Video Room Kingdom

Several weeks ago I was introduced, by way of a YouTube clip, to Pastor Jim Standridge of Immanuel Baptist Church in Oklahoma. “Bro. Jim” as the church's website calls him, was delivering a sermon on May 19^th of this year when a parishioner dozed off mid-service. A visibly irritated Standridge called attention to the young man and then descended from the pulpit to confront him directly. Having publicly chided the attendee for his drowsiness, Bro Jim then turns his attention to another young man who is attending with his fiancée. Calling him out by name, Standridge asks the couple “What makes you think I would marry you? You’re one of the sorriest church members I have. You’re not worth 15 cents!” 

A few moments later he announces that he is “the real deal” and then begins moving back toward the pulpit before announcing that if they want him to leave all they have to do is tell him. He charitably announces that will be more than happy to pack up his “little Connie” in his “Buick Enclave” and find some “Podunk church that don’t know up from down” and give his “life to them”. For good measure he calls out the behavior of one member’s wife and sisters, tells another woman that her children will “turn on you” and appears to insult the financial stability of a man named Joe Basket who possesses neither a “pot nor a window”.  However, all of this pales in comparison with the disdain he has for “Young Cox” in the media booth.

For the next several minutes Bro Jim berates the A/V nerd for various transgressions up to and including attempting to establish his “own kingdom in the video room”. Having successfully aired his grievances, Standridge takes a sip of water and continues to deliver his planned message as if nothing had happened. 

The entire sermon (including the rant) can still be seen on the church’s website and is also available as a podcast. When interviewed about the tirade, 76-year old Standridge stands by the incident and claims that he has even received e-mails and letters of support. Having spent the past 24 years as the senior pastor of Immanuel Baptist, he has no plans of stepping down anytime soon.

Having viewed this footage several times, here are my thoughts:

• Never, ever piss off the A/V nerd. He probably relished every second he spent editing, encoding, and uploading this little gem to YouTube. I bet Cox hasn’t partaken in a labor of love this pure since finalizing his outfit for ComicCon.

• While one could argue that the others were being chastised for real or imagined moral transgressions under their control, it was just plain spiteful call out Joe Basket for being poor. Maybe he was recently laid off or perhaps he has been bankrupted by medical expenses. What I do know is that no one attends worship expecting the senior pastor to use their specific financial hardships as an anecdote. It wouldn’t surprise me if Mr. Basket didn’t “accidentally” back his Datsun into Bro Jim’s Buick Enclave when leaving church that Sunday.

• I have been attempting to use Standrdige’s body language in the video to discern the exact moment when he thought to himself “What the Hell, I might as well turn this into Festivus” and I have settled on the few seconds it takes him to walk back toward the pulpit after his encounter with the betrothed couple.

• Sadly, I am dying to hear the backstory on Kelly’s wife and sisters whose behavior was so abhorrent the pastor was forced to make “holy war” on their behalf. Were they operating a brothel out of the Fellowship Hall? Did they distribute peyote at VBS? Were they willfully complicit in Lance Armstrong’s decision to use performance enhancing drugs?

I don’t know what Brother Jim’s intentions were, but they quickly devolved into unwarranted personal attacks. I would even venture to guess that he made reference to several situations that had been revealed to him in confidence and for that there is no excuse. Regardless of their shortcomings, these people did not deserve to have their private spiritual struggles televised and referenced in a podcast. 

 

I suppose his congregation has the right to decide who ministers to them, but if I was a card-carrying member of this church you can bet that I would be more than happy to help he and Lil’ Connie load up the Buick. This was nothing more than shameless self-aggrandizement disguised as spiritual accountability. In the midst of his outburst, Standridge stated emphatically that “you can’t get this at any other church in town” and for that we should all be immensely grateful.

Royal Procreation

There are many things that I do not understand, but one of the biggest is the fascination with the Royal Baby. Last week I came home to find my wife riveted by what appeared to be footage of a closed door. Against this backdrop news anchors on every network were breathlessly reporting that “at any moment now, we will see the royal baby emerge!” In addition to the anchors, each station seemed to have their own royal expert (whom I suspect was anyone with an English accent and a flexible schedule) explaining the significance of said doors. Speculation was rampant. Will they speak to the press? Have they decided on a name? If the child’s eyes are green what does that mean for the 2014 hurricane season?

If hospital employees dared emerged from the doors they were met with disappointment and in a few cases even booed. Who boos an employee getting a sandwich? Calm down people, they aren’t crossing a picket line outside the steel plant. I secretly hoped William had substituted a Cabbage Patch doll for his son and would toss it toward the media to see if their first instinct would be to catch the child or to take a picture of it landing on the sidewalk.

Finally the royal couple emerged and, for whatever reason, decided to attempt a newborn hand-off maneuver in front of the press corp. That little exchange was one of the most terrifying moments I experienced as a new father. It was bad enough with the nurses watching, I would hate to think of the pressure knowing that a CNN anchor is touching her earpiece while saying, “We are now being joined by Dr. Phil Craddleston who chairs the Infant Transferology Department at BYU. Dr. Craddleston, what can you tell us about the history of Anglo-Saxon offspring transference?” 

After several minutes they went back inside and re-emerged with a car seat so that the prince could be loaded into the royal Range Rover. The station my wife was watching happened to juxtapose this image against archival footage of Princess Diana’s emergence from those same doors thirty-one years prior holding William. Diana, unfettered by modern child-safety laws, simply hopped in the backseat holding the child and they drove away. It is interesting to observe that to our modern way of thinking they might as well have ratchet-strapped the kid to the bumper as little as they were concerned for his personal safety.

After they left, I naturally assumed that the news stations would return to updating their viewers on the volatile situation in Egypt. Unfortunately, they decided we would best be served by being subjected to the now-looped footage of the emergence while they analyzed each and every movement in excruciating detail. They spent fifteen minutes dissecting what William taking possession of the child before descending the stairs meant for his parenting style. Really? Isn’t there a slim possibility that his wife, having just spent hours in labor, felt a little unsteady carrying a child down a flight of concrete stairs in front the world press?

This is where I would normally insert some haughty declaration about the 24-hour news cycle diluting and distracting the populace away from the issues that truly having a lasting effect on humanity, but the last time I checked I have written more articles about Courtney Stodden than I have about Egyptian unrest so I will leave such an observation to those with actual credibility.

Paula Deen & Corporate America

*Note- I will henceforth substitute “Nebraskan” for the highly polarizing racial epithet “n****r” in order to avoid being flagged by Google or included in any Johnny Rebel mailing lists.

I previously voiced my opinion concerning Paula “The Teeth” Deen in January of 2012 when she revealed that she was suffering from Type II diabetes. Recently, she has become embroiled in another scandal over her past use of racial epithets, particularly the term “Nebraskan.” The trouble began when she and her brother, Bubba Hiers, were named in a lawsuit filed by a former restaurant employee named Lisa Jackson.

Mrs. Jackson, who is Caucasian, brought the suit on grounds of racial and sexual discrimination. She alleges, among other things, that both Deen and Bubba made multiple derogatory remarks concerning African-Americans in her presence. She found this particularly offensive since she has two bi-racial nieces. During the depositions, Deen admitted to using “Nebraskan” in the past but explained, “It’s been a long time.” She further clarified that "Things have changed since the '60s in the South. And my children and my brother object to that word being used in any cruel or mean behavior. As well as I do."

As a result of the deposition, she lost her contracts with Food Network, Smithfield Foods, Wal-Mart, Target, QVC, Caesars, Home Depot, J.C. Penny, Sears, and K-Mart. She was even dropped by diabetes pharmaceutical conglomerate Novo Nordisk. She has since made a tearful public apology and fired both her attorney and her agent. Within hours of the news breaking, Twitter was ablaze with racial-themed parodies of Deen’s dishes such as “Massa-roni and Cheese” and “We Shall Over-Crumb Cake.” Others, such as former President Jimmy Carter, urged forgiveness saying, "I think she has been punished, perhaps overly severely, for her honesty in admitting it and for the use of the word in the distant past. She's apologized profusely.”

Since use of “Nebraskan” does not necessarily constitute bigotry or prejudice and in the absence of any corroborating evidence (Casual Klan Fridays, Segregated Gravy Boats, etc) I am inclined to give “Chompers” Deen the benefit of the doubt. If she simply made some missteps in the past and has since run her empire with equality and fairness as cornerstones then I am inclined to agree with Jimmy Carter. If she presiding over an infrastructure that discriminated against employees based on the color of their skin (with or without using “Nebraskan”) then she probably deserves the litigious wrath in store for her. The point is that most of us are making a snap judgment based on a past misstep. Ethnic slurs are only effective in unmasking bigotry when they are viewed as a symptom instead of the ailment.

On the other hand, corporate America has no obligation to stand by someone they see as a liability. Whether or not she deserves the negative backlash is largely irrelevant in the context of an endorsement deal. The same notoriety she has wielded so successfully to generate this endorsement revenue brings with it increased public scrutiny unfamiliar to the everyday citizen. Of course, the everyday citizen isn’t compensated millions of dollars for recommending processed pork either. Welcome to the frightening world of at-will employment Paula.  

The real irony is being dropped by both Wal-Mart and K-Mart so that they can avoid any “negative publicity.” These are the same two companies that stood by Martha Stuart after her 2004 federal conviction for insider trading. Is it fair that a convicted felon is seen as less of a marketing liability than an alleged bigot? Not really. Is it American? Absolutely.   

I do always feel bad for the celebrity’s agent in cases like this because firing them has become obligatory since it gives the impression of a fresh start. As if this same person had been advising her in the 60’s and suggested she use as many racial slurs as possible in case she ever became the figurehead of a culinary empire and found herself on the business end of a deposition. It would appear that Paula’s first order of business after being fired to protect someone’s reputation was to fire someone else to protect hers.      

The Jerusalem Donkey Legend

While visiting a local news site, I was confronted by a large advertisement for something called “The Jerusalem Donkey Legend.” Always eager to hear a good burro-themed folktale involving the Holy Land, I followed the link and found myself at the official website. The homepage features what appears to be a slideshow of senior portraits and among the nine photos there is only one that includes an actual donkey. The text of the page offers only the most cryptic description:

The legend tells us that the donkey that carried Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday also followed him to Calvary, for the donkey loved the Lord. Appalled by the sight of Jesus on the cross, the donkey turned away but could not leave. The shadow of the cross fell upon his shoulders and back, forever marking him and all of his descendants. THE JERUSALEM DONKEY LEGEND is the first book in the Achsah Legacy ... a series about an ancient family whose Biblical roots date back to Caleb, one of the spies sent into Canaan by Moses.

I was able to ascertain from a link at the bottom of the page that the banner and site are advertising a novel by Anne Churchill. Eager to find out more I clicked “Synopsis” at the top of the page and was presented with the option of viewing a video entitled The Jerusalem Donkey Legend-Christmas Video. While I assuming this would be the author explaining their creative process in front of a holiday backdrop, I was instead treated to 60 seconds of equestrian-themed imagery accompanied only by an instrumental. What follows are screenshots of the video, unaltered and chronologically presented as they appear:

As you can see, the first few frames feature a young woman accompanied by a donkey. Given her attire, the barren landscape, and the video’s reference to Christmas I assume she represents Mary, the mother of Jesus.

A few frames later a blonde women is shown with a horse. While still a rural setting, she appears to be residing in the modern era (as evidenced by the modern fencing in the background).

The next frame features two young men standing on a sidewalk as they pet Mary’s donkey from the video’s opening scene. We are left with the impression that said donkey has traversed the space/time continuum and wandered into an upper-middle class suburban neighborhood 2,000 years after the time of Christ. 

Now we see Mary, the blonde, and three other youth sitting on a wooden box in a field. Mary has traded her demure cloak for cutoff shorts and cowboy boots to further assimilate to her new surroundings. The donkey may or may not be trapped in the box.

Now we see a man with a black hat and dark sunglasses peering over a fence. We are led to believe he is staring at the comely youth and both his dress and demeanor suggests nefarious intent. This is his only appearance in the video so he was likely picked up a short time later on an outstanding warrant.

A few frames later we see a young man from the party who has become separated from his shirt. His face (like mine) displays both astonishment and confusion.

A few frames later, we see Mary flirting with a different young man at what appears to be a burro car-wash. They seem blissfully unaware of the mystery man’s surveillance or their friend’s wardrobe malfunction.

Inexplicably, we are now presented with a pair of photos documenting what appears to be a SWAT team preparing for a raid on a cabin.

The next photo indicates that Mary has been taken hostage by party or parties unknown and its juxtaposition with the SWAT team pictures leads me to believe that they are attempting to rescue her. The red bandana she is gagged with might be an indication that the West Coast Bloods were involved in her abduction.

We are now presented with another shirtless young man who is sporting a slingshot and a head-wound. While we cannot confirm what he is aiming at, it seems safe to assume he is antagonizing the SWAT team with pebbles. Tellingly, he does not re-appear in the video.

 Having presumably just been freed from bondage, Mary now appears to have traveled back in time and is being held prisoner by the Third Reich. This may be the worst Christmas ever.

Not to worry though, Mary has returned to the present and been reunited with her cut-off shorts and donkey. She appears no worse for the wear.

Not having read the novel, I cannot comment on its content or literary merit, but the synopsis video is a doozy. While some might point to the historical incongruity as a sticking point, I thought the most intriguing aspect to the story was the idea that a donkey was capable of being “appalled.”  You take a real risk as a writer when you assign feelings of human disgust to a mule. I was also disappointed at the absence of Joseph. As a husband and father, I can tell you that I would be none too pleased to find the mother of my children gallivanting around in daisy dukes and flirting with every muscle-tank shirt with a social security number.