Yes, unbelievably, Gilyard can now "minister" to children, so long as another adult is present. Keep in mind, most of Gilyard's sexual offenses since the 1980s have been under the guise of "counseling" sessions. He now is one step closer to abusing women and children again. I would not be surprised if he's already started again.
Here is my article from May where I asked "Where's the Outrage?" Why are pastors in this town not expressing outrage over Gilyard once again having access to children?
It is so refreshing to watch these panelists on a national TV program express outrage publicly, on TV about Gilyard.
Yet where in Jacksonville, are any - just give me ONE SINGLE PASTOR - who has dared to stand publicly and call out Gilyard - by name - and his new church for putting women and children in our city on the Westside at great risk? Where are they? Not even ONE?
They won't. I guess these Jacksonville pastors are cowards.
One of the panelists on Dr. Drew's show was psychologist Dr. Judy Ho, who said the following:
"This is the thing about pedophilia. The urges don't usually change. These people don't change their sexual orientation and attraction to children. What treatment is focused on is trying to reduce their actions on these urges and to try to protect our children. So putting these kids in front of him all day long is like him in a candy store. Even if he went to the best treatment available, the treatments do not work on the urges, they work on conditioning techniques, like getting him to be more adverse to actually acting on it because he has to think about the consequences."How refreshing to hear a psychologist with a Ph.D. with degrees from Cal-Berkely and a professor at Pepperdine, commenting on national TV about Gilyard and how dangerous he is. Gilyard STILL has these urges. He didn't repent and have them removed. God hasn't healed Gilyard. He has the urges still. Dr. Ho didn't temper her remarks about Gilyard being a "man of God", or how talented a speaker he is, or as Vines says in his autobio:
"He obviously was such a gifted speaker. On an occasion I asked him if he ever considered he might be called to preach....Homer and I were so thrilled....His remarkable abilities quickly manifested themselves."Isn't that wonderful? Jerry and Homer were so thrilled Darrell was called to preach. Darrell had remarkable abilities. He was "called" by God himself to preach. Too bad Jerry and Homer were so thrilled that they didn't bother to check Gilyard's phony-baloney story of growing up homeless under a bridge. They could have talked to his mom or other relatives. I guess he was just so darned GIFTED - he HAD to be a true man of God, right?
And I'm going to contrast Dr. Ho's summary of Darrell Gilyard above and the danger he presents, with Vines' last statement in his autobiography about Gilyard. Vines is trying to explain how a gifted speaker could have been such an awful person.
"The soul and spirit are so close together only the Word of God can distinguish between the two. (Heb 4;12). Talents emanating from a man's soulish nature can easily be mistaken for spiritual power. I leave the whole matter to the Lord. He will make it clear to us one day."The more I've thought about the Vines' section on Gilyard over the past few weeks, the more I've seen that this statement really says it all. It explains Vines' and other pastors' actions that allowed Gilyard to move from church to church.
That is religious gobbledy-gook that has no basis in reality. What does it mean the "soul and spirit" are so close together that only the Word of God can distinguish them? Do what? Vines couldn't distinguish what Gilyard was? Vines and Patterson had eye witness reports - multiple upon multiple reports all the way back on the 1980s- that Gilyard was a sexual deviant who used his power as a "man of God" to have sex and possibly even rape women. Yet Vines still brought Gilyard in to Jacksonville as an evangelist and to even have access to his high school students. Then Gilyard attacked Tiffany during one of his evangelistic visits to Jacksonville.
And is that really true what Vines say, that "talents" can easily be mistaken for spiritual power? Is he that gullible? That is more nonsense! Maybe that is true for Jerry Vines, the so-called "prince of preachers" that he thinks someone with speaking talent in a pulpit has spiritual power. But those of us who have our feet on the ground and don't have our heads in the clouds know that wonderful flowery speakers in the pulpit can be the most manipulative people on earth.
And Vines' last statement on Gilyard in his book: "I leave the whole matter to the Lord. He will make it clear to us one day."
No Jerry, the matter is not left to the Lord. It is left now to men like you and other pastors to stand up and call out this dangerous man and do everything in your power to warn people. It is left up to the law enforcement to monitor this monster and to throw him back in jail if he steps out of line. The Lord has left it up to deacons and church leaders to keep this creep as far away from their church and their women and children as possible, not INVITE him in. The Lord was looking for someone in 1991 like yourself, Jerry, to stop Gilyard. You and Patterson could have done much more to stop him - or at least not let him have access to your own high schoolers.
And maybe the Lord was looking for someone to speak the truth about what happened to Tiffany in 1991 in his autobiography - not to publish falsehoods. I can guarantee you one thing, Jerry - the Lord didn't find you, but in Tiffany he DOES have someone who will speak the truth.
And we don't need the Lord to make it clear to us one day, Jerry. We already know: there are monsters like Gilyard who use their status as a "man of God" to prey and devour people.
And another thing very clear to us about Gilyard: there are men who will not have the courage to stand up and put a stop to it.
28 comments:
I'm not sure it's exactly accurate to classify him as a "pedophile." I don't know if there is an "official" or universally-accepted definition of that term or not, but correct me if I'm wrong, his victims have all been teenage girls. Yes, they were minors in the eyes of the law, but they were post-pubescent, no? Yes, sexually exploiting post-pubescent teenage girls is definitely wrong, but I'm not sure it is evidence of any deviant or abnormal sexual orientation. I think all heterosexual men have an unavoidable sexual attraction to post-pubescent females.
Very very poor attempt at humor
Bill
"I think all heterosexual men have an unavoidable sexual attraction to post-pubescent females."
I really think I am going to throw up.
Never the male's fault, and the entire female population must compensate for the "unavoidable."
Darrell WAS called to preach. Too bad it was by Jerry and Homer.
Then he got an agent named Paige.
Dog, you're not a great believer in the power of people to change, are you, even with God's working. I think you're somewhat cynical in that regard. I'm not sure such cynicism is compatible with any variety of Christian belief. Don't get me wrong, I don't implicitly trust any claim by Gilyard or anyone else that they've overcome a sin, but some of the statements you make in this article are a bit over the top in my opinion (i.e., "he's one step closing to abusing children again, I wouldn't be surprised if he's already started"). Your whole theme on Gilyard seems to be "he's a bad, bad man, will always be a bad, bad man, and should be treated as such." I'm not saying it's wrong to question whether he should be allowed around kids - that's perfectly reasonable, on the ground that we just don't know whether he's overcome his sin or not. What I find rather distasteful is your apparent position that he shouldn't be allowed around kids BECAUSE HE'S AN EVIL PERSON AND WILL ALWAYS BE AN EVIL PERSON.
Really 12:10's comment should not have have survived the moderation cut. That is just sick.
Me, cynical?? No way!! Gilyard is Gilyard. He ha a 20 year habit of using his title as "man of god" to abuse women and children. 20 years.
Sorry. 17 years. 3 years in the slammer I don't think he abuse women or children. Ok. I am cynical.
I posted 12:10, and I'm sorry if you find it "sick." It's just the truth. By definition "post-pubescent" means having gone through puberty and progressed to adulthood. Thus, "Post-pubescent" girls are biologically women. Under state laws they can marry at an age under 18 with parent's consent. Heterosexual men are by nature sexually attracted to women. that's not a "choice" or a deviance. It's just the way it is. Sorry if that disturbs you. That's not in any way to say that sex with minor post-pubescent girls is appropriate. My only point was that Gilyard doesn't have a "deviant" or "abnormal" sexual orientation because he is attracted to post-pubescent girls.
5:11,
I didn't say that it was not totally Gilyard's fault, nor did I say anything which could even remotely be so construed by a reasonable person. His actions were criminal and wrong. The morality of his actions has nothing to do with the nature of his temptation. By your logic, the mere statement that heterosexual men are naturally attracted to women is an assertion that heterosexual men cannot be blamed for rape. Get a grip.
Anonymous 12:10. Pedophilia does pertain to sexual interest in prepubescent children. The form of Paraphilia Gilyard has is most likely Ephebophilia which is sexual interest in later adolescence, ages 15-19; or hebephilia which is sexual interest in pubescent children ages 11-14. This doesn't pertain to a 14 yr old boy lusting for a 15 yr old girl. The part that makes this a mental disorder is the age inappropriateness. Gilyard is a grown adult male whose primary sexual attraction is to minor girls. There are no documented cases of people being cured of their Paraphilia. This isn't about generic "evil" this is about a specific mental disorder that WILL result in more girls being hurt. Although God can do anything he has not yet chosen to cure predators from any form of Paraphilia. All we as society can do is try to keep predators away from their target group. Gilyard is a sick predator and his actions are criminal. To equate a sex crime against a child to mere sin or normal sexual behavior is sick, twisted and wrong. Why isn't protecting girls from future harm that will scar them for life more important than fretting about whether Gilyard has enough grace in his life? God gave us clear instruction on this topic: The LORD detests the way of the wicked, but he loves those who pursue righteousness.proverbs 15:9.
A scorpion asks a frog to carry him over a river. The frog is afraid of being stung during the trip, but the scorpion argues that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog agrees and begins carrying the scorpion, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature. The fable is used to illustrate the position that the natural behaviour of some creatures is inevitable, no matter how they are treated. It is also used to illustrate that individuals are apt to behave in accordance with their true character in spite of the education they might have received throughout their lives and in spite of knowing fully well the right course of action.
Anonymous 12:10: You are wrong. End of story. If you think what you say is true, then you also need some kind of help, because no adult is going to be attracted to a child no matter if the age is a baby, toddler, 11 or 18. That is child abuse. It's wrong. It's sick. Women are to be respected not oggled.
All: I don't really care what you choose to call this, it's against the law and Darrel has not been in prison long enough or out long enough to have changed anything but his con game. For this church to have hired him is just insane. The way Jerry Vines and Paige Patterson responded is just insane.
Anonymous 12:10 you are not going to win this one so best to leave it alone. However, I do find Kaufman's comments interesting in the light of history. It was not uncommon for girls as young as 13 to be married to "older men" (in their 20's) just as recently as the 1930's in America. I know one couple, she was 13 he was 20 something. They were married for 50 years- and so happy and sweet together (he has since passed away). I am not advocating for this! However, Kaufman has to admit that calling an 18 yo a "minor" to be predated upon by an older male is something that is new to our culture and would be considered odd not long ago - "just sayin" from a historian's perspective. I in NO WAY defend the actions of Gilyard! But I think the issue in this case is the "power and influence" differential between him and his victims, who (as I understand it) considered him their pastor.
Look Vines and Patterson have been given a skate for aat least the past 30 yrs.
There is nooooo way that they are going to be accountable at this point.
BTW, you can throw in S Gaines, E Young, A Stanley, J Hunt, et al as well as the new SBC President. The bottom line is that it had always been like this but the internet and truth coming out into the open had changed everything and they do not like it because it means accountability for actions/inactiond.
People are beginning to wake up and smell whats been cooking for all if these years.
Grace to all- including those I named
Bill.
Just another small time pastor
12:10
To pose as the backdrop for Gilyard's crimes "Heterosexual men are by nature sexually attracted to women. That's not a 'choice' or a deviance. It's just the way it is" immediately diminishes the depth of its criminality.
The correctness of the scientific term for Gilyard's actions is not even the point.
Sexually exploiting ANYONE for ANY reason is most definitely an expression of "deviant" behavior and well beyond normal sexual attraction.
Why do I get nauseated when I see Vines bringing "Homer" into the discussion. Homer is not here to defend himself or what he "understood." Plus, by stating Homer agreed with him, he is trying to gain credibility from a man that was the real deal. The logic goes like this: Sure, I am not trustworthy and have been proven to be a liar and manipulator and profiteer from the gospel and never built anything. But Homer, you all KNOW he was a real pastor, someone who built up churches to greatness, a man of commitment, a a man of integrity. So I will invoke his name to try and defend my measly little cowardly self."
We get it Vines. You have no credibility and your "bio" just proves it even more. I suppose Homer was also thrilled about Caner? Oh, he was dead already, so you can't use him to tell us how thrilled he was about Caner.
Sickening. These guys have no conscience. That's what Homer told me. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. That's why so many of the "leaders" at FBC are glad he is gone. They knew they could buy favor and influence with the likes of Vines and Brunson.
Homer is long gone and so is FBC Jax as we all knew it. Please, Jerry AND MB, stop invoking Homer's name and legacy when you are manipulating us.
I wonder if Homer would have been "thrilled" to go preach at Gilyard's church after the fact. And I guess we can all just wonder how different Tiffany's story would have been if she went to Homer and not Vines. I can't help but wonder when Vines told Tiffany not to tell anyone else, he wasn't worried about Homer. Homer might have fired Vines on the spot! As Vines would say, "I don't know that for sure, Homer never mentioned it to me", but I can't help but think it. Amen?
Anon 8:55 - I too am nauseated by Vines' invoking of Homer's name in the most awkward places of his book to give him some credibility or to share the blame with Homer. I'll have more to say on this later and other aspects of Vines' bio.
I've written many times here about bloviating pastors using the name of Homer to help manipulate their congregations. It is beyond disgusting, but not surprising for this bunch.
OK, "12:10" here again. I officially announce my retirement as an internet commenter.
8:18, you said: "To equate a sex crime against a child to mere sin or normal sexual behavior is sick, twisted and wrong." Where, for goodness sakes, did I do that? I made it very clear that I was NOT in any way excusing his behavior. It was criminal and it was very wrong. I made it very clear that I believe sexual exploitation of minors is wrong.
Debbie Kaufman, sorry, but something is not true just because you say it is. Presumably you are not a man so you really should not pontificate on a subject there's no way you could know anything about. You said "no adult is going to be attracted to a child no matter if the age is a baby, toddler, 11 or 18." Really? Normal grown men aren't sexually attracted to 18 year old girls? Not attracted to 17 year old girls who are two weeks away from their 18th birthday? Any honest normal heterosexual male would tell you that's not the case. Sexual attraction, even a deviant sexual attraction, is not sin, it's not a choice. It's innate. It is acting on that attraction which may (or may not) be sin, depending on who the attraction is directed toward.
In closing, I'll say that Dog does some good work, but I see a lot of negativity and cynicism on this board that does no one any good. That seems to be the general tone of things on this blog and the internet in general. I'm tired of this in my life and I'm going to start spending my time on more positive and uplifting activities. Like reading the Bible and praying, sharing my faith.
Bye, have fun with the last word.
I will have the last word because what the both of you write is incredible. There was a time when sexual abuse of children resulted in marriage I am sure as our society looked at women and children as non-human. There was a time that child labor and slavery were legal too. So history is not the place to look. Marrying relatives was not always illegal either.
You say you are not defending Gilyard. Yes you are and there is no defense. Another important point is his sexual attacks toward these women, children was unwanted. It was rape. Your remarks show a twisted mind.
Let's look at the present, it's illegal.
Now my last word wasn't fun, but it was satisfying.
Anon 10:34: How you can write what you just did and in all good conscience talk about the Bible and faith in the same paragraph is beyond me.
"Normal grown men aren't sexually attracted to 18 year old girls? Not attracted to 17 year old girls who are two weeks away from their 18th birthday?"
The answer is no. NORMAL men are not.
Your obsession with this "innate" condition is disturbing.
“There will always be temptations to sin, but what sorrow awaits the person who does the tempting! - Luke 17:1
When people are weak in a certain area (be it alcohol, drugs, money, or sex), you don't place them in a situation where their weakness will be tempted.
Who would put a drink in front of a reformed alcoholic?
This man has a sexual weakness. We can argue all day whether it normal or abnormal, but one thing we can agree on: it's immoral.
Sex outside of marriage is immoral.
Adultery is immoral.
The people insisting that it's OK for him to minister to children are not dealing with him in love. Love is not helping to put him in a position where his weakness will tested. Love would be keeping temptation away from him; love would be keeping him away from situations where his weaknesses would be tempted.
Whether he can resist the temptations associated with his new position is anyone's guess. It's certain though that he will be tempted. Regardless, he will not be the only one committing a sin.
...what sorrow awaits the person who does the tempting!
I cannot believe tha I agree wit dk on very much at all. However 12:10 there is no excuse for Gilyard's conduct. He served his time - That much is true. I hope that the consequences of further transgressions are enough to keep our children safe. DK - you should consider your comments. Your problem is that you are not smart enough to win people over and you resort to bully tactics.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of terms in the above comments. For example, what does each side mean by:
Normal?
Sexually attracted?
The argument going on seems to be about two different subjects and both sides do not understand the way the above words are being used by the other.
An example would be that I define normal by my experiences and worldview. I would say that those who want to argue their point to the end without hearing or trying to hear the other are not normal. For the second term, I understand that being sexually attracted to someone is not the same things as looking at someone and then taking it to a sexual act or something similar. Being sexual attracted to another person to me is simply an attraction to that person for their visual presence. This is probably more understood among men than women. Again, I do not think a sexual attraction must lead to a mental or physical seduction of a person but can be as simple as that person is very attractive.
There is no switch in a man that turns off because a pretty girl walks in the room. It may seem silly but if men were not attracted to the opposite sex, then they would probably never have a desire to marry and grow a family.
With this stated, there is a very fine line which must not be crossed and the best way to remain on the correct side is to have our mind held captive by God.
Bottom line is that I hope that we try to understand what the other is saying and how they are using the words they choose without inciting a riot within ourselves or on the blog.
True. Homer was indeed a man of Integrity, above reproach!
I am not in disbelief to what others have reported about Darrell Gilyard and his "lifestyle." What startles me is The Spirit Of Deceit they have. I have always heard that you can tell a lot about a person by looking in their eyes. I have studied pictures of other people, and in many instances, their eyes give them away. But when seeing his picture, I am amazed at the "glow" on his face. And that smile! This individual MUST have a split personality. I can "see" why the Spiritually Blind people would not condone Gilyard. Those eyes and that smile deceive even the highest elete. Although we may not see it, he is going to pay greatly for his evil doings. It may not be until he meets his maker face-to-face, but he WILL pay. In the mean time, there are a lot of lives ruined because of this "pretend preacher."
Post a Comment