Child Predator Minister? No Problem! Just Tell the Kids To Stay Out Of Church!

Every picture I could find to illustrate this story was offensive, so here's a bald guy with a dog on his head.

Combine the comments I’m getting from the “cannibelles” launched at Ethics Alarms from the “Wisconsin Sickness” website (“Personal conduct has no bearing on professional trustworthiness!“), and add the film negative of the recently posted Ethics Hero, the selfless pastor, add some eye of newt, and ABRACADABRA! You get…. Christ Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida, whose pastor, Darrell Gilyard, is a registered sex offender! 

And of recent vintage, too. This apparently doesn’t faze the good parishioners of Christ Tabernacle Missionary Baptist because—well. pick your rationalization…I’m sure they have:

  • “There but the grace of God go I!”
  • “Everybody deserves one mistake!”
  • “Let Him who is without sin cast the first stone!”
  • “Who are we to judge?”
  • “It’s not like he killed someone!”
  • “What he does in his private life is nobody’s business!”
  • Look at the Catholics! At least our pastor molests girls!
  • “Christians believe in redemption!”
  • “It doesn’t matter: he’s an excellent preacher!”

Gilyard’s last church wasn’t so understanding, but then it was that congregation’s underage girls who he pleaded guilty to molesting in 2009. You can’t blame them too much for being intolerant.

But his new church is being reasonable about this as well as broad-minded; they are taking the responsible course. Children aren’t allowed in church while Gilyard is preaching.

Problem solved!

69 thoughts on “Child Predator Minister? No Problem! Just Tell the Kids To Stay Out Of Church!

  1. My goodness, Jack, I seem to remember a piece you wrote maybe a year ago in which you decried the unethical practice of closing the doors of opportunity for successful reentry into society of those who had fallen from grace and were trying to find their way back. Have you done a 180 degree turn? Your emphasis on “registered sex offender” says yes.

    If those in the church in question, including the parents of the children who are excluded from certain worship services, are unanimous in their decision to do what they are doing, and the minister in question is not violating the law, then I am totally baffled as to why anyone else should get involved or criticize.

    As a footnote, the children are not excluded from services where Pastor Gilyard officiates because they feel their children are at risk there. It is because it is a requirement of his registry status that he not be where children are. The congregation are taking that action to protect him from being compromised.

    • No 180 required. Most of those registered sex offenders finding themselves unfairly discriminated against have not plead guilty to molesting underage girls.

      • Sooo…those who did commit serious offenses, have satisfied their court-ordered punishment, have worked through a treatment program, are repentant of their wrong-doing, are staying compliant with all court-ordered sanctions, and are determined to stay on the straight and narrow…they don’t get the opportunity for a second chance?

        • Those that have taken advantage of authority should not maintain the mantle of that authority. Pastor’s are (supposedly) moral authority figures. His prior actions should disqualify him from continuing in this profession. Now, if, instead of a Pastor, this guy was a car salesmen or accountant, his hiring and the banning of children from his office would make sense.

        • Christ Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church may be independent. I do not see it listed with other churches that use very much the same name in Florida: http://missionarybaptistchurches.com/MBClocate/churchlist.html

          Given the pastor’s position of leadership in the lives of families, there seems at least to be an ethical dilemma for the pastor and his congregation to resolve – involving the kindness that follows (and should follow) from forgiveness and restoration of one who has erred, in possible conflict with the justice that may (or may not) have run its full course and any residual and unrecoverable lack of trust that can (and should) follow in that course.

          The state may have exacted its justice; however, in the affairs of the church, and from the outside looking in, it is fair to question whether the kindness that appears evident is in conflict with any remaining justice due which is separate from the justice of the state, and which perhaps would best exude from the actions of the congregation according to the prudence of its membership.

    • Now wait a minute. I have said that those who have paid their debt to society should not be ostracized and have their citizens’rights taken away from them. I have not said that an accountant convicted of embezzlement should be hired again as an accountant. We’re not talking about punishment, we’re talking trust. as well as responsible leadership. There is no reason for a church to trust a recent child molester who used his position of authority and trust in a church to do the molesting, to take on the same position, whether or not children are involved. He showed himself to be capable of betrayal. He’ll should have trouble getting any job involving leadership and trust after that, and properly so. I never said that breaking the law shouldn’t have life-time consequences; I said that those who have served their sentences should not be made objects of harassment themselves in every aspect of their lives. Forcing children to avoid church (yes, tgt, I know—I would have been happy about it as a child too) is just part of the problem. Why should part of the community be barred from the opportunity to attend church because this crazy church decided to hire a registered sex offender.

      You argument is akin to saying that a CEO who went to jail for raiding the company bank account should still be eligible to be hired as a CEO after he’s out of stir, but the new company should make sure he can’t write any checks. How does that make sense to you?

      • “There is no reason for a church to trust a recent child molester who used his position of authority and trust in a church to do the molesting, to take on the same position, whether or not children are involved.”

        I agree, with the words “to be expected” inserted after “no reason for a church.”

        • And I would agree with your inclusion: There is no reason for a church to be expected to trust….
          But if the church has, without the expectation, extended the trust anyway, do those outside of the church have the right to judge?

          And my understanding from another article is that the children were not forced to avoid or forego church but were instead attending a child-oriented service in a separate building led by a youth minister during the time the adults were attending Pastor Gilyard’s services.

          • “Who are we to judge” is banned here, Shelly. It’s everybody’s duty to judge, speak out, and argue, or no one ever learns, and no standards are ever set.

            One cannot simultaneously place an individual in front of a congregation as someone who is qualified to tell others the moral way to live, while the law declares that children are not safe in his presence. IF, for example, the church knew that he was a RSO because he had urinated in public when he was drunk and before he found God, OK—I’d defend that position myself. That’s not the case, is it? He did molest underage girls, while a pastor.It is per se irresponsible to place him in the same position, and yes, I and anyone else can say that.

          • I will admit to my bias that stems from memories of the Peoples Temple and Reverend Jim Jones, and of the Branch Davidians under David Koresh. That bias motivates my misgivings about this one congregation and their pastor. The accommodation looks to me like a “red flag.” I hope I’m mistaken.

  2. If this “pastor” was truly repentant of his previous crimes against God and nature, he wouldn’t be setting himself up as a preacher in a church where he would have access to children. He would be rigidly avoiding ALL appearance and temptations of misconduct. There are many ways that a repentant man- even one who has committed the ultimate crime- can do good in the world. This is not one. All he’ll succeed in doing- regardless of his motivations- is bring disrepute to himself, his church and the pulpit.

    BTW: I always loved that picture, Jack! It’s so… YOU.

  3. There is a dangerous temptation in church congregations is to develop a cult of the minister. In many denominations, the minister is traditionally held in high esteem, is held to be somehow closer to God than the rest of the congregation, and held to be much less fallible than normal people. This can develop to the point that some congregations equate questioning the actions or statements of the minister to be blasphemous. In such an atmosphere, it is easy for a minister (especially a charismatic one, no pun intended) to rationalize or explain away obviously questionable behavior and get away with it. In fact, people will go along with horrible abuses and never question them. I suspect this is what is going on here. I suspect this is a congregation never questions or disagrees with the minister’s statements or actions.

    • Even before they HIRE HIM?
      When I was a kid, our church had a young,, charismatic, popular minister.. Married, lovely wife, two little kids. Turned out he was serially having sex with every hot parishioner in a skirt. The church leaders fired him, because they were sane.

  4. I’d much prefer a pastor who is known to have committed some such offense in the past than a pastor who is presumed to be trustworthy merely because he’s never been convicted of a crime. Truly, the guy with the past is someone I know to watch more carefully…and someone who is likely to guard carefully his interactions with children in order to prevent the image of impropriety. I dismiss the “can’t trust again” mantra as short-sighted and largely unsupported by evidence. A valid argument can be made, for instance, that the embezzling accountant, once caught and punished, may very well be the most trustworthy accountant anyone could hire.

    I recently had a similar discussion with my mother regarding her car tires. I like to do business with Pep Boys. She pointed out that the company was recently under a cloud for selling old tires (some sort of investigation exposed their practice of selling old stock). There was a great stink about this, and Pep Boys had to settle some lawsuits as a result. However, rather than Pep Boys being LESS trustworthy because of its previous practice of selling old tires, the company now has the most up-to-date, well-circulated tire stock in the business. In sum, Pep Boys is MORE trustworthy than ever. Why? Because it has to work harder than it ever did to assure the public that its practices are now in the light, above-board, and credible.

    • The pressures on service industry commercial companies are very different from those of the highest morals in the land. That’s not a good analogy. A better one would be to ask if you’d hire the guy who thought it would be a good idea to sell old stock. My history with individuals says the bad apple is still a bad apple. Sure, you can make a mistake, but using your position to get over on underage parishoners? That’s not a mistake. Taking the time to plan and cover the tracks of embezzlement? Also not a mistake.

      • Once again, we’re in full agreement and for the same reasons. I’m getting a little nervous!

        But this is, of course, a vital question, as it involves a question of children, families and faith. It should also be noted that the recidivism rate for child molestors is roughly 90-95%. That’s because this act places one on the lowest scale of humanity. When you’ve sunk to something like this, there’s virtually no way back.

        • It should also be noted that the recidivism rate for child molestors is roughly 90-95%. That’s because this act places one on the lowest scale of humanity. When you’ve sunk to something like this, there’s virtually no way back.

          One, the recidivism rate is not that high. It’s around the same as other crimes (somewhere beteen 20% and 40%, depending on which study you look at)

          Two, your reasoning for why the rate is high is BS.

            • I can’t find anything to back your statistics. Everything I see that has sources says between 20% and 40% is the number.

              Can you please let me know where you get your information from?

              Also, your “simple logic” isn’t sound.

                • Pure denial on your part, TGT.

                  Point me to some evidence for this 90%-95% number. Claiming I’m in denial isn’t evidence.

                  Now… do you really want to release back on the streets monsters who are capable of such crimes?

                  For certain crimes, I think life punishment is appropriate. For others, it’s not, but I base my decisions on reality, not amalgamous concepts about how far people have fallen. Prison is about 3 things: punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence. It’s supposed to be a plus for society. Your argument boils down to an emotional appeal to “Think of the children!” and that, quite frankly, is worthless.

                  • I’m not your personal library, TGT. Look it up. Only this time, try to find a credible source. Your accusing me of “emotional appeals” and “it’s for the children” is ludicrous, as it would place me right in the middle of your own coffee clatch. That’s what the Left does, TGT. I speak from experience on criminal matters.. I used to bust these creatures for a living. I’ve also served in corrections in three different facilities. I’ve RUN a maximum security wing. Kindly refrain from lecturing me on these things, okay?

    • William, you have reasoned that you trust a known prior offender more than you trust someone without a criminal record. You dismiss anyone’s reasoning for doubting trustworthiness of a prior offender as unsupported by evidence. You may be correct. But, in my observation of accounts of adult males who have sexually molested children, it’s been evident that one-time, one-victim-only adult offenders are rare. Recidivism is a challenge for convicts of all kinds – at what rates for what kinds, I don’t know exactly. My hunch is that, crime being what it is, the truth versus statistics on recidivism may be irreconcilable. Nevertheless, my understanding is that a man who has previously committed a sex crime, despite all efforts to ensure complete repentance, will much more likely offend again in any environment – and even more likely offend again, if he gains access to a similar or identical environment as he had access to at the time of the first punished offense.

      Good for Pep Boys, and good for their customers. Pep Boys may be an exception. But Pep Boys may in fact be only a temporary exception. I say that because of the business I have worked in for many years (perhaps similar to the sector Pep Boys competes in). In my business, many corporations respond to “damages” they must pay by treating the costs as routine – simply another expected cost of doing business. They get burned and lie low for awhile, then go right back to misbehaving. That may be largely irrelevant to any particular individual who may do a crime, do the time, and move on, never to offend again. But, I tend to believe the business behavior is illustrative of the potential for an individual to behave similarly.

      So to me, it remains reasonable for a larger community to remain continually wary of any individual who has committed a sex crime. Where the issue arises of an individual’s qualification (despite his past) for the same privileges of interaction with children as he enjoyed before his offense, it is a right of a reasoning community to withhold trust altogether, or to trust sparingly and indefinitely.

  5. I want so much not to make this a religious discussion, but there is such a thing as redemption. People do change. I cannot know that this man has, but no one can know that he hasn’t either. From everything I have read in other articles, no children are at risk. The congregation is fully behind Pastor Gilyard. To assume that because he abused his position once, he will do so again is mean-spirited and denies the possibility of the redemption of the human spirit.

    • To assume that the congregation’s support for the pastor is reasonable denies other possibilities that have nothing to do with mean-spiritedness and denial of one individual’s potential for redemption.

    • Redemption, unfortunately, is usually a euphemism for “wishful thinking.” It is the religious equivalent of what in law we call “legal fictions.” Some people do change, but usually as a result of maturity. Assuming that a minister who used his position to abuse young women has earned redemption after less than three years is naivete, negligence, and nothing else.,

  6. LOL, Pro; do even you understand what you wrote? And what business is it of ours or anyone else’s to determine if their support is reasonable? “Reasonable” is subjective. There are those who don’t think it is reasonable for people to spend time writing comments on articles. Many believe it is totally lacking in reasonableness for people to go to church or to pray. I don’t think it is reasonable for people who have no talent to go on “America’s Got Talent” and make fools of themselves. Yet for those who engage in those activities, someone else’s judgement of whether it is reasonable or not is totally immaterial.

    • You know what, it’s totally immaterial for me to say that O.J. Simpson was unethical and unreasonable.

      I don’t think you understand ethics or the pursuit there of.

      • Thanks tgt, I mean, if you are replying to Shelly’s “LOL, Pro,” I am grateful to you.

        I mean…I understand what I write, and can’t remember any time I did not eventually understand what I have seen written under your name in this blog. But sometimes, I don’t understand how to relate the replies and indentations to preceding posts. And I don’t understand Shelly, although earlier in the day, I thought Shelly and I were closer to a meeting of minds.

        I would reply directly to Shelly, but with the understanding that you already replied to Shelly, I am willing to believe and accept that you have replied more effectively than yet another one of my unforgivably long posts (this one excluded) could ever do.

        So if I am wrong and you were not replying to Shelly, I’ll just ponder your February 22, 2012 post at 11:42 pm and say no more here.

        Thanks again for your ever thoughtful and even-tempered posts. It’ll take me days to comprehend all that back-and-forth over in the other thread on the Wisconsin Sickness website, but I’m not giving up on understanding it all just yet.

        • Pro, I have offended you, and I apologize. I intended the first sentence as a joke, not a mean-spirited, personal attack; hence the LOL.

          While you, tgt, have attacked me personally and mean-spiritedly. You know me not nor my understanding of ethics.

          And Jack–saving the best for last. You are forcing a religious discussion out of me as much as I have tried to avoid it. Within the context of the Christian faith–and given the profession of Pastor Gilyard which prompted this entire blog, it is a reasonable (oops) context–redemption is not earned at all. It is a free gift. And staying within that same context, the thief on the cross was given that gift in about three minutes, not three years.

          • The thief on the cross wasn’t going to be in a position to rob anyone for quite a while, Shelly. I’d trust him too. That’s God’s redemption—we human beings have to actually live with people, and giving untrustworthy people a free pass because they say “I’m sorry” or “I’ll never do it again” is irresponsible, plain and simple.

          • While you, tgt, have attacked me personally and mean-spiritedly. You know me not nor my understanding of ethics.

            I can only go off your words. You think ethics means never judging other people’s behavior. I stand by my statement. I don’t see it as mean-spirited in the least.

            And Jack–saving the best for last. You are forcing a religious discussion out of me as much as I have tried to avoid it. Within the context of the Christian faith–and given the profession of Pastor Gilyard which prompted this entire blog, it is a reasonable (oops) context–redemption is not earned at all. It is a free gift. And staying within that same context, the thief on the cross was given that gift in about three minutes, not three years.

            There’s no reason to discuss things in the context of Christianity. What does that have to do with ethics?

              • Answer: Everything. As a Christian, one is expected to grant forgiveness to those who ask for it. Fine. It does not, however, mean that we’re expected to automatically grant our trust. God alone knows a man’s heart. That’s why- traditionally- one’s repentance was to be followed by an act of penance. The proof of repentance- then and now- is in one’s willingness to make amends and to accept punishment for one’s misdeeds… even to the scaffold itself. This “pastor” shows all the signs of one who demands full acceptance from his parishoners on the basis of his apology alone. Not near enough. Anyone who would place their precious children under the authority of this man are just plain crazy.

                • Answer: Everything. As a Christian, one is expected to grant forgiveness to those who ask for it.

                  Which says that Christian teachings are not ethical. It doesn’t say anything about the ethics of this situation.

                  This “pastor” shows all the signs of one who demands full acceptance from his parishoners on the basis of his apology alone. Not near enough. Anyone who would place their precious children under the authority of this man are just plain crazy.

                  This I can wholeheartedly agree with.

                    • I understand more about the Christianity than most Christians. Do you really think that always forgiving is ethical? It’s only ethical to you because God says it.

                    • I repeat, you understand nothing- as you approach the very concept from hostility. As to my endorsement of God’s word, yes. He is the highest authority. You don’t come close, TGT. Sorry.

                    • I repeat, you understand nothing- as you approach the very concept from hostility.

                      Was that supposed to make sense? Or be true?

                      As to my endorsement of God’s word, yes. He is the highest authority.

                      He doesn’t exist.

                      You don’t come close, TGT. Sorry.

                      I’ve never claimed to be godlike. I don’t want anyone to agree or disagree with me because of who I am. My ideas and concepts (like everyone else’s) should be evaluated on their own merits.

        • What? Ethics evolve because objective rationality changes. If objective rationality didn’t change, ethics wouldn’t either. “The Reasonable Man Standard” in law and philosophy is designed to be an objective test.

          • By definition, objective rationality cannot change.

            The Reasonable Man standard is not based on an objective test. It’s based on a shared subjective determination.

            • That crap is why philosophers are useless. It takes subjective reason to determine what objective reason is. There is no true objective reason (or perception), there is only our best analysis of what it should be, and that answer becomes the objective standard. Don’t get me into this stuff! It’s a waste of time, and drives people to “Undercover Boss”!!!

              • Your cheating gives you a false sense of security.

                I know it’s messy to deal with subjective standards, but that doesn’t mean that lying and calling the standards objective removes the messiness. Instead, it just sweeps it under the rug.

                In my subjective opinion, that’s unethical.

                • Pshaw. What’s cheating is to pretend that there is an absolute true objective standard that can’t possibly exist, since there is no objective being to determine it. If you believe otherwise, you and Steven should be pals. Standards that can’t be identified aren’t standards; they’re myths. Your position is objectively hypocritical.

                  • You don’t need an objective being for there to be objective standards.

                    As I have detailed before, I believe that it is likely that there are absolute ethical standards, but that it’s extremely unlikely we can ever know them. As such, we do the best we can with our subjective beliefs. I don’t see anything hypocritical about that position.

            • Really, it’s based on an apparent shared subject determination. People use it as if it’s objective, but it’s not.

              For example, the “rational basis” test for laws. We like to think this is objective, but how can you objectively measure if there’s backing for government to enact a law? It’s not something that can be repeated and always has the same result no matter who does it. Instead, we trust the subjective determination of the supreme court.

              This really is the difficulty of ethics. We don’t actually have any ability to objectively measure how ethical specific conduct is. We can sometimes objectively match conduct up against a specific rule, but all those rules are subjective standards.

              Just look at your differing positions on dwarf tossing and prostitution. It’s a subjective balancing of subjective value judgments based on subjective rules.

      • In reply to TGT’s last remark: I repeat, you cannot adequately comment on Christian thought without some basis of objectivity. I reiterate; you have none. Every time the question of God has arisen, your comment has been the same: “He does not exist”. Therefore, by that blanket statement, you are not only unable to comment with any authority on Christian thought, but on those of any religion at all. Even the notorious Richard Dawkins had enough honesty and humility to admit the possibility of his being wrong. Thus I “evalute your merits” on the subject… and find you woefully lacking.

        • In reply to TGT’s last remark: I repeat, you cannot adequately comment on Christian thought without some basis of objectivity. I reiterate; you have none.

          I can objectively look at Christian thought. I can say that if you believe X and Y, then it is logical to believe Z. That doesn’t make it logical for people to believe Z, as X and Y can be completely wrong.

          Every time the question of God has arisen, your comment has been the same: “He does not exist”. Therefore, by that blanket statement, you are not only unable to comment with any authority on Christian thought, but on those of any religion at all.

          This is ridiculously. You know what, you don’t believe the earth revolves around Mars, therefore, you can’t talk about how Earth rotates. Skeptics and outsiders absolutely do have the right to discuss other topics.

          My ideas should be judged on their own merit, not discarded out of hand.

          Even the notorious Richard Dawkins had enough honesty and humility to admit the possibility of his being wrong.

          I’m roughly on the same wavelength as Richard Dawkins. Saying God does not exist does not violate that. Should I instead respond to all of your statements with a book length treatise on how their is no evidence for God? That would be silly.

          Thus I “evalute your merits” on the subject… and find you woefully lacking.

          Now you’re not even pretending to argue in good faith. That false quote shows it. I never suggested evaluating my arguments on my merits. That would be stupid. I said you need to evaluate my arguments and ideas on their merits.

          Instead, you want to attack the messenger, as you can’t refute the message.

          • Ohhh… more sophistry! First; atheism is a blanket statement that no god exists. That cannot be scientifically proven, anymore than can Christianity’s contention that He does. So don’t try using “logic” and “science” to justify your claims.

            Personally, I accepted the existence of God long before I became a Christian. The concept of an immense universe without a Creator to make it work seemed to me (as a child) sheer nonsense. It still does. My acceptance of Jesus as my personal savior cmae later as an act of dawning faith. i don’t claim logic as the motivator. It just came together for me.

            By the way, your convoluted argument about Mars and the Earth- which I assume was intended to convey some meaning- was complete “ridiculuously”. Accusing me of “attacking the messenger instead of the message” is what leftists will do on the flimiest of excuses when they start to run out of verbal devices.

            • Ohhh… more sophistry! First; atheism is a blanket statement that no god exists. That cannot be scientifically proven, anymore than can Christianity’s contention that He does. So don’t try using “logic” and “science” to justify your claims.

              Ugh. There are levels of atheism. It’s not that cut and dry, as I have previously noted (and noted again in the post you replied to).

              What can be shown is that the evidence against your particular Christian god is incredibly great. The only sane position for someone who looks at the evidence is that your god does not exist.

              Personally, I accepted the existence of God long before I became a Christian. The concept of an immense universe without a Creator to make it work seemed to me (as a child) sheer nonsense.

              Just because something seems like nonsense does not make it nonsense. It seems like nonsense that person A could be ranked better than person B in each golf subcategory (driving, greens in regulation, putting, etc) while still shooting worse than person B, but it’s a statistical possibility.

              By the way, your convoluted argument about Mars and the Earth- which I assume was intended to convey some meaning- was complete “ridiculuously”.

              My typo aside, my comparison was straight forward. You claim that someone must believe X to be true to be qualified to talk about the quality level of thoughts related to X. I gave another situation where this is clearly false.

              Accusing me of “attacking the messenger instead of the message” is what leftists will do on the flimiest of excuses when they start to run out of verbal devices.

              One, that’s anad hominem attack at “leftists”. Two, it’s clearly what you’re doing.

  7. What would Jesus say about someone who abused his children to be allowed in a position of leadership 2 or 3 months after being released from prison? He should have been stripped of his license and never been allowed to preach in a church again. He violated trust, and should never be placed in a position of leadership again. Attend church, yes. Undergo Christian counseling, yes. Keep children out of church?
    A lot of churches do have a separate Children’s Church in another wing, just for children and they never enter the “adult” church in the mornings. This is usually only for children up to 12 years old.
    How can the parents of young children sit under the preaching and submit spiritually to such a one? Is this someone who you look up to? If someone stole your money, are you going to forgive them and let them hold your check book again? Forgive, yes, but we are to exercise wisdom. Has this man proven himself, proved to be reformed and a man of excellent character?
    Is he publicly repenting of his sins? Is he apologizing and attempting to make amends to the ones he violated?
    God does forgive, but there is a proper way to restore someone. It is irresponsible to allow a convicted felon, of any crime, to enter the pulpit immediately. A child molester should never be allowed in the pulpit again.
    It is atrocious that the church attendance has increased at a time like this.
    Is he the Pastor of the Church, or just preaching on occasion? Is he the spiritual leader, who is required to set a Godly example for others, and is responsible for the souls of those in the church? Churches are geared toward the family unit. How can someone like this counsel a parent or a family?

  8. I copied and pasted from an article I found, http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-02-06/story/new-black-panthers-will-continue-protests-against-jacksonville-pastor

    Gilyard, 49, said he decided to preach at the church because he needed money and felt God calling him back into ministry. Being a registered sex offender was making it hard for him to get jobs in prison ministries or working with ex-offenders, he said.
    Gilyard said he accepted the church’s invitation only after it agreed to bar minors from the services, in compliance with the terms of his three-year probabtion. He also refused to provide any kind of counseling or pastoral services, and his only job is to preach Sunday mornings.

    This says enough, I don’t need to make any more comments. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.