You are on page 1of 344

Ten-Part Series on the Abuse of Children by “Pastor” Tom Chantry

& Its Cover-Up by the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America


from 2000-2018

Overview

Walt Chantry, highly esteemed Reformed Baptist teacher, leader, author, and editor,
knew all about the aggravated assaults inflicted upon children by his son, Tom, while
pastor at Miller Valley Baptist Church (MVBC) between 1995-2000. Walt covered up his
assaults in conjunction with other top leaders who were his friends and/or under his
manipulative control in the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
(ARBCA).

That includes the Informal Council sent from ARBCA to do an internal investigation in
2000. It was set up by Bob Selph (the ARBCA Coordinator and member of Walt’s church).
It was done by Marcus “Mike” McKnight III (a prominent lawyer from Walt Chantry’s
church), Tedd Tripp (the renowned child expert) and Richard Jensen (a former big city
homicide detective with FBI training).

These men quickly learned from interviews with the children and parents that Tom
Chantry was a child abuser. They encouraged the parents to let ARBCA handle the
matter rather than report it to law enforcement. McKnight, Tripp and Jensen also
resolved not to report the abuse even though they were mandatory reporters under
Arizona law which is a felony today. Instead they wrote reports that were sealed and
kept silent about his crimes. Chantry continued to batter children. They also abandoned
the victims and their families who suffered so terribly. McKnight, Tripp and Jensen still
have offered no apologies and made no attempt to interact with those they harmed by
their negligence despite my many appeals.

Tom Chantry is the most vile individual I’ve ever known by way of acquaintance. I have
attended both his trials and written about his horrendous behavior since December 2016.
I was stunned at the first trial in July/August 2018, when he took the stand after 20
witnesses testified against him, and adamantly asserted he was completely innocent of
ALL wrong doing. In fact, he looked intently at the jury and told them he had lived his
whole life for the honor and glory of God and would never assault or molest a child
because he was a man of God. He was found guilty for the aggravated assault of two
children

Tom Chantry is your textbook sociopathic liar and sadistic child molester. Though an
orthodox pastor in the Reformed Baptist tradition, and a Master of Divinity graduate
from Westminster Seminary California (a school I respect), he is a vile reprobate without
a conscience. He even wrote the book, Holding Communion Together: The Reformed Baptists,
the First Fifty Years – Divided and Untied with David Dykstra and a forward by Earl
Blackburn. Both Dykstra and Blackburn are key players in the cover up of his crimes
over the past 18 years.

Despite Chantry’s sound theology and credentials, there is no evidence he was ever a
regenerate Christian. He was 25 years old when he arrived at Miller Valley Baptist
Church out of seminary to be their pastor. Three weeks after he arrived, he assaulted a
child at the July 4th church picnic for shooting him in fun with a water gun.

Chantry was a sadistic pedophile. He used tutoring sessions to assault and molest
children. I have never observed anyone more arrogant or deceitful in all my life. Part of
his wicked pleasure is getting away with his crimes. When the four count guilty verdict
for the sexual molestation was read last Wednesday (May 8, 2019), I was sitting 25 feet
from him. He was furious because his evil con came to an end. God provided a just jury
and judged Chantry in righteousness. Now he will be punished in prison.

And yet, this “sick twisted monster” (the words used by the victim Mark Jones to describe
him) has been protected by the top leaders in ARBCA for over 18 years. Even after his
arrest and incarceration in July 2016 for aggravated assault and the sexual molestation of
children, top ARBCA officials and pastors knowingly defended his innocence despite
their longstanding knowledge of his assaults and the evidence of molestation being put
forward by law enforcement.

They also instructed church members not to read my “evil” blog and other blogs
producing evidence in the form of police reports, court documents, and incriminating
evidence exposing Chantry and the ARBCA cover-up over the last 18 years. The control
in ARBCA is cult-like. Church members have been intentionally deceived by their
Administrative Councils and pastors for a long time. I encourage all members to leave
immediately.

In the same vein, I encourage all Christian leaders outside of ARBCA to sever ties with
ARBCA and their Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies. Last week the General
Assembly put out a face-saving statement after the guilty verdicts for molestation. The
delegates acknowledged NO wrongdoing. They are still covering up. I say this
advisedly, the top score of leaders and pastors in ARBCA are corrupt.

Below is my “Ten-Part Series on the Abuse of Children by “Pastor” Tom Chantry & Its
Cover-Up by the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America from 2000-2018.”
I trust it will used of God to expose the bad characters in ARBCA and deter other churches
and organizations from following their example. The Table of Contents also provides a
condensed overview and links to individual articles on my blog.
Table of Contents

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
Pages 5-14 (10 pp.)

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
Pages 15-58 (44 pp.)

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
Pages 59-106 (48 pp.)

Part 4: Exposing the Extensive Coverup of Tom Chantry’s Child Abuse by Top Officials
in the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA) the Last 18 Years
Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:15PM
Pages 107-240 (133 pp.)

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
Pages 241-260 (20 pp.)

Part 6: Sociopathic Liar & Sadist, Tom Chantry Promised CCEF Counselor, Devon Berry,
He’d Never Spank Another Child Again but “Battery” Continued Soon After as an
Elementary School Teacher
Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 4:17PM
Pages 261-269 (8 pp.)

Part 7: Devon Berry’s Whitewashed Counselor’s Report Did Not Address Tom Chantry’s
Sadistic Child Abuse Contrary to Agreed Upon Obligations
Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 5:47PM
Pages 270-295 (27 pp.)
Part 8: The Illegal Cover-Up of Tom Chantry’s Crimes by Marcus “Mike” McKnight III
(Prominent Lawyer), Tedd Tripp (Renowned Child Expert), Richard Jensen (Former
Homicide Detective), & Bob Selph (the ARBCA Coordinator)
Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:03PM
Pages 296-324 (29 pp.)

Part 9: Tom Chantry, Former ARBCA Pastor & Son of Walt Chantry, Found Guilty On
All Four Counts of Sexual Molestation of a Child
Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 12:23AM
Pages 325-331 (7 pp.)

Part 10: Victims React to Face-Saving Statement by the ARBCA General Assembly
Admitting No Wrong Even After Conviction of “Pastor” Tom Chantry for Sexual
Molestation & Their 18 Year Cover-Up
Monday, May 13, 2019 at 12:10AM
Pages 332-344 (13 pp.)
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

This is the first in a series of articles about Thomas J. Chantry and the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA).

On August 21, 2018, Tom Chantry was found guilty on two counts of aggravated assault
upon two children. At his trial, he absolutely and categorically denied the assaults.
Twelve jurors believed he was lying based on the evidence and found him guilty. He
awaits sentencing on October 19.

In addition, two more trials (one if combined) are forthcoming to prosecute him on 8
counts of sexual molestation, 4 counts of aggravated assault, and 1 count of child abuse.

I wrote about Chantry in five different articles from December 2016 to October 2017. I
have excerpted them below as an introduction to this new series of comprehensive
articles.

Tom Chantry, Well Known Reformed Baptist Pastor, Charged on Multiple


Counts of Child Molestation & Aggravated Assault with Serious Injury
Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 3:51PM

Tom Chantry is a nationally recognized Reformed Baptist pastor and one of the
men who has publicly opposed me and attacked me for exposing the conspiracy
to commit and cover up the sexual abuse of children in Sovereign Grace
Ministries, etc.

The story of his arrest for child molestation broke on November 26 [2016] and it
was republished yesterday by The Daily Courier in Prescott, Arizona where he
used to pastor and committed the alleged crimes. He now pastors at Christ
Reformed Baptist Church in Hales Corners, Wisconsin in Milwaukee County. I
am not surprised by his arrest based upon my interactions with him. …

These charges concern alleged crimes committed in 1995, 1996, and 1998 to 2000
with multiple children according to the newspaper. Here is the account of one
alleged victim taken from a police report.

“One alleged victim, now an adult, came forward to Prescott Police [in
Arizona] and, according to a police report, when Chantry became a
pastor at Miller Valley Baptist Church, Chantry told his parents that he
wanted to tutor the victim, then ‘approximately 9 or 10 years old,’
privately in his church office.
“The parents consented, and the victim claims that, during his twice-
weekly hourly meetings, Chantry would spank him, ‘grope him, rub
him, and make him sit on his lap,’ the report said.

“The victim said that during a Christmas break during which he stayed
at Chantry’s house, Chantry ‘began fondling him,’ the report said,
touching his private areas, and saying ‘he was making them feel better.’

“This went on for a period of six to seven months, the report said, and
Chantry allegedly told the boy not to tell anyone ‘about his special
lessons because he would not be able to teach everyone.’”

This account has all the earmarks of a serial sexual predator. It is reminiscent of
Nathaniel Morales and how he molested numerous boys in Covenant Life
Church while C.J. Mahaney was the senior pastor. Multiple pastors in the church
knew about his crimes in the 1980’s and early 1990’s but never reported them to
law enforcement.

As a result, Morales went on to molest boys around the country including two of
his step sons. He was finally arrested in 2012, no thanks to the Covenant Life
pastors who covered up his crimes, and sentenced to 40 years in prison.

Four days, later I wrote a second article about Chantry.

Did Reformed Baptist Leaders Cover Up Tom Chantry’s Alleged Sex Crimes &
Serious Physical Injury of Children?
Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 4:06PM

Tom Chantry was investigated for a year and then arrested and jailed on July 25,
2016. … The story of his arrest was first reported on November 26 by The Daily
Courier in Arizona. It was republished on Monday, December 5. That is when
Todd Wilhelm at Thou Art the Man brought it to my attention. He wrote about
it the same day and I wrote about it the next day. The news went viral in
evangelical and Reformed circles having been concealed for the past four
months. …

The Daily Courier said, “Repeated calls and emails to the Christ Reformed Baptist
Church were not returned. A representative for Chantry’s attorney, John Sears,
said neither Chantry nor Sears would have any comment on the case.” That
implies guilt. Innocent men are not silent men especially when you are accused
of sexual abuse. Furthermore, multiple families have come forward. This is not
an isolated incident according to the pastor, Chris J. Marley, law enforcement and
newspaper accounts. …

These charges against Chantry by law enforcement raise obvious questions if


true. Was Chantry abused growing up? That is often the case with serial
predators. If not, where or from whom did he learn this supposed behavior?
Further, did he abuse other children before this alleged one in 1995? And most
importantly, has he abused children since he left Miller Valley Baptist Church in
2000? …

Below, is Chantry’s biography as it appears on the church website for now. I’ve
added information in brackets.

Christ Reformed Baptist Church


“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.” - Romans
11:36
Tom Chantry

Mr. Chantry is currently on a leave of absence from the church. [added


12/6/16]

Tom was born [in 1970] in [Carlisle] Pennsylvania and had the blessing
of growing up in a Christian home [his father is noted author, magazine
editor and pastor, Walter J. Chantry]. He was converted in childhood
and began to consider the call to the ministry while still in high
school. He attended Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina
and Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California.

Upon concluding his studies [1995], Tom moved to Arizona and worked
in full-time ministry [at Miller Valley Baptist Church] for five years
[1995-2000]. Subsequently he has been a member of Reformed Baptist
churches in [Tacoma] Washington [Providence Reformed Baptist
Church, 2000-2001, Tom Lyon & Mark McCormick - pastors] and Illinois
[Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Rockford, IL, 2001-2006, Dale Smith &
Al Huber - pastors] and has spent four years [2001-2005] teaching at a
Christian school [Christian Liberty Academy] in the Chicago area
[Arlington Heights, IL] Tom began preaching regularly at Christ
Reformed Baptist Church [Hales Corner, WI] in the summer of
2005. One year later [2006] he moved to the Milwaukee area [Waukesha,
WI] to begin preaching full time [at CRBC].

All of these institutions should make a concerted effort to contact all the people
who had contact with Chantry and inform them of his arrest and encourage them
to report any information regarding alleged crimes to law enforcement. Parents
in these settings should also talk to their children as appropriate. …

This committee of association leaders [i.e., the Informal Council comprised of


Tedd Tripp, Mike McKnight, & Rich Jensen] did not report the multiple
allegations of physical abuse to law enforcement. Instead they told the parents
about “their options” per the elder [Eric Owens] which must have included not
reporting. Of course, not reporting the physical and sexual abuse of children is
against the law. Therefore, it is not an option.

The Association of Reformed Baptist Churches in America must do an objective


and thorough investigation and publicly confess their faults and make restitution
to victims that may have been silenced, mislead or mistreated. This may result
in the discipline of committee members or pastors who covered up suspected
crimes by not reporting them. If they don’t take responsibility, I expect a civil
trial for damages will follow the criminal trial. That is right and just.

Criminal guilt is proven in the courts. Ethical guilt is proven in the church based
on the testimony of two or three credible witnesses. Tom Chantry should be
going through church discipline.

Moreover, those that may have protected him should be under investigation. For
instance, when Chantry left Providence Reformed Baptist Church in Tacoma,
Washington to teach elementary children at Christian Liberty Academy in
Illinois, did officials from ARBCA, or lead pastor Tom Lyon, inform the school
administration of the allegations against him. I doubt it. Why? I can’t imagine
a Christian school hiring someone who has been accused of physically abusing
children by multiple victims over a six-year period [1995-2000].

Similarly, I wonder if Christ Reformed Baptist Church was told about the
allegations when they called him to pastor in 2006. Was the congregation
informed? Did his parents know about the allegations in 1995 or following? Did
they inform church authorities? What’s the point? People who knew about these
alleged crimes should have reported to the police and church authorities.

I decided to send the two articles to the top pastors in ARBCA with an encouragement to
investigate. I wrote about it in a third article on my blog. Here are some excerpts.

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 4:12PM
I recently wrote two letters to all the lead pastors in the Association of Reformed
Baptist Churches in America (ARBCA) encouraging them to pursue the truth
without bias or partiality regarding the cover up of Tom Chantry’s past sins and
alleged crimes.

In response to my first letter, I received a caustic denunciation from one of the


pastors [Chuck Rennie] emphatically stating “There is nothing here for you to
‘expose.’” That prompted me to write my second letter and share more of the
information in my possession regarding the cover up. Here are the letters.

December 12, 2016

Dear Brothers,

I write in hopes the frowning providence of God becomes the smiling providence
of God and mercy breaks in blessing upon your head. …

Tom Chantry has now been credibly charged with crimes by multiple [five]
witnesses (victims) and law enforcement officials after a year-long
investigation. It is therefore right and necessary for the state to act in keeping
with the law and Romans 13:1-5. This action by the state, however, does not
absolve you from also acting in keeping with Scripture. …

This is a time of testing for you as leaders and as an association. Not only must
you deal with Mr. Chantry’s sins, you must deal with the sins of leaders who
covered up his sins. I therefore submit these documents to you hoping you act
in keeping with Scripture for the greater glory of God with no thought of self-
serving preservation. The reputation of Christ, not men, should be your only
concern. After that, I hope you will do all in your power to care for those who
have been abused and victimized.

Tom Chantry, Well Known Reformed Baptist Pastor, Charged on


Multiple Counts of Child Molestation & Aggravated Assault with
Serious Injury (Dec. 6, 2016)

Did Reformed Baptist Leaders Cover Up Tom Chantry’s Alleged Sex


Crimes & Serious Physical Injury of Children (Dec. 10, 2016)

Sincerely,
Brent Detwiler

##
December 19, 2016

Dear Brothers,

Given the response of Chuck Rennie to my December 12 correspondence, I felt it


necessary to follow up with you. I fear he may be representative of those who
hold power in the association. If so, I have no confidence an open, impartial and
fearless investigation will be done and then reported upon to the churches. Mr.
Rennie should be reproved.

Nor do I have confidence, sinning elders will be publicly rebuked and removed
from positions where required. Overseers must be above reproach. They must
also be trustworthy. All the facts in my possession indicate the top leaders in
ARCBA covered up severe physical violence done to children by Tom Chantry.
They did not impose discipline and they did not report it to police in keeping
with the law. Further, they allowed him to teach in an elementary school and
then enter into pastoral ministry again.

Therefore, I provide the following information to all of you so all of you are better
positioned to pursue the truth and hold accountable those who are guilty of
corruptly covering up Tom’s egregious sins and not reporting his alleged crimes
to law enforcement.

The first allegation of child sex abuse was filed by a victim in July 2015. The
Prescott Police Department did a one-year investigation before arresting Tom in
July 2016. You need to get the police offense reports and read them. These
should be made available to all the lead pastors. They are not gossip or slander.
They are the testimony of multiple victims and witnesses.

ARBCA put together a mediating council [i.e., the Informal Council of Tedd
Tripp, Mike McKnight, & Rich Jensen] to investigate the physical abuse of
children at Miller Valley Baptist Church. They produced a written report in 2001
[Dec. 2000]. You need to get it and read it. You also need to interview Chris
Marley, the current pastor at MVBC. …

What I have presented is a broad outline. I have more details in my possession.


For the sake of Christ and the good of his church, you need to take courageous
action in addressing all of the above in an open, honest and transparent fashion.

These matters and much more will come out in the trial. I don’t mention that to
leverage you. Repentance can’t be imposed. It’s must come from the heart
because the heart has been convicted by the Holy Spirit, the Word of God and
conscience. Please practice what we all preach – soli Deo gloria. This might
involve a fight for truth and righteousness. If so, don’t be deterred by those who
seek to silence you or marginalize you.

Lastly, you must make certain that the various interviews and investigations are
done by men of integrity that will not be partial or show favoritism to anyone.

You remain in my prayers. Have a blessed holiday celebrating the incarnation of


God in Christ.

Brent Detwiler

I posted a fourth article on BrentDetwiler.com three months after I sent the email letters
to the ARBCA pastors. Chantry’s lawyer, John Sears, was doing all in his power to delay
the trial. Here’s an excerpt.

Tom Chantry Could Have Been Out of Jail this Week for Child Abuse Charges if
He Showed Up for Trial
Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 5:17PM

Here’s the irony of it all. Chantry and leaders in the Association of Reformed
Baptist Churches in America (ARBCA) like his father-in-law, Al Huber, have
been declaring his innocent since he was arrested and indicted last July on five
counts of child molestation and three counts of aggravated assault with serious
physical injury. In fact, ARBCA leaders have put Chantry forth as a persecuted,
suffering servant like Jesus Christ that has been falsely accused and unjustly
imprisoned. I am not exaggerating.

Here’s the obvious question. Why does an innocent man appeal for a special
hearing to get out of jail when he could be in court today proving he is innocent.
This appeal only delays his trial. That makes no sense if you have a strong
defense to offer a jury. I think he has a weak case and the alleged victims have a
strong case based on the police offense reports I have studied. Therefore,
Chantry is doing all he can to get out of jail now and delay the trial as long as
possible knowing a day is likely coming when he will be found guilty and
sentenced. …

If Chantry pleads guilty or is found guilty, all the ARBCA leaders who have
insisted he is innocent will need to repent. Why? Because they were ignorant?
No, because they knew he was guilty and covered up for him. That too will come
out in the trial.

Six months later, I posted my fifth article after all the police reports were published
online.
More Evidence Against Alleged Sexual Sadist Tom Chantry & the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches in America
Friday, October 20, 2017 at 5:20PM

Tom Chantry was indicted on five counts of sexual molestation and three counts
of aggravated assault concerning five victims on July 27, 2016.

He was jailed and denied bond after a hearing by The Honorable Bradley H.
Astrowsky. The Judge withheld bail based upon this statute.

“A person charged with a felony may be held without bail if, after a
hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proof
is evident or the presumption great that the person committed the
offense, that the person poses a substantial danger to another person or
the community or engaged in conduct consisting a violent offense, and
that no condition or combination of conditions of release may be
imposed that will reasonably assure the safety of the other person or the
community.”

Chantry’s lawyer appealed the ruling on technical grounds and prevailed on


May 5, 2017. Chantry was released from jail on a $250,000 secured bond under
the following conditions as reported by Maz Efrein in The Daily Courier.

“He may not have contact with children except for his own – and even
that contact must be supervised by another adult. He is not to come
within 100 feet of where children are. He must surrender his passport
and check in with pre-trial services in Yavapai County [in Arizona] once
a week.”

These are very strict requirements because Judge Astrowsky believed Chantry
posed a “substantial danger.” Therefore, he did his best under the circumstances
to “assure the safety of the other person or the community.” That is, potential
victims of Chantry.

Chantry is not allowed to have contact with children or be within 100 feet of
children except his own and then only if he is supervised by an adult. Practically,
that means he is confined to his home. He had to surrender his passport so he
could not flee the country. He also checks in with court officials on a weekly
basis that monitor his compliance and whereabouts. …

On the other hand, Tom Chantry’s wife, Karen; members from his and her family
at large, and top officials in the Association of Reformed Baptist Church in
America (ARBCA) have claimed Chantry is innocent of all charges, the alleged
victims are lying, and the police are making something out of nothing. They have
embraced the abusive tactic of discrediting everyone while they extol Chantry as
a paragon of virtue.

For example, Karen Chantry and her father, Al Huber (an influential pastor in
ARBCA) have claimed Tom is being persecuted like Jesus Christ, suffering a
great trial like righteous Job and being mistreated like Joseph by his brothers.
Moreover, pastors throughout ARBCA are claiming Chantry is innocent of all
charges and passing on this reckless assessment to their church members despite
the testimony of multiple victims and witnesses, the work of numerous
detectives that led to his arrest and incarceration, and the ruling of the Judge who
denied him bail. Of course, none of these people know what they are talking
about or doing according to Chantry supporters!

They have also set up a Legal Defense Fund for Chantry and asked people to give
money based upon his innocence. Furthermore, I have read ARBCA documents,
interreacted with ARBBA pastors, and listened to messages by ARBCA leaders
regarding Chantry. In all I have read or heard, no one has expressed care or
concern for the well-being of the alleged victims of physical and sexual abuse.

I’ve had most of the 14 police reports for a long time but never posted
them. Instead, I typed up some of the charges for past articles about
Chantry. Anyway, Anthony Battaglia has provided clean copies of all the reports
which amounts to 48 pages. You can find them here. Remember, according to
family, top officials, pastors, and elders throughout ARBCA, none of what you
read in the police reports is true! Yikes. This is one diabolical conspiracy to cover
up the physical and sexual abuse of children - IMO! …

Furthermore, if Chantry is sentenced and sent off to prison, I suspect they will
continue to say what they have been saying since his arrest 15 months ago - he is
suffering like Jesus – a man falsely accused and unjustly sentenced. I don’t see
their story changing. …

Anthony Battaglia is paying a price for asking hard questions about Tom Chantry
and ARBCA leaders. So are other men and women in the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America. These are the true heroes of the faith.
They are the ones who have suffered for the cause of justice, not Tom Chantry.

I hope more and more church members in ARBCA study the evidence and
challenge the official line that Chantry is innocent of physically and sexually
abusing children.
The sociopathic lying of Tom Chantry reached its apex at his July-August 2018 trial when
he categorically rejected as untrue the incriminating testimony of 20 witnesses. He was
cheered on by his wife, Karen; pastor and father-in-law, Al Huber; ARBCA employee and
sister, Judy Rogers; and ARBCA heavy weights, pastors Don Lindblad and Dave Dykstra.

The lying continues as I write. Thomas Chantry has nothing in common with Jesus
Christ, Job, or Joseph. In the words of Susan Eazer, the Yavapai County Deputy Attorney,
Chantry is a “sick, twisted pedophile.”

This is Part 1 in a series of articles I will be publishing in the coming weeks.

The sociopathic lying of Tom Chantry reached its apex at his July-August 2018 trial when
he categorically rejected as untrue the incriminating testimony of 20 witnesses. He was
cheered on by his wife, Karen; pastor and father-in-law, Al Huber; ARBCA employee and
sister, Judy Rogers; and ARBCA heavy weights, pastors Don Lindblad and Dave
Dykstra.

The lying continues as I write. Thomas Chantry has nothing in common with Jesus
Christ, Job, or Joseph. In the words of Susan Eazer, the Yavapai County Deputy Attorney,
he is a “sick, twisted pedophile.”

This is Part 1 in a series of articles I will be publishing in the coming weeks. Here are
links to my past articles for those interested in reading them in entirety.

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

Tom Chantry Could Have Been Out of Jail this Week for Child Abuse Charges if He
Showed Up for Trial
Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 5:17 PM

More Evidence Against Alleged Sexual Sadist Tom Chantry & the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches in America
Friday, October 20, 2017 at 5:20 PM
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

There has been a massive cover up by top officials in the Association of Reformed Baptist
Churches of América (ARBCA) since December 2000 when they misrepresented Tom
Chantry’s physical assaults upon children as “inappropriate discipline” knowing full-
well he was guilty of child abuse. They also told ARBCA churches “the differences
between the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church and Thomas Chantry have been
resolved.” There were many unresolved issues including the need to ask forgiveness for
the vicious assaults upon four children.

These same ARBCA officials, which included Tedd Tripp, refused to obey the mandatory
reporting laws in Arizona for clergy. Current ARBCA officials continue the cover up in
a multitude of ways including the false narrative they put out to ARBCA churches in a
letter on April 25, 2017 that claimed all laws were followed in the past. They were not
followed.

ARBCA officials have also argued that Tom Chantry is innocent of all charges against
him despite overwhelming evidence from six victims, four families, two Miller Valley
Baptist Church elders, an investigation by a three-man Council, 14 police reports, and
hundreds of court documents containing thousands of pages of evidence.

In addition, Chantry has been arrested twice and incarcerated three times with a $100,000
bond, a $250,000 bond, and then a $1,000,000 bond. He was recently convicted on two
counts of aggravated assault and faces 13 more counts of sexual molestation, aggravated
assault with a sexual motivation, and child abuse in the future.

Nevertheless, top ARBCA officials have privately and publicly claimed he is being
persecuted for righteousness sake. In fact, a defense fund was set up for him and people
were encouraged to contribute based on the premise he was entirely innocent.

This cover up of Tom Chantry’s crimes was also carried out by his father, Walt Chantry;
his sister, Judy Rogers; his father in-law, Al Huber; and his wife, Karen. They still protest
his innocence.

For instance, Karen Chantry wrote a letter to family and friends on September 11, 2018
about God’s righteous servant (her convicted husband) being so wrongly disgraced in
jail. I quote in part.

“Tom is now in custody at the Camp Verde jail, and he is being held on a million
dollar bond. The charges are 4 counts of aggravated assault, 4 counts of
molestation of a child, and 1 count of child abuse. Friends, Tom is not guilty of
these accusations, but there he sits. … Tom has not done the things he is accused
of. They are horrible, sickening accusations. Why has God allowed his servant
to be so disgraced?”

The family should stop the deception and admonish Tom to plead guilty. Then they
should earnestly seek the forgiveness of victims and make restitution.

This is the second article in a comprehensive series addressing these issues and many
others. I’d encourage people to read my first article before proceeding. It contains
important letters I wrote to ARBCA pastors in December 2016.

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

In this article, I want to establish the fact that everyone involved in 2000 knew Thomas
Chantry was a child abuser even BEFORE the Informal Council from ARBCA did their
investigation. That is proven by six letters written by one victim, four parents of victims,
and the Miller Valley Baptist Church elders. I’ve added explanatory notes in brackets [ ],
used bold-italic letters for emphasis, substituted pseudonyms for the names of victims
and their family members in italic print, and link to original documents. A summary
appears at the end of the article.

But before we turn to their letters, let me quote from a recent letter written by Bob Selph
titled, An Explanation of the ARBCA Informal Council conducted for the Miller Valley
Baptist Church (Prescott, AZ) and Thomas Chantry in December of 2000. It was sent to
his supporters.

Bob Selph’s Letter


September 7, 2018

By this time you have probably heard of the verdict [on August 21, 2018]
convicting a former Reformed Baptist pastor, Tom Chantry, on charges of child
abuse. You may also have heard the accusations of a cover-up by the Association
of Reformed Baptist Churches of America in this case. …

I do think I can speak to what actually happened since I was serving as the
Coordinator for the ARBCA at the time. I am the one who organized the
[Informal] Council that went to Prescott [Arizona] and I set up the logistics for
its functioning while it was there. I was in contact with the Council to some
degree while they were there, and I have had in my possession a complete set of
reports from the time the Council finished its work. Not only was I the ARBCA
Coordinator at the time, but I was the former pastor of this very church in
Prescott for 17 years. …

Tom Chantry followed my 17-year ministry as pastor of Miller Valley Baptist


Church in Prescott, Arizona, and did so in the years 1995-2000. Shortly after Tom
arrived [in June 1995], there was an early accusation [ca. December 1995] of his
[bare bottomed] spanking a child [Mark Jones] in the church. He was admonished
by the elders [Luke Jones & Rich Howe] and told not to do it again. However, a
couple of years later, several more accusations were made of Tom spanking
children in especially harsh ways and without parental permission. After being
confronted and censured by the Miller Valley elders, Tom abruptly resigned [on
Nov. 8, 2000] and left the area, moving to Tacoma, WA [to be with Tom Lyon at
Providence Reformed Baptist Church].

Subsequently, Walter Chantry (pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, PA


and Tom’s father) wrote a letter [on 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 [Earl Blackburn, chairman] and the AC
appointed a three-man committee [comprised of Tedd Tripp (well-known
pastor/author), Mike McKnight (elder/lawyer), & Rich Jensen (pastor/former
homicide detective)] 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.

Walt Chantry, the father of Tom Chantry, was the most powerful figure in the Association
of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA) in 2000. He has been “credited with
the modern-day resurgence of the Reformed Baptist denomination in America.” I have
several of his book in my library. He was also the editor for The Banner of Truth
magazine.

Shockingly, Walt played a major role in covering up his son’s crimes and “demanded”
Bob Selph put together an Informal Council he believed would vindicate his son. He
likewise demanded the Miller Valley elders repent for their disciplining of his son.

At Tom Chantry’s recent trial, the following correspondence from Walt Chantry to Rich
Howe was commonly referred to as the “angry letter.” Howe was one of the Miller Valley
Baptist Church elders where the abuse took place. It was written on November 9,
2000. Here is an excerpt.
11/9/00

Dear Rich,

I am sad to be writing this letter. You and Susan have shown so much
kindness to Tom and to our family over the past five years. These memories
make it possible to hope that a letter will contribute to an understanding on the
occurrences which led to Tom’s resignation yesterday.

My understanding of the situation (from Tom) is the following: Tom


committed very specific and concrete acts which we would all call indiscretions.
It was right for the elders to confront him on these acts when they came to your
attention. Tom confessed to you (elders) and to the offended parties that the acts
were sins and he included in his confession that proud thoughts led to the
offenses. …

Based upon this understanding (received through Tom’s eyes and ears), my
letter is written in the spirit of Luke 17:3. “If your brother sins against you,
rebuke him.” Since you are a loving father of three children, you will understand
how we are deeply grieved and offended if we perceive that our children have
been mistreated. I can say that I hope no one ever treats your sons and daughter
as you have treated Tom in this matter. …

When you proposed the specific 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. Group or community criticism along with group or
community judgment of the “sincerity” of one’s shaping-up is very destructive.

When a person has confessed to all that he has sinned, he has made himself
extremely vulnerable. That is why in Luke 17:3 our Lord instructs immediate
forgiveness, not indefinite probation and continuing questioning of sincerity.
The last is psychologically cruel as well as objectively incorrect. From it Tom
correctly concluded that you had lost all confidence in him. With the measures
you proposed Tom lost all confidence in you. Thus his resignation. Thus his
feelings that his repentance has not been accepted.

As you can see, under the circumstances the parting is not with “good
feelings” on the part of Tom or his parents. Under any circumstances it would
have been with sadness and regret. But it might have come with mutual respect
expressed.
Sincerely,
Walt Chantry

Walt Chantry was totally duped by his 25-year-old son. His twisted “understanding of
the situation from Tom” was “received through Tom’s eyes and ears.” He made no
attempt to talk with the elders, Rich Howe and Eric Owens before writing. Instead, he
believed Tom’s version of what “we would all call indiscretions.” Then he launched into
a tirade of vicious accusations. All baseless.

“I hope no one ever treats your sons and daughter as you have treated Tom…You
recommended the intolerable, you were proposing diabolical procedures
regularly employed by Marxism and cults with the intention of breaking a person
psychologically…The last is psychologically cruel as well as objectively
incorrect…As you can see, under the circumstances the parting is not with “good
feelings” on the part of Tom or his parents.”

Rich and Eric responded to Walt in a godly fashion. Here is their letter.

November 21, 2000

Dear Walt,

Your sadness at the events that took place in Prescott on November 8 is our
sadness as well. It was never our intent to see this matter come to the conclusion
that it did. In response to the letter you wrote to us prior to speaking with us, we
must correct you on what you heard from Tom, who apparently has misread or
misheard the things we told him at our meeting on November 6:

[Note: Tom didn’t “misread or misheard.” He understood why and what was
happening to him. He was being confronted for his aggravated assaults on
children and sinful treatment of members. He simply lied to his father.]

1) We were returning him to his full duties and responsibilities as Pastor


effective the following Sunday.
2) A congregational meeting was scheduled for the evening November 8
with the intent that the Elders would let the congregation know what we
were doing in this matter and how we desired them to respond in the
next 30 days. We were to exhort them to continue to love him, care for
him, talk to him, and listen to him during this probationary period. Walt,
how could we expect the body to observe the change they desired to see
in his ministry if he were not ministering? We were not seeking input
from the body at this time.
3) On December 6, we were calling for a day of prayer and fast and to
convene a congregational meeting in the evening. At this meeting, we
were to hear from the body. Had they seen sufficient change, not over
just the specific sin issue, which most had already forgiven him for, but
had they seen a heart-change of attitude in his relationship to his flock?
We beg to elaborate.

The sin that the Elders brought before Tom was one of inappropriate
discipline of a church family’s child [Daniel Laver]. Tom was spanking a young
boy he was tutoring after school with various objects (boat oar, whiffle-ball bat,
ruler, hand) on numerous occasions, including one bare bottom spanking that
left welts and bruises on the child’s rear end and leg. This had been going on for
one year before the Elders were made aware of it. Two other families [the Jones’
& Walsh’s] have also revealed to the Elders that their children have received
corporal punishment. In all, Tom has inappropriately disciplined three boys
[Daniel Laver, Mark Jones, Wayne Walsh] and one girl [Jane Walsh], all under the
age of 13, and all in a tutorial setting at the parsonage. Why? Missed math
problems…putting a drink on the table…forgetting a missed word in reciting a
catechism problem! We are hard-pressed to fathom all of this. The Elders and
the parents involved are in the process of documenting all of these reports in
writing. We would be glad to provide them to you upon request.

[Note: They “documented all of these reports” in five letters written by four
parents and one victim for the Miller Valley elders and ARBCA officials.]

Also, the family visitations with The Elders and Tom allowed families to
express their [general] concerns over matters that have surfaced in the past five
years, none of these concerns which were new to Tom. They had been dealt with
in discussions between Tom and the Elders and at times, with individual church
members. These issues include behaviors by Tom that involved rudeness, anger,
a quick temper, an unwillingness to listen and general, lack of care, compassion
and love for the flock. Specific examples include public scolding and rebuke of
teenagers over the simple desire to give a stray dog water after a particular
service. A myriad of other examples can be provided.

[Note: Chantry should never have been in ministry. He was completely


unqualified in terms of Christian character. Three weeks after he arrived, he
punched 12-year-old Mitch Jones in the face with a closed fist at the July 4th church
picnic. Over the next five years, Chantry did not change despite input. He was
rude, angry, quick tempered, unwilling to listen, and generally lacked care,
compassion, and love for the people. According to Tom’s testimony at the July-
August 2018 trial, he enlisted his father’s help, who then influenced Bob Selph,
to get him the job at Miller Valley Baptist Church in 1995. What a disservice!]
In spite of this type of behavior, we have been blessed as a body by Tom’s
teaching and preaching. We have grown much as a body in the past five years
and thank God for His work of sanctification in Tom, the Elders and the body at
large. But the latest revelation of sin [assaulting Daniel Laver bare bottom with
a board leaving severe bruising] mentioned earlier in this letter tipped the scales
for Miller Valley Baptist Church. Our people have loved Tom. The Elders have
attempted to work with Tom in certain behaviors as they have surfaced, and in
some cases resurfaced. Forgiveness was given, but Walt, actions have
consequences. Our body wanted change. To a person, they were looking
forward to having Tom return to his ministry on November 12. But it was clear
to the Elders that the people wanted change. They did not want to go back to oId
patterns, old behaviors. You were correct in your assessment that we were
beginning to lose confidence in our Pastor, but there was still time to work this
through. Thus, the Elders united in the decision made, presented our plans to
Tom on November 6 and we were anxious to share this decision with the body
on the 8th. Needless-to-say, that opportunity never happened.

It is the opinion of the Elders that Tom has done much damage to the church
and to himself by resigning in such fashion. He was encouraged by us not to do
this and to place his trust in how the Lord was leading us in this matter. Have
we been perfect in the way we have dealt with this matter? Far from it. We’ve
erred on not holding our Pastor more accountable in areas where he has offended
others. We had hoped that some of these traits would be overcome with age and
maturity. We desired to hold him in highest esteem according to what we have
been commanded to do in Scripture. We have made excuses for his behavior,
citing his youth, his singleness, and his pessimism, in hopes of softening some of
the rough edges. Never have we endured such a trial as this. We have the utmost
respect for you and we know that this is a most difficult trial for your family and
the church in Carlisle [PA]. But the trial here has been real. It has been painful.
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. We hope someday
to get answers. It is still a great concern of ours that Tom does not fully
understand the gravity of this matter.

[Note: Rich Howe, Eric Owens, and others went far too easy on Chantry. They
made excuses for his behavior. He should never have been hired. Once hired,
he should have been fired in short order. That aside, this paragraph contains the
most important statement in this letter. “Legally, what Tom did would be
considered child abuse and could be subject to prosecution.” This letter was
written on November 21, 2000. Rich and Eric knew Tom Chantry was a child
abuser based on the evidence they had gathered. So did Bob Selph. There was
no question in their minds. Chantry’s crimes “could be subject to prosecution.”
This letter was written three weeks before the Informal Council from ARBCA
began their investigation.]

In conclusion, we the Elders of Miller Valley Baptist Church are going to be


requesting from Pastor David Dykstra, Chairman of the ARBCA Membership
Committee, a council from the Association to help us bring this matter to
resolution.

[Note: This letter was written to Walt Chantry and copied to Bob Selph. It also
references David Dykstra who would have been provided a copy. Dykstra was
at Tom Chantry’s July-August 2018 trial supporting his sociopathic lying and
damnable defense. He knew Chantry was a child abuser in 2000 and he knows
it today. He has been part of the cover up the past 18 years.]

We have seen in countless times and ways how God has been and continues
to be faithful to His church. It is our earnest prayer that He will again manifest
such grace in these days ahead, to all of us.

Richard Howe

Eric Owens

Cc: Bob Selph

In their letter above, Rich and Eric tell Walt Chantry the oral reports of abuse they have
received are being documented in writing. “The Elders and the parents involved are in
the process of documenting all of these reports in writing. We would be glad to provide
them to you upon request.” These letters were provided to Walt and many others. They
were also put in the “Red Binder” at Miller Valley Baptist Church that later became vital
evidence.

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 Tedd
Tripp, Mike McKnight, 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. Tripp, McKnight, 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.

Let me also add that Blackburn, Lindblad and Martin, along with Selph, met with Rich
Howe and Eric “Shorty” Owens in Escondido, CA on November 14, 2000. These entries
come from a detailed timeline sent to the Informal Council on December 13, 2000.

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

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

This meeting occurred before the five letters were completed. During this time, Rich and
Eric discussed the unwritten reports of abuse concerning Chantry. Blackburn, Dykstra,
Martin and Lindblad knew all about the allegations of children abuse. Selph too. It was
common knowledge.

Soon thereafter, so did Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick of Providence Reformed Baptist
Church in Tacoma, Washington. That is where Chantry fled in December 2000, so they
could “assume oversight” of him. They too were given the letters and knew he was guilty
of child abuse.

Thereafter, other top leaders in ARBCA read the letters like John Giarrizzo of Grace
Covenant Church in Gilbert, Arizona. Giarrizzo was also on the Administrative Council
in 2000. He was recently exposed by his elders in a 46-page report titled, Pastor John’s
Involvement in ARBCA’s Coverup of the Tom Chantry Scandal. All four elders (Pete
Smith, Mark Flin, Joe Godal, Josh Rusev), a pastoral intern (Nick DeBenedetto), and four
of six deacons, have resigned and left the church. So have over half the people. Giarrizzo
was told Chantry was under investigation for child abuse and child molestation in July
2015. He also read the five letters in late 2015 or early 2016. He too knew Chantry was
a child abuser but still worked to get him back into ARBCA in April 2016.

The five letters alone provide overwhelming evidence of Chantry’s criminal guilt and
immense danger to children. He was convicted for his crimes against Wayne and Jane
Welsh. He is in jail right now awaiting trial for his crimes against Mark Jones and Daniel
Laver. The judge set his bond at 1 million dollars because he is dangerous and presents a
flight risk.
Nevertheless, ARBCA officials have been telling ARBCA pastors and members that the
allegations against Tom Chantry in 2000 did not rise to the level of needing to be reported
to law enforcement. It is part of the cover up.

For example, that is what Don Lindblad told Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Hales
Corner, WI at a Members Only meeting on January 29, 2017. He was asked the following
question by members.

“It appears and it is reported via the internet that the incidents met the criteria
for reporting to civil authorities. … Why was it not done at that time or any other
time since 2000?”

His answer. “It did not meet the criteria.” That is a damnable lie!

Dale Smith, Al Huber, and Steve Martin were also present at this meeting with Chantry’s
church to support ARBCA’s/Lindblad’s cover up. Smith helped moderate the meeting.
He was Chantry’s pastor from 2001-2006. Huber is Chantry’s father-in-law. He has been
paying for his defense. Martin is the current ARBCA Coordinator. He told members
after the meeting their pursuit of the truth was a “witch hunt.” Lindblad has been
Chantry’s “advocate” since 2000. At the July-August 2018 trial, he repeatedly perjured
himself under oath. I hope he is arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Over time, the vast majority of the members of Christ Reformed Baptist Church saw
through ARBCA’s cover up. Seventy five percent have left. Only 30 adults and children
remain. Those that have left are doing well in the Lord and in other churches.

This same lie that the incidents of abuse did not meet the criteria for reporting to civil
authorities was promoted by trolls on Todd Wilhelm’s blog, Thou Art the Man. Wilhelm
has done a heroic job covering the Chantry story over the past two years. That includes
his attendance at the five-week trial in July-August 2018 and the daily posting he did
while court was in session. He has also provided a tremendous service by posting court
documents and primary source material on his blog so people in ARBCA can know the
truth. This has involved a massive amount of work.

Wilhelm also allows comments. Some are helpful. Some are not. One anonymous
commenter, who goes by ML, is clearly an advocate for Tedd Tripp, Mike McKnight, and
Rich Jensen. He could actually be one of these men or one of their lawyers. By the way,
mandatory reporting laws were not unclear in 2000 and criminal charges against these
men could be filed but it is a costly and complicated process since they live in
Pennsylvania and New York, not Arizona. I quote in part.
ML
September 14, 2018

Some legal experts have looked into it: Arizona reporting laws were changed in
2003. In 2000, unfortunately, the mandated reporting laws were not clear. While
the families, the elders at MVBC, and the ARBCA Council men should have
reported to the police anyway (and undoubtedly regret not doing so), it is
doubtful that they were legally mandated reporters for the level of allegations
known in 2000. There will not be criminal charges against them. Some other
people can look into it; but that’s the reality.

That is not the reality. Here is my response to ML in part.

Brent Detwiler
September 15, 2018

How many are “some legal experts”? That sounds like an overstatement. What
are their names? Do you include Mike McKnight? If so, I would not consider
him a legal scholar. Nor is he an impartial researcher.

Given your assertions, would you please provide the reading of the law in 2000
versus 2003 by way of comparison? That should be easy for you to do. Mr.
Wilhelm has asked you to do the same.

Of course, you must know John Sears, Tom Chantry’s lawyer, and Susan Eazer,
the prosecutor and Deputy Attorney for Yavapai County, disagree with you.
They have both argued in court documents that Tedd Tripp, Mike McKnight and
Rich Jensen were mandatory reporters in 2000.

Furthermore, presiding Judge Bradley Astrowsky, made the same point at the
Chantry trial. He stated the Informal Council and ARBCA would be convicted
of a cover-up if put on trial.

Lastly, you say, “It is doubtful that they [Tripp, McKnight, & Jensen] were legally
mandated reporters for the level of allegations known in 2000.” That is an
absolutely absurd statement! In fact, it is offensive.

Have you not read the letters from the victims and the families that were
presented to Tripp, McKnight and Jensen in 2000? Have you not read their own
confidential reports from 2000? “The level of allegations in 2000” clearly required
Chantry be reported. That is plain and evident!
ML, I can’t believe you are making excuses for them. The question is why? You
appear to be covering up for them. There is NO DOUBT the allegations far
exceeded the requirements of the law to report. This statement by you
undermines all your credibility.

Now to the five letters. I present them in chronological order and rather than using their
real names, I have substituted fictious names.

##

LETTER 1
Lois Jones
November 14, 2000

I, Lois Jones, am writing this statement 11-14-00. My prayer as I write this statement is to
reveal facts that I personally have knowledge of or was told directly by Tom Chantry
himself.

[Note: Lois Jones is wife of Luke Jones and the mother of Mark Jones and Mitch Jones, both
victims. This letter was written for the Miller Valley Baptist Church elders, Rich Howe
and Eric Owens on Nov. 14, 2000 which was one week before the elders’ letter above to
Walt Chantry on Nov. 21. She is writing “to reveal facts.”]

When Tom first came to Prescott as interim pastor, my husband, children, and myself
welcomed Tom into our family. He spent a great deal of time at our home, from joining
us on Friday night for pizza/movie night, to spending time during family activities,
(decorating Christmas trees, holiday dinners, etc.) to just “hanging out”. We always tried
to include him and make him welcome.

[Note: This is the kind of hospitable family predators love to target and take advantage
of.]

Tom Chantry was always very negative and critical in most circumstances. He was great
at making negative remarks about the way in which my family or I did things. He was
the first to point out to us that even when things looked great, he would look for things
wrong with them. He made many remarks about the way in which I did things with and
for him, like eating in the kitchen and not the dining room and not treating him like a
guest, the way in which our sons [Mark & Mitch] would squabble with each other, how
he felt Luke wasn’t disciplining the boys enough. We tried to give Tom the benefit of
doubt and I chalk it up to his being from the “east coast” or his youthfulness and
inexperience.
[Note: The self-righteous hypocrisy of Tom Chantry is extraordinary. While assaulting
and molesting children he was “always very negative and critical” of others and “would
look for things wrong with them.” Chantry graduated from a prestigious seminary but
was in no way qualified to enter the ministry. Degrees are helpful in gaining knowledge
but they do not say anything about one’s character. Chantry was an “orthodox” sexual
sadist who did not like people and was extremely arrogant.]

After events, which I will go through in detail later, we took the blame and truly forgave
Tom in a Christ-like matter. Through all the years, even after our move to Mesa in 1996
we still welcomed Tom into our home and lives. He even has a key to our home in Mesa
in his pocket right now (we have changed the locks to the door now). Tom would come
and spend the night with us just about every time he flew in or out of Phoenix, or needed
to be in Phoenix on business. We always provided dinner and breakfast and stopped
what we were doing to spend time with him. When we were in Prescott, we would make
it a point to have a meal with him or at least see him. We always tried to be a friend and
encourager to him, always turning the other check and not being offended when we
could have been.

[Note: In the future, I will write an article in this series on the how and when of
forgiveness. “Forgiving” people who have not repented is never commanded in
Scripture. It often leads to an unintended acceptance of sin rather than a biblical reproof
of sin and godly accountability. Predators look for families that will turn the other cheek,
forgive, believe the best, remain silent, and not report them to law enforcement.]

Tom Chantry has boldly lied to me both in person and on the phone in even the last few
days and weeks regarding the problems and reasons that he has left Miller Valley Baptist
Church. Tom Chantry lied to both Luke and myself on 10-28-00 when we last saw him
and he told us “he had offended some of the church members” making us believe it was
something minor and not the improper spanking of children when he had done the very
same thing to our son in the past. Again, on Thursday November 9th at 6 pm Tom called
and told me that he had resigned because it was going to be “impossible to work with
the people of Miller Valley again”. Again, he had opportunity to tell me of the spanking
of children as being at least part of the reason. Tom made it sound as if someone was
being unreasonable and forced him to leave because of their action not his.

Tom is a bold face liar who can and has manipulated situations to take full advantage
innocent people and children. He has misused his office as Pastor and the trust and
authority that comes with it for his own twisted pleasure.

[Note: God bless Lois! This is a strong and clear-headed statement. Every aspect of it
should be contemplated. Chantry is a sociopathic liar. Here is one definition.
“Creating elaborate lies for their own gain with no care about who gets hurt is a
hallmark of sociopathic lying. Sociopaths are compulsive pathological liars.
Sociopaths lie without conscience. That means that they can look you right in the
eye and lie to you and not show the usual markers that would give them away.
It also means that they don’t care about collateral damage. They get their mind
set on a goal and they will make up whatever they need to in their attempts to
achieve their goal. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are to others as a
result of their lies. It doesn’t matter if other adults get hurt and it doesn’t matter
if children get hurt. It doesn’t even matter if their own children get hurt.” (Ann
Silvers, M.A., “How to Spot a Sociopathic Liar”)

Most importantly, Lois says he will “take full advantage innocent people and children”
“for his own twisted pleasure.” She is referring to his sadistic assaults.]

DIRECT OFFENSES TO MY CHILDREN

The most serious offense was spanking Mark bare-bottomed (bare-bottomed: pants
underwear pulled down, nothing covering my child: front or back, laying over Tom’s
knee) and then denying it had ever happened.

[Note: At the July-August 2018 trial, one juror out of 12 jurors, voted not-guilty on the 4
counts of molestation against Chantry regarding Lois’ son, Mark Jones. It has been
reported the juror was tainted. The State of Arizona plans to retry Chantry on these four
counts. Mark is willing to go through a second trial because Chantry needs to be removed
from society where is poises a grave threat to children.]

A while after Tom had arrived in Prescott, he approached Luke and asked if he could tutor
Mark in English. He said Mark was very bright and he thought not challenged enough in
school. Tom had seen others like that and thought he could help Mark achieve his full
potential later on in school. Tom prepared a typed statement outlining his motives and
objectives in working with Mark. At that time, he asked that we not mention this to
anyone because he didn’t want others to ask him for the same for their children. After
meeting with Mark a few times, he again came to Luke and said that Mark wasn’t “taking
this seriously enough” (Mark was 10 and in 5th grade) and asked if he could spank Mark
under certain conditions to show that he, Tom; had authority over him. After Tom
presented his case and with the guidelines laid down, Luke gave permission.

[Note: Tutoring began in September 1995. It was a ruse used to abuse Mark. He tried to
keep this strategy secret. Asking permission to spank was a pretentious way to carry out
his assaults. “Tom had seen others like that.” This suggests he used tutoring for evil
purposes before arriving at MVBC.]
Mark has written his own statement as to how, when and why Tom spanked him. To
think that Tom did this to my little child is all I can bear. I feel so guilty forever agreeing
to let Tom be alone with my son.

This all came to a head, when Tom asked if Mark could spend the night at his house [over
Christmas break in 1995] because we had to go to Phoenix on Friday night and they had
a class together Saturday morning. It seemed logical and Mark agreed so we said yes.
That night Tom spanked Mark bare-bottomed and said he had done nothing to cause such
harsh treatment. When Luke along with Rich Howe confronted Tom with this, Tom acted
totally innocent and flatly said he had never done such a thing. Tom said Mark had to
have lied because Mark didn’t want to do the lessons anymore or maybe Mark was
dreaming. Finally, Tom said that IF he had done that he was asleep because sometimes
he does things in his sleep and doesn’t remember doing them. After acting very sorry
and apologizing to Mark and to us, but never confessing that this truly happened, we
decided and hoped and prayed that Mark had been wrong. We immediately ended any
one on one contact between Tom and our children. I don’t remember how long a period
of time all this happened but it was only a few weeks.

[Note: Chantry is pretending to be a servant but it is part of an evil plan to assault and
molest Mark. This is a common tactic employed by abusers. They will often offer services
to parents (e.g. babysitting, field trips, fun sleep-overs, etc.) to get alone with their
children. “Tom acted totally innocent and flatly said he had never done such a thing.”
He is a con artist. This kind of lying is traumatizing to the victim especially when parents
favor the predator. Mark was 10 years old.]

Why didn’t we speak publicly about this at the time? We felt we didn’t have enough
evidence; only Mark’s word against Tom’s. Tom swore that this did not happen and we
hoped and prayed that somehow he was right and Mark had dreamt it or even made it
up so he would not have to continue the lessons with Tom. The greatest regret in my life
is ever allowing Tom Chantry to be alone with my children. I don’t know how Luke and
I could have let this happen to Mark, but we trusted Tom.

[Note: People need to be educated on how predators operate. I’d highly recommend this
article. It is the finest I’ve read on the subject. Sex Offenders Groom Churches Too – How
Predatory Behavior Goes Undetected in Congregations by Kimberly Harris (June 8,
2018).]

We knew that if we came forward with this accusation against Tom, it could have
destroyed his ministry and life. Luke, Rich and I after great thought and prayer decided
to remain silent. It took me a long time to forgive Tom and to put this behind me, but I
felt that was the right thing at the time for me to do, I deeply regret that decision now.
[Note: This “bare bottom” assault occurred during Christmas break in 1995. The father,
Luke Jones was the other non-vocational lay elder with Rich Howe. Chantry was the
pastor.]

Tom Chantry has left very deep emotional scars on Mark that has yet to heal even after
six years. Mark feels that we as his parents chose to ignore what happened to him and to
side with the man that not only spanked him so harshly, but threaten to spank him bare-
bottomed many times and I am very sorry to say we did. We truly pray that Mark can
and will forgive us now that we have come forth and let it be known what kind of person
Tom Chantry really is. Tom has to my knowledge never inquired as to how Mark has
handled that experience thru the years.

[Note: At the July-August 2018 trial, Chanty categorically denied his assaults and
molestations of Mark. At the next trial, I doubt there will be another tainted juror to keep
Chantry out of prison for life. The case against him is extremely strong.]

In recent months, Mark has brought the subject up to us repeatedly and told us how upset
he has been with us. I have asked him if he was willing, with us, to talk to Tom and tell
Tom how he felt and try to put some kind of closure on this. Mark was not, but now I
pray he can at last put closure on this painful time in his life.

[Note: I have worked with many victims of abuse. In my experience, the key to “closure”
is confronting your abuser and prosecuting him in court. It is a liberating and
empowering experience. Of course, a victim of physical and sexual abuse never forgets
their experience but they can move forward. Not by “forgiving” their unrepentant
abuser, but by confronting their abuser and pursuing criminal justice. It is also
appropriate to seek restitution in civil court for harms done. This is in keeping with
Scripture.]

SECOND OFFENSE TO MY CHILDREN

Tom hit Mitch (age 11 or 12) in the jaw with his closed fist after Mitch had sprayed on Tom
at a water fight on the first 4th of July Tom was in Prescott. There again, Tom denied he
purposely hit Mitch, that he only pushed Mitch away. Steve Franklin, a member of the
church at the time, saw the whole thing and told us Tom with a closed fist drew back
from behind and swung hitting Mitch in the jaw.

[Note: Mitch is Luke and Lois’ other son. Steve Franklin was an eye witness but Susan
Eazer, the prosecutor, was not able to locate him for the July-August 2018 trial. Luke told
me at the trial, that he last saw Franklin ten years ago and he appeared sickly. He
suggested he may be dead. In addition, many of those sitting nearby the picnic assault
in July 1995 are now deceased. Because the State was not able to produce eyewitness
corroboration, the jury found Chantry not-guilty despite Mitch’s sworn testimony. This
occurred three weeks after Chantry’s arrival at MVBC.]

OFFENSES TO THE BODY I WITNESSED

We as a church had started a 4th of July tradition of watching the fireworks show from
the church parking lot and parsonage yard along with that we had a bar-b-que and
recently started a big water balloon/squirt gun fight. Our elders, Luke and Rich, along
with everyone else just assumed that it would still be OK to continue this. The Selph’s
had left and Tom had arrived the very last of June.

Tom was upset that we had planned to use HIS yard and hadn’t asked his permission
and told Luke and myself this. Rich and his family were out of town at this time.

[Note: Chantry lived in the parsonage on the church property.]

The first people to arrive were friends of a church family and someone Tom had not seen
before. He told us when he saw them ”they looked very rough and I immediately locked
the doors”. As people continued to arrive, Tom became more and more angry with
everyone in HIS yard and some that even went inside his house which he was quite upset
about. None of this would have been wrong with the Selph’s, but we should have asked
Tom’s permission but we just didn’t think it was a big deal. As the evening and dinner
progressed with the water balloons flying Tom was beside himself. He had pretty much
stayed inside his house by himself, but at one point he came outside and was sprayed
with water, which he didn’t like. At that point he stated that the next person that hit him
with water or anything else he was going to hit. Mitch had not heard Tom say this. Mitch
came around the comer of the house, saw Tom and sprayed him with water. That is
when Tom hit Mitch in the face with his fist. Immediately Tom went to his office at the
church and locked himself in his office for the rest of the evening. There were many
church members that were very upset with Tom over the way in which he acted and
treated their non-church friends that attended the party. We had always used this
activity as outreach. The whole night was probably the worst that we had ever had. The
whole evening got off to a bad start and Tom’s actions certainly didn’t help.

[Note: The next day, Luke Jones and Rich Howe should have fired Chantry, who was the
interim pastor, and reported him for battery. Three months later on September 27, 1995,
the church voted to call him as the senior pastor. On February 17, 1996 he was installed.]

THINGS TOM CHANTRY TOLD US

Most recent, Saturday before Labor Day [Sep. 2, 2000], we were in Prescott at our house
and Tom showed up during the morning. He told us how upset he was and how he
stormed out of the church’s parking lot. People were preparing Meals on Wheels at the
church [bldg.] and he was taking a shower [in the parsonage] when the phone keep
ringing. He refused to get out of the shower to answer the phone, he then heard someone
knocking on the door calling his name and even heard someone in his house calling for
him. He was so upset that he “couldn’t even take a shower in peace” that he got in his
car and stormed out of the parking lot. He said he was so mad that if he would had talked
to anybody at that point he would have said very bad things, so he left.

[Note: This Meals on Wheels project was done annually on Labor Day weekend. The
church would prepare meals for indigent persons. Chantry’s temper tantrums were well
known.]

Another incident that stands out in my mind was either a Wednesday or Sunday night.
Tom told us that he had gone out with Emily Howe, Jason Ladner and serval other high
school/college kids after church. Tom said they went out to dinner and the whole
evening was great. We saw Rich just after that and he described the evening entirely
different. Tom had ordered a beer and caused one of the other men to do the same.
Emily, according Rich, was very upset. Tom had caused quite a scene but when Tom told
us about the evening, he didn’t even seem to realize that he had done anything
questionable.

[Note: This is another example of covering up.]

Tom also old us about a church sponsored hockey game in Phoenix with men and boys
from the church. Tom said him and Taylor Welch arrived first at the game and “Taylor
said I’ll get the seats and I said great I’ll get the beer. I went and got in the beer line just
as Shorty [Eric Owens], Skip and the others came around the corner and saw me. I didn’t
know what to do so I just went ahead and ordered beer for all the men.” He realized this
was probably not the best thing to have done but he laughed about it to us.

[Note: Chantry didn’t care how his promotion and consumption of alcohol could stumble
people in the church who abstained from alcohol. He laughed about it.]

Sometime in August of this year [2000], Tom called and asked if could spend the night
because he had an appointment very early the next day in Phoenix. When he came, he
told us that he was applying with as a foster child advocate with the State. This meant
that he would have contact with foster children one on one to see how they were doing
and report back to the State on their behalf. We assumed that Rich [Howe] and Shorty
[Eric Owens] knew about this and were somehow involved. According to Rich, he had
only found out about this right before Tom resigned [Nov. 8, 2000]. With the four
children that Tom assumed authority over and spanked inappropriately [i.e., assaulted],
and now putting himself in a position of authority over foster children is extremely
frightening to me. I do not know his motives behind this, but I can’t help but think with
his secretness with the elders and his actions with the church children he was again
setting the circumstances to be able to abuse more innocent children.

[Note: Chantry was found guilty on August 21, 2018 of aggravated assault upon two of
the four children. The other two children (now adults) are currently prosecuting Chantry
on 13 counts of aggravated assault, sexual molestation, and child abuse. Trials will be
forthcoming. Given the evidence, any sane person would recognize Chantry wanted to
become a “foster child advocate” in order to “abuse more innocent children.”]

I know that Tom likes to smoke cigars and drink beer and wine. He knows some of the
body doesn’t approve and yet he at times admittedly doesn’t care that it offends them.
As pastor I feel he has a need to be sensitive to others feelings. There have been many
times Tom has told us things that showed he didn’t really care that he offended the
people.

[Note: Chantry takes pride in offending people. He is notorious for mocking and
ridiculing others for their theology or perceived faults.]

FINAL THOUGHTS

I have tried very hard not to make judgments about Tom or his intensions and motives
in this statement. I am trying very hard not to be out for vengeance for what Tom Chantry
has done to my family and especially Mark. I know that God can and will judge Tom
based upon his heart. I pray that Tom will realize what he has done and how his actions
gave affected people’s lives and repent of his sins and seek forgiveness from the Father
and from those he has hurt. I pray that be can be forgiven by all of us, which can ONLY
be through the strength and grace of the Father. I admit that right now I am not yet there
and only God can get me there.

[Note: Christians are often susceptible to being taken advantage of because they have
been wrongly taught to “judge not.” That phrase is found in Matthew 7:1. The context,
however, forbids sinful judging. That is, judging hypocritically and self-righteously. The
Bible everywhere teaches us to judge righteously. We must always discern between good
and evil. Furthermore, you know a tree by its fruits. Bad fruit reveals evil roots.
Christians are also misled when they confuse “vengeance” with the pursuit of justice. It
is right and proper to prosecute Chantry to the full extent of the law. That is not
vengeance. That is honorable. Nor is it necessarily an evidence of bitterness or
resentment. It is often an expression of righteous indignation. Holding someone
accountable to God’s law is a holy enterprise especially when serious crimes have been
committed.]

Tom lied to Luke and me. He made us think the “offenses” were the ones I mentioned
above. He should have told us of the children especially given the fact that he also did
the very same thing to our son. I know now that he did lie about spanking Mark and
hitting Mitch in the face.

I think Tom is a liar and has used his office, trust and authority as Pastor in a very wrong
and sinful way. I cannot comprehend the things that I know firsthand and now have
heard that he has done. From what I have heard from Rich Howe and the attached e-
mail that Tom sent me on 11-14-00, I would say Tom does not have a repentant heart. I
know when I talked to him on November 9th (I did not know the circumstances of his
leaving then) he acted like he was the one being wronged by the church family.

[Note: I have no doubt Chantry went into the “ministry” as a pretext for his sexual
sadism. It was also a context in which he could exalt his intellect and exercise control
over people. Here is the salient comment by Tom in the 11-114-00 email. It is so typical
of his diabolical lying. “This rupture has hurt me more that I could have imagined. Many
things have been said about me in the past five days, and most of them are entirely
untrue.” Of course, they were all true. You quickly learn that child abusers are the some
of the world’s most evil liars.]

Please know that the things I have stated in this statement were very difficult for me to
recall and think about and also to say about Tom Chantry who I trusted as my pastor and
friend. I deeply regret, but for the sake of my own son and the other three children, I felt
that I had no other choice but to tell what Tom Chantry has done to my family.

May the grace and love of the Father abound to all involved.

Lois Jones

P.S. Luke has just read Mark’s statement and related some things we did not know before
(my heart can’t handle reading first-hand how Tom Chantry abused my child). The
punishments and spankings, both the psychical and emotional pain is just beyond my
understanding. I can’t comprehend why Tom would do such a despicable deed and then
to continue to repeat it is just beyond my understanding! I tried their whole life to protect
my children from such monsters, and then to put them in a situation to get hurt and Mark
thinks I gave permission, is more than I can bear. How and why would Tom Chantry,
do this to an innocent child? And one that trusted him!

##

LETTER 2
Luke Jones
November 19, 2000

Richard Howe
Eric Owens
Elders of
Miller Valley Baptist Church
815 Whipple St
Prescott, Arizona 86301

Dear Rich and Eric,

I am writing this letter in response to telephone conversations I have had with you,
Rich, and my wife [Lois Jones] following phone conversations she had with Tom Chantry
and Bob Selph.

[Note: Bob Selph, the ARBCA Coordinator, was fully apprised of all the physical assaults
upon the four children.]

This letter is to be distributed to Bob Selph and Walt Chantry at minimum. You
have my permission to forward it to any others, as you see fit. I also expect it to find its
way to Tom Chantry.

[Note: This letter could be forward to anyone. There were no restrictions on its
disbursements like the two confidential reports by the Informal Council that came later.]

I find it necessary to write this letter because of some disturbing things I have
heard over the last few weeks. I am putting the information in writing, as I understand
it for all interested parties to read, including my son Mark, so l can be corrected if my
understanding is incorrect. I hope that by reading this, others might not make the same
mistakes I have concerning Tom Chantry.

[Note: The letter, like his wife’s letter above, was written “for all interested parties to
read.” Why? So “others might not make the same mistakes.”]

My relationship with Tom began with his coming to Miller Valley Baptist Church
in Prescott, Arizona to serve as interim pastor [in June 1995]. My family and I
immediately welcomed Tom into our family, and as families usually go, there were some
good times and some not so good times, but we all seemed to be good friends through it
all.

I will now attempt to get to the point of the bad times. It is hard it is for me to put
in writing anything negative about a friend especially one who has been my pastor, but
here goes. First there’s the fourth of July of 1995 when Tom hit my son, Mitch (who was
12 at the time) in the jaw and knocked him to the ground and later denied recollection of
it even though it was witnessed by at least one adult [Steve Franklin] and attested to by
Mitch. There were many mitigating circumstances so Rich and I, as the elders at Miller
Valley at the time, prayerfully decided to recommend Tom to the congregation as it’s
pastor anyway.

[Note: Luke Jones was a non-vocational lay elder at the time. This was a big mistake. The
“mitigating circumstances” did not in any way justify the assault. The recommendation
was ill-advised. Tom Chantry did not meet the character qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-
7 or Titus 1:6-9.]

Sometime before Tom’s ordination the following January [actually Feb. 17, 1996],
Tom approached me with a proposal to tutor my youngest son, Mark, who was ten at the
time. It seemed like a good plan because it would challenge Mark in his learning, which
wasn’t really happening at his regular school. Not long afterward Tom approached me
again with the request that he be allowed to spank Mark if he didn’t pay proper attention
or apply himself in class. Looking back, I should have known better because Mark had
never been any kind of problem in class and had always made excellent grades, which is
still the case.

Unfortunately, as time went on, as we later found out, the spankings became a
regular part of the classes. Tom would regularly threaten Mark with spankings and
actually spank him if his work wasn’t perfect, even to the point of having him do his
catechisms over Tom’s knee with a swat at the end for each mistake without telling what
the mistakes were and then repeating the process. The private classes ended after Mark
spent the night with Tom as a favor to us. During the night Mark said afterward that Tom
spanked him bare bottomed (with his underpants pulled down) for what Mark said was
no reason at all. The unmentioned events came to light after Lois and I found out about
the bare bottomed spanking. Again, looking back there had been complaints by Mark
and Mitch, who sat outside Tom’s office during the class and heard Mark cry during the
spankings in class, which should have alarmed me sooner. Therefore l take full
responsibility for much of what happened.

[Note: This is clear evidence of punishing for sadistic pleasure. Luke is extremely
remorseful to this day.]

After hearing of the bare bottomed spanking, Rich Howe and I talked to Mark,
heard his story and talked to Tom. Tom admitted to the spankings in class, but denied
the bare bottomed spanking at his home [during Christmas break 1995]. Partially due to
the fact that it was well known that Tom experienced outbursts during sleep it was Tom’s
word against Mark’s, we felt we didn’t have enough actual proof to risk serious damage
[to] Tom’s career and the church. Therefore with Tom’s apologies and assurance that
nothing like this would happen again, Rich and I decided to let that incident end without
any discipline or the knowledge of others in the church or elsewhere.
[Note: This bare bottomed “spanking” of Mark at Chantry’s home over Christmas break
occurred six months after he punched Mark’s brother, Mitch in the face at the July 4th
picnic in 1995. Two months later, Chantry was ordained as the senior pastor on Feb. 17,
1996.]

In February of 1997, our family moved to Mesa, Arizona and this issue seemed to
go away. However, recently Mark had begun to express some strong feelings. He
perceived that I had put his best interest aside to protect Tom as it related to the
previously described incident. Mark made clear his strong dislike, even hate, for Tom.
Mark believed that Tom should have been severely punished, even at the expense of
Tom’s career because of what he had suffered. Lois and I were trying to deal with this
issue. We were even considering having a meeting with Tom, Mark and us in an attempt
to resolve the issue. The recent revelation of very similar events between children at
Miller Valley and Tom Chantry came out before that happened.

[Note: I am well-acquainted with what happened to Mark. His “hatred” of Chantry is


understandable. I’m hopeful Chantry will be found guilty when he is retried for his
repeated molestations of Mark. Chantry was protected.]

Before we were aware of the current situation, Lois, Tom and I went to lunch in
Prescott [Arizona] on October 28 [2000]. Tom told us of a serious issue that he and Eric
Owens were dealing with in the church. Tom said he had offended some church
members and had used up all of his grace with the members at Miller Valley.

Tom called the day after he resigned his pastorate at Miller Valley [Nov. 8, 2000]
and said he resigned, he gave little or no explanation at that time. Tom said he was going
to Washington to visit friends [e.g. Tom Lyon, Don Lindblad] until he figured out what
to do next.

Rich Howe called the next night and told Lois and I about the incidents that have
occurred recently in Prescott [at MVBC], that are terribly similar to those we are still
dealing with in our own lives. A few days later Tom sent us an e-mail that Lois
immediately forwarded to Rich in which Tom said individuals at Miller Valley were
saying things about him that were not true.

I believe that this recap of our past experience with Tom, his recent serious shading
of the truth by saying he had offended someone, when he had actually abused one or more
children in the church, will shed additional light on this situation for those who are trying
to sort this matter out. It is also important to me because these events not happen again.
If Tom has repeated what Mark says happened to him, Tom must not be allowed to be in
a position of authority over children, or pastor a church again, unless (confession, serious
repentance, and whatever further measures are deemed necessary by the Elders at Miller
Valley Baptist Church are taken. Even then, I am not sure Tom should ever be allowed
to have such authority again.

[Note: Chantry should have been reported to the police by the parents and the Miller
Valley elders. At this point, it was evident he was a serial child abuser. Four children
had been physically assaulted. Three boys bare-bottomed and then followed by the
rubbing of their buttocks. He should have gone to prison. Thank God, he is in jail now.]

It appears that not only has Tom sinned against these children, he has and lied and
is attempting to cover up his sin by discrediting Miller Valley Baptist Church and its
elders. This must not be allowed to happen. The reputation of God’s church and the
safety of other unsuspecting children and families are at stake.

[Note: Luke is exactly right. Chantry was covering up his sin by discrediting the people
in MVBC and its elders. That includes the four child victims. That same strategy has
been deployed by Chantry and ARBCA officials since his arrest in July 2016. Nothing
has changed! This strategy is also evident in the reprehensible “Administrative Council
Report – Part 1” put out on September 5, 2108. I will deal with that in a future article.]

We are also sending a letter that Lois has written [the one above] outlining her
feelings on this matter. I started to read it and then decided we should each write our
own. I apologize in advance for what I know will be some repetition. Mark’s recollection
of his experience relating to this matter will also be included.

This has been a difficult process, if there are any small inaccuracies I apologize. I
believe the information given here is overall true and accurate, though I have not
attempted to outline every detail of every event. If any interested party has further
questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me by either means shown
below.

One additional thought. The morning after I wrote the words above. The morning
after Mark wrote the letter you are about to read. Mark’s letter contains some information
I have not been aware of before today, I am not sure why. What I do know though, is
that we should have listened to Mark much more carefully, questioned Tom much more
carefully and trusted Tom much less. It certainly appears that I have been deceived for
years by a very convincing liar. After what I have learned this morning I strongly
recommend that if it is possible, you should have the children involved in this put their
recollections and feelings in writing. Had I done this at the time the events occurred that
are described in Mark’s letter, much different action would have been taken at the time.
I can’t believe I let this pass. I didn’t have a clear understanding of what had taken place.
I hope Mark can forgive me for letting this happen. He has not to this point.
In the end we want the best for God’s church, Tom and all who are involved. I
pray to that end.

In Christ,

Luke Jones

##

LETTER 3
Mark Jones
November 20, 2000

What I am about to say is my recollection of events which happened to me when


I was 10 years old. Even though it was more than 5 years ago [in 1995], I can still
remember a lot of what happened. Although I wish I could, it is not likely that I will ever
be able to forget what happened. For so long I was forbidden by my parents to even
speak of these events, but now have the opportunity to finally let it out of my mind. First,
I will tell what actually happened. Second I will tell my thoughts and feelings about what
happened.

[Note: Parents must never dismiss allegations of abuse by their children even when the
allegations are against people that are loved, respected and trusted by the parents. It is
extremely rare for children to make up reports of abuse. You almost never suspect child
abusers. They are people close to you.]

It is hard to tell exactly when it began because there were so manyI important
events which happened before. It probably began when Pastor Selph left Miller Valley
Baptist Church to preach in South Carolina leaving the church in need of a pastor. Since
God had provided nobody else, Thomas Chantry came to fill the position of pastor. My
parents welcomed him warmly to Prescott. Why wouldn’t they? At that point, they
could not have known what was going to happen.

[Note: Mark’s father, Luke was a non-vocational lay elder for MVBC at the time.]

At first, I even liked Chantry. He was nice and more like a kid than the rest of the
adults that I knew. For a while, my parents would invite him to have lunch with our
family after church on Sunday on a regular basis. My parents spent many hours talking
with him, and in a short amount of time he had gotten to know our family very well. My
parents trusted and respected Chantry. He had succeeded in becoming a good family
friend.
[Note: Chantry just turned 25 when he arrived at MVBC. That is how serial pedophiles
operate. They groom their victims and their families by winning their trust. It is always
the case.]

Over the summer, my parents had to spend all day at work, leaving my brother
[Mitch] and I at home. However, we were still too young to be left alone for so long, so
my parents hired a babysitter to watch us each summer. The summer that Chantry came
to live in Prescot, my parents chose Ken Turner to watch my brother and I. The majority
of the summer things worked out well. However, my brother and I did not always share
the same point of view on things and sometimes ended up fighting with each other. Ken
threatened to discipline us to the point of even spanking us if he had to. However, after
one particularly bad fight between my brother and I, Ken proved that he never actually
intended to lay a finger on either of us.

[Note: Mark was ten. Mitch was 12.]

Even then I could tell that Ken was very upset with what happened, so he sent us
to our rooms. A few minutes later, he returned [and] explained to us what was going to
happen. He had called my parents and they both agreed that the dispute had to be settled
immediately, but neither of them could come home from work to do it. However, Ken
was not the man who was going to punish my brother and I.

I do not know why Chantry became involved, but my parents asked him to come
from his house and spank my brother and I in order to settle the dispute as quickly as
possible. That is exactly what happened. Chantry came and explained to me the situation
and then he put me over his knee and spanked me. The issue was solved. I did not have
to be punished from my parents later, nor did they mention anything when they got
home. Chantry did not hit as hard as my parents did when they disciplined me, so I felt
that I had gotten away easy and was satisfied with my parent’s decision. However, this
was only the beginning.

After the summer ended [in 1995] I went back to school and things proceeded
normally for a few weeks. Things really started to go downhill from there. Chantry
convinced my parents that I was a bright student and was not getting the attention at
school to succeed later on in life. He had convinced my parents to allow him to pick me
up from school and tutor me two days a week for two hours. He also received permission
to spank me if I misbehaved. I thought that something was wrong because I almost
always behaved well, but I trusted my parents and Chantry more than my own judgment.
That was my mistake.

[Note: This was Chantry’s mode of operation. Using tutoring as a guise for his physical
assaults and sexual molestations. He also got “permission to spank” as a cover for his
assaults. He was “convincing.”]
The first time he spanked me in the class was after the third session. He made a
deal with me that I was allowed one mistake for free, but the second would cost me a
spanking. I do not remember my first mistake, but I got the spanking for slouching in
my chair. He used a homemade switch which was cut from the willow trees outside of
his house. 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.

[Note: This is child abuse. “The switch stung like hell…tears streaming down my face.”
When the child attempted “to rub the part that hurt,” Chantry beat him three more times
for “trying to cheat.” That is, “relieve the pain.” That is sadism. It should have been
reported to police.]

After the second spanking, 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 thought he was doing me a favor because
it did help the pain, so I did not even mention it to anybody else.

[Note: “Chantry made me sit on his lap.” “He rubbed my ass after spanking me.” This
is a clear sign of sexual sadism. “I was too young to really understand what this meant.”
The child is communicating in print his awareness of sexual overtones. No one drew him
out. At the July/August 2018 trial, we learned from Mark that he was also being
molested.]

As the classes continued on, it became worse. The spankings got more frequent
and more severe. On several occasions, I would recite catechism over his knee. He would
hit me with his switch if I made a mistake. He did not tell what the mistake was nor did
he offer me a clue. He would just hit me until I got it right. Another time I could not
pronounce the word “Massachusetts.” He tried to help me, but after a few failed attempts
he bent me over his knee and spanked me until I got it right.

[Note: “More frequent and more severe.” Being a sadist, Chantry made up reasons to
assault Mark.]

The time in each class that I knew I was certain to get spanked was when he graded
my essays. I had to write one essay for each class. When he graded it he turned it into a
game. He drew two boxes on a piece of paper. After each mistake he would fill in one
of the boxes. For each mistake I made after both boxes were full, I received one swat.
Despite my best efforts to correct my mistakes before the class, I would usually receive
four or five swats. On several occasions, my parents proofread my essays. Even then, I
would get one or two swats. Chantry’s standards were too high for any ten year old.
There was no way I could ever be good enough for him.

[Note: Chanty’s sadism is part of a “game.” He is insufferable in his demands for


perfection. He inflicted great physical pain and psychological trauma upon Mark.]

After each class my parents would come pick me up and take my brother and I
home. On the way home, I would tell them about what happened. I told them every day
that I got spanked by Chantry, but they did not listen. Whether they did not care or just
not take me seriously I did not know. I trusted my parents. If they let it happen, it had
to have been the right decision. Wasn’t that what I was supposed [to] do? They made
no attempt to stop it, and I trusted their decision without question.

[Note: According to studies, children almost never make up these accounts.]

Things continued this way until my Christmas break. Even though school was out
the classes continued. One day was different though. Chantry suggested that my parents
let me spend the night at his house so that they would not have to drive me in the next
day. My parents liked the idea and quickly agreed. That night was hell. Chantry was
an angel at the beginning of the night but quickly turned into a demon. We played around
for a couple of hours and even watched a movie. After the movie, Chantry’s true
intentions revealed themselves. He had constructed two new paddles just for the
occasion that he was just waiting to try out.

[Note: “That night was hell. Chantry…quickly turned into a demon.” “Chantry’s true
intentions revealed themselves.” Chantry pretended to help the parents but it was an
evil plan designed to assault the victim with “two new paddles just for the occasion.”
These are all textbook signs of sadism!]

First he made me stand up and bend over and grabbed my feet while he spanked
me with his paddles. He claimed that he was punishing me for the sins that I had
committed but had not been caught. Things went from bad to worse. 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. After that, I went to
bed and the class went on normally the next day.

[Note: “Punishing me for the sins that I had committed but had not been caught.” This
is a common explanation used by sinister predators like Chantry in a Christian context.
It is the same vile excuse used by John Smyth in his assaults on 25 young men in England
and 90 boys in Zimbabwe. Search “Smyth” on my blog for articles. His son and former
mega-church pastor, P.J. Smyth covered up for him.]
Mark says “clearly” what happened. Chantry stripped him naked and bent him over his
knee so Chantry could see his “buttocks turn red while he spanked me.” This is criminal
in nature! “Even worse, [there was ] nothing between his eyes and me. I felt sick.” Mark
doesn’t tell us everything in this 2000 letter. He was also molested. The recent “Motion
to Hold Defendant Without Bond” filed on September 11, 2018 by the State of Arizona
says in part, “After this he proceeded to rub [Mark’s] bottom and stroke his penis.” This
would have been discovered if Chantry had been reported to law enforcement.]

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. I had asked him several times and he
gave me the same response. He said that I wasn’t being challenged enough in school and
he wanted to make sure that I would reach my full potential later on in life. I asked him
the same question again that night, but this time he gave me a different answer. He said
it was “Because I like you.” That is all he said, then he changed the subject.

[Note: Chantry is a perverted sexual sadist who targets boys, not girls. The technical term
for him is pederast. The victim is dropping hints. It wasn’t about tutoring. It was about
“liking” him.]

After I told my parents they ended the class for a few weeks. Chantry had lied
convincingly to them and accused me of making up the whole thing in order to escape
his hellish class. My parents discussed it with Rich Howe and Chantry and they agreed
to make some changes. The classes were held at my own house from then on, and I was
no longer alone with Chantry. He was not allowed to spank me any longer. The part
that made me suspicious was that I was specifically forbidden to ever mention any of
these events to anybody ever again.

[Note: I talked to the Mark’s father at Chantry’s July-August 2018 trial. He deeply regrets
not listening to his son and not reporting Chantry to law enforcement. No ARBCA
official has yet to express any regret for not reporting Chantry’s known and suspected
crimes to law enforcement. Like many other Christian organizations who cover up
physical and sexual abuse or other forms of evil, ARBCA has played the “slander card”
and claimed blogs are bearing false witness against them. The truth be told, ARBCA
officials are the slanderers and false witnesses.

Remember, they have claimed Tom Chantry is innocent like Jesus Christ, Job and Joseph;
the victims are the liars, the bloggers posting evidence are evil, there has been no cover
up, all the laws of the land were followed, etc. Enough of the lying and hypocrisy
ARBCA! You are the one transgressing the Ninth Commandment. Jesus’ words apply
to you, “Woe to you scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Matt. 23:13-33). Here is the truth
you have covered up!]
Thomas Chantry is a sick, twisted monster who used his position as pastor of the
church [to] manipulate my trust in him and my parent’s trust in him. The emotional pain
of knowing that I could never be good enough to make it hurt even more that the stings
from his switches. Even all these years later I can still remember what it felt like to sit in
school all day dreading what I knew was going to happen.

[Note: Filing a lawsuit for “pain and suffering” is a legitimate form of restitution. Five
years has now become 18 years and Mark “can still remember what it felt like” to be
repeatedly condemned, beaten and molested by “a sick twisted monster.”]

I trusted my parents to make sure nothing like this would happen, but it still did.
I felt betrayed by them too. Chantry lied and convinced them that he had done nothing
wrong. They believed him. They trusted his word over mine. Nobody took a second to
consider what I felt.

[Note: I have counseled many victims and they have often told me the pain of betrayal
by parents and pastors is equal or greater than the trauma of physical or sexual abuse. I
have often seen pastors cover up abuse to prevent the loss of money, members and
reputation. Read C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the
Sexual Abuse of Children.]

My parents criticized me for not forgiving him. They said it was not Christian to
hold a grudge like that. Even now I don’t forgive him. I hate him for what he did. It
angers me more that he lied about it and even repeated it. If he even once apologized
and repented for his sin I would forgive, but he never will. He will continue until
somebody stops him. I am not surprised that he repeated his actions. It will not be the
last time either unless we put an end to it once and for all.

[Note: The last thing victims need to hear is how they need to forgive their unrepentant
and diabolical abusers. Notice, I said last thing. The first thing, second thing, third
thing… they need is to freely share the full range of emotions they are experiencing and
be comforted and understood, not corrected. I’ve often seen victims told not to “hold a
grudge” by unscrupulous pastors as a way to keep them from reporting their abusers to
law enforcement. That is so evil. It is Christian to “hold a grudge” in the sense of holding
an abuser responsible for their crimes. Mark is willing to forgive if Chantry ever repents
but “he never will.” It’s been 18 long years. Please noticed the trauma caused by
Chantry’s treachery. It “angers me more that he lied about it and even repeated it.” I
respect Mark for his commitment to stop Chantry. He was opposed to pure evil then. He
is still opposed to it now! ARBCA should honor him, not Chantry!]

Everything I just said is true. I admit I have no concrete proof, but I know what
happened. The years have taken many details from my memory, but I have given the
most complete and accurate account of what happened as I could. I hope Chantry repents
and sets his soul right with God, but it would be a surprise to me if he did. My warning
is to be careful. Chantry has a way with words. He can and will lie very convincingly
to get whatever he desires.

[Note: Mark said this in 2000. When Chantry took the stand at his July-August 2018 trial,
he told everyone in the courtroom time after time that none of the accusations against
him were true. He also boasted to everyone, “The most important thing in my life is the
glory and honor of God.” Chantry cares nothing, absolutely nothing, about the glory and
honor of God. He is his own god! His life is about self-worship and self-indulgence. In
the words of Scripture, he is a “lover of self” and a “lover of pleasure” He is perfectly
described in 2 Timothy 3:1-9.]

Now that I have gotten that off my chest I hope my mind will begin to heal. It has
been a burden to me for years knowing that he was continuing in his pastoral duties in
Prescott. However, I will not rest at ease until it is certain that he can never again come
into one on one contact with children.

[Note: Mark is courageous and a man of conviction. He was assaulted and molested when
he was ten years old. He was 15 years old when he wrote this letter. It was a great burden
to him then, that Chantry was still a pastor. He is now 33 years old and still determined
and willing to pay the price to make sure Chantry “can never again come into one on one
contact with children.” The jury was hung 11 to 1 on the four counts of sexual molestation
of Mark at the July-August 2018 trial. The State of Arizona is retrying the case. May all
the godly, cry out to God for justice! And may every ARBCA official and pastor that has
witnessed to Chantry’s innocence, publicly confess and renounce their false witness. The
man is evil.]

##

LETTER 4
Connie Laver
December 3, 2000

To Whom It May Concern:

The purpose of this document is to record and briefly explain the actions of
Thomas Chantry during the period of time he was tutoring my son, Daniel Laver.

[Note: Tutoring was the deceitful means by which Chantry got access to children for the
purpose of assaulting and molesting them. I suspect he used this strategy before coming
to Miller Valley Baptist Church in June 1995. He was 25 years old and just graduated
from Westminster Seminary California.]
Tom started tutoring Daniel during his Fourth Grade year of school, January of
1998. He was helping him with his reading and math. Tutoring was two times a week,
usually on Tuesday and Thursday. There were breaks in the schedule when Tom was
attending a conference or on vacation now and then, or Daniel not being available or with
his Dad.

[Note: The assaults and molestations occurred from February 1998 until October 2000.
That is a period of two years and nine months! Chantry was just indicted by the Grand
Jury of Yavapai County, AZ on September 8, 2018 for four counts of molestation, four
counts of aggravated assault with sexual motivation and one count of child abuse in
relation to Daniel during this time period. The trial has not yet been scheduled. The
evidence against him is very strong as you will see below.]

I’m not sure when the spankings (physical abuse) began. I do know that over the
past year [2000] I had begun to hear about them and it was to the point Daniel dreaded
seeing Tom; he was even being sure to wear heavy jeans on the days he had tutoring.
They had become more frequent almost a weekly thing during the summer.

[Note: “The spankings” are clearly and rightly identified as “physical abuse.” Not
“inappropriate discipline.” Daniel “dreaded seeing Tom,” wore “heavy jeans,” and was
assaulted “weekly” towards the end.]

Around the second or third Tuesday in September, I went to pick up Daniel from
tutoring when I got off work around 4:45pm. The minute Tom opened the door and I
saw Daniel’s face I knew something “was not right”. Daniel and I left and as soon as we
got in the car I asked him what was wrong. He said “l got a bad spanking this time, it
hurts to sit down or walk”. As I inquired further as to what had happened, he told me “I
missed three math problems Pastor Tom had already shown me how to work. I said is
that all, were you being focused on your lesson? Daniel said “yes, that was all”. He
quoted Tom as saying “I’m going to have to think of a way to punish you more severely
this time so you’II remember how to do those problems”. 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.

[Note: This is an unequivocal case of child abuse. Everyone involved knew about it but
no one reported it to police. It was unquestionably covered up by the Informal Council
and ARBCA officials who knew these were crimes!]

I tried to keep calm in front of Daniel that evening, but I did ask him if l could see
where he was spanked. Daniel said o. k. and showed me his bottom and thighs. 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.
[Note: The severe, dark purple bruises were 4 inches wide across his buttocks and across
his upper thighs on both legs! This was a violent and sustained attack (“ten times”) with
a weapon (“a large, thick board”). Why? For missing “three math problem.” Chantry is
wicked. Many officials from ARBCA read these letters. So did his father, Walt Chantry.
None of them reported him to law enforcement. They intentionally chose to disobey
mandatory reporting laws.]

I then began to think and pray about what I should do next. I made excuses for
Daniel so he wouldn’t have to go for the next two or three times.

I don’t know exactly how many times Daniel was spanked with his pants and
underwear down. I asked Daniel in the car riding home from his Dad’s house on Sunday
night. “Was the last time Tom spanked you the only time he spanked you bare
bottomed?” He said “no, he did several times.” I asked “Why didn’t you tell me and he
said “I don’t know”. I then asked him what he had been spanked with when it was bare
bottomed, and he said “Always the board”. (I did recall one time during the summer
when Daniel had his swimming suit on that I saw bruises on his upper thigh, and he said
it was from being spanked at tutoring.) The conversation continued with me asking
Daniel if he (Tom) had touched him in any other inappropriate way. He asked “What do
you mean?” and I said “anywhere like your private parts” and he paused and said “no”.
That is where I left it as I could see he was getting quite upset.

[Note: Daniel was also being molested during these assaults. He was terrified of Chantry.
He was also extremely ashamed. He didn’t want to talk about the trauma. “He was
getting quite upset.” That was a sign. If Chantry had been reported to law enforcement,
child abuse professionals would have graciously drawn this information out of Daniel.
He could have received tremendous help 18 years ago.]

The reasons he had been getting spanked were totally unjustified….Maybe he


didn’t finish an assignment Tom had given him, or didn’t read a whole chapter out of his
“Hardy Boy” books every day. One time it was because his library book was overdue.
Daniel can’t drive; his library books get returned when I get down to the library. I always
pay any overdue fines if there are any.

[Note: “The reasons were totally unjustified.” That’s because Chantry “punished
children for his own pleasure.” This was not hard to discern given the body of evidence
made available to ARBCA officials including Tripp, McKnight and Jensen.]

I was also troubled by the fact that Daniel would have to pick with what
“instrument” he wanted to be spanked with. He had his choice of a wiffle [whiffle] ball
bat, a switch from the bush in Tom’s yard or the board. If he picked something like the
wiffle ball bat, which he said didn’t hurt as much, he would get more swats. Even during
the weeks that he had completed all his assignments there were sometimes “play
spankings”. Like I previously mentioned, he was always sure to wear his heaviest jeans
on days he would go to tutoring.

[Note: Chantry’s control over his victims was total. “Play spankings” were another clear
indication of sadism.]

Daniel was very depressed. He didn’t want to go to school or church. This is


totally uncharacteristic for him as he is so easygoing. Two of his teachers had commented
how very quiet Daniel was and didn’t socialize with the other kids. His Math teacher
even moved him from the front of the room where his assigned seat was to the middle of
the room in hopes that he would begin to socialize.

[Note: Daniel’s dramatic change in social behavior and the commensurate depression was
symptomatic of physical and/or sexual abuse. This should have been evident to the
Informal Council, et al.]

I spoke briefly with Eric Owens one Sunday morning (in the beginning of
September) after Worship Service regarding Daniel’s depression. At that time I was
convinced that it was because of being made fun of and bullied around in school. Eric
offered to go to the school with me and talk to the administrators and teachers if I wanted
him to. I declined the offer at that time as I had been in contact with all his teachers
during personal meetings or by telephone. Eric then offered to pray and do anything he
could to help us.

[Note: Eric Owens was a non-vocational lay elder.]

On October 17, 2000 I was having a conversation with my niece, Harriet on the
phone about Ladies Bible Study. I didn’t like leaving Daniel home alone so I could go. It
wasn’t a time when I felt comfortable leaving him when I needed to be with him and
encourage him as much as possible. That is when in passing I told her about Daniel’s
depression. I said I didn’t know the reason for it although I thought it was because the
kids at school were bullying him, and it might be the tutoring on top of all the other school
pressures. I then stated he never wanted to go and that he was getting spanked. She said
“Tom is spanking him?” to which I replied “yes”. That was the end of the conversation
and all that was said about the subject. We then wished each other good night and hung-
up.

[Note: Harriet’s son, Joseph was also being assaulted and molested though it was not
known to her in 2000. Joseph came forward and reported to police in July 2015. That is
what started the investigation of Chantry leading to his arrest in July 2016. He was a
sixth victim.]
The next day [Oct. 18, 2000] at work I received a telephone call from Richard Howe.
He said he had a disturbing telephone conversation with Harriet. He asked me a few
questions to verify what he had been told [about Daniel by Harriet] and expressed to me
that it was a serious matter that needed to be dealt with. When I went home that evening,
he called and said that the Elders were going to have a meeting with Tom after Prayer
Meeting that night.

[Note: Rich Howe was the other non-vocational lay elder in Miller Valley Baptist Church
in 2000.]

They did meet with Tom and discuss the situation about Daniel. Tom immediately
called me when their meeting was over. He stated that he shouldn’t have been spanking
Daniel without my permission. He also stated that he was wrong to assume he knew
what would be better for Daniel than I did. Richard Howe called me when he arrived
home and told me that Tom would be giving me a call. I told Rich “he already had called”
and filled him in on the conversation.

[Note: “Tom immediately called.” He was doing damage control. Child molesters know
how to use “confession” to cover their tracks when caught. They will acknowledge the
bare minimum (i.e. paddling without permission due to pride) but not their assaults and
molestations. They pretend to be humble but are actually conning and manipulating
people to avoid getting caught.]

Eric Owens then called me on Friday, October 20th, to set up an appointment for
the three of us to sit down and discuss this. We set up an appointment for the next day,
Saturday around noon. My nephew, Jack Laver, Daniel and I all sat down in the living
room with Tom and Eric when they arrived. Tom began by saying that this was an awful
awkward situation for all of us. (We all agreed with that.) He once again stated that he
shouldn’t have been spanking Daniel without my permission. He also stated that same
thing to Daniel directly. He said it was “pride” on his part to assume he knew what would
be better for Daniel than I. Jack spoke up and asked Tom to make it clear to Daniel that
this was in no way Daniel’s fault. (for telling) Tom did state that very briefly. Eric then
asked each of us if we had anything to say and Daniel said “no.” I made a comment
about how hard it was to accept this from him because of the situation with the Laver
men. That was all I said and I regret saying that. (this had nothing to do with our past.)
During this meeting Tom never asked to be forgiven. He was stating in a matter-of-fact
tone what he thought he had done wrong, but never asked for forgiveness from Daniel or
me. Tom stated several times it was his “pride”. I wondered what he meant by that. Eric
lead in prayer and they left. I was just numb. Daniel didn’t know what to say, think or
react; he just sat there on the sofa. Jack was very upset over the whole situation. I asked
him if he thought Tom was sincere. He said he thought so and asked me the same
question. I said I didn’t know for sure but his statements did not seem heart felt.
[Note: Rich Howe did not participate in this meeting. He left that day for a ten-day trip
to Israel. This situation was poorly handled by Eric Owens. Eric should have confronted
Chantry on his known assaults. Instead, “Eric then asked each of us if we had anything
to say and Daniel said ‘no.’” Daniel was terrified. Eric should not have let Chantry get
away with the shallow confession for “spanking Daniel without permission” due to his
“pride.” This was a phony confession intended to appear humble. Yet, “Tom never
asked to be forgiven” for his arrogance.]

On Tuesday, October 24th, Eric called me before I went to work and asked me if I
thought I could call Tom and tell him what was on my heart. I hesitated, but I told him I
would. I left work and came home to call Tom around 9:00 am. His secretary said he had
stayed home that day, so I hung up and called his home. I explained that I forgave him
for spanking Daniel without my permission and that I really didn’t know how Daniel felt,
but I was not going to ask Daniel to call him or have another conversation about this
subject. He said “whatever you think is best”, to which I replied I think that is what’s
best. I told him I would talk to him when he came back from Washington where he was
scheduled to be for the next two weeks. I said we all needed to pause and take a deep
breath and pray about the situation. I told him to have a nice vacation (break). He
thanked me for calling him and we said “good-by”. I returned to work.

[Note: Eric should not have asked Connie to call Chantry “to tell him what was on [her]
heart.” He should have confronted Chantry with her. Connie “forgave him for spanking
Daniel without [her] permission” but that was not the issue. Though she should have
had assistance, I don’t know why she didn’t confront him on the assaults. Chantry
manipulated all of them: Eric, Connie, Daniel and Jack.]

To the best of my ability—these are the true facts of the events and conversations
regarding this situation over the last seven weeks or so.

Respectfully and In His Name,

Connie Laver

##

LETTER 5
Tyler Walsh
December 7, 2000

[Note: This letter contained long paragraphs. I have broken some of them down into
smaller paragraphs to insert proximate notes.]

December 7, 2000
To: Rich Howe and Eric Owens. Elders. Miller Valley Baptist

Dear Rich and Eric,

As requested, this is the account of events that took place last year while we had Tom
tutor our children.

Last summer, about mid July 1999, Patty and I had Tom over for dinner. The discussion
came up that Wayne and Jane would not have an afternoon baby-sitter for the remainder
of the summer due to the girls that were taking care of them had other obligations or
were going to be out of town. Another portion of our conversation had been that we had
been discouraged with the education that our children were getting in [redacted]
elementary school. After a while the discussion turned to the possibility of Tom watching
the kids for a couple of hours a couple afternoons a week after our other babysitter
watched them in the mornings. Patty’s parents watched them most of the time on the
other afternoons. We thought since Tom had tutored Mark Joppa and was tutoring Daniel
Laver, we felt comfortable asking him to work with our children in the area of
multiplication tables. We thought this would be a win/win situation.

[Note: Wayne and Jane, Mark Joppa and Daniel Laver were all abused while tutored.]

Tom said he would be glad to tutor them and watch after them the days of the week that
we would need him to except on Mondays since he had piano lessons then. But before
the evening was over Tom did ask us about discipline. I asked him what he meant, but
his answer was vague. I asked him what discipline would be needed since the children
would be there for such a short time. And his answer led me to believe putting them in
the corner or some such type of discipline. Anyway, he left for home with the
understanding that he would be watching our children the next week.

[Note: Chantry was “glad to tutor them and watch after them.” He pretends to be a
cheerful servant. He hoped to get permission to spank the Wayne and Jane. That comes
in handy if the children tell their parent’s later as he has learned. Tyler is not keen to the
idea. Chantry backs off.]

After he left, Patty asked me if he was implying that our children were going to get a
spanking if he thought they needed one. I told her that wouldn’t be the case and that I
would get in touch with him to clear that situation up by phone the next day. Patty
further told me her feelings on the matter. First that she didn’t want anyone else
disciplining her children other than us and that in this scenario there should not be a need
for Tom need to spank our children if he only was going to have them for a couple of
hours. Now another situation that even led us to ask Tom to do this tutor/watching our
children was that we both work and our normal babysitter, [redacted], could only watch
the children to around 1 PM since she had to work the evening shift at Baskin Robbins.

I never did call Tom, to much of my regret now.

The following week came and Tom began watching the children. It was not but after a
couple of days that we went to pick up the children, after meeting each other at home
after Patty got off work. When we went to get the children, Tom said a quick goodbye
and then took off towards his house. Not saying that he had to “discipline” our children
or anything. Just going back to his house.

[Note: Obviously covering up.]

After our children got into the car they couldn’t stand it and they had to tell us that they
had to be disciplined while being at Tom’s that day. Jane told us what had happened,
that they had put cokes on Tom’s living room table and evidently he had told them to
use a napkin under them or to move the cans to another surface area. The children were
not sure which, since they both got spanked severely and they weren’t sure of the order
of events, when Tom got so upset for such a minor event, but evidently they didn’t listen
well and therefore they were to be punished. Patty was livid and I was trying to get the
facts straight. Here we had entrusted our Pastor to watch after our children for just a few
hours in the afternoon and only into the first week and now he thought it was necessary
to spank our children for not “listening” to him. I told Patty that I had not gotten to the
point of calling Tom, blowing-off the situation rethinking it that Tom would not overstep
his bounds. This went over like a brick, so I told Patty I would get in touch with Tom.
Patty told me it was bad enough that it had happened to our children and hopefully it
hadn’t happened to Daniel or any others.

[Note: A couple days after the tutoring begins, Chantry severely spanks both of the
children for trivial reasons. It didn’t take long. He has an insatiable desire to inflict pain
upon children. Patty is on to him. If their children are being “spanked” what about other
children like Daniel Laver who was also being tutored.]

The next day I confronted Tom and asked him what happened, and asked why he didn’t
tell us that he had spanked the children when we picked them up the previous evening.
Then he told me that he didn’t think it was a big deal and he considered the matter
resolved. At that point Tom got mad and turned the situation around, changing the
subject, accusing us of not attending church regularly! I told him backup. He
immediately apologized for that outburst since he was taken aback by being confronted
and felt defensive. I told him he overstepped his bounds when he thought he needed to
spank Jane and Wayne over such a trivial situation.
[Note: Chantry thought he could control Tyler. He uses anger and unrelated accusations
to bully him. Chantry would never “back off” except for strategic reasons. He loves to
lie and deceive and intimidate. It is all part of the fun for him.]

I also told him Patty was livid and this action of his was going to effect our relationship
forever regardless of what he thought was right. Tom explained that he thought Jane and
Wayne were lazy and not focused, and when necessary, a spanking or some such
disciplinary measure would cure this defect in their personalities.

[Note: All the while ignoring the massive “defect” in his personality.]

I warned Tom that he should never take such liberties with our children or anyone else’s,
regardless of the situation. Tom was quick in trying to smooth things over with me and
apologized satisfactorily for the moment to at least placate me.

[Note: Predators know how to “placate” by apologizing “satisfactorily.” This is a


common ploy. They are masters of manipulation. When caught, they will ask
forgiveness for the bare minimum as a way to cover their tracks and avoid further
scrutiny.]

But this would not fly with Patty and I told him so. Patty was especially angry that he
would spank Jane. A little girl, a petite girl, of only 10 at the time. It was unbelievable
that this had even taken place. I told Tom that he had usurped our authority that was
never given to him. He told me that he had understood that he could discipline the
children, so he did. I told him that he had not been specific enough and neither had I
clarified it, but we couldn’t fathom what our children would do within a couple of hours
time, that it would ever be necessary for them to have corporal punishment. Tom told
me to tell Patty he was sorry, and I told him it was up to him to do that. (The apology to
Patty never took place, and Tom skirted around sheepishly for quite some time.)

[Note: “Tell Patty he was sorry.” How pathetic. Thank God, Chantry was convicted on
August 21, 2018 for his aggravated assaults upon Wayne and Jane. At the trial, Jane
testified “that the spanking was harder than anything she had ever experienced and
literally knocked the wind out of her. She was unable to even cry out. … [She] lived in
fear of the Defendant.” Chantry awaits sentencing on October 19.]

Patty asked me to remove them from the situation and I told her it would still be O.K.
believing that Tom was sorry. We were led to believe that this was an isolated incident,
and Tom told us that he wouldn’t spank our children again, or any other children. Patty
wanted to tell the Elders immediately, but I was satisfied with Tom’s apology, even
though he never did apologize to Patty. I reasoned with Patty that we didn’t want to drag
our children through a situation and also be a disturbance to our Church. We kept it to
ourselves, telling no one, not even immediate family. Patty said she would trust me in
this, but it would become a big problem since Patty was upset with me for not dealing
more aggressively with the situation, and Patty was angry with Tom for even thinking
that it would be necessary to discipline our children in the small amount of time that he
would be with them. Tom had betrayed our trust.

[Note: Tyler made many grave mistakes. He knows it. We talked at Chantry’s trial. “We
were led to believe that this was an isolated incident, and Tom told us that he wouldn’t
spank our children again, or any other children.” This is another example of Chantry’s
sociopathic lying. People who seek to live honest lives are extremely vulnerable to
accomplished liars like Chantry.]

Over the next few weeks Tom became nervous since he never apologized to Patty and he
didn’t gut it up and approach her to resolve the matter. Tom repeatedly requested
additional moments to talk to me over the situation of Patty not talking to him.

They never did talk it over. I told Patty that she would have to forgive Tom anyway so
she wouldn’t fall into sin, and I also told her to chalk the situation up to his immaturity.
Patty eventually asked for me to have Tom come over to dinner some three months later.

[Note: Forgiveness of another person in the Bible is based upon that person’s repentance
and asking of forgiveness. Luke 17:3, “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke
them; and if they repent, forgive them.” Only when that is done, and the person repents,
does forgiveness follow. Chantry needed to be rebuked in no uncertain terms for his
lying, deceit and assaults. That would have helped Patty immensely. Understandably
she was angry. Most people refuse to obey the first part of this verse - confronting the
sinner. That is so important and actually helps to prevent a person from falling into sin
when sinned against.]

We had Tom over on many occasions in the following months, up to the revelation of
Daniel’s spankings. This opened up old wounds in our children after we asked again
about the situation last summer of them being disciplined by Tom. We then found out
that Wayne had been spanked separately in Tom’s office, and Wayne had never told us
about until now. They were playing in the front yard and Tom asked Wayne to come to
him. Wayne didn’t hear him because he, Jane, and Daniel were playing. Tom got angry
because Wayne didn’t come immediately, so Wayne got spanked in Tom’s office. Also,
that Daniel was spanked in front of them as well as him [Daniel] being there when they
[Wayne & Jane] were spanked. Jane told us that she cried out loud so hard in hopes
someone would hear her, the day she was spanked. Tom repeatedly threatened Jane,
Wayne, and Daniel with an oar, a ruler, and his hand after telling me that he wouldn’t
spank our children or any others. Our children told us his anger was terrible and scary.
They did not trust him and were very afraid of him after being tutored that summer.
They did not like him coming over to our house and were upset at us for making them
go to his house that summer. Our hearts are grieved at not listening to our children more
closely at the time and making the mistake of not letting, at least, our Elders know. Our
concern for the time was since we thought the situation was one incident, whyi bother our
Elders and start upsetting them and our church. Little did we know the pain and
suffering we would be going through a year later. Also, that Daniel endured all he did
for so long because of us not speaking up at the time. We feel immense guilt for this
silence.

[Note: These were reportable offenses. Law enforcement should have been notified.]

Rich notified me late Sunday evening two weeks ago, that Tom’s sister, Judy [Rogers],
would be coming to retrieve his possessions from the parsonage. I met Judy, for the first
time, that next Monday morning [Dec. 4, 2000] at the church. I had wanted to go into the
parsonage and get the oar Tom had spanked Daniel with. I had told Judy that the oar
belonged to Bob Selph and I asked if I could have it. Judy asked me to wait while she
made a call. After making the call she said she was told not to give it to me, but that I
would have to take it up with Bob or Tom if I wanted it. I tried to get a picture of it, but
by the time I went to my car to get my camera and went to the parsonage, the movers
were wrapping it up in paper and it wasn’t going to be able to be photographed.

[Note: Tyler wanted to get the oar as evidence because it was used to assault three of the
four children. Judy Rogers, Tom’s sister, was there to get his possessions because he
feared being arrested if he returned to the scene of his crimes in Prescott, AZ. He quickly
escaped to Seattle, WA on November 10, 2000. “After making the call she said she was
told not to give it to me.” Guess who she called? Walt Chantry! How do I know? Tyler,
the man writing this letter, told me at the July-August 2018 trial. Walt and his daughter,
Judy were obstructing justice by stealing evidence that could be used against Tom. At
the trial, Tom Chantry denied the existence of the oar and said he only had an ornamental
toy paddle that was 12 inches long and ¼ inch thick made out of light wood without any
holes drilled in it. What a lie! Walt and Judy knew he was using the oar to assault
children. They got rid of it.]

We are saddened that Tom never felt the same care for us as we did for him. It is our
fervent prayer that he would come to the realization of the gravity of this harm he
inflicted on our children and families.

[Note: It is 18 years later and Chantry is only more hardened in his sin. Maybe 18 years
from now in prison he will come to repentance, become an authentic Christian and ask
genuine forgiveness. In any case, justice will soon be served and he will be righteously
punished for the despicable harms he has inflicted on many innocent children and
families.]

Sincerely,
Tyler and Patty Walsh

##

Here is a summary of the article with quotes from the article.

The following ARBCA leaders knew Tom Chantry was abusing children based upon
letters written by church elders, parents and a victim even before the Informal Council
did their “investigation” during December 13-16, 2000 None of these men reported the
crimes. All of these men covered up the crimes. All were top leaders in ARBCA.

• Walt Chantry
• Tedd Tripp
• Mike McKnight
• Rich Jensen
• Bob Selph
• Don Lindblad
• Earl Blackburn
• David Dykstra
• Steve Martin

Brent Detwiler
October 12, 2018

In this article, I want to establish the fact that everyone involved in 2000 knew Thomas
Chantry was a child abuser even BEFORE the Informal Council from ARBCA did their
investigation. That is proven by six letters written by one victim, four parents of victims,
and the Miller Valley Baptist Church elders.

Richard Howe & Eric Owens (Elders)


November 21, 2000

Tom was spanking a young boy he was tutoring after school with various objects (boat
oar, whiffle-ball bat, ruler, hand) on numerous occasions, including one bare bottom
spanking that left welts and bruises on the child’s rear end and leg. This had been going
on for one year before the Elders were made aware of it. … We are hard-pressed to fathom
all of this. The Elders and the parents involved are in the process of documenting all of
these reports in writing. … 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. We hope someday to get answers.

Lois Jones (Mother)


November 14, 2000
Tom is a bold face liar who can and has manipulated situations to take full advantage
innocent people and children. He has misused his office as Pastor and the trust and
authority that comes with it for his own twisted pleasure. … My heart can’t handle
reading first-hand how Tom Chantry abused my child. … I tried their whole life to protect
my children from such monsters.

Luke Jones (Father)


November 19, 2000

Tom hit my son, Mitch (who was 12 at the time) in the jaw and knocked him to the ground
and later denied recollection of it even though it was witnessed by at least one adult…
Tom spanked [Mark] bare bottomed (with his underpants pulled down) for what Mark
said was no reason at all. … He [Chantry] had actually abused one or more children in
the church. … It is also important to me because these events not happen again. … The
reputation of God’s church and the safety of other unsuspecting children and families are
at stake…. It certainly appears that I have been deceived for years by a very convincing
liar.

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)


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.

Tyler Walsh (Father)


December 7, 2000

The children … both got spanked severely and they weren’t sure of the order of events,
when Tom got so upset for such a minor event. …Jane told us that she cried out loud so
hard in hopes someone would hear her, the day she was spanked. Tom repeatedly
threatened Jane, Wayne, and Daniel with an oar, a ruler, and his hand after telling me
that he wouldn’t spank our children or any others. Our children told us his anger was
terrible and scary.

Brent Detwiler
October 12, 2018

Bear in mind, all of these letters were sent to the Informal Council comprised of Tedd
Tripp, Mike McKnight, 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. Tripp, McKnight, 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). …

Let me also add that Blackburn, Lindblad and Martin, along with Selph, met with Rich
Howe and Eric “Shorty” Owens in Escondido, CA on November 14, 2000. … This meeting
occurred before the five letters were completed. During this time, Rich Howe and Eric
Owens discussed the unwritten reports of abuse concerning Chantry. Blackburn,
Dykstra, Martin and Lindblad knew all about the allegations of children abuse. Selph
too. It was common knowledge.
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

This is Part 3 in a comprehensive series of articles concerning Thomas J. Chantry and the
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA). My two previous
articles are linked 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

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

In 2016 and 2017, I also wrote the following articles.

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

More Evidence Against Alleged Sexual Sadist Tom Chantry & the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches in America
Friday, October 20, 2017 at 5:20 PM

This Part 3 article is in response to the recent report put out by ARBCA on September 5,
2018. The complete title of their report is “ARBCA Membership Process of Christ
Reformed Baptist Church, Hales Corner, Wisconsin, and the Case of Thomas J. Chantry
– Administrative Council Report – Part I.” They also released a Part II report on October
25, 2018. I will deal with that one in my next article.

Tom Chantry and Christ Reformed Baptist Church (CRBC) applied for membership in
ARBCA on July 26, 2015. The Membership Committee recommended CRBC to the
Administrative Council for membership on February 9, 2016. The Administrative
Council recommended CRBC to the ARBCA General Assembly on April 25, 2016. The
General Assembly (i.e., delegates made up of ARBCA pastors) approved CRBC for
membership.

This vote of approval passed because the pastors were not told by the Membership
Committee (MC) or Administrative Council (AC) that Chantry had been under
investigation for nine months on multiple counts of aggravated assault and sexual
molestation and was about to be arrested. The MC and AC purposely withheld this
information from the delegates. In this Part I report they seek to justify that decision.

I have written this critical analysis because vital evidence and information has been
omitted, obscured or covered up; thereby, preventing people and pastors in ARBCA from
discovering the truth.

I respond to their report in bold italicized print. I’ve also added underlining for focus
and notes in brackets [ ].

##

ARBCA Membership Process of Christ Reformed Baptist Church


Hales Corner, Wisconsin,
and the Case of Thomas J. Chantry

Administrative Council Report


Part I

September 5, 2018

PREFACE

Children are precious to God. While no parent, teacher, or pastor perfectly fulfills his
responsibilities to God for the children entrusted to his care, by our holy and loving
heavenly Father, we must never accept or excuse treatment of children that breaches the
standards of love, kindness, and wisdom God has prescribed for their provision,
protection, training, and care. As an association of churches, we are grieved by the events
involved in the case of Thomas J. Chantry, a former pastor of a church in our association.
We deeply sympathize with all of the parents and children affected by this situation, and
we pray for their healing, comfort, and spiritual well-being.

“We are grieved by the events in the case of Thomas J. Chantry.” If they were the 2018-
2019 Administrative Council would be calling for Chantry’s repentance and supporting
his prosecution. Instead, many top ARBCA officials and pastors have defended
Chantry’s innocence for over three years.

The Administrative Council claims to “deeply sympathize with all of the parents and
children affected.” Al Huber is on the current AC. He is Chantry’s father-in-law and the
one largely financing his defense. David Dykstra is also on the current AC. They were
at the July-August 2018 trial supporting Chantry’s wretched defense and Don Lindblad’s
perjurious testimony. Needless to say, neither of these men made any effort to “deeply
sympathize” with “the parents and children” in the courtroom! I was there observing
them. Instead, they were supporting the sociopathic lying of Chantry and the false
witness of Lindblad on the stand!

Here is the way Susan Eazer, the Deputy County Attorney, describes Chantry’s defense
in Verified Motion Pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3961(D) to Hold Defendant without Bond and
Request for Hearing (Sep. 11, 2018).

“At the Defendant’s recent trial, defendant took the stand and boldly claimed
that every single one of the 20 individuals who testified at trial had lied about
something. He literally denied every single thing of significance that every single
witness testified to during the trial. Undersigned counsel [Eazer] and Mr. Sears
met with four of the jurors after trial, all of whom unanimously agreed that they
did not believe anything that the Defendant said under oath during his
testimony. The State would submit that this is relevant as it goes to whether
the Defendant can be trusted to abide by any conditions of release set by this
Court, especially since the Defendant has been living in another state [Illinois]
with absolutely no supervision other than that of his father-in-law [Huber], who
just happens to be a ranking member [on the current AC] of the very church
association that covered up the Defendants criminal conduct in 2000.”

Yes, that’s right. Criminal conduct was covered up! How? Simple! By not reporting it
to law enforcement. It is not complicated.

Tom Chantry is a sexual sadist and sociopathic liar. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet,
he “boldly claimed that every single one” of the 20 witnesses against him lied. Even
those that testified against him for the crimes of which he was found guilty and
sentenced!

Eazer and Sears (Chantry’s lawyer) had opportunity to talk with four of the jurors
immediately after the verdict on August 21, 2018. The jurors saw through Chantry’s
audacious and continuous lying. “They did not believe anything that the Defendant said
under oath.” Lying has been his sole defense from the beginning. It is lie after lie after
lie. And this lying defense has been supported by ARBCA over the years despite
mountains of evidence beginning with the police reports I brought to their attention in
December 2016.
In this “Verified Motion…To Hold Defendant Without Bond,” Eazer gives an overview
of the evidence against Chantry and on that basis argues he be held in jail without bond.
As it stands, Judge Michael Bluff, set the bond at 1 million dollars in cash because
Chantry can’t be trusted and therefore poses a great danger.

Chantry has been in jail since he surrendered on September 10, 2018 for four counts of
sexual molestation, four counts of aggravated assault with sexual motivation, and one
count of child abuse. He surrendered because he didn’t want to go through the horror of
being extradited from Wisconsin to Arizona on a long trip with other criminals in the
vehicle, etc. The last time he was extradited from WI to AZ it was brutal.

In addition to the nine counts above, he will be retried on four previous counts of sexual
molestation. In total, he is looking at 13 counts. No trial date has been set. His lawyer,
John Sears just retired. His new lawyer is playing catch up.

The 2018-2019 Administrative Council says,

“We are grieved by the events involved in the case of Thomas J. Chantry … We
deeply sympathize with all of the parents and children.” “We pray for their
healing, comfort, and spiritual well-being.”

This is extremely offensive to the victims and their parents. The current AC has never
reached out to any of them. The same is true of the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018
Administrative Councils. Moreover, the past councils have condemned the victims by
their official and public support of Chantry’s innocence. They have worked against their
“healing, comfort, and spiritual well-being.”

If ARBCA ever plans to please God, they will renounce their past support, beg forgiveness
of the victims and parents, voluntarily make restitution for the harms they suffered, take
a stand against Chantry, stop justifying the men who covered up his criminal behavior,
and remove the men from ARBCA positions who have unjustly protested Chantry’s
innocence despite the evidence.

The purpose of this report is to communicate, clearly and transparently, information to


member churches about decisions of the Membership Committee and the Administrative
Council of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA). We have
made every attempt to provide an objective account of the events, circumstances,
deliberations, and decisions regarding the handling of the application for membership of
Christ Reformed Baptist Church of Hales Corners, Wisconsin, by the Membership
Committee and the Administrative Council. During this period, Mr. Chantry was pastor
of Christ Reformed Baptist Church. We have included an abundance of documentation,
as attachments to this report, and have taken great care to detail material facts and oral
testimonies accurately and coherently. Additionally, an explanation of the operational
purview of an association of churches and an examination of biblical injunctions,
regarding divinely established procedures for handling charges or allegations, are
necessarily incorporated in the “Analysis” section of this report.

Sounds impressive. It’s not. Continue reading.

Moreover, the men writing this report can’t possibly “provide an objective report.” That
is why there is such a great need for an independent investigation by an outside, third
party chosen in concert with input from the victims and their families. Why not if you
are genuinely concerned for their healing, comfort and well-being.

Our goal has been to provide an exhaustive chronicle of the administrative processing of
Christ Reformed Baptist Church’s application for membership in ARBCA, along with an
assessment of the integrity of that process and the constitutional, procedural, and biblical
grounds for the decisions and actions of the ARBCA officers involved in the process. 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.

“Pastors and members of our associational churches” are, and will, be leaving because
this report, and the one to follow, do NOT provide “the information necessary to answer
questions.”

For instance, you will not find “Verified Motion Pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3961(D) to Hold
Defendant without Bond and Request for Hearing” cited above. It was filed as a public
court document on September 11. The Administrative Council Report - Part II was
published on October 21, 2018. Why was it not included? Because it is so incriminating.
Honestly, an incredible amount of important information has been left out of Reports I
and II and the information included has often been obscured or misrepresented. There is
good reason to break fellowship and lose “confidence in our association.”

INTRODUCTION

The delegates to the General Assembly of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches
(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 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. Additionally, 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.

This AC Part I report was written by an ad hoc committee that does not identify itself.
That is disingenuous. They are Steve Marquedant, Dale Crawford, Jeff Massey, and Bob
Curley. Marquedant was Chairman of the 2015-2016 Membership Committee. He and
Douglas VanderMeulen were the central figures that decided to withhold knowledge of
the police investigation and forthcoming arrest of Chantry from the General Assembly
in April 2016. Marquedant should not be investigating Marquedant.

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.

“A mistrial was declared on four other charges of molestation.” The hung jury was 11
to 1 in favor of Chantry’s guilt. He got off by the skin of his teeth. These four counts will
be retried.

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 will cover 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 December 2000, and the subsequent ARBCA actions
related to the results of the informal council’s assistance to this church. This is Part I of
the report.

I am working on a response to the AC Report – Part II regarding the “ARBCA informal


council” and “subsequent ARBCA actions.” It was sent to ARBCA churches on October
25, 2018. I’ve discovered several critical documents that expose the cover-up put forth in
the report. People will be shocked and dismayed by the deceit of ARBCA officials! I
wish it were not so. I hope it reaches people and pastors in ARBCA who are being denied
the truth.
PART I

This part of the report contains a discussion of the events of the membership process for
CRBC in chronological order, an explanation of the decisions made by the Membership
Committee and the Administrative Council related to the membership process, an
analysis of those events and decisions, and a summary, which includes conclusions and
recommendations.

Chronology of Events

The Membership Committee requires churches applying for membership in ARBCA to


send at least one officer of the church to attend a General Assembly prior to applying for
membership. Mr. Chantry attended the 2015 General Assembly, as pastor of CRBC. At
that time, he had not informed the Membership Committee of any plans for CRBC to
apply for membership in ARBCA. During the April 2015 General Assembly, Chris J.
Marley, pastor of MVBC, talked with Steven Marquedant, Chairman of the Membership
Committee, and asked Mr. Marquedant if CRBC was going to apply to join ARBCA. Mr.
Marquedant informed Mr. Marley that Mr. Chantry had not communicated any plans for
CRBC to do so. Mr. Marley asked Mr. Marquedant not to accept an application for
membership from CRBC, because members of MVBC believed that Mr. Chantry had
never fully resolved issues with MVBC that developed during the time Mr. Chantry was
pastor of MVBC. Mr. Marley also stated that, if CRBC was allowed to apply for
membership in ARBCA, MVBC would consider resigning membership in ARBCA. Mr.
Marley was in possession of the report of an informal council [i.e. “Report, Conclusions
and Recommendations”] conducted in December 2000 at MVBC, which contained
information about issues regarding Mr. Chantry. The elders [Rich Howe & Eric Owens]
of MVBC and Mr. Chantry signed a document [i.e., “Distribution of the Complete
Report”] on December 16, 2000, restricting distribution of this report.1 As an elder of
MVBC, Mr. Marley was an authorized recipient of this report and had read the report.

The ad hoc committee who wrote this Part I report often write in an obscure manner. I
think that is intentional and designed to cover up facts or make them hard to understand.
Let me illustrate.

The December 16, 2000 document was called “Distribution of the Complete Report.” It
wasn’t really a document and it wasn’t a report. It was a list of nine parties that were
to receive a packet of material. One of the documents in the packet was the “Report,
Conclusions and Recommendations” “which contained information about issues
regarding Mr. Chantry.” But the packet included more. Here is what it contained
according to Bob Selph, the ARBCA Coordinator in 2000-2001, in his September 7, 2018
letter of explanation.

1Distribution of the Complete Report, December 16, 2000. A copy of this document is included as
Attachment 1.
“The packet included all the reports, transcripts of testimonies from Tom
Chantry, the families, and one of the children, the letters that had been exchanged
between MVBC and Walt Chantry, and a timeline of events.”

“The reports” is a reference to the three reports written by the Informal Council.

1. Confidential Report and Recommendations of the Informal Council of the


Association of Reformed Baptist Churches (Dec. 16, 2000) – Level 1

2. Report, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Informal Council of the


Association of Reformed Baptist Churches (Dec. 16, 2000) – Level 2

3. Report of the Informal Council of the Informal Council of the Association of


Reformed Baptist Churches (Dec. 16, 2000) – Level 3

The “transcripts of testimonies from Tom Chantry, the families, and one of the children”
is a reference to Chantry’s resignation letter (Nov. 8, 2000) and the five letters written by
four parents of victims (Nov. 14, Nov. 19, Dec 3, Dec. 7, 2000), and one from a victim (Nov.
20, 2000) for the Informal Council.

The five letters can be read in my blog article, Part 2: Walt Chantry, Miller Valley Elders,
& ARBCA Officials Knew Tom Chantry Was a Child Abuser Even Before the 2000
Investigation Began. The letters contain horrific and compelling evidence of Chantry’s
guilt.

“The letters that had been exchanged between MVBC and Walt Chantry” are the letters
from Walt Chantry to the MVBC elders (Nov. 9, 2000) and the elders response to him
(Nov. 21, 2000). They too can be read in the blog article linked above. The elders referred
to his son, Tom Chanty, as a known “child abuser.”

A timeline of events is the timeline given to the Informal Council by the MVBC elders
on their first day investigating Chantry in Prescott, AZ (Dec. 13, 2000).

The three reports were written by “the Informal Council of the Association of Reformed
Baptist Churches of America.” Tom Chantry, Rich Howe and Eric Owens had no
jurisdiction over their distribution. None.

Likewise, the five letters documenting Chantry’s child abuse were written for the
Informal Council, who was there investigating on behalf of the Administrative Council,
and to whom they were accountable. The IC was not an autonomous group. The five
letters to the IC could and should have been shared with the AC. The parents put no
restrictions on such a distribution. They wanted Chantry stopped and the AC having
their letters could have resulted in that happening.
“Restricting distribution of this report” (i.e., the packet of material) by Tom Chantry
was part of his evil plan to cover up the criminal evidence against him. I believe he
played Rich Howe and Eric Owens. They were non-vocational lay elders. For instance,
they didn’t even know what was in the packet. It was supposed to include the damning
“Confidential Report and Recommendations” that raised serious questions about
Chantry punishing the children for his sadistic and/or sexual pleasure. Eric Owens told
me at the July-August 2018 Chantry trial the elders were never told about this Level 1
report and they never received a copy of the report. Chris Marley told me the same thing.
That is more than a coincidence.

But even more, Chantry by his sinister design, had Howe and Owens sign an agreement
restricting its distribution! He is so evil! This agreement, by the way, was handwritten
by Chantry. Check out the penmanship with his signature.

In any case, Chantry, Howe, and Owens had no authority to keep the IC reports and the
five letters from the AC in 2000. The agreement would only have legitimacy if it was also
signed by the Informal Council on behalf of ARBCA and by the parents and victim. This
critical issue of legitimacy goes totally unaddressed by the current AC in this report.

Furthermore, I have no doubt, Walt Chantry and his cronies, were putting pressure on
others like Earl Blackburn (Chairman of the 2000-2001 AC) and David Dykstra
(Chairman of the 2000-2001 MC) to back off and not make the evidence available to the
entire AC as promised. Remember, Dykstra required a report of “your findings and
recommendations” be sent to the Administrative Council. That request was also
recorded in the January 4, 2001 official minutes and in a January 6, 2001 note to the AC
from Jamie Howell, the recording secretary.

Walt Chantry was actively and aggressively involved in covering up his son’s crimes.
That is why he “demanded” Bob Selph set up an Informal Council. He thought he could
control it. That is why Tom Chantry required that Mike McKnight, who was an elder in
Walt’s church, be on the IC. And that is why Walt instructed his daughter, Judy Chantry-
Rogers to take the oar from the parsonage on December 4, 2000 that Tom used to beat
and injure children. There is no question DNA’s tests would have confirmed its use. It
was used on bare skin and caused severe welts and bruising.

So, why didn’t all the men on the Administrative Council receive the reports? There is
only one logical reason. It was prevented from happening. Dykstra backed off his
request. So did Earl Blackburn. So did McKnight, Tripp, Jensen and Selph. All these men
knew the findings and recommendations in the two reports were to be sent to the
Administrative Council. It didn’t matter what Chantry or the MVBC elders said about
distribution. That information was not theirs to control.
Here is how Bob Selph put it in his September 7, 2018 letter when talking about the Level
2, “Report, Conclusions and Recommendations.”

“The [Informal] Council also wrote a signed report to the Administrative


Council of ARBCA. As they had been directed in Dykstra’s letter, they sought to
“Summarize [their] findings and recommendations in a written document [they]
all can sign.” The Council’s specific recommendations concerning Tom Chantry
were contained in this report to the Administrative Council of ARBCA.”

Here’s one of the problems I have with Bob Selph. He was on the AC, he was the ARBCA
Coordinator, and he worked extremely closely with the IC in 2000. He knows “Report,
Conclusions and Recommendations” signed by McKnight, Tripp, Jensen, Lindblad,
Chantry, Howe and Owens was never sent to the Administrative Council as directed. I
believe he also knows why it wasn’t sent. In 2000-2001, he should have demanded both
the Level 1 and Level 2 reports be given to the AC even if it cost him his job. Selph
remained the ARBCA coordinator until 2007.

Personally, I don’t think McKnight, Tripp, Jensen or Selph had the courage to defy Walt
Chantry, Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, et al. They should have insisted everyone on
the Administrative Council receive everything in “The Complete Report” (i.e. packet) and
discuss it! Why? Because it contained their findings and recommendations. Tom and
Walt Chantry were not in charge. Neither were the MVBC elders. The Informal Council
was in charge of the investigation on behalf of ARBCA at the request of Tom Chantry
and the MVBC elders. This was the formally agreed upon arrangement.

On June 16, 2015, Mr. Chantry notified Mr. Marquedant that CRBC was ready to seek
membership in ARBCA.

On July 21, 2015, Mr. Marley met with an investigator in the Prescott Police Department
and reported that he had “inherited” the case file concerning Mr. Chantry, a former
pastor of MVBC. Mr. Marley kept the file in a binder, which was impounded as evidence
at this meeting.2

“Mr. Marley” is Christopher J. Marley. He became the senior pastor of Miller Valley
Baptist Church” in 2011. He was given the “case file” (i.e., the red binder with evidence)
in 2012 when John Giarrizzo tried to get Chantry into ARBCA back then.

In July 2015 on the way to a meeting with one of Tom Chantry’s victims, Marley learned
he was a mandatory reporter. As a result, he reported what he knew about Chantry to
lead Detective Barnard-Belling. He gave her the red binder on July 21, 2015. He has been
helping the victims and law enforcement ever since. ARBCA on the other hand has never

2Supplemental Report – Prescott Police Department, D.R. Case # -- Supplement # 15-22665-002, p.2. A copy
of this document is included as Attachment 2.
cooperated with law enforcement.

Moreover, Douglas VanderMeulen, Steve Marquedant, and John Giarrizzo never


contacted Detective Barnard-Belling to learn about the charges against Chantry in 2015
or thereafter. Like Marley, they could have talked to her any time given their strategic
positions. ARBCA officials have never searched out the truth by contacting law
enforcement. That is reprehensible but it is also revealing. They did not want to disclose
their knowledge of Chantry’s crimes and their cover up of his crimes going back to 2000.

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. Mr. Marley stated that the police
were going to investigate the allegation and had imposed a gag order on dissemination
of information, by giving instructions for the allegation and the investigation to be kept
confidential. Presumably, Mr. Marley received permission to inform a very small group
of officials in ARBCA about the allegation and investigation. Mr. Marley instructed them
not to talk about the allegation with anyone else. The police did not want Mr. Chantry to
discover that he was the subject of an investigation and the substance of the allegation.

The investigation of Chantry began in July 2015 when a victim of sexual molestation
came forward. Marley immediately told Giarrizzo, VanderMeulen and Marquedant. The
molestation occurred in 2000 not “several years earlier.” This paragraph contains the
first of 19 references to “a gag order” by the ad hoc committee but there was no gag order!
Only a judge can order a gag order. No such ruling was ever made!

Detective Barnard-Belling did not issue a gag order. She can’t. She asked for prudence
and confidentiality but that is not a legally binding order. This is a grievous error by the
AC and ad hoc committee. Marley was free to inform these men on a need to know basis.
He was trying to help them and protect ARBCA. The writers of this report repeatedly
use this false assertion of a “gag order” against Marley. Each time, they bear false
witness and violate the Ninth Commandment they love to quote.

In July 2015, Mr. Marley also informed Rob Cosby, a member of the Administrative
Council, of the allegation against Mr. Chantry.

Neither Mr. Giarrizzo, Mr. VanderMeulen, Mr. Marquedant, nor any Administrative
Council members or Membership Committee members not included in the distribution
list, from December 2000 to August 2018, had access to the December 2000 informal
council’s report, due to the distribution restrictions placed on this report by the elders of
MVBC and Mr. Chantry. Those Administrative Council members, who were included in
the distribution list [i.e., Bob Selph, Mike McKnight], were prohibited from sharing the
contents of that report with anyone else, including the other members of the
Administrative Council.3 The only exception, which the Administrative Council learned
during its inquiry into this matter, was that Mr. Marley provided the informal council’s
report to Mr. Giarrizzo in late 2015 or early 2016.4

The claim that no one “not included in the distribution list” received “Report,
Conclusions and Recommendations” is false. Let me cite several examples.

Jamie Howell was a member of the 2000-2001 Administrative Council and its recording
secretary. I contacted Howell with questions and he kindly responded. He wrote me the
following on September 21, 2018.

“Then about a year ago I did another search and I did find it [i.e., “Report,
Conclusions and Recommendations”]. 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. I don’t remember reading it, but I must have. … It is not accurate that
no AC member from 2000 - 2018 had the middle level report, because I clearly did,
but John Giarrizzo is the only person who has ever asked me about it.”

It is amazing that no one on the ad hoc committee writing this report made any attempt
to contact Howell and ask him about the report or other documentation in his possession
since he was the recording secretary. That is no way to investigate the facts.

Howell also wrote me that he sent 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.”

Therefore, everyone on the 2000-2001 Administrative Council knew they would be


receiving “a middle level report.” Chantry and the two MVBC elders did NOT have the
authority to prohibit this report from being distributed to the AC. The report was done
by “the Informal Council of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America.”
It was their work and their property. Mike McKnight, a lawyer, was Chairman of the

3 See the Analysis section for a discussion of the distribution restrictions placed on the informal council’s
report.
4 See Attachment 3. [An email from Chris Marley to John Giarrizzo dated Aug. 27, 2018 re: “I actually
loaned you the binder with the info.”]
Informal Council and on the AC. Bob Selph was the ARBCA Coordinator and on the AC.
These men knew the report was explicitly written for the Administrative Council. They
should have made certain the AC received it and talked about it at length. Chantry,
Howe, and Owens had no authority to stop them.

Furthermore, the Level 2 or middle level “Report, Conclusions and Recommendations”


was written at the direction of David Dykstra. He was Chairman of the 2000-2001
Membership Committee and also a member of the Administrative Council that term. Bob
Selph asked him to give guidance to the Informal Council which he did. This shows the
AC had authority over the IC. Dykstra instructed Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp, and Rich
Jensen to do the following in a letter dated December 6, 2000.

“(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.”

I have the complete letter but the current Administrative Council says it could not find
it. In their Part II report, they say “a search was made for the statement [above] without
results.” That’s ridiculous! All they needed to do in their “search” was ask their good
friend, David Dykstra for a copy! I don’t believe the AC is being honest! How can I have
a copy of Dykstra’s letter but the top brass in ARBCA cannot find it? More on this in
my Part 4 article.

It is clear, McKnight, Tripp and Jensen were directed to produce a report for the
Administrative Council. In the same letter, Dykstra also gives careful argument as to
why the Informal Council is authorized by ARBCA to do the investigation. I think that
is another reason the current AC can’t find it! I’ll share the complete contents of
Dykstra’s letter in my next article.

Let me quote again what the ad hoc committee says about “the distribution restrictions.”

“Neither Mr. Giarrizzo, Mr. VanderMeulen, Mr. Marquedant, nor any


Administrative Council members or Membership Committee members not
included in the distribution list, from December 2000 to August 2018, had access
to the December 2000 informal council’s report, due to the distribution
restrictions placed on this report by the elders of MVBC and Mr. Chantry.”

This is blatantly untrue in three other respects. First, Don Lindblad was on the 2000-
2001 Administrative Council. He was Chantry’s “advocate” during the 2000
investigation but he was NOT on the distribution list. Therefore, he should not have
received anything in “The Complete Report” (i.e. the packet of reports and letters). But
in fact, he received everything.
Second, Lindblad not only had everything in “The Complete Report,” he passed all of it
on to Earl Blackburn who was Chairman of the 2000-2001 Administrative Council.
Blackburn was NOT on the distribution list either. I will prove this in my next article.

Third, Steve Marquedant denies he “had access to the December 2000 informal council’s
report, due to the distribution restrictions placed on this report.” This claim is
contradicted by what follows in this very report he helped to write. At a bare minimum,
Marquedant had the middle level “informal council’s report” with all the
recommendations for Tom Chantry. He also knew Chantry was under investigation for
sexual molestation.

And then there is John Giarrizzo. He too was on the 2000-2001 AC and many since. If
you want evidence of a cover up all you have to do is read the 46 page report put together
by his four elders and a pastoral intern. It is called “Pastor John’s Involvement in
ARBCA’s Coverup of the Tom Chantry Scandal.”

Pete Smith, Mark Flin, Joe Godal, Josh Rusev, and Nick DeBenedetto are to be
commended for their integrity and careful research. They all resigned and left Grace
Covenant Church in Gilbert, AZ because Giarrizzo remains stubbornly unrepentant. So
did Scott and Pam Weinland. They are the faithful members who confronted Giarrizzo
and presented evidence of his lying and cover-up to the elders. Giarrizzo should not be
a pastor in ARBCA.

On July 26, 2015, CRBC applied for membership in ARBCA.5

On August 2, 2015, MVBC submitted a letter protesting CRBC’s application for


membership.6 The protest centered primarily on MVBC’s belief that Mr. Chantry had not
taken action “to seek full repentance and the forgiveness from each of the four children
and their parents” named in the informal council’s report. Significantly, the letter of
protest did not reference the new allegation, which was communicated by Mr. Marley to
ARBCA officers in July 2015, or the related investigation. The letter maintained the strict
confidentiality about that information imposed by the law enforcement authorities.

Chantry did not do what he promised. That is clear. This report intentionally leaves out
the word, “endeavor.” Recommendation 8 required, “That Tom Chantry endeavor to seek
full repentance and forgiveness from each of the four children and their parents.” He did
NOTHING of the kind! He never contacted any of them!

“Strict confidentially” was on a need to know basis. There was no “gag order.”

5 See Attachment 4. See the Discussion of Decisions and Analysis sections for a discussion. [The ARBCA
Application for Membership from Tom Chantry dated July 26, 2015]
6 See Attachment 5. [MVBC Elders’ Letter to Steve Marquedant re: Membership Application]
On September 23, 2015, Mr. Marquedant, as a member [and the Chairman] of the
Membership Committee, replied to MVBC’s letter of protest and notified MVBC that
CRBC’s application would be accepted and processed in “normal fashion.”7 Mr.
Marquedant had reviewed the available documents regarding the recommendations of
the informal council. This documentation included the “Report of the Informal Council”
to member churches of ARBCA,8 a letter from the elders of Providence Reformed Baptist
Church (PRBC),9 an excerpt from the AC Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2002,10 a letter
from MVBC to Earl Blackburn (AC Chairman) dated February 5, 2002,11 a reply to that
letter from Mr. Blackburn dated February 13, 2002,12 and a statement included in a letter
from Don Lindblad dated June 17, 2015.13 In addition, as Mr. Marquedant stated in his
letter to MVBC, he also conducted private interviews with several individuals regarding
the issues raised by the elders of MVBC in their protest. Additionally, the Membership
Committee requested Mr. Chantry to certify that he had met all the conditions
recommended by the informal council.14 Based on the information available to them, Mr.
Marquedant and the members of the Membership Committee concluded there was no
impediment to proceeding to consider CRBC’s application through due process.

Mr. Marquedant was not on the “distribution list” and therefore, not authorize to review
“the available documents regarding the recommendations of the informal council.”
Neither was his committee. The recommendations were not in the Level 3, “Report of the
Informal Council” which he mentions by name. They were in the Level 1, “Confidential
Report and Recommendations” and the Level 2, “Report, Conclusions and
Recommendations,” which he does not mention by name.

Again, there were NO recommendations in the Level 3 report. That means, he likely had
access to the recommendations in the Level 1 report and certainly had access to the
recommendations in the Level 2 report concerning Chantry. This is concealed since
Marquedant claims he was denied access not being on the distribution list. You can’t
have your cake and eat it too.

7 See Attachment 6. [Steve Marquedant’s Letter to MVBC Elders]


8 See Attachment 7. [“Sanitized,” Level 3 “Report of the Informal Council of the ARBCA”}
9 See Attachment 8. [Letter from Tom Lyon & Mark McCormick to Tom Chantry, Walt Chantry, Earl
Blackburn, Don Lindblad, & Devon Berry (the counselor) re: “no reservation…[for Chantry’s] wider
usefulness”]
10 See Attachment 9. {AC re: “No impediment to a future wider usefulness.”]
11 See Attachment 10. [Letter from MVBC Elders re: “serious concerns”]
12 See Attachment 11. [Blackburn to MVBC Elders re: IC “no longer has any function or say”]
13 See Attachment 12. [Lindblad to Marquedant re: “Tom has done everything he was asked to do.” Point
3 in the letter about “The documents are in the ARBCA archives” is conspicuously missing. I’ll address
this deception in my next article.]
14 See Attachment 13. [Chantry Letter to MC re: “I did all within my power to seek forgiveness and to bring

about recollection.”]
One hopes the Membership Committee read the Level 2 report that contained the
recommendations for Chantry since “the Membership Committee requested Mr. Chantry
to certify that he had met all the conditions recommended by the informal council.” If
they read the report, they were supposedly unauthorized, not being on the distribution
list. If they didn’t read the report, how can they possibly know if Chantry complied?

Therefore, we must ask the question, who gave these reports to Marquedant? And did he
give the Level 2 report to the Membership Committee? So how can an application for
church membership “be accepted and processed in the ‘normal fashion’” by Steve
Marquedant, the MC Chairman in 2015-2016, when he knew the man submitting the
application, Tom Chantry, was under investigation for aggravated assault and sexual
molestation? Stay tuned.

Moreover, the “due process” followed by Marquedant did NOT include contacting law
enforcement for “information available.” Nor did it include talking to the victims or
their families. They should have been contacted to verify Chantry “had met all the
conditions.” Instead, he and the committee “requested Mr. Chantry to certify that he had
met all the conditions.”

There has never been “due process” for the victims. They were physically and sexually
abused in most cases by Chantry. They have been emotionally, mentally and spiritually
abused by ARBCA. So too their families.

One other point before I move on. It concerns this statement.

“Based on the information available to them, Mr. Marquedant and the members
of the Membership Committee concluded there was no impediment to proceeding
to consider CRBC’s application through due process.”

That is shameful. An active police investigation for aggravated assault and sexual
molestation presented “no impediment” for Marquedant and his committee comprised of
David Dykstra, Larry Vincent, Jeff Massey and Jason Water.

Dykstra and Vincent are long time heavyweights in ARBCA. Marquedant would never
withhold knowledge of the police investigation from them! Furthermore, Dykstra and
Vincent knew Chantry was a child abuser way back in 2000. They were both on the 2000-
2001 Administrative Council and Dykstra was the Chairman of the 2000-2001
Membership Committee. Remember, Dykstra was the one who argued the legitimacy of
the Informal Council and gave McKnight, Tripp, and Jensen directives for how to do their
investigation and report their findings with recommendations back to the 2000-2001
Administrative Council.
On November 12, 2015, the Membership Committee interviewed the officers of CRBC.15

The MC interviews the officers [elders and deacons] of Christ Reformed Baptist Church
but makes no effort to interview the victims or their parents. Marquedant, Dykstra,
Vincent, Massey and Walter did the interview. They didn’t tell “the officers of CRBC”
that Chantry was under investigation.

In January 2016, Mr. Marley told Mr. Giarrizzo that Mr. Chantry was being investigated
for multiple counts of child molestation, and that ARBCA should not vote CRBC into the
association.

In July 2015, Chris Marley had already “notified John Giarrizzo, ARBCA Coordinator;
Douglas VanderMeulen, Chairman of the Administrative Council (AC); and Steve
Marquedant, Chairman of the Membership Committee; that a man had recently made an
allegation that Mr. Chantry had molested him” and “the police were going to investigate
the allegation.” He “also informed Rob Cosby, a member of the Administrative Council,
of the allegation against Mr. Chantry.”

Now, six months later, instead of one count, Marley tells Giarrizzo that Chanty “was
being investigated for multiple counts of child molestation.” Apparently, Giarrizzo told
Rob Cosby who told the entire Administrative Council the following month. It didn’t
matter to these men!

In late January or early February, Mr. Marley informed Jason Walter, a member of the
Membership Committee, of the new allegation against Mr. Chantry.

Jason Walter was the young guy on Marquedant’s Membership Committee. He may have
been kept in the dark. In any case, Marley tells him about the “new allegation” “for
multiple counts of molestation.” The criminal investigation was six months old and it
had expanded to include more counts and a second victim. This should have frightened
everyone including Walter. Not ARBCA. The AC and MC justified Chantry despite their
knowledge of the expanded investigation.

On February 9, 2016, a Membership Committee report recommended to the


Administrative Council that CRBC’s application for membership be approved.16 This
report was submitted to the Administrative Council at its March 1, 2016, meeting.

Inconceivable!

In mid-February or early March 2016, Mr. Marley notified Steve Martin, the newly elected

15See Attachment 14. [Membership Committee Interview, Nov. 12, 2105]


16See Attachment 15. See discussion of the decision to recommend CRBC for membership in the Discussion
of Decision and Analysis sections.
Coordinator of the Administrative Council, of the allegation and investigation. Mr.
Marley also requested disapproval of CRBC’s membership application.

Steve Martin is another major leader in ARBCA. He was fully involved in 2000 and on
the 2000-2001 AC. For example, he met with Rich Howe and Eric Owens, the MVBC
elders, on November 14, 2000 to talk about the accusations of physical child abuse and
the prospect of an Informal Council. Earl Blackburn, Don Lindblad, and Bob Selph also
participated in that meeting. You will find that information in the MVBC timeline. This
critical meeting is not cited in this report or the one to follow.

Marley in his ongoing quest to alert top officials in ARBCA, tells Martin about the
accusations of sexual molestation against Chantry. In all probability, Giarrizzo had
already told him.

In late February 2016, the Administrative Council was informed of the allegation against
Mr. Chantry [by Rob Cosby] and discussed what effect, if any, the allegation and the
report of an investigation might have on consideration of CRBC’s membership
application.

Keep in mind “the allegation” was “for multiple counts of child molestation.” It had
NO effect on denying membership to Chantry’s church. Let’s be clear. In accepting Christ
Reformed Baptist Church, they were accepting Chantry as their senior pastor. These are
the responsible men.

2015-2016 Administrative Council


• Ron Baines (Vice Chairman)
• John Giarrizzo (Coordinator)
• Steve Marquedant
• Jeff Oliver (Treasurer)
• Fred Pugh
• Brandon Smith (Secretary)
• Doug VanderMeulen (Chairman)

In late February 2016, the Membership Committee was informed of the allegation against
Mr. Chantry and discussed what effect, if any, the allegation and the report of an
investigation might have on consideration of CRBC’s membership application.

Same result. No effect.

2015-2016 Membership Committee


• Steve Marquedant (Chairman)
• Larry Vincent
• Dave Dykstra
• Jason Water
• Jeff Massey (Secretary)

On March 1, 2016, the Administrative Council approved the Membership Committee’s


motion to recommend CRBC to the delegates of the April 2016 General Assembly for
membership in ARBCA.17

It is shocking the AC approved the motion “to recommend CRBC to the delegates”
knowing Chantry was under investigation for multiple counts of aggravated assault and
multiple counts of sexual molestation. He was unfit to be their pastor. The application
should have been rejected. In recommending CRBC, they implicitly recommended
Chantry.

The Administrative Council withheld this information from the delegates (i.e., ARBCA
pastors) at the April 2016 General Assembly. Why? They claim for reasons of
confidentiality, etc. but they know there would have been a revolt if they told the pastors
they were recommending CRBC with Chantry as their pastor, even though he had been
under investigation for nine months AND about to be arrested!

In March 2016, Mr. Marley informed Mr. Marquedant that investigators had met with
Mr. Chantry and that there was no longer a gag order to keep the allegation and
investigation confidential.

There had never been a gag order. Only a Judge can make a formal ruling and impose a
“gag order.” That is not the legal prerogative of a law enforcement officer. A detective
can ask for confidentiality but he or she has no legal backing to impose it. This is a
shameful example of the Administrative Council making a grave error and using it to
justify their silence in not telling the delegates.

But here is what of central importance. Marley is making it clear to Marquedant, the
Chairman of the Membership Committee, that he can freely talk about the allegations of
physical assault and sexual molestation with ARBCA pastors!

Detective Justin Landry from the Hales Corner Police Department went to Chantry’s
house on February 10, 2016 to “see if he was willing to provide a statement as to the
allegations in this case.” Chantry was uncooperative and refused to answer questions.
From then on the cat was out of the bag. Chantry immediately hired a lawyer. ARBCA
was free to talk about the investigation and nature of the investigation.

In March 2016, Mr. Marquedant made inquiry to verify Mr. Marley’s report that the gag
order had been lifted. He discovered that Mr. Chantry had not been notified of the

17See Attachment 16. See discussion of the decision to recommend CRBC for membership in the Discussion
of Decision and Analysis sections.
allegation or of the fact of an investigation.

That is not true. With whom did Marquedant make the “injury to verify”? Yep, Don
Lindblad. Now, that’s a reliable source! Marquedant should have talked to lead
Detective Jessica Barnard-Belling if he wanted to “verify Mr. Marley’s report.” She
would have talked to him. ARBCA has avoided the police like the plague.

Here is what the Prescot Police Department report says about Chantry being “notified
of the allegation” and “the fact of an investigation.”

“On 02/10/2016, Detective Justin Landry of Hales Corner Police Department


assisted me [Det. Barnard-Belling] with this investigation per request of the
County Attorney’s Office. It was advised to contact (S) Thomas Chantry to see
if he was willing to provide a statement as to the allegations in the case.

“Det. Landry documents in a report that he arrived at Chantry’s residence and


asked to speak with him about events that occurred in Prescott between 1995
and 2000. Landry advised him that he could chose [choose] what he wanted to
do. Chantry reportedly declined to speak with the detective about the
allegations in this case.”

At this point, Chantry knew he was under investigation and he knew why, “the
allegations in this case” which concerned the “events that occurred in Prescott between
1995 and 2000.”

In April 2016, just prior to the General Assembly, Mr. Marley told Mr. Giarrizzo that an
arrest in the case of Mr. Chantry was pending.

Giarrizzo was the ARBCA Coordinator. He would have told others on the AC and the
MC about the pending arrest. Marley is doing an extraordinary job keeping the AC and
MC up to date on the criminal investigation. It didn’t matter. Three months later,
Chantry was arrested.

On April 25, 2016, CRBC was presented to the delegates of the General Assembly, which
approved CRBC for membership.

This is really nuts! The AC and MC refuse to tell the delegates that Chantry is going to
be arrested for aggravated assault and the sexual molestation of children on multiple
counts! This is not the fault of Chris Marley or the other MVBC elders. It is primarily
the fault of Douglas VanderMeulen (Chairman of the AC) and Steve Marquedant
(Chairman of the MC). Both men need to publicly confess their sin to ARBCA churches
for withholding this information from the General Assembly delegates who voted on
behalf of the churches.
Discussion of Decisions

Membership Committee’s Setting Aside of MVBC Protest

Chris Marley, senior pastor of MVBC, wrote an excellent nine point rebuttal to this
ARBCA Administrative Council Report – Part I. The report was sent to the ARBCA
churches on September 5, 2018. His rebuttal was sent to the ARBCA pastors on
September 12. I quote Marley’s letter and add comments of my own and notes in brackets
[ ]. I’ve also added underlining. Marley starts with these two fundamental points.

“The recent report issued by the ad hoc committee 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. When we were contacted, it was only concerning matters wherein
blame could be partially distributed to the elders of MVBC. It is irresponsible
to report on a series of events that surround our church without ever contacting
us.

“Secondly, it is of concern that the men on the ad hoc committee are all men
involved in the AC and MC during the duration of those events.”

The ad hoc committee writing this Part I report was made up of Steve Marquedant, Jeff
Massey, Bob Curley and Dale Crawford. The ad hoc committee for Part II was made up
of Steve Marquedant, Jeff Massey, Bob Curley and I am not sure who else.

Marquedant was the 2015-2016 Membership Committee Chairman that recommended


Chantry’s church be accepted into ARBCA in April 2016 despite his knowledge of the
police investigation and upcoming arrest. He is on both ad hoc committees. No conflict
of interest there!

Marley is right. All of the men writing this report were “involved in the AC and MC
during the duration of those events” related to Chantry’s acceptance into ARBCA.
Therefore, they all have plenty of motivation to write a biased report to vindicate
themselves. That is why “the elders of MVBC were not contacted in the course of the ad
hoc investigation.” That is wrong. This report is not impartial. That is not how you do
an independent investigation!

After careful consideration of MVBC’s letter of protest (Attachment #5), the documents
included as Attachments 7 – 13, and the information provided through personal
interviews, the Membership Committee decided to dismiss the protest and to continue to
consider CRBC’s application for membership in ARBCA through the established
procedures in policy. The elders of MVBC protested CRBC’s application for membership
in ARBCA, because they believed Mr. Chantry had not taken action “to seek full
repentance and the forgiveness from each of the four children and their parents” named
in the informal council’s report [i.e., the Level 1 report]. The documentary and verbal
evidence showed 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. The MVBC
protest did not contradict this evidence; the issue for MVBC was that the repentance and
forgiveness was not “full.” Mr. Chantry asserted that he had fully repented and sought
forgiveness and that he believed the MVBC elders wanted him to repent of things he did
not do. MVBC’s protest letter referenced the informal council’s recommendations [in the
Level 2 report], but the Membership Committee did not have access to that report. [If
true, it is because Marquedant withheld it from them. This report states above, “Mr.
Marquedant had reviewed the available documents regarding the recommendations of
the informal council.”] Absent any specifics or explanation of what was lacking in Mr.
Chantry’s seeking of forgiveness, during his visits with MVBC families for that purpose,
the Membership Committee concluded that the report of compliance (Attachment 8)
submitted by the PRBC elders dated January 1, 2002, substantiated satisfactory
completion of the recommendations of the informal council. Additionally, the elders of
CRBC’s sponsoring church, Grace Reformed Baptist Church (GRBC) in Rockford, Illinois,
fully supported CRBC’s application and affirmed Mr. Chantry’s qualifications and fitness
without reservation. The MVBC eldership had relinquished authority over Mr. Chantry
in December 2000, when he placed himself under the authority of the elders of PRBC.
Subsequently, Mr. Chantry was under the authority of the elders of GRBC and, finally,
under the authority of the congregation of CRBC. No ecclesiastical mechanism existed
for MVBC elders to secure compliance from Mr. Chantry concerning matters they
perceived to be unresolved for almost fifteen years, nor were they in a position to evaluate
him personally or professionally. Considering these factors, the Membership Committee
proceeded with the regular processing of CRBC’s application.

Here is Marley’s reply.

“Third, the report states the following:

“The elders of MVBC protested CRBC’s application for membership in


ARBCA, because they believed Mr. Chantry had not taken action “to
seek full repentance and the forgiveness from each of the four children
and their parents” named in the informal council’s report. The
documentary and verbal evidence showed 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. The MVBC protest did not
contradict this evidence; the issue for MVBC was that the repentance
and forgiveness was not “full.””

“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. This evidence was a signed letter from one of
the parents involved.

“I call this error egregious because it portrays our objection as an unreasonable


demanding of Mr. Chantry to accomplish full reconciliation and admit guilt in
what he claimed he had not done. Our objection was that he had not fulfilled
the requirements of a signed contract. This then evidences a lack of repentance
as well as him not being a man of his word. All these elements of our letter of
objection were omitted, and other sections quoted out of context to misrepresent
our objection.”

“This egregious error” is like so many others in this report. And honestly, it is not
an error or a mistake. It is deception designed “to misrepresent our objection.” That
is the only plausible explanation.

Membership Committee’s Approval of CRBC’s Application

While Mr. Marquedant had informed Mr. Massey, Chairman of the Membership
Committee, of the allegation against Mr. Chantry in July 2015, the allegation was not
discussed in the Membership Committee until late February 2016, due the gag order
imposed by the Prescott Police Department. Although Mr. Marley had breached the
Police Department’s restrictions on maintaining confidentiality of this information, the
ARBCA officers, who had been informed of the information, attempted to comply with
those restrictions. Therefore, CRBC’s application for membership was handled by the
Membership Committee, according to the normally established procedures, without
consideration of the allegation and investigation; however, the protest from MVBC
delayed the process, while information was gathered and the protest was evaluated. The
only exception to the normal processing procedures was the Committee’s request for Mr.
Chantry to provide a certification that he had met all the conditions recommended by the
informal council (Attachment 13). The Membership Committee conducted the
Membership Interview of the CRBC officers on November 12, 2015, and voted to approve
CRBC’s application and recommend approval of the application to the Administrative
Council. This approval relied on the same policy criteria and conditions under which all
applications for membership in ARBCA are considered. The evaluation of the
documentation submitted by CRBC, the results of the Membership Interview, and the
recommendation of an ARBCA church in good standing, GRBC, combined to meet all the
criteria necessary to warrant approval of CRBC’s application.

Marley did not breach “the Police Department’s restrictions on maintaining


confidentiality of this information.” This is a slanderous statement. The AC should
publicly asked forgiveness of Marley. They are guilty of bearing false witness. Marley
responds to the accusation.
“Fourth, the report states:

“Although Mr. Marley had breached the Police Department’s


restrictions on maintaining confidentiality of this information, the
ARBCA officers, who had been informed of the information, attempted
to comply with those restrictions.“

“Allowance was given by the detective in charge of the investigation to inform


those who needed to have the information with qualification that efforts be
made to prevent information from reaching Tom Chantry prior to his being
notified that he was being investigated. After Mr. Chantry was spoken to by a
police officer [Det. Landry on Feb 10, 2016] and notified that an investigation
was ongoing, this “gag order” was then only restricted to giving the details of
the accusation and generally not publicizing the information. Our
communication with the AC and MC during the course of 2015-2016 at no point
“breached the Police Department’s restrictions on maintaining confidentiality
of this information.” It is a grievous and ungrounded accusation that portrays
MVBC as violating the rules while the AC and MC did what was right in spite
of such errors.”

It makes one sick to read this account of the AC and MC damming Marley in order to
look good. Saying he “breached” a gag order is saying he broke the law. But there was
no gag order to breach! It is pure slander.

In late February 2016, the Membership Committee met telephonically, in special session,
to discuss the [additional] allegation [“for multiple counts of child molestation”] and
pending investigation [it was not pending, it was expanding, it was seven months old in
Feb. 2016] concerning Mr. Chantry and its affect, if any, on the recommendation to
approve CRBC’s application for membership in ARBCA. The Committee concluded the
following: 1) that the report of the allegation and investigation was, at that time, third-
hand, unofficial information, which lacked authoritative, formal confirmation, and could
not be discussed with CRBC or Mr. Chantry, because of law enforcement’s admonition
to keep the allegation and investigation strictly confidential; 2) that a review of ARBCA’s
Constitution and Policy Manual, as well as ARBCA’s historical practice, showed that
ARBCA is an association of churches, not elders, and that CRBC met all the requirements
for membership; and 3) that, if the allegations were true and Mr. Chantry was convicted,
CRBC would desperately need the help and support of the Association. Consequently,
the Committee found no reason to rescind or modify its recommendation for approval of
CRBC’s application.

“Fifth, the report states:

“that the report of the allegation and investigation was, at that time,
third-hand, unofficial information”
“A number of times, this language of “third-hand” reporting of the investigation
is severely misleading on multiple counts. It is later referenced as
“unsubstantiated allegation or rumor.” The existence of the investigation was,
by 2016, known to be true not only by Mr. Chantry, but was conveyed by MVBC
to the MC and AC. That would be second-hand information on two different
fronts. There could not possibly have been any doubt that there was a police
investigation into Mr. Chantry’s actions.”

This is so deceptive. The information was not third hand, it was second hand and the
MC was free to discuss it. But here is the real issue.

In late February 2016, the Membership Committee could easily have called lead Detective
Jessica Barnard-Belling to verify the investigation for multiple counts of child
molestation was underway. Chantry had already been contacted by a detective and
knew of the investigation. The “third-hand, unofficial information, which lacked
authoritative, formal confirmation” could have easily been first-hand, official
information with authoritative, formal confirmation. That is, if you know how to use a
cell phone! Lame, lame, lame. Furthermore, they could have asked Barnard-Belling
about talking with CRBC and Chantry.

More importantly, VanderMeulen (AC Chairman), Marquedant (MC Chairman) or


Giarrizzo (ARBCA Coordinator) should have contacted her to express their willingness
to help with the investigation. At that point, they would have pulled everything out of
the ARBCA archives and turned it over to the police. They would also have agreed to
interviews. This never happened because ARBCA was covering up for Chantry. There
was no contact and no cooperation.

Of course, all “distribution restrictions” end when vital evidence of criminal abuse is
located in the ARBCA files. For instance, the damming Level 1 report about “punishment
for his own pleasure.” This report was hidden from law enforcement by former and
current ARBCA officials. It wasn’t discovered until Susan Eazer, the
prosecutor, deposed Don Lindblad on March 21, 2018! Even then Lindblad and
Chantry’s lawyer, John Sears, tried every trick in the book to prevent Eazer from
discovering it. You don’t read about that in this report or the one that followed!

In addition, VanderMeulen, Marquedant, Dykstra, Giarrizzo, the IC, and many other
ARBCA officials should have done telephonic interviews or traveled to Prescott, AZ to
tell Barnard-Belling everything they knew! Tedd Tripp would not even return phone
calls to Susan Eazer while she was preparing the case for trial.

I find it reprehensible this report covers for the MC using the lame and fallacious
argument they didn’t know if there really was an investigation in February 2016. Finally,
the MC accepting CRBC into ARBCA so they could help if Chantry was convicted was
the furthest thing from their mind. Even after his arrest in July 2016, ARBCA officials
were emphatically telling CRBC he was innocent. That continued for the next two years.
Thank God 70% of the church saw through it and left. So much for helping them.

Mr. Marley had stated that MVBC would oppose approval of CRBC’s application, and
the Committee considered the possibility that MVBC delegates to the General Assembly
could present the allegation against Mr. Chantry and the investigation to the General
Assembly. However, ARBCA policy and Christian prudence circumscribed the
Membership Committee’s actions to evaluating the church’s fitness for membership in
relation to established criteria, which CRBC fully met, and excluded any consideration of
unsubstantiated allegation or rumor, as well as any apprehension of possible opposition
to approval of a church for membership at the General Assembly.

Another unbelievable statement. The case was extremely strong by April 2016. The AC
and MC were not even willing to postpone their endorsement of Chantry and acceptance
of CRBC into membership.

In addition, they prevented the Miller Valley Baptist Church delegates (pastors) from
telling the General Assembly about the multiple allegations of aggravated assault and
sexual molestation, the nine month investigation, and Chantry’s imminent arrest. Why?
Because it was all “unsubstantiated allegation or rumor.” On my goodness! Call the
cops! Literally. Once again, the Membership Committee should have talked to the
Prescott Police Department and inquired about their unsubstantiated allegations and
rumors. The MC was not interested in knowing the truth of the matter. That is obvious.

One other point. This report says the church was fit “for membership in relation to
established criteria.” That means you can have a senior pastor about to be arrested for
physically assaulting and sexually abusing multiple children and still be welcome into
ARBCA because all “established criteria” were “fully met.” No thanks! Anyone with
biblical sense, knows you do not, cannot, accept into membership a church whose senior
pastor is credibly accused of being a sexual sadist by multiple victims.

Administrative Council’s Approval of CRBC’s Application

In late February 2016, the Administrative Council met telephonically, in special session,
to discuss the allegation [no, multiple allegations] and pending investigation [no, it had
been going on for eight months] concerning Mr. Chantry and its effect, if any, on the
recommendation to approve CRBC’s application for membership in ARBCA. Mr. Cosby
informed the Administrative Council of the [expanded] allegation and pending
investigation [of multiple counts of sexual molestation]. [Remember, Cosby,
VanderMeulen, Giarrizzo, and Marquedant learned about the initial single accusation of
sexual molestation in July 2015 – eight months earlier]. The Council wanted to know if
Mr. Chantry and the members of CRBC were aware of the allegation. Mr. Cosby notified
the Council that the police investigator had imposed a gag order on the information and
admonished Mr. Marley to keep the information strictly confidential and to notify only
those few people who had an absolute “need to know.” Mr. Cosby stated that this gag
order applied to the Council members also, until Mr. Chantry was notified of the
allegation and investigation by the law enforcement agency. The Council discussed the
fact that an allegation was only an allegation; that it did not constitute guilt; that anyone
could be an object of an allegation at any time; that this allegation was third-hand,
unofficial information; that the Council was not an investigative body and had no
mandate to conduct an investigation; and that the matter, as reported by Mr. Marley to
Mr. Cosby, was in the hands of a law enforcement agency with appropriate jurisdiction.
The Council concluded that its proper course of action was to wait for the law
enforcement authority to complete its investigation and to take whatever action the
investigation warranted.

“Mr. Cosby notified the Council that the police investigator had imposed a gag order.”
There was no gag order and the allegation was not “third-hand” information. If the AC
or MC cared about knowing the truth they would have contacted Detective Barnard-
Belling.

On March 1, 2016, the Administrative Council met telephonically, in regular session. The
Membership Committee’s Report dated February 9, 2016, which contained the
recommendation to approve CRBC’s application for membership, was included in the
business agenda for this meeting. The Council again discussed the allegation and
pending investigation concerning Mr. Chantry. The Council received the Membership
Committee’s conclusions regarding the allegation and concurred that an allegation and
pending investigation, relating to an individual, cannot be considered as criteria for
making decisions concerning the membership application of a church into ARBCA. The
Council also concurred that ARBCA was an association of churches, that CRBC fully met
the criteria for membership, and that, if the allegations were true and Mr. Chantry was
convicted, CRBC would desperately need the help and support of the Association. The
Council also affirmed that the responsibility and authority for determining the fitness of
elders resides solely in the local church, and that the onus to take action in relation to Mr.
Chantry, if he were charged and found guilty, remained vested only in the local church.

Why in the world is the Administrative Council discussing “third hand, unofficial
information” among themselves when they should have been discussing it with law
enforcement. I have always talked directly with law enforcement when investigating
cases like this one. I have never been refused a conversation. Law enforcement would
have loved a cooperative call from ARBCA.

Additionally, the Council maintained that communication of the allegation beyond the
auspices of the judicial system of the State of Arizona could damage Mr. Chantry’s
reputation and, consequently, violate the Ninth Commandment.
The Administrative Council would not have been violating the Ninth Commandment if
they had talked to law enforcement and reported the fact of their investigation and the
nature of their investigation to the General Assembly given Chantry’s application to be
a member church. If Chantry didn’t want this information taken into consideration by
the General Assembly, he could have withdrawn his application.

Chantry was also withholding this information from his church and the officers of his
church. The AC and MC should have exhorted him to make it know to them. If he refused,
that would have been an added reason to reject his application.

These are obvious points. How can the AC and MC accept an application for church
membership from the senior pastor knowing he has not told the church he’s been under
investigation for nine months. The church was clueless.

Marley was right to inform members of the AC and MC, but they had a biblical
responsibility to confirm the information first-hand by talking to law enforcement.
Otherwise, they could simply be engaged in gossip.

And let me reiterate. The “distribution list” Chantry sought to impose was illegitimate.
Most of the information listed was the property of the Informal Council and ARBCA.
Any Administrative Council was free to read it.

The 2015-2018 ACs and MCs have been preoccupied with protecting Chantry’s reputation
while destroying the reputation of the MVBC elders and especially the victims and their
families. How? By taking the position over the past three years that Chantry is
innocent. That makes the victims out to be liars. Of course, that is exactly what Chantry
and Lindblad did at the July-August 2018 trial with the support of David Dykstra, Al
Huber and other enablers in the courtroom.

Analysis

The Operational Purview of ARBCA as an Association of Churches

A thorough analysis of the events and decisions concerning the handling of CRBC’s
application for membership and the related issues must begin with highlighting
applicable aspects of the operational purview of ARBCA as an association of churches.
As the Administrative Council stated in its letter to member churches dated August 22,
2018,

ARBCA is not a denomination with any control whatsoever over local churches
or their pastors, whether members of ARBCA or not, except to provide
assistance, counsel, make recommendations and, in the most serious matters,
disassociate from or give moral support to individual congregations and their
members. Constitutionally, ARBCA does not install or remove pastors,
discipline individual church members or pastors/elders, or interfere in any
material way with the work of local congregations, whether to impose courses of
action upon them corporately, or any of them individually, or to shield them
from any false charges. ARBCA has no ongoing means to determine the state of
affairs within local congregations, involving members and/or church leaders,
and can only rely solely upon reports given to ARBCA by them from time to time.

ARBCA is extremely concerned it will be sued for damages since they covered up known
crimes and withheld evidence in their possession. Therefore, they go to great lengths to
repudiate the work of the Informal Council on behalf of the ARBCA.

This statement reflects the strictures and prerogatives of the Association and its officers
specified in ARBCA’s Constitution, as stated below.

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.18

When ARBCA got involved with Miller Valley Baptist Church in 2000, it was not to give
non-binding advice. They were authorized to do a fact finding investigation based upon
extensive interviews with the elders, victims and families. They also gathered
documentary evidence. They were further authorized to write up their findings and make
“recommendations” that were binding. Tom Chantry and the MVBC elders formally
agreed to those terms.

Let me illustrate. The Informal Council made ten recommendations in the Level 2,
“Report, Conclusions and Recommendations.” Some of the “recommendations” were
conclusions. The first sentence reads as follows.

“The following are the conclusions and recommendations of the Informal


Council of ARBCA which have been agreed to and adopted by the Elders of the
Miller Valley Baptist Church of Prescott, Arizona and by Thomas Chantry,
former Pastor of the Miller Valley Baptist Church.”

Plainly, this report is the property of ARBCA and its “conclusions and
recommendations” are binding. Here are Recommendations 6-8. Number six contains
three recommendations of its own. I’ve added a “Note” after each recommendation.

18 Constitution of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America, Paragraph III.B.3.


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.

[Note: The “Elders who assume oversight” (i.e. Tom Lyon & Mark 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.]

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 physically
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.]

At the end of the document, we read the following “signed and sealed” solemn agreement.
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.

Signed and sealed this 16th day of December, 2000.

Tomas Chantry

Rich Howe, Elder

Eric Owens, Elder

Chantry put himself under the authoritative recommendations of the Informal Council
and so did Lyon and McCormick when they agreed to be “the Elders who assume
oversight.” Therefore, the IC and ARBCA had every right (and responsibility) to hold
them to their word. Of course, that was never an issue with the MVBC elders. Only with
Chantry.

This review of the Association’s relationship with member churches enables a proper
understanding of the effect of the distribution restrictions19 imposed by the elders of
MVBC and Mr. Chantry on the informal council’s report of December 2000, the authority
of the local church to impose those restrictions, and the incapacity of ARBCA’s officers to
access the council’s report, or for those ARBCA officers included in the distribution list
to share the contents of the report. The Association simply did not have the authority to
overrule the distribution restrictions specified by the elders of MVBC and Mr. Chantry.

They are making up an argument that does not exist. Chantry and the MVBC elders had
no right or authority to restrict distribution of the Informal Council’s report. Of course,
“the Association” had “the authority to overrule the distribution restrictions.” It was
their report. It was not Chantry’s report or the elders’ report. The report was authorized
by the Administrative Council for the Administrative Council.

Consequently, none of the information about the allegations against Mr. Chantry in 2000
and the subsequent informal council’s report was available to the Membership
Committee or the Administrative Council. This means that nothing contained in the
report was available for consideration by the Membership Committee in its evaluation of
MVBC’s protest of CRBC’s application for membership in ARBCA. Additionally, nothing
contained in the report was available to the Membership Committee, the Administrative
Council, or the delegates at the General Assembly in 2016 in the process of considering
CRBC’s application for membership. In December 2000, when the informal council
visited MVBC and prepared its report, Appendix II of ARBCA’s Policy Manual,

19 See Attachment 1.
“Guidelines for Forming and Conducting a Church Council” (Guidelines), did not exist.
These guidelines were apparently first drafted in December 2001,20 and were not officially
approved as late as May 2002.21 This means that the current policy requirements
stipulating distribution of Church Council reports to the Chairmen of the Membership
Committee and the Administrative Council were non-existent.22 Consequently, MVBC,
the local church, retained absolute authority over the distribution of the informal
council’s report and did, in fact, exercise that authority. When the Guidelines were
eventually incorporated into the ARBCA Policy Manual, their provisions were not
retroactive and MVBC’s distribution restrictions legitimately controlled the informal
council’s report.

This is phony baloney. The Level 1 and Level 2 reports were the property of ARBCA. So
were the five letters from the parents and the victim. Those letters contained devastating
evidence of aggravated assault and children abuse. The AC and MC had every right to
access those letters in their official files given the investigation. In fact, I think they had
a legal obligation. They knew the reports and letters contained evidence against
Chantry; therefore, they should have provided it to law enforcement. In particular, the
Level 1 report and the Counselor’s report. In not doing so, they withheld evidence.

I have no idea why this ad hoc committee brings up “the current policy requirements
stipulating distribution of Church Council reports to the Chairmen of the Membership
Committee and the Administrative Council were non-existent.” That is another
irrelevant and completely contrived argument.

David Dykstra instructed the IC to write a report for the AC. Why? Because as
Chairman of the MC he had “the duty” to make sure Chantry and MVBC were complying
“with the standards of the association.” Here is what he wrote Mike McKnight, Tedd
Tripp, and Rich Jensen.

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. …

20 See AC Meeting Minutes dated January 22, 2002.


21 See AC Meeting Minutes dated May 7, 2002.
22 See ARBCA Policy Manual, Appendix II, Paragraph VI.Q.
(1) Find out the facts through careful interviews. (2) Make recommendations to
the parties involved, and (3) Summarize your findings and recommendations [for
the AC and MC] in a written document you all can sign [making it binding].

Yours in Christ,

David Dykstra

Bear in mind, Dykstra was the MC Chairman and an AC Member in 2000-2001. He was
working under the oversight of Earl Blackburn who was the AC Chairman in 2000-2001.
This directive was recorded in official minutes on January 4, 2001. The IC was instructed
to send their reports and recommendations to the AC. Period!

The significant conclusion, therefore, is that neither the ARBCA Coordinator, the
Membership Committee, nor the Administrative Council concealed any information
about the allegations against Mr. Chantry in 2000 or any information contained in the
informal council’s report, because they did not have access to that information.

If this goes to court, I think they will lose. They did “have access to that information”
and they concealed the information.

The fact that Mr. Marley violated the distribution restrictions by giving Mr. Giarrizzo
access to that report, in January 2016, did not relieve Mr. Giarrizzo of responsibility for
maintaining the confidentiality of the report proscribed by the restrictions imposed by
the MVBC elders and Mr. Chantry in 2000. Communicating the information in the report
to anyone would have usurped the authority of MVBC, as a local church, and subjected
Mr. Giarrizzo to liability. Additionally, Mr. Giarrizzo was under no obligation to report
the allegations contained in the informal council’s report to law enforcement, because Mr.
Marley had already provided the report to the Prescott Police Department, and Mr.
Giarrizzo had been notified that an investigation of Mr. Chantry was underway.

This is pure nonsense. The MVBC church had no authority over the distribution of the
reports written by Informal Council for ARBCA. It would have resulted in no legal
liability for Giarrizzo to make their contents known.

And something else needs to be made clear. Everything in the red binder, and MORE, was
in the ARBCA archives in the ARBCA office! For instance, the archives contained the
Level 1 report AND the counselor’s report from Devon Berry. Berry was to assess
whether or not Chantry was guilty of “punishment for his own pleasure.” Both of these
documents contained vital evidence. Both of these documents were kept from law
enforcement by ARBCA. Read this part again.

“Additionally, Mr. Giarrizzo was under no obligation to report the allegations


contained in the informal council’s report to law enforcement, because Mr.
Marley had already provided the report to the Prescott Police Department, and
Mr. Giarrizzo had been notified that an investigation of Mr. Chantry was
underway.”

This is SO deceptive. I agree, Giarrizzo was not under obligation to “report the
allegations in the informal council’s report to law enforcement” because Marley had
already done so; but this in reference to the Level 2, “Report, Conclusions and
Recommendations.” Marley did not have the Level 1, “Confidential Report and
Recommendations.” It was not in the red binder because the MVBC elders were never
given a copy. In fact, Marley and the elders didn’t even know it existed until this year.

That is not true of ARBCA! The Level 1 report was in the ARBCA archives since 2000
and the current AC and ad hoc committee writing this report know it. For example, Steve
Marquedant. In June 2015, Don Lindblad informed him that the Level 1 report and the
Counselor’s report were in the ARBCA archives. That was seven months BEFORE
Marley even talked to Giarrizzo about the new allegation of multiple counts of sexual
molestation. Yet, Marquedant never turned this evidence over to law enforcement even
though he knew he was obligated like Giarrizzo. Lindblad also covered up the evidence.
So did Earl Blackburn. Lindblad gave him copies of all the evidence in December 2000!
Neither Lindblad nor Blackburn were on the distribution list. This too has been covered
up. My Part 4 article is in the works. It should be out in December.

The current AC, ad hoc committee, and Marquedant are covering up. They don’t want
ARBCA churches to know they’ve had ALL the evidence of Chantry’s criminal behavior
in their official files for the last 18 years! That includes the Level 1, “Confidential Report
and Recommendations” which raises serious questions about Chantry beating children
bare bottom for his sadistic and sexual pleasure.

It’s remarkable Steve Marquedant, Jeff Massey, Bob Curley and Dale Crawford condemn
Chris Marley for giving the red binder with the Level 2 report to John Giarrizzo even
though he was the ARBCA Coordinator and needed to know the truth about Chantry.
Unbelievable.

Here is Marley’s response.

“Sixth, the report states:

“The fact that Mr. Marley violated the distribution restrictions by


giving Mr. Giarrizzo access to that report, in January 2016…”

“This is far from a “fact” and is again an egregious accusation. If the report is
at the discretion of the church, then MVBC was well within its rights to share
this information. This is further proven by the fact that Mr. Chantry was
evidenced to be in violation of that contract which he himself signed. In
addition, these documents were already part of the investigation, and could no
longer be considered as restricted only to those initial parties.”

Chantry “was evidenced to be in violation” of the commitments he made in the Level 2


report. Therefore, it was right and proper for Marley to bring these violations to the
attention of Giarrizzo, the MC, and the AC. This report effectively argues they should
not have been made aware of these violations.

The same was true with the other documents in the MVBC binder about child abuse even
though Chantry was under investigation. It is absurd ARBCA officials would not read
the evidence they knew was in their archives concerning the suspected sadistic and sexual
abuse of children by Tom Chantry.

These restrictions on distribution of the informal council’s report have important, broader
implications, which will be addressed in Part II of the Administrative Council’s report
concerning the case of Mr. Chantry in December 2000, and the subsequent ARBCA
actions related to the results of the informal council’s assistance to MVBC.

The operational purview of ARBCA is also applicable to the analysis of the Membership
Committee’s setting aside of MVBC’s protest of CRBC’s application for membership and
will be discussed in the section below titled, “The Handling of MVBC’s Protest.”

The Handling of Information About the Allegation and Pending Investigation

As stated in the Chronology section above, in July 2015, Mr. Marley notified Messrs.
Giarrizzo, VanderMeulen, Marquedant, and Cosby of the new allegation against Mr.
Chantry and the investigation. He later revealed this information to Mr. Walter, in late
January or early February 2016. According to Mr. Marley, the police investigator
imposed a gag order on the dissemination of this information by admonishing him to
keep the information confidential and giving him permission to share the information
with only those few officers in ARBCA with a need to know. Mr. Marley informed the
men named above that the information was very confidential and could not be shared,
by instructions of the investigating officer. This constituted a gag order for all those who
received the information. Consequently, that information could not be used as a reason
for denying CRBC’s application for membership. The only possible result of sharing this
information with these ARBCA officers would be the possibility of influencing their
handling of CRBC’s application for membership in such a way that the Membership
Committee and the Administrative Council would find some other reason for
disapproving CRBC’s application. Such action on the parts of the Committee and the
Council would have been both dishonest and unethical. Also, the gag order prevented
any possibility of doing anything to lessen the impact of the arrest and trial of Mr.
Chantry, on the Association. The only way to avoid such impact was to refuse to accept
CRBC’s application or disapprove the application for some other reason. Therefore, since
the Committee and the Council could not use this information in processing or evaluating
CRBC’s application or in the performance of any other official ARBCA duties, none of the
officers who received the information met the requirement of possessing “a need to
know.”

Detective Barnard-Belling told Marley to limit the knowledge of Chantry’s investigation


in July 2015 so Chantry didn’t discover it. In February 2016, the police contacted Chantry
to interview him as part of the investigation. From then on he knew, and it was fine for
the AC and MC to know, about the investigation. So too the delegates (i.e. pastors) at
the General Assembly in April 2016. There never was a “gag order” handed down by a
Judge.

“That information could not be used as a reason for denying CRBC’s application for
membership.” This is irrational. So it is fine to accept a church into ARBCA with a
senior pastor who has defied ARBCA and is at odds with people and pastors in ARBCA
including victims of child abuse. And add to that he is under investigation for
aggravated assault and sexual molestation and about to be arrested. That makes perfect
sense.

The IC of ARBCA laid down “recommendations” in 2000 that were not followed. I know
ARBCA’s argues against this in their Part II report but they are wrong. Chantry was
out of compliance. Here is what Chris Marley says in his response.

“Seventh, the report states:

“Therefore, since the Committee and the Council could not use this
information in processing or evaluating CRBC’s application or in the
performance of any other official ARBCA duties, none of the officers who
received the information met the requirement of possessing “a need to
know.””

“This is simply ridiculous and an attempt to divert the weight of the decision
away from the MC and AC. The elders of MVBC had provided a legitimate
reason to reject the application with evidence which could have been shared with
the General Assembly, and the police investigation gave further weight to the
claim that Mr. Chantry was unrepentant and had not confessed all the sin of
which he was guilty, let alone sought reconciliation.”

The “need to know” standard is that a person must have a demonstrated need for the
information, because the information is required in order to perform his official duties.
Inherent in this standard is the existence of a tangible consequence of failure to obtain the
information. In the case of the allegation against Mr. Chantry and the investigation, this
information could not be shared with anyone, could not be used as a reason to disapprove
CRBC’s application, and could not be used for any other official purpose; it was useless
and the lack of it would not have interfered with the performance of any official duties.
Accordingly, this information should not have been communicated to any ARBCA
officials. The handling of the allegation and investigation, along with any necessary
attendant results or actions, should have been left entirely to the law enforcement officials
possessing appropriate jurisdiction over the investigation.

The “need to know” standard “official duties” of Membership Committee

The men who received this information kept it strictly confidential until late February
2016, at which time both the Membership Committee and the Administrative Council
received notification of the allegation and pending investigation, during separate,
telephonic, special sessions. By this date, several members of the Committee and the
Council had been notified of the information by Mr. Marley. Additionally, Mr. Massey
had been notified of the information by Mr. Marquedant, because Mr. Massey had
become Chairman of the Membership Committee. Thus, the Chairmen of the Committee
and the Council decided it was necessary for the members of both groups to be notified
of the information and to determine the proper manner of handling the information. Both
the Committee and the Council deemed it essential to keep the information strictly
confidential, in order not to interfere with the police investigation. Again, neither the
Committee nor the Council met the “need to know” standard, since the information could
not be used and it did not interfere with or prevent the performance of any official duties.

At this point, everyone on the AC and MC knows Chantry is under investigation for
multiple counts of sexual molestation. Big deal. So did Chantry. Telling the pastors at
the upcoming General Assembly in April would NOT have interfered with the police
investigation in the least bit! The only thing that interfered with the investigation was
the lack of cooperation by top officials in ARBCA who knowingly did not turn evidence
over to law enforcement in the ARBCA archives and in their personal possession.

As stated in the Chronology above, Mr. Marley also notified Mr. Marquedant, in March
2016, that Mr. Chantry had been contacted by an investigator [on Feb. 10, 2016] and was
aware of the allegation and investigation; therefore, Mr. Marley asserted that the
information was no longer under a gag order of confidentiality. In March 2016, Mr.
Marquedant contacted Mr. Donald Lindblad to see if Mr. Chantry had discussed this
matter with him, in order to verify Mr. Marley’s report that the gag order had been lifted.
He discovered that Mr. Chantry had not been notified of the allegation or of the fact of an
investigation. An officer from the Hales Corners Police Department had contacted Mr.
Chantry and asked to speak with him about events that occurred in Prescott, Arizona, in
1995-2000. According to Mr. Lindblad, Mr. Chantry declined to talk with the investigator
without an attorney. Based on this information, the Membership Committee, the
Administrative Council, and the ARBCA Coordinator remained under a gag order and
could not release the information, without the possibility of interfering with the
investigation. The subsequent availability of the police report confirmed the fact that,
while the investigator had contacted Mr. Chantry, he was not informed of the allegation
or that he was the subject of a formal investigation.23

Marquedant is getting his information from Donald Lindblad who is apparently getting
his information from Chantry. Marley is getting his information from law enforcement.
Let’ see – who is the more reliable source?

But more importantly, why didn’t Marquedant call law enforcement? I’ve already
answered that question. He and ARBCA were avoiding the Prescott Police Department
like the plague. Marquedant knew about evidence in the ARBCA files he never turned
over to police. That is, the Level 1 report and the Counselor’s report by Devon Berry.

The paragraph above also refers to “the police report” but does not quote it.

“The subsequent availability of the police report confirmed the fact that, while
the investigator had contacted Mr. Chantry, he was not informed of the
allegation or that he was the subject of a formal investigation.”

The police report does NOT confirm “the fact” that Chantry did not know he was the
subject of a formal investigation. I cited this earlier but here is the relevant quote from
the report. It disproves their point.

“On 02/10/2016, Detective Justin Landry of Hales Corner Police Department


assisted me [Det. Barnard-Belling] with this investigation per request of the
County Attorney’s Office. It was advised to contact (S) Thomas Chantry to see
if he was willing to provide a statement as to the allegations in the case.

“Det. Landry documents in a report that he arrived at Chantry’s residence and


asked to speak with him about events that occurred in Prescott between 1995
and 2000. Landry advised him that he could chose [choose] what he wanted to
do. Chantry reportedly declined to speak with the detective about the
allegations in this case.”

Detective Landry may not have told Chantry about the sexual molestation allegations
on February 10, 2016, but he certainty made clear a criminal case was in the works. He
was there to talk about it.

The following month, Marley notified Marquedant to tell him three things. First, Chanty
had been contacted by an investigator. Two, Chanty was aware of the allegation of
sexual molestation. Three, Chantry was aware of the investigation. By March, there is
no question Chantry was aware of all three elements. He immediately hired a lawyer

23Supplemental Report – Prescott Police Department, D.R. Case # -- Supplement #15-22665-009. See
Attachment 17.
after the visit by Detective Landry on February 10, 2016.

ARBCA officers were restricted from communicating the information about the
allegation and the investigation to anyone. In fact, these ARBCA officers should not have
been notified of the information. This means that, if an obligation existed to notify the
officers or congregation of CRBC of the allegation and information, that obligation rested
solely with the investigators of the Prescott Police Department. The obligation of the
Membership Committee and the Administrative Council was to comply with the
admonition of confidentiality imposed by the law enforcement authorities by the gag
order.

No one in law enforcement restricted “ARBCA officers” “from communicating the


information about the allegation and the investigation to anyone.” That is why they
don’t cite a source!

And 19 times in this report the Administrative Council refers to a “gag order” but they
never produce it because it does not exist! A gag order is an official court order. This
constant reiteration by the AC is the main scheme by which they justify their
irresponsible behavior to the ARBCA churches they are writing. They are deceiving
people. Furthermore, Marley was never guilty of breaking a gag order or even the request
to keep the matter confidential on a need to know basis.

Lastly, the MC and AC should have asked Chantry to tell Christ Reformed Baptist
Church about the allegations and the investigation. If he refused to be open and honest
with them. That is another reason to refuse his application for church membership. How
can you accept into membership a church with a senior pastor who won’t be transparent
with his congregation. CRBC first learned about the “allegations” when Chantry was
arrested in July 2016.

The Handling of MVBC’s Protest

MVBC’s protest did not object to CRBC, as a church, coming into membership in ARBCA.
MVBC did not present any allegation that the church did not meet the constitutional and
policy requirements for membership. MVBC’s protest objected to Mr. Chantry, as pastor
of CRBC. In other words, the reason the MVBC elders protested CRBC’s application was
because they asserted that Mr. Chantry had failed to seek “full repentance and
forgiveness.” In their letter of protest, the MVBC elders further stated, “We will rejoice
if these events catalyze genuine repentance and reconciliation within Christ’s church, but
even upon such an occasion we could only recognize Mr. Chantry’s salvation and not his
ordination, given the events that have taken place”24 (italics inserted). Clearly, in order to
accept MVBC’s protest, the Membership Committee would have to somehow bring Mr.
Chantry to seek “full repentance and forgiveness” or persuade CRBC that Mr. Chantry

24 See Attachment 5.
was unqualified for the eldership. Either action was prohibited by ARBCA’s
Constitution,25 since ARBCA does not possess such authority.

Another ridiculous comment. The elders from MVBC were simply asking the AC and MC
to hold Chantry accountable to the binding “recommendations” laid down by the IC of
ARBCA in 2000. That is not “prohibited by ARBCA’s Constitution.” Furthermore, in
accepting the church, they were accepting Chantry its alleged sexual sadist senior pastor.
The MC should have been trying to “persuade CRBC that Mr. Chantry was unqualified
for the eldership.” Of course, ARBCA did the exact opposite. Even after his arrest they
defended his innocence.

As previously discussed, the information about the allegation and the investigation was
under a gag order imposed by the Prescott Police Department. Therefore, that
information could not be used, in any way, in evaluating MVBC’s protest. Likewise, the
Membership Committee did not have access to the informal council’s report and could
not have used any of the information in that report, unless the elders of MVBC and Mr.
Chantry officially lifted the restriction on the distribution of the report.

The Level 2 “informal council’s report” (not the MVBC report or the Tom Chantry report)
was the property of ARBCA. The elders and Chantry had no authority to restrict its
distribution. So too, the Level 1 report which the MVBC elders never received.

Accordingly, the Membership Committee dismissed MVBC’s protest, as explained in the


“Discussion of Decisions” section, “Dismissal of MVBC’s Protest” subsection, above.

The Propriety of Decisions Recommending Approval of CRBC’s Application

As detailed in the above subsections titled, “Membership Committee’s Approval of


CRBC’s Application” and “Administrative Council’s Approval of CRBC’s Application”
under the section titled, “Discussion of Decisions,” CRBC met all the criteria for
membership. The recommendations for approval of CRBC’s application complied fully
with ARBCA’s policy and practice governing the acceptance of churches into
membership.

Who would want to be part of an association if they allow churches to be members


whose pastors are about to be arrested for aggravated assault and sexual molestation.

In order for the Committee and the Council to use the information about the allegation
and the investigation to postpone or disapprove CRBC’s application, two conditions
would have been necessary. First, the gag order on the allegation would have to have
been lifted. Second, ARBCA would have needed to amend its constitution to allow an
application for membership to be postponed or disapproved based on any allegation

25 Constitution of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America, Paragraph III.B.3.


against a pastor or specific allegations against a pastor. Neither of these conditions
existed.

There was no gag order and the request for “need to know” confidentiality had been
lifted. This is a bogus argument. So is the argument they would need “to amend its
constitution to allow an application for membership to be postponed or disapproved.”
I agree with Earl Blackburn, the most powerful and influential leader in ARBCA over the
last 20 years. He wrote the following to the Informal Council in 2000 just before they
arrived in Prescott, AZ to do their investigation.

“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.”

I will say more about Blackburn’s letter, which has been covered up, in my next article.

Consequently, the decisions to recommend approval of CRBC’s application for


membership were proper.

Nice try.

Biblical Injunctions Regarding Divinely Established Procedures for Handling


Allegations

Any elder or any church member in any church can be accused of anything at any time.
That most certainly does not mean that such accusations are to be made public or to be
used in any decision-making process related to an elder or a church member, until such
time as the accusations are established by factual evidence gathered and evaluated by
competent authority with appropriate jurisdiction. If it were the case that any accusation
against an elder or church member should be made public and/or used to make decisions
concerning that elder, church member and/or his church, without such a factual process
superintended by competent authority and under appropriate jurisdiction, no elder or
church could function; all elders, all church members, and all churches would be subject
to any random attack or accusation and the public consequences, and Satan would make
devastating use of such a practice. So, the key issue in such matters is the establishing of
factual evidence and the evaluation of that evidence by competent authority with
appropriate jurisdiction and responsibility to act based on the outcome of the evidence
and its evaluation.

What hypocrisy! The factual evidence against Thomas J. Chantry was covered up and
kept from law enforcement in 2000 and ever since. If it had been given to “the competent
authority and under appropriate jurisdiction,” I’m convinced Chantry would have been
convicted in 2001 and sent to prison for a long time, if not for life. More importantly, the
victims and their families would have received help.

Furthermore, if the accusations against Chantry would have been handled properly by
ARBCA, he would have been church disciplined by Miller Valley Baptist Church in 2000
and Providence Reformed Baptist Church in 2001. The Informal Council talked the
MVBC elders out of church discipline. Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick at PRBC failed
follow the recommendations and obey 1 Timothy 5:19-21. ARBCA has been covering up
for Tom Chantry for 18 years. No question, Satan has made a “devastating use of such
a practice.”

The sole ecclesiastical authority for adjudicating spiritual issues is the local church. The
Lord Jesus detailed the due process for church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17 and, by so
doing, designated the local church as the only competent ecclesiastical authority with
appropriate jurisdiction over charges or allegations of sin.

“The local church” is not “the only competent ecclesiastical authority” if the Bible, and
not The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, is your final authority. The statement
above is contradicted by all the Pauline epistles and take special note of Timothy’s role
in disciplining elders in Ephesus. Local and extra local authority work together for the
safety and purity of Christ’s church. In any case, the MVBC elders, the IC, the AC, and
the MC failed to obey Scripture in dealing with Thomas Chantry. They also disobeyed
civil law.

God ordains the secular ruling authorities, the governments of nations and states, as the
only competent authority with appropriate jurisdiction over allegations of crimes, as
indicated in Titus 3:1 and Romans 13:4. God also establishes the system of a standard of
evidence that is evaluated and judged by competent authority, which is reflected in
Deuteronomy 19:15.

More hypocrisy. ARBCA has not cooperated with these secular authorities in their
prosecution of crimes. They have defended the convicted felon. In fact, the Chantry’s
and his supporters, have repeatedly disparaged the police and the prosecution.

Moreover, God makes specific provisions for handling charges or allegations against an
elder in 1 Timothy 5:19, where the Apostle Paul writes, “Do not receive an accusation
against an elder except from two or three witnesses.” In matters of sin, such an accusation
is received by the local church for the purpose of evaluating evidence and executing
judgment. In matters of criminal conduct the appropriate government jurisdiction has
authority to investigate, evaluate evidence, and judge.

The ad hoc committee cites 1 Timothy 5:19 but not 1 Timothy 5:20-21. That is typical of
groups sinfully protecting elders.
1 Timothy 5:20-21 “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence
of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ
Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging,
doing nothing from partiality.”

And let me add two observations. First, there are not “two or three witnesses” against
Chantry. There are two or three dozen witnesses acquainted with evidence against him
in addition to the six known victims. Second, Timothy was an extra local leader
responsible to make sure local leaders obeyed the command to rebuke sinning elders
without partiality. ARBCA has done just the opposite.

Therefore, in the case of Mr. Chantry, there are two spheres of competent authority with
appropriate jurisdiction. One is the local church and the other is the State of Arizona. In
the history of this matter, MVBC and its elders possessed the competent authority and
appropriate jurisdiction to gather and evaluate evidence and act based on their
evaluation. They took action consistent with their authority and their judgment in 2000.
The only local church currently possessing competent spiritual authority with
appropriate jurisdiction in this matter is CRBC, where Mr. Chantry is still a member.

Now that is an interesting piece of information. “Mr. Chantry is still a member” at


Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Hales Corner, Wisconsin. It is an ARBCA church.
Chantry was convicted for the aggravated assault of two children on August 21, 2108. In
his deceit, he testified at the trial that they were lying. And yet he remains a member in
good standing. Chantry has not repented of his crimes, he has not even acknowledged
his crimes. That’s fine. You can still be a member and avoid church discipline. Bill
Halliburton is the lead elder “possessing competent spiritual authority.” Thank God
only 30 adults and children remain in the church. This report should speak against the
elders, deacons and CRBC for their indifference.

The State of Arizona possessed the competent authority and appropriate jurisdiction to
gather and evaluate evidence related to criminal accusations and act based on that
evaluation. The steps in the judicial process of this case were carried out under the
jurisdiction and control of the State of Arizona; none of these steps were under the
jurisdiction or control of a local church or the Association. Consequently, any public
statements or actions on the part of any entity, other than the State of Arizona, during
any part of the ongoing process of this matter would have been not only inappropriate
(and, at some stages, illegal) but also unbiblical.

I totally disagree. It is necessary to “make public statements” and take “actions” based
upon the evidence made public by law enforcement in police reports, or the Grand Jury
in their indictment, or the State of Arizona in court documents! People need to be
informed and appropriate actions need to be taken. Like alerting families of criminal
charges against an alleged abuser they know. This paragraph asserts that “any public
statement’’ “during any part of the ongoing process of this matter” would be unbiblical.
That means no one in ARBCA should have be told Chantry was arrested in July 2016.
Such teaching is dangerous. Of course, you alert people to fact your pastor has been
arrested for beating and sexually abusing children.

We must emphasize the importance that the place and priority of competent authority
and jurisdiction holds in matters such as this case. No individual or entity has authority
or liberty to take any action related to such matters unless the entity (i.e. church or State)
possesses appropriate jurisdiction. After the exercise of such competent authority by
appropriate jurisdiction, other individuals or entities should act based on the facts, the
evaluation of those facts, and the actions taken by the appropriate jurisdiction. Until then,
any actions regarding an accusation either violate the authority and jurisdiction of the
State or the authority and jurisdiction of the local church and tend toward interference in
the judicial processes of the State, or toward gossip, slander, or schism among Christians
and churches. Any investigation of an allegation, evaluation of evidence/information,
and determination of guilt or innocence conducted by anyone or any entity other than
the due process established by God, in the local church or by the secular government with
jurisdiction, violates God’s directions for handling accusations and is itself sin. While
such matters certainly draw the interest and concern of individual church members, as
well as local churches, we must exercise restraint, discipline, and patience in responding
to such interests and concerns. That restraint, discipline, and patience must be directed
by a robust understanding of God’s provision for competent authority and appropriate
jurisdiction in such matters and a submission to such authority and its processes and
outcomes.

This is another example of extreme hypocrisy. ARBCA knew Tom Chantry was a child
abuser in November 2000 even before the Informal Council arrived in December 2000. The
Informal Council only confirmed the fact. What did ARBCA do? They kept this
knowledge from law enforcement and encouraged the parents of victims to address the
crimes internally as a church in conjunction with ARBCA. They violated everything they
state above and done the same in recent years. They have not been forthcoming with law
enforcement. When will ARBCA acknowledge this and repent. All the theologizing
above is nothing but vain and empty words.

In addition, the Ninth Commandment “forbids whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or


injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s good name.”26 If the Membership Committee
and/or the Administrative Council had delayed the admission of the Hales Corners
church or had informed the delegates of the General Assembly of the allegation and
investigation, it would have been a violation of the Ninth Commandment. Delaying,
since there was no constitutional or procedural reason to do so, would naturally have

26The Baptist Catechism. Ed. James M. Renihan. The Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America,
2004, p.21.
raised serious questions and could have impugned Mr. Chantry’s character or the
qualifications of the Hales Corners church. Informing the delegates of the General
Assembly would obviously have done the same, as well as violated the gag order
imposed by the Prescott Police Department, thus breaking God’s injunction to submit to
the governmental authorities. The law of God thus forbade delaying or disapproving
admission of CRBC’s application for membership, as well as informing the delegates of
the General Assembly about the allegation and the investigation.

Countless times in this report, the current Administrative Council is guilty of violating
the Ninth Commandment. I don’t mean to sound harsh but they are blind guides. They
are only concerned about their “good name,” ARBCA’s “good name,” and Chantry’s
“good name.” They are not concerned about the good name of Chris Marley, the MVBC
elders, and especially the victims and their parents. I agree with Marley’s assessment.

“Eighth, the report states:

“Delaying, since there was no constitutional or procedural reason to do


so, would naturally have raised serious questions and could have
impugned Mr. Chantry’s character or the qualifications of the Hales
Corners church.”

“This at least is clear. The AC and MC valued “Mr. Chantry’s character” possibly
being impugned over retaining the membership of a church in good standing.”

Here is what he means. He is saying the AC and MC could have delayed membership into
ARBCA until the following year when things would have been much clearer. The AC and
MC were so obsessed about Chantry’s reputation they would not even delay the decision
lest it be interpreted as an impugning of “Mr. Chantry’s character.” Furthermore, the AC
and MC could easily have said the postponement was due to developments they were not
free to discuss. Four months later, when Chantry was arrested, all the delegates would
have fully understood the reason why.

MVBC was a strong supporter of ARBCA. Gaining Chantry was more important than
losing Marley and friends.

Summary

Conclusions

1) There is no evidence of any conspiracy or any individual actions or attempts to


conceal information from member churches, from law enforcement, or from the
delegates to the 2016 General Assembly. The Membership Committee and the
Administrative Council did not have access to the informal council’s report of
December 2000. It was not possible, legal, or ethically permissible to reveal
information from the informal council’s report. Additionally, revealing information
about the 2015 allegation and investigation would have violated law enforcement’s
gag order, as well as the Ninth Commandment.

This is an altogether untrue statement! I hope people see through the corruption at
work behind it. This Administrative Council cannot be trusted.

2) The allegation and investigation could not be used as criteria by the Membership
Committee, the Administrative Council, or the delegates of the General Assembly for
evaluation of CRBC’s application for membership in ARBCA, due to the gag order
and the absence of constitutional and/or policy provisions specifying the use of
accusations as criteria for evaluation of applications for membership in ARBCA. This
means, that even if the gag order had been lifted, the knowledge of the accusation
and investigation by the delegates of the General Assembly could not have been
legitimately used to disapprove CRBC’s application, because there is no criteria in
ARBCA’s Constitution, Policy Manual, or past practice that authorizes the use of an
accusation against an elder in considering a church for membership in ARBCA.

Marley responds.

“Ninth, the report states:

“The allegation and investigation could not be used as criteria


by the Membership Committee, the Administrative Council, or
the delegates of the General Assembly for evaluation of CRBC’s
application for membership in ARBCA, due to the gag order and
the absence of constitutional and/or policy provisions
specifying the use of accusations as criteria for evaluation of
applications for membership in ARBCA. This means, that even
if the gag order had been lifted, the knowledge of the accusation
and investigation by the delegates of the General Assembly
could not have been legitimately used to disapprove CRBC’s
application, because there is no criteria in ARBCA’s
Constitution, Policy Manual, or past practice that authorizes
the use of an accusation against an elder in considering a church
for membership in ARBCA.”

“The MC and AC does have the authority to reject an application of an


applying church. It has done so in the past. If a pastor is in open,
unrepentant sin, then this certainly qualifies as a condition which must
be rectified before the church is admitted into membership. It is further
important to note that while the language of the report repeatedly
addresses the situation in terms of allowing the process to continue, the
MC and AC recommended the church, whose representational head was
Mr. Chantry.

“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, most
explicitly its senior pastor, Chris J. Marley.

“Finally, we must again quote the report which states, “In addition, the
Ninth Commandment “forbids whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or
injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s good name.”” The ad hoc
committee has violated this 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.

“From, through, and unto Him,


Pastor Chris J. Marley for the elders of MVBC”

The current Administrative Council may send out a letter acknowledging some
mistakes in this report but they will not ask forgiveness for sinning against the
MVBC elders, the victims or their families, or the ARBCA churches for writing a
largely false and misleading report.

3) The handling of accusations, in any circumstance, must adhere to biblical injunctions.


The only spheres of authority for adjudicating allegations of sin and/or crimes
against the state are the local church, of which the accused is a member, and the
governmental entity possessing secular legal jurisdiction. Individuals, or churches
other than the local church with jurisdiction, or governmental entities without
appropriate jurisdiction – or even denominations or associations of churches – are
prohibited from pronouncing authoritative judgment. God has established spheres
of authority and jurisdiction, as well as systems of due process, for the purposes of
administering justice. The usurpation of such authority and jurisdiction by
individuals or churches or associations rejects divinely ordained systems of justice.

I strongly disagree with their understanding of church polity as taught and practiced
in the New Testament. Local churches were not autonomous. They were connected
by men who provided oversight and worked with the local elders. That aside, Miller
Valley Baptist Church (Prescott, AZ), Providence Reformed Baptist Church
(Tacoma, WA), Grace Reformed Baptist Church (Rockford, IL) and Christ Reformed
Baptist Church (Hales Corner, WI) failed to obey Scripture in regard to Tom Chantry.
So did ARBCA. At no time, did he meet the requirements of pastoral ministry found
in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

Recommendations

None of the recommendations address issues of the heart or call anyone to repentance.
Nor are there any recommendations about getting back to the MVBC elders and
especially the victims and their families.

1) The General Assembly Planning Committee should consider including a session that
addresses the practical and biblical applications of the concept of “need to know”, in
relation to sensitive or confidential information.

2) The General Assembly Planning Committee should consider including a session that
addresses the biblical spheres of authority and principles of due process for handling
accusations of sin and of criminal conduct. The session should include the
responsibility of individuals for relying on the due processes of the church and/or
the state to handle accusations of sin and/or criminal conduct.

3) The Theology Committee should be requested to consider the subject of


associationalism in the context of Baptist ecclesiology and polity for the circular letter
for the 2020 General Assembly.

4) The Membership Committee and Policy and Constitution Committee should


consider drafting a policy provision to provide the Membership Committee the
discretion to delay processing of an application for membership.
Part 4: Exposing the Extensive Coverup of Tom Chantry’s Child Abuse by Top
Officials in the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA) the
Last 18 Years
Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:15PM

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. Here is
the link.

https://www.scribd.com/document/396176070/A-Critical-Analysis-of-the-
Administrative-Council-Report-Part-II-12-21-18

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 four of the six 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 di, 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 pages 9-12 at https://www.scribd.com/document/392084986/Yavapai-County-Da-


Response-to-Request-for-Access-to-Public-Record

“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 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.”

9. 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

10. 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.]

11. 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
renowned 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 2000.27

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.28 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.29 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.30 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.31 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 1996.32 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.33

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.

27 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.]
28 Private Documents 2 and 5.
29 Private Document 3.
30 Private Documents 2, 3, and 5.
31 Private Document 1, 2, and 3.
32 Private Document 1.
33 Private Document 1.
Chantry’s displays of anger, lack of pastoral warmth, seeming authoritarianism,
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.34

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.35 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.36 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.37

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.38 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.”39 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 for repentance,

34 Private Document 9.
35 Private Documents 1, 6, 7, and 8.
36 Private Document 8.
37 Private Documents 1, 8.
38 Private Document 9
39 Private Documents 1, 7, 8, and 10.
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.40 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.41

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.42

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.”43

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 agreed
that a Council would be helpful.”44 Don Lindblad, pastor of Trinity Reformed Baptist

40 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.]
41 Private Document 11.
42 Private Document 15.
43 Private Document 10.
44 Attachment 5. [Is an email from Jamie Howell to Bob Curley on Sept. 7, 2018. The attachment does not
Church in Kirkland, WA, also indicates that the Informal Council resulted from “the
suggestion of Walt Chantry.”45

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.46 On November 27, 2000, the MVBC elders
requested Bob Selph, ARBCA Coordinator, “to organize an ‘informal’ church council for
Miller Valley.”47

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”.]
45 Private Document 16.
46 Private Document 1. [The Miller Valley Elders timeline sent to the Informal Council.]
47 Private Document 1.
This is another deceptive summary about how the “ARBCA Church Council” came
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.48

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

48 Attachment 2 – AC Minutes dated December 5, 2000.


involved parties and make recommendations.” (Membership 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.”49 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.50 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 comments and

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

Reformed Baptist Churches of America]


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 of 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 him 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 Recommendations51 -- 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

51Attachment 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}
oversight of Mr. Chantry, the professional counselor who would counsel Mr. Chantry,
and Mr. Walter Chantry.52

“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 Recommendations53 -- 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.”54

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

52 Attachment 4 – Distribution of the Complete Report


53 Attachment 1 [Report, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Informal Council of the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America]
54 Attachment 6 – Excerpt from AC Meeting Minutes dated January 4, 2001, p. 9.
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.

“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.

Jamie Howell, the 2000-2001 AC recording secretary, wrote me on September 21, 2018
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.”55

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;56 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.”57

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. 58 This letter
was read to the Administrative Council during a meeting on January 22, 2002.59 This

55 Attachment 7 – Report of the Informal Council. [of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of
America]
56 Private Documents 12, 13, and 14.
57 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.]
58 Attachment 8 – Letter from PRBC elders. [Tom Lyon & Mark McCormick, Providence Reformed Baptist

Church, University Place, WA]


59 Attachment 9 – Excerpt from AC Meeting Minutes dated January 22, 2002.
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 February 5,
2002,60 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.61 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.

60 Attachment 10 – MVBC elders’ letter dated February 5, 2002.


61 Attachment 11 – Letter from Earl Blackburn dated February 13, 2002.
Mr. McKnight recommended that efforts continue to effect a reconciliation
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 Assembly62

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

62 Attachment 12 – ARBCA Announcement to 2017 General Assembly.


Administrative Council until after the conclusion of the trial. The effect 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 no 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 on 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.” 63 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.

63Private 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.”64

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.”65 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?

64Private Document 10.


65Superior Court for State of Arizona, Yavapai County, Document P1300CR201600966. This document is
not currently available in the Administrative Council’s documentary files.
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 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 statute. 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.66

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
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

66 2LBC, Chapter 26, paragraph 15.


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 copied 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 the “Brethren” (McKnight, Tripp, & Jensen) and copied 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/392220712/David-Dykstra-Letter-0f-December-6-
2000-to-Informal-Council
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”67 on the part of Mr. Chantry, errors on the part of the MVBC

67Attachment 3. [Confidential Report and Recommendations of the Informal Council of the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America]
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 approach68
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

68A 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, 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.”69 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

69Attachment 3. [Confidential Report and Recommendations of the Informal Council of the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America}
should be noted that all of the parties agreed that none of the four children had
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,70 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.

70 Attachment 10 [MVBC elders’ letter dated February 5, 2002]


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

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 report71 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.

71 Attachment 5. [Mr. Selph’s report is not part of this attachment.]


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!

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.”72 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.”73 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.

72 Attachment 1.
73 Attachment 1.
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 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, 2018 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 mattered 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/389743341/GCC-Elder-Investigation-John-
Giarrizzo#from_embed.

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 2000-2001 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.” 74 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.75

“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?

74 Constitution of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America, Article V, paragraph A.


75 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 packet76 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.”77

Therefore, everyone included in the Distribution of the Complete Report78 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.

76 Attachment 5.
77 Private Document 10.
78 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
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, Al 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 withdraw 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.79 However, the families did not
want to report the spankings to the police.80

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.

79 Attachment 14. [Supplemental Report - Prescott Police Department, 01/21/2016, Interview with Eric
Owens]
80 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 pursue 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 an accomplished
lawyer, a renowned expert on child raising, or a 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, 2000) 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.” (MVBC Timeline)

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 careful 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 emphasize - 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. These
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 blatantly false.

Chantry moved to Providence Reformed Baptist Church in University Place


(Tacoma), Washington in December 2000. He became a member in February
2001. He started preaching on a regular basis in September 2001. 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 from 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 Corners 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. Jamie 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.
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

Thomas J. Chantry was found guilty on two aggravated assault charges on August 21,
2108. He was sentenced on October 19, 2108 by Judge Bradley Astrowsky. In
consideration of sentencing, the two victims and their parents sent impact statements to
the Judge asking him to sentence Chantry to time in prison and not simply be put on
probation. These statements provide extraordinary insight into what they experienced
and the unimaginable trauma they suffered.

On the stand in the courtroom under oath on August 17, 2018, Chantry told the jury he
absolutely did not assault the two children. To this day, he denies all wrong doing in the
case. In consideration of sentencing, Chantry’s lawyer, John Sears, made this emphatic
claim for his child abusing client in Chantry Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum,
October 16, 2018.

“As this Court knows, Defendant steadfastly denies committing any crimes
whatsoever against either of these two victims and intends to appeal.”

May the Lord God Almighty deal with Mr. Sears for defending the evil actions of Tom
Chantry.

Chantry physically assaulted and/or sexually molested six children from four families in
Miller Valley Baptist Church in Prescott, AZ. The Association of Reformed Baptist
Churches of America (ARBCA) did an investigation in 2000. Upon completion, they
conspired to cover up the crimes. A score of top officials knew Chantry was a child
abuser but refused to report him to law enforcement. Tom Chantry’s father, Walt
Chantry, who was a founder of ARBCA, demanded officials cover up the known crimes.

One cannot imagine the harm done to the victims by Tom Chantry, ARBCA officials and
Walt Chantry. Every remaining pastor in ARBCA must read these impact statements and
all the evidence about which I and others have written; and confront the corruption that
is pervasive in the matter. This should result in widespread repentance and resignations
by a score of ARBCA leaders. If not, I fail to see how any pastor can remain if they have
any integrity. They should leave ARBCA.

At the end of the four impact statements, I have also included an article by Max Efrein of
the Daily Courier newspaper in Prescott, AZ in which the Judge explains his reasons for
his sentencing decision.

I’ve redacted the real names, and substituted fictious names in italic letters, for all the
victims and parents in what follows. I’ve added a few notes in brackets [ ].
##

Impact Statement of Jane Walsh


October 2018

I never imagined in my life that I would get the opportunity to say what has been on my
heart since I was the age of 9, let alone testifying my experience on the matter within a
trial.

As an adult, you can see things more black and white. Your perceptions are a bit more
guarded, you are more aware of your surroundings, and you learn to become wary of
possible threats around you. You would also assume, as an adult, that you are able to
voice your concerns of any personal harm that has been presented in your life to be met
with counsel and a means to find closure with a situation, especially within a church.

As a child growing up in a church, these “concerns” [for personal harm] were brought to
the counsel [the ARBCA Informal Council comprised of Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp and
Rich Jensen], and the cries for help and guidance fell on deaf ears. The promises made to
us for the pain we went through were eventually broken, and so today I am presenting
my personal experience on this matter.

I, nor my brother, nor the other victims involved in this case asked for this type of abuse.
We were much like weak sheep sought after and preyed upon by a wolf [Tom Chantry]
in sheep’s clothing. This man is calculated and conniving. He used his position as a
leader as a power play to reign over our fragile and impressionable minds. He took
advantage of our parents trust, which in turn led to years battling with trusting our own
parents discernment of our safety after the abuse. My anger and hurt still runs deep to
this day. I mourn over each victim in this sordid story. We didn’t have a choice. Our
voices were not heard, our pain was covered over years of shame, guilt and fear. This
man single handedly succeeded in making every one of us question our self worth, our
worth to our parents, our worth to God and our worth of getting in to heaven. After
years of turmoil and pain, as adults now, I am relieved we can express more accurately
and more articulately of the suffering we had to endure under Tom’s merciless and
deviant ways.

As a child, I was one who was extremely impressionable. Whether it was lead [led] by
family, church, or school, all of these elements would mold me in to the person I became
growing up. As a child growing up in the church, I was taught to respect your elders, to
not question authority because you are not mature enough to, to be mindful of your
actions and how those actions can affect not just you, or others around you, but most
importantly, that your actions would reflect your heart and your heart through Jesus.
Through this, there is a lot of innocence, a lot of naivety, and you’re sheltered from things
of the world. You don’t question authority. My parents did a spectacular job raising my
brother and I. Everything was in our best interest, they wanted nothing more than for us
to grow in to respectful, mindful, loving, selfless and peaceful individuals, growing in
the grace of God.

I need to express heavily, that my parents intentions were pure and good by raising
Wayne and I at Miller Valley Baptist Church. They raised us in a church where Wayne
and I were not just lead and loved by our parents, but by other families, and other
children whose bonds were just as close as family. Our lives were happy at Miller Valley.
We felt safe, and we felt loved in our early years there. I would also want to express that
my parents hardly disciplined Wayne and I physically - it was one to two light spankings
at most if it did occur. On top of this, they never placed the responsibility of physical
discipline to baby sitters, other church members, not even our own family members.

The fate of what happened, happened. I would never, even on my worst enemy, would
wish the devastation that Tom brought to our family and our lives. Because of his actions
towards us, he shook my family to its core, nearly destroyed my parents marriage, and
my brother and I suffered years with anxiety together and separately from our abuse. On
top of this, he forever tarnished the beauty of community within our church. After he
ran away like a thief in the night, our church’s congregation did not just only split, but
over the years dwindled down to a handful of members. Even now, there is still a twinge
of lingering gloom that clouds over the buildings of that same church.

From the beginning, he mocked our parents trust. He mocked the trust of all our parents
- the same parents who made every effort into making Tom feel accepted into our church
upon his arrival, to support him as a pastor, and to respect him as a leader. Even with
the temper tantrums he would throw in front of our congregation, belittling members,
and casting himself away from members in our church, they still tried their best to
encourage him to be the pastor they were expecting him to be - humble, wise, giving and
cheerful. He used the kindness we showed him to his advantage in his own selfishness,
and also used it as a way to scare us in to keeping our mouths shut from the pain and the
abuse he inflicted on us.

The months spent with Tom while he tutored us, I can only describe as dark and hopeless.
He would taunt us relentlessly, until one of us broke, and there he would take his moment
to seize and attack. I try not to think of these memories often. And, I would hope those
of you listening would understand, that as a child, when you experience pain and fear
through periods of trauma, you are quick to sweep horrendous memories under a rug in
your mind as you mature, as a way to cope with the pain. He inflicted not just physical
pain, but instilled decades worth of fear and anxiety as I grew in to a young woman. I
had difficulty being around men, aside from my own father, family members and close
friends, for years after the abuse, and struggled with depression and self doubt about my
presence here on earth. It affected my thoughts about myself greatly, constantly
questioning my own merit and creating a mental state where I felt vulnerable and
undeserving of anything around me. I spent years conditioning myself to rid these awful
memories in to darkness and not to dwell on them, and did all I could to move past the
pain, the guilt, the shame, and the defeat. It took well in to my adulthood to overcome
the fear and anxiety he brought in to my life. There are glimpses though, memories of
the abuse, that I can’t help but cry at the thought of. I have spent decades worrying and
knowing that this man has walked freely on this earth, and would use his power to take
advantage of others, to do whatever his sick heart desired.

The feeling of being in the same room when his temper would sky rocket was ridiculous
and manipulative at best. We would sit still in our seats, waiting warily to see who he
would take his anger out on next. It didn’t matter if it was a catechism question that was
answered incorrectly, an answer to a math problem that wasn’t figured out in a timely
manner to his liking, or even if one of us would celebrate winning a silly board game, he
would take advantage of any reaction on our part, and use it in the most twisted and vile
ways he could for his own pleasure. I remember clearly that before we would go to Tom’s
house for a tutoring session, I would consistently tell myself to listen to him as best as I
could, in hopes of escaping his wrath. I quickly realized it didn’t matter how much I tried
to listen to him, or to obey him, somehow, some way, he would still find a means to abuse
us through petty reasons. He made all of us question the existence of God and God’s
everlasting love - why would a man who professed to speak the word of God beat us
over a glass of water? Is this what God intended? Would God see Tom’s actions as just
and honorable for every time his hand pounded against our bodies?

Would God smile upon him for every strike that his hand, oar, belt or any other tool he
used against us, boasting Tom as a “true and faithful servant”? I never understood how
a pastor, who professed the love of God, could be so cruel and hateful. I never
understood how someone I was told to respect and to trust, would make us live in
complete fear for our lives. I can say, even though my experience was bad enough, I
sadly didn’t get abused as bad as my brother or the other boys involved. I know now, I
was used [as] a token, to keep quite as I witnessed my own younger brother [Wayne], beat
repeatedly as Tom’s face turned beet red, yelling at the top of his lungs how our faults
wouldn’t even be forgiven by our parents or God. The pain that hurts the most, and the
guilt I even carry as an adult today, was having to experience seeing my younger brother,
the one individual I’ve always been taught to and naturally protect, be beaten in countless
ways, and even worse, watching Tom drag him to the church from the parsonage where
we were being tutored, and having no idea what sickening acts he would perform on my
brother [sexual molestation] behind closed doors in Tom’s church office. I was not
capable of saving Wayne. For the times I did witness my brothers abuse, I watched in
complete horror, frozen, anxiously dreading the worst, and fearing if I made an attempt
to run, my fate would be at stake. I felt paralyzed sitting on the couch in Tom’s living
room, plans of action running through my head - if I could just get past him and out the
front door, maybe I can run to the Auto Body shop next door and cry for help. Maybe I
can run as fast as I can across the street to the local hospital and ask for someone to
intervene. Maybe if I cry loud enough, or scream loud enough, someone walking past
Tom’s house will hear and save us. I truly felt that our lives were in danger. How could
you not feel that way at such a young age?

I remember when I made the “grave mistake” of setting a glass of water on a table surface
and not on a coaster as he had asked. Tom stood up from his seat and barked at me to
follow him to a room in the back of his house. My stomach dropped to the floor. I had
already seen what had taken place with the abuse on my brother in front of my eyes, and
now my time had come. The room he lead me into was bleak, the only light faintly
peering through the room were through closed blinds. He asked me to bend over his lap.
I remember shaking and felt sick as I bent over. He didn’t spank me. His hands pounded
on my tiny body, the wind knocked out of me so much that I could hardly let out a
whisper of a cry. And then he did it again. And again. And again. It felt like a dream.
When I was able to catch my breath, I would scream as hard as I could, hoping someone
outside of the house would hear me. I was scared beyond what I could fathom, and it
felt endless. I had never experienced such darkness in my life. Every strike was harder
than the next. I could tell his labored grunting with each strike proved how hard he
continued to hit. Thereafter, he asked me to hug him. I felt weak, yet stiff, resisting
further contact from him. He wrapped his arms around me tightly, forcing me between
his legs, pressing me up to his body. He then whispered that he did this because God
would want him to, for not listening to him, and if I continued to disobey him, that God
would reject me and my “sins”, and that I would not get in to heaven. He made it clear
not to tell my parents, because he had taken care of the discipline and there was no need
to talk about it further. He also made it clear that if I did tell, my parents would take his
side and would be incredibly upset with me as well. Can you imagine? At the age of 9,
being forced to think that this was your only option to process what had happened, and
that there wasn’t a way out? Most of all, thinking that that these tiny mistakes were not
worthy of our safety, or worthy of our parents understanding and love, and most
importantly, convincing us we would not be worthy of God’s love if these incredibly
minuscule “sins” continued? Even after I disclosed to my father what had happened to
us, and after my father confronted Tom about disciplining us, Tom made it clear to my
father that he would not touch us again. Yet he continued the abuse. And the abuse grew
worse over time. He lied to my father and mother. He lied to Wayne and I. He never
apologized for what he had done, and he still has not apologized, and continues to lie to
this day.

Eventually when Tom was outed and after he ran away from Prescott [AZ to Tacoma,
WA], for years I would lie awake, breathless at the thought of ever seeing this man again.
He was gone, but the wounds were still open. For years I had recurring nightmares of
him coming to our home late at night and peering in to the window of the room my
brother and I shared. For years my brother and I suffered in silence together, wondering
why there wasn’t a threshold of counsel or support for what we, or the others, had gone
through. We, along with the other victims, were never helped. We were never given any
support from the men in ARBCA, and yet Tom was untouchable, given more paths to
churches and preaching, teaching in schools, and received nothing more than a slap on
the wrist for what he had done. He was a heartless coward who hid behind his reckless,
arrogant and a defensive father [Walt Chantry] who threatened the elders at Miller Valley
to back off and shut up about his behavior. Nothing was ever resolved. There was no
closure. 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. The other victims and I have all carried the weight
and burden of his actions towards us for years. Again, counseling, therapy or anything
of the sort was never extended as a viable option to cope with what we had suffered
through, but instead made to feel like what the torture we had been through, was an
inconvenience and would tarnish the image of ARBCA, and our church.

His lack of empathy and disregard of what he did to us is appalling. He is a fraud and a
soothsayer. His self-righteousness and pompous attitude have been applauded by many
men within ARBCA, and it’s unnerving that these men choose to protect him instead of
innocent children. What he did to my brother and the other victims is shameless beyond
comprehension. His heart reflects nothing but evil. I can’t help but think his sole purpose
on this earth was to fool many, and take advantage of the young and weak. I will never
give him my forgiveness. I would never accept an apology from him at this point either
- I would never subject myself to that level.

My biggest fear is that this monster of a human will be released back in to civility, and I
can’t shake the feeling that another victim will fall under his grooming tactics again one
day. This is an illness, a mental and evil mindset that never “shuts off”. He is a textbook
pedophile and child abuser through and through. There is a huge stigma in our society
today regarding men (or women) who inflict pain and abuse on young children and
young adults, who may only serve a small amount of time for their offenses, who are then
released back to the public to attack again. When will this madness stop? When will we
as a society put an end to this stigma? How many children and adults will have to live
in pain and fear until we cry “enough is enough”? Where is the accountability? Where
is the responsibility of holding these abusers in the limelight and enforce the punishment
they deserve for hurting others? Yes, this is Tom’s first offense [first criminal conviction].
But I wouldn’t be lying if I said I would feel defeated, undermined, and that the long
three years to fight this in court would all be in vain if he were released on probation. I
feel that it would defeat the purpose for what we as the victims have gone through, re-
living the agony and embarrassment, and fighting for our truth to no avail. There was
no underlying plot to bring this man down. There wasn’t a scheme we all planned for
the past decade and a half to make up a story to ruin this man’s credibility. No, instead,
he ruined his own credibility as a pastor, as a guardian, as a human being, and we have
all suffered at the actions of this man for years after his abuse. We have all aimlessly
wondered around, questioning if he would do more pain and more damage beyond what
we knew, and what we had endured. As a new mother-to-be, it shakes me to my core
knowing men like Tom can walk freely in our communities, our neighborhoods, our
churches, while they stalk and prey for the next victim. I can’t even put in to words how
I would feel or cope if my own children had to endure what I, my brother, or the other
victims experienced. It sickens me beyond comprehension. No child deserves what we
went through. It wasn’t just the actions of his physical abuse, but the darkness he brought
in to our young lives that blotted and stained our memories forever. My ultimate plea
here is that we as Tom’s victims will be heard, and that he will receive the punishment
that he is worthy of. He has ran long enough, and now this run needs to come to a
screeching halt. We, the victims, wouldn’t have sacrificed over three years of our lives to
bring our abuse to light in court, not only so we could receive closure, but especially
knowing that Tom will not be put in a position where he will be able to prey on more
children in the future. We wouldn’t have sacrificed traveling to trials, putting our
personal lives on hold MANY times, missing work countless times to be present for
hearings, conferences, and the 5 week trial, on top of re-living these accounts in court and
dredging up deep pain and emotions in front of the defendant, our families, his family,
and many others if these stories were fabricated or “falsely” told. As the victims, we had
to live in constant fear, guilt, and anger and have marched silently throughout our lives
knowing the harm he inflicted, the years he took away from our families living with the
pain he caused, robbing us of healthy growth and trusting others and maintaining strong
bonds with our parents, along with the ripple effects of anxiety, depression and shame,
that still runs and courses through us to this day. Today we ask that Tom is judged for
his heinous acts towards every victim in this case. We ask that Tom is held responsible
for the years of damage he has done to each victim and our families, and that he will
receive the consequences of his actions once and for all.

##

Victim Impact Letter of Wayne Walsh


October 2018

I’m having a difficult time finding the right words to describe the type of experience I’m
feeling, but I’ll try to make this as simple as I can.

Ten million, five hundred and twelve thousand minutes. That’s about the approximate
amount of minutes that it have passed since I was beaten by a man over twice my own
age this very moment I’m writing this letter. Through all those millions of seconds,
minutes, hours and years I never thought I’d have to come face to face with this monster
again after being preyed on as a 7 year old boy.
I had a very good childhood. My parents did nothing but provide a loving and happy
household for my sister and I and anyone that crossed the threshold to our home. My
sister and I were never troubled or spoiled children. If we were to disobey or make a
mistake, my parents would punish accordingly, but it was never with excessive force or
with a foreign object. And if we were to be looked after by a baby sitter, I never remember
being punished by any of them. We knew we didn’t have much as far as new toys
growing up so we had our imaginations to fulfill our childhoods with fun and excitement.
My parents both worked fulltime, my mom working as a dental assistant and my dad
working for a title agency and eventually real estate. But they both worked hard to make
a good home for us all, regardless of what income we did or didn’t have. And a part of
the aspect of growing up in a loving home was to spend time with family and making
extended family through church. Growing up living in a Christian household, I was
always taught to honor your elders, show respect, listen and have some sort of reverence
for those who were in authority, especially by those who were chosen by God to lead His
flock. I was also taught that God was a loving god and his shepherds should be guiding
figures to Him and that they were to be loving, patient and fair to God’s chosen.

As a family, we went to church every Sunday. My mom played piano and my dad was
in the steps of becoming a deacon, a servant and steward to the members of the church
and ultimately for God. My sister and I would attend Sunday School with all the kids of
the church while the parents had the adult Sunday School teachings. As a family and
congregation we would then go to Morning Church service and then evenings would
consist of Bible study and then Evening Worship. It was a long Sunday, EVERY Sunday
but it was full of life and love. My parents wanted us to heed Gods word and fellowship
with our community and had nothing but the best intentions for our family by attending
services. The church and family we had built with the members of the church was just
like any other community, whether it be religious or not. It was innocent and we had
made several friends back then we still call family today.

When Tom was appointed to replace Bob Selph and be our lead pastor, the church
accepted him like anyone else, with open arms and trusted the leaders of ARBCA by
allowing him to shepherd the flock. I don’t remember much of why Bob had to leave but
I remember being sad as Bob was almost like a father figure for our church and I truly
loved him and his family. But like I had been taught, I was excited to meet Tom and
knew that if Bob and the leaders trusted him, I should trust him as well. Tom tried to
convince everyone around him he was a fun and enjoyable person by bonding with the
kids of the church. He chased and tickled us but after some time I could tell it wasn’t
gentle or loving. It hurt and I wish now I would’ve voiced that I was uncomfortable
louder when he would “tickle” me. It was all a sick ploy into convincing families that he
was harmless and well intentioned, by looking like he wanted to befriend the kids of the
church. The families invited him into their homes and welcomed his presence. He would
teach in our homes and bond with the members. But as soon as he had gained the trust
of the families was when he could pin the members he thought might be most weak. I
can honestly say that not one of those members would’ve allowed such heinous acts to
happen if they had known sooner that Tom was preying on children to beat for his sick
and twisted self pleasure. Knowing we were well obedient children but timid and fearful,
he decided that offering catechism and other scholastic tutoring was necessary for us.
That’s when the beatings began.

I specifically remember being with Daniel and Jane during that summer [in 1999] and I
honestly believe if Jane hadn’t been lumped in with Daniel and I, we would’ve been more
physically and emotionally impacted more than we are today. It began with one tutoring
session and he got upset with us and spanked me in front of Daniel and Jane. I wasn’t a
horrible student, maybe had a little confusion with long division, but I was pretty well
literate compared to kids my own age. I was also pretty obedient and wouldn’t
purposefully try to cause a stir or trouble in or out of class. When the beatings happened
the first time, I was hurt and confused and thought I had truly done something to upset
him, my family or worse God and I felt embarrassed and ashamed. I told my parents
what had happened and my dad confronted Tom. Tom defended his actions and told
my dad he wouldn’t do it again. Sadly, it wouldn’t be the last time Daniel, Jane, Mark,
Mark, Joseph and I were hit or beaten by Tom and I began to see the true spirit of this
supposed shepherd. For what seemed like an eternity, the beatings became more
frequent and more physically painful for the duration of that summer.

My dad would take my sister and I to the parsonage almost every other day during the
week for that summer. Jane and I knew that if we didn’t obey Tom’s list of rules we would
be punished, but the standards would change from day to day. Every time I tried to
follow the rules he set one day, it was different the next. I couldn’t pin point when the
beatings would happen, until it was too late and I could see the expression of his face
changing. He would scream at us and slam the dining room table until we would put
our drinks on the coasters. He would drag Daniel or I to the living room to make an
example if we didn’t answer a catechism question quickly enough. He beat me for not
wanting to play a board game or smack Daniel if he won a game we had all played,
because ultimately Tom was a sore loser. He hated to be wrong or not win a stupid board
game. It was then I began to see it was for any excuse he made up for the day. If we
slipped up or hadn’t performed to his timing, that was when he would strike us. Each
time harder than the time before to seer [sear] the reminder in our minds that we had no
control of the situation. And after each strike telling us that no one would believe us but
especially our parents so it would be useless to tell them. We would be a disappointment
to God because we hadn’t obeyed our pastor. And after each time we were punished,
force to hug him and tell us that he was the only who could really care for us, spiritually
and physically, because that’s why he was appointed to be our pastor.

I was told that my parents, the only ones we as children know to be our sole protection,
wouldn’t believe if I cried to them about being beaten with a paddle. A paddle that our
pastor had fashioned himself. God wouldn’t accept me into heaven because I didn’t listen
to my pastor as he screamed at me for intimidation. That this was a form of punishment
by God through Tom for something I HADN’T EVEN DONE. 7 years old and a GROWN
MAN wants a hug after telling me my self worth and being isn’t enough for my parents
to believe me, because he was God’s interpreter. And then rubbing his hand across a 7
year olds butt after beating it raw. I saw the tears of my close friend [Daniel] and sister
running down their faces as we saw the pain inflicted on each other. He made us watch
what would become of us if we had told a single soul what we would have to endure for
what seemed like an eternity. I was dragged from the parsonage, across the dirt parking
lot to the office of the church, a space I was taught was holy. My bottom smacked so hard
I could barely breath. His hand running over my bottom over and over as tears streamed
down my face. Grabbing my body [genitalia] and embracing me to hug him with my
pants down my ankles. I would come back from the church to the parsonage to complete
silence and seeing the look of utter shock and fear in your sister and friends’ eyes. That
summer was a living nightmare, a nightmare so twisted, I wouldn’t wish anyone to live
through, yet here I am telling the truth of that nightmare I physically lived.

After those incidents of the summer, I sat at the dining room table with the family for
dinner. I don’t remember how the conversation began, but I remember the look of terror
my parents had as my sister and I confessed to the abuse. We sobbed, asking my parents
to please not punish us for disobeying Tom. We begged not to return to the parsonage
for tutoring because it caused so much fear in us. My mom embraced us both and my
dad left the house to confront Tom. I don’t know what was said but I know my dad
would do anything to fight for our family. He would do anything he could to try to end
the madness. Once Tom had been confronted, he hid in the parsonage and when he
thought no one was watching, left.

He used his best skills to keep it hidden from my parents, the elders and congregation
and eventually many others in separate churches; lying, intimidation, manipulation and
finally like any other coward, running away.

He lied to my parents by telling them he would never touch us again after I had told my
dad about the first beating. He lied to the elders and church when he was confronted.
He berated my parents and bullied them along with the other victims, parents and
members, the families that invited him in to shepherd and lead. 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”. Why would children create such a
lie about someone in authority? If we created a lie as big as this, why would Tom run
away? We were the ones who had been lied to. I remember being told everything would
be “taken care of”. Nothing was to fear because he wouldn’t be around kids or wouldn’t
be pastoring again. We were led to believe that he would be held accountable of his
actions by the very organization that had appointed him to the position he held. No offer
of counseling to the victims, no sympathy or love in return to those who were left broken.
Our church family, emotionally wrecked, was given no help to heal or mend the pieces
back together. We were left in an emotional prison while Tom got away and to what
surprise, was teaching and Pastoring once again.

I continued to live in that confusion and embarrassment for many years until I could
compartmentalize the actions and moments of being beaten by him. I still can’t eat a
lemon square, the one baked good Tom always wanted made by my mom when he would
come over to our home for dinner. It took several years to finally understand that I wasn’t
the one in the wrong. I had to remind myself that I was a CHILD when I was beaten by
Tom. I was beaten for not putting a drink on a coaster. I was a 7 year old boy, being
beaten with a paddle he made. What child deserves that? What child would fabricate or
lie about something such as this? I had to remind myself, I didn’t do anything to deserve
treatment like this. My own parents wouldn’t dare think to punish my sister or I this
way. As I grew older it was hard not to lost trust in my parents for not being able to
protect my sister and I. But like any other victim of abuse, I pushed the thoughts to the
back of my mind so I could somehow move on. I tried to live a normal life, despite not
having any counseling or guidance after those events.

About 3 years ago when I got the call from detective Jessica [Barnard-Belling], I didn’t
want to admit those events took place over the phone. I mumbled out of fear that
somehow he was on the other line, listening in on what I was saying aloud. I somehow
felt transported to being 7 years old again, but in a 24 year olds body. I suffered from
depression and sudden mood swings when I think of him and had no resources for
therapy. I began to run away from situations when the thought of confronting him
crossed my mind. I spent the last 3 years causing self-inflicting damage by turning to
drugs and alcohol abuse as a coping mechanism. I thought it was the only to escape my
pain and suffering. I sobbed on the phone to my sister and parents feeling helpless and
alone knowing that he was still out there able to hurt someone else just like he hurt me.
Not just physically, but the emotionally and mentally as well. To make children feel
helpless and alone. To make them feel that their loved ones wouldn’t care or listen to
them, because ultimately they would choose to believe him first. I had to pick up the
pieces again, over and over each and every day and remind myself that I am worth
something. I had to remind myself that my family has and always will love me, despite
what Tom had told me. There were days that I’d hope to die so I wouldn’t have to face
him again. I felt like a failure even if we had gone to court, because why would anyone
listen to me? With time and the help of my loved ones I know that my life is short and
that I can’t let Tom’s abusive behavior of my past affect what is left of my future. And as
someone who had to relive that trauma, it’s my duty to share my story to prevent this
from happening again by Tom.
To think that this monster can get off so easily makes my stomach churn. To go through
the years of a mental and emotional prison myself and the other victims have had to go
through is torture enough. All of our pain and emotional sorrows to be smeared once
again, just now as adults, I have no words for it. To come so close to having justice after
nearly twenty years of not having justification and then to have it dissipate is
unfathomable. The victims that needed the justification the most, Joseph, Mark and Daniel,
what about them? They need to know just as the rest of us that TOM CAN’T WALK
FROM THIS AGAIN. His actions have caught him red handed and he needs to be held
accountable. And if you release him on probation, what does this say? Are we going to
let more child abusers walk freely? Why don’t we just let them all free? What’s the point?
Why should we even bother? How many more kids will be hurt, physically, mentally,
emotionally? How many more will be haunted by Tom’s words and actions? How many
more kids will question the trust of their parents when Tom tells them they won’t be
heard or believed? How many more have to suffer if he gets away with these actions?
These questions gave me nightmares for the last 3 years. I’m tired of living in that
constant state of fear, crying myself to sleep wondering how many others have suffered
what I have suffered by Tom. Actions deserve consequence, especially actions as heinous
as his.

This has to end, here and now. We have sacrificed more emotional labor, time that we
didn’t necessarily have to spare and years of silence long enough. And we have
continued to do so but more publicly by sharing our experiences in court. We have dealt
with the pushback [delay] of Tom’s case on MORE than one occasion. We have had to
sacrifice more time than we wanted for this trial, canceled important engagements,
traveled several times for testimonies and hearings. We’ve dug up more emotionally
painful moments than one can count and if that is wiped away today, I hope it all for
nothing.

As a victim of this case, I ask you, to please consider the emotional damage this will have
on me along with the other victims and their families. Tom needs to be held accountable
for his actions. The actions provided may be written as a first offense [first criminal
conviction], but we know full well this wasn’t his first act and it won’t be his last. He has
proven that he will lie, berate, belittle and manipulate the truth until he is let go. And as
a pastor, a leader of God’s word, someone who is supposed to speak truth, Tom has failed
to do just that.

He failed his church. He failed his congregation. He failed his family. He failed himself.
He failed God. He failed. No apologies to the victims; Daniel, Mark, Joseph, Jane, Mitch
and I [the six victims from four families]. He had no intention of apologizing. The whole
purpose of being a leader is to show how to lead by example. If there was remorse or
change of heart, he has not shown that. It’s time to accept that Tom will change for no
one except himself and to his own selfish gain. And it’s time to change that course, once
and for all. As a victim, it’s time for US to be listened to. It’s time for Tom to pay the
consequences for all the years of turmoil he brought to us as individuals. We have been
silenced long enough. It’s time for us as the victims to live freely by having closure and
leaving the emotional baggage we have had to carry for almost 20 years. I don’t want to
wait another ten million, five hundred and twelve thousand minutes for justification [i.e.,
righteous vindication]. We as victims can’t ask for time lost, but we can ask for justice
and we deserve at least that much. Our time, our lives and our future depends on it.

To end this letter, I quote Judith Lewis Herman -

“In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his
power to promote forgetting. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his
victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure no one listens.”

To those listening and with the power to do something about it, I hope they make the
right choice.

##

October 16, 2018

Honorable Judge Astrowsky


c/o Tony Camacho
Yavapai County Court
Prescott, AZ 86303

Re: Tom Chantry

Judge Astrowsky,

I am writing this letter to you as requested, by Susan Easer, attorney for Yavapai
County Attorney’s office.

Patty, my wife and I, are parents to Jane, and Wayne Walsh.

When this case, then trial started, Patty and I have had to go through what happened
over 19 years ago, at a church we used to attend and serve, Miller Valley Baptist
Church, 815 Whipple St., Prescott, AZ 86301.

Patty and I started attending sometime in the mid to late 1980’s. The pastor and his
wife were, Bob and Kathy Selph. They moved to take over a church in South Carolina
in the spring of 1995. We were sent a young man, Tom Chantry as an interim pastor in
the summer of 1995.
When Tom came to Miller Valley Baptist Church, everyone extended themselves to
welcome this young man into their homes, tried to be as friendly as possible to him,
give him respect for his position, and even prayed for him to grow into a responsible
young man and pastor

Tom was never a pastor, or was he ever going to be a pastor. A pastor is a man who cares
for his flock, like Jesus’ example of being a shepherd to the flock of sheep. We endured
his sorry behavior, his temper, his bullying of people, mostly because of his father being
Walt Chantry, who was very respected in the ARBCA and RBMS (Reform Baptist
Mission Service). Tom was capable of being a very good preacher, like his father. But
we made a mistake. We hired a wolf, not a shepherd. The good people of Miller
Valley Baptist tried their best with this man. We were ignorant of what and who he
really was. I do not still know what happened to Tom to make him this way, but
from what I have recently learned by working at an Episcopal Church camp, Chapel
Rock, here in Prescott, and having to take their annual required training on child
molesters, just makes me realize that this man Miller Valley Baptist hired and even
ordained, was the classic pedophile from the beginning. He didn’t come to Miller
Valley Baptist as a good young man.

No good young man who is starting in the pastorate, punches a church member’s son in
the face [Mitch Jones], for having a water balloon thrown at him, at a picnic [July 4, 1995],
and then runs into his newly bestowed upon residence (parsonage). No good young man
who is starting in the pastorate [Christmas 1995], violates his church members authority
of father and mother, to discipline a young boy [Mark Jones over Christmas break 1995]
to the point of hurting the boy, and then makes it up to the young boy by being
unnaturally endearing [rubbing his buttocks & sexually molesting] to the young boy after
the hurt was administered. That is brutality at the least.

The first situation happened within days [three weeks, the second situation
within seven months] of coming to Prescott to be an interim Pastor, with high
recommendation. Either Bob Selph doesn’t really know Tom Chantry or Bob felt
he couldn’t leave his flock with no one. And Tom was better than no one. Well he
wasn’t and Miller Valley Baptist would have been better if Tom Chantry never
came to Prescott.

We at the church trusted Bob Selph tremendously and felt if he recommended Tom,
Tom must have had something in him that would be redeeming. I will give him that
he is intelligent, and a good speaker, maybe even a good preacher. But never was he
a pastor, and we at Miller Valley gave him what he didn’t deserve. Love, care,
respect, a place to live, a position of responsibility, and even a salary.
A lot could be overlooked if he would have kept to himself [i.e. did not abuse
children], and he was forgiven, over and over, without asking for forgiveness, and
without deserving the kindness that was extended repeatedly.

Judge, you heard about how Miller Valley Baptist Church members tried to be just a
good congregation and be supportive. We were duped, and we didn’t gossip, or talk
to put 2 and 2 together because we were not talking to each other. We, in our error,
were giving a pass to someone who didn’t deserve the grace that was bestowed upon
him. Otherwise he would not have been ordained at Miller Valley, hired by Miller
Valley, or supported and respected at Miller Valley Baptist Church.

If Patty and I and Luke and Lois Jones would have talked we wouldn’t have let our
kids be in Tom’s care. Tom manipulated and played us all for stupid. Which in some
ways, we were. But only because we were trying to be respectful of his position, and
care for him because it was the right thing to do.

Looking back Tom was looking for a place like Miller Valley Baptist more than any of
us knew.

He found a church, it could have been a camp, or a school, where he could make
people think he was there to teach them. A thing or two. These manipulations of
people and the opportunities we gave him were disastrous. We gave our children,
unknowingly, over to a pedophile. We now know it, so do you.

What happened to our children Jane and Wayne, Robert and Connie’s son Daniel, Peter
and Harriet’s son Joseph, Luke and Lois’ sons Mark and Mitch, was as parents, a
travesty. We as parents will always be forever sorry and full of regret. We thought
Tom Chantry, surely would take care of our children and treat them like we would
expect anyone, that we would leave our children with. And even more so to entrust,
a Pastor, to care for our children. Not a bully. Not an abuser. Not a pedophile. Not
a deceiver.

These children were 3 to 4, for Joseph, and 8 to 13 (I can’t remember what Mark’s age
was in 1995) for Jane, Wayne, Daniel, Mark, and Mitch, when Tom Chantry started taking
care of them.

He cannot be given probation for what our children, now grown up, have had to live
through.

For the past 20 plus or minus years our children have had to stuff their feelings and
emotions, for all this garbage that had happened to them, by this man who was
supposed to care for them and especially for their souls. He doesn’t care now and he
didn’t care then. This trial and investigation has brought up memories of pain, suffering,
and brutality. You have heard what they can remember and somewhat tell about.
Especially when they were threatened by Tom, that he was keeper of their souls. Who
does that? Especially a Pastor doesn’t act that way. Unless you are not what you say you
are.

Do not let him get away with what he has taken away from these children, now adults.
Only one now goes to church. We parent are even struggling with our Christian walk. I
am not going to bring up what they have gone through because of being mistreated in
the ways of manipulation, lies, terror, fear, trepidation, pain, suffering, sexual abuse.

It is time for him to be sentenced, for all of those things done to young children. Not to
be given another pass because he is not a good man. Regardless of not having any
priors. These things he did were priors. He just did not do them once. He did them over,
and over, and over, and over.

Well that is enough. The jury came to their conclusions, and whether I agree with it or
not, that was the verdict. But please consider the letters and the previous testimonies and
the attitudes, and behaviors, of our children and us as parents. If we all had known that
this had gone on then, we would not be here today asking you to deal with this situation.
It would have been dealt with while it was fresh in everyone’s minds. He has had the
advantage of time, and we have suffered for it.

Thank you for reading this,

Tyler Walsh, father of Jane and Wayne, husband of Patty

##

October 18, 2018

Dear Judge Astrowsky,

I am the mother of Jane and Wayne Walsh. After learning this past week that you are
considering a Probation sentence for Tom Chantry, I feel I must speak up alongside of
my children. I feel deeply troubled that probation would even be a consideration for this
man.

I feel that given probation, he will continue to have a total disregard for his actions and
the severity of what he has done, just like the total disregard he has shown all along, to
the people he has hurt.

I feel that one year in jail is a small price to pay after being convicted on assault charges
and abusing young children. It is a very small price for him to have to pay, especially
after these children bared their souls only to have a hung jury [Chantry will be retried on
four counts of molestation] declared other than the assault verdict.

It is with an earnest plea, that you would truly take into consideration everything that
you heard AND saw of him during this trial and seriously reconsider the probation deal.
This man needs to serve his time in jail.

After all, it’s these children who are the ones that are still REALLY paying the price.

Sincerely,
Patty Walsh

##

This is an article covering the Judge’s ruling which excluded jail time for the two counts
of aggravated assault. I’ve added notes in brackets [ ].

The Daily Courier


Former Prescott pastor receives three years probation for aggravated assault charges
Expected to return to court for new charges
By Max Efrein
October 12, 2018 12:57 p.m.
https://www.verdenews.com/news/2018/oct/22/former-prescott-pastor-receives-
three-years-probat/

PRESCOTT -- A former Prescott pastor has been sentenced to three years of supervised
probation for two counts of aggravated assault.

Thomas Chantry, 48, was convicted of the two class 6 felonies in August after a five-week
trial. The charges stem from incidents of Chantry disciplining children of the families in
his congregation at Miller Valley Baptist Church so severely he left bruises and marks.
These incidents took place between 18 and 23 years ago.

The sentencing was imposed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bradley
Astrowsky at Yavapai County Superior Court’s Prescott location on Friday, Oct. 19.

Both the prosecution, headed by Yavapai County Deputy Attorney Susan Eazer, and the
adult victims Chantry was found to have assaulted when they were children, were
disappointed by the sentencing, having requested that Chantry receive prison time.

A maximum of two years in prison could have been imposed if the judge found the
charges to be aggravated (exceptionally egregious). Considering all factors surrounding
the case, Astrowsky chose not to increase the severity of the charges.
“When the court has someone who is convicted of two class 6 felonies [for aggravated
assault] with no prior criminal history, I couldn’t think of an occasion of which, under
such circumstances, I’ve seen, either as a practitioner [former prosecutor] or as a judge, a
prison term imposed,” Astrowsky said.

He also considered imposing an initial jail term, but even that didn’t make sense to him.
“The problem with imposing an initial jail term – I’m letting you in to my thought process
here – is that [Chantry’s] already in custody,” Astrowsky said.

[Note: Chantry is “already in custody” (jail) for the new charges against him but not for
the old charges that led to his conviction on the two counts of aggravated assault.]

Only one year of initial jail time can be imposed for each count, Astrowsky added. Some
or all of that time can be used upfront or as a potential punishment if Chantry violates
his probation. Since Chantry is already in custody on a $1 million cash bond for another
case, it would be a waste of that potential punishment by starting to use that jail time
now, he explained.

[Note: The Judge reasons he can use the two years of jail time later if Chantry violates his
probation. Since he is already in jail on new charges with a million dollar bond that he
apparently cannot pay, why apply jail time from the current case. I don’t agree with his
argument because the bond could be reduced and paid and then Chantry is out of jail.
Furthermore, I trust Chantry will be found guilty in a future trial (or trials) and sentenced
for life but that is never guaranteed. I’d rather him serving all the time possible now.]

“The likelihood of (the $1 million bond) being posted, I trust, is not significant, because
he would have posted bail already,” Astrowsky said.

[Note: An arrest warrant was issued on September 7, 2018. Chantry surrendered on


September 10 and was put in jail where he remains. He has been there for over 3 months.
He has to come up with one million dollars in cash to get out. There will be a bond
hearing in the next month or so; where his new lawyer will try to get the bond amount
reduced.

I should add that Chantry also spent 4 months in jail for his first arrest while awaiting
trial. He got out once on a 100k bond in WI and then he got out a second time on at 250k
bond in AZ. Altogether, Chantry has been jailed three times for a total incarceration of 7
months to date.]

In addition to the probation, Chantry must serve 100 hours of community service; he may
not interact with children other than his own unless under supervision; and must
undergo a psychological evaluation and follow whatever recommendations come from
that.

“I don’t want to play psychologist from the bench, but there may be some issues that you
might need help with,” the judge said to Chantry.

[Note: Astrowsky knows Chantry is a sexual sadist and sociopathic liar but can’t say so
from the bench. No amount of counseling will help Chantry. He is a hardened reprobate
who stands under the wrath of God.]

MORE CHARGES TO BE TRIED

Less than a month after Chantry’s trial concluded [August 21, 2018], nine new felony
charges were filed against him and he was ordered to be held at the Yavapai County jail
on a $1 million bond, where he currently remains.

[Note: A Grand Jury indicted Chantry on September 7, 2018 and a national arrest warrant
was issued. He surrender on September 10 and was immediately put in jail. A date for
the trial has not yet be set. The nine new counts pertaining to crimes against Daniel Laver
include four for sexual molestation, four for aggravated assault with sexual motivation,
and one for child abuse.]

During Friday’s sentencing, Astrowsky made reference to two cases surrounding these
charges [13 counts] and said it’s unclear whether or not they will be consolidated.

“I think these cases are connected,” Astrowsky said. “They may be tried together, but that
remains to be seen.”

[Note: The first (old) case concerns Mark Jones. The second (new) case concerns Daniel
Laver. During Chantry’s first trial in July-August 2018, the jury “hung” 11 to 1 on four
counts of sexual molestation. One juror refused to find Chantry guilty. It was reported
the juror was tainted. Those four counts for sexual molestation concerning Mark Jones
will be retried.]

“I’m going to file a motion that the cases should be consolidated and – obviously for
convenience purposes, if nothing else – should remain in Yavapai County, where we have
a courtroom for trial at some point sooner than in two years,” Easer said.

[Note: Eazer would like one trial for the combined 13 counts. “Two years” is a reference
to how long it took for the first trial to start. Chantry was originally arrested in July 2016.
The trial began in July 2018.]
Chantry’s defense attorney, John Sears said there are a number of complicating factors
that may alter the way Chantry’s cases are handled moving forward. First of all, he will
no longer serve as Chantry’s attorney because he will be retiring. A replacement defense
attorney has already been unofficially selected and is expected to make his first
appearance at Chantry’s next status conference, which is set for Nov. 14.

Another complication is that the replacement attorney has already requested to disqualify
the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office from working on the case any further. “That
motion has just been filed on Tuesday of this week, but hasn’t been briefed yet,” Sears
said.

Once some of these details have been ironed out, Yavapai County Superior Court Judge
Patricia Trebesch will be the judge overseeing Chantry’s new charges and trial, Eazer
said.

[Note: Judge Astrowsky was a visiting judge from Maricopa County for the first trial.
Judge Trebesch is from Yavapai County where the crimes occurred.]

Follow Max Efrein on Twitter @mefrein, email him at mefrein@prescottaz.com or call him
at 928-445-3333 ext. 1105.
Part 6: Sociopathic Liar & Sadist, Tom Chantry Promised CCEF Counselor, Devon
Berry, He’d Never Spank Another Child Again but “Battery” Continued Soon After as
an Elementary School Teacher
Monday, January 15, 2019 at 4:17PM

This is the first of two articles on Devon Berry’s counselor’s report. That report has been
concealed by top officials in the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
(ARBCA) and Tom Chantry’s former lawyer, John Sears, for “good” reason. In fact, they
have never used his name in private or public statements in order to conceal his identity.

Devon Berry was a certified biblical counselor with the Christian Counseling & Education
Foundation (CCEF). He counseled Tom Chantry on four occasions over a two week
period from November 29 to December 14, 2001. He issued a report on December 18,
2001.

Berry’s report completely vindicated Chantry even though he was given overwhelming
evidence of Chantry’s child abuse. It was a total whitewash and failed to address
Chantry’s strongly suspected sadism which he was mandated to investigate. This
abdication of responsibility was contrary to the formal agreement signed by Chantry and
“voluntarily assumed” by his pastors, Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick. I will address
this whitewashed report, and quote it in entirety, in my next article.

In this article, I want to address just one item - the promise Tom Chantry made to Devon
Berry and his pastors that he would never spank any child (except his own) ever again
under any circumstance. Here is the relevant excerpt from the report.

December 18, 2001

Tom Lyon
Providence Reformed Baptist Church
6415 55th Street, Court West
University Place, WA 98466

Dear Eldership at Providence Reformed Baptist Church,

The purpose of this letter is to review the process and outcome of the biblical
counseling sessions that I entered into with Tom Chantry. … I have met with
Tom Chantry four times between 11/29/01 and 12/14/01. … The issue of child
discipline has also been addressed with Tom. Because of the nature of the events
leading to this counseling I believe it is important to make several clear
statements about Tom’s voiced commitments in regards to this issue. Tom has
stated that he will not enter into any type of circumstance or arrangement that
will require him to be in a setting with a minor without a third party present. He
has also stated that he will not, in any circumstance, spank a child other than his
own as a form of discipline.

In Christ,

Devon Berry

“The issue of child discipline” was addressed with Chantry - not the issue of why and
how he assaulted children for his wicked pleasure. The only thing Chantry ever
apologized for at Miller Valley Baptist Church in Prescott, AZ was spanking his victims
in a tutorial context. In other words, he superficially agreed he should not have used
spanking as a tutor to address supposed behavioral issues with his students.

I have little doubt Berry knew Chantry was a child abuser based upon all the evidence in
his possession. For example, he was given “The Complete Report” (i.e. packet) which
included five letters documenting the abuse. There is no question he knew others
believed Chantry was a child abuser who broke the law and could be prosecuted.

Yet he never addressed these issues or the strongly held suspicion Chantry was a sadist
in his counseling sessions. He simply addressed “the issue of child discipline” - not the
aggravated assaults for which Chantry was convicted on August 21, 2018. How did he
address it? He got Chantry to make two commitments.

First, never to be alone with a child. “He will not enter into any type of circumstance or
arrangement that will require him to be in a setting with a minor without a third party
present.” A “minor” is anyone under age 18. That is a bizarre requirement unless you
believe Chantry is too dangerous to be left alone with a child or young person
unsupervised. That is exactly what Judge Astrowsky imposed on Chantry at his
sentencing on October 19, 2018. For the next three years, he may not interact with
children other than his own unless under supervision.

Second, never to spank a child again not his own. “He has also stated that he will not, in
any circumstance, spank a child other than his own as a form of discipline.”

Why these two prohibitions? In my opinion, Berry knew or suspected Chantry was a
sadistic child abuser. Berry refers to these “important” “clear statements” as “voiced
commitments” by Chantry.

“Because of the nature of the events leading to this counseling [the aggravated
assaults] I believe it is important to make several clear statements about Tom’s
voiced commitments in regards to this issue.”
Despite these prohibitions and commitments, Berry gives the following endorsement of
Chantry to Lyon and McCormick toward the end of his report.

“Tom believes that he is currently qualified for eldership and recognizes that this
decision ultimately rests with the leadership in his church. As mentioned in the
previous paragraph, it is my perception that Tom is in no way beholden to any
besetting sins at this time. It would also appear that he does meet the
qualifications for eldership.”

Berry confidently asserts “that Tom is in no way beholden to any besetting sins at this
time.” That includes his propensity to lie and spank children! This report was produced
on December 18, 2001. Within eight months, Tom Chantry was teaching elementary
school children at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois outside of
Chicago. The school used corporal punishment (spanking with a rod) to discipline its
students. Chantry was right at home. The spanking quickly resumed.

This timeline comes from Chantry’s biography. I’ve filled in some blanks and added
links.

“Upon concluding his studies, Tom moved to Arizona and worked in


full-time ministry [at Miller Valley Baptist Church] for five years [1995-
2000]. Subsequently he has been a member of Reformed Baptist
churches in Washington [Providence Reformed Baptist Church, 2001-
2002] and Illinois [Grace Reformed Baptist Church, 2002-2006] and has
spent four years [2002-2006] teaching at a Christian school [Christian
Liberty Academy] in the Chicago area. Tom began preaching regularly
at Christ Reformed Baptist Church [Hales Corner, WI] in the summer of
2005. One year later he moved to the Milwaukee area to begin preaching
full time.”

Chantry began teaching 6th graders during the 2002-2003 school year at Christian Liberty
Academy. The following year he taught 5th graders. The same ages as some of his victims
back in Miller Valley Baptist Church. Knowing his history of aggravated assaults, it is
astounding Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick allowed Chantry to become an elementary
school teacher at a school that enforced spanking for misbehaving students. That is like
taking an alcoholic into a bar after his fourth Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and buying
him a cold draft beer or shot of refined whiskey to celebrate.

I assume Devon Berry also knew Chantry was becoming an elementary school teacher.
There is no question, Bob Selph (the ARBCA Coordinator) and Mike McKnight, Tedd
Tripp, and Rich Jensen (the 2000 Informal Council) knew he was leaving Providence
Reformed Baptist Church for the teaching position. Selph, McKnight and Tripp were also
on the ARBCA Administrative Council in 2001-2002. That is when Chantry interviewed,
took the job, relocated to the Chicago area and starting his four-year teaching stint having
been commended by Berry, Lyon and McCormick. How could Selph, McKnight, Tripp
and Jensen allow this to happen knowing Chantry was guilty of child abuse and seriously
suspected he was motivated by sadistic and/or sexual desire?

Walt Chantry, Tom’s father, was the one who effectively got his son the job. He was good
friends with the founder of Christian Liberty Academy, Paul Lindstrom (deceased 2002)
and the headmaster, Philip Bennett. Bennett is now the Superintendent of Christian
Liberty schools. He has foolishly defended Tom Chantry’s innocence even after his
conviction for aggravated assault on August 21, 2018.

In a dramatic development on August 12, 2018 during Tom Chantry’s trial, a “witness”
(confidential informant) came forward to reveal Chantry’s assaults at the school. He said
this about Walt Chantry in the words of Susan Eazer.

“The witness indicted that Walt Chantry is very revered and everyone is afraid
to speak out about things that [Tom} Chantry has done because of Walt Chantry’s
status. This individual was very concerned about keeping his anonymity for this
reason.”

Walt Chantry has intimidated many persons over the last 18 years in covering up his
son’s abuse of children in order to keep him out of jail and protect the family legacy. For
example, he harshly condemned the Miller Valley Baptist Church elders when they
sought to discipline Tom for his physical abuse of children and spiritual abuse of
members. Walt wrote the elders.

“When you proposed the specific 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.”

Rich Howe and Eric Owens replied in part.

“Tom was spanking a young boy he was tutoring after school with various
objects (boat oar, whiffle-ball bat, ruler, hand) on numerous occasions, including
one bare bottom spanking that left welts and bruises on the child’s rear end and
leg. This had been going on for one year before the Elders were made aware of
it. … Legally, what Tom did would be considered child abuse and could be
subject to prosecution.”

Walt Chantry, like so many others, knew Tom was a child abuser but got him a job
working with children. Read this article for fuller coverage.
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

Well, the predictable happened as indicated above. I don’t know exactly when Chantry
began spanking children at Christian Liberty Academy but it was soon after he started
teaching in August 2002. It was part of his job description. As Chantry told a victim’s
mother according to one of the police reports, “It is school policy to spank students when
they misbehave.”

This much we know for a fact, Chantry was investigated by law enforcement and child
protective services for battery of a five-year-old just two years later in July 2004. The
parents decided not to prosecute but they removed their child from the school. You can
read much more about this story at the following links.

Police Report Confirms What We Suspected -Tom Chantry Continued Beating


Young Boys at Christian Liberty Academy
Todd Wilhelm
August 25, 2018

Why Does Christian Liberty Academy Support Convicted Felon Thomas


Chantry?
Todd Wilhelm
October 27, 2018

There are other victims of Chantry’s abuse at Christian Liberty Academy who have yet
to come forward. Please contact Susan Eazer with information at
susan.eazer@yavapai.us or (928) 777-7322. She is the Yavapai County Deputy Attorney
in Arizona who prosecuted Chantry.

The following information comes from the Arlington Heights Police Department in
Illinois. The parents’ and victim’s names are redacted from this account of battery.

“[The mother] picked [her son] up from school at approximately 1530 hours. At
that time, the [mother] asked [her son] about the incident. [The son] advised that
Chantry took him into his office after he had kicked at another student. Chantry
then spanked him with a wooden paddle that was kept in Chantry’s office.”

“[The father] called 911 on 07-16-04 to report the following incident. His son, a
student at Christian Liberty Academy, was the victim of a battery on 07-14-04.
His teacher Chantry spanked [his son] with a wooden paddle, due to his
behavior. [The father] indicated that he is aware of the school’s policy on
punishment but was alarmed at the marks left on his son’s buttocks [two days
later]. … His concern is that Chantry, a fifth and sixth grade teacher, disciplined
his five-year old son. [The father] felt that [his son] was “paddled” too hard by
Chantry.”

“I [Detective Hamrick] asked Chantry how long he has been employed by the
school and how often he “paddles” students. Chantry advised that he has been
employed by the school for approximately two years. He has “paddled” students
less than twelve times. … The paddle is made of pine and is tan in color. The
paddle is approximately 18” in length and approximately an inch thick.”

Chantry “paddled” a five-year-old boy who was NOT one of his students. He was
teaching 10-12-year olds. It appears he was the go to guy for paddling at Christian Liberty
Academy. He was spanking children he did not know for other teachers; including this
little five-year-old boy. Unbelievable!

And of course, he had a ready-made paddle in his office that he used “less than twelve
times.” Less than twelve times! How many children did that involve? And this was over
a two-year period or less. Furthermore, nothing Chantry says can be accepted as true.
The number could be far higher.

Chantry is a sociopathic liar. Here is his commitment, once again, in the words of Devon
Berry.

“The issue of child discipline has also been addressed with Tom. Because of the
nature of the events leading to this counseling I believe it is important to make
several clear statements about Tom’s voiced commitments in regards to this
issue. … He has also stated that he will not, in any circumstance, spank a child
other than his own as a form of discipline.”

Chantry loves to beat children for his pleasure. He is possessed with a sinful desire to
spank or assault them for his enjoyment. His “commitments” mean absolutely nothing.
His promises are nothing but lies intended to deceive. That is why he is in jail on a million
dollar bond. He is utterly untrustworthy.

And not only does he beat children, he also molests them given the opportunity according
to multiple victims. We should know more about his upcoming trial(s) for 13 counts of
sexual molestation, aggravated assault with sexual motivation, and child abuse in the
coming weeks.

Chantry was a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Rockford, IL while teaching
at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL. Dale Smith and Al Huber (his
father-in-law) were/are the pastors. They had to know Chantry was investigated for
battery and involved in spanking multiple children despite his commitment never to do
so. Regardless, they sent him out to be the lead pastor at Christ Reformed Baptist Church
in Hales Corners, WI in 2006. That church shut down and sold its building last month
because 70% of the congregation left over the scandal and its cover-up by ARBCA.

In addition, Chantry was fired from Christian Liberty Academy for the battery according
to the confidential informant. As a result of the battery and police investigation, the
school ended its policy of enforced corporal punishment. Law enforcement even
confiscated Chantry’s 18 inch long, 1 inch thick paddle. It probably brought him to tears!

Furthermore, I assume Tom Chantry and/or Al Huber told Tom Lyon back in Tacoma
and Don Lindblad in Seattle about the investigation for battery so they could be aware in
case the word got out. If so, Lyon and Lindblad didn’t do anything about Chantry
breaking his promise never to spank a child. This should have triggered a report to the
Administrative Council; but of course, Lyon and Lindblad have been at the center of the
cover-up for the last 18 years. So too, Earl Blackburn and David Dykstra.

Tom Lyon, Mark McCormick, Don Lindblad, ARBCA officials, and John Sears (Chantry’s
lawyer) have referenced Devon Berry’s report as evidence of Chantry’s innocence but
have never quoted the report or made the report public. Now you know why. It is
incriminating.

It shows he was too dangerous to be with a minor unsupervised. And it proves Chantry
broke his commitment to never spank a child under any circumstance soon after he
finished counseling with Berry and left Providence Reformed Baptist Church in
Washington for Christian Liberty Academy/Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Illinois.

And this resumption of battery was grounds to release all the information in “The
Complete Report” (i.e., packet) to ARBCA officials including the Level 1, “Confidential
Report and Recommendations.” That is what Don Lindblad wrote Steve Marquedant on
June 17, 2015. “This is a sealed document and is not to surface unless Tom is charged
with the same or similar sins in the future.”

In the same letter, Lindblad told Marquedant about all the documents in the ARBCA files
including Berry’s counselor’s report. Marquedant was on the Administrative Council
and Chairman of the Membership Committee in 2015-2016.

“The following documents are in the ARBCA archives: … The letter written by
the CCEF counselor, stating that Tom has fulfilled what he agreed to do. The
limits of his guilt are expressed.”

Lindblad took the same position during his telephonic interview with Susan Eazer, the
prosecuting attorney, on March 21, 2018. He used Berry’s report to justify Chantry.
“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.” (“Transcript of Donald Lindblad,” p. 46., lines 16-22 - p. 47,
lines 1-2)

The 2016-2017 Administrative Council (Earl Blackburn, Chairman) did the same thing in
their “ARBCA Announcement Concerning Tom Chantry” made to 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)

Berry’s report is alarming on the one hand, and a whitewash on the other hand. Don
Lindblad, Tom Lyon, Mark McCormick, Earl Blackburn, Steve Marquedant, et. al.
reference the “whitewash” in the report but never the frightening “commitments.” Nor
do they point out, Berry did not do what he was assigned to do – address “this method
of punishment for his own pleasure.” He, like Lyon and McCormick, refused to “address
the purpose, frequency and severity of the physical punishment.”

That is why, no one has ever quoted or made public Berry’s report including Chantry’s
lawyer, John Sears, who illegally withheld it from the prosecutor, Susan Easer. Sear’s
referred to the report at the July/August 2018 trial in defense of Chantry, but never
disclosed it to Easer or entered it into evidence.

As pointed out in court documents, Chantry is “a sick twisted monster” and “a textbook
pedophile and child abuser through and through.” That is also why Judge Astrowsky
ordered Chanty to undergo a psychological evaluation and follow whatever
recommendations come from that. Let’s hope they do a far better job than Berry.

Thank God, Chantry has been in jail for the last four months but he continues to claim he
is perfectly innocent. Put that in same category as “[I] will not, in any circumstance,
spank a child.” Sexual predators are always sociopathic liars and those that cover up for
them are not far behind.
Part 7: Devon Berry’s Whitewashed Counselor’s Report Did Not Address Tom
Chantry’s Sadistic Child Abuse Contrary to Agreed Upon Obligations
Friday, January 24, 2019 at 5:47PM

An Informal Council from the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of


America (ARBCA) did a three day investigation of Pastor Tom Chantry from December
13-16, 2000 for the abuse of children in Miller Valley Baptist Church in Prescott, AZ.

The Informal Council was comprised of Mike McKnight, an accomplished lawyer; Tedd
Tripp, a renowned counselor; and Rich Jensen, a former homicide detective trained by
the FBI. These men wrote two confidential reports based on their findings.

In these reports they made recommendations for various parties but primarily for Tom
Chantry and his Elders moving forward. Their recommendations were solemnly agreed
to by Chantry and the Elders who would assume oversight of him beginning December
16, 2000. Those Elders were Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick at Providence Reformed
Baptist Church in University Place, WA.

In their Level 1 Report, McKnight, Tripp and Jensen made the following observations
which led them to suspect Chantry was punishing children for his sadistic pleasure. As
a result, they made specific recommendations which Lyon and McCormick agreed to
follow. Here are the relevant excerpts. The underlining is mine and I’ve added notes in
brackets [ ]. I also use pseudonyms in italic print for the names of victims and witnesses.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


of the Informal Council
of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
December 13, 2000 to December 16, 2000

In an attempt to explain the basis for our report and to make further
recommendations to people who have been involved in this matter, we make the
following: …

II. THE BASIS OF OUR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

With one mind, the members of this Informal Council found the interviews
with each of the [four] children to be very helpful. Each of the children made
very credible answers to our questions. …

The children we interviewed were to various degrees, angry, ashamed, and


struggling with feelings of guilt. They all expressed fear of further contact with
Thomas Chantry. … All members of the lnformal Council were deeply moved by
the words and the injured expressions of the children. …

During the meetings with Thomas Chantry held Thursday, December 14,
2000, in Phoenix, he did mention spanking a fifth child. … The church secretary,
Connie A. Laver, remembered that Tom Chantry “stated” that he volunteered to
spank the grandson of Gina Parish with a belt. The members of the Informal
Council found it very troubling that a pastor would even consider spanking a
child who is in the temporary custody of a grandparent.

Thomas Chantry could not satisfactorily explain to the members of this


Informal Council reasons for resuming a pattern of tutoring and punishment
after it had been discovered and had ended with Mark Jones in November of 1995.

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
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?

Ill. RECOMMENDATIONS: …

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. … 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.

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.
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.

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 [1] the seriousness of the
allegations against Tom, [2] the inconsistencies between the accounts of
the spankings and [3] the apparent lack of complete repentance would
certainly prohibit any return to the ministry until these issues are
resolved by Tom and his Elders.

##

The Informal Council comprised of McKnight, Tripp and Jensen also wrote a Level 2
Report. One of the binding recommendations in this second report was for Chantry to
undergo Biblical Counseling with an outside counselor “trained to deal with the issues
presented by a case of improper physical discipline and inappropriate anger.” This
counseling process would be subject to his Elders. Here are the relevant sections.

REPORT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


of the Informal Council
of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Wednesday, December 13, 2000 to Saturday, December 16, 2000

The following are the conclusions and recommendations of the Informal


Council of ARBCA which have been agreed to…by Thomas Chantry, former
Pastor of the Miller Valley Baptist Church. …

CONCLUSIONS

That during his ministry at Miller Valley Baptist Church, Thomas Chantry
did volunteer to tutor four children from three separate church families. Each
child was subjected to inappropriate physical discipline in the course of their
instruction. In addition, Thomas Chantry did express inappropriate outbursts of
anger which were a concern to the church.
RECOMMENDATIONS

4. That due to the following conduct, Thomas Chantry is presently


disqualified from holding the office of Elder in any church until restored
pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 of these recommendations. …

5. That Thomas Chantry undergo Biblical Counseling with a counselor


trained to deal with the issues presented by a case of improper physical discipline
and inappropriate anger. The counseling process will be subject to the Elders
who assume oversight of Thomas Chantry.

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. …

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 …

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.

Signed and sealed this 16th day of December, 2000.

Donald R. Lindblad Thomas Chantry


Witness

##

The recommendations above were made on December 16, 2000. A year later, Chantry
finally entered into “Biblical Counseling” with Devon Berry. What a joke. The elders,
Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick, were really concerned about getting him help! They
waited 12 months!

That’s because the counseling arrangement with Devon Berry wasn’t about getting
professional help for Chantry’s sadistic child abuse; it was about getting a whitewashed
report that didn’t address the issues outlined by the Informal Council. It was also about
putting Chantry forward as fit for ministry.

What Lyon and McCormick were concerned about was getting Chantry back into
ministry, not “the young children he spanked.” Three months before he began
counseling with Berry, he began regularly preaching in September. How’s that for
priorities. And no one in Providence Reformed Baptist Church knew he had been under
church discipline at Miller Valley Baptist Church, or was investigated by the three-man
Informal Council for physically assaulting children and other disqualifying sins, or not
to be with children or return to ministry until all these serious issues were resolved.

Devon Berry’s name has been kept out of all communications from ARBCA over the past
18 years. I only discovered it going through the 93-page transcript of Susan Eazer’s
telephonic interview of Don Lindblad on March 21, 2018. Eazer is the Deputy Attorney
for Yavapai County, AZ. Lindblad is Chantry’s corrupt advocate. She was pressing
Lindblad for all the documents in his possession that had been withheld from her. Here
is the relevant excerpt referencing Berry.

Lindblad: And then the report from the councilor, a Christian councilor who was
also a Ph.D., nurse in mental health, who’s now the assistant dean of the school
in Oregon. There is that letter or that report as well. (p. 19, lines 15-19, 21)

Eazer: What is the Christian councilor’s name? (p. 19, lines 22-23)

Lindblad: Devin Berry. (p. 20, line 1)

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 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)

Eazer: And that councilor’s report is part of the documents that you have. (p. 47,
lines 3-4)

Lindblad: Correct. (p. 47, line 5)

Eazer: We don’t have anything about Mr. Chantry’s counseling afterward if he


in fact did all the counseling as you suggested so that – that’s not all part of the
red binder.” (p. 28, line 23 – p. 29, lines 1-3)

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 [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)

Eazer: And that councilor’s report is part of the documents that you have. (p. 47,
lines 3-4)

Lindblad: Correct. (p. 47, line 5)

The court stenographer misspelled the counselor’s first name. It was not Devin. It was
Devon. It took a little effort but I was able to locate Devon Berry. I wrote him to confirm
he was Chantry’s counselor but he did not respond.

From: Brent Detwiler abd278@protonmail.com


Date: Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM
Subject: Thomas Chantry
To: Devon Berry berrde@ohsu.edu

Hello Devon,

I’ve been attending the trial of Thomas Chantry for the last several weeks as a
victims’ advocate.

Here is a news account from The Verde Independent in Arizona regarding the
verdict.

https://www.verdenews.com/news/2018/aug/21/chantry-verdict-guilty-
two-aggravated-assault-char/

There has been testimony that Mr. Chantry received professional counseling for
his disorder in 2001 from a Devin Berry who appears to fit your biography.

Are you familiar with Mr. Chantry or have I confused your identity with
someone else? I’d really appreciate a clarification.

Thank you.

Brent Detwiler

Devon Berry was approximately 28 years old when he counseled Tom Chantry, who was
31 years old. He was selected because he was a certified biblical counselor with the
Christian Counseling Education Foundation (CCEF) established by David Powlison. He
was not a licensed professional trained to deal with sexual deviants, sadists, or
sociopathic liars.

He also had an undergraduate and graduate degree in nursing (not clinical psychology
or counseling) and was just beginning his Ph.D. at the University of Washington in
Seattle. He was not a Ph.D. as asserted by Lindblad in the telephonic interview. Nor
have I seen any evidence his nursing degrees were in mental health.

One source has reported he was a member of Lindblad’s Trinity Reformed Baptist
Church in Kirkland, WA northeast of Seattle. Another source said he attended the church
around the time he did Chantry’s counseling. I’d like to know who recommended this
28 year old nurse to do Chantry’s counseling and more about his relationship to Lindblad
and ARBCA.

He is currently the Executive Associate Dean responsible for leading the School of
Nursing’s Strategy Deployment and Operations at the Oregon Health & Science
University (OHSC) in Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Health & Science University (OHSC)

Devon Berry
berrde@ohsu.edu (503) 494-0133

Associate Professor, School of Nursing


Executive Associate Dean

The Executive Associate Dean is responsible for leading in the School of


Nursing’s Strategy Deployment and Operations.

Education
B.S.N., Cedarville University, Cedarville Ohio United States 1995
M.S.N., Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Case Western Reserve
University, Cleveland Ohio United States 1997
Ph.D., School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle Washington United
States 2005

Though requested, Devon Berry’s counselor’s report was never provided by Don
Lindblad or John Sears to Susan Eazer because it never showed up in the court
documents.

During the July-August 2018 trial of Chantry, Sear’s referenced “the counselor’s report”
but never entered it into evidence or quoted from it. That raises a red flag. Why would
Chantry’s lawyer withhold a report from a supposed “professional counselor” that
exonerates his client. You got it. Something is rotten in Denmark.

The same is true of ARBCA. They favorably refer to the report but never quote the report
or produce the report. That is apparent in Lindblad’s remarks above.

“The councilor’s report asserts that as far as he 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.”

ARBCA has also concealed the report. This is a quote from Earl Blackburn’s February 5,
2002 letter to the Miller Valley Baptist Church elders. The elders had asked for a copy of
the report.

“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.” (AC Report –
Part II, Attachment 11, Oct. 25, 2018)

The MVBC elder’s never received a copy of Devon Berry’s counselor’s report.

Here is another example of where the report is referenced but not quoted. It comes from
the official “ARBCA Announcement Concerning Tom Chantry” made by the
Administrative Council to the ARBCA General Assembly on April 25, 2017. It said this
about the Berry’s pronouncement that Chantry was fit to return to pastoral ministry.

“Over the next year-and-a-half, under the supervision of two ARBCA churches,
Mr. Chantry complied with all he had been asked to do and to which he had
signed his name. … By the spring of 2002, the matter was closed. A sister church
[Tom Lyon, Providence Reformed Baptist 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.” (AC Report – Part 2, Attachment 12, Oct. 25, 2018)

Notice the reference to Berry as “an independent, certified Christian…counselor.” I don’t


think he acted in an independent manner and he certainly did not do what Chantry and
the elders agreed he would do.

You also won’t find reference to Devon Berry by name in the ARBCA Administrative
Council Report - Part I (Sep. 5, 2018) or the ARBCA Administrative Council Report – Part
II (Oct. 25, 2018) And you will not find his report in the combined 31 attachments to these
reports. See here and here.

These AC reports reference Berry’s report but do not quote it or provide it to the reader.
Of course, that is intentional and it is not because the document is “proprietary.”

There are, of course, reasons for all this secrecy. Here’s is Berry’s report. I find it
incriminating for what it includes and excludes. I’ve added commentary in bold italic
print in brackets [ ] and some underlining. The original can be viewed here.

2226 NW 62nd #5
Seattle, WA 98107

December 18, 2001

Tom Lyon
Providence Reformed Baptist Church
6415 55th Street, Court West
University Place, WA 98466

Dear Eldership at Providence Reformed Baptist Church,

Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick were the elders.

The purpose of this letter is to review the process and outcome of the biblical counseling
sessions that I entered into with Tom Chantry. As stated at the outset of this process, this
counseling was undertaken with the following agreed upon purposes in mind:
Berry refers to his counseling as “biblical counseling,” not therapeutic counseling as
constantly referred to in the Administrative Council Report – Part II in their attempt to
blame others.

1. I will enter with Tom into a process of examining his heart before God and
evaluating the attitudes and behavior patterns present in his life.

You can’t evaluate “the attitudes and behavior patterns present in his life”
unless you do life with him like the elders and members at Miller Valley Baptist
Church did from 1995-2000. They knew the real Chantry. Berry didn’t even talk
to them. That is a horrendous error.

In my opinion, Chanty totally conned this young man who was terribly unwise
and partial in his unbiblical approach to counseling. You always talk to the
“victims” in evaluating whether a pastor or elder is qualified for ministry. It is
impossible to examine someone’s heart, attitudes and behavior whom you do
not know during four sterile counseling sessions over a brief two week period!

2. I will work with Tom to evaluate his qualification for formal leadership in the
church as consistent with I Timothy 3 and Titus 3.

In reality, the goal for the counseling was Berry approving of Chantry so he could
return to “formal leadership in the church.” That is the emphasis throughout the
report despite the exhortation of the Informal Council.

“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.”

Berry was preoccupied with “returning him to ministry,” not “coming to


complete and sincere repentance” for the sake of “the young children he
spanked” (i.e., physically assaulted). He did nothing for the victims except
justify their abuser!

Berry references the character qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 3.


We are off to a bad start. The qualifications in Titus are found in chapter 1, not
chapter 3.

Tom was counseled as a matter of discipleship. At all times during the counseling
sessions, great care was given to the careful consideration of what could be factually
established based on the report. No attempt was made to return to the details of the
circumstances at MVBC for the purpose of further investigation. It is understood that the
process of investigation closed with Tom’s and the other partys’ agreement to the
recommendations made by the council. In this sense I did not counsel in regards to an
identified sin issue or pattern arising from the particular circumstances that took place
during Tom’s time in ministry at MVBC.

This paragraph tells you most everything you need to know about Berry’s superficial
examination of Chantry, his total disregard for the victims and their “facts,” and his
whitewashed report for Lyon and McCormick. In my opinion, that is why this report
has never appeared in print until now. It deserves a substantial response.

First, no care, not “great care was given to the careful consideration of what could be
factually established based on the report.” Berry was given “The Complete Report.”
That was the packet of documents including the Level 1 and Level 2 Reports from the
Informal Council, the letter from the Miller Valley Baptist Church elders to Walt
Chantry regarding Tom Chantry being guilty of child abuse for which he could be
prosecuted, the five letters from the victims’ parents and a victim documenting the
horrendous abuse inflicted by Chantry, the official timeline from the MVBC elders that
included his history of “inappropriate and unusual behavior,” and “inappropriate
…’bare bottomed’ spanking” of children, etc.

This reception of documents by Berry is acknowledged by Lyon and McCormick in their


January 1, 2002 “report of compliance” to “Earl Blackburn (chairman of the ARBCA
Administrative Council)” and others. (See AC Report – Part 1, Attachment 8) It says
the following.

“The circumstances which led to Thomas Chantry’s departure from Miller Valley
Baptist Church were explored, the counselor having full access to all those
materials submitted in the complete report.”

Lyon and McCormick blatantly lie in this statement. They claim Berry “explored” “the
circumstances which led to Thomas Chantry’s departure from MVBC” based on “all
those materials in the complete report.” That is utterly false. Berry did nothing of the
kind as is evident in his report. He expressly did NOT explore the “circumstances” based
on “full access” to all the allegations of fact in the extensive packet of incriminating
evidence given to him. That is another reason Berry’s report has been covered up. It
contradicts Lyon and McCormick’s letter.

Here are a few examples of the “materials” given to Berry.

Miller Valley Baptist Church Elders


November 21, 2000

“Tom was spanking a young boy he was tutoring after school with various
objects (boat oar, whiffle-ball bat, ruler, hand) on numerous occasions, including
one bare bottom spanking that left welts and bruises on the child’s rear end and
leg. This had been going on for one year before the Elders were made aware of it.
…We are hard-pressed to fathom all of this. The Elders and the parents involved
are in the process of documenting all of these reports in writing. We would be
glad to provide them to you upon request. … 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.” (Letter to Walt
Chantry from MVBC Elders)

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)


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.

Devon Berry, like everyone else who read these documents, had a biblical, ethical, and
legal obligation to report Tom Chantry to law enforcement. That was especially true of
Berry since he was Chantry’s “professional” CCEF counselor. CCEF teaches their
certified counselors to always report suspected child abusers.
What does Berry means when he says, “At all times during the counseling sessions, great
care was given to the careful consideration of what could be factually established based
on the report”?

He means nothing in “The Complete Report” was discussed during the counseling
sessions because it could not be “factually established based on the report.” Let me
explain. The report contained tons of evidence against Chantry but it also contained
Chantry’s categorical denials. Therefore, nothing could be “factually established”
because “The Complete Report” contained conflicting accounts. Therefore, the evidence
was treated as hearsay by Berry rather than allegations of fact by credible victims which
were backed up by eye-witnesses, parents, church elders, and the Informal Council.

Chantry said he wasn’t a child abuser. The victims, parents and pastors said he was a
child abuser. Therefore, Berry rejected the evidence as off limits because it couldn’t be
“factually established.” He then proceeded to base his exoneration of Chantry solely on
his personal observations of him during four counseling sessions! That was a grave
mistake.

Second, Berry makes this statement which is also false.

“No attempt was made to return to the details of the circumstances at MVBC
for the purpose of further investigation. It is understood that the process of
investigation closed with Tom’s and the other partys’ agreement to the
recommendations made by the council.

“The process of investigation closed” for the Informal Council and the MVBC elders, but
it did not close for Berry, Lyon or McCormick. They agreed to the “recommendations
made by the council” including the following.

Level 1 - Confidential Report and Recommendations

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? …

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.

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.

Level 2 – 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
inappropriate anger. The counseling process will be subject to the Elders who
assume oversight of Thomas Chantry.

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.

Berry was “to deal with the issues presented by a case of improper physical discipline
and inappropriate anger.” That included Chantry’s “method of punishment” and
whether “he punished children for his own pleasure.” This was the most important
assignment in all of the binding recommendations!

Berry also had a role in examining “the mistreatment of some members of his
congregation at Miller Valley Baptist Church,” and the “serious factual differences
between Thomas Chantry and the four children he disciplined” including “the purpose,
frequency and severity of the physical punishment.”

Berry failed in all respects. He did none of the above. And yet, Lyon and McCormick
make this audacious claim in their letter to Blackburn, et al. It is nothing but smoke
and mirrors. Here again are their deceitful assertions.

“The counseling addressed the state of Thomas Chantry’s heart before God, the
attitudes and behavior patterns present in his life, and his qualifications for
formal leadership in the church. The circumstances which led to Thomas
Chantry’s departure from Miller Valley Baptist Church were explored, the
counselor having full access to all those materials submitted in the complete
report.”

This is completely false statement. Berry never “explored” “the circumstances” detailed
in “all those materials submitted in the complete report.” In fact, Berry did all of his
counseling without talking to anyone from Miller Valley Baptist Church. As he says,
“No attempt was made to return to the details of the circumstances at MVBC for the
purpose of further investigation.”
And finally this mother of all quotes from Berry.

“I did not counsel in regards to an identified sin issue or pattern arising from the
particular circumstances that took place during Tom’s time in ministry at
MVBC.”

Again, he flat-out contradicts the lying of Lyon and McCormick. He did NOT address
any “sin issue or pattern” so manifestly present during Chantry’s five-year ministry at
MVBC.

I am reminded of this statement by the MVBC elders to Walt Chantry, Tom’s father.

“Also, the family visitations with The Elders and Tom allowed families to
express their [general] concerns over matters that have surfaced in the past five
years, none of these concerns which were new to Tom. They had been dealt with
in discussions between Tom and the Elders and at times, with individual church
members. These issues include behaviors by Tom that involved rudeness, anger,
a quick temper, an unwillingness to listen and general, lack of care, compassion
and love for the flock. Specific examples include public scolding and rebuke of
teenagers over the simple desire to give a stray dog water after a particular
service. A myriad of other examples can be provided. …

We’re erred on not holding our Pastor more accountable in areas where he has
offended others. … We have made excuses for his behavior, citing his youth, his
singleness, and his pessimism, in hopes of softening some of the rough edges.
Never have we endured such a trial as this.”

Berry didn’t look into any of this under false pretense. The “investigation” is
“closed.”

As previously communicated, Scripture recognizes fruit as being evidence of that which


is in a man’s heart. It is understood that I cannot make conclusive statements about the
true state of Tom’s heart. Those who are with Tom regularly and are able to observe him
in a variety of settings over time will likely be more able to accurately assess Tom’s
readiness to return to ministry. This is a decision that lies with the elders of the church
body that Tom is a part of. It is in this recognition that I make the following statements
to the elders of Providence Reformed Baptist Church.

Neither Berry, Lyon or McCormick made any effort whatsoever to interact with “those
who [were] with Tom regularly” and “able to observe him in a variety of settings” over
his five years at MVBC. That is absolutely reprehensible.
Nor did the three men ever make any effort to interact with Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp
or Rich Jensen. Lyon and McCormick promised they would “consult” with the Informal
Council when they agreed to abide by Recommendation 6 in the Level 2 Report.

“It is also recommended that the Elders who assume oversight of Thomas
Chantry consult with the members of the Informal Council.”

Why did the Informal Council require consultation? Two reasons. One, to talk about
“the possibility that on some level he punished children for his own pleasures.” Two, to
talk about “many other issues” that resulted in harm to members in the church.

“There were many other issues that surfaced in our interviews with members of
the congregation which the Informal Council was unable to explore. … These
issues included strong evidence of some authoritarianism and angry humiliation
by Thomas Chantry of some members of his flock.”

Lyon and McCormick agreed to this recommendation (and all the others) when they
wrote Blackburn, et al., “We, have voluntarily assumed the obligations contained in the
aforementioned report.” But they are not men of their word. They broke their promise.
To consult means “to seek information or advice from someone with expertise in a
particular area.”

And Berry, just like Lyon and McCormick, was not interested in discovering the truth
about Chantry and his heart by examining the horrendous fruit that came from it. How
in the world can you counsel with Tom Chantry and not talk to his victims, their
families, the elders, church members, and the Informal Council? I think there is only one
reason. You are not interested in the truth.

I have met with Tom Chantry four times between 11/29/01 and 12/14/01. The following
pattern characterized each meeting: self-assessment and examination, a consideration of
scriptural truth on specific topics, and a review of previously assigned homework. The
following issues were discussed as a result of the assessment process: pride, humility,
anger, forgiveness, self-centeredness, qualifications for eldership, a scriptural model of
heart functioning, heart idols, and working with children. These issues were considered
as variables both in Tom’s present life and in relation to his ministry at Miller Valley
Baptist Church (MVBC).

No competent counselor would ever exonerate Tom Chantry given all the credible
evidence against him after just four sessions over just two weeks. It is probable, Berry
was a member or attender at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church with Chantry. If so, he
sat under Chantry’s regular preaching for three months (Sep.-Nov. 2000). He may have
been impressed with his learning. If so, Berry showed no discernment. Chantry is
orthodox. He is also a child abuser. People should never equate sound teaching with
sound living. You can believe rightly and live wrongly. That is why Scripture constantly
warns us about pretenders and hypocrites. Chantry is a wolf in shepherd’s cloths.

The “self-assessment and examination” that “characterized each meeting” resulted in no


confession of sin to anyone at Miller Valley Baptist Church. “Pride, humility, anger,
forgiveness, self-centeredness, qualifications for eldership, a scriptural model of heart
functioning, heart idols, and working with children” were discussed and “considered as
variables” but it resulted in absolutely no repentance or reconciliation.

These were vaguely considered as “variables” (factors) but not in earnest and not with
any application to “the particular circumstances” at MVBC. Remember, what Berry said
earlier.

“I did not counsel in regards to an identified sin issue or pattern arising from
the particular circumstances that took place during Tom’s time in ministry at
MVBC.”

Throughout this process, Tom has consistently demonstrated the ability to identify sin
currently present in his life. He has also demonstrated insight into his own behavior as
he reflected on his own ministry at MVBC. The response I have observed has regularly
been one of repentance and obedience. Tom has been able and willing to discuss difficult
issues and to turn to Scripture for truth and guidance in all matters. At no time did Tom
or I identify present issues functioning as besetting sins or growing sin patterns in his
life. On the contrary, it would seem that Tom has learned and grown a great deal in the
nearly one year since his leaving MVBC. As is true with all believers, trials, temptations
and discipline, when responded to in a godly manner, are used by God to cause the
believer to mature. In is my perception that Tom is no exception.

This paragraph is profoundly disturbing because it is altogether false. What sin did
Chantry identified in relation to MVBC? None! What repentance and obedience did he
demonstrate in relation to MVBC? None! How did he grow a “great deal” and respond
in a “godly manner” to the victims, families, elders, and members in MVBC. Here’s how.
By railing against them and calling them liars in 2000 and ever since!

Chantry is a deceiver and Berry is a fool in the biblical, not pejorative, sense of the word.
There was no godly fruit in 2001 to substantiate his claims. Remember, this assessment
of Chantry was based on four counseling sessions where Chantry was on his best
behavior. He was there to deceive Berry like he attempted to deceive the jury during his
July-August 2018 trial.

At the trial, 20 witnesses testified against him. He claimed they were all wrong or lied
or made up accusations against him. In one of his most damnable moments, he turned
to the jury and said, “The most important thing in my life is the glory and honor of God”
as he proclaimed, “No, I would never have paddled him for making a mistake. There was
no excessive discipline.”

He is referring to Mark Jones (quoted above). Chantry excessively beat and repeatedly
molested this boy. Eleven of the twelve jurors believed Chantry was guilty of these
crimes. One juror was tainted according to reports. Chantry will be retried on these
charges.

People should read this court document for an overview of his horrendous crimes.

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.

People must understand, like all pedophiles and pederasts, Chantry is a sociopathic liar.
He loves to lie and deceive. He derives as much wicked pleasure from outfoxing and
outwitting people as he does from assaulting and molesting children. Berry was no
match for him! You will not meet anyone more arrogant that Thomas J. Chantry.

If Chantry was convicted of a single sin against the victims, their parents, the elders or
any members of MVBC during his counseling sessions, he would have returned to ask
their forgiveness. In over 18 years, he has never returned to acknowledge any sin or
wrong doing. Moreover, he has continued to condemn the victims, their parents, the
elders, church members, and the Informal Council. Yet, here is what he agreed to do in
2000.

Level 2 - Report, Conclusions and Recommendations


Recommendation 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 has never endeavored to do anything of the kind and any assistance from Lyon,
McCormick or Berry never resulted in any repentance or seeking of forgiveness from the
four children or their parents.

Again, Berry makes this completely unfounded claim for Chantry above.
“He has also demonstrated insight into his own behavior as he reflected on his
own ministry at MVBC. The response I have observed has regularly been one of
repentance and obedience.”

There has never been any “repentance and obedience” resulting from “insight into his own
behavior as he reflected on his own ministry at MVBC.” None. Anything he
acknowledged in counseling never reached the dear people he sinned agsint and therefore
there was no repentance and obedience.

In the course of the counseling sessions Tom has been asked to both scripturally define
the qualifications for eldership and to evaluate himself in light of them. Tom has clearly
defined from the Scripture the qualifications for eldership and a philosophy of ministry.
He has also evaluated himself, as he currently stands, in regard to his own qualification
for eldership. Tom believes that he is currently qualified for eldership and recognizes
that this decision ultimately rests with the leadership in his church. As mentioned in the
previous paragraph, it is my perception that Tom is in no way beholden to any besetting
sins at this time. It would also appear that he does meet the qualifications for eldership.
Given this statement, Tom has also identified several areas for growth, including,
generosity and financial normalization. He is also aware that resentment and
unrighteous anger are sins that he must presently guard against.

This tells you everything you need to know about the deceit, hypocrisy, and arrogance of
Tom Chantry and the folly of Devon Berry. Is anyone surprised Chantry pronounced
himself “qualified for eldership” having “evaluate[d] himself in light of” “the
qualifications for leadership.”

It is absolutely incredulous for Berry to state “that Tom is in no way beholden to any
besetting sins at this time” having spent a small amount of time with him over a two
week period. The only issue he identifies is the need for growth in “generosity and
financial normalization” (whatever that means) and “presently” guarding against
resentment and unrighteous anger.” And of course, Berry doesn’t address “besetting sins”
in the past for which he needs to ask forgiveness and make restitution.

Resentment and anger towards whom? Probably those evil children, parents, members
and elders from MVBC and also Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp and Rich Jensen who
seriously suspected his regular, unprovoked and severe abuse of children for his wicked
pleasure. Of course, the young Berry is wiser than these three men who interviewed all
the children and all the parents. Who cares about their perspective! He didn’t even
bother to talk to them. For Berry, there is no chance Tom Chantry is a predatory child
abuser! He is in “no way beholden to any besetting sins.”

The issue of child discipline has also been addressed with Tom. Because of the nature of
the events leading to this counseling I believe it is important to make several clear
statements about Tom’s voiced commitments in regards to this issue. Tom has stated that
he will not enter into any type of circumstance or arrangement that will require him to be
in a setting with a minor without a third party present. He has also stated that he will
not, in any circumstance, spank a child other than his own as a form of discipline.

I addressed this paragraph in a separate article. Please read the following.

Part 6: Sociopathic Liar & Sadist, Tom Chantry Promised CCEF Counselor,
Devon Berry, He’d Never Spank Another Child Again but “Battery” Continued
Soon After as an Elementary School Teacher
Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 4:17PM

A year or two after the counseling, Chantry’s “besetting sins” were on full display at
Christian Liberty Academy where he continued to batter children.

My meetings with Tom have been characterized by openness, humility, and a desire for
truth and righteousness. Tom has been willing to examine all issues that I have set forth.
Tom, as any young minister, would benefit from the continued discipleship of men older
and with more experience than himself in the ministry. It is clear that he himself
recognizes this and he has over the past year associated himself with such men and
remained faithful as a member in your church.

These meetings were relatively worthless. If Chantry was “characterized by openness,


humility, and a desire for truth and righteousness,” he would have insisted he and Berry
meet with the victims, families, elders, church members at MVBC and also the Informal
Council.

Berry claims “Tom has been willing to examine all issues” but none of those issues
related to what happened at MVBC.

Chantry purposely “associated himself” with Tom Lyon (Walt Chantry’s longtime
friend) knowing he would cover up for him.

I have refused any offer of remuneration for these services in interest of serving Christ.
It is my desire to see any man Scripturally qualified for leadership in his local church
body serving to the fullest extent the Lord would allow him.

Berry refused remuneration. That gives credence to the fact, he was acting in some sort
of professional manner which underscores his legal liability to report a known or
suspected child abuser like Chantry.

If Berry, and a score of other ARBCA leaders, had reported the naked aggravated assaults
with the rubbing of the buttocks to law enforcement, it would have led to involvement
by Child Protective Services. I have no doubt the professionals at CPS would have
discovered the sexual molestation and provided help to the children. Instead, the
children, now adults, suffered for 18 years without proper care.

“Any man Scripturally qualified for leadership” like Tom Chantry! On the contrary,
Berry sanctioned a child abuser because he did not counsel biblically. As a biblical
counselor, he should have followed Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:23-24. This would have
required Chantry return to those who had “something against” him. And as his biblical
counselor, he would have returned with Chantry to hear the offenses (Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim.
5:19) and help with reconciliation and restitution.

[23] “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that
your brother or sister has something against you, [24] leave your gift there in
front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your
gift.”

Not only do Chantry, Lyon and McCormick need to return to “the four children and their
parents” and others at MVBC; so does Berry the “biblical counselor” for not following
the Bible or the directives assigned him in the binding recommendations.

Matthew 5:25-26 continues.

[25] “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do
it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over
to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be
thrown into prison. [26] Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid
the last penny.”

Chantry has already paid out over 1 million dollars in bond money, court costs, and legal
fees. Now he in jail a third time with million dollar bond he cannot pay. His new
lawyer, Ryan J. Stevens, recently made this claim in court documents.

“Chantry moves this court to find him bailable, and to lower his bail … ‘because
the defendant is unable to pay the imposed monetary condition.’” (Motion to
Release Conditions, Jan. 9, 2019)

Chantry should have thought of that 18 years ago when he could have been reconciled to
his adversaries. That is, the children he assaulted and molested if he truly repented. By
the way, if truly repentant, Chantry would have turned himself in to law enforcement
and begged for mercy.

Two more trials are in the making. The first could occur this spring. The second could
occur in the fall but you never know for certain. This much is certain, however, more
bond money, court costs, and legal fees will be required of Chantry. In God’s providence,
that is part of his punishment also.
In this life, however, “the last penny” to be spent will be a mandatory life sentence in
prison if found guilty of the counts against him. In the next life, eternal punishment
awaits his unrepentant soul. That is far, far, far worse!

In Christ,

Devon Berry

##

To finish off this article, I’ve also included the full report from Tom Lyon and Mark
McCormick that was sent to the “Brethren.” That is, Tom Chantry, Walt Chantry, Earl
Blackburn, Don Lindblad, and Devon Berry. These are the men who worked in tandem
with one another to make sure Chantry was not reported to law enforcement and was
returned to Christian ministry. Many others assisted them. I’ve added underlining and
notes.

January 1, 2002

Brethren,

Pursuant to the informal council which met December 13-16, 2000 in Prescott Arizona re.
the disposition of Thomas Chantry, we (the elders of Providence Reformed Baptist
Church) hereby submit the following report of compliance with the recommendations of
the aforementioned ad hoc council, in its report “signed and sealed” December 16, 2000.

This “disposition” was pure propaganda. Neither Chantry, Berry, Lyon or McCormick
were in “compliance with the recommendations” of the Informal Council.

Specifically, we respond to the recommendations #5, #6, and #7 in the confidential report,
here quoted:

“The confidential report” is the Level 2, “Report, Conclusions and Recommendations.”


Lyon and McCormick deceitfully edited out the most important parts of
“recommendations #5, #6, and #7. Below, I include those recommendations in entirety
and underline the parts they left out.

#5 That Thomas Chantry undergo Biblical Counseling… The counseling process will be
subject to the Elders who assume oversight of Thomas Chantry.

That Thomas Chantry undergo Biblical Counseling with a counselor trained to deal
with the issues presented by a case of improper physical discipline and inappropriate
anger. The counseling process will be subject to the Elders who assume oversight of
Thomas Chantry.

#6 That Thomas Chantry submit himself to the oversight of Elders from a member church of
ARBCA … 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.

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.

#7 That…the Elders who assume oversight of Thomas Chantry address…the opinion of this
informal council that his repentance may not be complete.

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.

We, having voluntarily assumed the obligations contained in the aforementioned report,
hereby submit the following:

This is a very important statement. Lyon and McCormick “voluntarily assumed the
obligations contained in the aforementioned report.” In so doing, they agreed to all the
“obligations” (i.e. recommendations) in the Level 2 Report including Recommendation 9
which is a reference to additional recommendations in the Level 1 Report.

#9 Certain additional confidential recommendations have been made by this


Informal Council to the families of the children involved in this matter; the
Elders of Miller Valley and others interested in this matter.

Therefore, all the recommendations in the Level 1 and Level 2 Reports were agreed to by
Tom Chantry, Tom Lyon, and Mike McCormick.
1. Thomas Chantry has complied with the advice of the council and was received
into the membership of Providence Reformed Baptist Church (an ARBCA church)
and has submitted himself without reservation to the oversight of the elders of that
church.

As has been documented, Chantry did NOT comply with the advice of the council
and should not have been formally received into membership on February 2, 2001.

2. At the time of this report, Thomas Chantry is not an elder, nor has he been an elder
at any time, since his departure of Miller Valley Baptist Church.

This report was written on January 1, 2002. Chantry began preaching on a regular
basis four months earlier in Providence Reformed Baptist Church. He may not have
been an official elder but he was certainly functioning as a teaching elder and that is
how members viewed him. They had no idea what had transpired with Chantry at
MVBC.

3. Thomas Chantry has undergone and completed the recommend “Biblical


Counseling” as advised by the council.

This counseling was pursued under the oversight of the elders of PRBC and was
completed in December 2001. A report of which has been submitted and is in the
possession of those elders, who are satisfied with both its process and
conclusions.

Chantry did NOT undergone or complete the biblical counseling advised by the
Informal Council which was to include the “method of punishment for his own
pleasure.” This report of compliance is a total whitewash, just like Berry’s
report of compliance. Lyon and McCormick “are satisfied with both its process
and conclusions.” That is, four sessions over two weeks that intentionally did
not address what happened at MBVC contrary to the “obligations contained” in
the Level 1 and Level 2 Reports. What a piece of disinformation!

The counseling addressed the state of Thomas Chantry’s heart before God, the attitudes
and behavior patterns present in his life, and his qualifications for formal leadership in
the church. The circumstances which led to Thomas Chanty’s departure from Miller
Valley Baptist Church were explored, the counselor having full access to all those
materials submitted in the complete report.

As already addressed, none of this happened. Circumstances were not explored based
upon all the evidence in the complete report. This is pure deception by Lyon and
McCormick.

The conclusions reached were:


1. Thomas Chantry was forthcoming and humbled regarding the difficulties leading
to his resignation as pastor.

Really? You mean he was forthcoming and humble about his aggravated assaults
for which he is now a convicted child abuser! If he was humbled he would have
returned to MVBC to ask forgiveness.

2. No reluctance to repent or besetting patterns of sin were noted. This year has been
one of maturing through trial.

“No reluctance to repent.” How preposterous! Chantry never turned from sin to ask
forgiveness of anyone at MVBC. The counseling by Berry produced no fruit as
biblically defined. The “besetting patterns” of arrogance, deception and self-
righteousness continued to govern his heart. He never acknowledged any sin against
MVBC.

Rather, poor Tom was “maturing through trial.” He had been through so much
suffering! Those evil people at MVBC really did him wrong but he emerged more
mature than ever! Dam all those wretched children for making up their wicked
stories of bare bottomed beatings over his knees with boat oars and handcrafted
paddles that left extreme bruising and welts. Cursed be those children whose
buttocks he rubbed, genitalia he molested, while he masturbated himself and terrified
them nearly to death. That is the court record and much more!

3. Whereas areas for growth and watchfulness were identified, these were not found
to be those which disqualify a man from the Christian Ministry.

What areas needing growth were identified? Oh, yea - “generosity and financial
normalization.” That’s all. Chantry is incredible! No question he is qualified!

We wholeheartedly concur with these findings.

These two reports were rigged. Berry, Lyon and McCormick should have made sure
Chantry was reported to law enforcement given all the incriminating evidence in their
possession. They had everything! Instead, they covered up for him and produced these
whitewashed reports. They intentionally did not follow through on their “obligations”
knowing an honest investigation would have exposed Chantry further. It is no wonder
they “wholeheartedly concur” with Berry. I believe that was the plan from the beginning.

We further offer that Tom has deported himself as a Christian man and responsible
member of this church, and, beginning in September has preached regularly. His
disposition, friendship, and labors have been enthusiastically received by all.
No one in the church knew about the allegations against Tom or the investigation of Tom
by the Informal Council. All information was withheld from church members. This could
have led to further child abuse by Chantry. He was “received by all.”

Although Tom’s immediate plans are uncertain, we have no reservation which would
prejudice or limit his future wider usefulness in the church of Jesus Christ.

This is sinister. They endorse a man with a known history of beating children and
spiritually abusing church members. Without any repentance, asking of forgiveness, or
reconciliation; Chantry is commended for “wider usefulness in the church.” Here again
is some of what the MVBC elders noted in their letter to Tom’ father, Walt Chantry.
Berry, Lyon and McCormick were provided this letter.

“Also, the family visitations with The Elders and Tom allowed families to
express their concerns over matters that have surfaced in the past five years. …
Rudeness, anger, a quick temper, an unwillingness to listen and general, lack of
care, compassion and love for the flock. … A myriad of other examples can be
provided. … 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.”

This report is being sent to:


Tom Chantry
Walt Chantry
Earl Blackburn (chairman of the ARBCA Administrative Council)
Don Lindblad (witness to the informal council’s proceedings at Tom Chantry’s
request)
The counselor mentioned in this report

They leave Devon Berry’s name out. Why? Because they were covering up for him. They
didn’t want anyone to know his identity; especially the victims, their parents and the
MVBC elders; who could contact him to tell him about Chantry’s horrific abuse. He was
protected. So was his report. It was never provided to the victims, parents or the MVBC
elders. Had they read his sordid justification of Chantry, I believe they would have taken
further action including turning Chantry in to law enforcement. Intentionally or
unintentionally, Berry betrayed these victims. So did ARBCA.

We authorize Earl Blackburn to further publish this report to the elder(s) of Miller Valley
Baptist Church and grant him permission to abstract this report to the ARBCA
Administrative Council. We request, in the interest of Tom Chantry’s reputation, that
any wider dissemination of this report be permitted only after consultation with the
elders of Providence Reformed Baptist Church.
Lyon and McCormick’s deceptive report, but not Berry’s report, was given to the MVBC
elders. Earl Blackburn was the Chairman of the Administrative Council. He was very
much a part of the cover-up. He too knew all about Chantry’s abuse but did not report
him to law enforcement. He too had all the evidence. What all these men intended to
conceal, the Sovereign Lord intended to reveal. I have documented this systemic evil
among top leaders in the following article. It is long and detailed but a necessary read
for those really wanting to know the truth about top ranking ARBCA officials.

Part 4: Exposing the Extensive Coverup of Tom Chantry’s Child Abuse by Top
Officials in the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA)
the Last 18 Years
Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:15PM

For the last 20 years, the top leaders in ARBCA have been obsessed with protecting “Tom
Chantry’s reputation” and their own reputations all the while indifferent to the suffering
of the victims and their families.

Unfortunately, that includes Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp, Rich Jensen and Bob Selph.
After the Informal Council met with the victims and parents on December 13, 2000, they
never again took an interest in them, or sought to help them again, according to the
families. Nor did they ever publicly oppose Chantry’s return to ministry, etc.

In fact, none of these men came to the July-August 2018 trial. That was heart breaking
to the families with whom I spoke. I think McKnight, Tripp, Jensen and Selph were afraid
they might be arrested for not reporting Chantry. They were mandatory reporters. In
Arizona that is a felony.

In my next article, I will share my personal correspondence with these men. I’ve asked
them to be open and honest about their actions, reach out to the victims and families,
publicly oppose Tom Chantry and publicly expose ARBCA. They have been indifferent
and unresponsive. It is so grievous to the Lord. They could have done much good and
set an example on a national scale.

Respectfully submitted:

Tom Lyon

Mark McCormick
Elders of Providence Reformed Baptist Church

Lyon, McCormick and Berry should all return to Miller Valley Baptist Church in
“sackcloth and ashes” to beg forgiveness for their deceit, unrighteous justification of
Chantry and total disregard for all the victims and their families. Lyon and McCormick
should also resign from ministry.
Part 8: The Illegal Cover-Up of Tom Chantry’s Crimes by Marcus “Mike” McKnight
III (Prominent Lawyer), Tedd Tripp (Renowned Child Expert), Richard Jensen (Former
Homicide Detective), & Bob Selph (the ARBCA Coordinator)
Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:03PM

This is part 8 in my comprehensive coverage. A lot of people knew pastor Tom Chantry
was a child abuser in 2000 and did not report him to law enforcement. That includes his
parents, Walt and Joie Chantry; the victims’ parents, local church elders and top officials
like Earl Blackburn and David Dykstra from the Association of Reformed Baptist
Churches of America (ARBCA). But four men in particular, Marcus “Mike” McKnight
III, Tedd Tripp, Richard Jensen and Bob Selph, had a primary responsible to do so. They
were the learned experts and the ones most involved. They were also mandatory
reporters under Arizona law.

For months, I kindly reached out to Tedd Tripp and Bob Selph in private. Unfortunately,
they were unresponsive to my appeals to make things right with the victims and their
families or address their fault in public. I also forwarded some of my correspondence to
Mike McKnight and Rich Jensen. I never heard from them either.

In addition, I have been sending these four men all the articles in my comprehensive
series on Tom Chantry and the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
(ARBCA). Nothing has moved them to repent. Therefore, it is time for a public rebuke.
First, some biographical information on each man.

Marcus “Mike” McKnight III is the majority shareholder of the law firm of Irwin &
McKnight, P.C. He was a close friend of Tom Chantry’s father, Walt Chantry. At the
time of the child abuse investigation in 2000, he was on the ARBCA Administrative
Council and an elder in Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, PA where Walt Chantry was
lead pastor. Tom Chantry wrote Bob Selph “that Mike’s unique background makes him
indispensable” to the Informal Council. Subsequently, he was made Chairman of the
Informal Council. ARBCA is still headquartered in Carlisle, PA.

MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III, ESQUIRE

Mr. McKnight is the majority shareholder of the Carlisle Pennsylvania, law firm
of Irwin & McKnight, P.C. Mr. McKnight grew up in York County, Pennsylvania
where he graduated from Dallastown Area High School in 1970. He received his
undergraduate degree in 1974 from Drew University of Madison, New Jersey,
cum laude with specialized honors in economics and his Juris Doctor in 1977
from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Mr. McKnight is admitted to
practice law before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the United States
District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. His areas of practice are
estate planning, family law, litigation, real estate and municipal law. He is a
member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the Cumberland County Bar
Association, and is active in the Carlisle Rotary Club. He is a past president of
both the Cumberland County Bar Association and the Carlisle Rotary Club. He
currently attends the West Shore Evangelical Free Church.

Tedd Tripp is the former senior pastor of Grace Fellowship Church in Hazelton, PA and
“known around the world” as an expert on child rearing. After the investigation in 2000,
he was added to the ARBCA Administrative Council for the 2001-2002 term. I’ve never
met Tedd but we have mutual friends. I had his brother, Paul Tripp, in for a weekend of
ministry when I was senior pastor of CrossWay Community Church in Charlotte, NC in
the 2000’s.

Who is Tedd Tripp?

Tedd Tripp is the president of Shepherding the Heart Ministries, a non-profit


organization, whose mission is connecting the hearts of God’s people to the
power and grace of the gospel. Tedd has developed and teaches materials that
encourage the people of God to understand gospel hope for the ways that human
beings are pushed and pulled by the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Tedd is
known around the world for the best-selling child rearing book, Shepherding a
Child’s Heart, and as the presenter of Shepherding a Child’s Heart Ministries.

Tedd Tripp is Pastor Emeritus of Grace Fellowship Church in Hazleton,


Pennsylvania, where he served from 1980 until 2012. Tedd was married to his
wife, Margy, in 1968; they are parents of three adult children and nine
grandchildren. Tedd is the author of A Parent’s Handbook for Shepherding a Child’s
Heart, Hints for Parents, and with his wife, Margy, Instructing a Child’s Heart.

Rich Jensen was a retired homicide detective and the lead pastor of Hope Reformed
Baptist Church in Farmington, NY. He graduated from the FBI National Academy and
was assigned to the Homicide Squad for the Suffolk County Police Department in Long
Island, New York. He left ARBCA in February (more later) but remains the lead pastor
at Hope Reformed Baptist Church.

RICHARD A. JENSEN, born in New York City on Sept. 8, 1945. He graduated


with honors from Smithtown High School in 1963. He attended SUNY at
Stonybrook.
In 1966 he joined the Suffolk County Police Depart [SCPD]. He graduated first
in his class in January 1967 and was assigned to the 4th Precinct. In 1969 he was
promoted to detective and worked undercover in the Narcotics Squad. He was
promoted to sergeant in 1972 and then to detective sergeant in 1974. He worked
in the 4th Squad, 1st Squad, and the Rackets Bureau.
In 1979 he graduated from the 116th Session of the FBINA [FBI National
Academy] and was assigned to the Homicide Squad. He worked many
noteworthy cases which gained national attention. He retired from the police
department in 1987 as a detective sergeant.
Besides his FBINA training, Sgt. Jensen attended several other FBI classes
including hostage negotiation. He was a charter member of the SCPD hostage
negotiation team and was involved in several hostage crises that were resolved
successfully.
After retirement, he was ordained to the Christian ministry and currently
pastors Hope Reformed Baptist Church in Farmington, NY. He also serves as an
associate police chaplain for the SCPD.

Bob Selph was the pastor of Miller Valley Baptist Church in Prescott, Arizona from 1978
until 1995. He was friends with Walt Chantry. According to Tom Chantry’s testimony
at the July-August 2018 trial, he enlisted his father’s help, who then influenced Bob Selph,
to get him the job at Miller Valley Baptist Church in 1995. Three weeks later, Chantry
assaulted his first victim.

Selph was the full-time ARBCA Coordinator in 2000 when the investigation was
done. He continued as the ABRCA Coordinator until 2007 and remained on the
Administrative Council until 2010. He was the lead pastor at Grace Baptist Church in
Taylors, South Carolina until 2015 when the church left ARBCA and he stepped
down. He is now an “urban missionary” in Atlanta.

Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp and Rich Jensen were selected by the ARBCA
Administrative Council and Bob Selph because they were experts in their fields – a
prominent lawyer & partner in law firm, a renowned child expert, and an FBI trained
homicide detective. They came to Miller Valley Baptist Church on December 13-16, 2000
to investigate the aggravated assaults of four children and a pattern of serious sin against
church members by Tom Chantry.

They wrote three reports about their investigation. One was a “sanitized” and misleading
report sent to all the ARBCA churches. The other two were confidential reports not made
public.

I first wrote my first article about Tom Chantry in December 2016.

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

I posted my fifth article in October 2017. In it I talked about the men on the Informal
Council (“Committee”) by name for the first time. Here is an excerpt.
More Evidence Against Alleged Sexual Sadist Tom Chantry & the Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches in America
Friday, October 20, 2017 at 5:20 PM

Miller Valley Baptist Church (MVBC) in Prescott, AZ is the church Chantry


pastored from 1995-2000. The alleged victims of molestation and aggravated
assault were children in the church.

“The ones from the Committee” [who investigated] were Tedd Tripp, an author
and pastor of Grace Fellowship Church of Hazleton, PA; Richard Jensen, a former
police officer and pastor of Hope Reformed Baptist Church on Long Island; and
Mike McKnight, a lawyer and elder from Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, PA.

These three men were chosen by coordinator Bob Selph and the Administrative
Council for the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America. I am not
certain who was on the Administrative Council in 2000 but they “sealed from the
eyes of the association” the report written by Tripp, Jensen, and McKnight. In
other words, they refused to release the investigative report to the pastors and
churches in ARBCA.

Four months later on February 15, 2018, Tedd Tripp sent me a friend request on Facebook.
I accepted and he began to follow me on Facebook. On August 2, 2108, I sent him this
private message during the first Chantry trial. Afterward, he de-friended me and
stopped following me but did not block me.

Facebook
Thursday, August 2, 2018 6:11 PM

Hello Tedd,

Tom Chantry’s trial will soon conclude. I plan to write an article once the verdict
is in. I will be talking about the cover up of his crimes by ARBCA and others in
the past and of recent. For instance, after his arrest, his wife, his parents, his in-
laws, the CRBC [Christ Reformed Baptist Church] elder & deacons, ARBCA
officials, and ARBCA pastors, insisted he was absolutely innocent of all wrong
doing and claimed he was suffering injustice like Jesus Christ despite all the
evidence in multiple police reports. They even set up a defense fund and asked
people from his church to contribute.

You were a mandatory reporter under the law in 2000 when you did the
investigation of Tom Chantry with Mike McKnight and Rich Jensen. Do you plan
to go public and acknowledge your fault for not reporting? Will you ask
forgiveness of all the victims and their families? Will you publicly expose the
conspiracy that existed then and of recent? I hope so.

I also hope you can persuade Mike and Rich to join you. And also Bob Selph,
who picked the three of you to do the investigation but did not report your
findings to law enforcement even though he was the ARBCA Coordinator. He
too should acknowledge his fault, ask forgiveness, and expose the conspiracy not
to report Chantry.

In this regard, I liked to ask an important question. Did you, or anyone else,
recommend the police be contacted by the Administrative Council? If so, was
that recommendation rejected by the majority of the AC?

I realize you are no longer part of ARBCA but as you must know ARBCA
continues to deny all wrong doing – past or present. For instance, in the
statement put out by the Administrative Council on April 27, 2017, they claimed
everyone obeyed the law; when in fact, no one obeyed the law. Even John Sears,
Tom’s lawyer, made this fact clear in official court documents. All of ARBCA
should be mourning in sackcloth and ashes and its officials on the Administrative
Council removed.

Tedd, I’d recommend you contact WORLD [magazine] or CT [Christianity Today]


or The Christian Post and tell them the whole truth. It would accomplish so
much good. I know it won’t be easy but repentant conspirators must expose
unrepentant conspirators. The truth about ARBCA must be told. You are best
suited to do it.

Therefore, I hope you will be an outspoken and contrite voice against the self-
serving and illegal concealment of assaults upon children by you and ARBCA
leaders. You could also exhort pastors to learn from your mistakes and follow
the law.

Chantry’s victims have suffered extraordinary harm the past 18 years because his
crimes went unreported. It should have ended in 2001 and the victims should
have received extensive care and been restituted for harms. Instead, they were
forgotten. Moreover, Chantry should never have been allowed to teach
elementary children or return to the pastorate. But like happens so often, the
victims were betrayed, the victimizer protected, and children were put in harm’s
way because pastors were looking out for themselves.

I sincerely pray you will stand with the victims! Your personal humility,
advocacy and involvement could have a dramatic impact upon them for the
good. As it stands, they have been devasted by those who claim to follow Jesus
Christ but done great evil.

Speaking out would also bring much glory to God and set an example for others
to follow like C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Churches, Inc. who continue to
cover up their 30-year history of not reporting.

I would appreciate knowing how you plan to respond to the Lord, the victims,
ARBCA, and the evangelical church.

For the sake of Christ,


Brent

Two days later, I wrote Bob Selph.

From: Brent Detwiler abd278@protonmail.com


Date: Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 2:24 PM
Subject: Tom Chantry
To: Bob Selph pastorselph@gmail.com

Hello Bob,

I continue to receive evidence that ARBCA covered up Tom Chantry’s crimes. I


hope you will speak out and expose the conspiracy from the past and present.

Below is a letter I sent to Tedd Tripp on Thursday [i.e. the one above]. It also
applies to you. I’d love to see you join arms with him in Christ and publicly
address the entire situation for the good of the gospel, the Church, and victims.

I sincerely hope and pray the two of you will speak out together.

In His grace,
Brent

I did not hear back from Tripp or Selph. Therefore, I wrote Tripp’s pastor, Chad
Bennett asking him to “Appeal to Tedd Tripp.”

From: Brent Detwiler abd278@protonmail.com


Date: Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:12 AM
Subject: Appeal to Tedd Tripp
To: Chad Bennett gfc@gfchazleton.org

Hello Chad,
As you know, Tom Chantry is on trial. The case could conclude this week. And
as you know, Tedd was on the investigative committee in 2000 that wrote the
report documenting his aggravated assaults on children but did not report them
to law enforcement. They have suffered tremendous trauma as a result.

I have appealed to Tedd to come forward and tell the truth about the conspiracy
not to report Chantry’s crimes. See my letter below [i.e., the one above]. He has
not responded to me. That is why I am writing you. You have worked with Tedd
in pastoral ministry and know him well. Please appeal to him to speak publicly
and encourage him to contact me.

Thanks
Brent Detwiler

I received a short note from Bennett justifying and commending Tripp. It began, “I am
speaking, off the record, and not on Tedd’s behalf or with his knowledge. … I can assure
that if there was any conspiracy Tedd was not involved in it.”

First, he says “if there was any conspiracy.” He claims not to know. But second, if there
was one, “Tedd was not involved in it.” That is logically impossible. You can’t say
someone was not involved in a conspiracy if you don’t know a conspiracy existed.
Furthermore, Bennett offered no proof or evidence for his defense of Tripp. I quickly
learned Bennett would bring no accountability to Tripp for his actions.

I wrote Tripp again.

Facebook
August 11, 2018 8:17 PM

Hello Tedd,

I wrote you on August 2 and asked for a response which I have not received.
Therefore, the need for this follow up.

I was at the Tom Chantry’s trial all week. Yesterday, Chantry was on the stand
for 4½ hrs. His testimony will resume on Tuesday. I anticipate the case will go
to the jurors on Wednesday, but you never know for sure.

On the stand, Chantry categorically denied victim by victim all eight counts
against him and thereby everything you, Mike and Rich wrote in the shorter
“sealed” report [i.e., the Level 2 - “Report, Conclusions and Recommendations”]
for the Administrative Council. And he did so in a condescending manner. It
was repulsive. It was evil.

Tedd, you should be in the courtroom to hear it. Why aren’t you present? I don’t
understand. You should be there to assist the prosecution, comfort the victims
and families, hear the testimony first hand so you can refute it in public, and then
confront the Chantry delegation in person after the trial concludes.

I was also told by a reliable source [one of the victim’s parents] that Susan Eazer,
the prosecutor, sought to make contact with you in preparing her case but you
did not return her messages. Is that true? [I later confirmed with Eazer it was
true.]

In your report to the Administrative Council, you and the other men
recommended the alleged crimes be reported to law enforcement. That
recommendation was not followed. At that point, you had a legal, ethical, and
biblical responsibility to report the crimes to law enforcement yourself. Why
didn’t you do so? This must be acknowledged. Others can learn from it. Please
take responsibility for this failure. As a result, it is harder to make the case now,
and the children did not receive professional help.

[Note: At the time, I thought Tripp, McKnight and Jensen had recommended to
the Administrative Council that Chantry be reported to law enforcement. That
was not the case. They never made such a recommendation.]

You, Mike and Rich, also recommended Chantry not be allowed to work with
children. Yet, Tom Lyon and Don Lindblad, who were supervising him in
Washington state, let him go to Christian Liberty School in Arlington Heights, IL
to teach elementary children from 2002-2005. How could you allow that? Did
you do anything to stop it? That put children at risk.

And then, ARBCA allowed him to return to pastoral ministry in 2005 at Grace
Reformed Baptist Church in Rockford, IL with Dale Smith and his father in law,
Al Huber. I know you left ARBCA in 2002, but you still had an obligation to
speak out and say these men were acting in opposition to what the three of you
recommended based upon your findings.

You were not on the Administrative Council in 2000 when the investigation was
done, but you were in 2001. You replaced Larry Vincent and were the only new
member. Everyone else carried over from the previous year. Can you explain
how you could work with these men who were covering up crimes and not
providing the evidence that you, Mike and Rich gathered to the victims and
families? That is, the information in the “sealed report” that was kept from them.
The families have testified they would have gone to the police if they knew the
nature and extent of evidence the three of you collected. For example, your
finding that it was possible “on some level he punished children for his own
pleasure.”

I also realize Walt Chantry was furious with your findings and recommendations
in the sealed report in 2000 as evidenced in his letter. It appears he silenced and
intimidated everyone. He should have been opposed. It is not too late to address
him. That kind of leadership cannot be tolerated.

You left ARBCA in 2002 but that doesn’t absolve you. Once again, I ask that you
address the conspiracy not to report. By conspiracy, I mean the collective
decision by the Administrative Council not to report the aggravated assaults on
four children with physical implements (three on the bare bottom followed by
the rubbing of their buttocks) that you documented. And in one case, it left
considerable marks that included bleeding. It also came out in court that there
was a fifth victim in your sealed report (not found in the indictment) that was
spanked by Chantry with a belt without parental permission.

Here is another example of what needs to be addressed. The ARBCA


Announcement by the Administrative Council on April 25, 2017, says, “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.” That is a
blatant lie. No one operated within the parameters of the law. Everyone
knowingly violated the law. Even John Sears, Chantry’s lawyer, said so in court
documents.

All of you (i.e., Mike, Rich, Bob Selph, Rich Howe, and Eric Owens) were
mandatory reporters. Pure and simple, you broke the law and you, Mike, Rich
and Bob did so knowingly. That grave disservice must be addressed.

The ARBCA Announcement also says,

“Those who served in this capacity were men of integrity, elders in their
respective churches, trusted in the association, and had considerable
experience in the fields of law, counseling, and law enforcement. These
men met with all parties over a period of four days in December 2000
and brought recommendations to all parties. It is recorded in ARBCA
minutes that “The Informal Council was concluded and the differences
between the Elders were resolved and recommendations of the Council
have been adopted by the parties.”
This should anger you. They reference you (counseling), Mike (law) and Rich
(law enforcement) as notable experts and men of God but they didn’t follow your
recommendations to report the crimes, not allow Chantry back into pastoral
ministry, and always be supervised around children.

But they do more. They deceitfully make it sound like your recommendations
were followed but “the recommendations to all the parties” did not include the
recommendations in the “sealed report” to the Administrative Council. There
were two sets of recommendations in two reports as you well know.

The general one with recommendations adopted by “all the parties” (i.e., the local
elders, victims, victim’s families, and some church members). This general report
was referenced in court this week by Susan Eazer as the “vague” and “sanitized
version” of your findings.

What’s the point? The Administrative Council doesn’t reveal in the


announcement that they rejected your most important recommendations in the
sealed report! Report the crimes, Chantry should be banned from ministry for
life, and should not work with children. I find that deceptive. If people only
knew!

And as you know, it is not true the differences between the elders (i.e. between
Tom Chantry and Rich Howe/Eric Owens) were resolved. Rich and Eric (Shorty)
never believed Tom repented, asked forgiveness for his transgressions or was
reconciled to the victims or their families. That was recommendation #8 in the
vague, sanitized version.

But plainly, and most egregiously, you and Bob must confront the diabolical
lying of Thomas Chantry. He is calling all the victims and corroborating
witnesses liars. Of course his lawyer, won’t say that in court. He will say they
have memory problems. God forbid one person on the 12-person jury has a
“reasonable doubt” based on Chantry’s testimony.

Furthermore, Don Lindblad testified this week that ARBCA has always taken the
official position that the charges against Chantry are false from the time he was
arrested in July 2016 until the present.

You should also know that Karen Chantry, Judy Rogers (Tom’s sister), Al Huber,
Dale Smith, and [a fifth unidentified person] are in court every day. Why? I
believe so they can claim to be eyewitnesses and put out false reports (oral and
written) to ARBCA pastors and members after the trial concludes whether
Chantry is found guilty or not. You and Bob Selph should be present to combat
this evil stratagem.
By the way, one victim’s mother asked me if I knew why Bob Selph was not at
the trial to help them. She was dismayed.

You should also know the Administrative Council and ARBCA pastors have
been rebuking people for supposedly breaking the Ninth Commandment [about
false witness] when they voice an opinion based upon the reading of police
reports, court documents, etc. These men are extraordinary hypocrites. They
defend Chantry as innocent and damn the victims as false witnesses. They are
the malevolent false witnesses! And Chantry is a sociopathic liar in my opinion.

I am forwarded this letter to Bob Selph because it has equal relevance to him. I
hope the two of you are working on a plan to go public with the whole truth
about Chantry and ARBCA.

I would like to hear from you.

For the sake of Christ,


Brent

After I wrote Tripp, I wrote Selph and included the letter above.

From: Brent Detwiler


To: Bob Selph
Date: August 11, 2018 8:46 PM
Subject: An Appeal to Speak Out

Bob,

I’ve not heard back from you, so this is a follow up. I sent the letter below to
Tedd Tripp. It is basically what I would say to you so please accept it as such. I
continue to hope and pray you will speak up with Tedd for the victims, oppose
Chantry’s testimony, and expose the conspiracy not to report or inform the
victims of the findings. I think you should also explain why you took the “sealed
report” with you when you left in 2015

[Note: Selph left ARBCA in 2015 but it turns out he took the “sealed report” from
the ARBCA files in November 2007 when he went off staff as the ARBCA
Coordinator.]

Sincerely,
Brent
I did not hear from Selph or Tripp.

I was writing these men during the first trial of Tom Chantry which took place from July
14 through August 21, 2018 at the Yavapai County Courthouse in Camp Verde, Arizona.
Chantry was found guilty for the aggravated assault of two children. He is a convicted
felon and child abuser.

Soon after the trial ended, Chantry was again indicted, arrested and put in jail on
September 10, 2018 for 13 counts of molestation, aggravated assault, and sexual abuse. I
wrote Selph and Tripp two days later.

From: Brent Detwiler <abrentdetwiler@gmail.com>


Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:02 PM
To: Bob Selph pastorselph@gmail.com
Cc: Chad Bennett jcbennett14@gmail.com
Subject: Indictment / Motion to Deny Bond / Letter from Karen Chantry /
Appeal to Speak Out
Importance: High

Bob & Tedd,

I’m sending you the court documents related to Chantry’s indictment and
subsequent arrest on Saturday. You will find the material heartbreaking. You
should also find it convicting. None of this should be happening. The two of
you, along with Mike and Rich, were mandatory reporters in 2000. You broke
the law by not alerting law enforcement. That is a felony in AZ. It should have
been taken care of then.

Bob, in your recent letter to supporters you do not address this salient fact. You
should have instructed the parents to report, which you did not do. If they
refused, it was your legal, ethical, and biblical responsibility to report Chantry’s
assaults and sadistic abuse in order to stop him and protect others from
harm. This would have resulted in the molestations being discovered by
professionals which would have resulted in professional help for the victims and
the families who have lived in agony for the last 18 years and longer.

ARBCA, the AC [Administrative Council] and the IC [Informal Council] having


no authority over MVBC [Miller Valley Baptist Church] is nothing but an excuse
Bob for not doing what you knew was required by law. You don’t address that
in your letter and yet that is the most important issue as it pertains to your actions
in 2000 along with Tedd, Mike and Rich. Furthermore, each of you had a holy
responsibility to do everything possible as ordinary believers to make sure
Chantry never returned to ministry or worked with children again. And yet, in
2002, he started teaching at Christian Liberty Academy and continued to “spank”
multiple children and was reported to police in one case.

There was so much more the four of you should have done and not as members
of the IC. Just as faithful followers of Jesus Christ. Like confronting Tom Lyon
for letting Chantry regularly preach at PRBC [Providence Reformed Baptist
Church] starting in September 2001 even before he saw the counselor in
December. The Lord doesn’t care if ARBCA churches are independent. You are
your brother’s keeper. The four of you should also have talked to Devon Berry
the counselor. Again, not necessarily as officials of ARBCA, but as Christians
willing to take a stand and make sure things were being addressed
righteously. It is reprehensible that Berry declared Chantry fit for ministry after
four sessions over two weeks without interacting with you, the victims, their
families or the MVBC elders.

Tom Chantry is one of the most wicked false shepherds alive today. His non-
stop lying at the trial was thoroughly evil. It continues. As does that of his
wretched wife, Karen. She unquestionably knows he has committed the crimes
he is charge with, and yet, with her husband and inner circle of corrupt
supporters, like those at his trial (Don Lindblad, Mike & Judy Rogers, Al Huber,
Dave Dykstra,…), continues to deceive “family and friends” unwilling to hear or
study the evidence.

The evidence surrounding the assaults and molestations of D.L. is rock solid. He
wanted to spare himself the agony of going through a trial and hoped Chantry
was found guilty of molestation at the July-August trial. That didn’t happen
because of one juror who acted with prejudice. So now, D.L. has stepped
forward. And the previous 4-count molestation of M.J. will be retried. Chantry
is looking at a total of 13 counts in two trials if the trials are not combined.

Karen is a deceiver just like her husband. This letter is nothing but pretentious
deception. She knows he is guilty! So do all those around him!

From: karen.chantry@yahoo.com
Date: September 11, 2018 at 8:31:23 AM CDT
To: Karen Chantry <karen.chantry@yahoo.com>
Subject: Tom Update 9/11/18

Dear Family and Friends,

There is a man [D.L.] who has made accusations against Tom during this
entire process but has never wanted to file charges. He was part of the
2000 church council [investigation by the Informal Council], so this is no
new thing. Even though he did not file charges, his name was all over
the trial, and Tom might as well have been charged with his accusations.
Arizona has a weird “other acts” law that allowed these accusations to
be brought in to the trial even though this person was never even in the
courtroom and never took the stand. The prosecutor has tried for 2 years
to get this man to enter into the process, and he has consistently refused.

Friday afternoon [Sep. 7, 2018] we became aware that the prosecutor’s


threat of nearly 2 years was coming true. Through a series of
communications it became apparent that [nine] new charges were
imminent, and the assumption, based on things that were said, was that
the charges were from this person. If that was the case, Tom would be
arrested in Illinois and face extradition to Arizona. This would be a
lengthy, difficult, and uncomfortable process.

We know from Tom’s initial arrest in 2015 that we wanted to avoid


extradition if we could, so we got on an airplane and flew to Arizona.
We had the weekend together, and then Tom self-surrendered at the
Camp Verde jail Monday morning [Sep. 10, 2018]. We did not know until
that time if there was even a warrant out for his arrest. Warrants are not
made public until the person has been served. We went under the
assumption that it was most likely there was a warrant, and we were
correct.

Tom is now in custody at the Camp Verde jail, and he is being held on a
million dollar bond. The charges are 4 counts of aggravated assault, 4
counts of molestation of a child, and 1 count of child abuse.

Friends, Tom is not guilty of these accusations, but there he sits. He has
a hearing today in which the judge will confirm the bond amount. The
prosecutor intends to file a motion to hold him non-bondable. It will take
some time to work through these release issues, and in the mean time he
has a sentencing hearing on the 28th of September. There is a real
possibility that he will not be coming home, although we are hoping he
will.

These new charges have been filed separately from the original charges,
which means a new judge, new litigation of things that have already been
litigated, lengthy time, and maybe we go to trial in another 18 months or
so on them. I hope not, but that’s how long it took on the original
charges.
We are struggling to remember that God indeed loves us. We are
children of the Most High, and he does all these things for our good, his
glory, and the advancement of his kingdom. It feels like we have nothing
but his displeasure. I know that is not true though. We have placed our
hope in the work of Christ on the cross. I don’t know why we are facing
the attack of Satan, but Christians in all times have, and God has
promised he will not let our foot fall.

Please pray:
That we will glorify God in all this and not accuse him of wrong-doing.
That is a serious temptation right now. Tom has not done the things he
is accused of. They are horrible, sickening accusations. Why has God
allowed his servant to be so disgraced? Why has he allowed our family
to suffer so greatly? I don’t know, but it isn’t because he is a wicked God.

Please pray, once again, that truth will be known and lies be exposed.
This is a constant theme in my letters. We want the truth to be known
and the enemies of our Lord to be brought to shame. No matter who
they are. We believe we have truth on our side, obviously. But God is
the knower of all truth. May he make it known.

Pray for Walt and Joie [Chantry]. This is a difficult blow. It seemed we
were nearly at the end of this, and now it has been extended a long time.

Pray for me as I have to work full time and still raise my children. May
I point them to Christ and not be so bowed down with grief that I neglect
them.

Pray Tom will be released on a reasonable bond, and that he will be


encouraged in the Lord. Pray his sentencing goes well and the judge lets
him come home on probation.

Pray that this trial will lead to the salvation of our boys. May they not be
bitter at the Lord but cling to him in hope.

We have filed a motion with the state, even before these new charges,
that is very important to us. Please pray that it will carry through and
be beneficial to Tom’s legal case.

May our faith not falter. This has all come just a couple weeks after the
ending of the trial. We are already battle weary. May the Lord give us
further strength for the fight, and may we run the race with endurance!
I’m not just talking about the race with our legal battles, but the race of
faith in Christ. We are being tempted to doubt the Lord, and we need
prayer that our faith will endure.

“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be


afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever
you go.” Joshua 1:9

God is with Tom in jail. He is with me and my family at home. He will


not leave us or forsake us. Blessed be the name of the Lord!

In hope,
Karen

You should be contacting Tom and Karen and appealing for their
repentance. You should also be asking forgiveness of all the victims and their
families for neglecting them the past 18 years. And I still can’t believe neither of
you were at the trial to console and help them. Tedd, you didn’t even return calls
to Susan Eazer to answer questions from her.

Both of you should also be speaking out against the corrupt actions of the current
Administrative Council. I’ve attached an excellent letter to them from Chris
Marley, where he confronts their libel and duplicity. You should likewise
confront them.

Please don’t be passive and diffident. Address the evil. Take responsibility for
your sins. For instance, Bob, you acknowledged no wrong doing of any kind in
your letter. It was one continuous “explanation.”

Lives have been destroyed because you men failed to obey the law in 2000, failed
to extend care to the victims and their families the past 18 years, and generally
failed to confront known compromise in ARBCA. Someday, I hope you
acknowledge these things for the glory of God and the health of those harmed.

Sincerely,
Brent

Chad [Bennett], please forward to Tedd. Tedd and Bob, please forward to Mike
and Rich.

Ten days later, I wrote Bob Selph again. Remember, he was the pastor of Miller Valley
Baptist Church from 1978-1995. He has shown no care or concern for any of the victims
or families in this case since 2000 to the present. I have confirmed that information with
all the families. He is also the one who recommended Tom Chantry as his replacement
in 1995.

From: Brent Detwiler <abrentdetwiler@gmail.com>


Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 6:31 PM
To: Bob Selph pastorselph@gmail.com
Cc: Tedd Tripp jcbennett14@gmail.com; Rich Jensen
rjensen@hopereformedli.net; Mike McKnight mmcknight@irwinmcknight.com
Subject: An Encouragement to Acknowledge “Cover-Up”

Dear Bob,

It is disappointing to never have heard back from you.

I’ve carefully read your recent letter to supporters, “An Explanation of the
ARBCA Informal Council conducted for the Miller Valley Baptist Church
(Prescott, AZ) and Thomas Chantry in December of 2000.” It raises a number of
concerns for me but I am not hopeful you will respond so I will only raise a
couple of issues.

First, you acknowledged no mistakes or wrongdoing. Two, you covered up


Tom’s crimes, though you deny it, because you did not report his crimes of which
you were keenly aware. So did the Council. I don’t know how else to put it.
Both issues are illustrated in the third paragraph of your letter.

“While we look back with clearer vision of how things could have been
handled in a better way, I believe that the men on that Council acted in
good faith and good will toward both the children and Tom, with no
intent to cover-up a crime or in any way to cover for Tom Chantry.”

If you and the Council didn’t intend to cover up a crime, you would have
reported his crimes. All of you were mandatory reporters as clergy. Yet, none
of you followed the law.

In addition, none of you informed the Miller Valley elders that they too were
mandatory reporters. Moreover, you never recommended to the victims or their
families that they report Chantry’s crimes. Rather, you encouraged them to
handle it as a church matter, not a civil matter. That was contrary to the law and
Scripture.

Thomas Chantry was a child abuser. He had physically assaulted children. You
knew that was the case. Everyone knew it was the case. Even before the Council
did its investigation on December 13-15, 2000.
For example, Rich Howe and Eric Owens wrote Walt Chantry on November 21,
2000 and asserted, “Legally, what Tom did would be considered child abuse and
could be subject to prosecution.”

Their letter was copied to you Bob. Furthermore, you talked about these matters
with Rich, Eric, Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin and Don Lindblad when you met a
week earlier in Escondido, CA.

And then Rich and Eric received five letters dated November 14, 19, 20 and
December 3, 7 that documented his crimes. They were forwarded to you Bob.
On the basis of the letters alone, you were required to report Chantry.

In your letter, “An Explanation of the ARBCA Informal Council…”, you conclude
with this paragraph.

“We have all had to do soul-searching as to what should or could have


been done differently. We are all men of clay and so able to make
mistakes, but given what the Council knew, and the parameters of their
commission, the three acted in good faith. … It is my prayer that any
mistakes of the past will not be repeated, and that much has been learned
to better protect the vulnerable as the Lord requires of us in the
Scriptures. For that reason, I thought this account of the matter would
give an accurate description of what took place in December of 2000.
May the Lord give us all wisdom and make his judgment known.”

This is meaningless because at no point in your letter do you state what should
have been “done differently,” nor do you acknowledge “any mistakes.” All you
do is explain, justify, and commend yourself along with Tedd, Mike McKnight
and Rich Jensen. You don’t even tell us the “much [that] has been learned.” For
instance, reporting known child abusers like Thomas Chantry to law
enforcement!

I wrote the following comment on the blog, Thou Art the Man by Todd Wilhelm.
I hope you will consider it contents and together with Tedd, Mike and Rich,
address the ways you sinned and broke the law in a letter of public confession. I
have copied Tedd, Mike and Rich on this correspondence. I would be glad to
hear from any of you men.

Brent Detwiler
September 16, 2018

Regarding the Council & Reporting to Law Enforcement


There were three sets of written recommendations by Tedd Tripp,
Marcus “Mike” McKnight and Rich Jensen in 2000. There is not a hint of
a suggestion anyone should report Chantry’s crimes to law enforcement.

Did they orally recommend to the families that they report? No. Here is
the question I asked two of the three families that were at the heart of
Council’s investigation in 2000.

“Could you answer a question for me? Did Tripp, McKnight or


Jensen ever suggest or encourage you to consider reporting
Chantry to law enforcement back in 2000?”

Here are their answers.

“No they never suggested or even mentioned to us we should


report to the authorities.”

“I truthfully don’t remember them advising us on reporting. I


have no recollection of that at all. I know it’s been a long time,
but I’m sure I’d remember if they suggested that.”

My notes and recollections from the trial are the same as Mr. Wilhelm.
He said,

“Two of the parents I talked with said the ARBCA men never
mentioned anything about going to the police. In checking my
notes, one father said, from the witness stand, that ARBCA
assured him Chantry wouldn’t be working with children or be a
pastor anymore. They went on to say that ARBCA would like to
handle it as a church matter, but if they felt like they needed to
go to police they could.”

The three families were assured by the Council that Chantry would not
be a pastor again, would not spank children again, and would not be
around children alone again.

Moreover, they were assured Chantry would fully repent and seek their
forgiveness. Chantry agreed to Recommendation Eight in “Report,
Conclusions and Recommendations.”

“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 [Tom Lyon, Mark McCormick]
who assume the oversight of Thomas Chantry assist him with
this process.”

Lyon and McCormick did not assist him in the process, and Chantry
never endeavored to seek full repentance and forgiveness despite his
agreement to do so as evidenced by his signature after this closing
paragraph.

“We the undersigned hereby agree to abide by and implement


the above recommendations made by the Informal Council of
the Associations of Reformed Baptist Churches of America.”

This is another reason the parents did not report. They believed he
would fully repent, be transformed, and return in contrition. None of
that ever happened.

The families have also said the Council strongly encouraged them not to
report [correction: not the case for all the families]. They were advised
to handle the charges against Chantry as a church matter, not a law
enforcement matter. That is terrible counsel. By biblical command, it is
both a church matter and a civil matter!

That alone is a tremendous deterrent to reporting for people who have


been indoctrinated to obey and follow their pastors with little or no
questioning lest they be labeled proud and rebellious.

The families also didn’t want to bring reproach to Christ or Miller Valley
Baptist Church. One father was an elder, the other a deacon. That is a
wrong way of thinking but they were trying to do what they thought
was right.

Finally, the Council met with the children in private. Some of the parents
were never told all they discovered. And Tripp, McKnight and Jensen
did not tell any of them they strongly suspected Chantry had punished
their children for his wicked pleasure. Members from all three families
told me at the July-August [2018] trial, they would have reported Chanty
in 2000 had they been fully informed and told about the concern for
sadistic beatings.

In retrospect, all the parents profoundly regret the ways they did not
believe their children and protect their children. They also deeply regret
not reporting Chantry to law enforcement or Child Protective Services
where they could have gotten help for their children. They realize they
grievously sinned against their children. They still battle the
condemnation of guilt.

In contrast, no one on the Council or in ARBCA has ever acknowledged


any mistakes, confessed any sin, or expressed any regret for the harm
they caused the victims and their parents. That includes Tedd Tripp,
Mike McKnight, Rich Jensen and Bob Selph.

Moreover, the parents were instructed on “forgiving those who have not
sought forgiveness” and made to feel terribly guilty by the Council.
They were directed to focus on forgiving Chantry. That kind of
unbiblical counsel often results in victims not reporting or prosecuting
their abusers because they think it is an evidence of unforgiveness.

I have seen this ungodly approach used by pastors time after time to
prevent reporting and to silence victims. They think it is wrong to
prosecute, or if they do, it is because of bitterness or resentment. The
Council should have been focused on helping them prosecute Chantry
and stayed personally involved in their lives. Instead, they disappeared
after writing their reports on December 16, 2000.

The families and the Miller Valley lay elders were trusting the experts –
Tripp, McKnight, Jensen, Selph, and the Administrative Council – to do
what was right and make certain Chantry never repeated his horrendous
assaults upon children. The families viewed them as the professionals.
One parent told me they were educated, we were not. They revered
these men. Tragically, their trust was betrayed.

Fast forward seven months to the present. The second trial of Thomas Chantry is going
on right now. It began last Tuesday, April 23. It will conclude sometime next
week. Todd Wilhelm at Thou Art the Man is attending the trial and providing coverage
on his blog.

Guess who isn’t in attendance to support the victims and their families? That’s right. Bob
Selph, Tedd Tripp, Marcus “Mike” McKnight and Rich Jensen. They are nowhere to be
found just like the first trial. What’s worse. None of these men have EVER contacted the
victims or their families since the internal investigation in December 2000 that was
arranged by Selph and done by Tripp, McKnight, and Jensen.

Moreover, none of these men have ever spoken out against Tom Chantry or a score of
ARBCA officials for their cover up of his crimes, defense of his innocence, deceitful
reports to ARBCA churches, and condemnation of individuals publishing the truth. I
have no respect for them. They are cowards and compromisers in the matter.

For instance, the FBI trained, former homicide detective, and lead pastor Rich Jensen,
recently informed ARBCA his church was leaving. Why? “Events that have transpired
over the last few years have caused us to reevaluate our membership in the association.”
How pathetic! He should have taken the opportunity to make the case against them
which he is uniquely positioned to do. Of course, that would require humility. He would
need to confess his fault for the “events that have transpired” over the last 19 years (not
few years)!

Here is his insipid letter to the ARBCA Administrative Council.

ARBCA
Administrative Council

February 1, 2019

Gentlemen:

It is with sadness that I submit this letter of resignation on behalf of Hope


Reformed Baptist Church of Suffolk County. The Congregation voted
unanimously at our annual meeting, Tuesday, January 29, 2019 to resign from
the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America. Events that have
transpired over the last few years have caused us to reevaluate our membership
in the association. That process led to the vote to resign at our meeting Tuesday.

Our church received many benefits from our membership over the years and for
that we are extremely grateful and thankful. We will continue to pray for you in
the months and years to come. We have made several financial commitments to
missionaries and we will work out the details to fulfill those commitments. But
please remove us from your membership list and the association’s website.

Sincerely yours,

Richard A. Jensen, Pastor


on behalf of the elders, deacons and congregation of Hope Reformed Baptist
Church of Suffolk

Their hypocrisy is also galling. For example, if I ever attend a Shepherding the
Heart conference by Tedd Tripp, it will be to confront him for not shepherding the hearts
of the victims and their families. He has never shown the least bit of concern for the sheep
he abandoned to be devoured by their trauma and the cover up by ARBCA. And I have
no respect for his pastor, Chad Bennett, who has refused to hold Tripp accountable. That
is another story!

Tedd Tripp knows he broke the law. He knows he betrayed the victims. He knows he
covered up for Tom Chantry. He knows he covered up for ARBCA. And he knows why
– his own self interests.

The same is true for Bob Selph and Marcus “Mike” McKnight. The only thing these men
really care about is not being sued for damages or prosecuted for breaking the law in
Arizona because they did not report Chantry as mandated.

Below are excerpts from Victim Impact Statements supplied to Judge Astrowsky before
he sentenced Tom Chanty on October 19, 2018 for the aggravated assault of Jane Walsh
and Wayne Walsh. They are written by Jane and Wayne (all names in italics are
pseudonyms) and give you a feel for their abandonment. No one has ever contacted them
to ask their forgiveness or express care. The other victims and families from Miller Valley
Baptist Church feel the same way.

Impact Statement of Jane Walsh


October 2018

As a child growing up in a church, these “concerns” [the aggravated assaults by


Chantry] were brought to the counsel [McKnight, Tripp, Jensen], and the cries
for help and guidance fell on deaf ears. The promises made to us for the pain we
went through were eventually broken, and so today I am presenting my personal
experience on this matter.

We were much like weak sheep sought after and preyed upon by a wolf [Tom
Chantry] in sheep’s clothing. … I mourn over each victim in this sordid story.
We didn’t have a choice. Our voices were not heard, our pain was covered over
years of shame, guilt and fear. …

For years my brother and I suffered in silence together, wondering why there
wasn’t a threshold of counsel or support for what we, or the others, had gone
through. We, along with the other victims, were never helped. We were never
given any support from the men in ARBCA, and yet Tom was untouchable, given
more paths to churches and preaching, teaching in schools, and received nothing
more than a slap on the wrist for what he had done. He was a heartless coward
who hid behind his reckless, arrogant and a defensive father [Walt Chantry] who
threatened the elders at Miller Valley to back off and shut up about his behavior.
Nothing was ever resolved. There was no closure. 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. The other victims and I have all carried the
weight and burden of his actions towards us for years. Again, counseling,
therapy or anything of the sort was never extended as a viable option to cope
with what we had suffered through, but instead made to feel like what the torture
we had been through, was an inconvenience and would tarnish the image of
ARBCA, and our church.

##

Victim Impact Letter of Wayne Walsh


October 2018

When Tom was appointed to replace Bob Selph and be our lead pastor, the
church accepted him like anyone else, with open arms and trusted the leaders of
ARBCA by allowing him to shepherd the flock. I don’t remember much of why
Bob had to leave but I remember being sad as Bob was almost like a father figure
for our church and I truly loved him and his family. But like I had been taught,
I was excited to meet Tom and knew that if Bob and the leaders trusted him, I
should trust him as well. …

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”. Why would children create such a lie about someone in
authority? If we created a lie as big as this, why would Tom run away? We were
the ones who had been lied to. I remember being told everything would be
“taken care of”. Nothing was to fear because he wouldn’t be around kids or
wouldn’t be pastoring again. We were led to believe that he would be held
accountable of his actions by the very organization that had appointed him to the
position he held. No offer of counseling to the victims, no sympathy or love in
return to those who were left broken. Our church family, emotionally wrecked,
was given no help to heal or mend the pieces back together. We were left in an
emotional prison while Tom got away and to what surprise, was teaching and
Pastoring once again. …

But like any other victim of abuse, I pushed the thoughts to the back of my mind
so I could somehow move on. I tried to live a normal life, despite not having any
counseling or guidance after those events….

I suffered from depression and sudden mood swings when I think of him and
had no resources for therapy. I began to run away from situations when the
thought of confronting him crossed my mind. I spent the last 3 years causing
self-inflicting damage by turning to drugs and alcohol abuse as a coping
mechanism. I thought it was the only to escape my pain and suffering. …

He has proven that he will lie, berate, belittle and manipulate the truth until he
is let go. And as a pastor, a leader of God’s word, someone who is supposed to
speak truth, Tom has failed to do just that.

He failed his church. He failed his congregation. He failed his family. He failed
himself. He failed God. He failed. No apologies to the victims; Daniel, Mark,
Joseph, Jane, Mitch and I [six victims from four families]. He had no intention of
apologizing.

I’d encourage people to read this article to appreciate the full measure of what they
experienced. The selected quotes above don’t do them justice.

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

I also find objectionable the cookie cutter written recommendations by McKnight, Tripp
and Jensen sent in the mail to the five parents of the four victims known at the time. They
are practically identical. There is no offer to talk with the parents about their
recommendations. Furthermore, they express NO care or compassion for what the
parents had been through as a result of Tom Chantry’s sociopathic lying and horrendous
abuse of their children.

All the parents were guilt ridden in 2000 but this is not acknowledged and no help or
understanding is offered to them. Instead McKnight, Tripp and Jensen drive home their
guilt because, “You placed him under the care of Thomas Chantry.” But the parents
should not have been made to feel guilty for allowing Chantry to tutor their children.
They were seeking the good of their children and trusted Chantry as their pastor.

Here is what McKnight, Tripp and Jensen wrote three of the parents of two victims.

“We recommend that you continue to express to [your child] your grief and
sorrow over placing him in a situation in which he has been subjected to
inappropriate physical discipline. While we would never presume to script your
seeking forgiveness, it should include your taking full responsibility for placing
him in and leaving him in the care of Thomas Chantry. It should be absent the
reasons for your placing him under Thomas Chantry’s care and leaving him there
even after he told you of the inappropriate spankings. It should include asking
for his forgiveness.”
The Informal Council forbids the parents from saying anything about “the reasons for
your placing him under Thomas Chantry’s care [i.e. tutoring] and leaving him there even
after [your child] told you of the inappropriate spankings.” In one case, the parents
believed Chantry’s denials when confronted. They should have believed their child. In
the other case, the parent allowed the tutoring to continue after wounds were discovered.
That was a grievous sin against the child. These three parents deeply regret their actions
and have repeatedly sought forgiveness.

In the third case, the parents believed their children and immediately ended the isolated
tutoring with Chantry. Even so, McKnight, Tripp and Jensen put a guilt trip on them.

“We recommend that you continue to express to Wayne and Jane your grief and
sorrow over placing them in a situation in which they have been subjected to
inappropriate physical discipline. While we would never presume to script your
seeking forgiveness, it should include your taking full responsibility for placing
them in and leaving them in the care and oversight of Thomas Chantry. It should
include asking [their] forgiveness.”

In this latter case, the mother wrote me the following note after the July-August 2018 trial.
She points out there was no recommendation in the recommendations from McKnight,
Tripp or Jensen to report, or consider reporting, Chantry to law enforcement. She and
her husband were guilty of no wrong-doing “for placing them in a situation” where
Chantry tutored their children. These three men wrought havoc in their lives by
imposing a false and destructive guilt upon them.

Facebook
Mon., Sep. 10, 2018 5:40PM

Hi Brent,

I was just re-reading the recommendation letter from the 3-man team, and there
is NO mention of ANYTHING regarding M.R. [mandatory reporting] in our
letter. I can send a copy for you to see if you’d like. The only thing I keep going
over in that letter, is saying WE are to take FULL responsibility for what
happened, and nothing about Tom. I really find it disturbing each time I read it.

Our souls have long been grieved over this whole thing. I can’t express how
much this has taken its toll on all of us. I didn’t realize the amount of guilt and
shame that has led us to depression and has sometimes rendered us completely
ineffective in our daily lives.
I truly pray that Tom will be tried again. Thank you for being there the entire
time. Your presence was truly heartfelt by all of us. Praying that you are doing
well and appreciate you and Todd for bringing so much to light and all you did.
It truly blessed us.

McKnight, Tripp and Jensen also made this unsound and harmful recommendation to all
the parents.

“We recommend that you and/or a counselor work through the material in Jay
E. Adams’ book, From Forgiven to Forgiving. You will find the sections on helping
children experience forgiveness and on forgiving those who have not sought
forgiveness particularly helpful.”

In other words, the children who were abused by Chantry needed to forgive Chantry
even though he was utterly unrepentant and emphatically lying that he never beat any of
them.

First, this is not what the Bible teaches. Forgiveness is conditional. It is based upon
repentance both in our relationship with God (e.g. Luke 24:27) and in our relationships
with others (e.g. Luke 17:3). You can’t forgive someone who has not asked forgiveness.
That doesn’t mean you hate them or despise them or will never forgive them. It means
you hold them accountable and pray they come to repentance so you can forgive them.

Second, this is the last thing a child who has been assaulted and molested needs to hear.
So too, talk about them being bitter, angry or unforgiving. Rather, they need to be assured
their anger is fitting and appropriate. They should feel righteous indignation and be
encouraged to pursue civil justice. There should no coercion to “forgive” the abuser.
Rather, there should be help to report and prosecute the abuser. That is not “vengeance.”
That is righteous. If that had been done in keeping with the law, the last 20 years of
destruction could have been avoided.

We must remember a long list of elders, pastors, and ARBCA officials knew Chantry was
a child abuser and could be prosecuted even before the December 2000 internal
investigation. That list includes Walt Chantry, Rich Howe, Eric “Shorty” Owens, Marcus
“Mike” McKnight, Tedd Tripp, Rich Jensen, Bob Selph, Don Lindblad, Earl Blackburn,
David Dykstra, and Steve Martin. All of these men were mandatory reporters. They all
broke the law. I wrote about it 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
Furthermore, Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick (Chantry’s pastors after leaving Miller
Valley Baptist Church) and Devon Berry (Chantry’s counselor) learned about his crimes
in 2001 but did not report him to law enforcement.

In retrospect, all the parents wish they had reported Chantry to law enforcement but they
were at a disadvantage. Here’s how.

1. McKnight, Tripp and Jensen did not give them all the evidence they collected against
Chantry.

2. They did not tell the parents they strongly suspected Chantry assaulted their children
for his sadistic pleasure.

3. They did not encourage the parents to report Chantry to law enforcement. Rather,
they counseled the parents to forgive and trust them (and ARBCA) to handle the
matter internally.

4. Selph, McKnight, Tripp, and Jensen never told the parents the four of them were
mandatory reporters as clergy under Arizona law. They withheld that information
from them.

5. The parents were assured by McKnight, Tripp, and Jensen that Chantry would receive
counseling that addressed his child abuse and his sins against them. Further, that he
would return to ask forgiveness. It never happened.

6. The parents were also assured Chantry would never work with children again and
never pastor again. In 2002, he became an elementary teacher and starting “spanking”
children again. He was investigated by police for battery but the parents decided not
to press charges. In 2005, he became a pastor. In 2016, he was arrested on “five counts
of molestation of a child, related to two minors, and three counts of aggravated assault
on three separate minors as well.”

Well, I’ve got a few recommendations for Bob Selph, Marcus “Mike” McKnight, Tedd
Tripp and Rich Jensen.

1. Ask forgiveness of the victims and their families in person.

2. Help them financially and in any other way possible.

3. Acknowledge your sins in public.


4. Turn yourselves in to Deputy County Attorney, Susan Eazer at the Yavapai County
Attorney’s Office for the felony you committed. [In 2000, not reporting child abuse to
law enforcement was a misdemeanor. It was later changed to a felony.]

5. Speak out against Tom Chantry as a sociopathic liar and sadistic abuser.

6. Expose ARBCA for its wretched cover up.


Part 9: Tom Chantry, Former ARBCA Pastor & Son of Walt Chantry, Found Guilty On
All Four Counts of Sexual Molestation of a Child
Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 12:23AM

Walt Chantry, highly esteemed Reformed Baptist teacher, leader, author, and editor,
knew all about the aggravated assaults inflicted upon children by his son, Tom, while
pastor at Miller Valley Baptist Church (MVBC) between 1995-2000. Walt covered up his
assaults in conjunction with other top leaders who were his friends and/or under his
manipulative control in the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
(ARBCA). Here’s the proof in brief.

On November 21, 2000, the elders of MVBC wrote Walt regarding the crimes Tom
committed. Their conclusions were based upon interviews and five letters written by
four parents and one victim documenting the physical abuse. The evidence was forward
to Walt and many other ARBCA leaders. Here is an excerpt from the letter sent to Walt
by the lay elders.

“We’ve erred on not holding our Pastor [your son] more accountable in areas
where he has offended others. We had hoped that some of these traits would be
overcome with age and maturity. We desired to hold him in highest esteem
according to what we have been commanded to do in Scripture. We have made
excuses for his behavior, citing his youth, his singleness, and his pessimism, in
hopes of softening some of the rough edges. Never have we endured such a trial
as this. … 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.” (Nov. 21, 2000)

This letter from the elders, along with the five letters from four parents and a victim, were
also given Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad, Tom Lyon, Bob
Selph, Marcus “Mike” McKnight, Tedd Tripp, Rich Jensen, and other top leaders in
ARBCA. All these men knew Tom Chantry was a child abuser in 2000 even before the
“Informal Council” did an internal investigation and advised the parents to let ARBCA
handle the matter. None of them reported his crimes. None of them advised the parents
to report. None of them helped the victims. Instead, they covered up his sadistic and
dangerous beatings of children. And there is new evidence, suggesting the Informal
Council (i.e., McKnight, Tripp and Jensen) suspected Chantry’s abuse of children
included sexual molestation, not just physical assaults.

Fifteen years later, one of the victims went to law enforcement to report his abuse. Other
victims followed. As a result, Chantry was arrested in July 2016. He was tried in
July/August 2018 and found guilty on two counts of aggravated assault of two children.
This week a second trial concluded concerning a third victim. Chantry was found guilty
on all four counts of sexual molestation of a child with aggravating circumstances that
resulted in emotional harm. He was immediately incarcerated. He will be sentenced on
July 19, 2019 and sent to a prison for sex abusers for a long time.

A third trial is in the works on four counts of molestation, four counts of aggravated
assault, and one count of child abuse pertaining to a fourth victim. I am intimately
familiar with the evidence. There is no doubt – Chantry is guilty.

Tom Chantry is the most vile individual I’ve ever known by way of acquaintance. I have
attended both his trials and written about his horrendous behavior since December 2016.
I was stunned at the first trial when he took the stand after 20 witnesses testified against
him and adamantly asserted he was completely innocent of ALL wrong going. In fact,
he looked intently at the jury and told them he had lived his whole life for the honor and
glory of God and would never assault or molest a child because he was a man of God.

Tom Chantry is a sociopathic liar and sadistic child molester. Though an orthodox pastor
in the Reformed Baptist tradition, and a graduate from a conservative Presbyterian
seminary, he is a vile reprobate without a conscience. There is no evidence, he was ever
a regenerate Christian. He was 25 years old when he came to Miller Valley Baptist
Church out of seminary and immediately assaulted a child. He was a sadistic pedophile
back then. I have never observed anyone more arrogant or deceitful in all my life. Part
of his wicked pleasure is getting away with his crimes. When the verdict was read on
Wednesday, I was sitting 25 feet from Chantry. He was furious because his evil con came
to an end. God provided a just jury and judged Chantry in righteousness.

And yet, this “sick twisted monster” (the words used by Mark Jones to describe him) has
been defended by the top leaders in ARBCA since July 2015 when they were informed he
was under investigation for aggravated assault and child molestation. Their
reprehensible defense continued long after he was arrested and incarcerated in July 2016.
For over three years, ARBCA officials have instructed their members not to read my
“evil” blog and other blogs producing evidence in the form of police reports, court
documents, and incriminating evidence exposing the ARBCA cover-up. The control in
ARBCA is cult-like. Members in ARBCA have been deceived by their Administrative
Councils and pastors for a long time.

Yesterday, the blog Pulpit and Pen (P&P) reported the following about Chantry
supporters.

“In the meantime, P&P has spoken to numerous Chantry supporters, some of
them notable, who still believe in his innocence regarding molestation
accusations. They virtually all acknowledge that Chantry was masochistic and
abusive from a preponderance of the evidence, but refuse to believe that he was
guilty of sexual molestation.”

First, Chantry supporters, notable and otherwise, have argued for years he was not guilty
of physical abuse or sadism (i.e., harming others for personal pleasure). In fact, ARBCA
officials have put Chantry forth as persecuted like Jesus, etc. The evil doers are the
victims, families and bloggers. Well, it appears they are changing their story and
rewriting history given the guilty verdicts for aggravated assault last summer. They now
uphold the “preponderance of the evidence” which they formerly condemned.

Throughout the trial, the prosecutor pointed out how Chantry used tutoring as the means
to beat boys for minor mistakes or infractions so he could “comfort” them by molesting
their genitals. He would also masturbate himself in the process. He is exceedingly
wicked and yet these “notable” supporters (I assume ARBCA leaders) are still defending
him even though they have not sat through the trials, heard or read the evidence, or
listened to the victims and their families under oath. Yet these arrogant fools know better
than 23 jurors in two trials!

At the first trial of Mark Jones, 11 jurors believed Chantry was guilty of molestation. One
juror was corrupt and voted not-guilty. He is under investigation for juror misconduct
and perjury. You can read about it here.

In the retrial, 12 jurors found Chantry guilty of molestation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yet, Chantry supporters not in attendance refuse to believe 23 jurors in the courtroom.
These notable supporters continue to believe the lies put forth by Tom and Karen
Chantry, Judy Rogers (Tom’s sister), Al Huber (Tom’s father-in-law & ARBCA pastor)
and others. It is insane and insidious.

For instance, Karen Chantry wrote a letter to family and friends on September 11, 2018
about God’s righteous servant (her convicted husband) being so wrongly disgraced in
jail. I quote in part.

“Tom is now in custody at the Camp Verde jail, and he is being held on a million
dollar bond. The charges are 4 counts of aggravated assault, 4 counts of
molestation of a child, and 1 count of child abuse. Friends, Tom is not guilty of
these accusations, but there he sits. … Tom has not done the things he is accused
of. They are horrible, sickening accusations. Why has God allowed his servant
to be so disgraced?”

This is all a con job. Karen knows her husband is guilty. I sat 10 feet away from her in
the courtroom on Wednesday studying her facial expressions when the guilty verdicts
were read. She showed absolutely no emotion of shock, anger, disagreement, or surprise
when her “innocent” husband was pronounced guilty. And she showed absolutely no
tears, sorrow, anguish, or pain knowing her “beloved” husband would be immediately
taken from her and locked up for a very long time.

The Chantry clan is evil. They have denounced all six victims as liars. So has ARBCA in
their defense of Tom’s innocence. Three of those victims now have guilty verdicts. A
fourth victim would have gotten a guilty verdict in the first trial but the prosecution could
not find a known eyewitness. That eyewitness, Steve Franklin, has now been located. He
saw Tom Chantry punch Mitch Jones in the face and knock him to the ground because the
child squirted him with a water gun in fun at a July 4 church picnic. That was three weeks
after Chantry became the new pastor at Miller Valley Baptist Church in 1995. In addition,
a third trial is in the works on nine counts that should secure more guilty verdicts.

This week, ARBCA had its General Assembly. It finished up Thursday night. Last week,
I sent them the following email. There is no exaggeration in my word.

From: Brent Detwiler abrentdetwiler@gmail.com


Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 1:30 PM
To: Jerry Slate pastorslate@gmail.com; Larry Smith larrysmith43@prodigy.net; Jason
Walter christrbcvista@gmail.com; Nathan White crbchattanooga@gmail.com; Bill
Halliburton whalliburton@crbc.us; billburton@yahoo.com; Douglas VanderMeulen
douglasvan@mac.com; John Divito johndivito@cornerstone-fellowship.org; Bill Francise
bill-francis@att.net; Ron Miller ronmilleroky@gmail.com;
info@covenantbaptistclarksville.com; Josh Tickham josh_tinkham@yahoo.com; Dave
Randall imputationist@gmail.com; Craig Anderson 1689ca@gmail.com; Ralph Anderegg'
specbird@peak.org; Thomas Waters ebc.jesup@att.net; Bob Curly
bcurley1689@gmail.com; Joe Anady joe@emmausrbc.org; Jason Montgomery
fcbchurch@sbcglobal.net; Tom Hicks tomhicksjr@gmail.com; Fred Malone
FredAMalone@cs.com; Guy Smith guyaphis.smithicus@gmail.com; James Butler
jpbutler66@gmail.com; Cam Porter thecamporter@gmail.com; Thomas Winn
pastorwinn@bellsouth.net; John Miller pastorjohn@gracebaptistcarlisle.org; Tom
Richwine gbc@gracebaptistcarlisle.org; Cliff Cooper pastorcliff55@gmail.com; David
Dykstra info@gcbcwillis.org; John Giarrizzo reformedbaptist2@msn.com; Fred Pugh
fpugh@sbcglobal.net; David Shiflet david.shiflet@gfbcconroe.com; Jim Dundas
Jdundas@me.com; Mark Raines mxraines@aol.com; Dale Smith grbcrockford@juno.com;
Reece Klink rrklink56@alpinecom.net; Adam Osworth
gracereformedbaptistchurch@gmail.com; Micah Renihan mrenihan@grbcme.org;
mrenihan@gmail.com; Jeff Oliver grbcplacerville@gmail.com; jeffolivergrbc@gmail.com;
Rich Barcellos rb@rbap.net; Sam Waldron pastorsam@grbco.org; Earl Blackburn
earlmblackburn@bellsouth.net; Mike Renihan mike_renihan@yahoo.com; Larry Vincent
larryv325@gmail.com; John Yoder yoder.john.e@gmail.com; Rich Jensen
rjensen@hopereformedli.net; Brian Onstead brianonstead@gmail.com; Dane Carlson
dane.carlson@gmail.com; Rick Jefferds erjeff@earthlink.net; Mark Hogan
mark.hogan@providencecc.edu; Michael Kelly mskelly@cableone.net; Kurt Smith
pral1689@gmail.com; William Avants provbaptist@gmail.com; Tom Lyon
tlyonup@harbornet.com; Eric Freel efreel@hotmail.com; Jeffrey Massey
jamassey@gmail.com; Van Loomis van.loomis@gmail.com; Martin Nish
reformedbaptistkc@hotmail.com; Charles Fitzpatrick joie@pa.net; Frank Urquidez
urquidez_frank@yahoo.com; Dave Hendrickx pastor@stbcweb.org; Steve Marquedant
Smarquedant@msn.com; Michael Kirkpatrick mike@surreyreformedbaptist.ca; Chuck
Rennie chuckrennie2@gmail.com; Dale Crawford trinityrbc@bellsouth.net; Sam Renihan
trbcsecretary@gmail.com; Arden Hodgins ardenhodgins@gmail.com; Brandon Smith
brandonfsmith73@gmail.com; Don Lindblad donrlindblad@gmail.com; Rob Cosby
rcosby@me.com; Todd Gill pastor@wacofamily.com; Ben Scofield
pastorscofield@gmail.com; Simon O'Mahony omahonysimon@gmail.com; Scott
Swanson scottswanson1@comcast.net; ARBCA arbca@reformedbaptist.com; Ryan
Hodson info@vernonrbc.com; Nate Hoefer info@resurrectionrbc.org; Christopher O'Neil
providencecasagrande@gmail.com; Steven Wilfert spw3760@gmail.com; John Daniels
jacc37@gwi.net; Mark Santiago freegracechurch@gmail.com; Jon Cochran
jon@porticochurch.com; Robert Minto mintorobert@gmail.com; Mark Hogan
mark.hogan@providencecc.edu; Chad Bennett (jcbennett14@gmail.com); Bob Selph
(pastorselph@gmail.com); Mike McKnight (mmcknight@irwinmcknight.com); Jamie
Howell (jshowell3@gmail.com)
Subject: An Appeal for Righteous Action at General Assembly / Eight-Part Series on the
Abuse of Children by Tom Chantry & Its Cover-Up by ARBCA Officials Since 2000

This is being sent to former and current pastors in ARBCA. I have current pastors in
mind.

Next week you gather for the 2019 ARBCA General Assembly in Berea, Ohio. You will
be discussing the handling of Thomas Chantry by Administrative Councils in the past
and present. God in his holiness and sovereignty will be evaluating every delegate to see
if he “seek[s] first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.”

Over the past 20 years, many of the top leaders in ARBCA have been complicit in the
illegal and deceitful cover-up of Tom Chantry’s felonious assaults upon children. For
example, Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, Fred Pugh, Larry Vincent and Steve Martin. I
have documented their knowledge of the evidence. They should be named and rebuked.

The members on the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 Administrative


Councils have also acted corruptly. For example, Brandon Smith, Douglas
VanderMeulen, John Giarrizzo, Rob Cosby, Steve Marquedant, Dale Crawford, Jeff
Massey, and Bob Curley. The ARBCA Announcement Concerning Tom Chantry (Apr.
25, 2017), the AC Report Part 1 (Sep. 5, 2018), and the AC Report Part II (Oct. 25, 201) are
just a few examples of this corruption. I cover this in great detail in my articles. Unless
these men repent and the current Administrative Council members resign, ARBCA
should be abandoned by all God fearing pastors and church members.
The hypocrisy and spiritual abuse in ARBCA among its top leaders is pervasive. That is
why godly pastors with integrity have already left the association. Others of you have
remained until the General Assembly next week. I encourage you, therefore, to speak
out with boldness and not be distracted by minor issues or procedural matters. There is
egregious sin in the camp. It must be called out. In this regard, you should follow the
example of John the Baptist before Herod or Stephen before the Sanhedrin. You must be
willing to figuratively have your head served on a platter or be stoned to death for your
witness against iniquity. There is no place for cowardice and compromise when you
meet. The issues are extremely serious. Don’t let them be glossed over or avoided.

With this in mind, I am sending you a PDF document that contains my “Eight-Part Series
on the Abuse of Children by Tom Chantry & Its Cover-Up by ARBCA Officials Since
2000.” I’ve put it together for your benefit and convenience. It contains the 321 pages of
evidence, analysis, and commentary I’ve sent you in the past.

Part 8 in the series is a new article I just finished. You can read it separately at the link
below.

Part 8: The Illegal Cover-Up of Tom Chantry’s Crimes by Marcus “Mike”


McKnight III (Prominent Lawyer), Tedd Tripp (Renowned Child Expert),
Richard Jensen (Former Homicide Detective), & Bob Selph (the
ARBCA Coordinator)
Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:03PM

The victims and families from Miller Valley Baptist Church have suffered immensely for
nearly 20 years because of ARBCA. At the General Assembly, you should call upon Tom
Chantry to repent of his sins against them. Scripture requires two or three witness for a
judgement of sin. In his case, there are six victims and many more corroborating
witnesses.

Those “corroborating witnesses” include Earl Blackburn the AC Chairman in 2000-2001.


He had all the evidence collected against Chantry in 2000 but deceived ARBCA for 18
years claiming he had none until I exposed him with evidentiary documentation in my
Part 4 article last December. He must be reproved by the General Assembly for his
deceitful scheming as the AC Chairman over many years.

Tom Chantry’s second trial will conclude next week as you meet. He may, or may not,
be found guilty of molestation by 12 jurors. It doesn’t matter in terms of what you must
do. He, and those who have covered up his sins, including his father Walt, should be
called to account for their unrepentant sin. For example, Don Lindblad. After Tom, no
one has lied and deceived more than him. You cannot permit him to continue as a pastor
in ARBCA and claim to uphold Scripture. The same is true of Tom Lyon
Lastly, the General Assembly, should corporately ask God’s forgiveness for the
pronounced hypocrisy that exists in ARBCA. You pride yourself in being full
subscription adherents of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession. God is not
impressed. He is offended. Your superior knowledge only condemns you. How often
the likes of Douglas VanderMeulen have condemned people for violating the Ninth
Commandment when in fact God was working through them to expose the evil in your
midst.

The truth be told, ARBCA leaders have repeatedly lied and given false witness; most
egregiously in asserting Tom Chantry’s innocence. They even claimed he was being
persecuted like Jesus, tested like Job and betrayed like Joseph after he was arrested and
incarcerated in July 2016. ARBCA officials and pastors have justified the wicked. For
example at Christ Reformed Baptist Church (Hales Corners, WI) on January 29, 2017.
That is when Don Lindblad, Al Huber, Dale Smith, Steve Martin and Bill Halliburton
defended Chantry’s innocence. The vast majority of members were righteously offended
and left the church.

ARBCA also deceitfully justified itself in the April 25, 2017 announcement claiming,
“Everyone with knowledge of these events [Chantry’s assaults] has operated within the
parameters of the laws of the land.” That is a blatant lie. No one obeyed the laws of the
land. You are the ones who have transgressed the Ninth Commandment. This systemic
hypocrisy among top leaders must be confessed to God.

Next week is a historical gathering for ARBCA. The head of the church, our Lord Jesus
Christ, will be assessing you. I sincerely hope and pray you will “humble yourselves”
and “be wretched and mourn and weep” so God can exalt you for his good purposes. As
it stands, he is opposed to you and that will only increase if you do not “submit to God“
and give attention to these matters. You are in my prayers.

James 4:5-10 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.
Part 10: Victims React to Face-Saving Statement by the ARBCA General Assembly
Admitting No Wrong Even After Conviction of “Pastor” Tom Chantry for Sexual
Molestation & Their 18 Year Cover-Up
Monday, May 13, 2019 at 12:10AM

On August 21, 2018, a jury convicted Tom Chantry for the aggravated assault of Jane
Walsh and Wayne Walsh (both pseudonyms). The crimes against them were covered up
by a score of high ranking officials and pastors from the Association of Reformed Baptist
Church of America (ARBCA) for 18 years. The same is true of Mark Jones (pseudonym)
who won a conviction on Wednesday (May 8) on four counts of sexual molestation by
Chantry. Read this article.

Part 9: Tom Chantry, Former ARBCA Pastor & Son of Walt Chantry, Found
Guilty On All Four Counts of Sexual Molestation of a Child
Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 12:23AM

These three victims (and others) have NEVER been contacted by ARBCA leaders since
the Informal Council from ARBCA interviewed them on December 13, 2000. They were
abandoned thereafter and the crimes against them concealed.

After the guilty verdict for molestation on Wednesday, the ARBCA General Assembly
put out a statement on Thursday (May 9). It was face-saving and acknowledged no
wrong-doing for its defense of Chantry the last three years and its long term cover-up of
Chantry’s crimes for 18 years. Even worse, the statement feigned compassion for the
victims. ARBCA officials and pastors have never demonstrated care for the victims or
their families. They have only cared for Tom Chantry’s advancement, Walt Chantry’s
legacy, and the preservation of ARBCA by hook or crook. Here is their statement. I’ve
added notes in brackets [ ] and underlining.

Statement of 2019 ARBCA General Assembly


May 9, 2019

We, the delegates of the 2019 General Assembly of the Association of Reformed
Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA), having waited on the Lord and the
completion of the legal proceedings, affirm the process of justice by which
Thomas J. Chantry was found guilty of four counts of child molestation. This
conviction follows a previous conviction of two counts of aggravated assault on
a minor. Fair opportunity was given for a case to be made to a jury of Mr.
Chantry’s peers either that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or the
opposite. The result of this process was a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. This process is in keeping with the Word of God and our confession of
faith which both teach that crimes are to be prosecuted and punished by the civil
magistrate (Rom. 13:3-4; 2LCF 24.1).
[Note: Representatives from ARBCA have deceitfully argued his innocence since
the criminal investigation began in July 2015. At the first trial in July/August
2018, Judge Bradley Astrowsky openly stated that if ARBCA was on trial, they
would be found guilty of conspiring to cover up Chantry’s crimes. The civil
magistrate has “prosecuted and punished” but ARBCA has never confronted or
excommunicated Chantry for his vile and unrepentant sins.]

In light of this process of justice and its result, and in light of the devastating and
far-reaching effects of Mr. Chantry’s actions, we, the delegates of the 2019
General Assembly of ARBCA, express our sincere and profound sorrow and
sympathy to the victims of this abuse, to the victims’ families, and to all affected.
We pray for the healing and restoration of these image bearers. We also pray
that the dishonor done to the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ, his gospel, and
his churches may in time be overcome.

[Note: The “delegates” (ARBCA officials & pastors) have never done anything to
express their “sorrow and sympathy” to the victims in the past. Furthermore,
ARBCA (not just Chantry) is guilty for “the dishonor done to the testimony of
our Lord Jesus Christ, his gospel, and his churches.” If ARBCA had acted with
integrity in 2000, none of this would be happening today. In this statement, they
except NO responsibility for “the devasting and far-reaching effects.”]

Physical and especially sexual abuse of children are amongst the most heinous
sins and despicable crimes that one can commit and must be condemned by all,
especially those who follow Christ. This is in keeping with one of the most
frequent themes in Scripture—God’s condemnation of the oppressor. We, the
delegates of the 2019 General Assembly of ARBCA, condemn these sins and are
committed to taking steps, within our power, to prevent this from happening
again. And to that end, we, the delegates of the 2019 General Assembly of
ARBCA, have passed several motions that had already been proposed prior to
learning of the verdict in this case. These motions, among others passed, take
steps toward implementing a policy on the reporting of child abuse; increasing
education on mandatory reporting laws; and requiring transparency for any
committee, council, or person acting in an official capacity on behalf of ARBCA.

[Note: “Physical and especially sexual abuse of children…must be condemned


by all.” ARBCA did the exact opposite. They knew of Chantry’s physical abuse
in 2000. They did not condemn it. In fact, Chantry negotiated a deal
guaranteeing he would not be church disciplined. They also knew of his physical
and sexual abuse in 2016 which was based on the testimony of multiple victims
and numerous corroborating witnesses. They did not follow the teaching of
Matthew 18:15-17. Just the opposite, ARBCA officials and pastors defended his
innocence even after his arrest and incarceration in July 2016 on eight counts of
aggravated assault and sexual molestation. ARBCA pronounces a woe of
judgement upon itself when it talks about “God’s condemnation of the
oppressor.” They have oppressed the victims for many years. Policy changes,
education, and “transparency” mean nothing when dealing with corrupt leaders.
I’ve seen plenty of churches, ministries, or organizations with good polity and
doctrine not follow what they espouse and teach. When ARBCA calls Walt
Chantry and a score of other leaders to account for conspiring to cover up Tom
Chantry’s crimes, then you have reason to believe them.]

Furthermore, we have initiated discussions to examine and reconsider the


organizational structure and documents of our association in order to ensure that
the intent of our Confession of Faith is realized in practice, namely that it is the
churches who possess and exercise associational power through their delegates
at the General Assembly.

[Note: ARBCA deceived all the churches by putting out false information and
withholding incriminating information from members and their delegates (i.e.,
many of the pastors). They were kept in the dark and misled in 2000-2002 and
2015 to the present.]

With broken hearts,

[Note: Really? You mean for covering up Chantry’s sins and crimes and
defending his innocence?]

The Delegates of the 2019 General Assembly of ARBCA

Let me reiterate. The delegates to the General Assembly say they write “with broken
hearts” to “express our sincere and profound sorrow and sympathy to the victims of this
abuse, to the victims’ families, and to all affected” for “the devastating and far-reaching
effects of Mr. Chantry’s actions.” Quite frankly, I find this repulsive!

The delegates include the very men in ARBCA who hid the evidence, lied about their
knowledge of his crimes, abandoned the victims and their families, deceived ARBCA
churches with false reports, did not cooperate with law enforcement, testified on
Chantry’s behalf in court, violated the agreements laid down by the Informal Council,
protected him from church discipline, covered up his abuse by using a compromised
CCEF counselor who agreed not to investigate his sadism, argued his innocent before
ARBCA churches, deceitfully claimed to have followed all mandatory reporting laws,
made the victims out to be liars, financed his legal defense, excoriated those documenting
the evidence of his crimes as false witnesses, repeatedly abused Scripture to keep church
members from reading the evidence found on blogs, and withheld evidence of Chantry’s
guilt from church members like that found in police reports.

These men include Earl Blackburn, David Dykstra, John Giarrizzo, Don Lindblad,
Steve Martin, Dale Smith, Larry Vincent, Fred Pugh, Fred Malone, Douglas
VanderMeulen, Tom Lyon, Steve Marquedant, Brandon Smith, Jeff Massey, Dale
Crawford, Rob Cosby, Bob Curley, Jason Walter, Al Huber and Bill Halliburton.

It has been over 8 months since guilty verdicts were handed down in the case of Wayne
Walsh and Jane Walsh and yet no one from ARBCA contacted them to congratulate them,
commend them, or comfort them. In fact, the Administrative Council (below) didn’t even
send the statement to any of victims or their families. They just posted it in an obscure
place on the ARBCA website. The victims would never have known about it, if not
brought to their attention.

Administrative Council (2018-2019)


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

Take note, Al Huber is on the Administrative Council. He is Chantry’s father-in-law. He


has bankrolled his legal expenses, put up his bond money, insisted upon his innocence,
covered up his crimes, etc. What is Huber doing on the AC? And why is he a pastor with
Dale Smith at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Rockford, IL?

Furthermore, when will Huber express “profound sorrow and sympathy to the victims”
for “the devastating and far-reaching effects” of the assaults and molestations by his son-
in-law? And how about Huber’s daughter, Karen Chantry? I sat 10 feet away from her
this week in the courtroom. She despises the victims and their families. She has called
them all liars.

The same is true for David Dykstra. He knew all about the beatings of Jane and Wayne in
2000. He had all the evidence. He met with the Miller Valley Baptist Church elders in
November 2000. He had their letter to Walt Chantry about Tom’s child abuse. He was
on the Administrative Council in 2000-2001. He is still on the AC. And guess what? He
was at the July/August 2018 trial supporting Chantry’s claim of innocence for his beating
of Jane and Wayne. When is Dykstra going to repent?

And then you have Steve Martin, the 2018-2019 ARBCA Coordinator. He too has known
about Chantry’s crimes from the beginning. He too met with the elders of Miller Valley
Baptist Church. They apprised him of everything. He knew several children were
abused. And yet, he brazenly lied to members of Chantry’s Christ Reformed Baptist
Church (Hales Corners, WI) on January 29, 2017. He told members the investigation was
witch hunt and defended Chantry’s innocence. Yea, he really cares about the victims.
When will he contact all the victims and beg their forgiveness?

That is why the statement put out by the “delegates” on Thursday says absolutely nothing
about the fact that ARBCA covered up Chantry’s crimes for 18 years and promoted his
innocence for the past 3 years. That is why there is no acknowledgement of any wrong-
doing by anyone at any time since the crimes were first discovered nearly two decades
ago. No one is called to account. No one is reproved. No sorrow is expressed for sins
committed. No confession is made for laws broken, heinous crimes covered up, or
victims forsaken.

I wrote all the lead pastors before the General Assembly and implored them to take action
against these corrupt leaders. See my letter in the article below. To date, I have no
information anything of the kind transpired. Moreover, every delegate should have
voted against the statement because it did not address any wrong-doing by ARBCA!

Part 8: The Illegal Cover-Up of Tom Chantry’s Crimes by Marcus “Mike”


McKnight III (Prominent Lawyer), Tedd Tripp (Renowned Child Expert),
Richard Jensen (Former Homicide Detective), & Bob Selph (the
ARBCA Coordinator)
Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:03PM

As I’ve said, it doesn’t matter what changes ARBCA makes in their polity, structures or
training. They have not repented and they have not confessed. They continue to cover
up. They have not called for resignations of top leaders or the discipline of prominent
pastors who have lied and deceived.

For example, men like Earl Blackburn knew all about Chantry’s crimes in 2000 because
he had been given all the evidence. Yet he lied to the MVBC elders in a letter dated
February 13, 2002 claiming he was in the “dark” and possessed none of it. He has been
lying ever since. I exposed him in my Part 4 article using irrefutable primary sources (i.e.
letters between him and Lindblad).
Or Don Lindblad, who has been Chantry’s “advocate” since 2000. He has repeatedly lied
and perjured himself multiple times under oath at the July/August 2018 trial. The Judge
had to admonish him to answer questions and stop being evasive. Not only should he
be out of ministry, he should be in jail!

Or Tom Lyon, who took Chantry into his church in 2000, knowing he was a child abuser
but allowed him to start preaching on a regular basis nine months later. Then two years
later, Lyon sent Chantry out to be an elementary school teacher where his battery of
children continued.

Or John Giarrizzo, who lied to all his elders, a pastoral intern, and the deacons claiming
he had no knowledge of Chantry’s child abuse even though he knew all about it. He hid
Chantry for two days in his home after he fled Miller Valley Baptist Church in 2000. All
the elders and most of the deacons resigned after confronting Giarrizzo for his
extraordinary deception. They also left the church along with most of the members who
saw through Giarrizzo’s corruption. The attendance at Grace Covenant Church in
Gilbert, AZ has gone from 230 to 80 people. Why is he a pastor in ARBCA? All these
men should be church disciplined or their churches removed from ARBCA.

If ARBCA wanted to “express…sincere and profound sorrow and sympathy” to Jane


Walsh and Wayne Walsh, they would have invited them to the General Assembly to beg
their forgiveness, pray for their hearts and minds, commend their courage, ask how
ARBCA can learn from its mistakes, and make restitution in whatever way possible.
Remember, Chantry was found guilty over eight months ago for beating them. They
never received a call or note from the “broken-hearted” Administrative Council.

Well, here is the response I received from Jane Walsh this past week. I’ve added notes in
brackets [ ]. It will tear your heart out. Read carefully. I will be sending it to all ARBCA
officials and lead pastors.

Response by Jane Walsh


May 10, 2019

Upon reading ARBCA’s “Official Apology” posted yesterday, May 9th, I am at a


loss of words.

These won’t be kind words, in any shape or form. First, I would like to point out
- as a victim in this case, I still have yet to receive any sort of personal apology
whatsoever from the AC [Administrative Council] of ARBCA or its affiliates - if
that doesn’t scream hypocrisy, I don’t know what else to say on that matter. In
fact, I wasn’t aware there was an official apology released until it was brought to
my attention by a trusted source. I found their statement repugnant, arrogant
and self-righteous, which was expected.
I won’t accept this as a genuine apology. I honestly think it’s far too late to even
receive or accept one at this point. The damage has been done, far beyond the
lack of concern of these men in their high thrones of a close-minded, self-serving
and fruitless association. They are only sorry that their reputation has been
scathed, and have been publicly shamed for their involvement - as they should
be! I hope that the awareness of their involvement grows rapidly, and to their
own detriment. The high tower they dwell in needs to crumble down, unable to
be built back up again. They harbored, protected, and provided many paths to a
predator for years beyond the hurt that this monster inflicted on myself, my
family, and the other families involved. These men should not be trusted, and I
grieve for those who still blindly and faithfully follow their dark footsteps. They
are far from men of God in my eyes. They fear men above Christ, and use His
word for their own taking to mask over their faults. It’s repulsive at best.

Those of you who are reading have to keep in mind that these men did not vouch
for us. Not once. Instead they mocked our parents and blamed them for
entrusting us in Tom’s care. Our parents were broken and wrought over what
Tom had done. They looked to these men for guidance and comfort. Instead it
was met with condescending suggestions, and we were left without any sort of
counseling. They swiftly hid this giant corruption under a rug and let it fester
for nearly two decades. What I can only describe as mind-blowing is that these
same men who not only had documentation of the accounts that took place at
MVBC many years ago (which were used in both trials many times, all parties
aware of the paper trail that was left of this matter) yet had the gall to call the
victims and our families liars! They knew every detail and did absolutely
nothing to resolve the major issue. Instead they chose to side with a child
molester, a child abuser, a man who brought hell on earth to many. They praised
his “doctrine”, worshiping him much like a false idol. They lifted him and
exalted him above innocent helpless children. They put his cares, desires and
needs first.

We, the victims, suffered in silence for many years. We feebly tried to navigate
through our individual lives coping with the pain and horror that we
experienced. It has affected us all in countless ways. We are still coping, still
trying to get by and live our lives without the presence of evil that lingered over
all of us like a dark cloud. After many years we understood nothing would be
resolved, and had to deal with it in our own ways, and still are dealing with it to
this day. Despite their soggy and vapid excuse of “increasing education on
mandatory reporting laws” and to “have initiated and reconsider the
organizational structure and documents of our association” is a flippant and
lousy lie in itself. They had documentation. They spoke to us, the victims,
individually, in person. They saw the fear, the shame, and the guilt we all felt as
young children. Yet they chose to “seal” all reports and kept the darkest of them
from public eye and amongst each other, knowing truly that Tom was doing
these abhorrent acts for his own pleasure.

Despite all of these facts, they still to this day deny involvement or admit any
fault. As frustrating and angering this is to myself, and to others involved, I have
peace in my heart knowing this is not the end. No stone will be left unturned.
God has been faithful in shedding a broad light on this association, and I trust
He will see that all nefarious acts this association harbors will be revealed. These
men are not above reproach, no matter how many bible verses they will try to
use in their favor or to place as a smokescreen to hide their wickedness - justice
will prevail. It did prevail here on earth in Tom’s case, and I can only hope that
the sick, destructive and hideous acts Tom committed towards us and others will
be a testament to those who are still in support of him - God has your number,
and there will be a reckoning.

I also received this response from Wayne Walsh.

Response by Wayne Walsh


May 10, 2019

This letter is to the men and women of ARBCA, especially to the leaders of the
organization. After reading the “Apology Statement” released by the delegates
of ARBCA, I can only laugh in bewilderment at the lies that spew from