THE WESLEYAN/HOLINESS MOVEMENT IN SEARCH OF LITURGICAL IDENTITY
by
Steven T. Hoskins
To say that the Wesleyan/Holiness Movement has come to an identity crisis is perhaps an understatement.[1] Much of its identity has been defined outside the movement and its churches, and this often in the face of both theological protest and/or silence from within. After 150 years, the Wesleyan/Holiness Movement finally has come face to face with its past. As with most historical identities, the movement's history is often unflattering and somewhat difficult to unravel. However, if present identity is truly desired, then the past must be sifted through, gazed into, and allowed to have life again.[2] Here is a part of the story of a people, lost yet longing, and the faithful gesture of the liturgy, calling them into the ancient way of holiness.
I. Who Are You?
A. The Identity Crisis Examined. While there has been a recognized vacuum of identity in the Holiness Movement for some years, the extent of the dilemma caused by this fact is finally being felt in virtually every corner of the movement. The prompting for this raising of consciousness, resulting in an accompanying discomfort for the groups within the movement, has come both from within and from without. It has come from within because a lack of precision has been a consistent historical and theological reality for the movement and such imprecision has become increasingly unsatisfactory to those within the movement.[3] It has come from within and without because of the desire to enlist the movement as an ally in recent theological and ecclesiastical debates in larger evangelical circles by certain forces, all in a particularly political and volatile religious climate.[4]
Paul Bassett argues that with few notable exceptions, the Holiness Movement in general, while hoping to appear evangelically conservative and not suspicious or liberal, has resisted efforts at precise theological definition, restated its varied history in response to questions of identity or inner logic, and has often bungled attempts to define its own positions on certain issues ("The Theological Identity of the North American Holiness Movement," 72-75). This is true for several reasons. The main one is that the American Holiness Movement has almost completely concerned itself, both in doctrine and practice, with an emphasis on experimental religion. It has been fairly unconcerned (at least until recently) with working out careful patterns of theological definition for fear that such work might give the appearance of confusion within the movement concerning it primary and unifying aim, the doctrine and experience of entire sanctification. Further, since Holiness religion in America is a religion of the people, the Holiness Movement and its exponents have assumed that its evidence, definition, and therefore identity must come mainly from the way holiness has been lived and the way it has catalogued its lived religious experiences. Often such an approach almost precludes theological reflection and refinement. Well-developed theological statements and understandings have been viewed as suspicious at best and more often as unnecessary tools of confusion and (sometimes) evil. The churches within the Wesleyan Holiness Movement do not stand alone at this point. Mary Kelley and Sydney Mead postulate that such suspicion and lack of theological definition are qualities shared by any church on the American landscape that has used revivalistic techniques to propagate the faiths.[5]
There are beginning to appear certain signs that the Holiness Movement is finally beginning the difficult process of self-examination in order to find out what ills the patient. One of the most promising of these signs is the appearance of historical-theological attention being paid to the movement, its history, ideals, and cultural expressions.[6]
B. The Crisic Nature of Holiness History. While it may only be partially clear as to why there is a crisis and why it is occurring now, what is clear is that there are several causes of the current identity crisis. The Wesleyan/Holiness Movement in America has at least two, if not more, competing identities. Such an understanding becomes clear when the question of history and the historical identity of the movement is raised.[7]
While the Holiness Movement's beginning can be pinpointed with the organization of the National Campmeeting Association for the Promotion of Christian Holiness in 1867, its historical and theological roots go back much further. The Holiness Movement was the result of a mingling of American Methodism with the "new measures" revivalism of the Second Great Awakening (Dayton, "Whither Evangelicalism?" 150). This emergence began with a rising tide of perfectionist persuasion in American religion that began in the 1830s and lasted well past the turn of the century.
Virtually all denominations and groups within the NCAPCH and its current manifestation, The Christian Holiness Association, trace their theological roots back to John Wesley and the Methodist Revival of the 18th century. Wesley's formative influence on the movement has been so great that Timothy Smith (1957, 146) asserted that "every book quoted on the foregoing pages refers to Wesley; most of them quote him at great length," i.e., every major work written within the Holiness Movement shows the great formative influence that he had on the movement. Further, the historical statements placed at the heading of most of the bodies within the Holiness Movement show that they trace their ideological and spiritual roots to the 18th century Wesleyan revival (Oden, 1988, 127131) and tend to show that these groups believe themselves to be the true heirs of Wesley. The impetus for their concern to carry on the experience of entire sanctification and to preach Scriptural holiness throughout the land identifies them in a direct way with John Wesley and the Evangelical Revival.
The other of the formative influences on the Holiness Movement was the revivalism of the Second Great Awakening in America led by Charles Finney. This influence was mediated to the movement through the evangelistic work of Phoebe Palmer beginning in New York during the 1850s and centering around the doctrine of entire sanctification and her new "shorter way" of receiving the second blessing (Palmer, 1987, 156-58). While the "new measures" methods used by Palmer were sometimes met with criticism, as the work of Finney often was in other Christian circles, Palmer's influence spread as many within the leadership of Methodism and other denominations experienced entire sanctification as the result of her ministry. Her importance to the movement should not be discounted.[8]
C. The Dilemma of Identities: Competing Origins of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement. It is at this point that the nascence of the identity crisis of the Holiness Movement comes into focus. While Wesley and Palmer agreed on their concern for entire sanctification and Christian perfection, it becomes increasingly clear under the close scrutiny of historical-theological examination that they agreed on little else in matters of theological and ecclesiological concern. In his excellent little book on how entire sanctification was propagated in American Methodism, John Peters points out that Palmer's disagreements with Wesley range across many topics, from epistemology[9] to the nature of Scripture[10] and most importantly to the experience of entire sanctification. Palmer believed holiness to be a state of attainment, something Wesley had clearly denied in his Minutes of the Methodist Conference (1771) where he maintained that holiness was a relation of loving God, i.e., dynamic rather than static (Peters 112). Wesley's view of the experiences of justification and sanctification was gradual, allowing for instantaneous crisic experiences and subject to the proof of experience and resulting fruits in the life of the believer (Maddox 151-154). Palmer advocated a "shorter way" insisting that the experience of either was always immediate and needed only the testimony or claim of the one who had experienced it in order to be valid because of the witness of the "written word" of God (Palmer, 1987, 161).[11]
I contend that it is precisely within this divergence of understanding and approach that we can pinpoint the cause of the current crisis of (theological) identities in the American Holiness Movement. The Holiness Movement, since before its official beginnings, has been a movement with two identities: one of a Wesleyan origin and one of a Palmerian genesis.[12]
D. Analysis of a Two-headed Movement. What becomes clear as a result of this data is that, at least in terms of origins, there was clearly no one formative influence on the movement as a whole. Indeed, the history of the movement shows that the two identities which formed it have coexisted within the movement since its inception. The result has often been considerable tension between who would provide the theological impetus for a particular holiness group or for the movement itself, Wesley or Palmer (Bassett, 1991, 74).
While it is plain that many within the Holiness movement have recently called for an alignment on one side or the other,[13] considerable attention must be given to the current situation of the movement as a whole in considering what path to pursue in regard to its crisis of (theological) identity. Why the identity crisis now? Why the current move toward theological and historical precision, when it has heretofore been deemed unnecessary? How has the Holiness Movement been able to remain unified for so long a period of time? Perhaps the answers to these questions can be found in the current dirth of revival and evangelistic success throughout the movement, particularly but not exclusively in America. In the wake of its current lack of numerical and social gain, the Wesleyan/Holiness Movement has lost its way and turned its attention to the task of recovering its past in order to find a way out of its current identity dilemma.
An analysis of the past leads directly back to the two models of (theological) identity which formed the movement and to the questions that they raise. Is the Holiness Movement directly descended from Wesley and the Evangelical Revival in England or is it primarily an American phenomenon? Does/should the movement owe allegiance to one distinct part of its past over the other? Why use the past as a guide at all? If one examines the history of the Holiness Movement within the broader thesis of Kelley and Mead, noted above, it becomes clear that the crisis of identity is the result of differing formative influences coupled with 150 years of practice at the art of theological and historical imprecision.
After weighing all of the data, one may be inclined to side with one historical ideal over the other. One the one hand is the Wesleyan ideal, certainly more appealing to those within the movement who admire or require precision where it has been lacking.[14] Wesley more readily provides an inner logic of identity than Palmer, one that Paul Bassett has argued is that of love of God upon which the whole doctrine of entire sanctification rises and falls ("The Theological Identity. . . ," 95). Wesley was no paragon of consistency, however, making a choice to base an identity on Wesley problematic as well.[15] On the other hand, the practicality and success of Palmer and her followers holds its own validity for many within the movement who believe that such precision is to be found in the experience and not in theologizing. Choosing one path over the other is fraught with difficulties. In the wake of this confusion, many choose to ignore altogether the search for present identity based on any past model. Still, the question remains. What can be done about the crisis of identity within the Holiness Movement? Is there any way to recover (theological) identity and perhaps the influence of both Wesley and Palmer and others as well? Perhaps the answer to this question also comes to us from the past.
II. A Way Out?
A. The Holiness Movement in Search of Liturgical Identity. If all of the above is true, what is there to suggest that any attempt at identity formation would be better than another? Why attempt to solve the dilemma at all? Why not attempt yet another systematic or biblical theology and a newly formulated evangelistic strategy? What is there to suggest a (re)turn to liturgy and worship?
Perhaps, there should be a turn to liturgy because the place the identity crisis is most evident is in the current revolution(s) in worship going on within the Holiness Movement.[16] As in many other churches today, much of what passes for worship in Holiness churches takes its cues and rules straight from consumer-oriented marketing strategies. While the merits of such approaches can be left for other discussions, what is clear is that many within the current manifestations of Holiness churches are ignoring the formative effects that such approaches have on the formation and practice of the faith.
Perhaps another part of the answer to "why liturgy?" is the hope of preserving Christian history - i. e., the broader story shared by all Christians and the particular Holiness history within that story. Perhaps there is yet the chance to save that yearning that I believe is woven into the very fabric of the Holiness Movement-the yearning to be a faithful part of the ancient procession of those who have trod the path of Christian faith that has followed the way of holiness. But such a yearning is being threatened by current "contemporary" worship strategies. They encourage an acute condition of amnesia, literally a loss of identity within the Holiness Movement. Is there a way out?
I suggest that we begin to search for the identity of the Holiness Movement in the most peculiar of places, in the one place that we have most often overlooked, that of the liturgy and worship of the Christian church. By liturgy[17] I mean not only the "work of the people" but the very performance of the faith where the people of God realize, remember, and re-enact who they are. When liturgy functions as it should in the church, it provides a rule-governed way of understanding by which to establish identity and judge activity.[18] This is the meaning of the liturgical "rule" known as lex orandi, lex credendi[19] or the rule of prayer is the rule of faith. In the Holiness Movement we have ignored or been unaware of this dynamic, performative value of the liturgy. We have gone too long by the liturgical rule of lex orandi, lex oblivisci or the rule of prayer, the rule ignored. I dare to suggest, following the lead of Geoffrey Wainwright, that it is precisely in a (re)turn to the liturgy(s) of the church, liturgy as the "work of the people" and the living, vital expressions of our historically grounded faith, that we as the Holiness Movement should (re)form our identity and judge our activity-liturgically, doctrinally, and otherwise.
I now suggest a liturgical cure to the identity crisis based on: (1) liturgy as anamnesis or a cure for amnesia; (2) the very nature of liturgy and its ability to create identity; (3) one of the more neglected parts of John Wesley's theology, his approach to church renewal; and (4) a neglected fact about the Anglican liturgical context out of which the Wesleyan revival arose, that of an eclectic or via-media approach to liturgical formulation. It is hoped that, in providing such an approach, liturgy, even Holiness liturgy, will help to lead out of the crisis of identities and preserve our past.
B. Liturgy As Anamnesis, A Cure For Amnesia. When one surveys the current landscape of what passes as liturgy and worship in many evangelical denominations, it is quite easy to become cynical and lose hope. There is a mixture of worship styles, rubrics, marketing techniques, musical ditties or sweet-songs, etc., all of which seem to betray an attitude that says, for worship to be meaningful it must take its cues and rules from an entertainment-oriented culture and from modern "mass-marketing" techniques.[20] Such an approach pays little, if any, careful attention to historically or theologically well-defined expressions of the faith and devalues liturgy itself as important, preferring rather a rootless freedom or something that is "contemporary" or "in-touch" with "where the people live."
Those who create such worship experiences have forgotten who they are, if they ever had any sense of historical identity in the first place. Liturgically, and almost in every other sense of the doctrine and practice of the Christian faith, such leaders are struck with amnesia, literally the loss of identity. They do not seem to find any need for a well (in)formed identity, much less an historically and theologically correct expression of the faith. Even those congregations who hope to create "seeker sensitive services" repeat the past mistakes of other churches in America where revivalism and revival/evangelistic measures are used to propagate the faith.[21]
Perhaps the basic reason why liturgy suggests itself as a cure to the present identity crisis is that it offers a cure for amnesia, such as the kind currently afflicting the Holiness Movement and its churches. Anamnesis is the active and participatory remembering of the formational events of the faith.[22] In the liturgy of the church worshippers are taken to the foot of the cross, the courts of heaven. In the liturgy there is a dramatized remembering of the death and the resurrection of Jesus and the quality of our (re)new(ed) life and the life yet to come. Participants are (re)new(ed) and (re)formed according to the faith, the ancient way of salvation, the (primitive) understanding of God's creating a holy people. Anamnesis, the active and participatory remembering of the people of God, provides ability to cast a vision through which identity is formed, reformed, and affirmed in relation to the history of the church[23] Such a remembering is dependent on a liturgy which is theologically and historically well-defined and defining, with rubrics and rules and acts which have proved to be appropriate expressions of the faith.
C. Worship and Identity Formation. What we see at work in the liturgy's ability to help cure our amnesia through anamnesis is a broader principle of liturgical function, one at the very heart of the liturgy itself. Geoffrey Wainwright argues that it is the very nature of liturgy to create identity by casting a vision of reality, a way of seeing and understanding (1980, 1-3). Such a liturgical vision of the church brings the whole of the Christian life to a ritual focus. Sometimes the ritual is complete and set and sometimes it is an informal pattern of behavior. It is always, however, the setting before the people of their identity: that of the people of God with the fullness of a history, a future, and a pattern of living which comes to ritual focus in the liturgy but is then allowed to enter in a value-patterned way into every area of the worship, doctrine, and life (1980, 8).
Such an identity is formed by the ritualistic retelling of the people's story. This story is available in a book, the holy Scriptures and also in a time-conscious and time-oriented approach to the living of the faith over the cycle of life, the calendar, in summary confessions through which to hermeneutically judge the faithful witness of any act or rubric and its fitting place within the broader identity, the historic confessions and creeds of the faith, and in other rubrics, songs, and expressions of the faith as are necessary and vital to the identity of the people as the people of God[24] Within the liturgy is provided opportunity for theology(even systematic theology) to live and give life. Within the liturgy is opportunity for even spontaneous expressions of the faith-and, in the context of the Holiness Movement, one should anticipate such on a consistent basis. Liturgy does not preclude such expressions, but calls them to submit to their proper place in the formation and sustaining of identity within any Christian community.
What the liturgy provides is a way to form and adjudicate such experiences based on an expression which has as its aim both the broader Christian story of salvation and a particular history and set of expressions within that broader stream. The liturgy provides something we have needed all along, a way, a good way to see if our experience/expressions of the faith match true Christian identity. The liturgy brings the two together in way that is both salvific and true.
D. Where Next? A Journey Into the Past. This question must be asked: If liturgy is so good, then is liturgy good for the Holiness Movement, and if so, why? While such goodness is probably discovered only after the liturgy is employed as a way of church life, we are still left with the question, Why liturgy? One of the reasons I suggest for liturgy's significance is that it enables a faithfulness to our past and in so doing finds a way for its preservation. I am arguing for a specifically Wesleyan view of our past, one that does not deny that there have been and continue to be other formative influences on the movement, but one that judges the goodness and usefulness of other influences in the light of a "Wesleyan" allegiance and identity within the Holiness Movement. While such a move is not free from either historical or theological difficulty, I suggest that it is true to the heritage of the Holiness Movement.[25]
What a Wesleyan approach has to offer the Holiness Movement is a richness that is often left unexplored and unheeded. It is a treasury of the faith that John Wesley left that is also a necessary part of the cure for the current identity crisis. While it is clear that many within the Holiness Movement take their cues for liturgy and worship from movements and ideals outside the church, Wesley believed that the best way to (re)create identity within the church was to seek renewal from within the church itself. In his excellent book, The Presence of God in the Christian Life: John Wesley and the Means of Grace, Henry Knight notes that it is within this pathway of renewal from within the treasury of the worship of the church that identity is established, formed, and maintained. The gracious and grace-full means of the liturgy-the Lord's Supper, searching the Scripture, re-enacting and re-living the tradition of the church, praying and hymn-singing - "functioned to portray the identity of God and the resulting identity of the Christian" (159).
Knight makes two important notes which help clarify how the liturgy can be a cure for the identity crisis of the Holiness Movement. First, he notes that it is the function of the liturgy to create identity, to renew the church and establish within the people a sense of who they were. The liturgical actions and expressions are the re-enactment of the broader story of the faith. "By way of participation in narrative and imagery, the character and activity of God who is present is experientially remembered. . . . In the same manner God's eschatological promise is experienced, both as promise of the coming kingdom and its present realization in the gift of new life. The story of God's love in Christ is at the same time the heart of the identity of God and descriptive of the Christian life of love" (159). In the participation of the life of the liturgy the identity of God is firmly established, allowing God to act as identity-giver.
Second, Knight notes that, where Wesley considered and used the tradition of the church as a means of grace within the liturgy and life of his Methodist followers, it is clear that he "did not value all parts of tradition equally." He selectively chose some theological expressions of the faith over others, particularly in his use of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, so as to befit his view of the Christian life (163).[26] While some may view this activity of Wesley as censorship, I choose to use this as a model and an inspiration for attempts at liturgical expression(s) which are indicative of the (theological) identity of the Holiness Movement. Even in form, Wesley provides a lead which can be helpful to finding a way out of the identity crisis and establishing the life of the liturgy within the Holiness Movement and its churches.
E. Wesley As Anglican Model. Wesley's approach to liturgical creation (and abridgement) shows him to be more of a classical Anglican than he is sometimes given credit for. While the depth of Wesley's commitment to the Anglican church during his lifespan can be argued at length, it can hardly be denied that his Anglican context influenced him to a great degree. I suggest that his approach to liturgy as noted above belies an Anglican approach to liturgical theology and formulation which clearly can also serve as an aid in curing the identity crisis of the Holiness Movement.
While the goal of the Anglican liturgy within the Book of Common Prayer is clearly religious and national identity, Anglican liturgy has always been eclectic in its approach to liturgical formulation. Anglican liturgy is best understood as a classical expression of the classically Anglican via-media approach to theology. The "Middle Way" in liturgy as well as theology is not to suggest any attempt to dodge the complex difficulties of reality and theological identity, but represents "an apprehension of the complexity and richness possible" in responding to and expressing them (Marshall, 127). The liturgical life of Anglicanism which coalesces in the Book of Common Prayer is the combining together of those best expressions of the faith for the life of the faithful. Cranmer, whose work is the best example of such an approach, in forming the first BCP (1549) took his psalter from Miles Coverdale, his Epistles and Gospels from the KJV, patterned the basic service after a Spanish Breviary, used the Anaphora from the liturgy of St. Chrysostom and various parts from the Sarum Breviary and other extant litanies (Proctor and Frere, 26ff).
A commitment to a liturgical formulation of identity should be eclectic and particularly so in the Holiness Movement. The strength of the Holiness Movement may actually be in its diversity or catholicity, and liturgical formation/formulation may be a way to preserve both Wesley and Palmer, Bangs, Bresee, B. T Roberts and the host of other "saints" within the history of the Holiness Movement. Worshipping thoughtfully in light of the tradition of the whole church is a constructive and needed approach to maintaining Christian identity. Doing so in the particular light of the significance and complexity of the history of the Holiness Movement offers a way to authentic present identity for this tradition.
Conclusion
The renewed liturgical track suggested here will not be easy, but joyous work it will be. It will give complaining theologians a voice and a new sense of vocation to be shared with Wesley. We can begin to think and live theologically as an act of worship that arises out of and is a continued conversation with the worship of the whole church. This means that there is much more discussion to be done with the traditions of the church than we have heretofore done, including a conversation with our own Holiness tradition. This understanding of the theological life of the church may be a way of retaining some theologians. To study and understand them as members of the long line of those who have attempted to express the "work of the people" may keep some of them from virtual extinction.
This liturgical formation of identity must also be conciliar and broad enough to consider the value of the differing formative strands of the Holiness Movement. I suggest that this may be easier to accomplish than many might suspect. There has had to be a certain amount of "catholicity" and good will between holiness groups to have remained united for so long, despite such differing theological identities. Maybe this force alone will be strong enough to keep the Holiness Movement unified and also provide for a new understanding of its identity and open it to a more catholic (and hence more Christian and less sectarian) sense of historical consciousness.
Such an approach to identity may not make Holiness churches more "successful" or spread instant harmony among different Holiness churches. It may not answer the questions of choruses versus hymns or songsheets versus overhead projectors. But such an approach will encourage a community marked by a definite Christian identity, an identity that is faithful to its past and open to the promises of a rich future. It will provide an opportunity to explore the riches of the Holiness tradition, a tradition rich with the images, symbols, and experiences of a people who long to be made holy by God. Unfortunately, most such treasures are currently lying unattended, waiting and longing to be discovered by many Holiness Christians who live as yet unaware of them, bound by the rule of lex orandi, lex oblivisci. "The preservation and employment of such a life-giving treasure is what liturgy is all about (Pfatteicher, 89).[27]
Works Cited
Bassett, Paul Merritt. "Contemporary Worship and the Holiness Tradition." Unpublished essay delivered at the Nazarene Worship and Music Conference, Kansas City, Mo., 1991.
______. "The Theological Identity of the North American Holiness Movement: Its Understanding of the Nature and-Role of the Bible." In The Varieties of American Evangelicalism, eds.
Donald W Dayton and Robert E. Johnston. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1991.
Brantley, Richard E. "The Common Ground of Wesley and Edwards." Harvard Theological Review 83(1990): 271-303.
Day, Thomas. Why Catholics Can't Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste. New York: Harper/Collins, 1990.
Dayton, Donald W "Pneumatological Issues in the Holiness Movement." The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 31(1986): 361-387.
______. "Whither Evangelicalism?" Sanctification and Liberation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981.
Dieter, Melvin E. "The Development of Nineteenth Century Holiness Theology." Wesleyan Theological Journal 20(1985).
______. The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1980.
Drury, Keith. "The Death of the Holiness Movement." GBS Gazette, Spring, 1994.
Dunning, H. Ray. Grace, Faith, and Holiness. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1986.
Grider, J. Kenneth. A Wesleyan Holiness Systematic Theology. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1994.
Jones, Charles. Perfectionist Persuasion. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1973.
Kelley, Mary and Sidney E. Mead. "Protestantism in the shadow of the Enlightenment." Soundings 58(1975): 329-347.
Knight, Henry H. The Presence of God in the Christian Life: John Wesley and the Means of Grace. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1992.
Lindsell, Harold. The Bible In the Balance. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1979.
Maddox, Randy. Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1994.
Marshall, William. "Anglican Spirituality." Protestant Spiritual Traditions, ed. Frank C. Senn. New York: Paulist Press, 1986.
McLoughlin, William. Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Oden, Thomas. Doctrinal Standards in the Wesleyan Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1988.
Palmer, Phoebe. "The Shorter Way." Voices From the Heart, eds. Roger Lundin and Mark A. Noll. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans Press, 1987.
Peters, John. Christian Perfection and American Methodism. Nashville: Pierce and Washabaugh, 1956.
Pfatteicher, Phillip. The School of the Church: Worship and Spiritual Formation. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Procter, Francis. A New History of The Book of Common Prayer, rev. ed. by Walter Howard Frere. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1905.
Raser, Harold. Phoebe Palmer: Her Life and Thought. College Station, Pa.: Penn State University Press, 1987.
Rattenbury, J. Ernest. The Eucharist Hymns of John and Charles Wesley. London: Epworth Press, 1948.
Saliers, Don. Worship as Theology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.
Smith, Timothy L. Called Unto Holiness. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1962.
______. Revivalism and Social Reform. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1957. Snyder, Howard. The Divided Flame. Grand Rapids, ML: Zondervan, 1986.
Wainwright, Geoffrey. Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life. London: Epworth Press, 1980.
Wesley, John. Works of the Rev. John Wesley. Thomas Jackson, ed. 14 vols. London: 1831.
White, Charles. "The Beauty of Holiness: The Career and Influence of Phoebe Palmer." Methodist History 25(1987): 67-75.
______. The Beauty of Holiness: Phoebe Palmer as Theologian, Revivalist, Feminist, and Humanitarian. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1986.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Baswell Blackwell, 1968.
Endnotes:
