Update: Tom Chantry Gets Bail

This information is via an email from Scott Orr, Prescott reporter, to me. This is only preliminary and this is all I know at this time. I will update as more info becomes available. I do not know when the trial date is yet.

The conditions of the bond were modified. He now has a $250,000 secured bond.
He is not to have contact with children except for his own children, and that must be supervised by another adult.
He is not to come within 100 feet of where children are.
He needs to surrender his passport, and
He also needs to check in with pre-trial services in Yavapai County once a week.


Comments

Update: Tom Chantry Gets Bail — 31 Comments

  1. Passport surrendered, making fleeing the country more difficult. Cuts out Sky Harbor Airport, though he could still jump the border into Mexico on foot. (Which comes with its own set of problems.)

    $250,000 SECURED Bond; that means there’s a Bail Bondsman who’ll be out $225,000 if he skips. That’s quite a motivation to make sure he doesn’t. Or he’s got $250,000 worth of property (including land & house) up as collateral. Less motivation than a Bail Bondsman would have, but still…

    Monitored check-in once a week. Could still skip, but that would raise an alarm if he didn’t. Up to six days’ head start, though…

    So he’s looking at a decent-length stretch as a short-eyes. That’s motivation in the other direction. So will he stay or will he skip?

  2. Thanks for the update, he received bail which is a right in most cases. It is substantial and stipulations that protect others or as much as possible. I hope for a fair impartial trial and that all facts involved are shown and justice for all involved. I also hope that all alleged victims (sorry I had to use that I think that is what we are supposed to add, I tend to believe the allegations) are allowed their day in court as well. I do apologize I dont know how to word this stuff to show support, not get the blog in trouble, and remember innocent until proven guilty. Thanks for the information.

  3. “Calvinist icon Tom Chantry” on Peter Lumpkins’ blog, 12.6.’16, abridged as noted:

    “In the short span of three years, at least four icons among Calvinist super-stars seems to have fallen: C. J. Mahaney. Mark Driscoll. Tullian Tchividjian. And now, Tom Chantry.

    “Of the four, it appears Driscoll is the moral cream of the crop, … there seems to be no child abuse scandal…

    “…Mahaney suffers from … credible charges … of covering for sexual predators;

    “… Tchividjian may be a serial adulterer.

    “The latest stunning disappointment for neo-Calvinists: …Tom Chantry, … faces eight counts of child molestation and aggravated assault of a minor reportedly committed while serving as pastor … between 1995 and 2001.

    “… alarming that so many of the most celebrated “popular” ministers who have recently been involved in moral controversy–and more alarming still potentially criminal controversy–are squarely within the Calvinist Resurgence in America.”

  4. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Where are the – 9 Marks, Acts 29, Desiring God, TGC, T4G – measures of discipline? Isn’t that one of the 9 Marks, for example? Was Chantry operating under the umbrella of any of these organizations that, one assumes, have standards and integrity? Who did he report to?

    Action validates talk, or is there no action, therefore the talk is cheap, the message is fake or empty?

  5. JYJames wrote:

    Was Chantry operating under the umbrella of any of these organizations that, one assumes, have standards and integrity? Who did he report to?

    Not officially. He reported to a small reformed Baptist denomination led in good measure by his father. Unofficially, he contributed to the Pyromaniacs blog– likely the only reason we know who he is.

  6. ^ forgot to add: “need”

    [I was drinking unsweetened ice tea here in California, which explains my typing problems, I think!]

  7. JYJames wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Where are the – 9 Marks, Acts 29, Desiring God, TGC, T4G – measures of discipline? Isn’t that one of the 9 Marks, for example? Was Chantry operating under the umbrella of any of these organizations that, one assumes, have standards and integrity? Who did he report to?

    RANK HATH ITS PRIVILEGES.

  8. Velour wrote:

    And how much evidence will conservative evangelical leaders before they tackle the epidemic of child sexual abuse in our churches? It’s the No. 1 reason that churches are sued every single year…and have been sued for years!

    No amount of evidence will be enough.
    The Party Can Do No Wrong, Comrades.

    Here’s a recent posting on Eagle’s blog. Different MoG, same subject:
    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/is-phil-johnson-from-grace-to-you-the-lt-frank-drebin-of-the-reformed-community/

  9. JYJames wrote:

    “Of the four, it appears Driscoll is the moral cream of the crop, … there seems to be no child abuse scandal…

    Pretty sad that he looks like the ‘moral’ one. I have some thoughts about this, but I can’t really work them out yet. Obviously I would class Chantry (assuming this is true) as the ‘least moral’. Is this a sliding scale now? Ugh.

    Sounds like a reasonable bond with restrictions for Chantry, however its odd since it sounds like he would have been going to trial soon regardless.

  10. Abigail wrote:

    The secular world is wiser than the children of God.

    American Christians are some of the most gullible folks on the planet. There is not enough wisdom in most church pews to discern truth from error. Why? Because church folks don’t discipline themselves to read the Word and pray as they ought … and thus, easy pickins’ for cults, charlatans, and the latest movement which glitters.

  11. JYJames wrote:

    “Of the four, it appears Driscoll is the moral cream of the crop, … there seems to be no child abuse scandal…
    “… Tchividjian may be a serial adulterer.

    I think the things Driscoll says proudly about his wife indicate he is abusive to her. And she was abused before they married, and he blames all their problems on her, implying she asked for the abuse.

    I won’t (can’t…) even repeat some of the things he said. It’s pretty easy to find, though.

  12. ishy wrote:

    I think the things Driscoll says proudly about his wife indicate he is abusive to her

    To some people, the only ‘immoral’ thing a preacher can do is cheat. Everything else is hunky dory.

  13. Lea wrote:

    Pretty sad that he looks like the ‘moral’ one. I have some thoughts about this, but I can’t really work them out yet. Obviously I would class Chantry (assuming this is true) as the ‘least moral’. Is this a sliding scale now? Ugh.

    In elementary/high school, the straight-F students were always the loudest advocates of “grading on a curve”. Including strongarming the straight-A & B students who were skewing the curve up.

  14. ishy wrote:

    I think the things Driscoll says proudly about his wife indicate he is abusive to her. And she was abused before they married, and he blames all their problems on her, implying she asked for the abuse.

    I won’t (can’t…) even repeat some of the things he said. It’s pretty easy to find, though.

    You mean the fascination with both ends of the alimentary canal?

    i.e. The original high-profile look into a ManaGAWD’s sexual paraphiliae.

  15. ishy wrote:

    I think the things Driscoll says proudly about his wife indicate he is abusive to her. And she was abused before they married, and he blames all their problems on her, implying she asked for the abuse.
    I won’t (can’t…) even repeat some of the things he said. It’s pretty easy to find, though.

    I mean that she is required to do whatever he tells her to do whenever he tells her to do it. She is treated like a slave. That is abusive.

  16. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Different MoG, same subject:

    Johnson had a little twitter exchange on May 8th beginning with Johnson linking to a transcribed sermon “Did God Promise Health and Wealth” by Johnson on what appears to be Johnson’s website (shared with his co-pastor of the “Gracelife” fellowship group).
    The original topic of the exchange is insignificant (some typos apparently caused by a coding problem). BUT Johnson’s replies are so incomprehensible and bizarre to the extreme, I would LOVE for someone Twitter-wlitterate to challenge him further. I think Johnson’s approach is similar to some things Turk twittered about the Pyromaniacs’ relationship with Chantry. If someone could find those also, it would be helpful. The basic idea was that they had no official church employment relationship with Chantry, so no one should pay attention to his alleged misdeeds on their account. In Johnson’s recent twittering, in addition to some ad-hom slams at the other guy for “hating” Jesus (denied by the other guy), Johnson goes to great length to distance himself from the article bearing his name because “I didn’t post it. Someone else does that.” and “That’s not MY webpage.” Let me just state categorically that it is scientifically impossible that Johnson is not in a close working relationship with the mystery man whose webpage it supposedly is. All he needed to reply is that he’d make sure the corrections were made, which it is certain he can if he wants. He also posted a bizarre tweet which now seems redacted about how Darn it Jim, I’m a Layman, Not a Pastor — because he is not technically employed by the church. (I assume his salary is paid by the church’s wholly owned subsidiary “Grace to You”). Yet the website bearing his articles, name, and picture calls him in the bio — you guessed it– “pastor”.

  17. Dave A A wrote:

    The basic idea was that they had no official church employment relationship with Chantry, so no one should pay attention to his alleged misdeeds on their account

    Churches pull this bait and switch all the time. A former church made everyone aware that the seminary student who molested quite a few young teens and is not in jail, was merely a volunteer not an employee. They are still responsible for letting him have free reign with the male teens.

  18. dee wrote:

    A former church made everyone aware that the seminary student who molested quite a few young teens and is not in jail, was merely a volunteer not an employee. They are still responsible for letting him have free reign with the male teens.

    There is no CYA when a child is abused … your “A” is exposed for the whole world to see! Accountability always floats up … church leaders are indeed responsible when someone in their midst is abused by a staff member, whether they be a volunteer or an employee. Volunteer Sunday School teachers, small group leaders, youth workers, nursery attendants, and the greeter at the door are all extensions of church staff. Anyone … anyone … who raises their hand to volunteer for a church position should be vetted as diligently as a paid employee before they are turned loose on the Body of Christ. The enemy comes to steal, kill, and destroy … and he often comes in the backdoor of the church as a “trusted” volunteer.

  19. dee wrote:

    Churches pull this bait and switch all the time.

    Another good one is when the official teaching is, “When we leave here today, we will all still be the church out in the dark world” but when someone who’s part of the church does dark things to children, you hear, “But none of this happened in the church building (PHEW!!)”

  20. ishy wrote:

    I mean that she is required to do whatever he tells her to do whenever he tells her to do it.

    It also seems like some of the stories from their dating life resembled after school specials I watched.

  21. Max wrote:

    Anyone … anyone … who raises their hand to volunteer for a church position should be vetted as diligently as a paid employee before they are turned loose on the Body of Christ. The enemy comes to steal, kill, and destroy … and he often comes in the backdoor of the church as a “trusted” volunteer.

    How many times have you heard “I can’t believe it! He was such a nice guy!”

    The enemy of the church has had an eternity to work out his deception. Lucifer comes as an angel of light, a sly serpent who lies in wait … he’s not always in the pew, you can sometimes find him in the pulpit. The Bible identifies the devil as the evil one (Matthew 5:37), the enemy (1 Peter 5:7), the accuser of our brothers and sisters (Revelation 12:10), the destroyer (Revelation 9:11), murderer, liar, and the father of lies (John 8:44), the ruler of the kingdom of the air (Ephesians 2:2), the spirit now at work in those who are disobedient (Ephesians 2:2), the great dragon (Revelation 12:9), the tempter (Matthew 4:3), the thief (John 10:10), the enemy (Matthew 13:39), the ancient serpent (Revelation 12:9), the prince of this world (John 12:31), Beelzebul, and the prince of demons (Matthew 12:24).

    Folks we are in a war between darkness and light. Is it any surprise that TWW reports of the enemy’s evil deeds in church continue at a steady pace? But, Praise God, Jesus stripped the devil of his power over us on the Cross of Calvary … the only power he has in church is what we surrender back to him because of our disobedience. So the battle still rages. When the Body of Christ really gets sick and tired of being sick and tired, we will humble ourselves and pray as we ought. If not now, when?

  22. @ JYJames:
    C.J. Mahaney’s reputation has been tarnished, but I’m not sure I’d classify him as “fallen” based on his current status. Sure, he stepped down as SGM president, resigned from TGC’s council and didn’t speak at the 2014 T4G conference. But he still pastors a church in Louisville and was a featured speaker at the 2016 T4G conference.

    Should Mahaney be pastoring a church? I think not. Should he be speaking at conferences? Again, no. Like it or not, however, he remains active in both capacities.

  23. singleman wrote:

    he still pastors a church in Louisville

    Yep, Mr. Mahaney is now a Southern Baptist! When his Louisville church became officially aligned with the SBC it provided proof to all that there isn’t much to becoming an SBC-affiliated church these days. Of course, I suspect his bud Al Mohler had something to do with that.

  24. singleman wrote:

    Should Mahaney be pastoring a church? I think not. Should he be speaking at conferences? Again, no. Like it or not, however, he remains active in both capacities.

    Rank Hath Its Privileges.

    And having Friends in High Places sure helps.
    (Just ask that bokor from The Princess and the Frog.)

  25. ishy wrote:

    I mean that she is required to do whatever he tells her to do whenever he tells her to do it.

    And when you factor in MoG’s sexual kinks (broadcast in his sermons), you get Gor the Live RPG, where the woman exists only to service the man — anywhere, anywhen, anykink.

  26. Max wrote:

    There is no CYA when a child is abused …

    That’s just because you’re not an Attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *