Walt Chantry’s Angry Letter over Tom’s “Intolerable” Treatment-No Mention of the Children Tom Beat and Molested!

By | September 9, 2018

“Not sure just how much of what I have written you have seen but I have been careful to make a distinction between the member churches of ARBCA and the men who constitute the power center of this organization. I am sure your church like mine (for five years) have little experiential knowledge of just how things work. It is only when the will of these men who constitute a cabal of what they themselves consider to be “trusted” men is crossed that you are made to feel the pressure these men can bring to bear. The very fact that Lindblad on the witness stand could speak of the full report that was read by only a few and then sealed being done so as the result of angry letters from Walt should give you a little hint of just how things are done in the Association. I do not fault you or your church for your ignorance but would encourage you are in light of the facts that came out in the trial and the testimony of those who have had just awful experiences with these angry, secretive and unjust men to be ignorant no longer. Start asking questions as to why they have done the things they have done over the years and demand honest answers and then see for yourself what kind of response you get. I would wager it would be not very different from the angry, secretive and unjust responses I and others have received in the past.”  

-Paul Gordon, Pastor, Grace Reformed Baptist of Pine Bush,  ormerly a member of ARBCA.

 

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 to 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 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. 

…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.

…With the measure 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.

Excerpt from letter written by Walter Chantry to MVBC Elder Rich Howe, November 9, 2000  

 

It is my understanding that Walter Chantry never did seek reconciliation with the Elders of the Miller Vallery Baptist Church. Based on Walter’s quote at the top of this page, I believe I can say that Walter Chantry’s brand of Calvinism has “missed its mark!”

Of interest to me is the fact that Walter, 62 years old in 2ooo, rushed to the defense of his little boy, Tommy.  Tom was 30 years old in 2000! I guess he must not have been mature enough to handle his own problems.  I doubt this was the first occassion Walt ever had to clean up Tom’s mess. It is also interesting to note that Walt never called Rich Howe to get his side of the story prior to writing him a nasty letter. Rich testified in court that he was fairly good friends with Walt, and Walt mentions in the opening lines of his letter (below) all the kindness that Rich had shown Tom and Walt’s family over the previous five years. Was father Walt perhaps aware of Tom’s “pedophilic disorder?” Did he go straight to the attack in an attempt to silence the elders at MVBC? It sure would seem so. Walt mentioned the “intolerable” treatment of his boy, Tom but has never mentioned the intolerable, sadistic, horrific treatment that numerous children have suffered at the hands of his perverted son. What shining examples of Christians these Chantrys are – the pride of ARBCA!

 

 

Chantry Letter to Church-Walt Chantry Letter to MVBC Elders-Elders Response to Walt Chantry by Todd Wilhelm on Scribd

Note – Thanks to DS for typing out the text of Walter Chantry’s handwritten letter!

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 hop 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

28
Submit Comment

2000
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Rae

Reading about the horrific acts committed by Thomas Chantry and knowing how so-called “good men” conspired to protect him all these years leaves me with only one response: O-U-T-R-A-G-E-O-U-S!!!!!

God have mercy on their souls!

Cindy Schmidt

Agreed. This is deeply disturbing.

Van Helsing

Absolutely agree 100%! The feckless and naive elders at MVBC are culpable since they wished to avoid conflict with their warped, twisted and perverted pastor – possibly bowing to pressure from ARBCA to keep it all in the family. That is the only way that Chantry’s sadism “in the name of God” could have gone on for five years. They must have witnessed Chantry’s lack of love and care for the flock since the time he arrived on their doorstep as an immature infant stuck in the “terrible twos” yet shut their eyes to it and allowed it to continue for FIVE YEARS thereby enabling it and emboldening it and reinforcing Chantry in his narcissism. I suggest that they repent of their lack of oversight and misguided intentions and apologize to the members of MVBC since they are just as guilty as TC and WC.

R

Frankly, if my adult son had beaten kids until they had bruises and welts, I wouldn’t defend that behavior. Defending a 30-year-old while leaving children hanging out to dry? And Walt Chantry was also a pastor — someone who should have known implicitly that pastors should not beat kids, ever.

Joy

Walt Chantry’s letter reminds me why we shouldn’t just listen to one side of the story. He had his sons’ side of the story and a father’s heart rushed to his aid.

17 The first to plead his case seems just, Until another comes and examines him. (Prov. 18:17 NAS)

It’s good to hear both sides of the story, . . .

Van Helsing

Hi Joy,
Yes, I agree with your sentiments since an entirely new “side” emerged once MVBC became aware of the serious infractions and took limited action – too little and too late. However, it seems like Tom (or Walter’s reputation) became the IDOLs to be protected at all costs. I cannot help but think Walter should have known that the TRUTH super-cedes all things no matter how hurtful, embarrassing or inconvenient it may be or am I missing something here? I guess Tom went into ministry thinking he could avoid responsibility and it worked for a while. After all, he was enabled and abetted at Westminster, IRBS, ARBCA, and by MVBC. Tom needed to be humiliated and humbled due to his excessive malignant PRIDE yet was always given a “free pass.” I have to wonder about Walter’s 39 years in the pulpit at his Carlisle church. How many times did he use his “get out of jail free” card for himself while in the active ministry? Were the members of that congregation as gullible and naive as the ones at MVBC?

EP

The money quote is one of the last lines from the Miller Valley BC elders’ letter in response to Walt Chantry’s protestations about their treatment of Tom:

“Several of our children have been “mistreated”. 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. We hope someday to get answers. It is still a great concern of ours that Tom does not fully understand the gravity of this matter.”

That may be the first statement I’ve read from anyone (albeit in a private letter that was likely never seen by more than a handful of people) explicitly stating a view all the way back in 2000 that what the younger Chantry did unquestionably amounted to “child abuse” that “could be subject to prosecution”.

That the people who were closest to the situation and the facts of that abuse at the time makes it all the more sad that it wasn’t dealt with legally far earlier than it was. Clearly, the Miller Valley elders and probably the families most effected by Chantry’s abuse hoped for a resolution in which Chantry repented of his sins and changed his ways and was able to lead and minister to the congregation in the future free of the displays of anger, shaming and abuse that had marked his five-year tenure there. My guess is that’s how many instances of such abuse go unreported for a long time, not because those who are aware of it and don’t notify law enforcement are always inclined toward covering up the acts or silencing the victims, but because they hope that the perpetrator will, through prayer, counseling, church discipline, etc., come to genuine repentance that repairs their existing relationship and sanctifies the soul of the abuser, leading them to the path of righteousness and away from “the way of sinners” and “the seat of the scornful”. Based on all the writings you’ve posted from the other elders of Miller Valley BC, it seems clear that as much as they were alarmed at the abuse reported to them by members of the congregation, they had a love for Chantry and did not wish for their relationship with him be repaired while he sat in a jail cell or on trial for child abuse. But however well-intentioned their response (or non-response) to accusations of abuse at his hands, I think the end result illustrates the folly of that approach. Had his abuse been properly reported and dealt with at the time, it would have saved all involved much heartache and pain over the next two decades.

Elizabeth

After reading the various new posts on Todd’s Twitter account, I’m just livid. The excerpt from a letter of a mother of one victim, stating that all her life she tried to protect her child from harm, only to end up putting child right in the arms of a monster; reading that Chantry had the children put their heads down into a pillow when they were being beaten, so no one could hear their screams; the account of one victim that stated Chantry told him before one of his beatings that he was going to have to find another way to punish him, adding more fear on top of fear; oh, and here’s a new one, for me, at least – Chantry was in the process of applying to become a foster child advocate! Of course he was! That’s what monsters do.

Lou

Someone could do us a great service by transcribing Walt’s handwritten letter. In addition to being small print, the handwriting style is impossible to read on a cell phone.

DS

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 hop 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

Lou

DS … Thank you for this labor of love for your brethren

DS

I’m happy that I could be of service.

Sonja

ARI attended Mars Hill Church in Seattle for too long and left before the implosion. The control of the ‘Top Men” as shown in these documents remind me of what led to the implosion of MHC, While i don’t think it’s the same, before MHC went bust with Driscoll also fleeing in the middle of night there was a lot of money and property involved.

Who owned the physical churches? What amount of money was paid to ARBCA under the guise of planting.

Here’s my point: Before MHC imploded, the campus pastors were held hostage. Some were brave enough to speak out,

My question is if there is any parallel regarding money. The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil Have read statements that alluded to greed and prde, but WC’s letter makes me think he’s conndeming himself. In one aspect.

May God indeed be merciful. I too understand his love for his son, yet Tom the son seems to have become one of those idols without a mouth, ears or eyes.

Indescretions. Oh my.

Sonja

I’ve been waiting to read WC’s letter since hearing of it a year (?) ago. Didn’t know what to expect and here it is. The words Mr. Chantry used regarding the abuse inflicted on children by his son … “indiscretions” and “incidents” while the word “sin” is only used against the people, elders and lay of MVBC.

I appreciate the response to him by the leaders of MVBC. Can I assume they never received a response?

As an aside, I’m no handwriting expert but it seems that the writing became more “angry” in appearance, not just words. As if “diabolical”, “Marxist” and “cult” isn’t angry enough. It would be interesting to read what an actual expert would have to say, although a subjective field.

Prayers for the people at MVBC.

Michael

I haave read all the docs posted. We don’t have pt. two of the arbca sept. Report. Arbca is not a presbyterian denomination. Three guys helped the arizona church resolve this. The arizona church chose not to report to police ( even the parents dropped the ball) This was not 1960 but 21st century!
Once chantry joined the next church, the arizona church was no longer a significant player. The illinois church has said chantry fulfilled his agreed to steps to their satisfaction. Chantry pastors wisconsin church. A church not in arbca. Then applies and receives membership in arbca. Coverup or the processes of an org that couldn’t use sealed informal report nor info from police which was also not for dissemination?
Has chantry been accused of hitting wisconsin church kids? Does his sickness continue to be acted out?
When accusers do not go to the police they won’t get legal justice. In this case the law was finally brought in and a measure of justice is gained. We will see how the judge rules on sentencing.

Van Helsing

Thank you again Todd and Janna for your painstaking work in behalf of the Lord, Jesus.

I had come to know Walter Chantry as soft-spoken, quiet, and seemingly humble man. I was almost instantly drawn to him and wished to tap his “spiritual reservoir” of not just Biblical knowledge but spiritual wisdom. Yeah, I am one of those ODDBALLS who has always believed that wisdom is gained not only through reading, studying and meditating on God’s precepts in the Bible but also by “sitting at the feet of Gamaliel.” That is a quality unknown to almost all Generation X’ers and millennials these sorry days and is one reason reason they are so lost and confused. It is also a major reason why Christendom has essentially collapsed worldwide.

At the time I did not know about Walt’s revered and honored status in Reformed Baptist circles (since he was low-key and did not flaunt it in the least) but after listening to a few of his sermons on Sermon Audio I sensed that he was a righteous man of God and I TRUSTED him. Therefore, I sought him out after his son refused to interact with me at CRBC on numerous occasions (since he knew I had an advanced degree and developed critical thinking skills and had many things to hide) but he was initially hesitant and guarded but opened up eventually. I was simply seeking clarification on issues like the “new Calvinism” and the “Two Kingdom” debate. Since Walter knew they were controversial he steered clear of most of my questions so I limited them to spiritual issues only.

I asked Walt about how we are to deal with false Christians in the church these days as they are legion but I may have inadvertently addressed the question to one of them – Walter himself. He stated that FAKE Christians and unbelievers are to be confronted with the truth of the Gospel and to be effective IT MUST WOUND. All I have seen and heard up to this point about the TC debacle are KEY people resisting the WOUND at all costs due to SIN. Walt failed to practice what he preached and now countless numbers of Christians – not the least of TC’s victims – are suffering the evil effects of spiritual abuse.

If anyone, Walter knows his son. He has to know that Tom was mentally, emotionally, and spiritually unfit to love people and work with them especially in shepherding a flock – yet – he allowed this fiasco to continue and fostered a LIE. This is most egregious especially after considering the collateral damage caused over 20 years.

All I conclude from following this tragic and sad story is that many sincere Christians reached out to Tom in kindness and love over the years and those overtures were humored, simply ignored or outright rejected by Tom because of his narcissistic and perverted hidden agenda that was ENABLED by those closest to him to HIS detriment and the loss of his salvation. Now, that would really scare me into coming forward to confess the ALL of sins of my heart, truly repent and show the proper fruit of that repentance. That is my prayer for both Tom and Walter.

Darrel

Walt’s plea for leniency for his son is a typical fatherly response, but has no basis in Biblical Christianity. On the contrary, WC is only adding to his son’s woes and declares himself to be complicit in his son’s deeds by not demanding from his son genuine repentance but accepts instead the fake version not unlike the remorse of Judas. Tom was busted for his sins and his crimes and all we see from him and his father is a continuous cover up and the attempt to make things out to be “not so bad after all.” There is zero evidence of anything that resembles biblical repentance from Tom and Walt. The contrast between the sorrow of the world and godly repentance is aptly depicted in 2 Cor. 7:10+ 11. Instead of diligence we get double speak; rather than ‘clearing of yourselves’ we are treated to multi-layered cover ups by him and his cronies. Where is the ‘indignation’ for the original sins and those added by the lies and cover up that persists even today? What about ‘fear’? There is obviously no fear of God in Tom or Walt or they would both come clean. Neither is there any fear of returning to their old ways after the dust has settled—in their mind the only wrong committed here was by the people who dared to call them out on their sins and folly. Rather than a ‘vehement desire’ to have their sins forgiven and restoration be had between the man and his God, we see only a desire for all this to ‘go away’ and that both of these men be allowed to continue on their merry way which would lead only to more deception of the innocent in the future. What about ‘zeal’ to do what is right and pleasing to the Lord they both claim to love and serve? It’s no where to be found, only a desire to be found innocent of all charges. Lastly, their form of ‘vindication’ or ‘revenge’ would mean that all their accusers would be publically humiliated and they, TC & WC, would be publically exonerated from all wrong doing in the “church” and the civil/criminal arena. What both of these men are spouting is wishful thinking nonsense, begging on the ignorance and pliability of those who listen to them and who also want this to ‘just go away.’ They are both blinded to the fact that their words and actions blaspheme the Lord Jesus by trying to make Him a party to their deeds as they hide behind their ‘years of service’ and their self-appointed positions in the ‘church of man’ they have created—all in the “name of Jesus”. May the Lord open the eyes of His elect.

Rae

The bullies may win for a while, but in the end, they will lose.

In this we have our great hope – Matthew 10:26 (from the New American Standard version): “Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.” And Luke 8:17: “For nothing is hidden that shall not become evident, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.”