by Steve | Jul 24, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Guest Perspective from Dr. William J. Abraham
As The United Methodist Church prepares for an unprecedented called General Conference in 2019, Seedbed Publishing recently released an important book to help us understand the deeper theological debates that have led to our present impasse. The Rev. Dr. James Heidinger’s The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism is a masterful history of the subject.
For 26 years Heidinger was the president of Good News. During that time he wrote hundreds of editorials, several books, and spoke at least once in nearly every annual conference in the U.S.
Jim has always been known for his irenic spirit, his commitment to dialogue, and his passion for a church fully committed to Scriptural Christianity.
In The Rise of Theological Liberalism, Jim demonstrates what so many of us have always known about him. He carefully does his research and then, without rancor, tells the story in a fair and clear manner.
We admit we are a bit biased when it comes to Jim’s writings. So don’t just take our word for it, here is an excerpt from the foreword to Jim’s new book.
-Good News
Dr. William J. Abraham
Foreword by Dr. William J. Abraham
This book constitutes a pivotal intervention in the current debates about the nature and future of United Methodism. It should be read and pondered across the denomination. It will be seen by historians as an invaluable source for understanding what has happened over the last generation.
James Heidinger II has been a quiet but extremely influential figure in the recent history of United Methodism. He makes no pretension of being an academic historian. However, this is one reason why this work is so important. He has been deeply involved in the life of the church as an agent who has sought to renew United Methodism across a lifetime of ministry and service. It is not a role that anyone in his position can relish because it entails being a lightning rod for all sorts of fantasies and anxieties about the church. However, he has borne years of criticism with incredible dignity and fortitude, plugging away as a master of ceremonies in both high and low places. The result is a personal take on what has happened from an agent of change and hope. He has operated from the trenches and his analysis must be taken seriously precisely because his observations represent a crucial but neglected stream within United Methodism as a whole. We cannot understand where we have come from or where we are headed without this clearheaded and gracious testimony.
I find it astonishing that so few have devoted attention to providing serious historical narrative of Methodism in the United States across the last generation. Maybe we are still too close to events to venture forth. Maybe the truth about our recent past is too painful to record openly. Maybe we are too confused to know how to orient our narratives. Whatever the case, we have here a hang glider account that provides grist for all future historical mills that may operate. No doubt in time there will be other narratives; however, this narrative must be given a privileged place in the resources that are available. We have here an insider’s account of the first importance.
James Heidinger II
Heidinger’s passion has long been the scriptural and doctrinal reinvigoration of United Methodism. He has, to be sure, also been heavily involved as a key leader of the Good News movement in the ecclesial events of the last half-century. Because of this latter identity it is easy to dismiss his work as that of a political operator. I recently heard of one leading bishop who dismissed the evangelical and orthodox wing of United Methodism as an incarnation of Machiavelli. I doubt if he knows anything of substance about Machiavelli and the recent scholarly revision of his work….
Heidinger has wisely decided to focus on a theological reading of the recent past and how that effects the decline that everyone readily recognizes. The content is decidedly his own. Other evangelicals may want to draw up a different bill of particulars. They may balk at the sharp disjunction between liberal and conservative in play here. However, the great virtue of the approach adopted is that it is clear and substantial. Other narratives will have to reckon with this one if we are to make progress in understanding and action. In fact, this is no mere propaganda piece in favor of Good News and other Renewal movements in the neighborhood. Heidinger has his own searching critique of his own tribe and team. Even so, he has never been a jeremiad; he has been resilient in working for civil dialogue and constructive change.
It is patently clear that we now stand at a crossroads as far as the future of United Methodism is concerned. Folk are moving beyond anxiety toward the development of what Professor David Watson has aptly called “the Next Methodism.” Rest assured there will be a next Methodism and it will have a stormy relationship with the United Methodism put together by a complex hero of many evangelicals, Albert Cook Outler, of blessed memory. Outler shifted his ground in later years, although few know the details as yet. He had a stormy relationship with evangelicals, as he did with everyone. I would dearly love to get his take on where we are. Whatever he might be thinking on the other side, we are headed for a new day. It would be great to sit in on a seminar with Outler and Wesley and other great heroes and heroines of our tradition. The workers die but the work goes on, as Wesley once noted. There are eighty-two million descendants of John Wesley across the globe so Methodism is not going to disappear any day soon. The big question is what place United Methodism will have in that future. This book is a must-read for those pondering that question.
William J. Abraham is the Albert Cook Outler Professor of Wesley Studies at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, in Dallas.
This excerpt is taken from Dr. Abraham’s Forward to The Rise of Theological Liberalism and The Decline of American Methodism by James V. Heidinger II (Seedbed, 2017). Heidinger is president emeritus of Good News. This excerpt is reprinted by permission of Seedbed.com. To purchase Heidinger’s book click HERE.
by Steve | Jul 17, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Walter Fenton-
The Commission for a Way Forward will gather for its fourth meeting in Chicago, July 19-21, as it searches for a way to break the impasse in an increasingly divided church.
According to a press release, the 32-member commission indicated after its early April meeting in Washington D.C. that, “it was leaning toward a simpler structure with clearer processes for decision-making and accountability for The United Methodist Church in its mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ.”
Commission for A Way Forward Members Meet, UMNS
However, the commission will gather for its fourth meeting as United Methodism continues absorbing a number of major developments impacting the 12.7 million member, global denomination.
Since the last time the commission met, the church’s Judicial Council (its “Supreme Court”) handed down a ruling that left Bishop Karen Oliveto, openly lesbian and married, as the leader of the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area. That was in late April.
However, the Council’s decision made it clear that the consecration of a bishop found to be in a same-sex marriage is a violation of church law. Outstanding complaints were filed against Oliveto in August of 2016, but nearly one year later the Western College of Bishops has offered no word on their disposition. (The Council just recently rejected the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops’ request to reconsider part of its April decision.)
The Council’s decision and the outstanding complaints have kept Oliveto’s episcopal leadership under a cloud of controversy. Some individuals and congregations have reduced or stopped contributing to the Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone Annual Conferences that she oversees. The latter recently reported it is in the midst of a financial crisis.
In two other cases, the Judicial Council ruled annual conference boards of ordained ministry cannot negate or defy church law when it comes to examining and recommending clergy candidates for commissioning and ordination. Despite the rulings, at least two annual conference boards have said they will not abide by the judiciary’s decisions.
Also, since the commission’s last meeting, two large churches in Mississippi – The Orchard (Tupelo) and Getwell Road (Southaven) – have officially exited the denomination. Their exits come amidst growing reports that some local churches are withholding apportionments from a denominational hierarchy that appears increasingly conflicted and unable to enforce its own standards.
Since the commission’s meeting in D.C. it has solicited and received input from various North American advocacy groups, denominational leaders of boards and agencies, large church pastors, and seminary students. (There is a group on the commission attempting to gather input from United Methodists outside the United States, but that data has not yet been presented to the commission.)
“The United Methodist Church’s decades-long attempt to silence our voices and to destroy our community and culture have proven that LGBTQ lives are not valued in the least,” wrote leaders of Love Prevails, a leading LGBTQ advocacy group. “The only proper and Christian corrective to the unjust and prejudicial treatment our people have received at the hands of the United Methodist Church is the full and complete removal of all language in the Book of Discipline which categorically discriminates against LGBTQ people“(emphasis included in original).
The newly formed Wesleyan Covenant Association wrote to the commission, “We affirm the ways all persons are welcomed into our church in a graceful and biblical way. Our United Methodist Book of Discipline presently affirms LGBTQ+ persons as people of sacred worth, deserving to receive the full life of grace which the church provides.”
The WCA also reaffirmed the UM Church’s sexual ethics
, its long held teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman, and it added, “The UM Church today is a deeply divided church where we often use the same words, cite the same Scriptures, quote the same Wesley Sermons, and pledge fidelity to the same Discipline; but we are talking about VERY DIFFERENT expressions of Christian faith. We disagree in basic beliefs and practices, with no real means of accountability, which makes our covenantal relationships untenable. We are no longer one church” (emphasis included in original).
This November the Council of Bishops (COB) will receive an interim report from the commission, and the report will likely include at least the outlines of a plan for the bishops’ preliminary reflections.
Delegate speaks at General Conference, UMNS
The commission is expected to submit its final proposal for a way forward to the COB in April 2018. The COB has the right to modify it, but it must publicly release a proposal no later than July 4, 2018, so the delegates slated to attend the called 2019 General Conference have time to give it their due consideration.
Unless two-thirds of the delegates decide otherwise, the plan, amendments to it, or alternative plans will be the only item of business for consideration. While there is no groundswell of support for any particular plan for breaking the impasse, United Methodists across the theological spectrum do seem to agree that failure is not an option at the called 2019 General Conference.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Jul 14, 2017 | In the News
Members of the Bishops’ Commission on A Way Forward, my colleagues at Good News and I thank you for your service to the church which is time consuming and, no doubt, emotionally draining. We have been praying for you and will continue to do so.
Bottom line, we pray that you will propose a solution that allows good people to be true to their convictions and that does not create winners and losers. Doing so will require enough structural separation that neither progressives, nor centrists, nor traditionalists must compromise their deeply held beliefs regarding the Scriptures, the work of the Holy Spirit, or sexuality.
Many of us are weary of the destructive battle that has harmed the church and our witness to the world. We are praying that God will grant you the wisdom and the courage to recommend a solution that ends the infighting that has diverted much of the church’s creative and financial resources from our mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns.
We believe:
1. Our differences are irreconcilable. Progressives cannot live in a church that does not marry gay couples and ordain gifted, partnered gay persons. Traditionalists cannot live in a church that does. We can value and welcome all people into our churches. However, we cannot be in a church that promotes what we believe is contrary to God’s Word.
2. We can respect those with whom we disagree. We believe a progressive sexual ethic is contrary to the Scriptures and ultimately detrimental to the church. But we also believe that our progressive brothers and sisters are sincere in their beliefs. We do not want a solution that has winners and losers or where one side is punished or penalized for their convictions. We may not be able to avoid a real structural separation – the other mainline denominations have not been able to do so. But we can do what they have not been able to do – honor each other’s convictions and sincerity by creating a fair, respectful, and amicable parting.
3. The local option is not a viable solution. This option did not receive enough support even to come to the floor in Portland. With most of the same delegates returning, there is no reason to believe it would pass with a majority of the vote in 2019, much less receive the support of two-thirds of the Conference needed for a solution requiring constitutional amendments.
4. Should the local option or some form of the jurisdictional plan pass, the church will come apart. When the jurisdictional plan was seen by some as a viable solution in 2015, Good News held a conference call with nearly 100 pastors of our largest evangelical churches. We expounded on the positive benefits of this plan for traditionalists. In a poll the next day, a majority of the pastors said they could not live with this plan and would do all they could to lead their churches out of the denomination should it pass. The “local option” was even more soundly rejected. It may be hard for progressives and centrists to understand, but many, if not most, traditionalists cannot participate in a church that allows its pastors and bishops to promote something they believe to be sinful even if they themselves are not required to do so.
5. Some form of connection is possible. To receive evangelical support, a plan does not have to remove all ties between the new entities it creates. The pension board, publishing house, UMCOR, and other connections could remain, as well as some kind of Methodist affiliation similar to the World Methodist Council. But most of our pastors cannot remain in a denomination that allows and promotes practices they believe are contrary to the Scriptures.
6. Doing nothing or forming a solution that requires traditionalists or progressives to compromise their beliefs will do great harm. More and more traditional United Methodists are leaving the denomination every day. I receive letters from such people every week. If responses to progressive blogs are to be believed, progressive members are also leaving because they disagree with our present position and they believe the church is harming people. We do not have an easy solution before us. Every possible proposal will create pain. But, the worst solution is to do nothing. In fact, if the commission is not able to propose a way forward that sets both sides free to pursue its vision of God’s will, the present exodus will increase greatly.
Since Good News began in 1967, we have remained at the table in dialogue with those who have different views of Scripture and sexuality. We have been willing to continue the conversation even though our differences have appeared to be irreconcilable. But we are in a different place now. We are no longer a church merely with differing views. We now have differing practices. Annual Conferences, Boards of Ministry, and Jurisdictions have voted to be disobedient to the Book of Discipline, have knowingly acted contrary to our covenant, and have said they will not change in the future. If we are one church, we cannot act as if we are two. If we are two churches, or more, we should no longer pretend to be one.
If you are unable to present a plan that is acceptable to the delegates at General Conference and, later, to the delegates in the Annual Conferences, the church will not separate. It will shatter. The bishops will have failed to fulfill the most important task we have asked them to address in decades. Our leaders, lay, and clergy, will have proven to be ineffective and out of touch. We will leave St. Louis even more hopeless and defeated than we left Tampa in 2012. And the consequences will be devastating. Many traditional churches will immediately stop paying apportionments and many will file law suits to leave the denomination. Whether these churches are successful in leaving with their property and assets or not, the legal fees incurred by the annual conferences will be in the millions of dollars. It will be ugly, expensive, far from amicable, and a terrible witness to the world.
We don’t need winners. And we don’t want losers. But we cannot abide a proposed solution that does not end our fighting. To be adopted it must include sufficient separation that traditionalists in both the United States and the central conferences can affirm it overwhelmingly.
With prayers and gratitude,
Rob Renfroe
President
Good News
by Steve | Jul 10, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Bishop Laurie Haller, Iowa Annual Conference Communications
By Walter Fenton-
Writing to churches and clergy in the Iowa Annual Conference about financial challenges the conference faces, new Bishop Laurie Haller wrote, “Some of our clergy and congregations are making the decision to withhold apportionment payments to protest those who advocate for full inclusion of LGBTQ people in The United Methodist Church. This intentional action weakens our mutual covenant to be in ministry together here and around the world despite our differences.”
Bishop Haller is woefully misinformed if she thinks churches and clergy are withholding apportionments “to protest those who advocate for full inclusion of LGBTQ people in The United Methodist Church.”
Those who support the church’s sexual ethics, its teachings on marriage, and its ordination standards have never contested the right of LGBTQ+ people and their allies to “advocate” for changing the church’s teachings. They are not naïve; they understand people in a large denomination will not always see eye-to-eye on every matter. They know we have a polity, an orderly way of going about discerning God’s will, and they have willingly engaged in that process for decades. If this were not the case many would have started withholding apportionments long ago, perhaps as far back as the early 1980s.
Here, for Haller and other church leaders who are now learning about the crisis within our denomination, are just some of the actual reasons why some clergy and laity are withholding apportionments, particularly in annual conferences like Iowa.
- After the 2012 General Conference some LGBTQ+ people and their allies adopted a strategy of ecclesial disobedience. They disregarded the will of General Conference and our Book of Discipline by presiding at same sex weddings, and in a few cases UM clergy openly acknowledged they were in same-sex partnerships. But these acts only led a few congregations to withhold apportionments.
- In October of 2013 retired Bishop Melvin Talbert joined a growing list of clergy to preside at a same-sex marriage. His defiance gained national attention, and forced clergy to respond to perplexed and sometimes angry laity who could not understand how a bishop could preside at a same-sex wedding when the church explicitly said clergy are prohibited from doing so. This provocation led other congregations to withhold apportionments.
- In tense executive sessions at the Council of Bishops’ November 2013 gathering it instructed its president to file a complaint against Bishop Talbert. It took four months before the complaint was filed, and then another nine before the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops quietly reported on the late afternoon of December 30, 2014 that a “just resolution” had been reached in the matter. The resolution was widely regarded as a sham since Talbert was in no way held accountable for his breach of church law. This mockery of the Discipline led still other congregations to withhold apportionments.
- In July of 2016 the Western Jurisdiction and its bishops wittingly decided to plunge the denomination into a constitutional crisis by electing, consecrating, and assigning as a bishop a person they all knew had presided at nearly 50 same-sex weddings and was party to one herself. And so, as a matter of conscience, many congregations across the connection have decided to withhold apportionments, particularly churches in the annual conferences over which this bishop presides. They have refused to be complicit in a willful rebellion against the church’s polity and good order. And as many warned, the conferences in the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area are facing serious financial challenges, and in one case, the conference has candidly called it a “financial crisis.”
- Finally, in an incident closer to home for Iowans, the Rev. Anna Blaedel requested a point of privilege at the 2016 Iowa Annual Conference to announce to the gathered assembly, “I am a ‘self-avowed practicing homosexual.’ Or, in my language, I am out, queer, partnered clergy.” A complaint was immediately filed against her, but was dismissed, without comment, by Bishop Julius Trimble. Bishop Haller just recently reappointed her.
Haller seriously misjudges and mischaracterizes people who stand at the church’s center when she says they are withholding apportionments “to protest those who advocate for full inclusion of LGBTQ people.”
Nonsense. They are withholding apportionments because of bishops and church leaders who refuse to defend the church’s teachings, its polity, church law, and now even the rulings of its judicial branch.
Faithful United Methodists have decided they can no longer support, in good conscience, a dysfunctional institution. And they certainly have no interest in financially supporting bishops who mock their values and the church they have faithfully supported for years.
Recently, Bishop Haller characterized the aforementioned Rev. Anna Blaedel’s actions as “holy disobedience.” If she takes the time to patiently listen to people at the center of the UM Church who are withholding apportionments, she might come to realize they are acting out of “holy obedience.”
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Jul 10, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
The Judicial Council 2017, UMNS
By Walter Fenton-
The United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council has declined a request to reconsider a portion of its April 2017 decision regarding the consecration of an openly lesbian bishop.
In a brief email to Mr. Richard Marsh, an attorney representing the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops in its bid for reconsideration, the Rev. Lui Tran, Council secretary, wrote, “After careful review and prayerful consideration, the Motion to Reconsider [Judicial Council Decision] 1341 of the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops has been denied.” Tran also noted the Council’s decision to deny was unanimous.
The Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops took particular issue with the Council’s ruling that “A same-sex marriage license issued by competent civil authorities together with [a] clergy person’s status in a same-sex relationship is a public declaration that the person is a self-avowed practicing homosexual for purposes of [church law].” It claimed the Council had exceeded its mandate to interpret church law, and instead usurped the General Conference’s sole authority to create and define standards for clergy ordination.
The ruling is a setback for any clergy who have obtained a same-sex marriage license, and it poses a serious risk for Bishop Karen Oliveto, episcopal leader of the Mountain Sky Episcopal Area in the Western Jurisdiction. Oliveto’s July 2016 election and consecration as a UM Church bishop engendered JCD 1341. While the Council ruled it did not have the authority to vacate Oliveto’s election and consecration, it did rule bishops could not consecrate as a bishop a clergy person found to be in a same-sex marriage.
“The motion to reconsider was without merit as it raised no new matters for consideration by the Judicial Council,” said the Rev. Keith Boyette, the attorney who opposed the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops during the Council’s oral hearing on April 25, 2016 in Newark, New Jersey. “I am gratified that the Council has denied the motion. Oliveto’s status as a bishop continues under a cloud, so it is in the best interest of the church, the episcopal area where she is assigned, and of Oliveto herself that this matter be resolved as expeditiously as possible and in conformity with the requirements of the Book of Discipline. I urge the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops to fulfill their responsibilities expeditiously and in accordance with church law.”
Although it was widely known at the time of her election and consecration that Oliveto was in a same-sex marriage and had secured a marriage license, none of her supervisory authorities (bishops and district superintendents) or any other party had filed a complaint against her. At least in part, the delegates who elected her and the bishops who consecrated her regarded their actions as a direct challenge to the church’s sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and standards on ordination.
In its April decision the Council instructed the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops to review and act on complaints that were filed against Oliveto shortly after her election. Should the complaints result in a church trial, the Judicial Council’s denial to reconsider its ruling forecloses a defense tactic used in the past.
In two previous cases clergy have openly advertised they were in same-sex partnered relationships, but when questioned at trial, they refused to acknowledge whether they were “practicing homosexuality.” Consequently, the complaints were dismissed. But now, according to the Council, “A same-sex marriage license issued by competent civil authorities” is equivalent to a clergy person’s declaration that he or she is “a self-avowed practicing homosexual for purposes of [church law].”
Western Jurisdiction Bishops participate in Bishop Karen Oliveto’s consecration service. (Photo by the Rev. David Valera, PNW Conference)
Some United Methodists regarded the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops’ request for reconsideration as an attempt to further delay processing the complaints against Oliveto. The complaints were filed in August 2016, but to date nothing has been publicly reported regarding their disposition. If the complainants and Oliveto cannot reach a “just resolution” of the matter, a church counsel will be appointed to investigate their validity and bring the case to trial if necessary.
“The Council’s refusal to reconsider their decision makes perfect sense,” said the Rev. Rob Renfroe, president of Good News. “For millennia, people in various cultures have regarded sexual intimacy as integral to marriage. The Council is not making new law; it is simply using common sense when it comes to the church’s understanding of marriage. I am grateful that they saw the WJ Council’s request for what it was – a cynical delaying tactic – and dismissed it promptly and unanimously.”
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
by Steve | Jun 30, 2017 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Walter Fenton-
Lifetime Good News Board member the Rev. John Grenfell, Jr. died this past Sunday, June 25, 2017. He was 86 years old.
John was one of those United Methodist pastors who never really retired; he was not the retiring type. He played ice hockey into his mid-60s, and always gave as good as he got. The passion he exhibited on the ice was an extension of how he lived his life: full-tilt, fearless, and filled with intensity.
John always struck me as a wiry, Old Testament prophet, ready at a moment to burst forth with a jeremiad on the importance of justice, truth, and integrity in our church. And then five minutes later he would be weeping with joy as he told you about a lost soul who accepted Christ into his heart, had his life turned around, and in the process, found a fellowship of caring friends at a church he pastored.
After graduating from Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary, John served the United Methodist Church for 41 years of active ministry. He pastored congregations in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. He also served as a district superintendent in the Detroit Annual Conference, and represented it as a General Conference delegate on more than one occasion.
John joined the Good News Board in 1974. “John Grenfell’s life and ministry have had a profound influence on The United Methodist Church,” said the Rev. Dr. James V. Heidinger II, president emeritus of Good News. “Faithfulness to the message of the gospel remained the top priority for John. He was a pastor and church leader of unquestioned integrity – acknowledged even by those of a more liberal persuasion.”
Grenfell was elected a lifetime Good News board member in the 1990s, and received the Edmund Robb Jr. United Methodist Renewal Award in 2007. The Good News board of directors has bestowed the award on only 12 people. Other recipients include Maxie Dunnam, Tom Oden, and Helen Rhea Stumbo.
In retirement, John dedicated much of his time to serving as an advocate for clergy and local churches in disputes with district superintendents and bishops. He was passionate about justice, and dedicated to providing clergy and local churches with informed and wise counsel. He was committed to the idea that every pastor and local church deserved a vigorous defense of their due process rights. For his efforts, he received the Conscience of the Conference Award from the United Methodist Associates in Advocacy in recognition of a “lifetime ministry of integrity, compassion, and courage in upholding and defending the covenant of the clergy.”
“John had a profound conviction that the ministerial covenant meant that the UM Church should be administered by its leadership with absolute integrity and fairness,” said Heidinger.
When John was not advocating on behalf of others, he filled interim pastoral appointments, and also served as Camp Director at Simpson Park in Romeo, Michigan, the state’s oldest Holiness Camp Meeting for families.
John was a man of strong conviction, deep faith, loyal commitments, and persevering love. His love of God, family, and the people of the congregations he served, inspired many throughout his long life and dedicated service to the UM Church.
He is survived by his wife by of 65 years, Jeanine (Neal) Grenfell, two sons, three daughters, a sister, in-laws, and numerous grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
His son, the Rev. Dr. John Grenfell III, senior pastor at Plymouth First UM Church (Michigan), will preside at his funeral at 11 a.m. Monday, July 3, 2017 at First United Methodist Church in Port Huron, Michigan. John III carries on his father’s legacy as a UM pastor and member of the Good News board of directors.
Walter Fenton is a United Methodist clergy person and an analyst for Good News.
