Annette John-Hall’s column in the Inquirer this morning on the political uproar set in motion by the release of snippets of sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright offers a picture of the man and his message that’s quite different from what’s been reported. Informed by her own faith and bolstered by listening to complete recordings of the sermons, the piece is both a heartfelt plea for understanding and a sharp rebuke to those who would judge by sound bites. John-Hall discussed the column this afternoon with Philadelphia magazine intern Luke Sirinides.

DAILY EXAMINER: I know many readers have seen or read transcripts of the clips, but can you offer specific examples of how things Rev. Wright has said have been distorted, or which clips were especially egregious?

ANNETTE JOHN-HALL: Like Jesse Jackson said, “text without context is pretext.” That is to say, any words taken out of context can be interpreted any way. And with this endless spool of sound bytes, I can easily see why Wright is being called unpatriotic. I’m thinking of the “chickens coming home to roost” comment, and “God damn America.” The truth is, a lot of African-Americans feel that way. And that’s not to excuse it, but the sentiment goes back to even the civil rights movement when Nina Simone wrote a song called “Mississippi God Damn” in reaction to the injustices going on at that time. And Wright was just riffing off that theme. But if you are an African-American who grew up in the era of Jim Crow and experienced discrimination, you would have some justification — or at least explanation — for feeling some of the things Wright verbalized.

Although it’s only been up a few hours, what kind of reaction has the column received so far?

I’m always astounded by people’s fair-mindedness and kindness when I write. I would say the reaction has been 60-40 in favor, from black and white readers alike. I’ve had thank yous from people who say I wrote what they were feeling, and that’s always a good place to be. In terms of trying to offer some context, I think readers are smart enough to understand when things are not fully explained. They see the clips and know instinctively there’s more to the story.

You view the church as a source of “cultural fulfillment,” and call the general response to the clips “blind judgment.” Can you further comment on the tension of your emotions as you see the mass media, of which you are a member, so badly portray the church, of which you are also a member?

There is friction. As a print journalist and a member of the faith community, I am conflicted. The only way I can reconcile those two identities is writing the types of things I wrote today. I can try to put things like this in context. The media is so overwrought with 30-second clips and flash images of people looking like fanatics. As a print journalist, I can take more time to elaborate on something that would otherwise be a clip on YouTube. I can try to tell a story and paint a fuller picture, so that helps ease the tension.

Do you think this issue will continue to hurt Obama if he is the nominee?

The voters who would be put off by his speech would probably not have voted for him anyway. For the base of black voters, I think his image was solidified. If there were any African-American voters who thought Obama wasn’t “black enough,” his candor might have helped confirm his racial identity in their minds.

Regarding Wright’s church’s motto — “unapologetically Christian, unashamedly black” — how are questioning non-Christians, or even non-black Christians, meant to take that motto if not as a statement of racial exclusivity?

I think that when people have any type of racial pride, it’s sometimes represented as being racist. The AME church was established because people weren’t allowed to worship freely in a white church. Since then, the black church has been a place of uplifting black people and saying “you are worthy, you are important.” That said, the AME church, and black churches in general, are some of the most warmhearted and hospitable places a person can go on Sunday mornings. You’ll get more hugs — from strangers even — than you would at your own grandmother’s house. Not to mention good food. And as far as identity goes, I think racial blindness is as dangerous as racial muteness. No one wants to shut up your racial identity in America, so even if we progress into an America where race isn’t the issue it is today, black churches will still have a home — as cultural and spiritual centers.

A lot of websites, chain e-mails and even Facebook groups are urging citizens to read Obama’s, as you put it, “historic” speech on race in its entirety, not just the media-presented excerpts. It seems to be the same issue as with Wright’s clips. Is there a safe way to give a speech or a sermon knowing it will be dissected? If so, what do pastors and politicians need to know and do to safeguard themselves from cherry-picking misrepresentation?

I think politicians are just going to be politicians. They have already distilled their words, if they’re smart. That’s just the nature of politics. That’s what surprised me about Barack’s speech, because he just laid it all out on the line. He seemed to be saying “Let the chips fall where they may.” But if you pastor a church, you can’t worry about what people are going to say, or pander to a certain audience. You are beholden only to God. In the Bible, prophets and other speakers of the truth suffered tremendously trying to follow God’s will. If you’re going to be on God’s team, you cannot be worried about how your words will offend people.

Hearing Wright’s real sermon — not incendiary sound bites [Inquirer]

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 1st, 2008 at 3:14 pm and is filed under Newsmaker Q&A, Barack Obama, Philadelphia Inquirer. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted by Luke Sirinides on 4/1/08 in Newsmaker Q&A, Barack Obama, Philadelphia Inquirer