Resolution of Highland Park United Methodist Church (HPUMC), by and through its Church Council, on Ecclesiastical and Religious Concerns Arising from the Conference’s Conduct Against our Church

Whereas, for 110 years and to this day, our Church has maintained its status as a dedicated and vital congregation of the United Methodist Church and its predecessors (UMC);

Whereas, for 110 years and to this day, our Church has put its full support behind the UMC, its regional conference (currently, the Horizon Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church), and other churches in our UMC community;

Whereas, this history of dedication and support includes launching a staggering 41 United Methodist churches over the years; running the largest UMC youth confirmation program in the conference; and making the Belong Disability Ministry for children and adults with physical and mental disabilities available free of charge to all Horizon Texas Conference churches; as well as rehabilitating and gifting struggling churches back to the conference;

Whereas, during a sorrowful period of strife, confusion, and disaffiliation within the UMC, when more than 7,600 churches nationwide left the denomination, we chose to stay and remain a steadfast and vibrant part of the denomination;

Whereas, in the four years since, we have 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;

Whereas, on or about August 10, 2026, our clergy, our staff, and our lay leadership were completely blindsided by the filing of an unnecessary, unwarranted, and unjust lawsuit by our conference and its bishop against our Church in the state courts of Texas;

Whereas, that lawsuit involves a civil matter of neutral principles of Texas law, which will be resolved in due course by the Texas courts, the merits of which are not the subject of this Resolution on ecclesiastical and religious concerns;

Whereas, the conference’s treatment of our congregation, its clergy, and its lay leadership, as well as the manner in which the bishop has conducted this coordinated attack on our Church, raises deeply religious, theological, and moral questions about our ecclesiastical and denominational ties;

Whereas, 1 Timothy 3 says of the office of bishop that a bishop is to do honest (kalos) work and that a bishop’s conduct is to be above reproach;

Whereas, it appears to us the conference has acted deceitfully and without regard for the welfare of our Church, its 110-year history of support for the United Methodist Church and its predecessors, or the wishes of its congregants;

Whereas, examples of such conduct by the conference and bishop include:

1. Planning a coordinated attack on our Church in secret for months, while purporting to pursue amicable resolution in good faith;

2. Meeting with our Church’s Senior Minister and Chair of the Church’s Pastoral Relations Committee after filing the lawsuit in stealth, without revealing its filing, choosing litigation without conclusion to, or regard for the outcome of, amicable discussions;

3. Pursuing a multi-pronged media, religious, and legal attack on our Church; by soliciting a public relations firm in June 2026; preparing a false formal complaint against our Senior Minister; preparing concurrently a preemptive and inaccurate lawsuit; creating a media campaign web page with a “Frequently Asked Questions” section to be launched immediately upon filing the lawsuit and filming a video to publicize the suit; all apparently to catch the Church and its congregation off-guard;

4. Accepting the Church’s monthly apportionment payments throughout this period without complaint;

5. Meeting with the Church’s Senior Minister and Chair of the Church’s Pastoral Relations Committee on August 6, without mentioning the planned lawsuit; at that meeting, the bishop received an invitation from the Church’s Senior Minister and Chair of the Church’s Pastoral Relations Committee to provide to the Church any proposed changes to the Church’s governing documents that the bishop would like to see to address his concerns;

6. Rather than responding, inviting our Senior Minister to return on August 10 to continue the conversation—then using that time to finalize and file the lawsuit just hours before meeting again with our Senior Minister, holding that meeting without mentioning the filed lawsuit;

7. Summoning together, and then each separately, the Church’s clergy, telling them, as to their pensions and health care plans, to the effect: ‘This is not a threat. It’s just a reality. Your years of service in 2022 will be erased. And there might be some retroactive adjustments to the pension that you’ve built up over the last four years.’;

8. Making statements about our Church that the conference knew, or could have easily determined, were untrue, including:
   
   i. Claiming that the conference was unaware of the Church’s 2022 corporate updates until October 2025, when in fact the Church publicly filed its amended articles and notified the conference clearly in writing of the corporate name change at the time;
   
   ii. Claiming publicly that the conference’s actions were to rectify the purported inability of the congregation to vote on corporate amendments in 2022, while, in private, the bishop told our Senior Minister and Pastoral Relations Committee Chair that he would not recognize such a vote if it did not go his way;

Whereas, it seems now that openness to resolving differences amicably was pretextual and designed to lull the Church and its congregation into a false sense of hope and security, so that it could deceptively launch this multi-front offense against the Church;

Whereas, this raises for us extreme concerns of broken trust, irreligious behavior, and ecclesiastical malfeasance—actions that appear to favor domination over pastoral shepherding and fray the bonds of ecclesiastical connection;

Whereas, it is incumbent upon the Church Council to lead and to provide its best counsel, through discernment and love of this historic Church; to defend the congregation; to protect our Clergy whose livelihoods are currently being threatened; and to inform the congregation of these events and acts toward our Church;

Now, Therefore, it is Resolved, by unanimous vote of this Church Council, with our Senior Minister abstaining, that as an ecclesiastical and moral imperative, in light of the profound betrayal of ecclesiastical trust by the conference toward this Church, that the Church Council directs the staff to fully inform the congregation of these events above, through whatever means such as town halls or other methods as it sees fit, so that the congregation can fully appreciate and consider the events the conference has brought upon us; and

Be it Further Resolved, that in light of the unfair and unjust proceedings and threats against our Senior Minister and Clergy—which have created an intolerable environment of surprise, grief, and fear for dedicated members of our Church family—that in the interim of discussions with the congregation on how best to respond to these events, the Church through its Council no longer recognizes ecclesiastical authority of the bishop and conference to direct the Church or its Clergy, foremost in taking any further punitive actions against the Church or its beloved Clergy; and instructs the staff to take such other steps and actions as it sees fit to protect the continuity of our pastoral staff and their families, economic stability, and future with us; and

Be it Further Resolved, that this ecclesiastical and religious Resolution and its directives, including the protection and maintenance of our Clergy, are separate from, and without prejudice to, the civil questions before the court on corporate amendment procedure in 2022 or 2024, which can and will be resolved solely under neutral principles of civil law, as Texas courts require.