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?
III. 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 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 commentary.
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.