Redeeming Grace Baptist Church of Matthews, VA Resigns From ARBCA, Cites Thomas Chantry Scandal

By | December 12, 2018

Redeeming Grace Baptist Church, located in Matthews, Virginia has resigned from ARBCA.  Pastor Van Loomis has penned a concise letter of resignation which can be viewed below. Once again, the primary reason given for their resignation is “the reconmendation and admission into ARBCA of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Hales Corner, and specifically their former pastor, Tom Chantry.

I am always encouraged by local churches that take a principled stand! May God bless them for doing so.


Redeeming Grace Baptist Chu… by on Scribd


With so many churches withdrawing their membership from ARBCA, it would seem church planting is imperative to ARBCAs continued survival as an Association. At some point one must wonder if an ongoing Association is the Lord’s will. At any rate, I am doubtful a two day “school” will reverse the trend of shrinking numbers.

Submit Comment

newest oldest
Notify of

Not really a comment but a question please. I do apologize if this has been mentioned somewhere else. Has the next hearing date (for the additional charges after the first conviction) been set for T. Chantry? Thank you.

Hi Steve,

Good questions are as welcome as good comments. 😉 I was in Arizona last week to challenge injunctions against harrassment that Caleb and Mary Beery filed against me. These individuals are now confessed, violent felons who attended an ARBCA church for some time. Specifically, they badly abused a foster child in their care. Thankfully, at least one of the Pastors at this church reported this abuse to the proper authorities. I commend him for doing so.

The injunctions against me were identical to the ones directed at Todd apart from a name change. That story is here. Two out of three of the allegations were demonstrably slanderous and the third was very vague. However, the injuctions were automatically dismissed by a Superior Court judge because the Beerys did not show up to my hearing. I was relieved to appear before a different judge, because the judge who issued the injunctions had not attended law school and appears to have had his judgment affected by a major conflict of interest, in my view.

The judge who issued the injunctions also failed to follow important laws and procedures in my case and Todd’s, in my opinion.

I won’t comment about that more here, because I’m in the process of filing a formal complaint, regarding judicial misconduct, about the uneducated judge who issued the injunctions. I will likely also sue the Beerys for slander and the high cost of my trip to Arizona to fight the injuctions, a state in which I do not reside.

While in Arizona, I visited the Yavapai Superior Court to research Tom Chantry’s case. I had hoped to attend a hearing pertaining to him on Dec. 17th. However, it was not held publicly for an unknown reason. I’m sure that something occurred that morning as the notes for the hearing hadn’t been scanned yet but did exist, according to the clerk I spoke with on Dec. 19. I’m also 100% sure I saw one of Chantry’s lawyers at the courthouse, and am 85% positive that Tom Chantry himself opened a meeting room door, attached to the courtroom, while I was waiting outside it.

To my knowledge, Mr. Chantry’s bail is set at one million dollars in cash, and he is incarcerated because he has been unable to raise that amount of money.

Todd is correct. According to paperwork I viewed, the original procecutor has been barred from re-trying any issues pertaining to Tom Chantry’s second trial. The judge has given this prosecutor until Dec. 28th to formulate and submit a statement explaining why she feels that the judge should change her mind. I don’t know if the original prosecutor has any recourse if the judge abides by her original decision to order that a new prosecutor handle Chantry’s second trial.

So the two scenarios are as follows:

1) The original prosecutor is allowed to handle Tom Chantry’s second trial;
2) A new prosecutor will handle Tom Chantry’s second trial.

It appears that the trial will address both the charges and indictments in the original trial for which there was a hung jury, as well as new allegations of abuse made against Mr. Chantry.

However, all this court stuff can be very confusing and subject to change and interpretation. Please understand that I’m trying to relay complex information as best I can.

Thanks for your question, Steve.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


Thank you for this helpful information. You mentioned that the original prosecutor was barred from the new trial. Are you aware why that is the case? Perhaps that was explained elsewhere and I missed it? Seems to me she did an admirable job on the first trial. No doubt though there are things I am not aware.

I appreciate all the information on this as I to have been a member of an ARBCA church for many years and like many others have been struggling. Kind regards.

Thanks, Steve. I brought back a short document discussing why the original prosecutor was barred from retrying (sorry if that’s not a word) the case, but it provides few details.

Todd can post it later.

There’s likely an audio of the hearing discussing this subject, but I chose not to purchase it. This blog is entirely personally funded, and neither Todd nor I am yet independently wealthy.?

I suspect that the accused is arguing that it would be more fair to have a new trial in a different county, and the judge has agreed.

I don’t have a high opinion of the judge who issued injunctions against me and Todd, designed to squash our First Amendment rights, yet most judges are professional and knowledgeable in my experience.

I’m just thankful that there will be a second trial addressing the charges for which there was a hung jury.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

To clarify, I don’t necessarily agree that the original prosecutor should get barred from handling a second trial. I’m just indicating that I suspect the judge has good legal reasons for making her decision regarding that matter.

In other words, it probably shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that the original prosecutor didn’t do an excellent job with the first trial.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)