Below is the closing statement I read on January 11, 2025, at my trial in the Presbytery of the Alleghenies .

Members of the Judicial Commission.  We acknowledge this is a complex situation and you’re in a difficult spot. And we are grateful for your close consideration of the facts of this case.  

We, the elders of the Beverly Heights Session,  take our vows very seriously.  Throughout this ordeal,  we have sought to uphold our vows to Scripture and Westminster, which is why we have not renounced jurisdiction. In addition,  we have a responsibility to the congregation as officers of the church.  

We want you to know that the ministry is strong. Our church has a preschool and academy that serves around 75 kids, vibrant worship services, three podcasts, and partnerships with vibrant mission partners. The Administrative Commission wants you to believe that we are an unhealthy church, but we are a healthy church that is getting healthier, as we learn to live in accord with the Standards as God has defined them.  We are raising our kids to do the same. 

As elders, we have a responsibility to protect and to promote the peace, unity, and purity of the church, and to safeguard the good work that God has begun at Beverly Heights, until he brings that work to completion.

The Administrative Commission, the charging party, wants you to believe that we are rebellious and have contemptuously disregarded authority. To the contrary, we have a high view of authority, and have sought to be good presbyters in the presbytery since our reception into the EPC in 2007. Other Teaching elders in the POA, have asserted publically that this situation is all about authority, claiming that we have no regard for it. This is not true. 

We respect authority, and the God who authorizes men to serve as church leaders. However, there seems to be little to no regard by the presbytery for the authority of this Session as a rightful court of the church, which has been continually questioned and undermined by the actions and recommendations of the AC.

The AC wants you to believe that we are attempting to leave the denomination through spurious means. This is not true.  We have been seeking to closely follow and uphold the Scriptures, Westminster, the Constitution and PA Commonwealth law throughout the process.

The AC wants you to believe that we have improperly removed members from the rolls of the church due to animus and self-interest. This is not true.  To the contrary, the session has taken its responsibility of spiritual oversight of its members very seriously, and has carefully considered and measured the active participation and spiritual well being of those under its care. 

Session has closely examined and deliberated the membership status of the congregation in light of the standards of the constitution. Session has only sought to remove individuals properly, in accord with evidence and only when appropriate.

We recognize that a significant amount of evidence has been presented to you in this case, both through the exhibits and witnesses who have testified. We do not envy your position and we recognize the heavy weight of responsibility that is on your shoulders as you decide this difficult case.  It is a case that requires heavenly wisdom. 

In his moment of trial, Job said, “where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?” (Job 28:12). The scriptures tell us that wisdom is found in the fear of the Lord, and understanding is found by turning away from evil and by following the truth. 

Following the truth is simple, but it is not easy.

The truth of this case is simple, and the innocence of the accused is proven by four simple truth claims. If any of these claims are true, then the charge of contempt and immorality must fail.  If they are true, then our actions were not done in willful disrespect and disobedience of the AC.

First truth is this: the Session sought to comply with a mutually exclusive ultimatum given by the AC on 10/3/23.  The choice was simple: seek dismissal from the EPC in a BOG 5-10 process or comply with Actions and Recommendations Report, which the Session and I believed was unjust.

 Any reasonable person reading the email from the AC would conclude that the Session was given a binary choice.  And no reasonable person could expect the Session to seek dismissal while simultaneously working to comply with the Actions and Recommendations.

Second truth is this: the AC, is a lawful authority, but it has issued unlawful commands.  These commands violate the EPC constitution and Commonwealth of PA law. We know this is true through a plain reading of the law and the constitution, not through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission or civil court.  If we the presbytery cannot agree on the plain reading of these texts, then there is no possibility for the principle of common law in the EPC, nor the possibility of basic exegesis.  

Is the EPC a denomination in which we can all readily agree that this is what the constitution says?  We must resist the temptation to magisterial interpretation of the law in which only a select few in the denomination can tell us what the EPC constitution really means.  And the AC cannot be permitted to simply claim that things were hidden in the bylaws, or that we misunderstood the commission’s intent. 

Because the commands of the AC are clearly unlawful, the Session has the moral and fiduciary responsibility to take action to protect the congregation and the rights of its members in the ecclesial courts, or in the civil courts when necessary, and to cry out against manifest injustice in order that the presbytery and denomination will know that injustice is happening.

The third truth is this: the relationship between a local congregation and presbytery is covenantal, and the AC has broken the covenant. When the AC issues unlawful commands, and seeks to compel the session and its pastor to act in a manner contrary to scripture, Westminster, and the Book of Order, commonwealth law and the conscience, then it breaks the covenant and destroys trust. 

Imagine if the roles were reversed. What if the Presbytery came in and said to your session that you are no longer allowed to talk to friends or acquaintances who affirm a particular political party.  What would you do?  

What if the presbytery intimated on the floor of the presbytery that you had a substance abuse problem.  What would justice demand?  Would trust be broken?  What if the presbytery asked you to violate your conscience?  What would you do if the presbytery did something that violated the constitution?  Would not the bonds of covenant be broken and would you not have the duty to resist these unlawful commands? 

Finally, the Westminster Confession of Faith states that God alone is the Lord of the conscience. The AC is seeking to compel this session to violate our consciences which we cannot do. Over the last two years, the AC has issued commands, actions and recommendations that violate the conscience of this church, its session and its pastor. We do not assume that an appeal to conscience allows one to disobey lawful authorities, however, we cannot obey unlawful commands.  And for a superior to assert positional authority and order compliance of an inferior in violation of law and conscience is the very definition of a sin of superiors.  

The best way for Beverly Heights Church to obey the rightful authority of the presbytery without violating conscience is not through mere compliance with the AC’s commands but by seeking dismissal from the EPC. The covenant is broken; our church is no longer in alignment with the EPC, and our conscience is being violated.  The best way for all parties to pursue the peace, unity and purity of the church is for Beverly Heights to be dismissed.     

We recognize the discomfort, the difficulty, and the burden this process has been for the AC, the POA, and now the Judicial Commission. We recognize that, but please imagine for just a moment how this ordeal has been for our church, its actual members and their children.

I want to take a moment to remind you that Beverly Heights Church was received in the EPC in 2007, as part of  the New Wineskins non-geographic presbytery. We entered into the denomination after a long and difficult exit process with the PCUSA. Coming into the EPC was entirely refreshing. 

Entrance into the EPC came at a pivotal moment of my life, personally. I was a recent graduate from Trinity School for Ministry.  I remember fondly taking classes with Betsy Rumer and talking about ministry and the church. I remember fondly, meeting with Dean Weaver at Kirk of the Hills, for the New Wineskins convention. I remember fondly both of my examinations on the floor, one in the New Wineskins presbytery and the other when we transferred into the POA. 

I consider it a privilege that I was able to serve on the POA’s Church Development Committee helping to draft the POA’s documents on church vitality.  It was a privilege to serve on the ministerial committee and to draft examination preparation documents for teaching and ruling elders.  It was an honor  to help develop within the POA a presbyterian studies program at TSM.  And it was a distinct honor to serve as the moderator of the presbytery. To this day I continue to have strong and meaningful relationships with dear and trusted colleagues in the POA, and I care about the wellbeing of this presbytery.

I have been in pastoral ministry in one form or another since 2000. I was a church planter for 5.5 years in a small rust-belt town outside of Weirton. My wife and I lived in section 8 housing as I worked three jobs to raise two small children and pay for seminary. I navigated with Beverly Heights our exit out of the PCUSA, and followed a long-term pastorate of 33 years. I had to learn how to pastor through a global pandemic.  All of these experiences were challenging, but I can say unequivocally the last two years of conflict with the POA have been the hardest ministry years of my life. 

I am not trying to blame the EPC or the AC. I and the Session are simply trying to be obedient to Christ and His Word. All I ever wanted was to be a good pastor, and to serve my people well. 

I will also tell you that this Session is one of the finest group of men that I’ve ever had the pleasure of serving with. They are selfless servants of the congregation. They are courageous defenders of the church. And they are jealous for the glory of Christ. These men are no mere hirelings. They care for the flock before them and they have the highest respect for Christ, the highest regard for His Word and an abiding love for His Church. 

As I stand before you today, and before Almighty God, I believe every decision that I and the Session have made over the last two years has been in obedience to Christ and for the purpose of leading Beverly Heights Church into the good future that God has ordained for it. 

We desire to pay all that is owed, “to pay respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (Rom 13:7). We respect the POA and the EPC. We simply ask that the POA respect the rightful authority vested in this Session by the constitution.  We ask that the POA respect the wishes of this congregation, and dismiss us into independence with a lawful vote.  Finally, we respect this Judicial Commission, and as fellow presbyters in the Lord, I ask that you find us faithful to Christ, and not guilty of these charges.