Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • ARBCA 2000 Confidential/Sealed Report

    Загружено:

    Todd Wilhelm
    2K просмотров5 страниц
    This is what is referred to as the Level 1 Report. This is the Confidential/Sealed Report written by the 3-man ARBCA Informal Council. The only men to have copies of this initially were Tedd Tripp, Mike McKnight, Richard Jensen (the 3 members of the ARBCA Informal Council), Bob Selph (ARBCA Coordinator), Tom Lyon (Pastor of Providence Reformed Baptist Church in University City, WA - the church Tom Chantry attended for "rehabilitation") Tom Chantry and Walter Chantry. Pastor Don Lindblad, Tom Chantry's close friend and "advocate" also received a copy at some later date. It raises the question, "Did Thomas Chantry use this method of punishment for his own pleasure?"

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    This is what is referred to as the Level 1 Report. This is the Confidential/Sealed Report written by the 3-man ARBCA Informal Council. The only men to have copies of this initially were Tedd Tripp, Mike McKnight, Richard Jensen (the 3 members of the ARBCA Informal Council), Bob Selph (ARBCA Coordinator), Tom Lyon (Pastor of Providence Reformed Baptist Church in University City, WA - the church Tom Chantry attended for "rehabilitation") Tom Chantry and Walter Chantry. Pastor Don Lindblad, Tom Chantry's close friend and "advocate" also received a copy at some later date. It raises the question, "Did Thomas Chantry use this method of punishment for his own pleasure?"

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    2K просмотров5 страниц

    ARBCA 2000 Confidential/Sealed Report

    Загружено:

    Todd Wilhelm
    This is what is referred to as the Level 1 Report. This is the Confidential/Sealed Report written by the 3-man ARBCA Informal Council. The only men to have copies of this initially were Tedd Tripp, Mike McKnight, Richard Jensen (the 3 members of the ARBCA Informal Council), Bob Selph (ARBCA Coordinator), Tom Lyon (Pastor of Providence Reformed Baptist Church in University City, WA - the church Tom Chantry attended for "rehabilitation") Tom Chantry and Walter Chantry. Pastor Don Lindblad, Tom Chantry's close friend and "advocate" also received a copy at some later date. It raises the question, "Did Thomas Chantry use this method of punishment for his own pleasure?"

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 5
    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 meke further recommendations to people who have been involved inthis matter, we make the following: 1. PROCEDURE: ‘The members of the Informal Council met in Phoenix, Arizona, at approximately 12:00 noon on December 13, 2000. Following a brief lunch, the Informal Council met with the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church at the Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Phoenix. The Informal Council then met with Tom Chantry and Don Lindblad at the Best Western Motel on Bell ‘Avenue, Phoenix. At approximately 5:20 p.m. the Informal Council met with the family and 15 year old ‘au: ‘the Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Phoenix. The Informe Council then traveled to Prescott, Arizona, and met with the@ family including QI age 9, and Jage 11, at the Howe residence. The evening concluded with a meeting with the ily and CTD ace 12. On Thursday, December 14, 2000, the Informal Council traveled to Phoenix and during, the late moming and afternoon conducted a series of meetings with Thomas Chantry and Don Lindblad at the Best Westem Motel. They concluded with a tentative agreement regarding certain recommendations to resolve the outstanding issues between the parties. The Informal Council returned to Prescott and met with Elders, Rich Howe and Eric Owens, who also tentatively agreed to the outline of the recommendations suggested by the Informal Council. ‘On Friday, December 15, 2000, the Informal Council wrote a report and its recommendations, Friday afterioon a meeting was held with Tom Chantry and Don Lindblad in restaurant near Prescott Valley to finalize the provisions of the conclusions and recommendations. In the evening a meeting was held between the Informal Council and the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church in which they also finalized and approved the provisions and recommendations of the Informal Council. Later that evening, a series of ‘meetings were held with some families from the Miller Valley Baptist Church who sought to ‘meet with the Informal Council. On Saturday morning, December 16, 2000, the Informal Council, the Elders of Miller ‘Valley Baptist Church, Thomas Chantry, and Don Lindblad held a final meeting at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church in order to sign the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Informal Council. ‘There was a reading of Psalm 139 v. 1-10 and a period of prayer. ‘THE BASIS OF OUR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ‘With one mind, the members of this Informal Council found the interviews with each of the children to be very helpful. Each of the children made very credible answers to our questions. Each child was interviewed with the permission of the child's parents. The interviews of cach child took place outside the hearing ofthe parents and cach one was interviewed alone. 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. They felt anger directed toward their parents for not believing them soon enough to protect them from the punishments inflicted by Pastor Thomas Chantry. The parents reflected to the Informal Council both their love and admiration for Thomas Chantry as well as their gult and shock regarding his ‘treatment of their children. All members ofthe Informal Couneil were deeply moved by the words and the injured expressions ofthe children. We do not believe that they had been influenced by parents, other adults, elders, or even one another, They did not enjoy talking about their experiences with Pastor Chantry. During the meetings with Thomas Chantry held Thursday, December 14, 2000, in Phoenix, he did mention spanking a fifth child, Tom Chantry identified the child as GQ, the grandson of a member of the church named QE. Tom Chantry indicated that requested that he spank her grandson for his unruliness. The Informal Council did not have access to either Jor her grandson. The church secretary, Carolyn A. Ladner, remembered that Tom Chantry "stated" that he volunteered to spank the grandson of > with a belt. The members of the Informal Council found it very troubling that a pastor would even consider spanking @ child who is in the temporary custody of a grandparent. ‘The members of the Informal Council believe that Thomas Chantry was remorseful to a degree for the events which led to his resignation. However, Thomas Chantry could not satisfactorily explain to the members of this Informal Council reasons for re pattern of| tutoring and punishment after it had been discovered and had ended with \in November of 1995. Tom Chantry did admit to inappropriate spanking of ell four children. Some ofthe spankings involved the use of one or more paddles which Thomas Chantry obtained for his use during the tutorial sessions with these children. ‘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 concems 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 bebavior to be very serious. Taken in its entirety, the question must be raised, did ‘Thomas Chantry use this method of punishment for his own pleasure? In our meeting on Friday, December 15, 2000, Thomas Chantry expressed disappointment with the Council at not giving him the opportunity to express all of his concerns. Quite the contrary, this Informal Council carefully considered the strongly held concems of ‘Thomas Chantry that the Miller Valley Elders had acted improperly with regerd to his ministry 2 ‘and also in regard to these specific incidents of spanking four children of the church. These concems were carefully weighed by the members ofthe Informal Council. Many of these issues could have some merit, but their degree of merit was overwhelmed by the sin of Thomas Chantry ‘and the damage caused by that sin to the families ofthe Miller Valley Baptist Church. For the sake of both parties, the Informal Council sought and obtained a final resolution of these matters between the parties. I. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 ‘To the Eiders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church: a. When the physical discipline by Tom Chantry was discovered in November of 1995 by the Elders, a more extensive investigation could have disclosed the serious nature of QED punishments by the Pastor, Tom Chantry. b. The Elders of the Miller Velley Baptist Church pursuant to its Constitution, Article VIII, were to recommend to the congregation that a teaching Elder be removed from his office. The procedure adopted by the Elders on November 6, 2000, appears to violate this stated Constitutional procedure. In the future, careful consideration of following the church Constitution should be considered by the Elders. ©. Based uponall the circumstances of the cases of inappropriate discipline by Thomas Chantry, the Elders should have removed him from the position of Elder in the ministry of the Miller Valley Baptist Church until a more complete investigation of the facts had been prepared by the Elders in order to make a complete recommendation to the congregation. 4. The Elders should not have instituted church discipline without informing Thomas Chantry of the discipline. ©. The Informal Council recommends that in addition to personal ‘counseling with the individual families, that a church wide Bible study on the topic of forgiveness would be beneficial. We suggest working through From Forgiven to Forgiving, by Jay E. Adams during the Sunday School hour. To Robert Selph, Coordinator of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America: ‘As a former Pastor of the Miller Valley Baptist Church with strong ties to the Elders and members of the congregation, Bob Selph must be circumspect in his current position as Coordinator of ARBCA. In matters of contention between a Pastor and his, Elders, communication must be maintained with both parties by the Coordinator of ARBCA. 3. To Walter Pennsylvani: antry, Senior Pastor of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, It is recommended by this Joformal Council that Pastor Walter Chantry seek reconciliation with the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church. Those Elders erred by attempting to maintain Thomas Chantry in the ministry inthe face of sin which caused serious damage to its congregation. Portions of the letter dated November 9, 2000, to the Elders of the Miller Valley Baptist Church by Pastor Walter Chantry may have been excessively harsh in light of the serious nature of the matter facing the Elders et Miller Valley Baptist Church 4, Recommendations to the families of the children: (Gee attached 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. (See statement of Carolyn Ann Ladner, Secretary of Thomas Chantry, and Aunt of QD age 12.) ‘Those 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 Millet 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 withthe 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 ofthe Informal Council have not addressed the issue of permanent

    Вам также может понравиться