Walter R. Strickland II’s Swing Low, Volume 1: A History of Black Christianity in the United States surveys the practice and theology of Black Christianity in the United States, beginning with a discussion of influences from Africa and ending with the present moment, as Black Christians seek to respond to on-going police brutality, needs for decolonization, and continued need for liberation. Throughout this book, Stickland traces the development of five key theological tenets or “anchors” that characterize Black Christianity: Big God, Jesus, Conversion and Walking in the Spirit, The Good Book, and Deliverance. These anchors act as a means of identifying what is unique about Black Christianity and provide unity across his history.

The first thing a potential reader needs to know about this book is that it comes from a fairly theologically conservative place and that it takes that conservative theology for granted. While it does, toward the end, discuss some theologians that are more progressive, commentary subtly alerts us to the fact that the book’s perspective is fairly fundamentalist. For example, the power and inerrancy of the protestant Bible seem to be assumed, as demonstrated by the fact that scripture is used as straight-forward evidence of facts. For example, it cites Hebrews 4:12 to argue that “when the Bible is opened often belief is kindled or the flame of faith is fanned.” Later, it uses scripture as proof that god created “biological designations that distinguish people groups” that are distinct from race.

We also see earmarks of a belief in Christian superiority, something that is common in theologically conservative spaces. For example, the book asserts that the family and the church are the “most fundamental units in society to support people in the struggle of daily living,” ignoring the fact that people in the U.S. have varied relationships with these institutions and that some people have no interactions with churches at all. Similarly, we see a devaluing and misconstruing of non-Christian logic and ethics when the book argues that “A human being or a group has value because he or it is valuable for God. Any other valuation is based entirely on human judgement and is, therefore, both selfish and from a particularist point of view.”

I also suspect that I see the signs of a penal substitutionary atonement orientation toward the crucifixion and resurrection (in other words, the belief that people are born sinful and are damned to hell until they accept that Jesus died in their place on the cross and then rose again), though I am less sure about that. The book also assumes, in one brief statement, the existence of demons, which, I must admit, I was not expecting in this context.

While I do find the indicated doctrine to be harmful (and that does impact the rating I gave the book), I am more frustrated that the doctrine is left implied, rather than directly called out so that readers can effectively consider how it might impact the book’s reaction to the history and sources it deals with (or chooses not to deal with).

The second thing a potential reader needs to know is that the intended audience of this book seems to be undergraduate students taking a history of Black Christianity class at a Christian college/university. If for no other reason than that the book takes for granted some tenets of conservative Christianity, the book seems to be written for Christians. It is also laid out like a textbook, with key vocabulary words and the names of important people put in bold for easy identification. Having taught undergraduates in a different discipline, I estimate that this book would be very readable for undergraduate students, even those in their first or second year, because the prose is generally clear and simple, and even basic concepts (like The Harlem Renaissance and eschatology) are defined. In fact, in my opinion, one of this book’s strength’s is its readability.

Even as someone outside of the target audience, I found some moments in this book really enjoyable (in the “This is important and interesting,” way, not in the “This is fun,” way, of course), though. For example, I liked reading about the reconstruction era, which I didn’t know much about; the role that Black Christianity played in the Civil Rights movement; and especially, how the doctrine of major figures of Black Liberation theology compare to each other. This last part was my favorite because it presented the most opportunities for me to think critically about multiple competing doctrinal options. In fact, it was so interesting that I noted a couple of cited books that I’d like to read as a follow-up.

I do think, however, this book floundered at attempting to reconcile it’s takes on key ethical issues with its confidence in the Bible. For example, in a section called “Distinguishing Race, Ethnicity, and Culture,” the book compares the concepts of race (which it says is human-made and harmful) ethnicity (which it doesn’t define at all and is possibly collapsing into the following concept), and “ethnē,” which it says is from the Bible and denotes “God-given biological designations that distinguish people groups (Matthew 28:19, Revelation 5:9).” And it does this without explaining how ethnē differs from race or ethnicity or why it’s a more ethical way of discussing difference than race is. Because this section is underdeveloped and provides scripture that isn’t obviously relevant, it comes across as an ineffective scramble to explain how the Bible doesn’t reinforce the very racial distinctions that the book (justifiably) argues against. Something similar happens when the book argues that “Biblical slavery” is different than chattel slavery, and, therefore, morally acceptable, without providing evidence for its definition of biblical slavery or acknowledging that slavery appears in many different forms in the Bible. For example, Sarah’s handmaiden Hagar isn’t called a slave, but she clearly was one since she was “given” to Abraham so that he could rape her and sire a child. How do we account for the fact that this event doesn’t fall under Strickland’s definition of biblical slavery but also isn’t clearly condemned in the Bible? I wouldn’t think for a second that the writer supports that kind of treatment, but his attempt to argue that the Bible’s stance on slavery is moral fails to account for these types of situations.

Overall, the book was just okay-ish. I definitely learned useful things about Black Christianity and Black history, so I’m glad I read it. But I worry about people who don’t have the training in critical analysis that I have (analyzing texts is a huge chunk of what I learned to do while getting both my B.A. and M.A. in English) imbibing the doctrinal underpinnings without having the opportunity to decide for themselves if they agree with it. Please proceed with caution, readers, and, especially, instructors.

CW: slavery, racism, colonization, suicide, murder, gun violence, violence, police brutality

Thanks to the publisher, IVP Academic, for providing an advanced reader copy of this book via NetGalley.

An origin story of how the Black Church was once the epicenter of social action. There's so much history found in the pages of this book, starting at the onset of slavery, and it shows how the mistreatment of Black people fueled their theology. It is easy to follow and provides much knowledge to ponder, primarily as one examines the modern Black Church.