An Explanation of the ARBCA Informal Council

conducted for the Miller Valley Baptist Church (Prescott, AZ)

and Thomas Chantry in December of 2000

By this time you have probably heard of the verdict convicting a former Reformed Baptist pastor, Tom
Chantry, on charges of child abuse. You may also have heard the accusations of a cover-up by the
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America in this case. Several people have asked about the
details of this situation and have suggested it would be helpful to hear an account of what happened from
someone directly involved. There are several public blogs that have investigated and reported many of the
facts of the case, but there has also been a lot of conjecture, speculation, and misinformation.
I do think I can speak to what actually happened since I was serving as the Coordinator for the ARBCA at
the time. I am the one who organized the Council that went to Prescott and I set up the logistics for its
functioning while it was there. I was in contact with the Council to some degree while they were there,
and I have had in my possession a complete set of reports from the time the Council finished its work.
Not only was I the ARBCA Coordinator at the time, but I was the former pastor of this very church in
Prescott for 17 years. I know and love the people who were in that church with all my heart.
I will testify to this: While we look back with clearer vision of how things could have been handled in a
better way, I believe that the men on that Council acted in good faith and good will toward both the
children and Tom, with no intent to cover-up a crime or in any way to cover for Tom Chantry.
Here is an account of what happened:

• Tom Chantry followed my 17-year ministry as pastor of Miller Valley Baptist Church in Prescott,
Arizona, and did so in the years 1995-2000. Shortly after Tom arrived, there was an early accusation of
his spanking a child in the church. He was admonished by the elders and told not to do it again.
However, a couple of years later, several more accusations were made of Tom spanking children in
especially harsh ways and without parental permission. After being confronted and censured by the
Miller Valley elders, Tom abruptly resigned and left the area, moving to Tacoma, WA.

• Subsequently, Walter Chantry (pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, PA and Tom’s father)
wrote a letter to the Miller Valley elders, accusing them of mistreating his son. A dispute arose between
them. Walt approached me, as I was serving as Coordinator of ARBCA, and demanded that I send a
Council to investigate and mediate the situation. I contacted the MVBC elders and they agreed that a
Council would be helpful. I then contacted the ARBCA Administrative Council and the AC appointed a
three-man committee to travel to Arizona and to meet with the parties involved. The three men
appointed were actually agreed upon by both Chantry and the MVBC elders out of a field of fifteen
possible men.

• Two contextual issues are very important to note here:

1) The Miller Valley Baptist Church requested the assistance of their association of churches in the
difficult problems they were experiencing as a church. It is crucial to realize that such a council
of a Baptist association, by its very nature, does not function like its counterpart in a church
denomination would function. The council had absolutely no authority over this member church.
Their job was simply to investigate the problems, advise the parties within that church with
recommendations, and to appropriately report within the association. The council members went
purely as guests who were there to provide counsel to the church. Anyone laboring under the
false notion that the association has control over the local church, its activities, its officers, or its
people, is going to be confused as to why the council functioned in the limited way it did. It is a

1
 matter of the way in which Baptists understand the doctrine of the church from the Scriptures.
The Council was concerned not to overstep its bounds.
2) The original reason for the council was to mediate the dispute between the MVBC elders and
Tom Chantry over the elders’ charging him with pastoral authoritarianism and harshness. The
Miller Valley Church had already investigated the spankings, and all the parties involved knew all
the accusations and facts presented at the time. The Council was traveling to the church several
months and even years after the events had happened. Their goal was to determine the credibility
of the charges, to examine the actions taken by the MVBC elders, and to make recommendations
to all the parties of the dispute. David Dykstra, who was the chairman of the ARBCA
Membership Committee, wrote a letter to the Council stating that their “goals should be to: (1)
Find out the facts through careful interviews; (2) Make recommendations to the parties involved;
and (3) Summarize your findings and recommendations in a written document you all can sign.”

• As has been reported, the Committee included Tedd Tripp (pastor of Grace Fellowship Church -
Hazleton, PA), Mike McKnight (a lawyer, and elder of Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, Pa), and Rich
Jensen (a retired police detective and pastor of Hope Reformed Baptist Church on Long Island, NY).
These three men held no paid positions in the Association, and were not financially remunerated for
their services on this Council. Each of them was either a pastor or an elder in their own local church
and agreed to serve out of love and care for their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The elders and
people of MVBC at the time expressed thankfulness for their care and service.

• In December of 2000, the Council met with Tom Chantry and Don Lindblad (pastor of Trinity Reformed
Baptist Church in Kirkland, Wash, and Tom’s advocate). The accusations were that Tom had mistreated
the members of MVBC, acted insubordinately to the MVBC elders, had sinned against these children and
their families, and that Walter Chantry had acted inappropriately in his allegations against the elders in a
letter. It should be stated that the children did not testify of any sexual abuse in 2000. Apart from those
more recent accusations, the testimonies of the 4 children and their parents in the 2018 trial were
consistent with what they had reported 18 years before.

• As has been reported, the Council did not report the case to the police. They did not believe that was their
place given the assignment they were there to fulfill. They did not have any facts that the families and
church didn’t already have. They were coming months after the fact. They did speak to the families about
their options of going to the police, assured them that the option was still available, but ultimately left it
to the parent’s discretion.

• After their trip was over, the Council wrote three levels of reports, as they had been instructed. As in
most church cases, there were degrees of information that are given out as needed to protect all parties
involved. It is vital to understand that there was no “sealed document” that was kept from the families
of Miller Valley. That very erroneous speculation became a widespread assumption. Here is a
description of the Council’s three levels of reports.
1) They wrote a Confidential Report sent out in a packet intended for the original parties of the
mediation. This report, one of a number of stapled papers in this packet, included their conclusions
and made specific, personal recommendations and admonitions: recommendations were given to
the MVBC elders, and to the elders of the church who would assume oversight over Tom Chantry
(Pastor Tom Lyon, PRBC, Tacoma, WA). An admonition was addressed to me, Robert Selph: As a
former Pastor of 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, as
there were concerns that I might be partial toward the church and the children in my involvements;
and there was an admonition addressed to Walt Chantry to “seek reconciliation” with the MVBC
2
 elders over his harsh letter. Also in the complete packet, the Council made a separate list of
recommendations for the families of the children. This list was separate because of the personal
nature of the recommendations. The parents did receive that paper. Note this: The confidential
paper in the packet does not address Tom Chantry personally; it addresses all other parties with
further instruction as to how to relate to and deal with Tom. The Council was convinced Tom had
done serious wrong, they had questions about his repentance, and they addressed the spiritual work
that would be needed in his oversight. Note again: Despite what has been speculated in public
blogs, there was no intention to keep any information from the families. The parents and the elders
had all the information the Council had at the time regarding the abuses of the children. The
confidential report would have given them nothing they did not already know, even if it was present
in the Miller Valley packet. Furthermore, my copy of this paper has been in my file all these years,
and I would certainly not put any part of it on the Internet, as some have reportedly surmised.
2) 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. The MVBC elders
did receive this report.
3) Also, a brief half-page report was sent to all ARBCA member churches to let them know the
Council had accomplished its work in Prescott and the working out of things was in process.

• There is one mystery that no one has yet been able to figure out—that the MVBC elders do not have a
record or memory of ever having received the five-page confidential level report in the packet mailed to
them from the Council. It was certainly intended for them as they are addressed in it. Mike McKnight, as a
member of the Council, sent out copies of the complete packet of reports intended for 9 parties: the three
members of the Council, Tom Chantry, the MVBC elders, Bob Selph, Walt Chantry, the ARBCA church
where Tom was moving, and the Counselor used by Tom Chantry. The packet included all the reports,
transcripts of testimonies from Tom Chantry, the families, and one of the children, the letters that had
been exchanged between MVBC and Walt Chantry, and a timeline of events. Why did the MVBC elders
never receive the Confidential Report in their packet? We simply do not know. Mike McKnight has
records that show that complete packets were sent out. Was it a clerical error in packing the envelopes
from where they were sent? We don’t know. Office records show all the complete packets were sent out.
Was it mysteriously taken by someone or inadvertently dropped out of the packet during those 18 years?
No evidence of that. Whatever the case, it was certainly not the intent of the Council that anything would
be kept from the Miller Valley Baptist Church, but sadly it has created some legitimate confusion.

• There has also been speculation concerning the confidential packet that I have had in my possession since
the Council finished its work in 2000. When I left my ARBCA Coordinator position in November of
2007, I took my Prescott Council packet with me. Did I “steal” it from the ARBCA office? Was I a part
of a cover up that kept “sealed documents” from being exposed? The answer to these questions is “No;”
I took that packet with me when I ceased to be employed by ARBCA because I considered that packet of
reports my own personal property. It was given to me. It had my name on it. It was addressed to
me. The cover letter inside starts with “Dear Bob,…” At no time was it referred to as ARBCA’s official
document. I was addressed in the confidential document as is noted above in this paper. It was as much
mine as those packets that were identical to it were the property of the other 8 parties who received
theirs. The ARBCA Administrative Council minutes of January 4, 2001, specifically speak of this “much
fuller report to be given only to nine individuals involved.” I was one of those individuals. It was never
placed in the ARBCA archives the entire time I was in the office as Coordinator. It was in my file and
has been since December of 2000. No, I did not participate in any cover up of any information.

3
• The question of the Council in the confidential report as to whether Tom might have carried out these
spankings “for his pleasure,” raised questions as to whether the Council kept back important information
from the elders and the parents regarding Tom’s actions. The elders and the parents were not aware of
this concern since they had not seen the confidential report. However, this was not a formal accusation
of Tom by the Council. It was a question to be explored. This concern is mentioned a second time in
that report when it exhorts the elders who were to take on Tom’s oversight, and his counselor, that they
“should consider the possibility that on some level he punished children for his pleasure.” This concern
should have been explored by the pastors and by the counselor who assumed Tom’s care after he left
Prescott. In speaking with one of the members of that ARBCA Council recently, I was informed that
when this was included in the report, in their minds, it did not necessarily mean they thought this
“pleasure” was sexually motivated. They could not determine what his motivations might have been.
The council was simply asking the question, in light of the entirety of what they were told; this was an
area to be explored to know Tom’s real condition for his rehabilitation, and for the protection of others.

• After the reports were written and distributed, the Council’s work was ended and this ad hoc committee
ceased to exist. They did make known their willingness to meet with any related parties or individuals
who had questions, but no one ever took them up on their offer. As I spoke with the elders and the
families of Miller Valley afterward, they expressed their appreciation for the compassion and wisdom
of the Council.

• After the Council’s work was done, the responsibility for the oversight of Tom Chantry and the
recommendations of the Council fell to the church in Tacoma, WA where Tom had moved. Tom had
friends in ARBCA who believed his side of the story, and it was to them that he connected. The
Tacoma church received him into their membership and one year later wrote a letter testifying that Tom
had fulfilled all the recommendations of the Council. The letter was sent to Earl Blackburn (the
Administrative Council Chairman), Walt Chantry, Don Lindblad (an advocate for Tom), as well as the
Counselor mentioned in the report. The letter authorized Earl Blackburn to pass it on to the MVBC
elders and to “make an abstract report of it to the ARBCA Administrative Council.”

• Despite this clean bill of health, one recommendation of the Council was never followed. The Council’s
#8 recommendation in the second level report stated, “That Thomas Chantry endeavor to seek full
repentance (his own) 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 in this process.” As the MVBC elders and families have reported, this was
never done. It was never attempted. It is unclear to what extent the other recommendations were actually
followed.

• Another consideration is the Council’s #6 recommendation in the second level report. It reads, “That
Thomas Chantry submit himself to the oversight of Elders from a member church of ARBCA and refrain
from any employment 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.” Tom Chantry was given a clean bill of health after one year in the Tacoma
church. At that time, a letter from the Tacoma church was read to the ARBCA Administrative Council
giving assurance of Tom’s progress within that church after one year. Because of ARBCA’s theology of
the Church, the AC had no authority over the Tacoma church’s handling of Tom. Tom’s clean bill of
health from them cleared the way for his future employment with school children and to return to the
pastorate one day. Those things never happened with any assistance from ARBCA.

• All questions regarding the care and handling of Tom Chantry after he left Prescott would have to be
directed to the Providence Reformed Baptist Church in Tacoma, Washington. From the time Tom
4
 moved there, that church assumed the full responsibility of his oversight and guidance. As mentioned
above, the Tacoma church received the complete packet with all the documents and testimonies. At that
point, he was not the responsibility of the Miller Valley Baptist Church in Prescott. ARBCA, as an
association, including the Administrative Council, would certainly not have had any authority to
interfere in that member church’s ministry or with its members. As described earlier in this
paper, Chantry was never under any authority of the ARBCA Informal Council.

• Following the events of 2000, a significant tension continued in ARBCA over the merits of the Chantry
case. Almost every dispute and division since that time still seemed to be affected by it.
When the new allegations arose in 2015 that Tom had molested some of these children, needless to say,
we were all so grieved and hurt for them and their families. We have all had to do soul-searching as to
what should or could have been done differently. We are all men of clay and so able to make mistakes,
but given what the Council knew, and the parameters of their commission, the three acted in good faith.
I believe that the men on the Informal Council wanted to serve Christ faithfully and they conscientiously
worked to do what was best for these families, and for Tom. While serving as Coordinator, I certainly did
as well. We absolutely had no intention of covering anything up, but everyone did what they understood
they were asked to do. Sadly, for 18 years, because of this dispute within ARBCA, the Council members
have suffered for their labors because of their conclusions; we have lost treasured relationships. Of
course, none of that compares to the suffering of these children and their families.

It is my prayer that any mistakes of the past will not be repeated, and that much has been learned to better
protect the vulnerable as the Lord requires of us in the Scriptures. For that reason, I thought this account
of the matter would give an accurate description of what took place in December of 2000. May the Lord
give us all wisdom and make his judgment known.

Sincerely in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,

Bob Selph