Black Church Beginnings provides an intimate look at the struggles of African Americans to establish spiritual communities in the harsh world of slavery in the American colonies. Written by one of today's foremost experts on African American religion, this book traces the growth of the black church from its start in the mid-1700s to the end of the nineteenth century.
As Henry Mitchell shows, the first African American churches didn't just organize; they labored hard, long, and sacrificially to form a meaningful, independent faith. Mitchell insightfully takes readers inside this process of development. He candidly examines the challenge of finding adequately trained pastors for new local congregations, confrontations resulting from internal class structure in big city churches, and obstacles posed by emerging denominationalism.
Original in its subject matter and singular in its analysis, Mitchell's Black Church Beginnings makes a major contribution to the study of American church history.
This book accomplished its goal: to show the evidence which supports that the black church has consistently retained a great deal of their original cultural heritage.
In turn, this book provides good insights that can benefit churches of all types both in their knowledge of the black church and in applying some practices of the black church.
This book struggles between different purposes. In culture-tracing, he author edges on syncretism by going to extreme pains to show how nearly synonymous the AA church had with their African heritage. In historical matters, Mitchell is comparable to Leon MacBeth in scope and historic substantiation. Often too sweeping and shallow in his attempt to explore all significant figures. In modern understanding and social consciousness, he writes with explanatory, experiential helpfulness. Unfortunately the book seems like it tried to do too much. I would recommend the author/publisher expand each section and publish it in two smaller volumes (the historical and the cultural/theological). Of course, I know that history, culture, and theology are diachronically inseparable. But the presentation of the matter seemed to fit two distinct genres without sufficient blending.