Hi Stephen,

thanks for your comments and questions, brother. I appreciate the engagement and welcome your “pushbacks” and “feedback.”

When I sat to write what became “The Decline,” I didn’t know what I would find. I didn’t have a narrative in mind but (a) a general sense that a historical theology in the AA context was needed and (b) a methodological commitment to use original source material rather than secondary material, deal with theology rather than sociology or history, and because of the sheer volume of the literature–esp. after the mid-1900s–to use a “turning points” approach to telling the story. Think Mark Noll’s useful but short introduction to church history by that name, “Turning Points.”

So, the key considerations became:
1. Who has left us written materials that can be studied? (that lamentably rules out some very foundational figures like a Richard Allen. Tragic that he didn’t leave us a body of work)

2. Whose material intends to be theological or doctrinal in nature, rather than political, sociological or ethical? (many people lose sight of the fact that the book is about theology proper. Those other fields are really important but also widely covered. Theology isn’t. So “The Decline” is meant to fill a hole in the literature)

3. Who has arguably so changed the theological trajectory or deepened an existing stream that they stand out theologically? (This is the criteria that admits a bit of subjectivity. It’s usually on this grounds that people critique the book by saying “I left someone out.” Well, truthfully, somebody had to be left out or I’d be on volume 5 of the work! But when we think of this criteria along with the first two, I think some of the well-respected men that are left out are understandably left out. For example, you mention Bailey. Bailey has a sterling reputation as an expositor. But would you say he founded or deepened a theological school such that he was a turning point in African-American theological discourse? I think that would be a hard case to make personally. And I’m not trying to take anything away from Bailey in saying that. We could list many others: Samuel DeWitt Proctor, Sandy Ray, Gardner Taylor, and on and on. Many of these men were better known as preachers rather than theologians. That’s not to say there preaching wasn’t theological; just to say their primary contributions lay elsewhere in my opinion. Again, when you apply this criteria you inevitably have some omissions and you have some “arguable” candidates. If someone can avoid that, then my hat is off to them.)

In the final analysis, the purpose of the book was to plot the turning points of AA theology in the heads of a typical systematic theology. The “decline” narrative emerges from the source material itself IF one assumes that a basically Reformed understanding is the “best” summary of biblical teaching. I’m not the first to consider the first generation of writing African Americans to be theologically Reformed and solidly evangelical. John Saillant comes to mind. If that’s the starting point and you think it’s a biblical starting point, as I do, then the remaining story is at least a story of differentiation and, arguably, of decline from Reformed standards.

Now, let me say one other thing in this already too long response. Sometimes people have come away from the book thinking that I mean to argue that all early African American Christians were Reformed. I don’t believe that and I don’t mean to give that impression. African American Christians have always been diverse–having views ranging from broadly evangelical to self-consciously Reformed to basically folk Christian. In my opinion, the Black religion literature does not do a good job of making these necessary distinctions and so ends up romanticizing the literature. I don’t want to do the same in the other direction.

I hope this helps with your question. Thanks for reading the book, and I’m serious about welcoming your (and everyone’s) feedback on the book.

Grace and peace,
T-

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your continued interaction on this. Honestly, I’ve never heard of William Banks. If you have some further information I’d love to take a look at his stuff in view of a later revision and expansion of the volume. I’m always happy to learn of the Lord’s faithful men.

I’ll have to leave you to wonder about push back and the personal opinions people have of me. It seems to me that making the issue about me rather than the theology is simply an ad hominem and missing the point. If there’s another story to be told, we’re all enriched by the telling of that story, even the refuting of The Decline’s thesis. I’d welcome that. But making this about me really fails to engage a rather serious issue–whether the issue is correcting my proposal or correcting theological weaknesses. Let’s keep the main thing the main thing.

As for doing something to address the decline, as far as I’m concerned a significant part of my life is dedicated to that. “The Faithful Preacher” puts forward three faithful AA men and their work on pastoral ministry as examples for us to emulate. “The Decline” offers a theological critique and ends with a sketch for a way forward. I hope to be faithful in my own ministry and walk with the Lord. And I’m at work on other things–both written and convening–that I pray the Lord will bless to the health of His church. But again, it’s not really about me. Or at least it shouldn’t be. Whether we agree or disagree about this or that book, surely we must be agreed in our pursuit of the ever-growing strength of the Lord’s church in the AA community. I trust that’s what you’re up to as well.

Grace and peace to you,
Thabiti