Brent Detwiler's Tweets

 Subscribe by Email


Don Lindblad’s Recently Discovered Review of Informal Council Investigation for Chairman Earl Blackburn Proves Intentional Cover-Up of Tom Chantry’s Crimes by Marcus “Mike” McKnight, Tedd Tripp and Rich Jensen

On April 15, 2002, Don Lindblad (Tom Chantry’s advocate) wrote up a “review” report for Earl Blackburn (Chairman of the ARBCA Administrative Council) about the investigation carried out by the ARBCA Informal Council (Marcus “Mike” McKnight, Tedd Tripp and Rich Jensen).  The document is new to me.  It is Exhibit 153 from the second April-May 2019 trial.  It is also devastating because it conclusively proves McKnight, Tripp and Jensen “gave Tom back his life” by not pursuing church discipline and by not reporting his sadistic assaults upon four children to law enforcement.  

In addition, this document further proves knowledge of Chantry’s crimes by Earl Blackburn, the most powerful leader in ARBCA over the past 20 years.  He has been at the center of the cover-up.  He is the senior pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Shreveport,  Louisiana.  He should be removed from ministry.  His church should also be removed from the Southern Baptist Convention unless there is radical change.  

“On a national level, Heritage is an active member of both the Southern Baptist Convention and the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA). … On the state level, we are members in cooperation with the Louisiana Baptist Convention.  On the local level, we are in members in cooperation with the Northwest Louisiana Baptist Association.”  

Exhibit 153 is part of the court documents related to Tom Chantry’s second trial in April-May 2019 which resulted guilty verdicts on four counts of sexual molestation.    I have retyped it for readability and added explanatory notes and underlining.  I’ve also supplied pseudonyms for the victims using italic print.  Here is a highlight. 

Lindblad: Imagine our surprise, then, when we were asked to meet with the investigators about an hour later.  Instead of pressing for some form of church discipline or civil charges, they told us they wanted to give Tom back his life.  They believed he had not been forthcoming, that he was far guiltier than what he was willing to admit, but they also believed he was a gifted young man and should return to the ministry someday. 

Note: This is the most damming and damnable paragraph in Don Lindblad’s report. … McKnight, Tripp and Jensen were “were resolute in their conviction that Tom was far guiltier” “because they believed the children.”  Nevertheless, they refused to practice church discipline even though Chantry was utterly unrepentant and they refused to report Chantry to law enforcement for “civil charges” as mandated even though he was a known child abuser.  Instead, they conspired to cover-up his crimes and “give” the sociopathic serial sadistic lying child abuser “back his life.”  Imagine Chantry’s and Lindblad’s surprise!  McKnight, Tripp and Jensen let Chantry off the hook.  They let him go to Tom Lyon’s church in 2000 “without recrimination.”  Nine months later, the crooked Lyon had him preaching on a regular basis!  And they allowed him to become an elementary school teacher in 2002 and a pastor 2006.  McKnight, Tripp and Jensen never spoke out against this evil man!  Not then.  Not now.  Not ever.  I have no respect for them!

Exhibit 153 in Court Documents
Don Lindblad’s Review for Earl Blackburn
April 15, 2002 

This review is written at the request of Pastor Earl Blackburn, Chairman of the Administrative Council of ARBCA.  It is not intended for distribution beyond the original target audience; in fact, the writer requires permission to distribute further in order to avoid additional misunderstanding.  As well, it is not now nor has it ever been my desire to publish these matters beyond the original principals involved in the matter herein described.  From the beginning, it has been my intention to serve the interests of the kingdom as it relates to the health and vitality of ARBCA churches and the various members.  Finally, this report is not meant to analyze fully the proceedings mentioned, but is limited to a review of whether or not Tom Chantry was given an opportunity to address the committee of investigators. 

[Note: Don Lindblad previously sent Earl Blackburn, “Notes on the Informal Council Regarding Tom Chantry” at conclusion of the December 13-16, 2000 investigation.  See Ten-Part Series, pp. 167-173.  This is a follow up report on April 15, 2002.  Blackburn has adamantly stated he had no knowledge of any allegations of child abuse against Chantry.  It is a blatant lie.  He knew everything and had all the incriminating evidence from Lindblad.]  

Heightened difficulty at Miller Valley Baptist Church, Prescott, Arizona first came to my attention on 6 November 2000.  My friend Tom Chantry called, seeking my advice.  Over the course of the next few days, as events unfolded rapidly in Prescott, events that ultimately prompted Tom to resign his pastorate, he confessed to me spanking several children from the church family over the course of time.  He acknowledged to me wrongdoing in the matter, confessing that he never should have spanked the children under his tutorial care

[Note: That’s all Chantry ever acknowledged except in the case of Daniel Laver where he acknowledged spanking without permission. His “sin” was using corporal punishment with students.  Nothing more.] 

He resigned that week, telling me he did not believe he could work any longer in that environment, particularly with the elders.  When he and the elders went to visit the various families involved, in which he repented and asked their forgiveness [only for the above, he denied everything else], Tom concluded it had gone well.  It appeared as if the families had forgiven him and that they were eager to put the past behind them.  They loved his preaching, were eager to hear him proclaim the word of God, and were able to submit to his pastoral oversight.  Within days, however, the elders suggested to Tom that in their judgment other problems had surfaced which required similar attention, problems unrelated to the spanking of children and which were somewhat vague.  The elders believed that an open meeting, where members could air their grievances or disappointments with Tom and his ministry, would be the best course of action.  I believe they also suggested that at some point a vote of confidence in his ministry would also be in order.  These later developments made no sense to Tom and he resigned, believing he had lost the confidence of the elders and with their proposal would soon lose the confidence of the membership. 

Within a week, I began to hear serious accusations pouring out of Prescott, accusations  having to do with matters that I had been told were put to rest.  The Prescott elders  asked to meet with several ARBCA AC men in Escondido [CA] on 14 November, where I was present.  By then, the charges against Tom in his handling of certain children had both multiplied and intensified.  The elders made no mention of any other concerns they had about Tom and his ministry, as Tom had opined; rather, the treatment of children was the only focus.  No decision was reached, but clearly those who listened to the words of the elders were moved

[Note: Rich Howe and Eric “Shorty” Evans met with Earl Blackburn, Steve Martin, Bob Selph, and Don Lindblad from the 2000-2001 Administrative Council.  Blackburn was the AC Chairman.  They “were moved” by the “multiplied and intensified” “charges” of child abuse.  It was their “only focus.”  All these men were mandatory reporters.  They broke the law.  Martin is a liar like Blackburn.  Even after Chantry was arrested in July 2016, he repeatedly defended Chantry’s innocence while knowing all about his guilt.  That is the definition of corruption.] 

At the suggestion of Walt Chantry, and with the involvement of David Dykstra  (Chairman  of  the ARBCA Membership Committee), Earl Blackburn (Chairman of the  ARBCA AC), and Bob Selph (Coordinator of ARBCA), it was agreed that an  investigative team, made up of mutually agreed upon persons, travel to Prescott and seek to discover what had recently happened that resulted in the resignation of the church’s pastor.  These men were to investigate, to gather information, to bring back a report, and to make recommendations.  This was not a church council in the traditional and Confessional sense, but an ad hoc committee of men sent to investigate.  In this context, it was assumed that both sides would have an opportunity to air grievances. 

[Note: Blackburn, Dykstra, and Selph (the 3 top ARBCA officials) set up the “investigative team” “at the suggestion of Walt Chantry.”  Keep in mind, Tom Chantry was the one who put forward a list of seven men (Mike McKnight, John Giarrizzo, Fred Malone, Tedd Tripp, Dale Smith, Gordan Taylor, Rich Jensen) from which to choose and he required McKnight be one of them.  He was made Chairman of the Informal Council.  All these men were subservient to Walt Chantry.  They protected his primadonna son!] 

Due to the ever-advancing number of charges now leveled against Tom  Chantry and their possible implications, the Chantry family believed that Tom should not return to the Prescott area alone.  His parents believed that be ought to have a witness of the proceedings with him, as well as one who could act as a counselor and, if necessary, one who might prompt Tom to a suitable response.  The family chose me, and I agreed to go in this capacity. 

[Note: The “possible implications” included criminal charges.  Everyone knew it!    Lindblad has been the biggest Chantry stooge of all time!] 

In anticipation and preparation for the meeting in Phoenix, each of the parties was asked to submit a paper, outlining his understanding of what had unfolded in the church, along with any concerns or grievances.  Tom read me his report in advance, and it matched what he told me previously, both as to his guilt and to his concern about the growing number of vague charges leveled against him just before he left Prescott, charges unrelated to the original matter of disciplining some children whose parents were members of the church. 

[Note: Tom’s “paper” to the Informal Council on December 7, 2000 was a classic piece of disinformation from a sociopathic liar.  It is worthy studying.  It is a textbook example of how sex abusers lie and manipulate others.  Read this article.

Newly Discovered Letter from Tom Chantry in 2000 Documents Widespread Knowledge in ARBCA of Accusations Against Him for Repeatedly Abusing Children & So Was Talk About Prosecuting Him
Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:02PM] 

The ad hoc Committee [Informal Council] met from December 13-16, 2000 in Phoenix, Arizona.  When Tom and I arrived on Wednesday afternoon, the three investigators (Pastor Rich Jensen, Elder Mike McKnight, and Pastor Tedd Tripp) met with us briefly to outline the approach they planned to use.  They intended to meet with all the children and their parents, the elders, and with us.  They promised that they would take as much time as necessary with each one, including us, to ensure fairness.  They assured us that, as with each of the parties, Tom would be heard.  They appeared affirming, and both Tom and I were encouraged.  This approach seemed to us both reasonable and equitable. 

[Note: Meeting with the children changed everything!  Afterward, McKnight, Tripp and Jensen knew with certainty that Chantry had assaulted them.] 

It took a great deal more time for the investigators to meet with all parties than any of us originally imagined, so that the three men did not convene with us until about 1:00 p.m. the next day.  Mike McKnight chaired the meeting and led off immediately by telling us that they had met with the elders and the families.  They believed the children were credible witnesses, that the children had not consulted with one another about these matters, and that they had not heard their parents speaking about them. Mike wanted to hear what Tom had to say about the various incidents, but that he should be cautious in responding because the investigators believed entirely what the children had told them.  The other two men nodded in agreement.  It appeared they had already unfairly come to a conclusion about matters even before hearing Tom. 

[Note: The children they “believed entirely” were Mark Jones, Jane Walsh, Wayne Walsh, and Daniel Laver.  So did the jurors in two trials regarding Mark, Jane and Wayne.  They did not believe Chantry.  The result - six guilty verdicts!  A third trial is in the works regarding Daniel’s charges.  McKnight, who is a lawyer, was warning Chantry about self-incrimination.  He knew crimes had been committed.  So did everyone else.] 

For the next two or more hours, Tom  responded to questions put to him regarding his  behavior with the children.  The questions had to do with the number of children disciplined, the manner, the frequency, and the intensity.  Tom responded coherently and dispassionately, seeking  to address specific concerns.  At one point he mentioned an incident with a child, no longer in the church, about which the investigators had no knowledge.  I thought this was a good sign that Tom was forthcoming.  This period came to an end when Mike made the obvious point that there were major discrepancies  between what the children, parents, and elders told them and what Tom acknowledged to be true, especially as to the reasons for the punishment, as well as to the frequency and the intensity of it.  Tom was asked if he could explain this. 

[Note: Chantry lied the “next two or more hours” about “the manner, the frequency, and the intensity” of the spankings and “the reasons for the punishment.”  The “incident with a child” concerns Joseph Edson.  Chantry assaulted and molested him when he was 5 years old.  Chantry feared it was only a matter of time until Joseph told his mother, Harriet, about the incident.  They left Miller Valley Baptist Church in 2000 over ARBCA’s handling of Chantry.  Joseph reported to police in July 2015.  That started everything.  What to go Joseph!]  

At this point, Tom seemed glad for the opportunity to address the investigators.  He told them that he believed there were reasons other than the children for the different reports and why things had escalated, reasons that he had introduced in his written report.  As he began to address the issue, Tedd Tripp excused himself to go to the restroom, and while he was gone Rich Jensen took the copy of Tom’s account and quickly began to dismiss Tom’s allegations-even before Tom ever listed them.  He spoke for the three in saying that they had previously read the statement but did not believe there was any merit to his concerns.  One of the men [lawyer, Marcus “Mike” McKnight] said that anything other than his fully confessing to the charges made against him and the discrepancies was irrelevant.  Irrelevant, but they had not given him the opportunity to explain his point of view whatsoever.  By then Tedd had returned and Tom was asked if he had anything else to say; that is, to say about the children and his treatment of them.  Tom realized that since the men would not hear his explanation of events as they unfolded, because they had already made up their minds, he had nothing further to say.  The investigators then dismissed us and said that they now needed to decide what recommendations they would make. 

[Note: Chantry began to give “reasons other than the children for the different reports.”  In other words, he began to blame the parents and elders for “the different reports” by their children.  That was a big part of his defense in the first trial.  It fell flat on its face!  There was no evidence to suggest the parents (or elders) put ideas in the children’s mind about being abused out of spite for Chantry.  Tripp, Jensen, and McKnight “had already made up their minds” about his criminal guilt. “Anything other than his fully confessing to the charges [of child abuse] made against him and the discrepancies was irrelevant.”  They were pressing Chantry to stop lying about the manner, frequency, intensity and reasons for the punishment.  Only a confession of guilt was relevant.  The conversation concluded on an ominous note.]  

Tom was devastated.  He was very much ready to admit that he had done wrong; he had done so previously to the various families; he had done so to me and other good friends; he had done so over the last two hours, including admitting to a case about which the investigators had no knowledge.  It is true that there were discrepancies, and Tom had his own view as to how the charges could accelerate in number and intensity, but he was not given the opportunity to elaborate.  Anything he had to say, except for further repentance, was irrelevant!  He and I expected the worst. 

[Note: Chantry and Lindblad “expected the worst.”  They expected the Informal Council would press for church discipline and report him to law enforcement.] 

Imagine our surprise, then, when we were asked to meet with the investigators about an hour later.  Instead of pressing for some form of church discipline or civil charges, they told us they wanted to give Tom back his life.  They believed he had not been forthcoming, that he was far guiltier than what he was willing to admit, but they also believed he was a gifted young man and should return to the ministry someday.  They were not able to entrap him in contradictions, nor could they prove their suspicions, but because they believed the children they were resolute in their conviction that Tom was far guiltier than what he was willing to admit.  They outlined a course of action whereby the following would be given counsel: the families to forgive Tom, even though they believed he had not fully confessed wrongdoing; the elders on how to lead the church through this difficult period, including allowing Tom to move his membership to another ARBCA church without recrimination; and Tom to join an ARBCA church of his choice and to seek counseling from a biblical counselor.  Note: The investigators did commend him in one area.  They believed that his resignation as pastor was appropriate.  In this, they believed Tom had been right and the elders wrong in wanting to keep him as their pastor. 

[Note: This is the most damming and damnable paragraph in Don Lindblad’s report for AC Chairman, Earl Blackburn.  McKnight, Tripp and Jensen were “were resolute in their conviction that Tom was far guiltier” “because they believed the children.”  Nevertheless, they refused to practice church discipline even though Chantry was utterly unrepentant and they refused to report Chantry to law enforcement for “civil charges” as mandated even though he was a known child abuser.  Instead, they conspired to cover-up his crimes and “give” the sociopathic serial sadistic lying child abuser “back his life.”  Imagine Chantry’s and Lindblad’s surprise!  McKnight, Tripp and Jensen let Chantry off the hook.  They let him go to Tom Lyon’s church in 2000 “without recrimination.”  Nine months later, the crooked Lyon had him preaching on a regular basis!  And they allowed him to become an elementary school teacher in 2002 and a pastor 2006.  McKnight, Tripp and Jensen never spoke out against this evil man!  Not then.  Not now.  Not ever.  I have no respect for them!] 

This approach quite surprised me, given the convictions of the investigators regarding Tom’s guilt.  If he was as guilty as they believed, and what his excessive actions might  suggest, should he serve a church ever again?  Nevertheless, Tom was asked to think about the proposal and call them.  They were off to present the same to the parents and to the elders. 

[Note: “This approach quite surprised me.”  No kidding!!!  Why?  Because of their “convictions” “regarding Tom’s guilt.”  These men should have helped with the prosecution of Chantry.  None did for fear of being arrested.  Tedd Tripp would not even return phone calls to Susan Eazer, the prosecutor.  Honestly, McKnight, Tripp and Jensen should all serve time in prison.  Notice, Lindblad understood what Chantry’s “excessive actions might suggest.”  That he was a sadistic child abuser and therefore should never “serve a church ever again.”  Exactly!  Well, “They were off to present the same to the parents and to the elders.”  Instead of instructing the parents and elders to report Chantry, McKnight, Tripp and Jensen instructed the parents to forgive Chantry and “give Tom back his life.”]  

It was my conviction that Tom should accept their proposal.  Though he did not have an opportunity to present his case about the deteriorating relationship between pastor and elders, which exacerbated the situation, it would allow him to pick up the pieces of his life.  This course would not resolve Tom’s concerns, but it had the potential for giving him back his life, especially given the nature of the charges against him and how they would be interpreted in the world in which we live. 

[Note: “The nature of the charges” (the insane and severe beating of children for personal pleasure) “would be interpreted in the world in which we live” as child abuse.  That’s why he is in jail now awaiting a long prison sentence.] 

Tom agreed he should accept, as did his parents and Tom’s closest friends.  It was his best chance to return to a life of normalcy, and it appeared to offer hope that all this could be put behind him and he could get on with life, including the possibility of future ministry. There was nothing particularly onerous about what he was asked to do-join a Reformed Baptist church and seek counseling, especially for anger issues. 

[Note: “His parents and Tom’s closest friends“ like John Giarrizzo agreed he should take the deal because it was the “best chance” to keep him out of prison!  In fact Chantry “spoke to 5 pastors, 4 of which advised him to resign, based on what he had told them” (see Ten-Part Series, p. 197).  So many ARBCA officials and pastors including Earl Blackburn knew about the criminal allegations against Chantry in 2000 contrary to the disinformation put out in the Administrative Council Report – Part 1 (Sep. 5, 2018) and the Administrative Council Report – Part II (Oct. 25, 2018).]  

At Tom’s request, however, when I phoned Tedd Tripp to accept their terms I did ask if Tom could address the investigators the next day when the final draft of the document to be signed was presented.  Tedd assured me that that would be most appropriate.  After all, Tedd said, we would not want anyone to go away unhappy because they had not been heard. 

[Note: Tom should have been sent “away unhappy” knowing he would be reported to the police.]  

When we met the next day, it was to review the document the investigators had prepared.  There was one tense moment when it appeared that Tom was asked to sign a text asserting he had not fully repented.  At my request, the men agreed to change  the wording to read that they believed he had not fully repented of his misdeeds. 

[Note: The “next day” is December 15, 2000.  McKnight, Tripp and Jensen capitulating to the devil. They came up with this corrupt and cowardly compromise in Recommendation 7 in their Level 2 – “Report, Conclusions and Recommendations.” 

“That there still remain serious factual differences between Thomas Chantry and the four children he disciplined during his ministry at Miller Valley.  These factual differences include the purpose, frequency and severity of the physical punishment.  It is recommended that the Elders who assume the oversight of Thomas Chantry address these differences because it is the opinion of this informal council that his repentance may not be complete.” 

Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick at Providence Reformed Baptist Church never addressed the differences because they were committed to cover-up his crimes.]  

At the end of this session, I asked if Tom might address the investigators about his concerns, again not taking away from what he was prepared to sign or what he had confessed to doing.  Again, the three men were united in their refusal to hear what Tom wanted to say about the escalating charges and any relationship those charges might have to his difficulty with the elders.  This time they appeared quite agitated and somewhat animated in their response.  It was very clear to me that they were unprepared to hear any other version relative to the expansion of charges.  Tom went away crestfallen, distressed that he had not even been heard. 

[Note: Chantry was “crestfallen” because he was not given opportunity to continue his lying about “the expansion of charges” by the four children (victims).] 

The next morning we were to meet with the investigators and the elders to sign a document.  Again, Tom agreed to sign it, committing himself to the implementation of  those parts for which he was responsible.  Subsequent to the signing, I took it upon myself to ask if I could speak to Rich, Mike, and Tedd alone.  They agreed; in fact, Mike indicated that they would like to speak with me.  It was my intention to thank them for wanting to give Tom back his life, but also to ask them why they had not allowed him to speak; that is, to address his own concerns and give another interpretation to the expansion of charges subsequent to his leaving Prescott. 

[Note: The “next morning” was December 16, 2000.  In effect, Lindblad wanted to thank them for breaking the law!  “Rich, Mike and Tedd” wanted to “give Tom back his life” far more than they wanted to help the victims and their families.  And far more than obeying the law in order to prevent further abuse by Chantry which occurred at Christian Liberty Academy.  Lindblad is aiding and abetting Chantry in his sociopathic lying – i.e., “give another interpretation.”] 

When I asked why Tom was not allowed to address his concerns, Mike in particular grew quite emotional.  He said he had been up most of the night thinking about this very issue.  He indicated that he loved Tom very much, had watched him grow up in the church in Carlisle, but that he was presently extremely angry with Tom.  He believed Tom was far guiltier than what he was willing to admit.  He also believed that Tom had great gifts.  At this point the other two nodded in agreement and affirmed what Mike had said.  When I raised the issue again of Tom not being permitted to speak, which was the fourth time I had raised the question in three days, all three assented to the following: they could not allow Tom to speak because if they did he would have incriminated himself.  Once that happened they would not have been able to give him back his life in the way that they had.  They would be forced to deal with him differently.  At no point did any of them individually or collectively ever say that they had indeed allowed him to speak.  They insisted they had good reasons for denying him that opportunity. 

[Note: The exact meaning is hard to decipher but not the overall meaning.  Mike is Marcus “Mike” McKnight.  He’s the lawyer.  He was “quite emotional” and “extremely angry” because he knew, like Tripp and Jensen knew, Chantry was “far guiltier” than what he admitted.  These men would not allow Chantry to “give another interpretation [i.e. different interpretation] to the expansion of charges.”  Why?  Two possibilities.  One, he might say something incriminating when interrogated by them that propelled them to report.  Or two, his flagrant lies would further infuriate them and been viewed as incriminating since they believed the children.  Whatever the case, McKnight, Tripp and Jensen were working hard to protect Chantry and prevent him from saying anything incriminating.  Therefore, they denied “him that opportunity” so they would not “be forced to deal with him differently” – that is, report him to law enforcement.  That is so despicable.  They are acting like defense lawyers, when they should have been acting like prosecuting attorneys.  Or like Peter the apostle with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11.] 

While I am extremely thankful for the kindness these three men sought to extend to Tom, putting Tom’s future in the care of a sister church and urging him to seek counseling, there is a downside to the procedure adopted.  There is nothing wrong and everything right about being under the oversight of a faithful church and about finding help for specific problems.  What has proven to be a hindrance to resolution in this case is the disallowing Tom to speak.  To be sure he was urged to answer questions and to speak to the issue of disciplining children, but he was never allowed to speak freely about his concerns, to offer his explanation of what had gone wrong (and why) subsequent to his visits with the various families.  The investigators may not have accepted his version, but even in a court of law the accused, even the most criminal. are allowed to speak. 

[Note: Chantry’s defense was two-fold.  The children were lying and the parents, church members and elders were out to get him.  See his wicked and devious report to Jensen, McKnight and Tripp dated December 7, 2000.]  

To complicate matters, the counselor Tom saw, one trained in biblical counseling and a professional, does not entirely agree with the findings of the investigators.  It is documented that the counselor fully dealt with all the matters outlined in the various documents, including the confidential report, that he explored all Tom did confess as well as the suspicions of the investigators.  The suspicions he did not confirm.  Further, he also questioned the document signed, believing that it was not designed for reconciliation.  Tom is guilty, but apparently not as guilty as many suspect.  Would this standoff be the result if Tom had been permitted to speak?  I would like to think not. 

[Note: At this point in time, Blackburn did not have Devon Berry’s counseling report.  Lindblad is lying to Blackburn.  Berry did not “fully” deal “with all the matters outlined in the various documents, including the confidential report…as well as the suspicions of the investigators” (i.e. Chantry’s “punishing for his own pleasure”).  Berry intentionally avoided these issues.  He said so in explicit terms.  Read Part 7: Devon Berry’s Whitewashed Counselor’s Report Did Not Address Tom Chantry’s Sadistic Child Abuse Contrary to Agreed Upon Obligations (Jan. 24, 2019).] 

One more thing: Even though Tom Chantry and others believe that he should have  been permitted to say anything be believed pertinent, at the relevant time, it must also be noted that both Tom and his church took the signed document seriously.  Tom did submit to another church and the oversight of her elders.  He did seek counseling from a bona fide biblical counselor, trained in the discipline of CCEF.  Tom has done all that was specifically asked of him, short of meeting again with the members of Miller Valley Baptist Church.  But, as the counselor himself has observed, this is not likely to happen as long as the church’s worst fears were not realized and the members still believe there is more to confess. 

[Note:  “Tom and his church took the signed document seriously. … Tom has done all.”  Gag!  Totally untrue.] 

This matter did not end as all the principals wished, which is unfortunate.  It should  be noted, however, that Tom Chantry fully complied, as did his church, with both the letter and the spirit of the document he signed.  It is hoped that everyone else will do likewise. 

[Note: Lindblad is a sociopathic liar like Chantry.  Tom Lyon and Mark McCormick, who were the “pastors” at Providence Reformed Baptist Church, did not “fully” comply with any of the terms signed off on by Chantry in “the document” (i.e., the Level 1 – “Confidential Report and Recommendations”).  Lyon and McCormick disregarded most of the binding “recommendations.”  See Ten-Part Series, pp. 88-89, 142-145.]

Respectfully submitted, 

Donald R. Lindblad
15 April 2002

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend