ARBCA/CBA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through

What follows is a walk-through of documents relevant to ARBCA and Tom Chantry.  It is my sincere hope that this will help those who are seeking truth.  I will update it as new documents become available. **Note: ARBCA changed their name to CBA (Confessional Baptist Association) in 2022. [https://ephesians511.home.blog/2022/09/23/arbca-changed-its-name-to-cba-confessional-baptist-association/]

This walk-through is divided into numbered sections.  Originally, I began posting documents on FaceBook, and the sections were posts.  There was no way to create a permanent or accessible reference on Facebook, so I’m doing that here.  I have changed the order to try to make them flow as naturally as possible (posting them in chronological order of the content but not necessarily publication) but left them in the numbered sections in hopes of making the walk-through easier to navigate.  There are no distribution restrictions on any of these documents.

#1 ARBCA & Timeline of Events

This document lists who knew what and when according to the currently available documentation.  It is the best place to start because it walks you through what happened as it happened, so it lays a foundation for understanding the rest of the documents.

#2 Tom Chantry Letter to ARBCA Regarding Formation of IC (11/28/2000) and David Dykstra’s Instructions for the IC (12/6/2000)

This document contains a letter from Tom Chantry to ARBCA regarding which men he finds agreeable for the Informal Council and David Dykstra’s Instructions for the Informal Council.  They give us insight into aspects of how the Informal Council was formed and what its goals were to be.

“This morning, November 28, 2000, Bob Selph called to discuss possible names for a private arbitration between the elders of the Miller Valley Church and myself.” [Tom Chantry Letter, first paragraph]

“I agree in principle to Mike and any two others in this list making up an arbitrating group to investigate and make recommendations.” [Tom Chantry Letter, last paragraph]

“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 a 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.” [David Dykstra Letter, first paragraph]

“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.” [David Dykstra Letter, fourth paragraph]

“Hopefully the honor of Miller Valley’s elders will be maintained and Tom will be able to have a future in the ministry.” [David Dykstra Letter, last paragraph]

#3 MVBC Timeline, Special Meeting Minutes, & Letters to/from Walt Chantry (11/2000 & 12/2000)

This document contains the MVBC Timeline, Special Meeting Minutes, and letters to and from Walt Chantry.  These all give a good idea what happened prior to the Informal Council’s formation.  I have included a transcript of Walt Chantry’s handwritten letter for easier reading.

“Several of our children have been ‘mistreated’…Legally, what Tom did would be considered child abuse and could be subject to prosecution.” [Letter from MVBC to Walt Chantry page 3, paragraph 1]

#4 Letters from the Parents & One of the Victims (11 & 12/2000)

These are letters that were written by the parents and one of the children for the members of the Informal Council sent by ARBCA.  They do not contain accusations of molestation, but they do contain many red flags for molestation.

“Tom would regularly threaten M 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 him what the mistakes were and then repeating the process.  The private classes ended after M spent the night with Tom as a favor to us.  During the night M said afterward that Tom spanked him bare bottomed (with his underpants pulled down) for what M said was no reason at all.  The aforementioned events came to light after L and I found out about the bare bottomed spanking.” [Letter from LJ (first letter – father) page 3, paragraph 2]

“It certainly appears that I have been deceived for years by a very convincing liar.” [Letter from LJ (first letter – father) page 3, last paragraph]


“Tom is a bold face liar who can and has manipulated situations to take full advantage of 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” [Letter from LJ (second letter – mother) page 1, last paragraph]

“Sometime in August of this year, Tom called and asked if he 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 and Shorty knew about this and were somehow involved.  According to Rich, he had only found out about this right before Tom resigned.  With the four children that Tom assumed authority over and spanked inappropriately, and now putting himself in a position of authority over foster children is extremely frightening to me.  I do not know his motive behind this, but I can’t help but think with his secretness with the elder and his actions with the church children he was again setting the circumstances to be able to abuse more innocent children.” [Letter from LJ (second letter – mother) page 4, last paragraph]


“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 always did.  Yes, that does mean he rubbed my ass after spanking me.” [Letter from MJ page 3, paragraph 2]

“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.  First he made me stand up and bend over and grab 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.” [Letter from MJ page 5, paragraph 3]

“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.” [Letter from MJ page 4, last 2 paragraphs]


“Tom proceeded to that D 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 D if he cried out.  He then began to spank D ten times with a large, thick board.  I tried to keep calm in from of D that evening, but I did ask him if I could see where he was spanked.  D 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.” [Letter from CSL page 1, paragraph 4]

“I was also troubled by the fact that D would have to pick with what “instrument” he wanted to be spanked with.  He had his choice of a wiffle 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’.” [Letter from CSL page 2, first paragraph]


“Tom got angry because W didn’t come immediately, so W got spanked in Tom’s office.  Also, that D was spanked in front of them as well as him being there when they were spanked.  J told us that she cried out loud so hard in hopes someone would hear her the day she was spanked.  Tom repeatedly threatened J, W, and D 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.” [Letter from T and P W page 3, paragraph 4]

Original Document (still redacted)

#5 Tom Chantry’s Letter for the Informal Council (12/2000)

This letter was written by Tom Chantry for the Informal Council.

#6 Letter Written by MVBC Secretary (12/15/2000)

This letter was written by the secretary of Miller Valley Baptist Church.  It does not explicitly say so, but it too seems to have been written for the men of the Informal Council.

#7 Informal Council’s Level 1 Report, Parent Recommendations, & Distribution List (12/16/2000)

This document contains the Informal Council’s Level 1 Report, the Parent Recommendations, AC Report Part 2 Page 13, and the Complete Report Distribution List.  This is the “sealed” report that was only to go to 9 individuals, though MVBC never received a copy (only the Parent Recommendations that were supposed to be attached to the Level 1 Report).

“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.” [Level 1 Report page 2, paragraphs 1 and 2]

“Tom Chantry did admit to inappropriate spanking of all four children.  Some of the spankings involved the use of one or more paddles which Thomas Chantry obtained for his use during the tutorial sessions with these children.” [Level 1 Report page 2, paragraph 4]

“Taken in its entirety, the question must be raised, did Thomas Chantry use this method of punishment for his own pleasure?” [Level 1 Report page 2, paragraph 5]

“…the Elders who assume oversight of him should consider the possibility that on some level he punished children for his own pleasure.” [Level 1 Report page 4, paragraph 3]

“…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 [Tom Lyon].” [Level 1 Report page 4, paragraph 5]

“This Complete Report contained copies of the Level 1 Report, including the separate recommendations to each family involved; 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.’” [Part II Report page 13, last paragraph]

Original Document (still redacted)

#8 Informal Council’s Level 2 Report (12/16/2000) & Confidential Minutes (1/4/2001)

This document contains the Informal Council’s Level 2 Report and the documents that record that the 2000 AC received a copy of it and actively concealed the fact that there were multiple levels of reports (picture of men on the 2000 AC, Confidential Minutes dated 1/4/2001, Telephonic Interview with Pastor Don Lindblad dated 3/21/2018 page 52 lines 17-20, Letter from Jamie Howell with Testimony of Bob Selph with page 3 of Bob’s Letter marked, and AC Report Part 2 page 13).

Men on the 2000 AC that are still in ARBCA

  • Steve Martin: IRBS Dean of Students
  • Don Lindblad: Pastor at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church, Kirkland, WA; IRBS Trustee
  • John Giarrizzo: Pastor at Grace Covenant Church in Gilbert, AZ
  • Larry Vincent: Pastor at Heritage Baptist Church in Mansfield, TX
  • Earl Blackburn: retired
  • Dale Smith: Pastor at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Rockford, IL
  • David Dykstra: Pastor at Grace Covenant Church in Willis, TX

Level 2 Report

“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.” [Page 1, last paragraph]

“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 [Tom Lyon] address these differences because it is the opinion of this informal council that his repentance may not be complete.” [Page 3, item 7]

“That Thomas Chantry endeavor to seek full repentance 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 Tom Chantry [Tom Lyon] assist him with this process.” [Page 3, item 8]

Confidential Minutes

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.

Mr. McKnight is to e-mail 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.” [Page 9, item 2]

Don Lindblad Telephonic Interview

LINDBLAD: The other one was more public and it wasn’t distributed, it wasn’t mailed to everybody, uh, uhm, but it was the Administrative Council and – and, uh, and so forth had access to that, I had access to it. [Page 52, lines 17-20]

Testimony of Bob Selph

“The 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.” [Page 3, item 2]

2000/2001 AC Members who were noted to receive the “middle level” report [Level 2 Report] : Bob Selph, Larry Vincent, Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad, John Giarrizzo, David Dykstra, Dale Smith, Mike McKnight, Bruce Kronheim, Tom Green, Jamie Howell, and Tom Lutz.  [Photograph]

Original Document (still redacted)

#9 Informal Council’s Level 3 Report (12/16/2000) & Confidential Minutes (1/4/2001)

This is the report that the 2000/2001 AC sent to the ARBCA member churches in early 2001 and the Confidential Minutes that identify it.  There is no mention of the children or the violence they suffered at the hands of Thomas Chantry.

Original Document

#10 AC Meeting Minutes (1/4/2001)

These are the AC Meeting Minutes from January 4, 2001.  They include all 8 pages of the regular minutes and the 9th page of confidential minutes.  I previously posted the confidential page. 

“Allocate $20,000 for the Publications Committee to publish two books – “Holding Communion Together – Essays on Reformed Baptist Association” by five contributors (David Dykstra, Erroll Hulse, David Kingdon, Jim Renihan, and Earl Blackburn) and “The Baptism of Disciples Alone – A Covenantal Rejection of Infant Baptism” by Dr. Fred Malone. Actually $30,000 is needed; therefore the Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of La Mirada, CA would like to request a Special Project in 2001 for the other $10,000.00.” [Page 5, item e]

Note: The book “Holding Communion Together – The Reformed Baptists: The First Fifty Years, Divided & United” was authored by Tom Chantry and David Dykstra.  It was published in May 2014 by Solid Ground Christian Books.

#11 Counselor’s Report (12/18/2001), Tom Lyon’s Report (1/1/2002), AC Minutes (1/22/2002), and Police Report (7/16/2004)

After ARBCA’s Informal Council in Dec 2000, Tom Chantry left for PRBC in University Place, WA to be under the authority of Pastor Tom Lyon.  Tom Chantry began preaching there in Sept 2001, saw counselor Devon Berry only FOUR times between 11/29/2001 and 12/14/2001.  Tom left for GRBC in Rockford, IL (Pastors Dale Smith and Al Huber). Tom got a job at Christian Liberty Academy.  In July 2004 Tom spanked a student so hard that a police report was filed.  The IC Level 1 Report remained sealed in the ARBCA Archives.

Counselor’s Report

“No attempt was made to return to the details of the circumstances at MVBC for purpose of further investigation…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.” [Page 1, paragraph 2]

“I have met with Tom Chantry four times between 11/29/01 and 12/14/01.” [Page 1, paragraph 4]

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.” [Page 2, paragraph 3]

Tom Lyon’s Report

“Thomas Chantry has undergone and completed the recommended “Biblical Counseling” as advised by the council.  This counseling was pursued under the oversight of the elders of PRBC [Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick] 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 progress and conclusions.” [Page 1, item 3]


“…beginning in September [Tom Chantry] has preached regularly.” [Page 2, paragraph 3]


“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.

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.” [Page 2, paragraph 5]


“Respectfully submitted:

Tom Lyon

Mark McCormick” [signature]

Confidential AC Minutes

“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 with the prior findings of the council concerning Mr. Chantry.” Page 4, item 2]

2001/2002 AC Members: Bob Selph, Tedd Tripp, Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad, John Giarrizzo, David Dykstra, Dale Smith, Mike McKnight, Bruce Kronheim, Tom Green, Jamie Howell, and Tom Lutz. [Photograph]

Why didn’t any of the men who were also on the 2000/2001 AC question why item #8 on the Level 2 report was not addressed, why the “serious factual differences” between what the children and Tom Chantry said, or why Tom Chantry was preaching “regularly” for 2 months before he had any counseling?

Men on both the 2000/2001 AC and 2001/2002 AC: Bob Selph, Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad, John Giarrizzo, David Dykstra, Dale Smith, Mike McKnight, Bruce Kronheim, Tom Green, Jamie Howell, and Tom Lutz. 

Original Document (still redacted)

#12 Letters Between MVBC and Earl Blackburn (2/5/2002 and 2/13/2002)

After receiving Tom Lyon’s Letter of Compliance, MVBC sent a letter to Earl Blackburn.  This is their letter and Earl’s response.

#13 Report Written by Don Lindblad for Earl Blackburn (4/15/2002)

This document contains a report Don Lindblad wrote for Earl Blackburn regarding the Informal Council and the page from AC Report Part 2 that quotes it, identifying it as “Private Document 16.”  It was viewed by:

  • Don Lindblad (author)
  • Earl Blackburn (recipient)
  • Rich Jensen (sent by Earl Blackburn 4/18/2002)
  • Mike McKnight (sent by Earl Blackburn 4/18/2002)
  • Tedd Tripp (sent by Earl Blackburn 4/18/2002)
  • Walter J. Chantry (sent by Earl Blackburn 4/18/2002)
  • Dale Smith (sent by Earl Blackburn 4/18/2002)
  • the Ad Hoc Committee (Steve Marquedant, Jeff Massey, Bob Curley, and Dale Crawford).  They used this to write AC Report Part II, yet the only thing they included was the quote regarding Walt Chantry.
  • potentially the men on the 2018 AC who reviewed, edited and approved the reports (Jason Walter, Brandon Smith, Rob Cosby, Bob Adams, Jack Daniels, and Micah Renihan).

“When I raised the issue again of Tom not being permitted to speak, which was the fourth time I had raised the question in three days, all three assented to the following: they could not allow Tom to speak because if they did he would have incriminated himself.  Once that happened they would not have been able to give him back his life in the way that they had.  They would be forced to deal with him differently.” [page 4, paragraph 4]

“Instead of pressing for some form of church discipline or civil charges, they told us they wanted to give Tom back his life.  They believed he had not been forthcoming, that he was far guiltier than what he was willing to admit, but they also believed he was a gifted young man and should return to the ministry someday.” [page 3, paragraph 3]

“Mike wanted to hear what Tom had to say about the various incidents, but that he should be cautious in responding because the investigators believed entirely what the children had told them.” [page 2, paragraph 1]

Original Document

#14 Letter from Earl Blackburn to Rich Jensen, Mike McKnight, and Tedd Tripp (4/18/2002)

This document is a letter written by Earl Blackburn to the members of the Informal Council (Rich Jensen, Mike McKnight, and Tedd Tripp).  It was cc’d to Don Lindblad, Walter J. Chantry, and Dale Smith.  It discusses Earl Blackburn’s belief that Tom Chantry had been wronged by the IC and cites the “Report Written by Don Lindblad for Earl Blackburn dated 4/15/2002” multiple times.

“…you sought to be generous and kind to Tom Chantry by giving him an opportunity to deal with matters and, hopefully, in time, reenter the ministry.” [Page 1, 2nd paragraph]

“I asked him [Don Lindblad] then, and later followed up that request with a phone call to write a report of the meeting and send it to me.  I have enclosed for each of you a copy of that report.” [Page 1, 3rd paragraph]

“What you told me and what he [Don Lindblad] wrote do not match up…In other words, brothers, I believe his written report.”  [Page 1, 3rd paragraph]

“Just as I predicted, serious and unsettling ramifications have followed the Arizona meetings.  Pastor Walt Chantry is very bothered that his son was not given a full and fair hearing, so much so that he has stated to me via letter that he will never have anything to do with ARBCA again.  Also, your refusal to allow Tom Chantry to fully address all of his concerns has caused prolonged problems in the Carlisle Eldership.  This does not include a number of other ARBCA pastors who have heard and are concerned about your refusal.” [Page 2, 4th paragraph]

“One, prayerful search your hearts and if you believe that Don is correct in his report and that you were wrong, then admit it to yourself and each other.  Two, individually write a letter to Tom Chantry acknowledging your wrong in this particular matter and ask his forgiveness.  Three, do the same with Pastor Walt Chantry.” [Page 3, 1st paragraph]

#15 Letter from Tedd Tripp to Earl Blackburn (8/26/2002)

This document is a letter written by Tedd Tripp to Earl Blackburn in response to the “Letter from Earl Blackburn to Rich Jensen, Mike McKnight, and Tedd Tripp dated 4/18/2002.”  It was also distributed to “the other members of the Informal Council” (Rich Jensen and Mike McKnight). 

“The claim, that we were unfair to Tom Chantry is an essential part of his ‘smoke and mirrors’ strategy to avoid acceptance responsibility for his actions.  Sadly, you, Don and Walt have fallen for it and thus fallen into Tom Chantry’s clever attempt to make himself the aggrieved party.” [Page 1, 2nd paragraph]

“It is my belief that had that [calling for a formal council] been done, Tom Chantry would have been found guilty and formal legal charges would have been filed by the parents of some of the abused children.  There is no doubt in my mind that Tom Chantry would have been found guilty in a legal proceeding and may even be in jail today.” [Page 1, 4th paragraph]

“…Walter Chantry should be filled with gratitude for what we did for his son.” [Page 2, 1st paragraph]

“None of Tom Chantry’s counter-charges against the elders in Prescott mitigated the matter we addressed, namely Tom Chantry’s abuse of the children in the church.  It had no bearing on the things Tom Chantry had done, but was just part of the ‘smoke and mirrors’ strategy.  It was a brilliant strategy; it worked with you.” [Page 2, 4th paragraph]

“You should have called for a formal council.  If you had I do not believe that Tom Chantry would be teaching children today or teaching an Adult Sunday School in an Association church.  Ironically, Tom Chantry had managed to be out of legal jeopardy through the process we established and in a position to rehabilitate himself…” [Page 2, 5th paragraph]

‘I am curious about the number of ARBCA pastors who have heard and are concerned…Have you been discussing private matters with other men?” [Page 3, 1st paragraph]

“Tom Chantry’s strategy was to throw enough dust in the air by charging the elders in Prescott with their failings so that the matter would be an issue of disagreement between elders.  Tom Chantry, a trusted pastor, abused children in the Prescott church.  It would have been ludicrous for us to investigate whether the elders had followed every point of the church’s constitution in dealing with their pastor when the real issue was the pastor’s abuse of children.  We did not cooperate with Tom Chantry’s attempt to divert the focus away from his action and the fall out of those actions, to the matters of procedure and process with the elders.” [Page 3, 2nd paragraph]

“You have not made private judgments and come to me personally, but you have made private judgments and also published them to Don Lindblad, Walter Chantry and Dale Smith…you also have spread that opinion to other brethren.” [Page 3, 3rd and 4th paragraphs]

“…I wish we had torn up the document recommended a formal council and gone home.  I firmly believe that the result would have been legal action taken against Tom Chantry for abuse of the children.” [Page 4, 1st paragraph]

#16 Letter from Rich Jensen to Earl Blackburn (1/21/2003)

This document is a letter written by Rich Jensen to Earl Blackburn in response to the “Letter from Earl Blackburn to Rich Jensen, Mike McKnight, and Tedd Tripp dated 4/18/2002.” 

“It was very clear that Tom Chantry wanted to steer the investigation of the Informal Council away from his culpability for possible crimes and shift it to the deteriorating relationship with the Elders.  I want to say this in the strongest possible language.  The council was well aware of what Tom was trying to do and would not allow it.” [Page 2, 1st paragraph]

“But any such discussion [about MVBC elders] had no bearing on his actions with the children in question.  It was at that time that Tom made the statement, ‘Then it doesn’t matter anymore.’  This statement confirmed our suspicions that Tom was trying to cloud the issue with his complaints against the Elders of Miller Valley.” [Page 2, 3rd paragraph; page 4, 1st paragraph]

“Tom was pleased with the outcome of the investigation but was not pleased that he was unable to pull the wool over our eyes.  And he has used Don, his father, and you to do harm to the body of Christ in general and to our association in particular.” [Page 3, 3rd paragraph]

“You state that Don called you during the investigation to insist on certain things.  You told him to phone Tedd and plead with him.  You also warned him of your concerns of ‘serious and unsettling ramifications.’  I find this behavior highly irregular and questionable.” [Page 3, 2nd paragraph]

“I find his [Tom’s] actions reprehensible and his attempts to mask his culpability equally distasteful and sinful.” [Page 4, 2nd paragraph]

“This whole matter has left a very bad taste in mouth [sic].  I believe it speaks very badly for ARBCA and some of its members…How did they hear about the actions and why?…If someone has a bad opinion of me based upon rumors and gossip and never comes to me personally, I can do nothing about it.” [Page 4, 5th paragraph]

“I do not believe that Tom has complied with either the letter or the spirit of the document he signed.  Instead he has sown seeds of discord among the churches.  And Don, though I do not believe he acted maliciously, has done the same.” [Page 5, 2nd paragraph]

#17 Letter from Don Lindblad to Steve Marquedant (6/17/2015)

“There is a young man living in the Boston area [Mark Jones] who called Tom several times and asked for further resolution.” [Second paragraph under item 2]

“The following documents are in the ARBCA archives:…” [Item 3]

#18 Email from Chris Marley to Tom Lyon (7/1/2015)

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

#19 Letter of Objection from MVBC to Steve Marquedant (8/1/2015)

“We would do a great disservice to the Brid of Christ and to our Association if we did not strongly object to any consideration of Mr. Chantry as an ARBCA pastor.” [Page 1, first paragraph]

“Of special concern was recommendation #8, (seeking forgiveness from the families involved).  According to those families, fifteen years has now passed without any attempt at reconciliation.” [Page 1, fourth paragraph]

“With Mr. Chantry indicating a desire to join the association, however, we feel it is our responsibility to discreetly warn the association against such unwise action.” [Page 2, first paragraph]

#20 Email from Steve Marquedant to Don Lindblad titled “Confidential from Steve M” (9/1/2015)

“The case presented by MVBC is not strong enough to prevent us from processing it [CRBC’s application] – but it should be understood that there will be controversy for Tom C.” [Ninth paragraph]

#21 Email from Don Lindblad to Steve Marquedant titled “A Possible Approach to MVBC” (9/4/2015)

“There was an unsigned report that went out from the ARBCA office early in 2001 [Level 3 Report]…It was generic and sanitized,” [First paragraph]

“The other two documents [Level 1 and Level 2 Reports], which were signed, are not public…Those documents are to be opened only if Tom messes up again.  He has not.” [First paragraph]

“The AC already approved Tom’s ‘rehabilitation,’ and an email was sent to the churches to that effect.  ARBCA has already weighted in officially on the matter.  All objections were dealt with in letters by Earl and myself before the AC unanimously decided to approve Tom Lyon’s report.” [Second paragraph]

“Tom fulfilled the requirements of what he signed TO THE SATISFACTION OF ALL EXCEPT MVBC. (Rich Jensen did object, but Earl and I responded and nothing more was said.)” [Third paragraph]

“Personally, I do not think ARBCA is in a position to do more.  Again, it would be unrighteous to open this up again.” [Fifth paragraph]

#22 Email from Don Lindblad to Steve Marquedant and cc’d to John Giarrizzo, Douglas VanderMeulen, and Tom Lyon titled “TC” (9/9/2015)

“The church [MVBC] is not in a position to protest, as they gave up that right in placing Tom’s recovery in the hands of others.” [First paragraph]

“The bookend minuted reports, the one referenced above and the one in 2002 following the report Tom Lyon sent, are the only significant ones the AC and the member churches can address.” [Second paragraph]

“Once again, while they [MVBC] may be dissatisfied with Tom’s compliance, they gave up the right to pursue him once he left…Even if he had not complied, MVBC was not given the authority to pursue him.” [Fifth paragraph]

“MVBC needs to let this go, at least officially in the context of ARBCA.” [Sixth paragraph]

#23 Letter from Steve Marquedant to MVBC (9/23/2015)

“We will proceed in our normal fashion with the application of CRBC, Hales Corner, for ARBCA membership in Mid-November.” [Second paragraph]

“However the final decision was a unanimous vote of the entire MC.” [Post Script]

#24 Bulletins from When Tom Chantry Preached at CRBC Vista, CA (9/29/2016) & Proof that Pastor Jason Walter Knew about the Allegation of Sexual Molestation Against Tom

On 5/29/2016 Thomas Chantry preached at CRBC in Vista, CA.  Pastor Jason Walter had known about the allegation of sexual molestation against Chantry since late January/early February 2016.  Nobody else at CRBC knew about the allegation.  These documents are relevant because Jason Walter was a member of the Membership Committee that recommended CRBC, WI to the 2016 General Assembly.  They give us additional insight into his mindset and actions regarding Tom Chantry.

Original Document

The bulletin from 5/1/2016 (emailed to the congregation on 4/30/2016) announcing that Thomas Chantry would be the guest preacher on 5/29/2016.

Original Document

This is the page from ARBCA AC Report Part I where it states, “In late January or early February, Mr. Marley informed Jason Walter, a member of the Membership Committee, of the new allegation against Mr. Chantry.”

Original Document

#25 ARBCA Announcement (4/2017)

This is the statement ARBCA released at the 2017 General Assembly. It was given to me by Jim Renihan on 4/30/2017. If you would prefer to read the original document without any critique, please click on the “Original Document” link after the critiqued document. It has been said that the men who wrote this statement simply didn’t know that what they wrote was untrue.  However, many of the men on the Administrative Council responsible for writing this statement had access to information that contradicts this statement.  These men are:

John Giarrizzo: In January 2016 John Giarrizzo was loaned MVBC’s “Red Binder.”  It included everything except for the Level 1 Report.  It contained all the letters from the families and MVBC’s timeline.  All of this was sufficient to disprove most if not all of the “inaccuracies” contained within this document, and they would have been fresh in his mind having viewed them just a year earlier.

Earl Blackburn: As a member of the 2000 AC, he was to receive a copy of the Level 2 Report.  On April 15, 2002 Don Lindblad wrote a special report about the Informal Council in 2000 for him.  It details the events of the Informal Council and describes how the men of the IC believed the children but still protected Tom.

Steve Martin: As a member of the 2000 AC, he was to receive a copy of the Level 2 Report.

Larry Vincent: As a member of the 2000 AC, he was to receive a copy of the Level 2 Report.

David Dykstra: As a member of the 2000 AC, he was to receive a copy of the Level 2 Report.

Additionally, at least three men were members of ARBCA and would have known that the Announcement contained “inaccuracies.”  They are:

Tom Lyon: As the elder who assumed oversight of Tom Chantry, he received the “Complete Report” which contained every piece of documentation (everything from MVBC, letters from the families, etc.).  He also had access to the report from the counselor who saw Tom.

Don Lindblad: He was present when Tom Chantry was interviewed by the Informal Council.  He made a report of it for Earl Blackburn.  He admitted in court to knowing the brutality of the “spankings” described by the children, including that Tom hit the children with objects, that two of the children claimed that he spanked them bare bottomed and that Tom rubbed their bare bottoms.

Rich Jensen: As a member of the Informal Council, he had access to everything.  As a former homicide detective, he should have known full well that he was a mandatory reporter.  He also should have recognized the red flags indicative of molestation. He left ARBCA in 2019.

Original Document

#26 Pre-trial Testimony by Harriet Edson and Connie A. Laver (5/5/2017)

This document is pre-trial testimony given by Harriet Edson and Connie A. Laver (mothers of victims Joseph Edson and Daniel Laver).  Quotes of interest from Daniel Laver’s mother:

Q (SEARS): Okay.  And you didn’t go to the police.  Somebody beat your child so severely that it left bruises and blisters, you say, blisters?

A (C L): Yes.

Q (SEARS): Okay.  And you didn’t go to the police?

A (C L): I should have.

Q (SEARS): And you didn’t go to the police?

A (C L): I should have.  I did not.  I thought we could handle it internally within the church.

Q (SEARS): Okay.

A (C L): We were promised he would never pastor again.

Q (SEARS): Well, that promise is no where in writing, is it?

A (C L): I guess not, but I never saw the final document.  I, to this day, have not seen the final document. [page 35, lines 9-22]


Q (EAZER): Alright, did you see bruises on more than one occasion on your son, ma’am?

A (C L): Yes.

Q (EAZER): All right.  And the last time, in particular, can you tell this court, were they small bruises?

A (C L): No, ma’am.  They went from the top of his buttocks all the way down his thighs accompanied with red, purple and blisters.

Q (EAZER): Were you shocked?

A (C L): Horrified. [page 29, lines 14-23]

#27 Transcript of Don Lindblad’s Telephone Interview (3/21/2018)

This is the transcript of the telephone interview of Don Lindblad by the prosecutor Susan Eazer.  Don Lindblad described how he and the rest of the AC had access to the Level 2 Report and said that the “sealed report” was to remain sealed unless Tom repeated what he had done (which he did in 2004 when a police report resulted from his spanking a child).  Quotes of interest (words in brackets added for clarity):

LINDBLAD: But I did not have the sealed document [“Confidential Report and Recommendations” aka “fuller report”], it was sealed and it was not to be, uhm, revealed, uhm, because of its sensitivity unless Mr. Chantry repeated what he had done in Prescott…[page 32, lines 7-12]

LINDBLAD: …There were, there were three reports, there was the sealed report [“Confidential Report and Recommendations” aka “fuller report”] and if you look at that report it gives counsel and advice to the parents…The other one [“Report, Conclusions and Recommendations” aka “middle level report”] was more public and it wasn’t distributed, and it wasn’t mailed to everybody, uh, uhm, but it was the Administrative Council and – and, uh, and so forth had access to that, I had access to it.  And then there’s the – the report that went out to the churches [“Report of the Informal Council” aka “general report”] in the, uhm, uh, in our, uhm, uhm, uh, in our, uh, regular reporting which was done by email…[page 52, lines 9-12 and 17-23]

#28 Transcript of Day 7 of the First Trial (8/2/2018)

This is a transcript of Day 7 of Tom Chantry’s first trial (8/2/2018).  Some quotes of interest (names of the victims redacted or changed to pseudonyms):

Q (Eazer): After the church council came back and spoke to – we heard that they spoke to the children, some of the parents, other members of the congregation.  Do you remember any of the families being told that Tom Chantry was not going to be pastoring again?

A (Howe): During this process?

Q (Eazer): During or at the end of it.

A (Howe): At the end.  Yes.  I think at the conclusion it was made clear from the council that that would be their recommendation.

Q (Eazer): Do you think the families were assured that the defendant wasn’t going to be a pastor anywhere in the future?

A (Howe): Yes.

Q (Eazer): And did that seem to be something that they wanted assurance for?

A (Howe): Yes. [page 88, lines 1-17]


Q (Eazer): After the church council and this formal investigation was done, were you left with the sense that Tom Chantry wasn’t going to be a pastor anymore?

A (Connie S Laver): Yes. [page 227, lines 8-11]


Q (Eazer): Was it your belief that he wasn’t going to be a pastor anywhere?

A (Owens): Yes.

Q (Eazer): Do you believe that that belief was extended to the parents or they were given some assurances that that wasn’t likely going to happen?

A (Owens): I believe that. [page 257, lines 2-8]

#29 Transcript of Day 8 of the First Trial (8/8/2018)

This is a transcript of Day 8 of Tom Chantry’s first trial (8/8/2018).  Some quotes of interest (names of the victims redacted or changed to pseudonyms):

Q (Sears): Now, I’m really interested in this call you got from a man named John Giarrizzo in this case.  Did you know John before he called you?

A (Marley): Yes.

Q (Sears): And he is connected to Reformed Baptist Churches how?

A (Marley): He pastors a Reformed Baptist Church in Gilbert, Arizona.

Q (Sears): And when he called you in 2012, is that when you think this call was?

A (Marley): That’s my guess.

Q (Sears): So he calls you and the substance of the call is he wants to know if you can help in some sort of reconciliation between Thomas Chantry and Miller Valley Baptist Church to let bygones be bygones; was that his word; is that what he was saying?

A (Marley): I don’t remember him using that phrase but yes, that’s the idea.

Q (Sears): That’s your interpretation of what he was calling you about?

A (Marley): That’s correct.

Q (Sears): Out of the blue he calls you about Tom Chantry; right?

A (Marley): Correct.

Q (Sears): He never talked to you about Tom Chantry before?

A (Marley): Correct. [page 95, lines 10-25 and page 96, lines 1-11]


Q (Sears): And you had your dad try to contact Tom?

A (Marley): Correct.

Q (Sears): How did he do that?

A (Marley): Phone call.

Q (Sears): Did he talk to Tom?

A (Marley): No.

Q (Sears): Okay. When was that?

A (Marley): Fall of 2015.  He finally responded with an e-mail.

Q (Sears): Tom did?

A (Marley): Yes.

Q (Sears): Any follow-up by your father or you to that e-mail?

A (Marley): He expressed that he didn’t want to communicate. [page 135, lines 3-19]

Q (Eazer): Okay, but I guess what I was getting to is were you and your wife assured that he was not going to be pastoring any further?

A (Tyler Walsh): Yes. [page 177, lines 6-9]


Q (Eazer): All right.  Was there much discussion at the time about whether or not anyone would make a report to the police if you recall?

A (Tyler Walsh): There was – basically there was discussion if we did see that we needed to go to the police, that we could, but that they would handle this as a church matter and if we were good with that, that’s how they would like to handle it. [page 177, lines 10-17]

#30 Transcript of Don Lindblad’s Testimony During Tom Chantry’s Trial (8/9/2018 & 8/10/2018)

This is a transcript of testimony by Don Lindblad during Tom Chantry’s trial (8/9/2018 and 8/10/2018).  Quotes of interest (words in brackets added for clarity; names of the victims redacted or changed to pseudonyms):

Q (EAZER): To include that Mark Jones was saying that the defendant made him pull down his pants or take down his pants, bend over, grab his ankles while he spanked him with a handmade paddle he made for just that occasion and said he wanted to see his butt turn red; correct?

A (LINDBLAD): Yes.

Q (EAZER): So you would agree that this wasn’t just about perhaps improper discipline during tutoring; correct, sir?  The allegations were a bit more serious than that?

A (LINDBLAD): Yes. [page 105, lines 2-16]


Q (EAZER): So to be clear you now have said yes, bruises on Daniel came up [in 2000 at the Informal Council], spanking bare bottomed of Mark and rubbing of the bottom came up; correct?

A (LINDBLAD): Correct.

Q (EAZER): I’m not misstating anything; correct?

A (LINDBLAD): Correct.

Q (EAZER): And I think then I asked you and the same thing came up with Wayne Walsh, spanking of objects, spanking with bare bottom and rubbing of bottom; correct? I’m not asking you what the approach was. I’m asking you if these things came up in 2000.

A (LINDBLAD): Correct. [page 63, lines 6-19]


Q (EAZER): All right, and would you agree, sir, that [in 2000 at the Informal Council] the topic of – with Mark Jones was bare bottomed spankings with objects and Tom rubbing Mark’s bottom after these spankings, yes or no, sir?

A (LINDBLAD): That came up. [page 62, lines 14-18]

#31 ARBCA’s AC Part I Report (9/5/2018)

This is our critique of ARBCA’s AC Report I.  It addresses what happened when Tom Chantry’s church was brought into ARBCA.  There are two files, the report itself and the attachments. If you would prefer to read the original documents without any critique, please click on the “Original Document” links after the critiqued documents.

Both AC Part I and Part II Reports were written by an Ad Hoc Committee.  The men on this committee were: STEVE MARQUEDANT (chairman), JEFF MASSEY, Bob Curley, and Dale Crawford.  The Membership Committee being investigated consisted of: STEVE MARQUEDANT, JEFF MASSEY, Jason Walter, David Dykstra, and Larry Vincent. [Email from Jason Walter dated Sept 6, 2018]  Why are two of the men who are being investigated on the committee writing the reports?  How can this be understood as anything other than a conflict of interest?

The men on the 2018/2019 AC who reviewed, edited, and approved the reports were: Brandon Smith (Chairman), Jeff Massey (Vice Chairman), Rob Cosby (Treasurer), Jason Walter (Secretary), Bob Adams, Bob Curley, Dale Crawford, Jack Daniels, Steve Marquedant, and Micah Renihan. Men on the AC who recused themselves: David Dykstra, Al Huber, and Steve Martin. [Email from Jason Walter dated Sept 6, 2018]  Why didn’t Jason Walter, Jeff Massey, and Steve Marquedant recuse themselves since they were members of the MC in question in Report Part I?  How can this be understood as anything other than a conflict of interest?

This is the email that is cited above.  It has been redacted to remove the names and email addresses of the church members it was sent to.  It is the only source I have that states who was on the Ad Hoc Committee and the members of the AC that reviewed, edited, and approved the reports. Why wasn’t this information included in the reports?

AC Report Part I

Original Document

Attachments to AC Report Part I

Original Document

#32 Two Versions of the Same Letter in Attachments to AC Part I

This document contains two versions of the same letter: the first as included in ARBCA’s AC Report Part I (most of it covered), and the second is the original document.  It begs the question, why did the men on the Ad Hoc Committee (Steve Marquedant, Jeff Massey, Bob Curley, and Dale Crawford) cover up (redact) so much of the document when it pertained to the report and didn’t contain any victim names or personal information?  What didn’t they want us to know and why?

Did they not want us to know that Steve Marquedant (and possibly the entire Membership Committee) knew this before the 2016 General Assembly?

Why didn’t they want us to know that a young man from Boston (Mark Jones) contacted Tom Chantry looking for further resolution?  Is it because it confirms that Tom Chantry did not “seek full repentance and the forgiveness of each of the four children and their parents?”  The victim had to seek Tom out multiple times.

Why didn’t they want us to know everything that was in the ARBCA Archives?

Did they not want us to know that the 2000 AC had decided to seal the Level 1 Report “unless Tom is charged with the same or similar sins in the future”…something that happened in 2004 when Tom’s “spanking” of a child resulted in a police report?  Why was Tom given this protection and privilege?

Did they not want us to know that Earl Blackburn had requested that Don Lindblad write a report of what happened at the Informal Council?

Original Document

#33 MVBC Objection to Ad Hoc (9/2018)

This was written in September 2018 by MVBC in response to ARBCA’s AC Report Part I.  MVBC pointed out many errors in the report and stated that they violated the 9th Commandment.  MVBC asked “that a letter of redaction and repentance be sent out to all who received the report.”  To date there has been no public response from any of the men in question (Steve Marquedant, Jeff Massey, Bob Curley, and Dale Crawford).

#34 Letter from Pastor Jon Cochran to ARBCA (9/6/2018) and Portico Church’s Letter of Resignation from ARBCA (3/13/2018)  

This document is a letter written by Portico Church in 2018 and their letter of resignation from ARBCA in 2017.

#35 Victim Impact Letters for Tom Chantry’s Sentencing (10/2018)

These are the Victim Impact letters that the “Walsh” family wrote for the judge when Tom Chantry was sentenced.  The letters are (in this order) from the female child Tom Chantry was convicted of assaulting (“Jane Walsh“), the male child Tom Chantry was convicted of assaulting (“Wayne Walsh“), their father (“Tyler Walsh“), and their mother (“Patty Walsh“).  These names are pseudonyms and match those used in my ARBCA & Timeline of Events document.

#36 ARBCA’s AC Part II Report (10/25/2018)

This is our critique of ARBCA’s Part II Report that covers what happened in 2000 and beyond.  If you would prefer to read the original documents without any critique, please click on the “Original Document” links after the critiqued documents.

“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 Documents’ in the footnotes…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.” [Part II Report page 3, last paragraph]

AC Report Part II

Original Document

Attachments to AC Report Part II.  You’ll notice that there are two ARBCA Announcements in the attachments.  We inserted our copy that we critiqued because we didn’t want to re-do our critique.

Original Document

#37 “Private Documents” left out ARBCA’s AC Part II Report

These are the “Private Documents” the AC left out of the ARBCA AC Report Part II.  We have been able to positively identify 13 of the 16 documents.  The remaining 3 have likely been identified but were not used frequently or specifically enough to be verified.

Each document that has been positively identified will be looked at individually and some of the information pertinent to but not included in AC Part II Report will be noted on the Private Documents Walkthrough page that is linked to below:

Private Documents Walkthrough https://ephesians511.home.blog/private-documents/

#38 Documents Provided to ARBCA but Not Used by the Ad Hoc Committee

These are documents that were either provided to ARBCA through Jason Walter or available in the ARBCA archives but not used by the Ad Hoc Committee (Steve Marquedant, Jeff Massey, Bob Curley, and Dale Crawford).

Why were these documents not used when they contained important details pertinent to both AC Part I Report and AC Part II Report? 

Each document is looked at individually and some of the information pertinent to but not included in AC Part II Report is noted on the page that is linked to below:

Documents Provided to ARBCA but Not Used by the Ad Hoc Committee https://ephesians511.home.blog/documents-provided-to-arbca-but-not-used-by-the-ad-hoc-committee/

#39 ARBCA’s Statement from the 2019 General Assembly (5/9/2019)

Our critique of ARBCA statement made at the 2019 GA.   If you would prefer to read the original document without any critique, please click on the “Original Document” link after the critiqued document.

Original Document

#40 State’s Sentencing Memorandum (7/10/2019)

This document contains quotes of Tom Chantry during phone conversations while in jail.  They give insight into his character.  Tom Chantry’s words are in bold.

“In a recent call with his sister, Defendant states he was illegally convicted and ‘if the judge were anything other than a legal robot he could fix this but he’s not going to.  He’s incapable of being original or having any imagination in how he approaches things and so we are where we are.’ Defendant then goes on to say the system is a charade out here and that ‘all the prosecutors should be hung and all of the judges should be in prison for life.’” [Page 3, lines 7-12]

“When referring to the prosecutor, Defendant told a friend ‘You’ve got to understand, these [witnesses] are being hammered by a prosecutor who is intentionally driving her witnesses into tears.  I mean she was mean at times trying to make witnesses cry on the stand because she knew they didn’t have any evidence to give.  That’s how I was convicted.’” [Page 3, line 17 through page 4, line 2]

#41 Minutes from Tom Chantry’s Sentencing (7/19/2019)

These are the minutes from Tom Chantry’s Sentencing.  This document lists the counts of which he was convicted and confirms that he was sentenced to 24 years for each count, that the sentences are to be served concurrently, and that he will be given credit for 404 days served prior to sentencing.  

#42 Transcript of Tom Chantry’s Sentencing (7/19/2019)

This is the transcript from Tom Chantry’s sentencing on 7/19/2019.  Some quotes of interest; all are Judge Astrowsky addressing Tom Chantry (names of the victims redacted or changed to pseudonyms):

“First, the defendant is correct when he stated that the sentence won’t fix things.  Nothing that the Court does today is going to undo the harm to the Jones family or the Walsh family. Nothing that the Court does today is going to make anything better, whatever sentence the Court imposes today is shy of the duration, length and weight of the impact upon those affected by the events that occurred. So I agree with that.” [Page 66, lines 21-25 to page 67, lines 1-3]

“When the defendant indicated in his allocution that he’s the only person that knows the truth, that is inaccurate, because as to their particular events that occurred to them, Jane, Wayne and Mark know the truth. When the defendant said that he is alone and defenseless, that is not accurate. He’s represented. He is alone in terms of he will be the one that will be serving the sentence, but who actually was alone and defenseless was Mark Jones. When Mark Jones was being abused by the defendant, he was alone and he was a child and he was defenseless.” [Page 67, lines 4-14]

“The church council was ill-equipped to do this type of investigation. They should have involved the police at that time, as should have others. Unfortunately, that didn’t occur.” [Page 68, lines 2-5]

“When you consider Mark Jones’s testimony, it is not unusual when someone’s testifying, whether it be 2018 or 2019, about events that occurred in the mid nineties to not be a hundred percent accurate on the fringes or the details. The gravamen of what happened was consistent and adds to Mark Jones’s credibility from the Court’s point of view.” [Page 69, lines 4-10]

“Well, we have to go a little bit deeper than that, because why did Mark lash out at his brother and/or his parents? It’s because of you. It’s because of what you did. I am not trying to make the Jones family feel bad. They already do. I am not going to talk about what they should or shouldn’t have done. They understand that and they’re dealing with it right now and will deal with it perhaps for the rest of their lives. But Mark has behaved in the way he has behaved not because he’s a bad person or a jerk or bad brother or bad son. It’s because of you and what you did.” [Page 69, lines 23-25 to page 70, lines 1-8]

“One of the things that struck me during Mark Jones’s testimony is that even though we had an adult testifying on the stand, that wasn’t an adult testifying. That was — he was back as a child, talking as a child. I think that was pretty clear and remarkable. So emotional harm to the victim.” [Page 73, lines 8-13]

“The defendant took advantage of his position of trust and authority. He used his role as pastor – he knew that Mark came from a strict religious family — to convince the child that he deserved the abuse; it was God’s will and the child would suffer eternally if he resisted and/or told anyone. The defendant manipulated the victim’s parents so that he could be alone with the child.” [Page 73, lines 8-15]

The transcript is 76 pages, but there is a lot of white-space so it doesn’t take that long to read.  Here is a table of contents for the transcript:

  1. Lois Jones: page 9, line 22 to page 10 line 25
  2. Tracy Jones: page 11, line 5 to page 12 line 15
  3. Luke Jones: page 12, line 19 to page 13, line 18
  4. Bob Selph: page 14, line 17 to page 15, line 21
  5. Al Huber: page 16, line 7 to page 20, line 10
  6. Karen Chantry: page 20, line 16, to page 22, line 10
  7. Attorney Eazer: page 22, line 15 to page 28, line 18
  8. Tom Chantry: page 25, line 5 to page 55, line 15
  9. Attorney Eazer: page 55, line 24 to page 58, line 10
  10. Attorney Stevens: page 58, line 15 to page 66, line 18
  11. Judge Astrowsky: page 66, line 19 to page 76, line 18

#43 ARBCA Constitution Section on Termination of Membership

ARBCA has the authority to terminate the membership of churches based on the actions of a church or its officers.  So, why doesn’t ARBCA require the men (officers in their churches) who have been implicated by the currently available documentation to answer hard questions and terminate membership of their church if they refuse or their behavior is found to be unrighteous?  Here is an excerpt from ARBCA’s Constitution that may explain why.  Basically, everything is under the control of the AC and won’t go to the member churches unless “the council agrees unanimously that the response of said church is inadequate” or the member church doesn’t respond.  What happens when the person/persons in question are members of the AC?  What happens when (as in 2000/2001) it’s the entire AC?

#44 First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA Resignation Letter (9/27/2019)

This document is the resignation letter that First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA posted on their website (http://fbcclintonla.com/about-arbca.html or https://web.archive.org/web/20200426203323/http://fbcclintonla.com/about-arbca.html).  It contains their list of charges and Timeline of Actions Taken by FBC to Address ARBCA’s Mishandling of the Tom Chantry Matter.

Here is their list of charges with men in leadership during the time those charges took place:

“1. In 2000 and beyond, ARBCA’s officials failed to protect the children abused by Tom Chantry and failed to aid them in obtaining the justice due to them (Ps 103:6). In 2019, ARBCA’s GA failed to reach out to those abused by Tom Chantry, to acknowledge the wrongdoing of the ARBCA council, to ask forgiveness from the victims, and to seek to make amends in any way possible (2 Sam 21:3; Lk 19:8).”

2019 GA Delegates: Not named by ARBCA

“2. Recently discovered documents in July of 2019 prove that ARBCA’s 2000 Informal Council knew of Tom Chantry’s child abuse and failed to report it to law enforcement (Rom 13:1). This failure to report to the authorities had the effect of exposing more children to danger and denying justice to Chantry’s victims (Ps 82:3-4; Is 1:17).”

“3. ARBCA’s 2000 Informal Council failed to recommend that Miller Valley Baptist Church discipline Tom Chantry, which is what the Scriptures require (Matt 18:15-20), and instead resorted to a biased and unbiblical program of restoration so that Chantry’s ministry could be preserved (1 Tim 5:20-21).”

“4. The formation of the 2000 ARBCA Informal Council by Walt Chantry, Bob Selph, and ARBCA’s 2000 Administrative Council was both unbiblical and contrary to ARBCA’s confession of faith, which does not permit “informal councils” (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22-25; 2LCF 26.15).”

“5. The allowance of “sealed reports” facilitated the cover-up of a crime. Sealed reports from an ARBCA council are a violation of Scripture and ARBCA’s confession of faith, which requires that all advice given by church councils “be reported to all the churches” (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22-25; 2LCF 26.15).”

Informal Council Members: Mike McKnight, Tedd Tripp, and Rich Jensen

2000/2001 AC Members: Bob Selph, Larry Vincent, Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad, John Giarrizzo, David Dykstra, Dale Smith, Mike McKnight, Bruce Kronheim, Tom Green, Jamie Howell, and Tom Lutz. [Photograph]

2001/2002 AC Members: Bob Selph, Tedd Tripp, Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin, Don Lindblad, John Giarrizzo, David Dykstra, Dale Smith, Mike McKnight, Bruce Kronheim, Tom Green, Jamie Howell, and Tom Lutz. [Photograph]

“6. ARBCA’s 2016 Administrative Council wrongly recommended Christ Reformed Baptist Church of Hales Corners, WI, the church where Tom Chantry was a pastor, for membership in ARBCA (Jas 2:9). But the AC withheld crucial facts from the General Assembly. They wrongly led the General Assembly to vote in favor of CRBC’s membership without sufficient knowledge (Col 3:9), though they knew Tom Chantry was under investigation for child molestation and that Miller Valley Baptist Church of Prescott, AZ objected to CRBC’s membership (Prov 6:19).”

2015/2016 Membership Committee Members: Steve Marquedant (Chairman until around 9/2015), Jeff Massey (Chairman from around 9/2015), Larry Vincent, David Dykstra, and Jason Walter. [Attachments for Part I, attachment 6]

2015/2016 AC Members: John Giarrizzo (Coordinator), Douglas VanderMuelen (Chairman), Ron Baines (Vice Chairman), Brandon Smith (Secretary), Jeff Oliver (Treasurer), Steve Marquedant, Fred Pugh. [Spring 2015 ARBCA Update]  Rob Cosby added by July 2015 [AC Report Part 1, pg. 5]  Note: According to the 3/1/2016 AC Council Meeting Minutes, Douglas VanderMuelen and Jeff Oliver resigned and the AC members were: Ron Baines (Chairman), Rob Cosby, Robert Curley, John Giarrizzo (Interim Coordinator), Steve Martin, Jeff Massey, Brandon Smith, and Larry Vincent.  Glenn Woods (deacon of Heritage Baptist in Mansfield, TX) was made Treasurer. [Attachments for Part I, attachment 16]  Around Sept 2015 Steve Marquedant term limited off of the AC and Jeff Massey joined the AC [Attachments for Part I, attachment 6]  Note: Steve Martin was elected as new Coordinator in “Late-February or Early-March” (it must have happened after Mar 1 as the previously quoted notes from 3/1/2016 list John Giarrizzo as Interim Coordinator).  Jeff Oliver resigned in January 2016.

“7. ARBCA’s current failure to make an open and truthful statement denouncing these past wrongs has been a violation of the 9th commandment (Ex 20:16), bearing false witness to the churches of the Lord Jesus and to the watching world. None of the essential facts are in dispute. The problem is that ARBCA will not condemn ARBCA’s past violations of Scripture and its own confession of faith, which led to the victimization of children and others.”

“8. We believe the failure to tell the truth about the above matters, to condemn past wrongs, and to try to make things right with all wronged parties is schismatic, and breaks covenant with the churches of the association, which is our ground of withdrawal (Rom 16:17).”

Members of the Ad Hoc Committee that drafted AC Reports Part I and Part II: Steve Marquedant (Chairman), Bob Curley, Dale Crawford, and Jeff Massey. [Email from Jason Walter dated Sept 6, 2018 cited above in item #31]

Members of the 2018/2019 AC that reviewed, edited, and approved the reports: Brandon Smith (Chairman), Jeff Massey (Vice Chairman), Rob Cosby (Treasurer), Jason Walter (Secretary), Bob Adams, Bob Curley, Dale Crawford, Jack Daniels, Steve Marquedant, and Micah Renihan. [Email from Jason Walter dated Sept 6, 2018 cited above in item #31]

2019/2020 AC Members: Jeff Massey (Chairman), Matt Vincent (Vice Chairman), Jason Walter (Secretary, Bob Adams (Treasurer), Fred Pugh (Coordinator), Jason Montgomery, David Shiflet, and Bob Curley. [Spring 2019 ARBCA Update for all but Bob Curley; FBC Clinton Resignation page 4, paragraph 3 for Bob Curley]

#45 STATE v. CHANTRY Decision of the Court (2/25/2021)

The AZ Court of Appeals reversed Thomas Chantry’s convictions and sentences for four counts of child molestation and remanded the matter for a new trial because the convictions were obtained with the use of impermissible “other act” evidence.  Please note that this does not reverse the convictions from Thomas Chantry’s first trial.

Here are two of the most relevant quotes, but I encourage you to read the entire document:

“¶1 Thomas Jonathan Chantry appeals his convictions and sentences for four counts of child molestation. Because Chantry’s convictions were obtained with the use of impermissible ‘other act’ evidence, we reverse and remand the matter for a new trial.”

“¶27 We agree with Chantry that the superior court abused its discretion by admitting, under Rule 404(b), evidence of Chantry’s excessive, sometimes bare bottomed, spankings of J.W., W.W., and D.L. After prohibiting the State from offering the other-act evidence to show Chantry had an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the charged crimes, the court should not have permitted the State “to raise this same inference under the rubric of ‘intent.’” State v. Ives, 187 Ariz. 102, 110 (1996).”

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-unpublished/2021/1-ca-cr-19-0427.html

#46 STATE v. CHANTRY Appellate Case Information (1/4/2022)

The AZ Supreme Court Denied the Prosecutor’s Petition for Review of Tom Chantry’s Case.  It is my understanding that the case will now go back to the lower court for a new trial.  If the victim is unable to go through a third trial, I think that will be the end of the case and Tom Chantry will be released.  Please note that verdict by the AZ Court of Appeals and the AZ Supreme Court’s denial of the Petition for Review are rulings regarding the trial and not the innocence or guilt of Tom Chantry.  Also, neither affect the convictions from Tom Chantry’s first trial.

The case # in the Court of Appeals is 1 CA-CR 190427.  It can be viewed here (scroll to State v. Chantry): http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/stage_1CA_CR_caption.htm or here (launches document): http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/1CA/CR/CR190427.PDF

You can check Tom Chantry’s status on the Inmate Datasearch by searching for his Inmate Number (338181) or name. https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/inmate-datasearch

#47 STATE v. CHANTRY Mandate (2/2/2022)

The AZ Supreme Court Denied the Prosecutor’s Petition for Review of Tom Chantry’s Case, so the mandate from the AZ Court of Appeals was upheld and published.  The AZ Court of Appeals reversed Thomas Chantry’s convictions and sentences for four counts of child molestation and remanded the matter for a new trial because the convictions were obtained with the use of impermissible “other act” evidence.  Please note that this does not reverse the convictions from Thomas Chantry’s first trial.

Here are two of the most relevant quotes, but I encourage you to read the entire document:

“¶1 Thomas Jonathan Chantry appeals his convictions and sentences for four counts of child molestation. Because Chantry’s convictions were obtained with the use of impermissible ‘other act’ evidence, we reverse and remand the matter for a new trial.”

“¶27 We agree with Chantry that the superior court abused its discretion by admitting, under Rule 404(b), evidence of Chantry’s excessive, sometimes bare bottomed, spankings of J.W., W.W., and D.L. After prohibiting the State from offering the other-act evidence to show Chantry had an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the charged crimes, the court should not have permitted the State “to raise this same inference under the rubric of ‘intent.’” State v. Ives, 187 Ariz. 102, 110 (1996).”

#48 STATE v. CHANTRY Order Reassignment of Judge (2/3/2022)

IT IS ORDERED reassigning this matter to the Honorable Krista M. Carman, Division 4 for all further proceedings.”

#49 STATE v. CHANTRY Order Setting Status Conference/Initial Appearance (2/3/2022)

IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference/Initial Appearance in this matter on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:00a.m. before the Honorable Krista M. Carman, Division 4, Courtroom 400, Prescott Judicial District, 120 S. Cortez Street, Prescott, Arizona.”

IT IS ORDERED that the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office transport Thomas Chantry, DOC #338181, from the Department of Corrections, ASPC Eyman- Meadows Unit, Florence, Arizona, to the Yavapai County Superior Court for a Status Conference/Initial Appearance on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:00a.m. before the Honorable Krista M. Carman, Division 4, Courtroom 400, Prescott Judicial District, 120 S. Cortez Street, Prescott, Arizona.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Yavapai County Sheriff shall retain custody of the Defendant until the conclusion of the proceedings in this matter.”

#50 Order Under Advisement Ruling (3/1/2022)

This is the order setting the conditions for Tom Chantry’s release prior to the third trial.  It is a short document, so I have included most of it in the quote below.

“THE COURT FINDS:

  1. The State has proven that there is proof evident, presumption great that the Defendant is guilty of the charges pursuant to A.R.S § 13-3961 and Ariz R. Crim P. 7.2(b)(2)(A).
  2. The State has not met its burden under A.R.S § 13-3961(D) and Rule 7.2(b)(2)(B) and 7.2(b)(3) that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant poses a substantial danger to the victim, any other person or the community considering the factors enumerated in Rule 7.2(b)(3).
  3. The State has failed to prove that there are no combinations of release conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of an individual or the community per Rule 7.2(b)(2)(C).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s release conditions shall be modified as follows:

  1. Bond is set at $250,000 cash or secured.
  2. Defendant is not to apply for a passport.
  3. If Defendant posts bond, he shall be released to Pretrial Services.  He must report to Pretrial Services upon release; no later than 48 hours after release.
  4. Defendant may reside in Illinois pending trial but must provide his residential address to Pretrial Services.
  5. Defendant shall not have any contact with any minors under the age of 15, with the exception that he may have supervised contact with his children.
  6. Defendant shall not be within 100 yards of a school or educational facility, daycare or day camp facility.
  7. Defendant must check-in weekly with Pretrial Services from a designated landline.
  8. Defendant shall have no contact with victims, witnesses, or arresting officers.”

#51 Order of Release (3/3/2022)

This is the order notifying the Court that bond has been posted, ordering Tom Chantry’s release prior to the third trial, and confirms a Scheduling Conference for 3/4/2022.  It is a short document, so I have included the text in the quote below.

“The Court has been advised by the Clerk of the Court that a cash/surety bond in the amount of $250,000.00 has been posted at the Clerk’s Office this date on the Defendant’s behalf.  Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED releasing the Defendant from custody.

The court confirms the Scheduling Conference set for Friday, March 4, 2022 at 4:30p.m. in Division 4.”

#52 Minute Entry Scheduling Conference (3/4/2022)

This is the Minute Entry for the Scheduling Conference for Tom Chanty’s third trial for four counts of molestation.  It is a short document so I have included much of the text in the quotes below, but I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

Trial 8 days allotted May 10-13, 2022 and May 17-20, 2022, in Div. 4.”

“Counsel for State advises the Court that she may be consulting with an expert on paraphilia and requests a two-week (eight day) Trial setting.  Counsel for State notes she is wanting to invoke the speedy trial rights given how long this matter has been ongoing.”

“Defense Counsel advises the Court the Defendant is willing to waive some time as needed and requests a full day Motions Hearing.”

“The Court notes it will tentatively hold April 15, 2022 for the Evidentiary Hearing regarding Motions which shall be confirmed by separate Minute Entry.”

#53 Petition: To Discharge Probation (3/4/2022)

This is a petition to discharge probation for the two counts Aggravated Assault Tom Chantry was found guilty of on October 19, 2018.  I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

“The defendant was found guilty of two counts Aggravated Assault, both class 6 felonies, on October 19, 2018…The defendant’s full term of probation expired in this case on October 17, 2021.”

#54 Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (5/2/2022)

This is the petition to dismiss the case without prejudice.  “Without prejudice” means that it is possible for the case to be re-filed at a later point before the statute of limitations expires.  I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

“The victim in this case is unwilling/unable to provide testimony at the present time and the State does not wish to further traumatize him by forcing him to testify.”

#55 Miscellaneous Attachments (5/2/2022)

This is the victim’s statement that was attached to the Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice.  I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

“I stand by all of my previous statements and testimony and reaffirm that he is guilty of everything of which I have accused him.  I sincerely hope that Chantry is one day brought to justice and that no other child has to suffer at his hand the way that I have suffered.  However, my personal situation has now changed, and I do not wish to revisit this time in my life or relive these experiences again.”

#56 Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice (5/2/2022)

This a petition to discharge probation for the two counts Aggravated Assault Tom Chantry was found guilty of on October 19, 2018.  I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing the above captioned case without prejudice.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s