March 13, 2017

Brothers,

It is with a sad but resolute heart that I am writing to inform you that after careful and
prayerful consideration, the officers and members of Portico Church in Orange, California,
voted with near unanimity (there was one abstention) to withdraw our membership from
ARBCA.

Over the years of our participation in the association, we have been greatly blessed by the
fellowship and partnership in the gospel that we have enjoyed. We thank God for the
prayers of the saints offered on our behalf, and for the opportunity to bring the needs of our
sister churches and missionaries before the throne of grace at our weekly corporate prayer
meetings.

We greatly appreciated the clarity of thought, transparency, and communication practiced

by the ARBCA leadership concerning the issues surrounding the doctrine of divine
impassibility. We are truly thankful for the guidance and resources that were provided by
the administrative council and theology committee through that process. Given the delicate
nature of the debate, we whole-heartedly believe that the issue was handled in the most
proper and God-honoring way.

We believe that the association is filled with good men who represent faithful local churches,
and who are truly seeking to know and to practice the Christian faith as it is revealed in the
Scriptures and summarized in our 1689 London Baptist Confession.

But we are also aware from our own experience that even good, faithful, and godly men are
subject to serious errors and lapses in judgment. In our view, this is the case concerning
the process surrounding the presentation of the Hales Corners, Wisconsin church for
reception at the 2016 ARBCA general assembly held at Rockford, Illinois. We are aware that
there were many issues facing the men serving on the membership committee and
administrative council. We do not presume to think that these men have been given a
simple task. We reject the idea that there was a conspiracy to deceive the general assembly,
and we are also aware that much of the information that was being presented to the MC,
AC, and coordinator was fluid and incomplete. We are sympathetic to the difficult place that
the men serving on these committees were in, and certainly do not want to diminish the
emotional and mental stress that these good brothers endured through this process.

Our central issue has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Tom Chantry. We pray that
these allegations will be proven to be false. We ultimately trust that the Lord’s sovereign will
will be done through the legal system, and do pray that all of those who have been either
directly, or indirectly, affected by this will find comfort, strength, and healing in the all-
sufficient grace of God.

Our first great concern is the poor judgment exercised by the membership committee,
administrative council, and the ARBCA coordinator in putting Tom Chantry and the Hales
Corners church forward for reception to the general assembly. Again, we understand that
these individuals were not in possession of all of the information, yet what is also clear is
that this man was under a cloud of suspicion that should have caused the MC, AC, and
coordinator to at least withdraw their recommendation for reception of the Hales Corners
church until such time as all of the facts surrounding the case were fully disclosed and there
was settlement to the issues surrounding the man. We understand that there was a need for
silence while the issue was being investigated, but this bears witness to our concern that
this was not the right time for the Hales Corners church to be pursuing membership. If it
was known that there was some level of police investigation under way, such that
investigators made a request for the MC, AC, and coordinator to remain silent about the
details of the case, then clearly the wise and prudent course was to pause the process until
notified otherwise.

Our second concern is that good men, armed with some (admittedly limited) information,
made a determination that it was the best course for the applying congregation to be
recommended for reception, especially in the event that the investigation led to an arrest
and trial. We understand that the motive for these committees was to provide associational
care for the Hales Corners church in case of the worst possible outcome. While we choose to
believe that the motives of the MC, AC, and coordinator likely were genuinely good, the
reality is that this determination was not theirs to make. The reception of applying churches
into the association belongs to the general assembly. By determining to recommend the
Hales Corners church to the general assembly for reception, but failing to, or being legally
hindered from, informing the general assembly of the issues as they were known, the MC,
AC, and coordinator undermined the integrity of the process. These groups, in their desire
to help, actually overreached and usurped the authority of the general assembly. Again, we
do not believe that this was done with malice, but this was the totally unacceptable result.

A third area of concern centers on what appears to us as a willingness to indulge the desires
of a non-member church at the expense of the good order and reputation of the member
churches that make up the association. Again, we do not believe that this was the intention,
but it is nonetheless the result. We can understand how much the Hales Corners church,
and likely, the Rockford church who planted and sponsored them in their application for
membership into the association, would have been excited to be received into the
association at the Rockford General Assembly. The symbolism and the sentimentality of that
time and place are not lost on us. However given the clouds that surrounded the entire
situation, the welfare and well-being of the member churches should have been the priority.
We do not presume to know or understand everything, but the integrity, holiness, and
reputation of the association churches must take priority over the desires of non-member
churches.

Poor judgment, overreach by the MC, AC, and coordinator, even if well intentioned, and
what appears from our perspective to be deference shown to an applying church at the
expense of the well-being, integrity, and reputation of the local churches that make up the
association, require that we withdraw ourselves from formal association with ARBCA.

While acknowledging the very real difficulties surrounding this issue, and while empathizing
with the men who were involved in this process, we also believe that there was a clear, God-
honoring course of action, which could have been, and should have been, pursued. We
recognize that the righteous path is not always the easiest or most comfortable; but it is
always the only acceptable path. Doing the wrong thing, even for the right reasons, is still
wrong.

We pray that the Lord in His infinite goodness and faithfulness will grant humble confession
and sincere repentance where it is appropriate, and that through His all-sufficient, amazing
grace, He would bring healing and restoration to those involved and glory to Himself
through Christ’s church. Brothers, we do not condemn you; but neither can we condone
your decisions and actions that have now warranted our resignation.

We have attempted to write with understanding and charity while clearly communicating our
firm belief that those involved have done a great disservice to the churches that comprise
the association. We trust that our withdrawal will underscore our concerns over the
seriousness of the situation, and will be used by God to bring conviction and to spur
repentance where perhaps our words alone would have been insufficient.

For the officers and members of Portico Church in Orange California,

Pastor Jonathan Cochran