An Open Letter to the
Presbytery of the Alleghenies

Introduction

On October 9, 2023, the Session of the Beverly Heights Presbyterian Church (BHPC) presented a unanimous request to the Presbytery of the Alleghenies for dismissal into independence.  This decision was made following an email sent to Session by the POA’s Administrative Commission (AC) on October 3, 2023, stating: 

“Please advise by Thursday, October 12 if you have reached decisions:

•  to abide or to not abide by the Commission's actions and recommendations, or

•  to seek dismissal from the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. (If so, we would be grieved, but would work with you to see that the appropriate procedures according to the Constitution of the EPC BOG 5-10 are followed).”

This open letter is written in support of the request for dismissal.  Following the Session’s request, BHPC has faced ongoing resistance from the AC and the POA Leadership Team throughout the dismissal process, with the Session observing numerous biblical violations and constitutional irregularities by the presbytery.  This letter aims to promote transparency and inform the good and godly commissioners of the POA about the current situation.  The BHPC Session and the members of the congregation wish for a peaceful dismissal and believe this can be achieved if the POA adheres to a fair, legal, and constitutional process.  We offer this letter to ensure commissioners are well-informed, with the hope that fruitful discussion can occur at the September 2024 POA meeting.

How Did We Get Here?

Beverly Heights Presbyterian Church is a 95-year-old congregation in the South Hills of Pittsburgh, PA.  Originally a member of the United Presbyterian Church, and then a member of the PCUSA, Beverly Heights was dismissed in 2007 from the PCUSA into the New Wineskins Non-Geographic Presbytery of the EPC.  Beverly Heights soon entered the POA after it was formed in 2011.  Rick Wolling served as BHPC’s Senior Pastor for 33 years, retiring in 2018, after which his Associate, TE Nate Devlin was called by the congregation and approved by the POA as the next senior pastor.  Transitions following a long-term pastorate are historically challenging, and the situation at BHPC was no exception.  Early on the Session began to focus on what the EPC identifies as the five basic areas of transition including, 1) coming to terms with history, 2) discovering a new identity, 3) facilitating shifts of power, 4) rethinking denominational ties, and 5) building commitment to new leadership and a new future.  

The first eighteen months of transition were relatively smooth.  However, in 2020, BHPC encountered the first of two significant challenges, beginning with the COVID-19 pandemic.  Pastor Devlin and the Session met regularly to address the emerging needs and concerns stemming from the global crisis.  Difficult decisions were made, but in the end, consensus policies were put in place to ensure the continuation of the ministry.  Not everyone was satisfied with the leadership’s decisions, with some feeling that they were either too cavalier or too restrictive.  This led some who were dissatisfied to encourage the Session’s personnel committee to conduct a covert performance review of Pastor Devlin during the summer of 2020.  

The Session never approved the review, and Pastor Devlin was never interviewed during the review process. When the review was submitted to the Session in October 2020, the personnel committee was informed that their actions were out of compliance with stated policy and clearly defined procedures.  In 2021, members of the personnel committee resigned, and those dissatisfied with BH’s leadership during the pandemic left the church.  

In 2022, BHPC faced a second challenge, described by Edwin Friedman in his book, Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix as sabotage.  Two unseated elders and one seated elder began requesting regular meetings with Pastor Devlin, offering "help and guidance."  Despite Pastor Devlin's efforts to accommodate their requests, he was unable to fulfill their demands for change or implement their proposed ideas for the ministry's future.  In the summer of 2022, Pastor Devlin informed the Session of his interactions with the three elders and their offer to serve as the pastor's advisors.  

The three elders later requested a meeting with Session, which took place on November 8 and 15, 2022.  During these meetings, the elders presented a lengthy report outlining areas of concern with the ministry and issues with Pastor Devlin.  They stated several times in these meetings that they were content to leave the matter in Session’s hands. Following these meetings, Session began an evaluation process.  Session's investigation revealed that the elders’ concerns were largely based on personal preferences, unsubstantiated claims, and anonymous second- or third-hand sources.  The Session decided to take the three elders’ concerns under advisement but not to pursue the issue further.  Session informed the three elders of their decision. 

The three elders, however, were unwilling to accept the Session's decision and later filed charges with the POA against Pastor Devlin. The Presbytery Leadership Team (PLT) formed a Judicial Investigative Committee (JIC) which determined that there was no basis for the charges, dismissing all of them. At this point, the dispute with the three ruling elders should have been remanded to the lower court (BHPC Session). However, the JIC first formed a novel Mediation Committee, which concluded that mediation would not work, and then recommended to the PLT that the Presbytery form an Administrative Commission (AC). 

The Session was initially optimistic about the formation of the AC, hoping that the commission would help manage the three elders who were increasingly sowing division in the church and acting as a counter-session to the duly elected and seated elders. However, that optimism quickly turned to doubt as the AC spent only a few weeks investigating the complex situation.  The Session had just one meeting with the AC to discuss the issues, while the AC conducted several focus groups at BHPC and neighboring EPC churches.   Doubt turned to devastation on September 16, 2023, when the AC issued its “Actions and Recommendations Report” on the floor of the POA.  Pastor Devlin and the BH Session were completely unprepared for the AC’s findings and were shocked and deeply discouraged by what they heard from the AC that day.  Pastor Devlin’s professional reputation within the EPC was permanently damaged by the AC’s report.  After consulting with legal counsel, Pastor Devlin was advised that the AC's report and its public dissemination provide strong grounds for a defamation lawsuit.  

A second objection from Pastor Devlin and the Session is that the report sought to achieve disciplinary outcomes through administrative means, further disrupting the peace, unity, and purity of the church. For example, the report's use of disciplinary language and their requirement for repentance was directly taken from the Book of Discipline.  The AC engaged more in an unbiblical Title IX approach to justice, a process described in Megan Basham's new book Shepherds for Sale.  However, arriving at these recommendations without following a disciplinary process, which provides the protections of due process for the accused—such as the examination of evidence, and the cross-examination of witnesses—is biblically unjust and unconstitutional according to the Book of Order.      

Despite the serious deficiencies in the report, Pastor Devlin and Session sought to comply as best they could without violating their conscience or the Scriptures.  Progress was being made until the AC entertained more “concerns” and false reports from the opposition party following a congregational meeting.  The AC failed to verify these claims and simply accepted them at face value, then issued their ultimatum on October 3rd (see above).  At this point, Pastor Devlin decided to resign rather than violate his conscience or be in contempt of the AC, and Session requested dismissal from the EPC in accordance with BOG 5-10.  The first of the two required congregational meetings for this vote took place on October 29, 2023, with the second meeting scheduled for February 4, 2024.  However, the second congregational meeting never occurred because the AC violated the constitution by filing contempt charges against Pastor Devlin and Session during the dismissal process. More importantly, the AC sought to influence the vote's outcome by unconstitutionally reinstating properly dismissed former members back onto the BHPC rolls and denying the vote to newer members. 

Why Did BHPC Session File its First Complaint with the GA?

On December 28, 2023, the AC brought contempt charges against Pastor Devlin and all individual members of Session, claiming they had failed to follow through on its Actions and Recommendations.  

The BHPC Session's resistance to the AC’s unconstitutional (and potentially illegal) actions regarding membership rolls seems to have prompted the filing of these charges (more details on this below).  According to the EPC’s constitution, member churches are allowed to seek dismissal with their property.  In an email to Session on October 3, the commissioners clearly outlined two choices: comply with the AC’s demands or pursue dismissal.  Session opted for the latter, but when they objected to the AC’s unconstitutional handling of BHPC’s membership rolls, they were charged with contempt.  

In doing so, the AC appears to have violated its own constitution, as outlined in the EPC Book of Government, Chapter 5, Clause 10, Paragraph 1, which states: “Once a Church Session has notified Presbytery of its desire under this section [which Session did, on October 9], Presbytery shall take no action to dismiss, dissolve or divide the local church and its elders until all proceedings under this section 5-10 are fully completed.”

Yet, the POA did take action against Session on December 28, before the scheduled dismissal vote on February 4, by authorizing the commencement of contempt proceedings.  

To prevent the AC from removing the Session during the dismissal process and to highlight the AC's ongoing and escalating unconstitutional actions, the BHPC Session lodged a complaint with the General Assembly (GA) against the AC’s contempt charges filed in the POA.  A complete copy of the complaint, outlining the AC’s numerous constitutional violations, is available below. 

Why did BHPC Session File its First Suit with the Allegheny County Court?

As part of the Actions and Recommendations presented to the POA on  September 16, 2023, BHPC Session was directed to “Provide the Commission with a report by October 15, 2023, of members removed from the official membership rolls and those moved to inactive status since January 2022.” The Session promptly complied with this directive. Subsequently, after notifying the AC and the PLT of its intent to seek dismissal under BOG 5-10, the AC mandated a membership audit before the final vote under BOG 5-10 could proceed. To conduct this audit, the AC developed a questionnaire (included below) and invited all former and inactive church members to respond. Based on these responses, and without verifying any of the responses and results of the questionnaire with the BHPC Session, the AC unilaterally made determinations regarding whether members had been improperly moved to inactive status or removed from the rolls.

Following the audit, the AC asserted that approximately 23 members of BHPC were improperly moved to inactive membership status or wrongly dismissed from the church rolls. The AC directed Session to revalidate their membership status. The BHPC Session diligently reviewed these results and successfully revalidated 7 of the members in question. This resulted in approximately 16 members still disputed after the AC’s audit. Despite the BHPC Session providing additional evidence to the AC demonstrating adherence to BOG procedures in removing the remaining members, the evidence was disregarded. In the subsequent weeks, the AC continued to add other contentious former members to the list of inactive members slated to return to active membership, resulting in a total of approximately 20 disputed members.

The BHPC Session requested detailed explanations for each of the members in question, including original survey responses, but the AC refused to provide this information. Instead, the AC consolidated the data and issued general statements. The two most often cited reasons for improper removal of members from the active rolls were “Session failed to pursue resumption of active involvement” and “member removed from membership without one year of diligent effort & written notification.” In subsequent email exchanges with the AC, it became evident that the standard for church membership relied on the feelings of the former members, rather than the Session's careful deliberation or the factual circumstances presented for each case. In some instances, the members in question had not attended a worship service at BHPC for three years or had explicitly informed Pastor Devlin or other Session members of their decision to leave the church.  Even after claiming membership in their audit response, the AC did not require worship attendance by the disputed members, and the disputed members showed no effort to rejoin worship. This not only circumvents the rightful jurisdiction of the Session in BOG 8, but it also strongly suggests special protection by the AC of divisive and well-connected former members.

The BHPC Session affirms that it faithfully and consistently adhered to the rules and regulations set forth in the Book of Order, maintaining the principle that “The Session of a local church shall be responsible for receiving, dismissing, retiring to the inactive roll, or otherwise determining membership in the local church” (BOG 8-1). In correspondence dated November 3, 2023, the AC stated, “Of course, you [BHPC Session] have the right to appeal the Commission’s decisions. In our decision-making process, we asked what might be considered in an appeal where Session asserts BOO requirements were met. In a particular case where an audit response indicated improper fulfillment of BOO requirements but Session asserts requirements were met, the Commission can consider whether the number of audit responses claiming failure to fulfill requirements constitutes a dispositive pattern which may be compelling evidence.” This official communication from the AC overtly discouraged the BHPC Session from filing a complaint (BOD 14), suggesting that the AC had already predetermined the outcome of any appeal or complaint.

Despite vigorous protests to the AC, the BHPC Session communicated on December 4, 2023, that "We intend to comply with the AC’s membership audit, despite our disagreement with many of the AC’s decisions." Consequently, the BHPC Session was prepared to permit all contested members to participate in the BOG 5-10 voting process.

However, the AC then stated, “We decided on November 20th that limiting participation in the 2nd BOG 5-10 meeting to congregational members of record prior to Session’s October 9, 2023 notification of intent to seek dismissal is proper according to both the letter and intent of BOG 5-10. While new members admitted after October 9, 2023, have all the rights and responsibilities of other congregational members in other matters, they will not be allowed to vote on February 4th.”

As members of the POA may understand, the disruptions in our church over the past year have been substantial. During this time, several families who had been worshiping with us for months or years but had not yet become members, petitioned the Session to join Beverly Heights. Between October 9, 2023, and November 20, 2023, approximately 20 new members were added to the active church rolls, following all proper procedures.

The AC's directive to reinstate former members to the active rolls, coupled with the exclusion of current active members from voting, resulted in a disputed membership pool of approximately 20% of the total rolls. Considering that a BOG 5-10 dismissal vote can be defeated by a minority as small as 34%, this 20% swing orchestrated by the AC is both highly significant and concerning.

This situation was deeply discouraging to the BHPC Session, but it incited even greater anger among the active members of BHPC who were disenfranchised by the AC's actions. While recognized as members with "all the rights and responsibilities of other congregational members in other matters," they were denied the right to vote. BHPC bylaws explicitly state: "All members of the Congregation listed on the active church rolls, as established by official action of the Session, shall be eligible to vote." Additionally, according to the Nonprofit Corporations Act of Pennsylvania, "Unless otherwise provided in a bylaw adopted by the members, every member of a nonprofit corporation is entitled to one vote." The BHPC Session cautioned the AC that their decision in this matter constituted a crisis of authority, violating both the EPC constitution and BHPC bylaws, and potentially running afoul of Pennsylvania law.

The AC responded by dismissing these warnings and charging the BHPC Session and Pastor Devlin with contempt, asserting that "the AC is not obligated to restate previous communications, debate decisions, comment on communications with third parties, or lack thereof."

BHPC is both a congregation within the EPC and a non-profit corporation under the laws of Pennsylvania. All church property and assets are owned by the congregation, with elders serving dual roles as both the Session of the church and the Board of Trustees of the corporation. All active church members, as officially recognized by the Session, also hold membership in the corporation, enjoying protected civil rights.

The BHPC Session grew genuinely concerned that the AC's actions, aimed at unduly influencing and controlling the church's membership rolls while stripping members of their voting rights, constituted an attempt to exert control over the real and personal property of the church's members. These actions are deeply troubling and represent clear violations of BOG 6 and BOG 8.

These actions not only infringe upon the responsibilities and authority of the elders as duly elected trustees but also infringe upon the voting rights of active members. With the impending BOG 5-10 vote nearing, and in the absence of an appeal or complaint process within the EPC capable of halting the AC's actions, the BHPC Session turned to the civil courts to seek justice and safeguard the church. Put simply, if the AC had not intervened to prevent recognized, active members from voting on the church’s dismissal request, the BHPC Session would not have found it necessary to file a civil case in the Allegheny Court.

Why did BHPC Session File its Second Suit with the Allegheny County Court?

On January 25, 2024, the BHPC Session initiated a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County ahead of the congregational vote on February 4. They also filed for an injunction, seeking to prevent the POA from disenfranchising new members in the vote and from unconstitutionally reinstating properly removed members to the active rolls. The judge sided with BHPC, granting the injunction and delaying the congregational vote pending a conciliatory hearing.

Following the favorable ruling, the POA’s legal representative, RE Forrest Norman, contacted BHPC's legal team to propose mediation as a means to resolve the dispute. BHPC agreed, and their legal counsel recommended Session nominate elders to serve as binding decision makers in the mediation process. Consequently, RE Dave Webb, RE Andy Lucas (Clerk of Session), and Pastor Devlin were appointed by Session to serve as BHPC’s Mediation Commission.

On Friday, March 22, 2024, the Mediation Commission, BHPC's attorneys, and representatives from the POA—RE Roger Rumer, RE Harry Kunze, TE Josh Brown, and their lawyer RE Forrest Norman—met with a neutral mediator, the Honorable Judge Gary Caruso. After seven hours of mediation, BHPC's attorney, Jaden Rankin-Wahlers, drafted a written mediation agreement that all parties verbally agreed upon. However, on March 25, BHPC's legal team received a revised draft of the agreement from the POA's counsel that significantly deviated from the previously agreed terms.

The introduction of the new terms prompted a series of renegotiations between BHPC and POA lawyers as BHPC sought to recover the original terms agreed upon on March 22. Despite these efforts, the process slowed and eventually stalled when the POA refused to return to the initial agreement. With the POA unwilling to uphold the terms of the mediated agreement reached on March 22, BHPC had no recourse but to return to court on May 30, 2024. BHPC Session sought relief from the Allegheny Court, requesting a judge to enforce the mediated agreement and compel the POA to adhere to the terms finalized on March 22nd. The judge ordered a 60-day discovery period and scheduled oral arguments for September 16, 2024.

Why Did BHPC Session File Charges Against the AC and a Second Complaint with the GA? 

On April 18, 2024, Pastor Devlin informed the congregation via email of a budgetary deficit.  He again addressed the issue at a BHPC family business meeting held on Sunday, June 2.  On Wednesday, June 5, 2024,—only five days after BH Session filed with the Allegheny County Court for enforcement of the mediated agreement—Session received an email from the AC informing them that confidential "concerns" had been raised regarding BHPC's financial situation.  The AC stated:

Mindful of its responsibility of oversight of Beverly Heights, the AC recommended and the Presbytery’s Leadership Team approved a review of the church’s financial records and administrative practices be conducted by an independent certified accounting firm.

On June 7th, BHPC Session emailed the AC expressing their disappointment upon learning about additional anonymous "concerns" being shared once again with the AC. Session emphasized that Pastor Devlin and the elders had been transparent with the congregation about the financial situation and had provided ample opportunities for questions. Session assured the AC that the church's finances have been and continue to be managed by individuals known for their high professional and spiritual integrity. Session also shared with the AC what they believed to be the cause of the deficit:

•  Lost membership resulting in lost revenue. 

• A concerted effort on the part of some in the church to try and bankrupt the ministry, a concern that was previously shared with and ignored by the AC.  (You can learn more about the effort to bankrupt Beverly Heights in this Parrhesian Podcast.)

• Inflationary realities within our current economic climate that is affecting all non-profits and congregations, which Session is confident will be verified in the EPC’s upcoming annual statistical report.

Session responded to these challenges by 1) responsibly informing the congregation to enhance awareness of the ministry's needs, and 2) rightsizing the ministry through budget cuts, reduced spending, program adjustments, and personnel changes.

BHPC sought to reassure the PLT and the AC that the church's finances are being responsibly managed by duly elected and installed fiduciaries. These individuals possess the moral, legal, and ecclesial authority to oversee BHPC's real and personal property.

Additionally, Session's position is that the AC's directive for a financial review, and the PLT's endorsement of such action, are highly irregular and out of order. These actions were based on anonymous "concerns" that were not disclosed to Session.  BHPC Session argued that the AC's order also contravened the EPC constitution and violated Pennsylvania Commonwealth Law for Nonprofits.   

Last year, BHPC provided the AC with its bylaws, which establish a Board of Auditors and outline an annual audit process. This audit has been conducted each year and its findings reported at the congregation's annual meeting. The Session fully intends to proceed with this year's audit in accordance with these bylaws and to present the results at the upcoming September annual meeting. Session believes that this transparency will address any concerns among BHPC members. BHPC is also willing to share the audit results and its annual report with the POA to alleviate any concerns they may have.

The Session maintains that financial integrity within the congregation has been upheld, as evidenced by their readiness to address any financial inquiries from the congregation directly. Furthermore, no public allegations of financial mismanagement or evidence of impropriety have been brought to Session's or the POA's attention. Internal review mechanisms are already in place to ensure accountability.

Given these assurances and considering both Pennsylvania law and the EPC constitution, which delineate fiduciary responsibilities clearly, BHPC's Session respectfully declined the AC's proposal to participate in an additional financial review.

Despite these circumstances, the AC persisted in reissuing its order for a financial review, demanding compliance by June 24, 2024. With no other recourse, Pastor Devlin and the BHPC Session sought relief from a higher court. They filed paperwork with the PJC, only to discover that POA Stated Clerk Dana Opp had attempted to obstruct justice by requesting the PJC dismiss the complaint before it was officially received. The PJC later clarified that the appropriate venue for filing was the POA, prompting BHPC Session and Pastor Devlin to file contempt charges against the AC and TE Dana Opp with the POA. These charges were filed to protect the congregation from further harm and harassment by the AC while seeking dismissal.  

Additionally, Session lodged a complaint with the GA against the AC for what they believed to be an order that exceeded the AC's constitutional and legal authority.  Sadly, the PJC ruled against BHPC Session, claiming that the Book of Government is "not meant to be exhaustive or limiting" when it comes to the responsibilities or authority of presbyteries or the AC.   The PJC's position, however, seems to run counter to what the Book of Order explicitly states, "The authority of Church courts is limited to the expressed provisions of the Constitution and is exercised in its Church courts, not by individuals" (BOG 3.1).   Dr. Jeff Jeremiah, former Stated Clerk of the EPC, identified this constitutional crisis on the floor of the 44th General Assembly this past June (more on that below). 

If the constitution is not limiting or binding by what it explicitly states, then the EPC has created the conditions for a "deep state"scenario in which appointed officials or small administrative bodies of a presbytery can determine for themselves what authorities they have or do not have in the church.  This is a form of governmentt distinctly different from historic/representative presbyterianism, in which scripture, the confession and/or constitution vests certain limited and prescribed authorities upon elected officers.  In this new form of administrative government, EPC member churches lose the protections set forth in the constitution. This is a dangerous precedent for all EPC churches. Copies of the charges, complaint and PJC ruling can be found below.

What Can the POA do to Resolve This Conflict?

The presbytery holds both the responsibility and the authority to resolve the ongoing dispute between BHPC and the AC. To the extent that the POA continues to delegate its responsibility to the AC, the problems only worsen and the breakdown between the parties intensifies. There are several items the POA can act on to directly facilitate conflict resolution.

• Resolve to adhere to the moderated agreement as written and agreed upon by both parties on March 22, 2024.  BHPC urges adherence to the moderated agreement, as mutually agreed on March 22, 2024. This commitment will enable a constitutional vote of all active BHPC members in June 2025, allow for the dismissal of civil litigation against the POA by BHPC without prejudice, and pave the way for withdrawing ecclesial litigation.

• Do not renew the Administrative Commission.  The POA should refrain from renewing the AC at the September meeting. Over the past year, the AC's actions have exacerbated tensions rather than foster peace, unity, or purity within BHPC or the POA. Delegating broad ecclesial authority to a small administrative body without sufficient constitutional adherence has proven problematic.

• Rescind the Actions and Recommendations Report.  The A&R report is immoral, unbiblical, and unpastoral. Approved hastily on September 16, 2023, without thorough consideration, it poses unnecessary legal risks for the presbytery and is unjust as it seeks disciplinary outcomes through an administrative process. The POA has assumed the AC is acting in good faith, however, evidence to the contrary no longer allows for this assumption.  The report should be rescinded.

• Drop the Contempt Charges.  BHPC has sought and continues to seek a peaceful dismissal from the EPC.  The Rev. Russ Howard shared a reasonable opinion on December 28th when the charges were brought to the POA.  He asked, “Why are we doing this?  If the Session and congregation are in a dismissal process, why are we proceeding with this?  Why don’t we at least let them finish their dismissal process?  I feel like there’s a need for grace …”  There is a need for grace in this situation and for constitutional adherence by not violating the BOG 5-10 process through contempt charges.

• Repeal the AC’s order for a financial review.  The AC's order for a financial review appears punative against a congregation that is seeking dismissal from the EPC.  It violates the EPC Book of Govenrment 3.1, and PA Commonwealth law (see the attached complaint). Persisting with this review risks further legal challenges against the POA as it undermines BHPC fiduciaries' responsibilities to safeguard church property and assets.

• Allow for a contestable vote in June 2025.  The AC has continually stated that they do not have a stake in the outcome of the dismissal vote and only want an incontestable vote. Their actions over the last year, however, suggest otherwise. Clarification on why a contestable vote is problematic has not been adequately provided. Legitimate challenges to BHPC's dismissal vote should be permitted, enabling thorough examination and cross-examination of evidence by both BHPC and the POA.  The AC should stop working toward a predefined outcome and allow the process to continue according to the constitution.

The POA Must Uphold the Constitution

On the floor of the 44th General Assembly of the EPC, former Stated Clerk of the denomination, Dr. Jeff Jeremiah rose to address what he believed was a violation of the EPC constitution.  Dr. Jeremiah said,

 “We the assembly violated our own constitution [...] We have just made adherence to the constitution of the EPC a nonessential, ‘we can agree to disagree’[…] The Constitution says, bodies may only do what is explicitly stated in the constitution, BOG 3-1. The PJC, nowhere in the constitution, has the authority or the responsibility to NOT do what it is required to do. And instead it took upon itself a responsibility which it simply does not have. I speak to 15 years of serving as stated clerk working closely with the PJC. I would plead for anyone who has served across that time to affirm what we just heard.”

You can watch the full recording of Dr. Jeremiah’s comments here.  Dr. Jeremiah spoke out because he firmly believes that adherence to the EPC constitution and the denomination's commitment to scripture are crucial for the future vitality of the denomination. BHPC shares Dr. Jeremiah’s conviction, and throughout this ordeal, we have sought to submit ourselves to the authority of scripture, adhering faithfully to both the Westminster Standards and the EPC Book of Order. BHPC simply asks that the POA also uphold these standards and refrain from allowing an administrative commission to take upon itself "responsibility which it simply does not have."

BHPC is profoundly saddened that it had to seek protection from secular courts against the AC’s attempts to manipulate BHPC's membership rolls, ignore a mediated agreement, and violate the constitution.  We have asked the Allegheny County Court to compel the POA to comply with its own standards. There are many good and godly individuals within the POA, and in September, commissioners of the presbytery will have an opportunity to help resolve this dispute if they choose to uphold scripture and the EPC’s constitution. We earnestly pray for your discernment and wisdom in this matter.

To add your name to the list of signatories, complete the form below.
If you do not have a Google account but want to sign the Letter,
send an email with your name, membership status and/or church affiliation to beverlyheights@beverlyheights.org  

Below is additional reporting on the theological erosion within the EPC.