In 2022, HPUMC chose to remain part of our connectional family, during a period when more than 7,600 churches ultimately left the United Methodist Church. We did not want to leave our denomination, and we had no dispute with the conference. During this period, there was significant uncertainty within the denomination, including ongoing legal disputes involving UMC-related institutions such as our historic partner and neighbor, SMU. We needed to make sure that our congregation was legally protected, even as we maintained our religious and ecclesiastical connections.

That meant making sure that our corporate bylaws and articles were in line with the latest guidance from the Texas Supreme Court. In 2020, the Texas Supreme Court made clear that courts would not accept religious terms or doctrinal rules embedded in corporate documents—Churches that wished to protect their legal rights needed to make sure their corporate papers were corporate, not religious. That’s what the courts mean when they say use “neutral principles” of law.

That's what we did. And as the resolution we passed at the time made clear, it was not because we wanted to leave, but because we saw the litigation and discord around us. We needed to know—if litigation or other troubles ever reached our doorstep—we had the corporate papers in place that would stand the test of time and protect our congregation's ability to thrive, no matter what happened in the future to our conference, or denomination in 5, 10, or 50 years.

In making these changes, we followed the corporate governance and procedures laid out in our original 1998/1999 corporate documents to the tee—governance explicitly blessed and adopted under the supervision of the denomination. For decades, our congregation has operated with the conference's knowledge under a lay-led Church Council model. This model has enabled our congregation to be governed and led effectively while maintaining its ministry and ecclesiastical beliefs.

These administrative updates followed standard non-profit practices, were guided by corporate counsel, and fit within the long-standing framework in which local governance is handled by our elected lay-leaders, as it always has been.

Historically, we have not submitted bylaw updates to the conference because the conference has never asked or required us to do so. Local bylaw updates have not required conference approval or inclusion on the District Superintendent's annual Charge Conference agenda. Still, conference leadership was directly informed when we updated our corporate name in 2022.

We did not make a larger announcement because in our view, nothing had changed. The sign on the door remained the same, as did our daily and vibrant participation within the conference and denomination for years to follow. We had no intent to leave the denomination and continued to participate fully in the conference in the years since.

October 2025 was the first time the conference raised concerns about our governance structure. We responded to every request from the conference for conversation, resulting in three meetings over five months.

In late July and early August, with no one from the conference having spoken to HPUMC leadership about the bylaws since March, the conference filed a formal complaint against our senior minister, the first step in the denomination’s internal judicial process; filed a lawsuit against our Church, without any warning or reasonable attempt at compromise; and launched a well-planned proactive PR campaign against our Church. Indeed, on August 6, we asked the bishop to provide us with any proposed changes to the Church’s governing documents that he would like to see to address his concerns; he asked us to return on August 10 but filed the lawsuit just hours before that meeting. He then held that meeting without mentioning the lawsuit.

The notification sent to Rev. Tuggle that a formal complaint had been filed against him was the first time Bishop Saenz reached out to Rev. Tuggle since Rev. Tuggle became our senior minister on February 2.

Since the suit was filed, we have become aware of many other lawsuits between the UMC and other local churches.

As stated the week the lawsuit was filed, we are committed to responding with truth, transparency, and integrity. Those three things are our legal strategy, our communication strategy, and our strategy to address the UMC process facing our senior minister.

Below you will find all previous statements, the Aug. 20 Church Council resolution, updated FAQs and a link to a form for you to submit any questions you may have.

On August 20, 2026, our Church Council passed a resolution with a threefold intent.

First, the resolution begins to tell the story of what has taken place over the past 10 months in its preamble.

Second, the resolution instructs the staff to further educate the congregation.

Finally, the resolution seeks to slow down the denomination’s actions. The amendment explicitly states that we no longer recognize the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop and conference “in the interim of discussions,” not indefinitely, “foremost in taking any further punitive actions against the Church or its beloved Clergy.” The resolution was passed to protect our Church and clergy from further actions taken by the conference during this time. Keep in mind that the resolution came on the heels of the conference filing a written complaint against our senior minister, filing a lawsuit against our Church, launching a proactive PR campaign, and summoning our clergy to tell them their pensions and health care plans were at imminent risk. Hitting “pause” felt reasonable and necessary.

Why did I hear about the Horizon Texas Conference’s lawsuit against our Church through the media?

(Updated 9.4.26)

Our clergy, staff and lay leadership were caught completely off guard by the filing of this lawsuit. Because the Horizon Texas Conference chose to file a civil lawsuit without telling us, the filing became public record—allowing it to both be discovered by and reported on—before we had the chance to communicate with our congregation. We are all disappointed and bewildered by the conference’s action, especially because our leadership met with the bishop just prior to the filing. Despite this unexpected lawsuit, we remain focused on ministering to our congregation, just as we have for 110 years.

Were we aware that the bishop and the conference were planning to sue us?

Absolutely not. We met with the bishop twice recently. At no point did the bishop give any indication that his staff had been preparing for legal action for several months. In fact, we now know that when we last met face-to-face with the bishop, he had already filed the lawsuit.

Why did the conference file a lawsuit?

(Updated 9.4.26)

We can’t speak for the conference or the bishop, and we also won't speculate. The lawsuit complains about our bylaw amendments, but the allegations are simply without merit. Everything we did was in line with the latest Texas law, the best interests of our Church, and the governing documents approved by the conference and bishop from the start.

While every situation is different, HPUMC is far from the only local church to have faced legal action involving the United Methodist Church or an annual conference. Since the suit was filed, we have become aware of many other lawsuits between the UMC and other local churches.

Why did we change the bylaws, and what changes did we make?

(Updated 9.4.26)

In 2022, HPUMC chose to remain part of our connectional family, during a period when more than 7,600 churches ultimately left the United Methodist Church. We did not want to leave our denomination, and we had no dispute with the conference. During this period, there was significant uncertainty within the denomination, including ongoing legal disputes involving UMC-related institutions such as our historic partner and neighbor, SMU. We needed to make sure that our congregation was legally protected, even as we maintained our religious and ecclesiastical connections. As changing Texas law requires, we also maintain and refresh our bylaws as necessary, and in accordance with Texas law, to keep our governance in line with best practices.

That meant making sure that our corporate bylaws and articles were in line with the latest guidance from the Texas Supreme Court. In 2020, the Texas Supreme Court made clear that courts would not accept religious terms or doctrinal rules embedded in corporate documents—churches that wished to protect their legal rights needed to make sure their corporate papers were corporate, not religious. That’s what the courts mean when they say “neutral principles” of law.

That's what we did. And as the resolution we passed at the time made clear, it was not because we wanted to leave, but because we saw the litigation and discord around us. We needed to know—if litigation or other troubles ever reached our doorstep—we had the corporate papers in place that would stand the test of time and protect our congregation's ability to thrive, no matter what happened in the future to our conference, or denomination, in 5, 10, or 50 years. We believed then, and believe now, this is reasonable.

Following the courts' guidance and removing religious and doctrinal references from our corporate legal documents changed nothing about our daily practice under and respect for the Book of Discipline or our religious affiliations. We simply followed the best advice we could from courts to keep our corporate documents corporate and enforceable under neutral principles of Texas law. And we kept our religious and ecclesiastical practices where they belong—not in corporate papers but inside our church.

In making these changes, we followed the corporate governance and procedures laid out in our original 1998/1999 corporate documents to the tee—governance explicitly blessed and adopted under the supervision of the denomination. No two churches within the denomination are exactly the same or have the same governance needs. For decades, our congregation has operated with the conference's knowledge under a lay-led Church Council model. In 1998, HPUMC’s Charge Conference, in partnership with the conference and bishop at the time, unanimously delegated authority to enact and amend the church’s bylaws to the Church Council, and bylaws adopted in 1999 and amended from time to time thereafter reflected that governance structure. This model has enabled our congregation to be governed and led effectively while maintaining its ministry and ecclesiastical beliefs.

For the past 27 years our Church has functioned under our own bylaws without complaint from, and in full cooperation with the UMC, as have many other United Methodist churches. For the past four of those years, we have done so under the 2022 amendments now in question.

On August 10, our denomination, by way of the Horizon Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, filed a lawsuit seeking a Declaratory Judgment in Dallas County District Court. But conference leadership was directly informed when we updated our corporate name in 2022. In the years since, we have been active members of the conference, never missed a monthly apportionment payment to the conference, and contributed countless hours of service and more than $12,000,000 to the conference and organizations of the United Methodist Church. The conference accepted our apportionments without complaint as recently as this August. The only thing that has changed is the current bishop’s interpretation of our governance and the conference’s position on it—but our relationship with the conference has remained open, collaborative, and aligned since 1998, until this new lawsuit.

The suit represents the denomination’s efforts to undo the rights our articles and bylaws afford to our congregation, undoing not only the 2022 amendments but also effectively erasing the corporate governance we have operated under—with the conference’s blessing—since 1999. Additionally, after meeting with HPUMC representatives on only three occasions over a five month period, in late July and early August, the Horizon Texas Annual Conference of the UMC also filed a formal complaint against our senior minister, Rev. Matt Tuggle, the first step in the denomination’s ecclesiastical judicial process.

Why didn’t we call a vote?

(Updated 9.4.26)

In 1998 our Charge Conference, in partnership with the conference and bishop at the time, voted unanimously to delegate authority to enact and amend the Church’s bylaws to the Church Council. Those bylaws adopted in 1999 and amended from time to time thereafter reflect that governance structure. This lay-led Church Council model, which remains in place today, has enabled our congregation to be governed and led effectively while maintaining its ministry and ecclesiastical beliefs.

In 2022, while navigating a historic moment for our denomination, our senior minister at the time held meetings with lay-leaders and key stakeholders within the congregation to talk about the UMC schism and how our Church was navigating that. Additionally, HPUMC clergy hosted a series of classes entitled “Schism: What Is Happening to the UMC?” designed for anyone who wanted to take a deeper dive into the Church’s history, beliefs, and what made us distinctive. The Church continued to state our desire to stay in the denomination, but was forthright about our readiness to leave if necessary. It was then that the 2022 bylaws were amended by duly elected lay leadership, selected in exactly the same way lay leadership in every other United Methodist church is selected.

The only thing that has changed is the current bishop’s interpretation of our governance and the conference’s position regarding it—but our relationship with the conference has remained open, collaborative, and in alignment since 1998, until this new lawsuit.

Did the conference know we changed our corporate documents in 2022?

(Updated 9.4.26)

As a matter of fact, yes. Conference leadership was directly informed when we updated our corporate name in 2022, and these governance structures have been recognized for decades. These administrative updates followed standard non-profit practices, were guided by corporate counsel, and fit within the long-standing framework in which local governance is handled by our elected lay-leaders, as it always has been. Historically, we have not submitted bylaw updates to the conference because the conference has never asked or required us to do so. Local bylaw updates have not required conference approval or inclusion on the District Superintendent's annual Charge Conference agenda, which they themselves set.

What are the bishop’s objections to the changes? Did we violate the Methodist Church’s “Book of Discipline”?

(Updated 9.4.26)

We can’t speak for the conference or the bishop.

Working within the articles and bylaws our Church established in 1998-1999 and under guidance issued by the Texas Supreme Court in 2020, we amended our bylaws to allow us to stay within the UMC while retaining our ability to protect our congregation and thrive in the future, no matter what happened in our conference or denomination in 5, 15, or 50 years. It is our bylaws that kept our Church in our denomination and kept our Church together. We believed then, and believe now, this is reasonable.

In 2020, the Texas courts gave important guidance on managing church affairs under neutral principles of Texas law. We revised our corporate documents accordingly. Everything the lay leadership of this Church did followed the clear procedures in our longstanding corporate documents. As stewards, we must ensure our corporate documents are legally sustainable.

For the past 27 years our Church has functioned under our own bylaws without complaint from, and in full cooperation with the UMC, as have many other United Methodist churches. For the past four of those years, we have done so under the 2022 amendments now in question. Conference leadership was directly informed when we updated our corporate name in 2022. In the years since, we have been active members of the conference, never missed a monthly apportionment payment to the conference, and contributed countless hours of service and more than $12,000,000 to the conference and organizations of the United Methodist Church. The conference accepted our apportionments without complaint as recently as this August. Far from any plan to leave the denomination, these revisions 2022 bylaws allowed us to remain in the denomination despite the discord around us. The only thing that has changed is the current bishop’s interpretation of our governance and the conference’s position on it—but our relationship with the conference has remained open, collaborative, and aligned since 1998, until this new lawsuit.

Why not simply change the documents back to the way they were before?

(Updated 9.4.26)

In 2020, the Texas courts gave important guidance on managing church affairs under neutral principles of Texas law. We revised our corporate documents accordingly. Everything the lay leadership of this Church did followed the clear procedures in our longstanding corporate documents. As stewards, we must ensure our corporate documents are legally sustainable.

Our corporate documents were updated in 2022 to ensure they appropriately reflected that guidance and to protect our congregation as a legal matter, even as we maintained our religious and ecclesiastical connections.

For the past 27 years our Church has functioned under our own bylaws without complaint from, and in full cooperation with the UMC, as have many other United Methodist churches. For the past four of those years, we have done so under the 2022 amendments now in question, again without complaint from the conference. The only thing that has changed is the current bishop’s interpretation of our governance and the conference’s position on it—but our relationship with the conference has remained open, collaborative, and aligned since 1998, until this new lawsuit.

Those changes were made carefully, in good faith, and with the long-term interests and stability of our Church in mind. As stewards of our Church, we will follow Texas law and best practices.

Were we trying to distance ourselves from the United Methodist Church?

(Updated 9.4.26)

By 2023, more than 7,600 churches nationwide had left the United Methodist Church. Highland Park United Methodist did not go that route. We chose to remain part of the denomination.

In 2022, we amended our bylaws in response to the guidance from the Texas Supreme Court and to ensure that our congregation was protected as a legal matter, no matter what happened in the future with our denomination or conference.

Until this unnecessary and unjust lawsuit filed by the conference, we have never considered leaving the United Methodist Church.

We will remain focused on being who we are as a Church – and that means ministering to our congregation just as we have over the past 110 years.

We continue to pray for wisdom and understanding as this matter is addressed.

If it’s determined by the court system that HPUMC was not in compliance with the United Methodist Church’s "Book of Discipline" is my baptism, wedding or funeral still recognized?

This dispute in no way, shape or form alters the sacraments to God that have been made in our Church.

What is the nature of the complaint against Rev. Tuggle?

(Added 9.4.26)

In the formal complaint filed by the district superintendent against Rev. Tuggle on July 21, 2026, Rev. Tuggle is accused of disobedience to the United Methodist Church and undermining the ministry of the bishop by acquiescing to our Church's current governance structure.

Rev. Tuggle does not have the authority to revise the Church’s bylaws. That authority belongs to the Church Council, as it has for the past 27 years.

In 1998, HPUMC’s Charge Conference, in partnership with the conference and bishop at the time, unanimously delegated authority to enact and amend the Church’s bylaws to the Church Council, and bylaws adopted in 1999 and amended from time to time thereafter reflected that governance structure. This model has enabled our congregation to be governed and led effectively while maintaining its ministry and ecclesiastical beliefs.

Accordingly, Rev. Tuggle cannot reasonably be held accountable or subjected to disciplinary action for failing to take an action that was not within his authority or responsibility. The decision to amend the bylaws rests with the Church Council, not the senior pastor, under the very rules the conference approved 27 years ago.

The complaint process is ongoing, and the next step would be a dismissal of the complaint, pursue a just resolution, or refer the matter to the Committee on Investigation.

What was the process that led to the complaint and the lawsuit?

(Added 9.4.26)

In summary, the complaint against Rev. Tuggle was filed after only three meetings that took place over a five month period; the lawsuit was filed after a fourth meeting related to Rev. Tuggle’s ecclesiastical judicial process.

On July 20, the bishop’s office emailed Rev. Tuggle to notify him that a formal complaint had been filed against him. This was the first time the bishop reached out to Rev. Tuggle since December 2025. Rev. Tuggle was appointed as our senior minister on February 2, 2026—meaning the first interaction the bishop had with Rev. Tuggle as the senior minister of our Church was the notification of the complaint.

Further, the last interaction anyone from the conference had with anyone from HPUMC related to the bylaws was in early March. Our focus through the spring and summer was on facilitating a smooth senior minister transition and completing the first phase of our Project Mockingbird construction.

We had no indication the denomination was preparing the complaint, the lawsuit, and the proactive PR campaign. First Rev. Tuggle, and then our Church, were blindsided by the filing of the complaint and then the lawsuit.

During the entire process, HPUMC has responded to every request from the conference for conversation. A detailed account of the timeline was given at the congregation Town Hall meeting held on August 26.

Why wasn’t there more communication about the bylaw amendments made in 2022?

(Added 9.4.26)

Conference leadership was directly informed when we updated our corporate name in 2022.

Historically, we have not submitted bylaw updates to the conference because the conference has never asked or required us to do so. Local bylaw updates have not required conference approval, or inclusion on the District Superintendent's annual Charge Conference agenda, which they themselves set.

We did not make a larger announcement following the bylaw amendments in 2022 because in our view, nothing had changed. The sign on our door remained the same, as did our daily and vibrant participation within the conference and denomination for years to follow.

Far from any plan to leave the denomination, these revisions 2022 bylaws allowed us to remain in the denomination despite the discord around us. The only thing that has changed is the current bishop’s interpretation of our governance and the conference’s position on it—but our relationship with the conference has remained open, collaborative, and aligned since 1998, until this new lawsuit.

What are our options to resolve this dispute outside of court?

(Added 9.4.26)

We pray for that, and that the bishop and the conference will honor the authority of our Church Council as the governing body of our Church as it has for the past 27 years.

How are the Church’s apportionments to the conference currently being managed?

(Added 9.4.26)

The conference accepted our apportionments without complaint as recently as this August. Now that the conference has sued us, we are paying our $125,000 monthly apportionments into an escrow account as we thoughtfully evaluate how to move forward with our Church family in light of this unjust lawsuit.

Are the congregation’s tithes to the Church being used for legal fees?

(Added 9.4.26)

No. All tithes continue to support the mission of our Church. Several members of our congregation have graciously offered to cover the Church’s legal fees as related to the Horizon Texas Conference’s lawsuit.

Does the bishop have the authority to remove or reappoint our clergy?

(Added 9.4.26)

In general, UMC bishops have significant ecclesiastical authority over clergy, including appointing and reappointing pastors, and moving clergy or changing clergy appointments at any time.

We are committed to taking care of our clergy, including in the face of any threats made to their pensions or health plans.

What does the Church Council’s decision to “take a pause” from recognizing the authority of the bishop and conference mean in practice?

(Added 9.4.26)

The Aug. 20, 2026 resolution seeks to slow down the denomination’s actions. On the heels of the conference filing a written complaint against our senior minister, filing a lawsuit against our Church, launching a proactive PR campaign, and summoning our clergy to tell them their pensions and health care plans were at imminent risk—all planned quietly over months and launched together without warning—hitting “pause” felt reasonable and necessary. The resolution paused our interactions with the conference and bishop “in the interim of discussions,” not indefinitely, and “foremost” to protect against “further punitive actions against the Church or its beloved Clergy” in the interim, giving us a chance to inform our congregation on what the conference had done and thoughtfully consider our path forward.