TresPuertas said:

---

I was a member of first united methodist Richardson for years. Got married there, baptized my children there, sent my kids to school there and memorialized family there. I wrote the head pastor with my concerns of the direction of the UMC and he basically told me, don't let the door hit you on the way out

---

That's shocking.

I'm involved in my church, and any time a decision is being made, we've routinely asked 'what does scripture say about this'. That is the ONLY measure for a church. Full stop.

But unfortunately, cultural activism, outside of scripture, has taken over far too many congregations.

Liberal/Conservative...that shouldn't even be uttered in the context of church. What does scripture say...not your party affiliation, or community, or politician, or *cough* donors.

TresPuertas said:

---

This one is pretty interesting because HPMC, while being in the middle of Dallas, is EXTREME in member wealth and subsequently, its members are also overwhelmingly Conservative.

I know of an instance where a very generous member who was a significant contributor to the church sent a check with a note attached that read "No ****" (british cigarettes).

The real estate where the church sits is also worth MILLIONS, so while the UMC went insane they also didn't want to lose this congregation and get into a fight over the property.

But like anything the leftist mindset infects, it couldn't help itself and destroyed the UMC. knowing its most generous and wealthy would likely walk away they decided to go full steam ahead with their progressive agenda


I was a member of first united methodist Richardson for years. Got married there, baptized my children there, sent my kids to school there and memorialized family there. I wrote the head pastor with my concerns of the direction of the UMC and he basically told me, don't let the door hit you on the way out

---

I now understand why WCUMC (now White's Chapel Methodist Chuch) in Southlake took on a posture of high debt for their building expansions. Gave the Pastor leverage when these talks came up.

Max Stonetrail said:

---

TheRatt87 said:

---

Churches like HPUMC are like the spineless, naive GOP politicians. They think if they play nice that the progressive/liberal UMC leadership will act in good faith, despite the UMC showing over and over and over again that they never will.

Now that HPUMC has gone public with their disagreement, I expect the UMC's retribution campaign to ramp up.

---

No, the reality is that HPUMC put language in their bylaws to prevent the conference from just coming in and making changes without approval of the Church, so not actually spineless and nave. That is what the conference and the bishop do not like and why they sued HPUMC.

Also, it was the conference, not HPUMC, that took this public. They have had a PR and legal firm working in the background for months during what I would describe as bad faith negotiations on the conference's part. That video in the thread was on a webpage they went live with the day the conference filed the lawsuit which was complete with an FAQ section. The conference is also the party that leaked it to the press.

Having said that, HPUMC was acting in accordance with all of the current requirements and tenets in the current Book of Discipline. You are correct that the progressive / liberal UMC will not act in good faith and working up a lawsuit and a PR campaign for months while allegedly "negotiating" is a prime example of underhanded leftist tactics.

---

Pardon my ignorance, but it sounds like HPUMC secretly (at least to anyone outside of HPUMC) changed their bylaws in 2022 to let them call the shots on key matters vs. the UMC conference, and HPUMC thought everything would be junky-dory & the UMC would just go along with that. That sounds very spineless & naive.

Why didn't HPUMC just go thru the disaffiliation process when they had the opportunity? They certainly could easily afford it. And what changes occurred that caused HPUMC to want to change it's bylaws in 2022?

I'm guessing that HPUMC felt they were insulated from the divisive issues initially so they didn't even consider disaffiliation. But as the leftist march of the UMC continued, HPUMC felt threatened and decided to unilaterally change their bylaws thinking it would protect them. Again, spineless & naive.

TheRatt87 said:

---

Max Stonetrail said:

---

TheRatt87 said:

---

Churches like HPUMC are like the spineless, naive GOP politicians. They think if they play nice that the progressive/liberal UMC leadership will act in good faith, despite the UMC showing over and over and over again that they never will.

Now that HPUMC has gone public with their disagreement, I expect the UMC's retribution campaign to ramp up.

---

No, the reality is that HPUMC put language in their bylaws to prevent the conference from just coming in and making changes without approval of the Church, so not actually spineless and nave. That is what the conference and the bishop do not like and why they sued HPUMC.

Also, it was the conference, not HPUMC, that took this public. They have had a PR and legal firm working in the background for months during what I would describe as bad faith negotiations on the conference's part. That video in the thread was on a webpage they went live with the day the conference filed the lawsuit which was complete with an FAQ section. The conference is also the party that leaked it to the press.

Having said that, HPUMC was acting in accordance with all of the current requirements and tenets in the current Book of Discipline. You are correct that the progressive / liberal UMC will not act in good faith and working up a lawsuit and a PR campaign for months while allegedly "negotiating" is a prime example of underhanded leftist tactics.

---

Pardon my ignorance, but it sounds like HPUMC secretly (at least to anyone outside of HPUMC) changed their bylaws in 2022 to let them call the shots on key matters vs. the UMC conference, and HPUMC thought everything would be junky-dory & the UMC would just go along with that. That sounds very spineless & naive.

Why didn't HPUMC just go thru the disaffiliation process when they had the opportunity? They certainly could easily afford it. And what changes occurred that caused HPUMC to want to change it's bylaws in 2022?

I'm guessing that HPUMC felt they were insulated from the divisive issues initially so they didn't even consider disaffiliation. But as the leftist march of the UMC continued, HPUMC felt threatened and decided to unilaterally change their bylaws thinking it would protect them. Again, spineless & naive.

---

You keep throwing around spineless and nave without really any idea of the big picture here or most of the facts or history. The change was not secret. They changed the public incorporation documents in 2020 and 2022 based on changes that the State of Texas directed for entities of their type that were passed in 2019. These have nothing to do with the disaffiliation. These documents were also filed with the conference, so they were aware of the changes and chose to do nothing until now.

All of this was under the old bishop, and this new guy seems to be trying to make a name for himself as evidenced by the publicity. The whole reason there is a new bishop is that they had to combine three conferences in Texas into one because so many churches left the UMC. The conference is in survival mode, not operating from a position of strength that you are drawing your guesses from. Some of what you are reading on the conference side isn't even true, or the spin is so bad it might as well be called a lie.

HPUMC did not vote on disaffiliation because it would have divided a church, which quite frankly is the most powerful and weathiest church in the UMC. Because of the size and widely varied demographics (which is supposed to be a good thing right?), there was no way to get a 2/3 vote. Even so, if you read through the letters on HPUMC's website under news, you can get a picture of the scale and scope of what this church does, then understand that a vote either way would have killed that.

The conference is literally biting the hand that feeds it, which is why the lawsuit was very surprising. It looks like there will likely be a countersuit and HPUMC will go it own way. What everything will look like on the other side is anybody's guess.

Christianity and communism have some surprisingly similar principles on paper. The real challenge comes when human nature gets involved, because once people have different wants and priorities, disagreements over ownership and resources quickly follow.

With HPUMC choosing to stay in the fold, meant it was still sending its apportionments or funds to the larger church leadership for their conference . So they were basically funding those who didn't interpret the bible as the majority of their local church body. And those conference individuals were considered their church leadership. That is a head scratcher for me.

AgGrad99 said:

---

TresPuertas said:

---

I was a member of first united methodist Richardson for years. Got married there, baptized my children there, sent my kids to school there and memorialized family there. I wrote the head pastor with my concerns of the direction of the UMC and he basically told me, don't let the door hit you on the way out

---

That's shocking.

I'm involved in my church, and any time a decision is being made, we've routinely asked 'what does scripture say about this'. That is the ONLY measure for a church. Full stop.

But unfortunately, cultural activism, outside of scripture, has taken over far too many congregations.

Liberal/Conservative...that shouldn't even be uttered in the context of church. What does scripture say...not your party affiliation, or community, or politician, or *cough* donors.

---

Liberal/conservative is rarely discussed.

The divide is liberal/traditional. The prior embraces a heresy of liberal theology. The latter embraces traditional Christian theology.

Those labels are legitimate in the context of the church and have caused schisms in a multitude of denominational organizations.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out if they end up in the courtroom. There's precedent now that if a church in Texas just decided to up and leave, that the courts will not get involved.

About 40 churches left the Rio conference outside of the window and rules granted in the Discipline. The conference sued and lost at both the trial court and at the fourth court of appeals. Both courts waived their hands and said this is an ecclesial matter; leave us out of it. We have no jurisdiction.

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/fourth-court-of-appeals/2025/04-24-00424-cv.html

goatchze said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

TresPuertas said:

---

I was a member of first united methodist Richardson for years. Got married there, baptized my children there, sent my kids to school there and memorialized family there. I wrote the head pastor with my concerns of the direction of the UMC and he basically told me, don't let the door hit you on the way out

---

That's shocking.

I'm involved in my church, and any time a decision is being made, we've routinely asked 'what does scripture say about this'. That is the ONLY measure for a church. Full stop.

But unfortunately, cultural activism, outside of scripture, has taken over far too many congregations.

Liberal/Conservative...that shouldn't even be uttered in the context of church. What does scripture say...not your party affiliation, or community, or politician, or *cough* donors.

---

Liberal/conservative is rarely discussed.

The divide is liberal/traditional. The prior embraces a heresy of liberal theology. The latter embraces traditional Christian theology.

Those labels are legitimate in the context of the church and have caused schisms in a multitude of denominational organizations.

---

I understand what you're saying. But my point isn't the labels.

It's the heresy of prioritizing any political ideal over scripture.

When you do...that's when the divide/schism occurs.

TheRatt87 said:

---

Max Stonetrail said:

---

TheRatt87 said:

---

Churches like HPUMC are like the spineless, naive GOP politicians. They think if they play nice that the progressive/liberal UMC leadership will act in good faith, despite the UMC showing over and over and over again that they never will.

Now that HPUMC has gone public with their disagreement, I expect the UMC's retribution campaign to ramp up.

---

No, the reality is that HPUMC put language in their bylaws to prevent the conference from just coming in and making changes without approval of the Church, so not actually spineless and nave. That is what the conference and the bishop do not like and why they sued HPUMC.

Also, it was the conference, not HPUMC, that took this public. They have had a PR and legal firm working in the background for months during what I would describe as bad faith negotiations on the conference's part. That video in the thread was on a webpage they went live with the day the conference filed the lawsuit which was complete with an FAQ section. The conference is also the party that leaked it to the press.

Having said that, HPUMC was acting in accordance with all of the current requirements and tenets in the current Book of Discipline. You are correct that the progressive / liberal UMC will not act in good faith and working up a lawsuit and a PR campaign for months while allegedly "negotiating" is a prime example of underhanded leftist tactics.

---

Pardon my ignorance, but it sounds like HPUMC secretly (at least to anyone outside of HPUMC) changed their bylaws in 2022 to let them call the shots on key matters vs. the UMC conference, and HPUMC thought everything would be junky-dory & the UMC would just go along with that. That sounds very spineless & naive.

Why didn't HPUMC just go thru the disaffiliation process when they had the opportunity? They certainly could easily afford it. And what changes occurred that caused HPUMC to want to change it's bylaws in 2022?

I'm guessing that HPUMC felt they were insulated from the divisive issues initially so they didn't even consider disaffiliation. But as the leftist march of the UMC continued, HPUMC felt threatened and decided to unilaterally change their bylaws thinking it would protect them. Again, spineless & naive.

---

Some courts have decided not to get involved in the whole church split controversy. No court decision=no mechanism for enforcing conference mandates. At some point the Conference will decide that expending financial resources on a legal battle is not worth it.
I expect HPUMC has some very experienced lawyers and judges in their congregation who have already been consulted about this.

I sat down and watched the church's town hall meeting it had yesterday (10/11). Doesn't sound like things are going to get resolved with the UMC. Church leadership all took turns speaking and levied some pretty heavy accusations against the UMC and primarily Bishop Ruben Saenz, with multiple people straight up calling him a liar.

Per their side of the story the Bishop made some pretty heavy threats against church staff (taking away health insurance, retirement benefits that had accrued in the last 3 years, and even letting them know he was in charge of placing staff at whatever job he wants - ie forced relocation). They also said that he told Senior Minister Matt Tuggle to get rid of all current lay leaders and re-hold elections to get new staff in place, or that his job (Matt's) would be in jeopardy.

They said that Bishop Saenz told church staff to turn their phones off during the meeting when he was lobbing these threats and some of them wouldn't do it and actually recorded him saying these things.

Anyway - no matter what side of this issue you're on, I think we can all agree you don't air this dirty laundry out in public unless you are planning on making a move.

I honestly still don't understand the Bishop's strategy of trying to bully such a large church, that has been paying significant $ into UMC coffers every year. It feels like there is part of the story that isn't being released, but I can't figure out what that might be.

Maybe someone on here that has followed these disaffiliation proceedings more closely can clue me in. It does sound like the UMC has a lot of lawsuits going on right now, so maybe this is how they've chosen to handle it across the board.

If the Bishop wants to enforce the trust clause and enforce the UMC's rights it will be very tough to enforce a restraining order against a 16,000 member congregation. Is the peace loving council of bishops of the UMC going to hire a big security company plus constables to serve and enforce closure of the church campus?

FunkingAG said:

---

Christianity and communism have some surprisingly similar principles on paper. The real challenge comes when human nature gets involved, because once people have different wants and priorities, disagreements over ownership and resources quickly follow.

---

This is funny.

ts5641 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Christianity shares a lot with communism. Sounds great up until the point of injecting human nature. Then people start arguing over material things.

---

It's the opposite of communism. Because people are broken doesn't do anything to diminish Christianity. In fact, the brokenness of people is why we need Jesus. We can't do it on our own.

---

Not only that, it is the brokenness of PEOPLE that cause the problems, not Christianity. The above referenced statement is ludicrous. Or perhaps just ignorant.

I can offer only a very small glimpse into the issue.

I am familiar with a large Methodist church in San Antonio.

The pastors were divided about the schism, but ultimately they and the congregation voted to leave the UMC and the church is currently independent.

As I followed this lengthy process, I became aware of Adam Hamilton, the pastor of the largest UMC congregation in the US. (He is currently running for Senator in Kansas as a Democrat, and leads in some polls.)

Hamilton became one of the leading voices opposing schism. I was shocked at his approach toward those who were considering leaving.

He consistently mischaracterized those who were troubled by the UMC and was bullying and threatening toward them.

What you say about Bishop Saenz, whom I do not know, sounds familiar.

The group that supports the UMC believes in the same sort of "progressive" and intolerant approach to Christianity that Talarico professes. Anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, white supremacist, evil person.

I am not surprised at the bishop's words and threats.

I will say, though, that all Methodist churches had a window of time in which to negotiate a separation.

Maybe Highland Park Methodist thought that it could live in peace with the intolerant Church Left, but those zealots will never allow that.

https://www.umnews.org/en/news/highland-park-proposes-leaving-denomination

BREAKING: Highland Park UMC says it will leave United Methodist Church following vote. The church council said of the 4,775 votes cast, 90% voted “Yes" to separate from UMC.

The council said beginning Sunday, "we will worship as Highland Park Methodist Church." Story TK.

— Isabella Volmert (@isabellavolmert) October 26, 2026

I know matt. He is a good dude.

The unitarian universalists now running the UMC have some pretty progressive stances on Native Americans.

Maybe HP UMC can declare the church property "on stolen land" and donate it to a tribe instead of handing it over to the LGBTQIA2SC++ mafia.

Make the UMC sue the Native Americans to give the property back.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I know matt. He is a good dude.

---

Agreed. Very good dude. Actually got to run into him Sunday after I got done voting, which was nice.

Will be interesting to see where this goes from here. Certainly would think there would be litigation and fighting and that the conference won't take this laying down.

Was a bittersweet feeling for me voting (I voted to separate) as I think it was a bunch of unforced errors by the bishop and the conference.

That being said I love the church and have utmost faith that we will be fine. Might just be a rough road ahead while everything gets legally sorted out.

90% voted to follow The Word and not the world.

St Andrew in Plano went independent when the UNC split. It was seeded by HPUMC and the two are very close. I have to wonder if they will partner up.

I appreciate the update.

A few updates this morning, for those following:

United Methodist Bishop Names New Highland Park Pastor After Separation Vote

Notably:

Quote:

---

Saenz's announcement comes with some caveats. For one, members of the Highland Park United Methodist Church who plan to worship with Lewis will be doing so at University Park United Methodist Church at 10 a.m. on Sunday. This is likely because, thanks to the vote and the ongoing litigation, the thorny issue of who controls the church property is probably also headed to court. The United Methodist denomination operates under a trust clause that allows churches great latitude in how they maintain and improve their properties, which is why control of the Highland Park property is such a consequential part of the dispute. The decision to temporarily worship up the street "reflects a desire to respect everyone involved and avoid unnecessary conflict as the Conference continues to address questions surrounding Highland Park UMC's governance and property."

---

I'm assuming this is just posturing by the Conference/Bishop, since it sounds like they're not (yet) actually trying to prevent Matt & other current pastors from leading services at the Mockingbird campus. The Conference even put out a hastily-put together website for the temporary(?) church.

I am hoping that HPUMC puts out something soon to reassure the congregation that it should be mostly business as usual for now. Because if someone just reads the headlines, it makes it sounds like the Bishop's new guy will be moving into the Mockingbird campus today and leading this weekend's sermons.

I walked over Sunday afternoon after the A&M/SMU basketball game to vote to leave. Even though this has been going on since the end of the summer, I still feel like the vote was kind of forced on us in a rush without answering all questions & concerns (only the questions that church leadership wanted to answer). But voting to leave seemed to be the better of two not-great outcomes:

1. The church voting to leave the UMC, which is sad

2. The church voting to not leave the UMC, which would have been worse -- would have given the Bishop a mandate to force any changes upon the church that he saw fit. The fact that the Bishop is appointing as pastor someone from an administrative role who has not led a church since 2017 (First UMC of Lewisville) confirmed that, in my mind. Almost seemed spiteful.

All one can do is pray for God's will to be done, and in the meantime carry on and lead our lives as Christ would want us to.