Private Documents from AC Report Part II

1. MVBC Timeline

2. L J Letter

3. M J Letter

4. ? Probably a letter from C A. L (Tom’s secretary) written 12/15/2000. There are no direct
quotes, so it’s impossible to be certain. It’s cited once with Private Documents 5 and 9.

5. L J Letter

6. ? Uncertain, but it seems most likely that it’s the letter Tom Chantry wrote to the Informal Council
because in it he admitted that he acted inappropriately in the discipline of D L , in that he
proceeded without his mother’s express permission. It is cited once with Private Documents 1, 7, and 8.

7. ? Probably Special Meeting Minutes. It’s cited three times: once with Private Documents 1, 6, and 8;
once with Private Documents 1, 8, and 10; and once with Private Documents 1, 8, and Attachment 1.

8. C L Letter

9. W Family Letter

10. MVBC Elders Letter to Walt Chantry

11. Notes on the Informal Council Regarding Tom Chantry by Don Lindblad

12. Recommendations for Family 1

13. Recommendations for Family 2

14. Recommendations for Family 3

15. Letter from Walt Chantry to MVBC with transcription.

16. Exhibit 153 Review Report: Don Lindblad (April 15, 2002).

Footnote 40 on page 16 is “P1300CR201600966 - 6-18-2017 - MOTION DISMISS COUNTS - D-1” from the
Yavapai Superior Court. The name of the document is “Motion to Dismiss Counts Six, Seven and Eight as
barred by the Statute of Limitations and to Declare A.R.S. § 13-107(D) Unconstitutional.” The number
listed in the AC Report Part II is the case number and does not denote which document it is (each file
begins with the case number).
Private Document 1
Private Document 2
Private Document 3
Private Document 4
Private Document 5
Private Document 6
Private Document 7
Private Document 8
Private Document 9
Private Document 10
Private Document 11
Private Document 12
Private Document 13
Private Document 14
Private Document 15
Walt Chantry’s Letter typed out for easier reading:

11/9/00

Dear Rich,

I am sad to be writing this letter. You and Susan have shown so much kindness to Tom and to our family
over the past five years. These memories make it possible to hope that a letter will contribute to an
understanding on the occurrences which led to Tom’s resignation yesterday.

My understanding of the situation (from Tom) is the following: Tom committed very specific and
concrete acts which we would all call indiscretions. It was right for the elders to confront him on these
acts when they came to your attention. Tom confessed to you (elders) and to the offended parties that
the acts were sins and he included in his confession that proud thoughts led to the offenses.

When it became known to a large number of families in the congregation that those incidents had
occurred, it was decided to discuss the matters of the indiscretions and of Toms repentance for them
with each family of the congregation. Tom was on board throughout this process.

Some time last week end Tom perceived a serious shift in the discussion. Through your comments to
Tom, it now appeared to him that both of you and other members of the congregation were no longer
speaking of the specific acts for which he had apologized. There was now a general discussion of any
aspects in his life that appeared to be “proud.” When on Monday night Tom attempted to express how
the discussion had changed, you silenced him with a sharp rebuke.

On Monday the 6th you required of Tom 1.) an indefinite suspension from public ministry. 2.) a public
congregational meeting in which all would be invited to express their opinions about Tom and his ability
to minister at Miller Valley – supposedly this would include the evaluations of this “pride.” 3.) the
congregation would be invited to watch Tom closely for 30 days after which the congregation would
evaluate “the sincerity of his repentance.”

Based upon this understanding (received through Tom’s eyes and ears), my letter is written in the spirit
of Luke 17:3 “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him.” Since you are a loving father of three
children, you will understand how we are deeply grieved and offended if we perceive that our children
have been mistreated. I can say that I hope no one ever treats your sons and daughter as you have
treated Tom in this matter.

When you allowed the discussion to turn (and joined the discussion) from the originally specified sinful
acts to the vagueries of “pride” in general, that was a sin against Tom.

When you proposed the specific measures of Monday the 6th, you recommended the intolerable. You
were proposing diabolical procedures regularly employed by Marxism and cults with the intention of
breaking a person psychologically. Group or community criticism along with group or community
judgment of the “sincerity” of one’s shaping-up is very destructive. It is usually entered into over issues
like humility, love, kindness, sincerity. These are sufficiently ill-defined or subjective realities that none
can ever say he is humble enough, loving enough, sincere enough. There is nothing concrete, yet the
charges touch our self-condemnations that we need improvement in these areas. These exercises do
not lead to humility but to humiliation. I hope no one ever attempts to subject your children to
community criticism, evaluation and judgment, especially with the discussion framed upon non-concrete
attitudes of heart.

After you had confronted Tom, and he confessed his sin and renounced future repetition of specified
behavior, it would be necessary for the elders to evaluate whether they or the congregation could now
accept Tom as pastor. Sometimes indiscretions confessed, apologized for, and put away leave people
uneasy under our leadership. Elders must evaluate whether it is wise for his ministry to continue at
Miller Valley or whether the offenses undermined the trust of the congregation. If the latter is judged to
be true, then the elders may ask a minister to resign. But they may not turn to the worst forms of
congregationalism and wash their hands of eldership responsibilities.

When a person has confessed to all the he has sinned, he has made himself extremely vulnerable. That
is why in Luke 17:3 our Lord instructs immediate forgiveness, not indefinite probation and continuing
questioning of sincerity. The last is psychologically cruel as well as objectively incorrect. From it Tom
correctly concluded that you had lost all confidence in him. With the measures you proposed Tom lost
all confidence in you. Thus his resignation. Thus his feelings that his repentance has not been accepted.

As you can see, under the circumstances the parting is not with “good feelings” on the part of Tom or his
parents. Under any circumstances it would have been with sadness and regret. But it might have come
with mutual respect expressed.

Sincerely,

Walt Chantry
Private Document 16
P1300CR201600966 - 6-18-2017 - MOTION DISMISS COUNTS - D-1