(1) Find out the facts through careful interviews. (2) Make recommendations to
the parties involved, and (3) Summarize your findings and recommendations in
a written document you all can sign.” (Dec. 6, 2000)

And I’ve stated before it was not “true” that Chantry met with all the families “to
express repentance and seek forgiveness.” He met with families to deny wrong doing
and accuse the children of lying. His only “sin” was using corporeal punishment as a
tutor.

The AC never tells you what Chantry repented of or asked forgiveness for from the
families. That’s because it never happened and that’s why there is no documentation to
support this bogus claim.
In addition, Chantry did not repent or ask forgiveness for any sin after the Informal
Council. Chris Marley addresses this in his excellent September 12, 2108 response to the
AC Report – Part I.

See https://www.scribd.com/document/388572391/MVBC-Objections-to-ARBCA-Ad-
Report.

Here is an excerpt.

“This is an egregious error. MVBC’s protest was in direct contradiction to the
claim that Mr. Chantry “had visited all the families… to express repentance and
seek forgiveness.” We provided evidence that Mr. Chantry had, from the time
of the council onward, never even contacted those families, let alone expressed
repentance or sought forgiveness. … These fallacies are difficult to not perceive
as outright lies designed to cast the blame on MVBC. In fact, the report never
levies direct accusations against Mr. Chantry! We have struggled with the
sense that our church was “thrown under the bus” in order to preserve the
Chantry name and legacy in 2015-2016. This report is a clearly biased and
outlandish series of accusations against the elders of MVBC. … The ad hoc
committee has violated this [the Ninth Commandment] in propagating what is
prejudicial to truth, injurious to the elders of MVBC, and the good name of
MVBC. Therefore, we ask that a letter of redaction and repentance be sent out
to all who received the report.”

I’ve not see any “letter of redaction and repentance.” It has been over 3 months.

Significantly, this analysis of Recommendations 7 and 8, for the purposes of this Part II
Report, has shined light on the decision process of the Membership Committee and the
Administrative Council in their handling of CRBC’s application for membership in
ARBCA and of MVBC’s protest of that application. In their protest, the MVBC elders
focused on their belief that Mr. Chantry had not complied with Recommendation 8 and
was, therefore, unrepentant and had further sinned by violating the terms of the Level 2
Report that he signed. Consequently, the protest defined the issue as an objection to the
pastor of the church [Chantry], which was applying for membership in ARBCA. Both
the Membership Committee and the Administrative Council evaluated the protest
within the constraints of that definition. Therefore, since the protest was not seen as a
protest against CRBC, as a church; since churches, not pastors, are members of ARBCA;
and since the ARBCA Constitution and Policy Manual only contained provisions for
disapproving applications based on criteria that applied only to churches, the
Membership Committee and Administrative Council recommended CRBC for
membership.
The ARBCA Constitution also contains provisions for excluding a church based on
criteria applied to “its officers.” That is explicitly stated in Article 4, Paragraph D. I
already covered this ground but here we go again.

“The Association may exclude a church from its membership. Such action
should be taken when one of the following persists in marking a church or its
officers [i.e., Tom Chantry]:

1. Deviation from the doctrinal standards of the Association.

2. Unrighteous behavior.”

When Tom Chantry was approved for membership in April 2015, the Membership
Committee and Administrative Council knew he was about to be arrested by law
enforcement on multiple counts of aggravated assault and sexual molestation based
upon their nine month investigation.

The detectives had gathered far more evidence than is required by Scripture for the
purpose of church discipline (Matthew 18:15-17) and the public rebuke of elders and
their removal from ministry (1 Timothy 5:19-22). On many levels, and in many ways,
Chantry did not meet the qualifications of Scripture found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus
1:5-9 because of his “unrighteous behavior.” None of that matter to the 2015-2016 AC
and MC. That means you can have a credibly accused sexual sadist for a pastor and be
accepted into ARBCA as a church because nothing can prevent it from happening. That
is good to know! Now, run for the hills! Listen, it is plain the AC and MC were
covering up for Chantry and treating him with extraordinary partiality and favoritism.

Here comes more spin in the form of acknowledging a mistake.

However, the Membership Committee and the Administrative Council should have
seen the protest from a wider perspective in the context of associational relations
between churches. The MVBC elders’ protest opposed CRBC’s membership in ARBCA.
GRBC [Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Rockford, IL] was the sponsoring church for
CRBC [Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Hales Corner, WI] and supported CRBC’s
application. Thus, the Membership Committee and the Administrative Council should
have seen the issue as a difference between MVBC and GRBC, two sister churches in the
Association. Under that definition of the protest, the Membership Committee and the
Administrative Council should have advised the MVBC elders to pursue their
complaint with the elders of GRBC and, if they could not resolve the matter between the
churches, MVBC could then file a protest based on the need to resolve the conflict
between MVBC and GRBC before the recommendation to approve CRBC for
membership was presented to the General Assembly. Such a process would have
rightly defined the issue as a protest against the sponsoring church, if the MVBC elders
and GRBC elders could not have resolved the matter. The recommendation regarding
CRBC’s application could then have been legitimately delayed, if necessary, pending
the outcome of the General Assembly’s discussion of the conflict between two churches
and the advice of the General Assembly. GRBC possessed the authority to question Mr.
Chantry concerning MVBC’s complaints and to require him, as a condition of
sponsorship, to approve the release of the Complete Report to the elders of GRBC.
GRBC also possessed the authority to withdraw its sponsorship. Neither the
Membership Committee nor the Administrative Council possessed this authority or had
liberty under the ARBCA Constitution and Policy Manual to take such action. The
failure of the Membership Committee and the Administrative Council to recognize the
MVBC protest as a statement of difference or conflict between MVBC and GRBC
resulted in the mishandling of MVBC’s protest, the missed opportunity to address
MVBC’s longstanding issues with Mr. Chantry, and the approval of CRBC’s application
without the GRBC elders possessing knowledge of the unresolved complaints and
concerns of the MVBC elders regarding Mr. Chantry’s actions as pastor of MVBC and
their belief that he had not complied with the Informal Council’s recommendations.

The fundamental issue was not “a protest against the sponsoring church.” It was
rightly a protest against Chantry, the AC and the MC.

Keep in mind, Tom Chantry was a member in the “sponsoring church” (Grace
Reformed Baptist Church) where Dale Smith and Al Huber were his pastors. Al Huber
is Chantry’s father-in-law and the one who has been paying his legal fees and putting
up bond money to get him out of jail. All of this is left out of the report.

Furthermore, Huber continues on staff at GRBC and is a member of the current
Administrative Council responsible for this report even though he has maintained
Chantry’s total innocence for over three years. This too is left out of this report. Huber
should be removed as a pastor by Dale Smith and GRBC and also removed from the AC
by the AC. He is defending the wicked (his son-in-law) and condemning the righteous
(the victims). That is an abomination to the Lord.

Dale Smith was interviewed by Pete Smith (no relation) when the elders and a pastoral
assistant were investigating John Giarrizzo. You can read their report, “Pastor John’s
Involvement in ARBCA’s Coverup of the Tom Chantry Scandal” at
https://www.scribd.com/document/389718279/John-Giarrizzo-Letter-Calling-on-
Righteous-Elders-to-Repent

In that interview, Dale Smith said the following.

“Dale said he did not originally believe that he had been on the AC in 2000
when the event took place in Prescott. He said he was reading details about it
and did not remember anything about the Chantry situation so he made the
assumption he had not been on the AC.” (p. 12)

Smith doesn’t remember being on the 2000-2001 Administrative Council and he doesn’t
“remember anything about the Chantry situation.” He was also on Chantry’s list of
seven men for Bob Selph to talk with about being on the Informal Council.
Furthermore, he was also on the 2001-2002 Administrative Council. This council
received and discussed the letter from Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick justifying
Chanty and clearing him for ministry after he finished his counseling with Devon Berry.
Add Smith to the list of amnesiacs.

Dale Smith also told Pete Smith the following in which he conveys no knowledge of
anything regarding Chantry before he arrived at GRBC in 2002. If true, that means Tom
Lyon and Mark McCormick withheld all information about Chantry from Smith when
they sent Chantry to Smith’s church in 2002. Chantry and Huber supposedly did the
same.

“Dale said he had no relationship with Tom Chantry until Tom began attending
Dale’s church in Rockford. At some point during that time Tom gave Dale a
copy of the “informal council report that had all the signatures.” That
essentially communicated to Dale that Tom had engaged in spanking situations
“that were not wise.” Dale said he did not know the extent of the spankings (as
he does now).”

If this is a true statement, it shows how much vital information was withheld from him
by his co-pastor, Al Huber and Tom Chantry. Dale Smith should publicly rebuke these
men for their dishonesty. Nevertheless, he did have the Level 2 Report with all the
binding “recommendations” for Chantry to fulfill. It was given to him between 2002-
2005 but not even the Level 2 Report jogged his memory about anything related to
Chantry during his time on the 200-2001 and 2001-2002 AC. I am not buying it. I think
he is covering up for himself.

But let’s accept that Smith is a terrible amnesia for the sake of argument. When he
received the Level 2 Report, he had an obligation to contact the MVBC elders and
Informal Council to make certain Chantry had fulfilled all his obligations before putting
him into full-time ministry in 2005.

This is especially true given the fact that parents of a child at Christian Liberty
Academy in Chicago, where Chantry was teaching in 2004, called 911 and filed a police
report for spanking their 5 year old son so hard there were still marks two days later.

It also came out during the investigation that Chantry had spanked other children
despite his promise to Tom Lyon, Mark McCormick and Devon Berry, he would never
spank any child, not his own, under any circumstances. Huber knew about this
promise also because he had the counselor’s report.

See Todd Wilhelm’s article at https://thouarttheman.org/2018/08/25/police-report-
confirms-what-we-suspected-tom-chantry-continued-beating-young-boys-at-christian-
liberty-academy/ for more details.

Therefore, Smith was grossly negligent. He put Chantry into full time ministry in 2005
and sent him to CRBC in 2006 to be the senior pastor. He did no due diligence! This
too is left out the report. Then in 2015, Smith’s church “sponsored” Chantry’s church to
become a member in ARBCA.

I don’t believe Smith is being truthful about the extent of his knowledge regarding
Chantry’s child abuse; but if I am wrong, it is evident he did not do his homework in
2004 and 2005. Furthermore, the fact that Al Huber remains on his staff tells you a lot
about the man. But let me add a new twist.

Today I looked at Grace Reformed Baptist Church website and noticed Dale Smith has
not preached since October 14, 2018. Al Huber and Dabney Olguin are doing all the
preaching nowadays. What happened to Dale? And why is Al doing any preaching? I
hope people in GRBC are seeing through the Huber’s and the Chantry’s.

See http://www.grbcrockford.org/sermons/.

Once again, “the MVBC protest” was not “a statement of difference or conflict between
MVBC and GRBC.” It was a statement of difference with the AC and MC because the
multiple unfulfilled recommendations came from “the Informal Council of the
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America” as explicitly asserted in the titles
of all three reports. The current Administrative Council is doing everything possible to
escape their selection, commission, authorization, directing, and oversight of the
Informal Council to avoid lawsuits. ARBCA is primarily responsible for not reporting
Chantry’s crimes and not making sure the numerous recommendations in the Level 1
and Level 2 Reports were fully followed.

These different interpretations of Recommendations 7 and 8 also resulted in
misunderstanding and strained relations between MVBC and PRBC. Lamentably, the
MVBC elders’ concentration on what they believed was Mr. Chantry’s failure to comply
with Recommendation 8 and the PRBC elders’ defense of their autonomy and authority
over all matters relating to Mr. Chantry eclipsed the reality of this misunderstanding
and strained relationship between two member churches of ARBCA. For that reason,
both groups of elders apparently failed to recognize the gravity of the emergence and
presence of a difference or issue between two sister churches of the Association. The
ARBCA Constitution stipulates that “. . . each member church must be committed to
promoting the peace and good name of every other member church.”48 Since the PRBC
elders believed that the MVBC elders were attempting to infringe on their autonomy
and authority, it was incumbent on them to engage the MVBC elders in a dialogue to
resolve the matter. Since the MVBC elders believed the PRBC elders had failed to fully
implement the recommendations of the Informal Council and had erred by issuing a
report of compliance, it was incumbent on them to engage the PRBC elders in a
dialogue to resolve the matter. If the elders from these two churches failed to resolve
the matter by their own actions, it was incumbent on both groups of elders to bring the
matter to the General Assembly.49

“Both groups of elders apparently failed to recognize the gravity of the emergence and
presence of a difference or issue between two sister church.” That is absurd. Both
groups were fully aware but only the MVBC elders sought to address it. Once again the
current AC blames the MVBC elders when the fault is with the PRBC elders (Lyon &
McCormick). In fact, the MVBC elders sought “to engage the PRBC elders in a dialogue
to resolve the matter.” The very thing this AC condemns them for not doing! Here’s
an example.

Chris L. Marley emailed Tom Lyon on July 1, 2015 after Tom Chantry attended the
ARBCA General Assembly as a guest in 2015. Chris L. Marley was a pastor at MVBC
and the Mayor of Chino Valley, AZ. Chris J. Marley is his son and the senior pastor of
MVBC. They are easily confused with each other. The senior Marley is contacting Lyon
on behalf of members in MVBC.

See page 20 at https://www.scribd.com/document/392084986/Yavapai-County-Da-
Response-to-Request-for-Access-to-Public-Record for original.

On 7/1/2015 2:03 PM, Mayor wrote:

Good morning, Tom-

The attendance at ARBCA of Mr. Thomas Chantry has raised a few questions
among the members here at Miller Valley which I was hoping you could
answer:

#1 Could you please describe the process which took place while Mr. Chantry
was under your care?

48 Constitution of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America, Article V, paragraph A.
49 Constitution of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America, Article V, paragraph D.
#2 Did Mr. Chantry attempt reconciliation with any of the affected families at
Miller Valley while under your care?

#3 Did he complete all the requirements that you placed upon him?

#4 Where did Mr. Chantry go after he left Providence Reformed?

#5 Are you aware that Mr. Chantry has not sought forgiveness from either the
children or the parents at Miller Valley since leaving Arizona?

#6 Is there anything else that you can think of that would be helpful
information for the elders at Miller Valley?

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Chris Marley, Pastor of Miller Valley Baptist Church

Why does the current AC omit this email from their report? The senior Marley is
seeking “to engage the PRBC elders in a dialogue to resolve the matter.” I wrote the
MVBC elders to see if they ever heard back from Lyon. Here is their brief reply.

“Yes, he replied shortly after and told us we had no business asking questions
after all these years.”

So much for fair and balanced reporting by the current AC!

Although the documentary record clearly establishes the care and concern of the
members of the Informal Council for the families, the children, the people of MVBC, as
well as Mr. Chantry, the futility of the therapeutic approach they designed failed to
produce the well-intended results and has subjected the work of the Informal Council to
attack and suspicion.

I’ve talked to the families. None of them felt any “care and concern” after the Informal
Council ended on December 16, 2000. There was no contact with them from McKnight,
Tripp or Jensen or ARBCA Coordinator, Selph for the next 18 years. They didn’t even
come to the July-August 2018 Chantry trial to support the victims and families as they
testified against Chantry. Two families asked me, “Why is Bob Selph not here?” They
felt deserted once again.

It is NOT the “therapeutic approach” that has subjected the work of the IC to “attack
and suspicion.” What a strange and bogus analysis. It is the cover up of Chantry’s
child abuse, the failure to report it, and the subsequent lack of accountability to follow
through on the recommendations by the Administrative Council, Informal Council,
Providence Reformed Baptist Church and the CCEF counselor.

Discussion of the Report of the Informal Council – Level 3 Report (to member churches)

In summary, this report simply states that an Informal Council went to MVBC and all
the issues had been resolved. This report failed to communicate the serious nature of
the situation at MVBC, and strongly implied a result not yet achieved.

That’s right! It was a deceptive report by the IC and the AC knew it! Nevertheless, Earl
Blackburn, David Dykstra, et al. sanctioned it and dispersed it to all the ARBCA
churches.

Although far reaching consequences might have ensued, this report would have been
much different had the perceived sin issues been addressed through a process of church
discipline at MVBC or the difficulties brought to the messengers of the Assembly.

They are beating a dead horse. But let’s hope they revive the “process of church
discipline” because a score of top officials in ARBCA need to be disciplined by their
local churches.

Discussion of the Distribution of the Complete Report

This Complete Report packet50 contained a letter from the MVBC elders [to Walt
Chantry] in which they stated, “Legally, what Tom did would be considered child
abuse and could be subject to prosecution.”51

Therefore, everyone included in the Distribution of the Complete Report52 authorized
by the MVBC elders and Mr. Chantry had access to this letter and the MVBC elders’
conclusion.

There were eleven people on the distribution list in 2002 including Tom Chantry. The
other ten were mandatory reporters. The two MVBC elders did not know they were
required to report Chantry and no one on the IC or otherwise ever told them.

The November 21, 2000 letter to Walt Chantry was not confidential when written. It
was passed on to Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad and
others! Why doesn’t the AC tell us of its wider distribution? The letter became part of
the confidential package on December 16, 2000. For 25 days there was no limit on its
distribution.

50 Attachment 5.
51 Private Document 10.
52 Attachment 4. [Distribution of the Complete Report]
In view of the lack of constitutional or policy governance available to the Informal
Council, the documents and information gathered and the reports of the Informal
Council contained unsubstantiated charges and allegations against the MVBC elders,
Mr. Chantry, and Mr. Walter Chantry that could not have been published and should
not have been published. The information and reports also included sensitive
information about the families and their children which could have injured them if it
had been widely distributed. However, even with all the difficulties involved with this
Informal Council, as discussed previously, the Complete Report should have been
made available to the Administrative Council for review. While no mechanisms existed
for the Administrative Council to correct issues proceeding from the Informal Council’s
recommendations, the information could have been useful in providing assistance to
MVBC and in offering assistance to the elders of PRBC and Mr. Chantry. The Complete
Report could certainly have been instructive for the Administrative Council in
considering the constitutional and policy changes necessary to provide for governance
of Church Councils.

Poppycock! There was no “lack of constitutional…governance available to the Informal
Council.” That has been proven.

Poppycock 2! “The reports of the Informal Council contained unsubstantiated charges
and allegations against the MVBC elders, Mr. Chantry, and Mr. Walter Chantry.” This
is nuts. Prove it! Cite one example! Back up your assertion!

Notice it says “reports” in the plural. That includes the Level 2 Report that was signed
by Chantry, Lindblad, Howe, and Owens expressing their full subscription to all the
conclusions and recommendations for Chantry in the report. There was nothing
unsubstantiated in their view! These guys on the AC love to make things up. They are
trying to discredit the content of the reports.

Poppycock 3! The Level 1 Report also contained agreed upon recommendations for the
MVBC elders, Bob Selph, Walt Chantry, and the PRBC elders. For example, Tom Lyon
and Mark McCormick agreed to follow all the recommendations addressed to them in
their oversight of Tom Chantry. Nothing was disagreeable to them or Chantry.

People need only read “Confidential Report and Recommendations” to see the hyped
up charges against the Informal Council by the AC in order to discredit their findings.
Let me cite one specific example.

The AC says, “The reports of the Informal Council contained unsubstantiated charges
and allegations against … Mr. Walter Chantry.” Really? Here is the sum total of all the
IC says about Walt Chanty.
“It is recommended by this Informal Council that Pastor Walter Chantry seek
reconciliation with the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church. Those Elders
erred by attempting to maintain Thomas Chantry in the ministry in the face of
sin which caused serious damage to its congregation. Portions of the letter
dated November 9, 2000, to the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church by
Pastor Walter Chantry may have been excessively harsh in light of the serious
nature of the matter facing the Elders at Miller Valley Baptist Church.”

There you have it. “Portions of the letter…may have been excessively harsh.” That is
the IC’s “unsubstantiated charge and allegation” against Walt Chantry. What brutes!
But wait a minute. It is not a charge, it is an observation. Actually, it is more of a
question. And wait another minute. They do provide substantiation – his letter and the
findings of the MVBC elders that Tom Chantry was guilty of child abuse based upon
their interaction with four children from three families in the church.

Here are “portions of the letter” to which the IC was referring. Everyone involved had
read the letter from Walt Chantry.

“I hope no one ever treats your sons and daughters as you have treated Tom in
this matter. … When you proposed the specifics measures of Monday the 6th,
you recommended the intolerable. You were proposing diabolical procedures
regularly employed by Marxism and cults with the intention of breaking a
person psychologically.”

Walt Chantry was out of control. On November 6, 2000, the elders told Tom Chantry
they needed to put him under church discipline for the “wrongful discipline of children
and spiritual pride” and put him on probation for 30 days but with the hope he would
be fully restored at the end of that period. They had met with the children and families
and were convinced Tom was guilty of child abuse based upon the evidence. They
should have reported him to law enforcement. Instead they wanted to keep him as
their pastor if possible. Wow. Those MVBC elders are real Marxists and cultists and
ever so diabolical! By the way, Walt Chantry never sought reconciliation with them.

You can read Walt’s letter and the elders’ letter at this link.

https://www.scribd.com/document/388129451/Chantry-Letter-to-Church-Walt-
Chantry-Letter-to-MVBC-Elders-Elders-Response-to-Walt-Chantry

A thorough discussion of the restrictions on distribution of the Complete Report is
contained in Part I of the Administrative Council’s report to member churches.
Discussion of Mr. Chantry’s Compliance with the Informal Council’s
Recommendations

The MVBC elders made an attempt to address their concerns about PRBC’s report of
compliance by their letter to Mr. Blackburn (AC Chairman in 2002) dated February 5,
2002, in which they described their concerns and asked for help. However, while Mr.
Blackburn properly advised the MVBC elders to work directly with the PRBC elders to
resolve their differences, he did not advise them to bring the matter to the General
Assembly if they were unable to satisfactorily resolve the issue. Furthermore, Mr.
Blackburn did not follow-up with the MVBC elders or the PRBC elders to find out if the
matter had been resolved. The MVBC elders’ letter was their attempt to seek counsel
from what they perceived to be the Association; accordingly, follow-up by the AC
Chairman and advice to bring the matter to the General Assembly would have been
appropriate.

Blackburn shut things down in 2002 because he had ALL the incriminating evidence
against Chantry. He didn’t want things going any farther. About the Informal Council,
he wrote the MVBC elders, “It ceased to exist … [it] no longer has any function or say
…. There was no further accountably to be made to them.”

He also played dead like an opossum before the MVBC elders. He wrote,

“I have not read the final report of the informal Council, nor was I supposed to.
Pastor Lyon, nor anyone else, has shared any of the items of the final report
with me. I am in the ‘dark’ regarding most of it. I have only had access to the
general report that was submitted to the ARBCA Administrative Council.”

Blackburn needs to be disciplined and removed from ministry This was all a lie.

And of course, he didn’t recommend the MVBC elders “bring the matter to the General
Assembly” or “follow-up with the MVBC elders…to find out if the matter had been
resolved.” He already knew the PRBC elders were unwilling to work with the MVBC
elders though he pretentiously suggested it in 2002. Blackburn was in cahoots with the
Lindblad and Lyon.

Aside from the MVBC elders’ belief that Mr. Chantry was obligated to return to MVBC
and repent more or again and the PRBC elders’ assertion of their rightful authority in
this matter, the fact that the MVBC elders asserted the absence of reconciliation and the
existence of unresolved accusations, with which the Informal Council concurred,
imposed a biblical obligation (Matthew 5:23-26) on Mr. Chantry to make a good faith
effort to be reconciled with the elders and members of MVBC. Since the PRBC elders
accepted the oversight of Mr. Chantry under the framework of the Informal Council’s
report and recommendations, they accepted the responsibility of instructing him in that
obligation and assisting him to attempt to fulfill it. Since the MVBC elders had
communicated that they and the families involved had something against him, Mr.
Chantry had a duty to strive, once again with the help of the PRBC elders, to be
reconciled to the elders and members of MVBC. Even if he believed that he had
repented of all of his sins at MVBC, that belief would not relieve him of the
responsibility to strive for reconciliation. If, in fact, there were no additional sins to
confess and the MVBC elders and families still were unwilling to reconcile, Mr. Chantry
would have fulfilled his biblical obligation.

In my next article, I’ll be sharing the four victim impact statements that were sent to
Judge Astrowsky before his sentencing of Chantry on October 19, 2018. The trauma
and devastation caused by Chantry is unimaginable. Yes, there were “additional sins to
confess” – aggravated assault, sexual molestation, anger, pride, authoritarianism, etc.
Chantry confessed to nothing of substance. That is why this report never states the sins
from which he repented or for which he asked forgiveness.

The Bible (Matthew 5:23-26) and the recommendations “they accepted” meant nothing
to Chantry, Lyon and McCormick. They are submitted to no authority but their own.

Discussion of the ARBCA Announcement to the 2017 General Assembly

As addressed in the above section titled, “The ARBCA Announcement to the 2017
General Assembly,” in 2017 the Administrative Council did not have access to the
complete body of documentary and testimonial information subsequently made
available to the Administrative Council for the purposes of preparing the
Administrative Council’s report to the churches concerning this case. Accordingly, the
arduous assessment of the formation and conduct of the Informal Council articulated in
this Part II Report was not possible for the Administrative Council to perform at the
time the Announcement was written.

They keep pushing the same ridiculous lie. “The AC did not have access to the
complete body of documentary and testimonial information.” For the final time,
Blackburn was Chairman of the AC in April 2017. He had every single document! So
did others like Lindblad, Selph, McKnight, et al.!

“The ARBCA Announcement to the 2017 General Assembly” was full of lies, not errors,
because they “did not have access.” They are covering up their tracks.

Also remember, the AC and MC took the official position in April 2017 that Chantry
was innocent even though he had been arrested in July 2016. That is what they were
telling everyone despite all the evidence in the official police reports, etc. This report
never addresses all the evidence in the police reports – another deceptive omission.
In light of that assessment, which is presented in the subsection titled, “Discussion of
the Formation, Mission, and Conduct of the Informal Council” under the “Analysis”
section above, the Announcement included statements that suffered from a lack of
information and analysis. The statements were not lies or designed to conceal
information possessed by the Administrative Council. The Announcement resulted
from the recollection of a few individuals about events that occurred seventeen years
previously and from review of the documentation available to the Administrative
Council in 2017. That documentation did not include any of the reports of the Informal
Council or related documentation acquired by the Administrative Council upon the
completion of Mr. Chantry’s trial.

In the future, I will address the statements that were lies designed to conceal
information.

Here are the men who were on the 2017 AC. None of them had “any of the reports…or
related documentation.” Not even Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, All Huber, Steve
Martin, or Steve Marquedant. No Level 1, 2 or 3 Reports. No letters between the MVBC
elders and Walt Chantry. No letter from Dykstra to the IC regarding directives. No
letters from the MVBC families or a victim sent to IC. No police reports. No nothing.

2016-2017 AC
1. Earl Blackburn (Chairman)
2. Rob Cosby (Treasurer)
3. Jack Daniels
4. David Dykstra
5. Al Huber
6. Michael Kelly
7. Steve Martin (Coordinator)
8. Steve Marquedant
9. Jeff Massey (Vice Chairman)
10. Brandon Smith
11. Jason Walter (Secretary)

If you remember, Don Lindblad was sent to Christ Reformed Baptist Church in January
2017 to “sort out fact from fiction” with all the documents in his possession. Dale
Smith, Al Huber and Steve Martin were by his side. Huber and Marin were on the AC.
CRBC members repeatedly asked Lindblad at the meeting to read the reports. He
adamantly refused. Smith, Huber and Martin knew all about the documents’ existence.

This report repeatedly claims the 2016-2017 AC had no access to any of the
documentation. What a scam. Lindblad had everything and these men knew it. They
could have asked him for it.
Furthermore, if Tom Lyon was willing to give Lindblad the Level 1 “sealed report,” he
was certainly willing to give it and other information to the AC. Again, Smith, Huber
and Martin knew Lindblad had everything because he said so in public. All of this
occurred in January 2017 before the Announcement to the General Assembly in April
2017. The AC had easy access to all the documentation from Lindblad or Lyon. Of
course, this is a moot point. Blackburn and several men on the AC already had the
reports and documents. Blackburn for 17 years.

The Announcement stated, “The Association pursued the matter with due diligence and
a process was followed that conformed to biblical, confessional, and constitutional
parameters.” However, the assessment referenced above indicates a lack of
constitutional authority for an Informal Council and of any policy provisions.
Consequently, the Informal Council’s handling of this matter appears to have fallen
short of confessional parameters, and the therapeutic program established by the
Informal Council appears to have circumvented biblical injunctions for addressing
allegations of sin in the context of the local church. Consequently, the statement from
the Announcement quoted above was wrong.

The 2018-2019 AC is conveniently disagreeing with the 2016-2017 AC and the 2000-2001
AC that the Informal Council had “constitutional authority” and “conformed to biblical,
confessional and constitutional parameters.” They want to disavow any legitimacy for
the IC or the work of the IC. Therefore, “the therapeutic program” is to blame for all
the problems resulting from this illegitimate council. The current AC is the new Pope in
ARBCA. All previous Popes are “wrong.”

Additionally, the Announcement stated, “Tom Chantry was never under discipline and
was released by Miller Valley Baptist Church to comply with the directives of the
Council.” Since the Level 2 Report shows that the MVBC elders “will withdraw”
church discipline against Mr. Chantry, this statement was also inaccurate.

This is not an “inaccurate” statement. It is a lie. Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, Al
Huber, Steve Martin, et al. knew Chantry was “under discipline and was released.”
They intentionally misled the ARBCA pastors in their Announcement to the General
Assembly in April 2017 but once the Level 2 Report went public, they were exposed.
Recommendation 3 reads, “The Elders of Miller Valley Baptist Church will withdrawal
and will not in the future assert church discipline against Thomas Chantry.” Oh, I
forgot. No one on the 2016-2017 AC ever saw the Level 2 Report!

That being said, the aggregate of the documentary record does not provide any
information that supports a finding of any conspiracy to conceal necessary information
from law enforcement. All of the data currently available shows an absence of any
evidence that the MVBC elders, the members of the Informal Council, or any ARBCA
officers acted to conceal the information about Mr. Chantry’s spanking of children from
law enforcement. In fact, the members of the Informal Council advised the families of
their right to report the spankings to law enforcement.53 However, the families did not
want to report the spankings to the police.54

I will address this in a future article. Simply put, there was a “conspiracy to conceal
necessary information from law enforcement.” Everyone believed Chantry had
committed crimes. The Informal Council knew they were obligated to report these
crimes but conspired not to report them. Under the law, that constitutes a
“conspiracy.” The word conspired simply means they agreed not to report.

Not even the families knew the full extent of the collective abuse like the Informal
Council did after their interviews with the children in private. For instance, the parents
were never told about their strong suspicion that Chantry was a sadist. This
information was withheld from the parents. Two parents told me they would have
reported had they known. So did two MVBC elders.

The IC may have advised the parents of their “option” or “right” to report but they
were not advised of their duty to report. Instead, the IC advised them to let ARBCA
deal with the criminal behavior of Tom Chantry as a church matter. That is in conflict
with the Bible. The current AC never addresses the teaching of Scripture in Romans
13:1-7 and other places about the role of civil government.

If the AC wants to hammer the IC, they should do so for illegitimately investigating
crimes and not reporting the evidence in their possession to law enforcement.

There is no documentary indication of any communications or actions, by the
individuals who received the Complete Report packet, designed to conceal information
concerning the spankings from law enforcement. So, in relation to law enforcement
authorities, the documentary record confirms the statement in the Announcement that
“from 1995 to this day there has never been a cover-up whatsoever by anyone in the
Association with knowledge of these events.”

You don’t need a document showing an agreement “to conceal information concerning
the spankings from law enforcement.” You need only the stark reality that none of the
of the 11 individuals who “received the Complete Report packet” shared any of that
information with law enforcement.

Also consider this statement from Lindblad’s report to Blackburn in December 2000.

53 Attachment 14. [Supplemental Report - Prescott Police Department, 01/21/2016, Interview with Eric
Owens]
54 Attachment 13. [Supplemental Report - Prescott Police Department, 01/20/2016, Interview with

Richard Howe]
“The three men [McKnight, Tripp, Jensen] met with Tom and Don later the next
day. Immediately, they claimed they found the claims [i.e., criminal
allegations] of the elders, the parents, and the children believable. Tom should
be careful what he now said. … The elders of MVBC were counseled to help
families and children to forgive Tom, and the families were urged to so the
same. Everyone agreed not to pure formal charges against each other.”

The IC told Tom he should be careful “what he now said” because they believed he
committed crimes. The IC also negotiated an agreement “not to pursue formal
charges.” This could be a reference to criminal charges or church discipline
charges. In some ways, it doesn’t matter. The IC was putting a lid on things. They
were containing knowledge of his criminal behavior.

Church discipline would have made Chantry’s crimes a matter of public record.
This would have forced the IC, MVBC elders, and parents to report his crimes to
law enforcement. The Informal Council made sure that did not happen. It was part
of the conspiracy to coverup his crimes.

One more thing. The 2017 “ARBCA Announcement Concerning Tom Chantry”
contained this lie. The current AC doesn’t address it anywhere in their reports.

“Everyone has been open, as far as discretion allows, and everyone with
knowledge of these events has operated within the parameters of the laws of
the land.”

No one in all of ARBCA has ever “operated within the parameters of the laws of the
land.” At least 20 top leaders in ARBCA knew Chantry was a child abuser and did not
report him.

However, the actions of Mr. Selph, ARBCA Coordinator in 2000-2001, the Informal
Council, the MVBC elders, and Mr. Chantry did result in concealing the bulk of the
information from the Administrative Council and essentially all information about the
situation and circumstances at MVBC from member churches in ARBCA. While these
actions did result in information being withheld from the Administrative Council and
from member churches in ARBCA, the documentary record did not substantiate a
coordinated conspiracy to do so.

Oh, my Lord! The Administrative Council was in charge of Mr. Selph and the Informal
Council. The AC asked for the reports. They talked about the reports. They were to
receive the reports. They filed the reports in the ARBCA files. What was “concealed”?

The main person “concealing the bulk of the information from the Administrative
Council” was none other than its Chairman, Earl Blackburn!
Conclusions

The repetition continues ad nauseum.

1) The documentary evidence contains no allegations or information of any kind
concerning any accusation of molestation.

As I’ve already written, this is technically true but the not whole story. There
are many evidences suggesting molestation. The Informal Council knew sexual
and sadistic motivations for personal pleasure were both possible. Their
relevant comments are not addressed in this report.

2) Because the MVBC elders state in their letter of November 21, 2000, that they
recognized the spanking could be considered child abuse, they should have
reported the incidents of Mr. Chantry spanking children to law enforcement.

They should have reported but they were being encouraged by the IC and
everyone else to handle it internally as a church matter rather than a law
enforcement matter. That was unlawful.

3) The documentary record shows that the MVBC elders and the members of the
Informal Council were mandatory reporters under the laws of the State of
Arizona.

No kidding!

4) It does not appear that the MVBC elders or the members of the Informal
Council knew the requirements of Arizona law concerning child abuse or that
they were mandatory reporters under that law.

“It does not appear.” This is ridiculous. Why didn’t the AC ask them? I did.
The elders at Miller Valley told me they did not know. I asked Tedd Tripp and
he refused to answer. But of course, Tripp, McKnight, and Jensen knew the
Miller Valley elders and themselves were mandatory reports. In a future
article, I will publish my letters to Selph and Tripp.

5) The presence of the letter from the MVBC elders in the Complete Report packet,
which shows they considered the spankings child abuse, should have alerted
the members of the Informal Council to advise the MVBC elders to report the
incidents to law enforcement.

And they did not do this. Why? Because they didn’t want them to report. And
if the elders didn’t report, it was the responsibility of the IC to report. If I travel
to another state to do an internal investigation, and learn about horrific
beatings, I am going to look into my lawful obligations. Especially if I am
lawyer, renown expert on children raising, and former homicide detective

6) The documentary record shows that the appointment of this Informal Counsel
resulted from the interference of Mr. Walter Chantry with the autonomy of
MVBC, a local church of the Association. Both his letter to the MVBC elders
criticizing their treatment of Mr. Thomas Chantry and his actions to initiate the
appointment of a “Council” to go to MVBC led to disastrous results. The MVBC
elders should have been left alone to pursue a process, within the local church,
to address any matters of sin or any other concerns they had relating to Mr.
Thomas Chantry. If they wanted or needed advice, they could have brought the
matter to the General Assembly.

Over and over they blame Walt Chantry, the MVBC elders and the IC. But
everything happened as a result of the Administrative Council – Earl
Blackburn, David Dykstra, Don Lindblad, Steve Martin, John Giarrizzo, Mike
McKnight, Bob Selph, et al. They were all on the AC in 2000-2001. Why is this
never mentioned? The answer is obvious.

7) Since the Informal Council operated outside of any organizational policy
governance procedures, the day-to-day work of the Informal Council was not
supervised by or coordinated with the General Assembly or even with the
Administrative Council and the contents of the Complete Report packet were
not available to the General Assembly or the Administrative Council.
Consequently, the Informal Council could not benefit from oversight, which
might have focused attention on the conclusion of the MVBC elders that the
spankings could be considered child abuse. Such oversight and expanded
dialogue should have resulted in the reporting of the spankings to law
enforcement.

Of course, the very opposite is true. The IC was supervised and coordinated by
the AC. The IC did their work over a four day period – December 13-16, 2000.
One would not expect “day-to-day” supervision by the AC. As Dykstra stated
in his letter to the IC.

“Let me begin by saying that I cannot think of a better group of men to
assist in this situation. I believe you will be fair and impartial in your
interviews and conclusions. The elders at Miller Valley have asked for
assistance of this kind, and on our most recent administrative council
conference call, the council approved of your trip. …
“Hopefully, your group will be able to provide enough assistance to the
brethren so that no further action is needed. I believe that your goals
should be to: (1) Find out the facts through careful interviews. (2) Make
recommendations to the parties involved, and (3) Summarize your
findings and recommendations in a written document you all can sign.

“Hopefully the honor of Miller Valley’s elders will be maintained and
Tom will be able to have a future in the ministry. Be assured of our
earnest prayers for your attempt to assist our brethren.”

To reiterate, most of the men on the AC knew about “the conclusion of the
MVBC elders that the spankings could be considered child abuse” because they
had Walt Chantry’s letter (Nov. 9, 200) and the MVBC elders response (Nov. 21,
2000).

Rich Howe and Eric “Shorty” Owens met with AC members Blackburn, Martin,
Lindblad and Selph to talk about these very things on November 14, 2000. This
crucial meeting is never mentioned in this report.

“Nov 14, 2000 Rich and Shorty meet in Escondido, CA with Pastors
Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad and ARBCA Coordinator
Bob Selph.”

8) The work of the Informal Council was accepted by everyone who received the
Complete Report packet as a complete and satisfactory resolution of the issues
at MVBC involving Mr. Chantry. As a result, none of the individuals who were
provided packets of the Complete Report, including the ARBCA Coordinator
and subsequent elders at MVBC, appears to have given sufficient attention and
weight to the MVBC elders’ statement that they thought the spankings could be
considered child abuse and subject to prosecution. The current body of
documentation available to the Administrative Council is devoid of any
communication of the MVBC elders’ statement to anyone for any purpose.

I think everyone gave carefully attention and assigned weight to the fact “the
spankings could be considered child abuse and subject to prosecution” and that
is why they did not notify law enforcement. They knew Pastor Chantry was
guilty and would go to prison. Not good news for MVBC or ARBCA.

And check out this whopper of a lie.

“The current body of documentation available to the Administrative
Council is devoid of any communication of the MVBC elders’ statement
to anyone for any purpose.”
To paraphrase, the current AC is claiming they don’t have a single piece of
“communication” from the MVBC elders from over the last 18 years. That
includes their November 21, 2000 letter to Walt Chantry which was in “The
Complete Report.”

The “current body” is not “devoid of any communication for any purpose’” It
is devoid of honesty. This is an outrageous lie and it is motivated by the fear of
being held liable for their knowledge of “child abuse that could be prosecuted.”

Sure enough you will not find the letter to Walt in the 17 Attachments in the AC
Report – Part I or in the 14 Attachments in the AC Report – Part II. You will
find them at https://www.scribd.com/document/388129451/Chantry-Letter-
to-Church-Walt-Chantry-Letter-to-MVBC-Elders-Elders-Response-to-Walt-
Chantry.

9) No information in the documentary record shows any attempt to conceal
information from law enforcement. Although the MVBC elders did not report
the spankings, which they thought could be considered child abuse, there is no
evidence they discouraged anyone from reporting the incidents to the police.
In fact, the members of the Informal Council advised the families involved that
they had the right to report the spanking of their children to the police. The
families chose not to do so, but there is no documentation that shows they were
asked not to do so by the MVBC elders or the members of the Informal Council.
There is no documentation that shows that the members of the Informal
Council advised the MVBC elders not to report the spankings to the police.

I will address all of this in a future article but like so much else the AC is
presenting a false narrative. I don’t have evidence the MVBC elders
“discouraged anyone from reporting the incidents to the police” but I do have
evidence “the leaders of ARBCA” did.

For example from two court documents both written before this AC Report –
Part II was released on October 25, 2018. They are official Victim Impact
Statements provided for Judge Astrowsky before his sentencing of Tom
Chantry on October 19, 2018.

Impact Statement of Jane Walsh
October 2018

My parents, as well as the other parents, were given lousy and unsupported
options for Tom’s menacing actions towards their children. They were made to
be treated like fools if they chose to report it to law enforcement. They were
bullied, chastised and shushed, and by the time the damage was done, we all
felt defeated and hopeless while Tom was essentially let off the hook.

Victim Impact Letter of Wayne Walsh
October 2018

My parents and the other victimized families were soon bullied and berated by
the leaders of ARBCA into not telling authorities once he escaped. They were
made to be idiots and that we, the victims, had fabricated a story because we
“didn’t like Tom”.

10) The testimonial information does show that the Level 2 Report of the Informal
Council might have been received by the Administrative Council and restricted
to the Administrative Council and those listed in the Distribution of the
Complete Report. The Report was an agreement between the elders of MVBC
and Mr. Chantry and, therefore, treated as a private document.

The Informal Council was instructed by David Dykstra to write the Level 2
Report and send it to the Administrative Council.

11) The documentary record does not provide any information that indicates the
Administrative Council concealed information from law enforcement.

LOL. They concealed everything from law enforcement including the Level 1
Report which the MVBC elders did not receive. The Administrative Council
knew Chantry was accused of child abuse. All of them had an obligation to
make sure it was reported to law enforcement.

12) The MVBC elders, the members of the church, and the members of the Informal
Council were focused exclusively on the spiritual health and well-being of the
church and on calling Mr. Chantry to repentance.

That is basically true and a big part of the problem. It was a criminal matter,
but it was not treated as one by anyone. That was primarily the fault of
McKnight, Tripp and Jensen. In Arizona, it is a felony not to report these kinds
of crimes to law enforcement. They were mandatory reporters and could be
prosecuted.

13) No authority existed in the ARBCA Constitution or Policy Manual for the
Administrative Council to appoint the Informal Council. Therefore, no
authority existed to select the members or to direct and supervise the work of
the Informal Council. Moreover, this lack of constitutional and policy authority
left the MVBC elders with the liberty to exercise total authority over the reports
of the Informal Council, since they were not constrained by Associational
membership to accede to constitutional and policy requirements governing a
Church Council, Informal Council, or fact-finding committee.

Same old, same old. The 2000-2001 AC and 2016-2017 AC beg to differ! They
believed they had the “constitutional and policy authority” to appoint the
Informal Council. The 2018-2019 AC may conveniently disagree in their
attempt to avoid lawsuits by passing the buck to others, but that is only their
interpretation. It is no better than the 2000 or 2017 interpretations. The 2018-
2019 AC is not the final interpretative authority in this matter! And their
interpretation is brand new and out of line with historical interpretations. In
fact, Earl Blackburn wrote much of the Constitution in the late 1990’s. No one
knew the intent of the Constitution better than he did and he was the Chairman
of the 2000 Administrative Council who selected, appointed, and directed the
Informal Council.

14) The concept of the Informal Council created further distance between the
MVBC Informal Council and the Administrative Council, although no direct
formal authority existed anyway, resulting in the work and results of the
Informal Council resting totally in the hands of the Informal Council members,
the MVBC elders, and Mr. Selph. Consequently, accountability to the duly
elected officers charged by ARBCA with performing the administrative duties
of the Association was nonexistent. In addition, the idea of an “Informal”
Council implies that the Informal Council is not constrained by the
requirements imposed on a Church Council or subject to the same oversight.
However, since no organizational requirements existed and no formal system of
oversight existed, the designation of “informal” lacked any meaning and only
served possibly to contribute to the confusion of mission, methods, and
accountability.

I wonder how many lawyers worked on this AC Report – Part II?

This is simply not true. There was no “distance” between the IC and AC. The
IC worked for and reported to the AC. That is documented. What a dodge.
The resulting work “resting totally” with the AC.

And remember, Bob Selph set up the IC at the direction of the AC. He was
assigned this responsibility. Further, in submission to the AC, he asked David
Dykstra to provide direction to IC regarding what they should do and how they
should do it. This was done as a full time employee of ARBCA. Why is that
not made clear in this report?
Walt Chantry wanted it to be called an “informal” council so reports were not
mandated. The AC agreed with this terminology. Nevertheless, reports were
called for by the AC.

Let me emphasis. Bob Selph was the ARBCA Coordinator. He was doing what
he was told to do in setting up the Informal Council. Read sections of his letter.
The AC appointed the IC. Selph interviewed men for the role. This was his
assignment from the AC. This report should make that crystal clear.

15) The lack of organizational authority for an Informal Council and the
consequent absence of a constitutional or policy platform for an Informal
Council resulted in the appointment of an individual to the Informal Council
that created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

This is a reference to Marcus “Mike” McKnight. He was an elder in Walt
Chantry’s Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, PA. He is also a lawyer. Tom
Chantry would not agree to an Informal Council unless McKnight was on it.
That is because he and his father thought McKnight could be managed. He was
in large measure.

McKnight may also have kept important documents from people he was
directed to send them to; for instance, the MVBC elders and families of victims.
There groups never received material they were promised. More in a future
article.

It was a “conflict of interest” for McKnight just like most everything done by
ARBCA including this report by the men on the Administrative Council and ad
hoc committee. This arrangement constitutes a major conflict of interest as
pointed out earlier. For instance, Steve Marquedant is investigating and
vindicating Steve Marquedant while Chairman of the ad hoc committee writing
this report. The hypocrisy is very great.

16) The absence of constitutional and policy provisions for a Church Council left
the members of the Informal Council without clear directions designed to
produce conformity with the provisions of the Confession for providing
counsel to churches. Consequently, the information gathered by the three
members of the Informal Counsel was not reviewed, evaluated, and discussed
by “messengers,” duly elected ARBCA officials, or even representatives from a
group of churches delegated responsibility for oversight of the Informal
Council. As a result, the Informal Counsel did not benefit from a policy and
authority structure that could have provided valuable insight, wisdom, and
judgment from a larger group of elders possessing organizational authority
over the Informal Council.
The Administrative Council selected McKnight, Tripp and Jensen to do the
investigation as the most eminently qualified group of individuals in all of
ARBCA. As Dykstra said, there was no better group of men!

If “the information gathered by the three members of the Informal Counsel was
not reviewed, evaluated, and discussed” that is solely the fault of Earl
Blackburn, David Dykstra and the entire Administrative Council! They were in
charge though they radically deny it. The AC could have talked to the IC any
time they wanted to talk to them.

17) The therapeutic program established by the Informal Council placed the issues
of Mr. Chantry’s sins, as perceived by the members of the Informal Council,
under the oversight of elders in another church where the sins had not been
committed and in the hands of a professional counselor. Such a program does
not appear to meet the biblical test for dealing with sin, especially the sin of an
elder.

Here we go again. The dreaded “therapeutic program.” It makes me laugh.

The Administrative Council could have stepped in and stopped the
“therapeutic program.” In fact, the plan was largely conceived by the
Administrative Council – that is, Blackburn, Dykstra, Selph, McKnight, etc.

Furthermore, they all knew Tom Chantry was fleeing to Tom Lyon’s church.
Blackburn and Dykstra could have called their good friend Lyon and told him
not to receive Chantry. Why doesn’t the current AC blame Lyon for “the
therapeutic program?” He is the one who carried it out and cut off the MVBC
elders in the process. The current AC is covering for Lyon because he is a
“reputed pillar” in ARBCA.

And once again they refer to “a professional counselor” to sell their
“therapeutic program.” But Devon Berry was not a professional counselor. He
is referred to everywhere in the documentation as a biblical counselor. He was
selected because he was a biblical counselor and not a therapeutic counselor.
Spin, spin, spin. I’m dizzy.

18) In order to obtain appropriate information concerning the “serious factual
differences between Thomas J. Chantry and the four children he disciplined,”
the PRBC elders needed to contact the informal council and the MVBC elders to
get specific details. Due to their lack of contact they could not address the most
serious concerns of the informal council regarding Mr. Chantry. Although this
matter should have been handled as a church discipline issue at MVBC, the fact
that the PRBC elders received both the Level 1 and Level 2 Reports and
accepted the responsibility of providing oversight to Mr. Chantry, in complying
with the recommendations of the Level 2 Report, obligated them to make
serious efforts to address the central, major concern of the Informal Council.

Praise the Lord. A paragraph with which I mostly agree. Lyon and McCormick
were altogether derelict but that was by choice. They intentionally didn’t
contact the IC or MVBC elders “to get details.” They were shielding Chantry
behind “the autonomy” of the local church and the shutting down of the
Informal Council by Blackburn. No one could touch Chantry, and Lyon and
McCormick weren’t about to fulfill the recommendations even though they
were “obligated.”

There is no question Lyon and McCormick should have made “serious efforts
to address the central, major concern.” – “the factual differences.” But they
didn’t care about the truth. The only cared about covering up for Chantry.
Therefore, they made no effort despite the fact they “accepted the
responsibility” to do so. They are the ones to blame.

Here is where I disagree somewhat with the AC above. They make it sound
like the PRBC elders were largely ignorant about the “details.” No question,
they could have learned more from talking to the IC, MVBC elders, victims and
families; but in reality, they didn’t need more details. They had the five letters
from the parents and a victim which were very detailed. What they needed
was to act upon all the evidence in their possession that proved Chantry was
lying.

It is reprehensible the AC doesn’t even “recommend” Lyon and McCormick
issue a “letter of apology” or contact the MVBC elders, victims, and families to
ask forgiveness. They are letting them off the hook. What unrighteous
favoritism.

Most leaders in ARBCA know Lyon is a puppet master in ARBCA. He pulls a
lot of strings behind the scenes. I have no doubt Brandon Smith, the current AC
Chairman, has been in regular contact with Lyon. Maybe the young Chairman
can fill us in on their discussions. This connection should be probed.

19) The speed with which Mr. Chantry was reported to have complied with the
recommendations of the Informal Council by PRBC suggests that he was
returned to ministry without sufficient regard for resolving the issues with the
elders and the families of MVBC.
Chantry had no interest in “resolving the issues.” Neither did Lyon or
McCormick. Despite absolutely no contact with the IC, the MVBC elders, the
victims or their families; Chantry was given a clean bill of health by Lyon,
McCormick, and Berry 13 months after his arrival. Lyon and McCormick
deceptively “reported” that Chantry “complied with the recommendations” but
that was a blatantly false.

Chantry moved to Providence Reformed Baptist Church in University Place
(Tacoma), Washington in December 2000. He became a member in February
2000. He started preaching on a regular basis in September 2000. He was
cleared for ministry and working with children by Devon Berry in December
2001. He was likewise cleared by Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick in January
2002. Lyon, McCormick, and Berry never talked to the IC, the MVBC elders, the
victims or the parents! Could anything be more irresponsible? But
irresponsibility is not the issue. They were covering up for Chantry and more
than willing to violate all the agreed upon recommendations in the report. That
includes Berry. He was supposed to address the issue of sadism. He never did.
I will cover that in a future article.

20) The only information communicated to member churches of ARBCA was
contained in the Level 3 Report which stated that all the issues had been
resolved. A more accurate statement would have been that an agreement had
been reached to work towards resolving all the issues. This Level 3 Report
contained none of the details regarding the accusations against Mr. Chantry
and, in fact, did not even mention that he had spanked children, which he had
admitted doing. While there is no evidence that any actions were taken to
conceal information from law enforcement authorities, the process adopted by
Mr. Selph, the MVBC elders, Mr. Chantry, and the members of the Informal
Council did result in the withholding of information from member churches of
the Association and from the Administrative Council.

This is unbelievable. Most (if not all) the members on the 2000-2001 AC
including Blackburn, Dykstra, Lindblad, McKnight, Martin and Giarrizzo were
well-aware the issues were NOT resolved but they approved the Level 3 Report
anyway and sent it to the ARBCA churches. Their decision “to receive the
report” is recorded in their January 4, 2001 minutes (see Attachment 7 in AC
Report – Part I). It reads, “Mr. [Larry] Vincent moved to receive the report. Mr.
[Jamie] Howell seconded. Motion carried.”

“The process adopted” by “Mr. Selph, the MVBC elders, Mr. Chantry, and the
members of the Informal Council” was the one counseled and outlined by
Blackburn, Dykstra, et al. The Administrative Council also approved the three
reports without objection and agreed to keep the Level 1 and 2 Reports
“confidential.” They were part of “the process adopted” which encompassed a
cover up.

Jamie Howell, the recording secretary, sent this note to all members on the AC
on January 6, 2001. They were in agreement and knew about “the difficulties”
between Chantry and MVBC.

“The AC received a report concerning the Council sent to Prescott, AZ,
concerning the difficulties between former pastor Tom Chantry and the
church. Three reports will be distributed: a general report to be sent to
all the churches, a middle level report sent to all the AC members (to
remain confidential), and a much fuller report to be given only to nine
individuals involved.”

There is no need for “a more accurate statement.” Only for a truthful
statement! And it was the Administrative Council who was ultimately guilty of
“withholding of information from member churches.”

21) The dissonance between MVBC and PRBC constituted a serious discord in the
harmony between sister churches of the Association and the brotherhood and
fellowship sister churches should strive to maintain. Consequently, the failure
to resolve their different understandings regarding Mr. Chantry’s situation
violated their associational commitments. Resolution should have been
pursued through the General Assembly if such resolution could not be
achieved through the elders of the two churches, as set forth in the ARBCA
Constitution and the Second London Baptist Confession.

The “dissonance” and “serious discord” was due to Chantry’s and Lyon’s
intransigence and the Administrative Council’s refusal to hold them
accountable for “the responsibility of providing oversight to Mr. Chantry”
which “obligated them to make serious efforts to address the central, major
concern of the Informal Council.”

22) Mr. Blackburn, as AC Chairman in 2002, could have followed up with MVBC
and PRBC to find out whether or not the concerns between the two churches
had been resolved, since the MVBC elders had contacted him, as representing
the Association, for help and counsel in resolving the situation with PRBC.

“Could have followed up”? No, he should have followed up but didn’t because
he was covering up. He knew Chantry was guilty of criminal abuse based
upon all the evidence in his possession. “Resolving the situation with PRBC”
would have involved exposing Chantry. The only “help and counsel” he was
giving was to men like Lindblad in order to conceal Chantry’s child abuse and
prevent any further process of discovery.

23) The Membership Committee and the Administrative Council failed to
recognize the MVBC protest of CRBC’s application for ARBCA membership as
a statement of difference or conflict between MVBC and GRBC in Rockford,
Illinois, which was the sponsoring church for CRBC. This failure resulted in the
mishandling of MVBC’s protest, the missed opportunity to address MVBC’s
longstanding issues with Mr. Chantry, and the approval of CRBC’s application
without the GRBC elders possessing knowledge of the unresolved complaints
and concerns of the MVBC elders regarding Mr. Chantry’s actions as pastor of
MVBC and their belief that he had not complied with the Informal Council’s
recommendations.

All covered before. The “difference” and “conflict” was also with the
Administrative Council and Providence Reformed Baptist Church. Is the
current AC going to put forth a plan to resolve the conflicts between MVBC and
the AC, IC, PRBC, GRBC and CRBC? Are they going to recommend an
independent investigation? Not a chance! They do not want things “resolved”
because that will be the end of ARBCA.

24) The Membership Committee and the Administrative Council should have
advised the MVBC elders to address their concerns, about Mr. Chantry and the
application of CRBC for membership in ARBCA, with the elders of GRBC,
which was the sponsoring church for CRBC. While the [2015-2016]
Membership Committee and the Administrative Council lacked authority and
policy provision to take action to resolve the MVBC elders’ concerns about Mr.
Chantry, the GRBC elders could have taken steps to resolve the complaints
against Mr. Chantry and bring about reconciliation, or they could have
withdrawn their sponsorship from CRBC for membership in ARBCA. If the
MVBC elders’ attempt failed, they should have brought their differences with
GRBC to the floor of the 2016 General Assembly.

They did not lack “authority and policy provision.”

25) The Administrative Council issued the ARBCA Announcement to the 2017
General Assembly without access to sufficient documentation and information
to make some of the definitive statements included in the Announcement.
Consequently, some of those statements were inaccurate.

They had access. These guys must believe repetition is the key to people
believing their lies. Will Blackburn ever come clean? He had all the
documentation. So did others.
Of course, they don’t tell you which “statements were inaccurate” like this one.
“Everyone with knowledge of these events [i.e., Chantry’s child abuse] has
operated within the parameters of the laws of the land.” In fact, no one
followed the law. It is totally disingenuously not to address this “definitive”
and “inaccurate” statement in this report.

26) The sole biblical authority for declaring a professing believer to be an
unrepentant sinner is within the context of the local church as established by
the Lord Jesus Christ. Any church, elder, group, or individual who pronounces
a person to be guilty of an accusation and an unrepentant sinner, outside of this
context, usurps the authority of God.

Chantry’s sins were to be dealt with by Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick in
Providence Reformed Baptist Church in concert with the IC, the MVBC elders
and the victims/parents. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement given
the fact Tom Chantry abruptly resigned MVBC on November 8, 2000 contrary
to the wishes of the elders. Two days later he fled to Don Lindblad’s church in
Kirkland, WA. Then he moved on to Tom Lyon’s church in University Place,
WA. All of this was sanctioned by the Administrative Council.

Not only did Chantry flee MVBC, he refused to return to Prescott and Yavapai
County, AZ for the Informal Council because he feared being contacted or
arrested by local authorities for his horrendous beating of Daniel Laver that
became known to the elders on October 17, 2000.

The current AC is arguing only a local church and its elders can declare a
member guilty. I guess Paul the apostle didn’t get the memo! He and his team
of men regularly pronounced unrepentant sinners guilty in churches at large.
So did Peter, James, Jude, and John. If all authority was limited to the local
church we would not have 21 epistles in the New Testament. They all address
local issues from an extra local position.

And while Old Testament Israel was not a “church” it was the people of God
and their prophets addressed idolatry and injustice where ever it was found at
the command of God.

This is especially important when unrepentant sinners flee one local church and
take up residence in another local church like sex abusers always do after being
caught unless stopped.

Moreover, Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick refused to execute their
responsibilities, fulfill their obligations, involve civil authorities in matters of
criminal conduct, and most especially, obey Scripture. They too needed to be
“pronounced guilty” by the MVBC elders, IC, and AC.

And how could the members of PRBC confront their elders when everything
about Chantry was concealed from them. Lyon and McCormick had Chantry
regularly preaching nine months after he arrived! No one in the church had
any idea he was accused of repeated child abuse by five victims and four
families over his five years at MVBC. Lyon and McCormick put all the children
in PRBC at risk. They only cared about covering up for Chantry.

The MVBC elders, victims and their families were not “usurping the authority
of God” when they declared Chantry guilty though no longer a member of their
church. Nor did the elders usurp the authority of God when they tried to
confront Lyon and McCormick for their vindication of Chantry in January 2002.

Recommendations

1) The Administrative Council should issue a letter of apology to the member
churches of ARBCA for the inaccurate statements contained in the ARBCA
Announcement to the 2017 General Assembly.

The AC should ask specific forgiveness, not issue a general apology. That must
include their defense of Chantry from the time they learned of his sexual
assaults and sexual molestations from Chris Marley starting in July 2015.

2) The Policy and Constitution Committee should draft a child abuse reporting
policy to be reviewed by the Administrative Council and submitted to the 2019
General Assembly.

It is incredulous that such a policy does not exist in 2018. I don’t think Chantry
is the only child abuser in ARBCA. The extensive coverup of his crimes may
indicate the coverup of other crimes.

3) The General Assembly Planning Committee should consider including a
session on the legal definitions of reportable child abuse and of mandatory
reporters, along with related issues, at the 2019 General Assembly.

ARBCA claimed that the allegations of child abuse did not rise to the level of a
reportable offense. That was pure deception. Lindblad used this con when he
met with Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Hales Corner on January 29, 2017.
He was asked the following.
“It appears and is reported via the internet that the incidents met the
criteria for reporting to the civil authorities. … Why was it not done at
that time or any other time since 2000?”

In response, Lindblad told the church, “It did not meet the criteria.”

4) The Administrative Council should issue an amendment to Part I of its report to
the churches concerning the case of Thomas J. Chantry. This amendment
should clarify that the Level 2 Report may have been distributed to the
Administrative Council in 2001; however, no documentary information or
testimonial accounts of the members of the 2001 Administrative Council
confirms such distribution.

Not true. Rich Howell, the recording secretary, had a copy. So did Bob Selph,
the ARBCA Coordinator. So did many others. The real issue is why the reports
were not sent to everyone? The IC was instructed to send a report. The AC
was told it would receive the report. Why did the AC not follow up with the IC
for a copy of the report in 2001? The answer. Most of them had it including the
Chairman, Earl Blackburn. I think he concealed the report from lesser lights on
the AC.

5) The Policy and Constitution Committee should draft a constitutional
amendment and related policy, for submission to the 2019 General Assembly,
that provides specific guidance concerning the obligation of member churches
to resolve conflicts, complaints, or difficulties of any kind between two or more
churches, which cannot be resolved by their cooperative action, by placing
those matters on the agenda for the next General Assembly.

This Administrative Council has only caused “conflicts, complaints, and
difficulties” of all kinds with their two spurious reports which contain so many
lies and so much disinformation.

6) The Policy and Constitution Committee should draft a constitutional
amendment regarding Church Councils for submission to the 2019 General
Assembly.

The radical independence of local churches is an unbiblical notion. It is
completely foreign to what we see everywhere in the New Testament. Is
ARBCA going to follow the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith or the
Bible? For example, Timothy was responsible to make sure Paul’s teaching was
carried out in Ephesus. That included his teaching in 1 Timothy 5:20-21 about
Timothy disciplining elders. That aside, here is what I’ve learned over the
years. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy (polity) guaranteed nothing. Only men who
fear the Lord, have proven integrity, and who love Jesus more than their
reputations, can be trusted to follow their own teaching and polity.

7) The Policy and Constitution Committee should review the Guidelines for
Forming and Conducting a Church Council in the Policy Manual and revise
them to conform with the proposed constitutional amendment regarding
Church Councils and submit any proposals to the 2019 General Assembly.

There needs to be more accountability in ARBCA. Church Councils may be
helpful to that end provided they are comprised of men with integrity whose
highest allegiance is to Christ.

8) The Policy and Constitution Committee should draft policy that prohibits any
form of “confidential” minutes, reports, or records by the Administrative
Council, all ARBCA committees including ad hoc committees, and any group
or individuals acting in an official capacity for the Association.

“The Policy and Constitution Committee should draft policy that prohibits”
lying and deceit like that found throughout this report.

Seriously, all these recommendations are “wood, hay and stubble” without
thorough going repentance resulting in public confessions and wholesale
resignations. This in turn will result in the discipline of Tom Chantry by Christ
Reformed Baptist Church or its removal from ARBCA. Oops. The Lord just
shut down the church!

Finally, and most importantly, ARBCA must beg the forgiveness of all victims
and families and make earnest restitution for the harms they have grievously
suffered. Everyone on the 2000 Informal Council, the 2000-2002 Administrative
Councils, the 2015-2017 Membership Committees, and the 2015-2019
Administrative Councils should return to Miller Valley Baptist Church at their
own expense in “sackcloth and ashes” to ask forgiveness of the victims, their
families, the members, and the elders.

Here is the word of the Lord for ARBCA. If it is not obeyed, people and pastors
should leave in mass.

James 4:4-10
[4] You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity
with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy
of God. [5] Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns
jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? [6] But he gives more grace.
Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” [7] Submit
yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. [8] Draw near to
God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your
hearts, you double-minded. [9] Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be
turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. [10] Humble yourselves before the Lord,
and he will exalt you.

If not obeyed than Ichabod to ARBCA – the glory of the Lord depart and the
lampstand of Christ be removed.

9) The Administrative Council should call for a vote of confidence in the current
members of the Administrative Council at the 2019 General Assembly. The
vote would not start new terms, if approved, and should be a vote on each
individual Council member instead of the Council as a group.

I whole heartedly agree with this recommendation. Everyone on the 2018-2019
Administrative Council should be voted off and removed. How could anyone
have any confidence in them after reading their AC Reports – Part I and II?

The General Assembly must also approve an independent investigation after
this spurious report and the previous one if ARBCA pastors have any interest
in knowing the truth. And I would hold off on giving any money to ARBCA
until after the General Assembly in May 2019.