The Conservative Holiness Movement
Fundamentalism File Research Report by Mark Sidwell
report is intended to be a resource to help Fundamentalist Christians in
studying and evaluating religious leaders and movements. It draws primarily upon
materials housed in the Fundamentalism File in the J. S. Mack Library on the
campus of Bob Jones
every effort has been made to provide an impartial study of the topic, this work
will naturally reflect the interpretations and viewpoint of its author. This
report should not be taken as representing an official statement of the position
staff of the Fundamentalism File would welcome any questions or comments
concerning the content of this report.
history of American Christianity is not the story of a single “Church of the
Hatch has argued that in their retelling of the history of Christianity in
the Holiness movement receives thin treatment from historians, then the thinnest
of discussions must be the fate of the Conservative Holiness movement. Little
recognized outside of Holiness circles, the Conservative Holiness movement has
grown quietly, particularly since World War II. Scholarly note of the movement
is limited mostly to work by participant-observer Wallace Thornton, who traced
the movement in a journal article and his book Radical Righteousness:
Personal Ethics and the Development of the Holiness Movement.
Yet the movement does not deserve such neglect. The movement raises valid
questions concerning the nature and application of personal standards of
holiness. Furthermore, it provides a counterpoint to the assumptions that
characterize the majority of the adherents to the modern Holiness movement about
the history and nature of their movement. Also, the Conservative Holiness
movement offers an unusual perspective concerning the nature of the Bible’s
teaching about separation.
Early History of Holiness Movement
John Wesley’s Teaching
roots of the Holiness movement lie with Methodism’s founder, John Wesley.
Undoubtedly Wesley’s teachings concerning entire sanctification and Christian
perfection are key to understanding the Holiness movement, but such an
observation can lead to distortion. The movement embraces the whole of Wesleyan
Methodist teaching while stressing especially the aspects of that teaching which
its adherents believe other Methodists were (or are) neglecting. Entire
sanctification, Christian perfection, and holiness provide the watchwords of the
movement, but they do not constitute the whole of the movement’s beliefs.
Wesley set down his teaching concerning perfection most fully in “A Plain
Account of Christian Perfection” (1777),
but the teaching is present in his other writings as well. In brief,
Wesley held that by a special work of grace after salvation, the Holy Spirit
would eliminate the root of original sin. This event is often called “entire
sanctification” or “eradication.” As a result of this work of grace, a
believer is able to live free of conscious sin. In this state of Christian
perfection, a Christian may still grow in grace and maturity and is still
subject to human weaknesses. Furthermore, the experience of entire
sanctification is no guarantee that the believer may not later fall from grace.
Nonetheless, a Christian can enjoy “perfect love” in which he, from pure
motives, pursues after holiness without taint of sin.
is the central teaching of not only Wesley but also the Holiness movement. But,
as mentioned before, the movement is about more than just the details of
Wesleyan perfectionist teaching. It is also deeply concerned about how this
teaching works out in practice.
Teaching Comes to
Methodism grew to become
the teaching had its champions. Chief of these was Phoebe Palmer. Beginning in
the 1830s, she began to promote holiness teachings in the “Tuesday
Meetings,” prayer meetings in her sister’s home in
contemporary Methodists and later writers have noted how Palmer modified the
In simplest terms, she contended that entire sanctification came when the
Christian claimed it by faith. There is a subtle difference at work here between
proclaiming what the Holy Spirit has done in sanctification (which is more as
Wesley taught) and claiming that promise and holding to it until the blessing is
given (Palmer’s view). Her modification influenced the development of Holiness
teaching, although not all embraced it.
should note that Palmer also influenced the development of another brand of
Holiness teaching, what is called the “Keswick” view, named after the site
of a conference in
one may distinguish between an emphasis on holiness teaching and a conscious
Holiness movement, then the movement came into being after the Civil War. That
era saw the emergence of real controversy over Holiness doctrine and practice.
The advocates of Holiness teaching saw Methodism slipping into a complacent
middle-class respectability, what
traditional date of the founding of the modern Holiness movement is 1867, the
year of the organizing of the National Camp-meeting Association for the
Promotion of Christian Holiness, eventually to become known as the National
Holiness Association and even later as the Christian Holiness Partnership. The
reference to camp meetings is significant. The frontier camp meeting had been,
along with circuit riding, one of the chief methods of Methodist growth in the
first half of the nineteenth century. Although the practice of camp meetings had
never entirely died out, by the later 1800s large segments of American Methodism
disdained the meetings as an obstacle to achieving religious respectability. The
Holiness movement’s embrace of the camp meeting made a statement that the
movement was calling the Methodists back to the old ways despite the social
there was also a practical side to the use of camp meetings. As a
nondenominational movement (albeit primarily within the northern and southern
branches of the Methodist
the Holiness crusade led to a battle within Methodism. Both branches of the
conflict created a divide in the Holiness movement, splitting it into the
“stay-inners” and the “come-outers.” The first group is typified by H.
C. Morrison. One of the strongest and most eloquent advocates of Holiness
doctrine in the Southern Methodist Church, Morrison experienced constant
opposition. The limits on Holiness evangelists in particular seemed directed at
him. Yet he refused to leave the Southern Methodists and rode out the storm
until quieter times came. Through his preaching and later his leadership of
despaired of winning over either the northern or southern church to Holiness
doctrine. They advocated a withdrawal over principle.
Some writers regard the withdrawal of
of the Conservative Holiness Movement
a sense, the essence of Conservative Holiness is an insistence on “old
Holiness standards” in dress and entertainment. More specifically, however, it
refers to a self-conscious segment of the Holiness movement that has taken form
since World War II. The difference lies between simply a conservative stance
against innovation and the consciousness that one belongs to a distinct
Conservative Holiness movement. In other words, there is a conservative Holiness
attitude and a Conservative Holiness movement, although the two obviously overlap. One must observe an
irony in this situation too. The Holiness movement arose originally in response
to a perceived shift in Methodism from traditional (and what were viewed as
biblical) standards. The Conservative Holiness movement, in turn, arose in
response to a perceived shift in the Holiness movement away from such standards.
expressions of this conservative Holiness attitude predated the emergence of the
movement and later contributed to that movement. The Church
divisions foreshadowed the Conservative Holiness position on standards. Wallace
Thornton notes the Emmanuel Association, which left the
not himself sympathetic to the Conservative Holiness cause, Nazarene historian
W. T. Purkiser has suggested that the emergence of television after World War II
may have precipitated the movement.
The suggestion has merit. Television—unlike the theater, motion
pictures, the dance hall, and other forms of worldly entertainment shunned by
Holiness Christians—intruded directly into the home. It therefore provided a
direct challenge to Christian standards of purity, much as cable television and
the Internet (with its access to pornography) would challenge Christians a few
years later. It is little wonder, then, that television became one of the
battlegrounds of the controversy.
any movement there are individuals who serve as pioneers, receiving notice for
how they both blazed the way and set the tone for those who followed. One such
leading figure was Glenn Griffith (1894–1976). J. Gordon Melton actually calls
the entire Conservative Holiness movement the “Glenn Griffith Movement.”
As Wallace Thornton notes, this claim is overstated.
Glenn Griffith’s symbolic significance, there were other persons and
organizations at least as important to the Conservative Holiness movement. Some
of these predated
origin of the IHC lay in a meeting of two Holiness preachers at the Wesleyan
Methodist Campground in
Interchurch Holiness Convention has consistently refused to become a new
denomination, although it has offered encouragement to the various separatist
movements discussed in the next section. Instead, it has served to rally and
encourage Conservative Holiness denominations, churches, schools, and
individuals. Edgar Bryan cites the parallel example of the camp meetings of the
late nineteenth century. The IHC, like those meetings, promoted a cause more
than a new denominational movement.
don’t care what church you belong to,
Interchurch Holiness Convention is only one segment of the Conservative Holiness
there was a common thread of preaching against the swelling divorce rates, the
envisioned papal take-over of
its refusal to become the nucleus of a new church, the IHC was one force in
fostering a new wave of “come-outism,” this time from the ranks of the
Holiness denominations. Discontent with the erosion of traditional Holiness
standards, among other issues, led finally to a break.
were not the only issue driving the come-out movement. In a retrospect of the
life of H. E. Schmul, Sankey says that not only concerns about worldliness but
also fears of centralized government among Holiness denominations was a concern
in the founding of the IHC.
Such concerns were natural, particularly when hierarchies did not prove
sympathetic to the Conservative Holiness cause. The issue of centralization
clearly emerges among the new groups starting in protest over the merger of
all, some 154 congregations and 4,252 people withdrew from the
these splits is made more difficult by sparse records and sometimes
unsympathetic reporting. The official histories of the
formation of the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches illustrates the issues
involved in the splits. Although it is not the largest of the groups that left
in protest of the merger, the Bible Methodist Connection is perhaps typical,
particularly since it represents the uniting of two conferences with slightly
different motivations. Tensions had existed in the
of the protest arose within the Ohio Conference. Here centralization was the key
issue. Edsel Trouten, leader of the
other group involved in the formation of the Bible Methodist Connection,
however, gave several reasons for its opposition. The Alabama Conference listed
five points in objection: the wearing of wedding bands, watching television,
allegations of worldliness in
“Constitution of the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches” expresses the
concerns of the denomination in its opening “Declaration of Purpose”:
from past histories of holiness bodies that a decline in emphasis upon personal
holiness seems to coincide with the increase of emphasis upon organization,
centralization of authority and the machinery of church life, the Bible
Methodist Connection of Churches wishes to state that the whole and sole cause
and purpose of this connection of churches is to spread scriptural (second
blessing) holiness over the lands, building up a holy and separated people for
the first resurrection.
listing Conservative Holiness denominations does not necessarily give a clear
indication of the size of the movement. Aside from residual sympathy within the
older Holiness denominations, there are also independent Holiness congregations.
Conservative Holiness Agencies
should note that the Interchurch Holiness Convention and these denominations are
far from the only means of promoting the Conservative Holiness cause. H. E.
Schmul, for example, launched Schmul Publishing to reprint classic Holiness
works and print new works defending the Conservative Holiness position.
important contributor to the Conservative Holiness testimony has been the
schools adhering to the movement. Some of the denominations in Conservative
Holiness circles have their own colleges, such as the
the Conservative Holiness Movement
cannot adequately evaluate a movement as complex as the Conservative Holiness
movement in a few paragraphs. Two questions form the framework for the present
discussion. First, what is the relationship today of the Conservative Holiness
movement to the overall Holiness movement? Second, what is its relationship (if
any) to Fundamentalism?
the Holiness Movement
name “Conservative Holiness
movement” is appropriate in that the movement seeks to conserve—or
preserve—the traditional views of the Holiness movement. One sees this fact
most evidently in the insistence on Holiness standards in dress and
entertainment, standards which have become the hallmark of the Conservative
Holiness movement. Moreover, the movement appears to be a preserver of other
Holiness distinctives for which some in the mainstream movement no longer seem
so zealous. For example, Conservative Holiness leaders remain staunch in their
belief in entire sanctification: “We believe that holiness encompasses a
second, definite work of grace, subsequent to regeneration, in which the
believer is cleansed from inbred sin, and is empowered to live a life above
By contrast, Kenneth Collins notes with concern that some among the
intellectual leaders of the Holiness movement doubt or downplay entire
manner in which the Conservative Holiness movement may be said to “preserve”
the Holiness movement is in strongly distinguishing the Holiness movement from
Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement (or “tongues movement,” as
Conservative Holiness Christians often refer to both groups). Pentecostalism
emerged from the Holiness movement. The earliest Pentecostal leaders, such as
Charles Parham and William Seymour of the Azusa Street Revival, were originally
Holiness preachers. The Pentecostal movement was, in a sense, taking the
Holiness stress on spiritual gifts a step further. Pentecostals carried the idea
of the “second blessing” and baptism of the Holy Spirit beyond eradication
(which only some Pentecostals believed in) to a belief that speaking in tongues
is the sign of the Spirit’s baptism. The popularity of Pentecostalism and,
after the 1960s, its transdenominational offshoot, the Charismatic movement,
confronted Holiness groups anew with this challenge.
the Holiness denominations have resisted the introduction of tongues speaking in
their midst, although elements in their churches have sometimes agitated for the
The Conservative Holiness movement has distinctly drawn a line against the
“tongues movement.” Leslie Wilcox warns of the tongues movement as an
example of modern groups that do not “properly present the doctrine of
holiness as it is taught in the Bible.”
Edsel Trouten cautions against applause and hand clapping in worship
because, he asserts, these practices originated in Pentecostal circles and may
prove a means of introducing Pentecostal theology into Holiness churches.
A good example ofs the difference is seen in views of divine healing.
Pentecostals and Charismatics have popularized the idea that individuals possess
a special gift that allows them to heal others directly. The Holiness view tends
to be that healing comes as special work of God in answer to prayer but that is
not the special province of a “gifted” believer.
in its efforts to preserve historic Holiness emphases, the Conservative Holiness
movement struggles to preserve balance between tradition and change. The
opposition to some modern forms of entertainment, notably television, can
potentially lead to an opposition to technology. Leonard Sankey mentions how
once a speaker at the Interchurch Holiness Convention used an overhead projector
in his presentation. One minister, on walking in and seeing the projector, said,
“That’s not for me,” and walked out again.
the other hand, social change constantly confronts Conservative Holiness
Christians with challenges to their standards and how to maintain them. The
Conservative Holiness Movement and Fundamentalism
many people, any kind of strongly conservative, traditional form of religion is
“fundamentalist,” but such a definition ignores two important factors.
First, this definition does not give sufficient weight to the historical context
that spawned and shaped Protestant Fundamentalism in twentieth-century
terms of both historical context and self-identification, the Conservative
Holiness movement reveals some links with Fundamentalism. For example, the
following description of H. Robb French’s preaching at the Interchurch
Holiness Convention certainly displays similarities to the Fundamentalist
position: “Brother French also was very conscious of the political tides and
the dangers of communism and socialism. More than once, he pointed out the
coming world church and exhorted his audiences to ‘come out from among
them.’ He had little time for those who would sacrifice scriptural principle
on the altar of compromise with the elements that would deny the substitutionary
atonement of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, and others of the great
doctrines of the church.”
Yet a closer examination also reveals some significant differences.
Holiness movement predates Fundamentalism, and historians generally agree that
Holiness teaching, at least of the Keswick variety, influenced Fundamentalism.
They debate, however, how much Fundamentalism influenced the Holiness
movement or whether the two movements ever identified with each other.
Paul Bassett notes some such influence, although he characterizes it as
“leaven” foreign to Wesleyan thought and theology. He argues that the Church
of the Nazarene edged toward holding to biblical inerrancy only under the
pressure of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy and that Holiness
theologians rescued the movement from such tendencies.
Stanley has examined this question in even greater depth, contending that the
Wesleyan and Holiness churches were “innocent bystanders” in the
She identifies four areas in which she concludes that Holiness Christians
differed from Fundamentalists: the inerrancy of the Bible, premillennialism,
women as ministers, and “social holiness” (by which she means “social
justice activities undertaken by Wesleyan Holiness adherents”).
She argues that the first two are characteristic of Fundamentalism but are
shared by only a few within the Holiness movement. The last two are, in her
view, points to which Holiness Christians hold but which Fundamentalists reject.
Based on her study,
case of the Conservative Holiness movement suggests either that the movement has
been touched by Fundamentalist leaven or that the conclusions of Basset,
is likewise important. The
one must offer two qualifications. First, the link between Holiness groups and
premillennialism is not necessarily a link to Fundamentalism. When Methodist
minister John Lakin Brasher embraced the Holiness cause in the late nineteenth
century, he accepted premillennialism along with the “second blessing” of
Before Fundamentalism ever arose, then, some Holiness Christians
identified with premillennialism.
not all Conservative Holiness Christians are avowedly premillennial in their
statements of faith. The Doctrinal Statement of Hobe Sound Bible College makes
no explicit reference to the millennium.
The Bible Methodist Connection of Churches teaches the imminence of Christ’s
return in its constitution (para. 23) as well as a separation between the
resurrection of the righteous and the wicked (para. 24), but it says, “It is
not to be understood that a dissenting understanding of the millennium shall be
held to break or hinder either church fellowship or membership” (para. 25).
should note in this connection a group tangentially related to the Conservative
Holiness movement that reflects some of these concerns, the Fundamental Wesleyan
Society (FWS) formed in 1979.
The FWS reckons itself a part of the Holiness movement in general, and
some sources identify it as a part of the Conservative Holiness movement.
But the group does not count itself as a part of the Conservative Holiness
movement today. The chief difference is that those aligned with the FWS believe
that entire sanctification is not identified with the baptism of the Holy
Spirit, which they say happens at regeneration.
In addition, many in the FWS are not as committed to the lifestyle issues
that mark the Conservative Holiness movement. However, the FWS strongly asserts
the doctrine of inerrancy, declaring in its Statement of Faith “that the
Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and correct even when they speak on points
of history, science and philosophy.”
At the same time, the FWS expressly rejects premillennialism, asserting
that postmillennialism is the more truly Wesleyan and biblical teaching.
the chief distinctive of contemporary Fundamentalism has been its stress on
“separation,” that the Christian should strive to free himself from
worldliness, from false doctrine, and even from ecclesiastical connections to
other Christians who willfully persist in sin.
The Conservative Holiness movement obviously owes its origin to concerns about
growing worldliness. Furthermore, it is a “come-out” movement that has
emerged from another come-out movement. Some in the movement acknowledged their
debt to Fundamentalism. Edsel Trouten’s use of Baptist Fundamentalist Chester
Tulga has been previously noted. Conservative Holiness ministers warn other
believers against “compromising their convictions of separation.”
the context of these separatist comments is often different, sometimes subtly
so, sometimes more obviously. Generally, Conservative Holiness Christians stress
a separation based more on practice than on doctrine. Dale Hallaway writes,
“We are currently faced with the necessity of ‘earnestly contending for the
faith,’” but he means by this “that we stand firmly for old-fashioned
principles which govern one’s conduct in all areas of life.”
One could perhaps view the original Holiness secessions of the late 1800s
and early 1900s as doctrinal, since they involved a defense of the doctrine of
entire sanctification against the hostility of denominational leaders. But the
Conservative Holiness withdrawals centered more on behavioral questions, matters
of dress and entertainment. Conservative Holiness leaders expressed doctrinal
concerns, but they gave them second place generally to concern about eroding
standards of holiness. In this emphasis, the Conservative Holiness movement
differs from Fundamentalism, whose basis of separation revolved, theoretically,
around more purely doctrinal concerns.
most obvious evidence for or against viewing the Conservative Holiness movement
as Fundamentalist is how those within the movement identify themselves. Even
this approach yields only a qualified answer at best. A writer in the
Fundamental Wesleyan Society says plainly, “We are fundamentalists,”
as the very name of the organization would indicate. Still, elsewhere he
writes with qualification, “While we may feel that the rest of the holiness
movement should have taken more seriously the contributions of fundamentalism,
yet inherent in fundamentalism is a spirit of legalism and intolerance passed
down from its Calvinistic roots. Today the conservative holiness movement is not
only contending for fundamental Christian doctrine, but it is also infected with
the dogmatic spirit of fundamentalism.”
Even then, the FWS is only at the edge of the Conservative Holiness
McCasland, brought up in the Conservative Holiness movement, says that he was
“taught to identify myself as a fundamentalist evangelical.” However, he has
come to reject Fundamentalism, which he identifies with the conservative faction
within the Southern Baptist Convention. He charges that Fundamentalism is
hostile toward the use of reason, that it rejects historical tradition as a
guideline, and that it reduces the Bible to “limp leather” and “a book of
McCasland’s critique of current application of the term, it is significant
that some Conservative Holiness Christians at one time thought of themselves as
“Fundamentalist.” The sticking point in such identification would likely be
how far self-professed Fundamentalists and Conservative Holiness believers are
willing to agree to disagree. The Fundamentalist movement has never had a
particularly strong Methodist contingent,
and the since the 1950s the movement has been overwhelmingly Baptist in
composition. The question would be how much Fundamentalists would be willing to
overlook Wesleyan Holiness distinctives (notably falling from grace and entire
sanctification) and how much Conservative Holiness adherents would be willing to
cooperate with those who reject their distinctives.
history of the
his History of Fundamentalism in America,
George Dollar uses the label “Orthodox Allies” to describe conservatives who
were not in the Fundamentalist camp. His definition of the term is too narrow,
excluding some self-professed Fundamentalists.
But the concept has value nonetheless, as in the present case. One cannot
honestly equate Fundamentalism with the Conservative Holiness movement. To do so
would sweep too much evidence under the rug. Nonetheless the two movements have
similar concerns in addition to their differences. Both reject theological
liberalism and both enunciate a strong separatist position. The Holiness view
may place more stress on personal separation, and Fundamentalism may be known
more for its ecclesiastical separation, but neither group would deny the other
aspect. Their interaction, although limited, suggests they are orthodox allies.
The closeness of their alliance will likely depend on the nature of the foe they
face and their willingness to forego some of their distinctives for the sake of
 Nathan Hatch, “The Puzzle of American Methodism,” Church History 63 (1994): 175–89.
 There are nonetheless some helpful works on the history of the Holiness movement. See Charles Edwin Jones, Perfectionist Persuasion: The Holiness Movement and American Methodism, 1867–1936 (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974); Melvin Easterday Dieter, The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1980); Delbert Rose, Vital Holiness: A Theology of Christian Experience, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975); John L. Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism (1956; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press of Zondervan Publishing House, 1985). An invaluable resource on the topic is Charles Edwin Jones, A Guide to the Study of the Holiness Movement (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974). Schmul Publishers has reprinted the works by Rose and Peters.
 See, e.g., Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971).
 Wallace Thornton, “Behavioral Standards, Embourgeoisement, and the Formation of the Conservative Holiness Movement,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 33 (1998): 172–97; and Radical Righteousness: Personal Ethics and the Development of the Holiness Movement (Salem, Ohio: Schmul Publishing, 1998). I freely acknowledge my debt to Mr. Thornton’s work in guiding my writing and research on this topic.
This essay is found in The Works
of John Wesley (1872; reprint ed.,
 For discussion of Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification, see Leo George Cox, John Wesley’s Concept of Perfection (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1964); Harald Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification: A Study in the Doctrine of Salvation (Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press of Zondervan Publishing House, 1980); W. E. Sangster, The Path to Perfection: An Examination and Restatement of John Wesley’s Doctrine of Christian Perfection (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1943); George Allen Turner, The Vision Which Transforms (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1964). A sympathetic discussion from a non-Wesleyan and Fundamentalist viewpoint is found in Edward M. Panosian, “John Wesley’s Doctrine of Christian Perfection,” Biblical Viewpoint 6, no. 2 (1972): 120–29. Schmul Publishers has reprinted Cox’s book.
The sermon “On Dress” is found in
The Works of John Wesley, 7:15–26.
 Peters, p. 121.
 See Dieter, pp. 27–32; Thornton, Radical Righteousness, pp. 49–54.
 On the conflict of the late 1800s and early 1900s, see Charles Jones’s Perfectionist Persuasion and Peter, pp. 133–80.
 On Morrison’s battles with the Methodist Church and his determination to stay in that church, see H. C. Morrison, Some Chapters of My Life Story (Louisville: Pentecostal Publishing, 1941), pp. 170–200, and Percival A. Wesche, Henry Clay Morrison: Crusader Saint, (Wilmore, Ky.: Asbury Theological Seminary, 1963), pp. 82–92.
 Some of these “come-outers,” however, contend that they were forced out by denominational leaders, not that they had left. See, e.g., Richard Payne, “The Church of God (Holiness): Our Name—Part 1,” Church Herald and Holiness Banner, 13 Aug. 1999, p. 5.
 W. T. Purkiser, Called Unto Holiness, vol. 2, The Second Twenty-five Years, 1933–58 (Kansas City, Mo.: Nazarene Publishing House, 1983), p. 257, 272–73.
 J. Gordon Melton, ed. Encyclopedia of American Religions, 6th ed. (Detroit: Gale, 1999), p. 374.
 Radical Righteousness, p. 132.
 Sankey, “The Principles of IHC,” Convention Herald, Nov.–Dec. 1998, p. 3.
Leonard Sankey, “Let’s Talk
 Leonard Sankey, “Harold Edward Schmul January 26, 1921–June 26, 1998, Beloved Friend, Respected Leader,” Convention Herald, Sept.–Oct. 1998, p. 4.
 A. Philip Brown II, “The History and Development of Bible Methodism with Special Attention to the Alabama Conference” (student paper, Bob Jones University, 1996), p. 10; this paper is found in Folder: “Methodism—History,” #00907196, The Fundamentalism File, J.S. Mack Library, Bob Jones University.
Statistics by Virgil A. Mitchell,
On the Church of the Bible Covenant,
 Ira F. McLeister and Roy S. Nicholson, Conscience and Commitment: The History of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America (Marion, Ind.: The Wesley Press, 1976), see pp. 222–320 passim; and Paul Westphal Thomas and Paul William Thomas, The Day of Our Pilgrimage: The History of the Pilgrim Holiness Church (Marion, Ind.: The Wesley Press, 1976), pp. 285–318 passim.
 McLeister and Nicholson, pp. 293–98, 309–11. The Pilgrim Holiness historians, Thomas and Thomas, acknowledge the concerns of the protestors but do not discuss the rationale behind those concerns.
 A good counterbalance to McLeister and Nicholson and to Thomas and Thomas is Thornton, Radical Righteousness, pp. 144–64, where he discusses from the Conservative Holiness viewpoint the schisms resulting from the merger.
Quoted by Brown, p. 4.
 Ibid., p. 4.
 Ibid., p. 5.
 “Constitution of the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches” (http://members.aol.com/dbiblemeth/Constitution.htm).
 Leonard Sankey, “The Principles of IHC,” Convention Herald, Nov.–Dec. 1998, p. 3.
 Kenneth Collins, “Why the Holiness Movement is Dead,” Asbury Theological Journal 54 (1999): 29.
 See Vinson Synan, “A Long Road to Renewal,” Charisma and Christian Life, Oct. 1986, pp. 61–65.
 Leslie D. Wilcox, “What Is the Holiness Movement?” Convention Herald, Jan.–Feb. 1988, p. 5.
 Edsel Trouten, “Our Worship Expresses Our Theology: A Caution to the Holiness Churches,” Convention Herald, Nov.–Dec. 1992, pp. 4–5.
 One writer notes that early Holiness leader John Lakin Brasher and his circle “believed the prayers of the faithful could be effective in bringing physical healing by the Spirit but they disagreed with the pentecostals’ claim that particular individuals possessed the spiritual ‘gift’ by which to heal others.” J. Lawrence Brasher, The Sanctified South: John Lakin Brasher and the Holiness Movement (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), p. 144.
Sankey, “Let’s Talk
 Sankey, “Our Fortieth Year,” May–June 1991, pp. 2–3.
 See George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870–1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 72–101.
 For a brief discussion of this issue, see Mark Sidwell, “Methodism and Fundamentalism: A Survey,” Biblical Viewpoint 29, no. 2 (1995): 90–92.
 Paul Merritt Bassett, “The Fundamentalist Leavening of the Holiness Movement, 1914–1940, The Church of the Nazarene: A Case Study,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 13 (1978): 65–91.
 Susie Stanley, “Wesleyan/Holiness Churches: Innocent Bystanders in the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy,” in Re-forming the Center: American Protestantism, 1900 to the Present, ed. Douglas Jacobsen and William Vance Trollinger (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 172–93.
 Ibid., p. 190.
J. Gordon Melton, ed., The
Encyclopedia of American Religions: Religious Creeds (Detroit: Gale
Research Company, 1988), p. 323. The wording comes originally from the Manual
of the Church of the Nazarene. Commenting on the Nazarene version,
 J. Gordon Melton, ed., The Encyclopedia of American Religions: Religious Creeds, vol. 2 (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1994), p. 161.
 Edsel Trouten, “The Conservative Holiness Movement and the Inerrancy Issue,” appearing in six consecutive issues of the Convention Herald from March through September 1981. See also “International Council on Bible Inerrancy,” Convention Herald, February 1978, p. 2.
 Melton, Religious Creeds (1988), p. 288.
 Ibid., p. 324; Melton, Religious Creeds, vol. 2, p. 162.
 Brasher, The Sanctified South, p. 62.
 It says only that Christ “is coming again to receive the church as His bride” and that “There will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the unsaved and the unsaved”; the Doctrinal Statement is found at http://www.hsbc.edu/doc.html.
 “Constitution of the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches.”
 For information on the Fundamental Wesleyan Society, see http://members2.visualcities.com/fwp. The organization’s periodical, Arminian Magazine, is also found on-line at http://wesley.nnc.edu/arminian. Note in particular C. Marion Brown, “For Such a Time as This,” Arminian Magazine, Fall 1995, and Vic Reasoner, “What Is a Fundamental Wesleyan?” Arminian Magazine, part 1, Spring 1995; part 2, Fall 1995.
The host on the Internet for Arminian
 Its teaching on entire sanctification is detailed in the following articles by Vic Reasoner from the Fall 1998 issue of Arminian Magazine: “Interpreting the Word Accurately,” Fall 1998, and “John Fletcher Revised.” Reasoner also set forth this view in his book The Hole in the Holiness Movement, which led to an exchange with the Interchurch Holiness Convention. See Edsel Trouten, “Holes in The Hole of the Holiness Movement,” Convention Herald, Jan.–Feb. 1993, pp. 4–5, and Vic Reasoner, “Plugging the Holes,” Arminian Magazine, Fall 1993. In his rebuttal, Reasoner charges that the Conservative Holiness movement is not really “conservative” because its view of entire sanctification modifies the teaching of John Wesley.
 “Statement of Faith,” http://members2.visualcities.com/fwp/statement.html. See also Vic Reasoner, “Defining Biblical Inerrancy,” Arminian Magazine, Fall 1998.
 See particularly the articles in Fall 1984 issue of Arminian Magazine: C. Marion Brown, “Editorial”; Robert L. Brush, “Is the Second Advent of Our Lord Imminent?”; Vic Reasoner, “Are There Two Phases to Christ’s Second Advent?” (refuting pretribulationism); and Elmer Long, “The Design of the Gospel.” See also Vic Reasoner, “The Obituary of Dispensationalism: 1830–1988,” Arminian Magazine, Spring 1990.
 These concepts are summarized and discussed from the Fundamentalist viewpoint in Mark Sidwell, The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1998).
 Dale L. Hallaway, “Will We Remain—A ‘Conservative’ Holiness Movement?” Convention Herald, March–April 1987, p. 6.
 Reasoner, “What Is a Fundamental Wesleyan?” part 2.
 Vic Reasoner, “The Spirit of Tolerance,” Arminian Magazine, Winter 1993.
 Tom McCasland, “Why I Am No Longer a Fundamentalist: A Confession,” http://www.baylor.edu/~Thomas_McCasland/fund.htm.
 See Sidwell, “Methodism and Fundamentalism: A Survey.”
George W. Dollar, A History of