Sexual Abuse, Darrell Gilyard and the Southern Baptist Convention: Interlude

As I argued earlier, Paige Patterson was a key player in dealing with Darrell Gilyard in 1991, forcing, as it were, Gilyard to resign his church and leave the ministry. And, Gilyard did leave the ministry so far as the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was concerned. Eleven days after Gilyard resigned, however, he started another church unaffiliated with the SBC.¹

Some insist that since rumors had been previously flying forth from different churches, rumors about which Patterson was presumably aware, this fact alone should indicate Patterson was either dragging his feet to promote Criswell college (since Gilyard was a cash-cow, so to speak, for Criswell admissions); or, worst still, Patterson was holding out to the very last before he had to surrender Gilyard to protect himself. 

While either of those scenarios remain possibilities, neither of them are necessary to explain the facts as we know them. First, both scenarios presume Patterson to be guilty of cover-up. Patterson was either covering-up to promote his professional prominence (i.e. Criswell) or covering-up to selfishly protect his personal reputation–to cover his butt, if I may be brash.

But if we’re going to presume guilt, why argue at all? Why bring any reasons to bear? Why offer any evidence? “Patterson’s guilty! Enough said!” is all that’s necessary for either of the scenarios above to work.

Indeed that’s effectively what social media platforms routinely peddle–presumption of guilt.

But please remember:

Presuming guilt needs no evidence to make its case.   

So, both scenarios, while possible, are really nothing more than personal opinion without a sliver of evidence to back it up other than one’s personal conclusions about Patterson’s inner thoughts, desires, and ambitions. No evidence exists that Patterson sold out personal, untold harm inflicted upon allegedly dozens of hurting women allowing the womanizing Gilyard to continue to have his wicked, hellish way all to promote Criswell college. Monstrous and wicked are polite terms to describe a man who would do this. Thus, if there is such evidence, then those who make the outrageous charges need to produce the goods. If they cannot, they need to stand down.

Similarly, unless I am mistaken, there exists no tangible evidence that Patterson knowingly allowed Gilyard to sexually exploit women over and over and over again, and would have allowed him to continue doing so, if it wasn’t beginning to personally jeopardize his own name. In effect, in this scenario, he would have surrendered Gilyard to protect himself. For those whose personal opinion matches the latter scenario, I say again: produce the goods or stand down. It’s simply wrong-headed and ungodly to publicly accuse a man of such devious moral crimes based upon mere presumption.   

Second, while we fully concede either of the scenarios above remain possibilities, at least one other possibility exists that those who tacitly presume Patterson guilty never seem to consider; namely, that the reason Patterson waited as long as he did to deal with Gilyard was to move beyond the he-said-she-said type of situation which required some form of corroborating evidence that reasonably could effectively counter the vehement denials Gilyard was consistently making. Presumably, up until July 1991, no such evidence came to Patterson.

Now please understand.

While you and a thousand others like you may claim enough evidence existed for you to have moved earlier on Gilyard, that’s a judgment call neither you nor I have a moral right to impose upon Patterson. He possessed a standard of evidence necessarily required in order to publicly indict a young Black preacher and effectively ruin for life his ministry. The fact is, maybe your standard of evidence required would be somewhat different from Patterson’s as would mine.

Alternatively, perhaps having an identical standard, you were more easily satisfied the criteria was met while I possessed a rigid, literal understanding of meeting the same standard you embrace. Consequently, you would predictably move on the issue more quickly than I even though we both possessed identical standards to meet.

So, it’s not as black and white as Patterson critics attempt to make it, is it?

Trying to prove a man guilty because he employed a standard you might not approve or required a level of satisfaction which happens to be more strict than yours or mine remains as perilous as it is unreasonable. We’ve simply got to do better than this if we’re going to publicly claim a man is guilty of covering up sexual abuse. That is, if we want to hold on to our integrity.     

What I asserted earlier, therefore, still stands so far as I am concerned:

When Patterson was presented with the evidence he believed necessary to substantiate such serious claims against a gospel minister, he did not blink. He did not withdraw. He did not rationalize. He did not deny. He did not stick his head in the sand. And he did not cover-up! He acted and acted decisively.

¹Victory church in Richardson, Texas reportedly was only loosely connected with Southern Baptists originally but, under Gilyard’s leadership, was progressively strengthening those ties.

²Gilyard picture source