Bishop T.D. Jakes steps down from megachurch, hands leadership to daughter and son-in-law
Bishop T.D. Jakes announced he will be stepping down and handing leadership of the Potter's House Church, a nondenominational Christian church, to his daughter and her husband.
On Sunday, Jakes, 67, announced that his daughter, Sarah Jakes Roberts, and son-in-law, Touré Roberts, will take over the church, which he founded in 1996.
He made the announcement during an emotional sermon, where he asked the congregation to welcome their new pastors with open arms.
"This is legacy," Jakes said. "Not because they're kin, but because they're the kind. They've immersed themselves into the DNA of this church for years."
The pastor said that while he is stepping down from his current role, he wants to continue doing work with the community.
As you [co-pastor elect,] I'm grateful, I'm honored," Jakes daughter said as she was called on to the stage. "As your daughter, I'm so happy you're going to get some rest."
The change comes after Jakes suffered from a heart attack on stage in November.
In a video posted online, Jakes is seen pausing during his hour-long sermon, before shaking suddenly as other church members gathered around him, according to USA TODAY's previous reporting. He was then rushed to an intensive care unit.
A week after the "slight health incident," he spoke to his congregation remotely and told them that they were "looking at a miracle."
More news: What to expect from the conclave that will choose Pope Francis' successor
Jakes has been in ministry for 47 years, and has advised many high-profile individuals, including the "last three presidents," according to the bio on his website. The bio does not specifically name which presidents, but says Jakes was a featured speaker at Barack Obama's inauguration in 2009.
Jakes is also a best-selling author and award-winning filmmaker. With "minimal resources," he founded the Potter's House in 1996, according to the bio.
His wife is Serita Jakes, and the couple has been married for over 40 years. They have five children together.
The bishop has made headlines after being a longtime spiritual mentor to Sean "Diddy" Combs, the record executive who was indicted for sex trafficking and other federal charges.
Julia is a trending reporter for USA TODAY. Connect with her on LinkedIn, Instagram and TikTok: @juliamariegz, or email her at jgomez@gannett.com
Jonathan Limehouse covers breaking and trending news for USA TODAY. Reach him at JLimehouse@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Bishop T.D. Jakes steps down from megachurch Potter's House
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Upstate city prepares for largest sewer project since 1980s: Replacing aging clay pipes
Easley Combined Utilities is planning a multi-phase sewer project with construction set to begin in late summer 2026. The project will address the Brushy Creek, 18 Mile Creek, and Middle Branch sewer interceptors. Easley Combined Utilities has developed its wastewater master plan, which involves key stakeholders, including the City of Easley, Pickens County, East Carolina University (ECU), and community representatives. The plan outlines long-term objectives and strategies for managing and improving wastewater infrastructure in Easley. The multi-phase sewer project will focus on replacing aging clay pipes to mitigate infiltration and inflow problems and increase capacity to handle wet weather events. Given Easley's current population of 28,620 residents and its rapid annual growth rate of 4.06%, it is crucial that wastewater infrastructure keeps pace with this expansion, according to officials. The sewer interceptor project plans include: Reduction of I&I (infiltration & inflow) from old, leaking clay pipes. Increased capacity to handle wet weather events. No addition of new service areas. No new service areas are included in the design as the focus is on maintaining and improving existing infrastructure. Tyler Morgan, operations engineer for Easley Combined Utilities, said this is the most significant sewer project the city has embarked on since the 1980s. "While this is a very exciting endeavor, we also want to ensure we communicate clearly with the community to make this the best possible experience for everyone involved, from project kickoff to final construction," he said. According to a press release, Easley Combined Utilities will share information about the process and next steps via their social media channels (primarily Facebook and Instagram), a quarterly digital newsletter, and their website. A designated meeting for property owners and the public is planned for early fall 2025. For questions or concerns regarding the project, contact Tyler Morgan at 864-644-8169 or tmorgan@ According to a press release, the project involves associated pipes with diameters ranging from 16 to 36 inches, requiring a large construction area. Easley Combined Utilities will use its existing easements where feasible. However, it will also seek approximately 70 additional construction and/or permanent easements from property owners. Impacted property owners will be contacted starting in November 2025 to discuss easement requirements. Design contract approval: May 2025 Begin contract easement process: November 2025 Construction begins: Late summer 2026 Funding for the project will be provided through a state revolving loan fund. According to a press release, the sewer revolving fund program provides low-interest loans specifically for the repair and improvement of water and wastewater plants and distribution systems, such as those managed by ECU. Travis Rose covers Anderson County for the Independent Mail. Reach him via email at trose@ This article originally appeared on Greenville News: What to know about Easley's largest sewer project since 1980s
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
He was at the center of a Supreme Court case that changed gay marriage. Now, he's worried.
When Jim Obergefell was sitting in the gallery at the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015, he was waiting to hear his name. The justices were preparing to rule on Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that became a landmark in the progress toward LGBTQ+ rights in the U.S. The case, which considered the rights of same-sex couples to marry, ultimately won favor with a majority of the justices, but for Obergefell, the moment wasn't, and could never be, totally complete. His husband, John Arthur, died years before the ruling was announced. Now, 10 years on, he sat down with USA TODAY to reflect on how their love for each other helped shape the fight for marriage equality in the U.S., and what progress there is to still be made in the fight for equality. Obergefell and Arthur met in 1992 and became engaged in 1993. That's when their journey as marriage equality pioneers first began – and for Obergefell, continues into the present. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Question: You got engaged with a traditional diamond ring, even though there was no formal option for marriage. What did that ring mean to you in 1993? Answer: You know, that diamond ring signified you're the person I choose. You're the person I want to spend my life with, and we don't have the ability to do anything legal, but at least you know that's how I feel. And from there, what was your journey to get married? John and I just built a life together. We bought our first house. We built a great circle of friends and family in Cincinnati, people who saw us and treated us as a couple, as a committed couple. It wasn't until 2011 that things really took an unexpected turn. John was diagnosed with ALS. Instead of seeing a few decades more together, we knew our time together was limited to two to five years or less. John progressed fairly rapidly, and by April of 2013 he started at home hospice care. We could have put him in a facility, but we had to think about things that other couples didn't have to think about. How would he be treated as a gay man in a facility? How would I be treated as his partner of almost 21 years? We had nothing legal, no rights and we made the decision: Let's do at-home hospice care because that meant I could keep him safe and comfortable. Important: Stonewall veterans sound alarm over Trump's attempt to erase trans history At what point did you really start to feel like you needed to fight for this for legal marriage recognition? On June 26, 2013, I was standing next to his bed holding his hand when news came out from the Supreme Court that with their decision in the United States v. Windsor, they struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That was that law that defined marriage as between only one man and one woman. And we hadn't talked about marriage again since the mid-90s. But as that news was sinking in, I realized, wait, we've always wanted to get married. Here's our chance we could get married and at least have the federal government see us, recognize us, treat us as a married couple. So I spontaneously proposed and he said, yes. How did you go from this discussion to eventually suing the state and ultimately winding up in the Supreme Court? Because we lived in Ohio, which had its own state-level Defense of Marriage Act, we couldn't get a marriage license or get married at home. Through the generosity of our family and friends, they covered the cost of a chartered medical jet. And we flew from Cincinnati to Baltimore-Washington International Airport on July 11, 2013. We stayed in that medical jet (on the tarmac). And I got to take his hand, and we got to say "I do." A local civil rights attorney read about our story in the Cincinnati Enquirer, and he reached out through mutual friends to say, 'hey, I would like to come talk to you because you have a problem you probably haven't thought about.' Five days after we got married, Al Gerhardstein came to our home and he pulled out a blank Ohio death certificate. 'When John dies, this document, his last record as a person, will be wrong,' he said, 'because here, where it says marital status at time of death, Ohio will fill this out and say that John was unmarried. In the space for surviving spouse name, Jim, your name won't be there.' John and I knew Ohio wouldn't recognize our marriage. But that was abstract. That document, knowing that John's last record would be wrong, made that abstract understanding real. And it hurt. It made us angry. So when (Al) said, 'Do you want to do something about it?' (John and I) talked about it for less than a minute and said yes. So that was Tuesday, five days after we got married. On Friday, eight days after we got married, we filed a lawsuit in federal district court suing the governor of Ohio, John Kasich, and the attorney general, Mike DeWine. Because of John's health, the federal judge had to clear his docket, and he heard arguments on the case on Monday, 11 days after we got married. And that very day, he ruled in our favor. And then John died three months later to the day, but he died a married man. So the record was correct at his time of death. And your name is on his death certificate, but the the fight didn't stop there. The judge ruled in your favor, but it went on to an appeal and got overturned. How did you decide at that point, once the record was correct in your paperwork, that you were going to keep on with the fight? When Al said, 'do you want to keep fighting?' my immediate answer was, 'of course I do.' If I don't, I'm not living up to my promises to John. I promised to love, honor and protect him. And if I don't keep fighting this to make sure our marriage can't be erased, then I'm failing in my promises. How did gay marriage become legal? Civil unions in this state paved the way 25 years ago. I've seen in other interviews you've said that you never really considered yourself an activist. So how did you go from Jim from Ohio, to suing the state of Ohio and becoming a gay rights figurehead? It's because of John, because we loved each other and we wanted to exist. Learning that our right to call each other husband and to have it mean something wasn't going to be reflected on his death certificate, it broke our hearts, but I think the more important thing is it really made us angry. I loved John. He loved me back. We finally had the chance to say I do. But then understanding how our home state, the state where I was born and raised, would completely disregard us, made me angry, made us both angry. It's amazing what will happen when you love someone enough, when you're willing to fight for what you know is right. You were in D.C. the day the decision came down, like, what was that experience like, and what were you thinking about? I thought about John missing him, loving him. I thought about so many people who I had met over the course of the case, the people who were coming up to me and sharing photos and telling me stories and talking about what this potential decision meant to them and what it meant to the person they loved. And then just the unexpected realization that for the first time in my life as a gay man, I actually felt like an equal American. I wasn't expecting to feel that, and that was a really beautiful realization. I feel equal. In case you missed: Portion of Americans satisfied with US stance on LGBTQ is lowest in decade And now you are in the history books. What does that feel like? When I really feel the the importance of this is every single time someone stops me, hugs me, starts crying, shares photos of their family, of their spouse, of their child, and tells me stories. It's a gift every single time it happens, because I see in their faces what marriage equality meant to them, to their family, to their loved ones. Are you nervous that Obergefell might be overturned one day? And what do you think the biggest fight our community faces right now is? Yes, I'm worried about marriage equality. If Obergefell is overturned, we go back to a time or a place where a queer couple in Ohio, where I live, might want to get married, but Ohio could refuse to issue a marriage license because Ohio still has a state level Defense of Marriage Act on the books. Our biggest challenge is making sure we don't lose the progress we have made. We have to be fighting together to make sure every marginalized community keeps the rights that they have gained. We can't do this alone. We have to be fighting for every marginalized community, not just ours. And unfortunately, right now, the trans community, they're bearing the brunt of it. What do you tell young people now, given all of the challenges that we just discussed, what do you say to give them continued hope? The most important thing is they're not alone. There are countless people like me who are activists, who are involved, who care and are out there fighting on the street, in our state legislatures, in the halls of government. There are millions of people out there who believe in their humanity, in their dignity and their right to a future. Zach Wichter is a travel reporter and writes the Cruising Altitude column for USA TODAY. He is based in New York and you can reach him at zwichter@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Jim Obergefell on LGBTQ+ rights 10 years after Supreme Court ruling
Buzz Feed
2 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Elon Just Couldn't Stop Posting About Trump — And Experts Say It's Very Revealing
Stanford University psychiatrist Dr. Anna Lembke said she doesn't know what is going through Musk's head, but frequent posters in general typically do so out of a desire for social validation, which can be even more potent to receive from people you don't know. Lembke said social validation from millions of strangers online can be 'much more potent and therefore more reinforcing than the social validation we might get from people in our real life, because of the emotional complexity of real-life relationships where there's much more give and take, and we have listen.' 'And that's not necessarily true on social media, where we can just delete or block somebody or go somewhere else to get the reinforcement we're looking for,' she continued. Experts say one other reason for posting so much could be to control narratives against you. A New York Times report alleges that tensions between Trump and Musk had been simmering for months, but the breakup got accelerated after Musk felt ' humiliated ' when Trump got rid of Musk's preferred pick for head of NASA. '[Musk] wants to be validated. This was not the way it was supposed to go. He was supposed to save the country from all kinds of things. And he was the only guy who could do it,' suggested Tracy Ross, a couples therapist, about what Musk might be seeking with his frequent posts. 'Think of the specialness of that, and then to lose that, he's got to feel gutted.' Ross said in her practice it can be typical for couples to engage in a blame game after a breakup. Instead of reflecting on 'How am I responsible for this blow up?' people can discharge those feelings by seeking constant validation online so they 'don't have to feel those things and [they] don't have to look at [their] own contribution' in the breakup, Ross said. And one way to control a narrative about your reputation is to share nonstop posts about it. 'Whoever can post the most and get the most reposts, the most followers and likes, then they at least have the feeling that they're shaping and dominating the historical narrative around what happened,' Lembke said about why people might post so much. To be clear though, posting a lot is not a wholly negative behavior and can sometimes be out of 'a desire for social connection and the possibilities of career enhancement,' Gerrard said. It's also a behavior that social media platforms encourage, Gerrard said. 'X has historically cultivated a following of frequent posters, which isn't an accident as it's precisely what the platform was intended for,' Gerrard said. 'Whereas those posting through it on other platforms may face more criticism. Instagram, for example, is largely viewed as a space for highly curated, aestheticized, and potentially inauthentic content, hence the phrase 'highlight reel.'' But even big-time posters can reach a limit with how much they should share online. Musk appears to have deleted his most inflammatory insults against Trump, including his claims that Trump appears in unreleased files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his support for the president's impeachment. Ross said that deleting certain insults could potentially be an 'admission that maybe he thinks he went too far, and that ... could backfire because Trump is known to be pretty vengeful.'
