To whom it may concern:

The recent report issued by the ad hoc committee investigating the involvement of
ARBCA in the Tom Chantry case has raised some serious concern. First, it is of concern that
the elders of MVBC were not contacted in the course of the ad hoc investigation. When we
were contacted, it was only concerning matters wherein blame could be partially distributed
to the elders of MVBC. It is irresponsible to report on a series of events that surround our
church without ever contacting us.
Secondly, it is of concern that the men on the ad hoc committee are all men involved
in the AC and MC during the duration of those events.
Third, the report states the following:
“The elders of MVBC protested CRBC’s application for membership in ARBCA, because they
believed Mr. Chantry had not taken action “to seek full repentance and the forgiveness from
each of the four children and their parents” named in the informal council’s report. The
documentary and verbal evidence showed that Mr. Chantry had visited all the families of the
children, as well as all the families of the church, to express repentance and seek
forgiveness. The MVBC protest did not contradict this evidence; the issue for MVBC was that
the repentance and forgiveness was not “full.””
This is an egregious error. MVBC’s protest was in direct contradiction to the claim
that Mr. Chantry “had visited all the families… to express repentance and seek forgiveness.”
We provided evidence that Mr. Chantry had, from the time of the council onward, never even
contacted those families, let alone expressed repentance or sought forgiveness. This evidence
was a signed letter from one of the parents involved.
I call this error egregious because it portrays our objection as an unreasonable
demanding of Mr. Chantry to accomplish full reconciliation and admit guilt in what he claimed
he had not done. Our objection was that he had not fulfilled the requirements of a signed
contract. This then evidences a lack of repentance as well as him not being a man of his
word. All these elements of our letter of objection were omitted, and other sections quoted
out of context to misrepresent our objection.
Fourth, the report states:
“Although Mr. Marley had breached the Police Department’s restrictions on maintaining
confidentiality of this information, the ARBCA officers, who had been informed of the
information, attempted to comply with those restrictions.“
Allowance was given by the detective in charge of the investigation to inform those
who needed to have the information with qualification that efforts be made to prevent
information from reaching Tom Chantry prior to his being notified that he was being
investigated. After Mr. Chantry was spoken to by a police officer and notified that an
investigation was ongoing, this “gag order” was then only restricted to giving the details of
the accusation and generally not publicizing the information. Our communication with the AC
and MC during the course of 2015-2016 at no point “breached the Police Department’s
restrictions on maintaining confidentiality of this information.” It is a grievous and
ungrounded accusation that portrays MVBC as violating the rules while the AC and MC did
what was right in spite of such errors.
Fifth, the report states:
“that the report of the allegation and investigation was, at that time, third-hand, unofficial
information”
A number of times, this language of “third-hand” reporting of the investigation is
severely misleading on multiple counts. It is later referenced as “unsubstantiated allegation
or rumor.” The existence of the investigation was, by 2016, known to be true not only by Mr.
Chantry, but was conveyed by MVBC to the MC and AC. That would be second-hand
information on two different fronts. There could not possibly have been any doubt that there
was a police investigation into Mr. Chantry’s actions.
Sixth, the report states:
“The fact that Mr. Marley violated the distribution restrictions by giving Mr. Giarrizzo access
to that report, in January 2016…”
 This is far from a “fact” and is again an egregious accusation. If the report is at the
discretion of the church, then MVBC was well within its rights to share this information. This
is further proven by the fact that Mr. Chantry was evidenced to be in violation of that
contract which he himself signed. In addition, these documents were already part of the
investigation, and could no longer be considered as restricted only to those initial parties.
Seventh, the report states:
“Therefore, since the Committee and the Council could not use this information in processing
or evaluating CRBC’s application or in the performance of any other official ARBCA duties,
none of the officers who received the information met the requirement of possessing “a need
to know.””
This is simply ridiculous and an attempt to divert the weight of the decision away from
the MC and AC. The elders of MVBC had provided a legitimate reason to reject the application
with evidence which could have been shared with the General Assembly, and the police
investigation gave further weight to the claim that Mr. Chantry was unrepentant and had not
confessed all the sin of which he was guilty, let alone sought reconciliation.
Eighth, the report states:
“Delaying, since there was no constitutional or procedural reason to do so, would naturally
have raised serious questions and could have impugned Mr. Chantry’s character or the
qualifications of the Hales Corners church.”
This at least is clear. The AC and MC valued “Mr. Chantry’s character” possibly being
impugned over retaining the membership of a church in good standing.
Ninth, the report states:
“The allegation and investigation could not be used as criteria by the Membership Committee,
the Administrative Council, or the delegates of the General Assembly for evaluation of CRBC’s
application for membership in ARBCA, due to the gag order and the absence of constitutional
and/or policy provisions specifying the use of accusations as criteria for evaluation of
applications for membership in ARBCA. This means, that even if the gag order had been lifted,
the knowledge of the accusation and investigation by the delegates of the General Assembly
could not have been legitimately used to disapprove CRBC’s application, because there is no
criteria in ARBCA’s Constitution, Policy Manual, or past practice that authorizes the use of an
accusation against an elder in considering a church for membership in ARBCA.”
The MC and AC does have the authority to reject an application of an applying church.
It has done so in the past. If a pastor is in open, unrepentant sin, then this certainly qualifies
as a condition which must be rectified before the church is admitted into membership. It is
further important to note that while the language of the report repeatedly addresses the
situation in terms of allowing the process to continue, the MC and AC recommended the
church, whose representational head was Mr. Chantry.
These fallacies are difficult to not perceive as outright lies designed to cast the blame
on MVBC. In fact, the report never levies direct accusations against Mr. Chantry! We have
struggled with the sense that our church was “thrown under the bus” in order to preserve the
Chantry name and legacy in 2015-2016. This report is a clearly biased and outlandish series of
accusations against the elders of MVBC, most explicitly its senior pastor, Chris J. Marley.
Finally, we must again quote the report which states, “In addition, the Ninth
Commandment “forbids whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own, or our
neighbor's good name.”” The ad hoc committee has violated this in propagating what is
prejudicial to truth, injurious to the elders of MVBC, and the good name of MVBC. Therefore,
we ask that a letter of redaction and repentance be sent out to all who received the report.

From, through, and unto Him,

Pastor Chris J. Marley for the elders of MVBC