In October 2023, our church requested dismissal from the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Our attempt at a lawful dismissal vote by the congregation, however, has been resisted by our presbytery (the Presbytery of the Alleghenies), and especially by an Administrative Commission of the presbytery, from the very beginning. Their resistance to our efforts continues to this date. You can read more about how this all began here.

From the outset, we engaged in the process assuming goodwill, transparency, and honesty by all parties. But when the presbytery started to take action to try and seize control of the congregation and its property, our Session was forced to conclude otherwise. The presbytery attempted to disenfranchise certain active members’ voting rights and gerrymander our rolls by trying to grant voting rights to former members.

As a result of their actions, the Session had to take protective measures against our presbytery. Consequently, we’ve had to file two complaints in the civil court and six complaints in the ecclesiastical courts. We took such action out of necessity and because we are seeking justice.

Ironically, on November 6, 2024, the EPC issued an Encyclical in an effort to manage perception over the many disputes, concerns, and frequently asked questions arising in the denomination. The summary conclusion of the encyclical includes the following statement (emphasis original):

“Let us take our disagreement to our courts, as we disagree in such courts, let us do so in love as well as with accuracy.”

The EPC leadership publically requested that churches take full advantage of the EPC courts to adjudicate disputes, and our Session did just that. That is why we were so dismayed when the Stated Clerk of our Presbytery filed a petition with the Permanent Judicial Commission of the denomination claiming concern over the volume of actions we filed with the PJC. The clerk also asserted that because we made full use of the courts, our Session was litigious.

If there is a limit to how many complaints are permissible before a church is accused of being excessive, then the EPC should have included that information in its encyclical.

Jesus’ parable of the persistent widow in Luke 18 seems to commend the woman for her repeated engagement with the courts and requests for justice.  Granted, the parable is meant to teach on prayer, but it cannot so easily be separated from principles of jurisprudence.

Two months after our request for dismissal from the denomination, our presbytery filed trumped-up contempt charges against me and the Session. On November 23, 2024, we had to stand trial and defend ourselves against the presbytery while in the middle of a dismissal process from that very presbytery. How is this action not litigious? How is this not an example of lawfare in the EPC?

The trial is currently in recess. In the meantime, we are still waiting for a response from the PJC on several of our complaints, one of which is directly related to the trial process and the charges against me and the Session.

Others familiar with the EPC have observed judicial double standards. In a recent article published in the Presbyterian Plumpline entitled “An Encyclical for the Purpose of Addressing Frequently Asked Questions in the 2024-2025 EPC Church Year”, the editors responded to the denomination’s encyclical and offered the following observations about justice in the EPC:

The encyclical urges us to trust in the process and take our concerns only to the church courts which seems dismissive, especially after the New River Presbytery overture got sidetracked by the Permanent Judicial Commission. The push to keep disagreements within church courts is difficult to accept at face value, especially when the very path of the overture process was shut down at the recent General Assembly. It is hard to trust in the church courts when you believe they are no longer fair or impartial and that the deck has been stacked against you.

Our church is having a hard time trusting the courts as well. After filing a complaint with the PJC in early October, the POA Stated Clerk immediately sent an email to the Chair of the PJC challenging our complaint. In response the PJC wrote to our Stated Clerk saying (emphasis added):

Dear [Stated Clerk],

The only filings that the PJC may consider at this time are the complaints filed by Beverly Heights Church.  The PJC will first rule whether either BHC complaint (or both of them) state(s) grounds on which relief may be granted.  In other words, the PJC will do the analysis required under Book of Discipline section 14-8.  If the PJC decides, after doing that analysis, that more is required from the parties under chapter 14 of the Book of Discipline, the PJC will order the parties to file supplements or responses.

I can appreciate POA’s desire to expedite the process; however, the POA responses filed this morning are rejected as premature.  No member of the PJC, including myself, has read or will read those filings. 

Both parties are requested not to make additional filings until ordered. 

The above response sounded promising and for a time it reassured confidence in the impartiality of the court. But then two months later, the POA Stated Clerk again emailed the PJC, this time with a petition challenging our complaints. The PJC responded to the Stated Clerk saying (emphasis mine):

[Stated Clerk],

Would you mind please resending the filing with attachments instead of the imbedded links?  It will save us from printing everything and scanning it.

What? What happened? Why the change in procedure? I was copied on all these emails so I replied to the PJC stating that we were surprised to see the latest exchange regarding the petition. I asked the Chair of the highest court, “Could you please clarify for BHPC if there has been a change in the PJC’s position that now allows for additional filings with the PJC?” I have still not received a response.

None of this helps engender trust in the church courts. It is hard not to think that there are two sets of rules for justice in the EPC. One set of rules favors the establishment and another is for those who are deemed a threat to that establishment.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash