As we look at the upcoming vote for Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas, I had really hoped that we had seen the back of disaffiliation. Serving as a district superintendent during that time in the Oklahoma Conference was the most difficult period of ministry in my career. By itself, I felt that the option to disaffiliate was damaging to what it means to be in covenant. To be in relationship is to work out our problems rather than to cut one another off. I felt so strongly about this that I authored the legislation for the General Conference to remove paragraph 2553 from the Book of Discipline which is our shared polity (church law) that all United Methodists agree to uphold.
As I watch the conflict unfold between the Horizon Texas Conference of The United Methodist Church and Highland Park United Methodist Church, it saddens me. I’ve read the timelines and FAQ sheets from afar. I’ve not spoken to anyone in the know.
But as a former district superintendent, I do know a little about how these conflictual conversations between church and conference might play out. I'm in a unique position in that I've had the experience of being named in a lawsuit by a local church and have been brought up in complaint by another local church to our bishop. Both churches were trying to leave the denomination. Fortuantely for me, I prevailed in the lawsuit and the complaint was dropped. Both churches are United Methodist to this day. I also recognize that the conference, bishop or district superintendent are limited in what they can discuss with the public, often sitting on information that they wish the public knew or would deduce.
In 1998, Highland Park UMC voted on by-laws at its charge conference as stated in the impending resolution. Evidently, these by-laws gave the authority to their local church administrative council to change their own by-laws as a body. Because they referenced our church law - the Book of Discipline - any new by-laws proposed would have to be in agreement with our denomination's polity.
Then Highland Park UMC took its authority to make the currently disputed changes to its own by-laws at the end of 2022, stating that they notified the conference of said changes in January of 2023. I’ve not heard any details on what that notification entailed. Interestingly enough, January of 2023 was also when Bishop Saenz was appointed to serve in episcopal leadership of the conference and thus, Highland Park UMC. To say that he had a lot on his plate during this time would be an understatement.
Paul Rasmussen served as the senior minister of Highland Park UMC from 2013 until he stepped down due to illness on February 1, 2026. He had served on staff since 2000 which shows the trend of elevating associate ministers who know the culture. This was done with Matt Tuggle who was the successor to Paul Rassmussen in February of 2026. I don’t believe that Rev. Tuggle has served in any appointment in Texas outside of Highland Park UMC. Rev. Rasmussen transitioned earlier this year to a pastor emeritus status, remaining at the church, which is often not allowed by the Bishop within United Methodism. A hiatus is usually encouraged so as to let the new leadership become established.
The timing of the senior pastor transition at Highland Park UMC is very important.
The Conference claims to have first been made aware of the changes in October of 2025. Conference leadership which I assume would include the Bishop and the District Superintendent met with the leadership of Highland Park UMC in October, December of 2025 and March of 2026.
Rev. Rasmussen informed Highland Park UMC of his plan to retire due to his illness in a video message that was sent to the congregation on Thursday, November 20, 2025. I’m assuming that he notified his district superintendent prior to this date. This means that the conference was aware of the need to appoint a new senior pastor prior to the final two meetings between the conference and the church.
I’ve read comments denigrating Bishop Saenz as if he were a tyrant and an autocrat with no room for movement outside of his plan to reconcile the situation.
But would a tyrant and an autocrat appoint the pastor requested by the church in the middle of the discussions surrounding the disputed by-laws? Or was this done in good faith?
I would think an autocrat would have upset the apple cart and brought in a completely different pastor that had not served his entire ministry with Rev. Rassmussen as his senior pastor. A tyrant would have brought in a minister with no allegiances to the pastor under whose leadership the changes were implemented.
Since Rev. Tuggle has assumed leadership as the senior pastor, a complaint has been filed by his district superintendent on July 21, 2026 under United Methodist polity. Rev. Tuggle is accused of disobedience to The United Methodist Church and undermining the ministry of the bishop according to Highland Park UMC’s FAQ on their website.
While I was not privy to any of their conversations, I do know that as a district superintendent, before recommending an appointment to a difficult situation like this, I would have had assurances from that senior pastor-to-be that they would lead the church back to accountability for our polity.
One of the things to which an Elder (Rev. Tuggle's clergy order) in The United Methodist Church is ordained is to oversee the Order of the church.
Both Rev. Rasmussen and Rev. Tuggle affirmatively answered vows to God through the Bishop and the Conference as I did at our respective ordinations.
"Have you studied our form of church discipline and polity?" I have.
"Do you approve our church government and polity?" I do so approve.
"Will you support and maintain them?" I will, with God's help.
Being ordained to Order refers to the fact that the senior pastor of a church is effectively the interpreter of our polity – The Book of Discipline – for that local church. If there is a dispute with the congregation in interpretation, the district superintendent has oversight as interpreter. If there is a dispute with the D.S.’s interpretation, the bishop may settle the conflict around our polity. If there is a disagreement over the bishop’s ruling, the Judicial Council (much like the Supreme Court of the United States) may overrule or uphold the bishop’s decision. We have accountability built into the very fabric of our polity which is a strength of our denomination.
Because the dispute in the by-laws is largely around the name change (removing “United” from the name of the church) and the removal of reference to our Book of Discipline, it makes sense that when Rev. Tuggle sided with the church leadership over the Conference, that a complaint would be filed. This would be especially true if he made statements of allegiance to the Conference (where his membership is held) in conversations prior to his appointment.
A complaint sounds like a punishment, but in the immediate period the two parties seek a just resolution to the issue at hand. If a just resolution is not obtained, then the Committee on Investigation may begin to determine if the complaint warrants a church trial. Appeals of the outcome of the church trial are also available to the defendant if found guilty.
The bishop also has the right to suspend the person under complaint from ministerial duties “when deemed appropriate, to protect the well-being of the … annual conference” from paragraph 363.7 of The Book of Discipline. This must be done in conjunction with the Executive Committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry of the annual conference. The suspended clergy still receives their salary and benefits. I note that a "dictator" would have suspended Rev. Tuggle, but that didn’t happen.
From an outsider’s view, it appears that the church leadership was goading the Conference into a lawsuit. The optics of the Conference suing the church look terrible to the congregation. The actual vote to separate is not in accordance with current church law. Within United Methodist polity, because we eliminated disaffiliation as an option, this vote does not actually sever the congregation from our denomination. But if the local church leadership prevails in the vote, it may provide convenient data for the church’s defense in a lawsuit.
I also noted that the church in their FAQ is stating that a simple majority will rule the day on this vote. I’m not sure I would advise a church to change the color of the carpet if they only had 51%! Under the paragraph of disaffiliation it took a two-thirds majority to leave. I felt that even two-thirds was too small a percentage to keep a church from harm and I observed many churches that were disrupted after taking a vote whether they prevailed or not.
I also read from the FAQ a lot of reasons why Highland Park UMC’s members should vote yes to leave. I didn’t see any reasons listed there for why the church should stay. While I understand the leadership's rationale on not providing this, it doesn't allow for an informed membership.
I believe that there are many reasons for remaining in the fold that should be compelling to a follower of Jesus Christ.
The integrity of the vows that we took may be the primary reason. In our membership vows, we become Christian first and then we become United Methodist through the vow, “As members of Christ's universal Church, will you be loyal to Christ through The United Methodist Church, and do all in your power to strengthen its ministries?”
United Methodist churches do this in part through our shared connectional giving known as apportionments. My current appointment as senior minister is to a local church that pays more apportionments than any other in the conference. This was their faithful practice long before I arrived. We are proud to pay them because they strengthen ministries and touch lives around the globe.
If we were to leave the denomination, our nonpayment toward these ministries would have world-wide consequences. It may be that the hungry person goes unfilled or the imprisoned goes unvisited. Churches that have left United Methodism claim that they will continue to direct their funds to missions that they designate. But without accountability, do they continue in these efforts at the same rate? Do they slowly slip into becoming more self-serving?
Our clergy on staff were sent by the conference. They were vetted by the conference. They were trained in seminaries that our denomination vetted.
Large churches often appreciate the idea of being self-sustaining. But if they do not contribute to a system that lifts other connected churches up, they become merely predatory by plucking up staff and clergy from smaller churches without helping those churches through shared giving.
These same churches may state that they can self-supervise and need no outside accountability. However, churches that are independent without outside supervision are more vulnerable to embezzlement because they are lacking in regular external checks. If a scandal arises in clergy leadership, there is no immediate assistance at hand.
I understand the need for large churches to have more autonomy within our governance. But we have just become a Regional Conference in the United States within United Methodism. This new designation will give us the ability to tailor our polity to fit our needs more clearly. The mood seems to be that we would move toward more permission-giving regarding local church structures. This gives greater freedom in self-governance while maintaining ties to the larger body.
Some have likely said, “The Horizon Conference needs Highland Park United Methodist Church more than Highland Park UMC needs the conference.” This may be true from a financial standpoint. But we are called to see things differently. In Christ, we find that we are called to serve one another. I believe that this was the new commandment that Jesus gave his disciples on the night he was betrayed by one of his own.
As members of The United Methodist Church, we have been formed by our denomination in ways that we may not even realize. But through this same covenant community, we are called to serve in ways that we cannot do alone.
I'm praying for the members and leadership of Highland Park United Methodist Church. They are my siblings in Christ. I would urge anyone voting on this resolution to vote no so that we might remain in covenant together.
