To whom it may concern:

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 after the first report was written and 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.
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 demand 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.
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 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.”
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 used. It
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tenth, the report fails in the timeline to state the event of a family formerly at MVBC
raising charges of molestation against Mr. Chantry after the GA in 2015. By omitting this, it
suggests that MVBC went to the police without any motive other than to damage Mr. Chantry
rather than the truth, which is our cooperation with a police investigation.
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 who has now been
proven guilty in a court of law! 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 and contrary 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