A World of Difference: Wesleyan Tradition and the Scientific Method in Global Contexts Reuben L. Lillie and Charles L. Perabeau Olivet Nazarene University Paper presented on the theme “Thinking about the Book of Nature: Developing a Philosophy of Science and Religion” held at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Wesleyan Philosophical Society Point Loma Nazarene University San Diego, CA March 9, 2016 Copyright © 2016, 2019 by Reuben L. Lillie and Charles L. Perabeau This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.  Abstract How is the spread of Christianity related to that of the scientific method? Does the Christian obligation, as John Wesley characterizes it, “to contemplate what [God] has wrought, and to understand as much of it as we are able” (God’s Approbation of His Works, 1782) threaten cultural or communal idiosyncrasies? That is, if the methodologies which have come to govern scientific inquiry are to be normative for gathering, analyzing, critiquing, and improving upon human knowledge worldwide, then does the present pattern of globalization somehow undermine the value of experience—a basic tenet of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral? Is there an alternative to either intellectual syncretism on the one hand or a uniform, monolithic, worldwide scientific methodology on the other? What of tendencies for scientific inquiry (and theology, for that matter) to be steered in service to socio-economic gains? Taking cues from anti-positivism, Wesley’s corpus, and other relevant sociological and philosophical sources, we will analyze and critique the popularization of the scientific method as it relates to cultural assimilation within the globalizing repository of ideas. We will also offer suggestions for ways in which Wesleyans in particular may uphold a common commitment (a) to rigorous inquiry across the spectrum of academic and spiritual disciplines and (b) the particularity of experience which serves to celebrate the diversity within nature. iii  A World of Difference: Wesleyan Tradition and the Scientific Method in Global Contexts I. Situational Irony Am I consciously or unconsciously creating the impression that I am better than I am? In other words, am I a hypocrite? —John Wesley, “Rules of the Bands” (1738), question no. 11 A. It is ironic, perhaps tragically so, that a critique of the scientific method and the phenomenon we call globalization is helpless to escape either of them. We do not want to create the impression that we wish to do without them. The scientific method and globalization are shadows, but not ones we scholars can lose the way Peter Pan might. Nevertheless, just as the presentation of data collected through scientific studies can be skewed to yield preferred results, we can choose how we will relate and relay information—specifically the gospel—to others on and across this third rock from the sun. B. It is also ironic, quite visibly so, that two Euro American ministers and inter- disciplinary scholars are critiquing globalization and the scientific method at an academic conference. Globalization, the scientific method, and our shared privilege within systems which perpetuate them both empower us to travel to California and to pontificate as if on a whim.2 II. Scientific Methodism C. The scientific method and globalization are hardly new. In a sense, this quest for 1. See John Wesley, "Rules of the Bands" (1738), in The Methodist Societies: History, Nature, and Design, ed. Rupert E. Davies, vol. 9 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976– ), 77f. 2. This paper was originally presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Wesleyan Philosophical Society (WPS), held on March 10, 2016 at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, CA. The conference theme was “Thinking about the Book of Nature: Developing a Philosophy of Science and Religion,” prompting a key question, What are the assumptions and methodology of the scholarly work in science and religion? Given that many WPS members themselves come from Wesleyan traditions, our allusions to John Wesley throughout the essay assume relative familiarity with his work. 1 A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 2 knowledge and the systematic spread of the same share their origin with the human species.3 The series of “enlightenments” which led up to the time of John Wesley (1703–1791) empowered a provincial preacher to gain an Oxford education and to become a veritable hunter-gather of proto-sociological data: whether investigating people or plants, or pioneering foreign missions to the New World, or probing the medical usefulness of electricity. It is more than incidental that Wesley’s experiment which began with the Holy Club and later groups of classes, bands, and societies would be dubbed Methodism. D. Modern philosophy and sociology, the primary disciplines concerning this presentation, developed more recently. In the generation after Wesley, Immanuel Kant (1724– 1804) and Auguste Comte (1798–1857), the “fathers” of modern philosophy and sociology respectively, changed the way we think about the world and our place in it. In lieu of a primer for the past two and a half centuries, consider that it is from their hands that we have taken the cyclical principles of forming and refining hypotheses by carrying out experiments and employed them largely in pursuit of a priori truths: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.”4 E. Indeed, Comte’s initial term “social physics” (physique sociale) illustrates his vision for the methodical study of society—believing that knowledge is only valid to the extent that it is verifiable—the creed of what we now know as positivist sociology codified under Emilé Durkheim (1858–1917). Conversely, notable anti-positivists like Max Weber (1864–1920) and 3. Consider, for example, two classic texts: “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 2–3 and Charles Darwin’s concessions regarding human faculties in The Descent of Man (1871). 4. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “a priori,” accessed September, 2019, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/a_priori . See Kant’s seminal works, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793); also Comte’s comprehensive System of Positive Polity, or Treatise on Sociology, Instituting the Religion of Humanity, (1851–1854, 4 volumes). A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 3 Georg Simmel (1858–1918) find positivist methods to be reductionist. F. Although the Wesleys did not live to interact with any of these specialists, we in the succeeding Wesleyan movements have been largely complicit, even tacitly so, to an all- consuming (anti-)social agenda via the scientific method. Our major caveat has been that we claim to value human experience, at least for theological reflection, as part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Do we? Or have we allowed our global missions to be co-opted by not-so-covert quests to convert others to a way of thinking rather than a way of experiencing? G. In our pursuit of and/or struggle against universality, we risk reducing our fluid fourfold epistemology of divinity into a static polygon (see fig. 1), flow chart (see fig. 2), or diagram (see fig. 3)—a mere governing theory.5 That is, theologically we may wish to talk about the primacy of scripture in the face of tradition, reason, and experience—each more suspect than the former. Epistemologically, however, it is high time we Wesleyans acknowledged experience for what it is: inherently prior to the forms of reason and traditions through which we become hominum unius libri (people of one book). In other words, reason, tradition, and scripture comprise and inform one’s experience; experience is the only true starting point. In this way philosophy—particularly sociology—may help to strengthen the employment of our tenable yet sacrosanct Wesleyan methodology. 5. In the interest of portraying how the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is interpreted more broadly outside the academy, the following figures are specifically drawn from blog posts on the subject. Interestingly many, both Wesleyans and detractors alike, have reservations about the Quadrilateral at the same time they express a certain affinity for it. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 4 Figure 1. An illustration of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.6 Figure 2.1. Wesleyan Quadrilateral flow chart 1.7 6. Matt Brench, “The Three Streams Reconsidered,” Leorningcnihtes boc: The Blog of an Anglican Vicar, October 18, 2012, accessed September 3, 2019, https://leorningcniht.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/three-streams- reconsidered/. 7. Ben Simpson, “The Lost Book: The Wesleyan Quadrilateral Conundrum,” SBC Voices: Southern Baptist News and Opinion, January 6, 2014, accessed September 3, 2019, https://sbcvoices.com/the-lost-book-the-wesleyan- quadrilateral-conundrum/. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 5 Figure 2.2. Wesleyan Quadrilateral flow chart 2.8 Figure 2.3. Wesleyan Quadrilateral flow chart 3.9 Figure 3.1. “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral intended for teaching junior high students.”10 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Matt Proctor, “Truth,” A Place for Simple Thoughts and Complex Responses, April 2, 2006, accessed September 3, 2019, https://proctorm.wordpress.com/2006/04/02/truth/. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 6 Figure 3.2. “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” Philip Brooks.11 Figure 3.3. So-called “Conservative Theology.”12 11. Philip Brooks, “Change the Name If We Must, But Keep the Method,” United Methodist Insight: A Forum for Discerning God’s Will for the United Methodist Church, May 29, 2015, accessed September 3, 2019, https://um-insight.net/perspectives/keep-the-method/. 12. Greg Smith, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” Love the Word, October 23, 2013, accessed September 3, 2019, http://revgregsmith.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-wesleyan-quadrilateral.html. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 7 Figure 3.4. So-called “Liberal Theology.”13 III. Experiencing Globalization A. Globalization 1. Although human populations have transported products and ideas across land and water for millennia, something unprecedented has happened over the last half century. Roland Robertson defined globalization in 1985 as the “compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole.”14 This “shrinking” and “flattening” of the world is expressed in economic, political, cultural, religious, and social forms. This is why bombings in Paris appear instantly in our news feeds and why Han Solo is a household name in China. 2. Still, globalization circulates far more than just cell phones or fashion. Globalization disseminates and privileges ideologies, epistemologies, methodologies, and philosophies, particularly neoliberalism and neoliberal economics. Policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), constrain the nation-state to adopt free-trade regulations and practices in order to engage in the global economy. Financially strained nation-states, as we have 13. Ibid. That Smith labels one (fig. 3.2) “conservative” and the other (fig. 3.3) “liberal” in terms of theology is itself an expression of the intellectual fixation with totalizing typologies vis-à-vis the scientific method— even such that one set of data be presented so that it may be dismissed in favor of another. 14. Ronald Robertson and JoAnn Chirico, “Humanity, Globalization, and Worldwide Religious Resurgence: A Theoretical Exploration,” Sociological Analysis 46, no. 3 (1985): 219–242. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 8 seen recently within the European Union, must agree to devaluing currency, lowering trade barriers, privatizing sectors of their economy, and permitting direct (even invasive) foreign investment. 3. Anti-globalization activists suggest that globalizations result in economic imperialism, promoting and exacerbating a system in which there are already winners and losers. Drawing upon post-liberal theorists, critics contend that globalization is the equivalent of Westernization or Americanization. Independent of one’s view of neoliberalism, it must be admitted that globalization facilitates the transacting of goods and ideas—both detested and celebrated ones. Capital and communications among terrorists move more and more quickly in proportion to the growth of networking technologies, so also do the gospel message, new cancer research, and aid for victims of natural disasters. 4. Epistemologically, the scientific method in the hands of neoliberalism, has benefited from the processes of globalization. Appropriating Weber, George Ritzer illustrates how efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control mechanisms—all of which are central to the scientific method—(co)operate (with)in globalization. Ritzer calls this McDonaldization.15 These traits are privileged nearly everywhere: in the fast food industry, strategies of evangelism, rational choice theories, political campaigns, health care, and, again, even this very presentation. In the behavioral sciences, quantitative analysis and ‘scientific’ studies are viewed as more legitimate.16 Even in evangelism the importance of quantifying and making efficient the conversion of sinners has trumped qualitative emphases on discipleship. 15. See George Ritzer, The McDonaldization of Society (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2014); for a correlative theological reflection, see David Hadley Jensen, “The Big Mac™ and the Lord’s Table: A Theological Interpretation of Globalization,” Insights: The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary 122, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 3–11. 16. This occurs in professional counseling, for example, by endorsing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy over psychoanalysis. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 9 B. Glocalization 1. This is not to say that local context is helpless only to follow suit or that it does not matter. On the contrary, localized societies often assert themselves despite the monopolization of globalizing traits, entities, and forces. For just such a purpose Robertson coined the term glocalization to refer to the ways in which a locality flavors otherwise homogenizing global processes.17 The business world calls this micromarketing: customizing products to be relevant within a local environment. 2. We have already showed our hand, but it has become customary when discussing micromarketing to target the fast food industry. Far be it from us to disappoint our customers. Almost unilaterally, food chains make accommodations to their menu items in order to be more palatable to local cultural norms, both regionally and internationally. 3. Yet, two caveats bear mentioning with respect to glocalization. a) First, consider that although McDonald’s may offer predominantly vegetarian items in certain areas of India, it is still McDonald’s. Globalization benefits in its form even though its content changes. b) Second, although globalization has fueled human agency in ways never before possible—for example, a tech savvy 17-year-old who can potentially hijack some governmental website twelve time zones away—such agents must do so in subservience to forms of globalization. While glocalization permits localized expressions of agency within the confines of globalization, one must nonetheless have access to resources and a baseline knowledge of how to utilize them. In this way, even a predominantly anti-positivist sociologist and an opera singer can call for a Wesleyan appreciation for experience today. 17. See Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1992). A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 10 4. There are alternative epistemologies and methodologies that are endangered and threatened in a globalizing world. a) For example, the forces of homogeneity are costly to languages, some 3,000 of which have been deemed vulnerable. The implications for language loss are significant not only to formal languages such as Xhosa or Zulu, but also to theological, political, scientific, or epistemological dialects.18 In our view, providing space for alternative epistemologies and languages which are not aligned with the homogenizing forces of globalization is consonant with the Christian obligation, in John Wesley’s words, “to contemplate what [God] has wrought, and to understand as much of it as we are able.”19 b) Furthermore, globalization in the hands the scientific method effectively mows down whole people groups whom scientists would otherwise wish to study. A rather stark case in point (or at least we hope not) would be the Cofán tribe in the Amazon who have developed a taxonomy for identifying curative plants based purely on listening to the sounds they make on a full moon.20 IV. Upholding Common Commitments A. As we witness the envelopment of whole ecosystems and economies in service to world trade and world powers we Wesleyans would do well to renew our singularity of purpose toward the shared experience of sanctification.21 1. When reflecting on Jesus’ conversation with Martha (cf. Luke 10:42) Wesley suggested 18. For a cloying example in the English-speaking world, see Barbara Johnson, Speaking Pittsburghese: The Story of a Dialect (New York: Oxford, 2013). 19. Wesley, God’s Approbation of His Works (1782). 20. Wade Davis, “Dreams from Endangered Cultures,” TEDTalk (February 2003), accessed September 3, 2019. http://www.ted.com/talks/wade_davis_on_endangered_cultures/transcript?language=en/. 21. “The One Thing Needful” (1734), II.4. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 11 the view that “surely [creation was] designed to be busied about many things” only to issue the surprising claim that only, “‘One thing is needful!’”22 That is, our sanctification. 2. Just because this ‘needful’ experience of Christian perfection is (or ought to be) common to all believers, however, does not make it uniform. Wesleyans assent to this.23 We should act as though such multiplicity and contingency actually matters. The Wesleys went to great lengths to develop a theology of holiness in which individual testimonies were their primary source for empirical data. This informs why in one of Wesley’s bands when asked “What known sins have you committed since our last meeting?” one was also expected to report “How were you delivered?”24 Wesley’s soteriological perspective was anything but prescriptive. B. As we come to understand our present scientific methodologies to be socially located within a globalizing system of power, we would do well to become like Wesley’s “stupid, senseless wretch”25 from the sermon “The Means of Grace” (1746). That is, in exercising due diligence with regard to experience, we ought to prioritize the means of hearing, meditation, and conversation in place of other often more liturgically and/or ‘jargonically’ constrained ones. The manner rather than the order of salvation takes precedence.26 1. As we reconsider the gravity within the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, we should also be 22. “The One Thing Needful” (1734), 1–2. 23. See, for example., Wesley, “The Almost Christian” (1741). 24. Wesley, “Rules for the Bands,” mandatory question nos. 1 and 3. 25. “The Means of Grace” (1746), V.1–4. 26. Ibid., V.1. There is also evidence of such a distinction among contemporary Wesley scholars. Consider that Kenneth Collins has occasionally elected to call Wesley’s soteriology an ordo salutis (cf. Collins, “A Hermeneutical Model for the Wesleyan Ordo Salutis,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 19, no. 2 [Fall 1984]: 23–37, The Wesley Center Online, accessed September 3, 2019, http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesleyjournal/1984-wtj-19-2.pdf) while others like Randy Maddox have opted for the term via salutis (cf. Maddox, Responsible Grace:John Wesley’s Practical Theology [Nashville: Abingdon, 1994], 157–158). In pointing out this discrepancy we do not wish to resurrect other well-worn debates, rather we wish to demonstrate precedent within Wesleyan theology for raising similar epistemological concerns in terms of Wesleyan philosophy. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 12 prepared to reconsider any suppositions we have about Christ’s gospel. As Wesley admonishes the evangelist to some such “stupid, careless sinner”: “[I]t wholly depends upon whether [the means of grace] should convey any grace at all to the user, it behooves us, first, always to retain a lively sense that God is above all means” and that God “can convey . . . grace, either in or out of any of the means . . . appointed.”27 2. In this way, as we continue our intellectual pursuits, we would do well to recognize the scientific method as a (i.e., one of the many) means of grace, among “all God’s providential dispensations.”28 In so doing, however, we must also confess “There is no power in this,”29 particular means of grace (except to our detriment when we abuse it) over and/or against other epistemologies. 3. Furthermore, as we accept and alter our approach to the gracious means of the scientific method, we must not confuse the method—the means—with the ‘free grace’ itself and so to “overthrow the whole Christian revelation, by making it contradict itself”30 That is, in recognizing the contingency of any one epistemology we must not take the scientific method as a form of limited atonement for those of us who (are predestined to) opt into it. V. Embracing Particularity A. Rather, each of us would do well to work out one’s “own salvation” (Wesley’s emphasis) with fear and trembling (cf. Phil 2:12–13).31 B. Indeed, as the scientific method also compels us, each of us ought to be thorough— 27. Ibid., V.2, 4. 28. Wesley, “The One Thing Needful” II.4. 29. Ibid. 30. “Free Grace” (1739), 23. 31. “On Working Out Our Salvation” (1785), II.1. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 13 whatever our inherited way of experiencing God with us. We are at our best when we tend to more than just the positivist dictates of the scientific method in terms of justification—something God does “for us.” We must continue to embrace more fully the regenerative work of sanctification—the peculiar the work of God in us.32 1. As scholars a) We admonish our joint societies to investigate more broadly the experience of sanctification within our inherently contextual disciplines: philosophically, theologically, psychologically, historically, and liturgically. Too long has this pillar of our (in)famous Quadrilateral been at risk of becoming an addendum to our (im)pious science of God-talk, hanging on the memory of John Wesley’s ingenuity rather than any of our own. We invite you to pose the question in your respective field(s): “Did the Bible live in me today?”33 We owe it to ourselves and to our globalizing world to herald the value of any one person’s experience of God —all the more so since the distribution of powers increasingly leans toward the erasure of particularity. This charge is timely given the subject of our next annual meeting (in 2017): Wesleyan Ecclesiology—the gathering and building up of society/societies. b) Further, we call for the collective (re)imagination of “human nature” especially in anthropology, sociology, ethics, geopolitics, and other similar disciplines—both formal and informal—within our colleges of arts and sciences not already named by our societies. “Human nature,” and its so-called ‘fall’ have plagued the scientific method’s gaze upon its chief subject— ourselves. Just as experience is treated as highly suspect, so are humans. Each of us is too messy, too volatile, too unpredictable, too extraordinary to satisfy the standard deviations of normativity within our control groups. Our Wesleyan heritage impels us to live out our “social religion” by 32. Wesley, “The Great Privilege of Those That Are Born of God” (1748), 2. 33. Wesley, “Rules for the Bands,” question no. 6. A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 14 conversing with other persons, without whom our faith “cannot subsist at all.”34 2. As faith leaders a) We confess and call others to join us in confessing the ways in which we have and may yet be imposing our soteriologies/ecclesiologies on others—particularly our ‘target audiences.’ b) In response, even as penance, we charge our faith communities to imagine new ways to listen, to fast, to share hospitality, to pray, and otherwise to engage with others—particularly those who are socially distant from us such that we deign to call them them. VI. Concluding Carefully Finally, we call scientific and alternatively inclined Methodists everywhere to look upon all the world anew as our shared parish; taking from Wesley to mean that, [I]n whatever part of [the world] I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty to declare unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation. This is the work which I know God has called me to; and sure I am that [God’s] blessing attends it. Great encouragement have I, therefore, to be faithful in fulfilling the work [God] hath given me to do. [God’s] servant I am, and, as such, am employed according to the plain direction of [the] Word [cf., e.g., Acts 17:16–34; 1 Cor 9:19–23], ‘As I have opportunity, doing good unto all [humanity]’; and [God’s] providence clearly concurs with [the] Word; which has disengaged me from all things else, that I might singly attend on this very thing, ‘and go about doing good.’”35 34. Wesley, “Upon Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Discourse V” (1748), I.1; concerning “social holiness” cf. also the introduction to Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739) and Andrew C. Thompson, “From Societies to Society: The Shift from Holiness to Justice in the Wesleyan Tradition,” Methodist Review 3 (2001): 141–172. 35. Wesley, “Letter to James Hervey,” in “The Letters of John Wesley,” The Wesley Center Online, accessed September, 2019, http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1739/.  Bibliography Brench, Matt. “The Three Streams Reconsidered.” Leorningcnihtes boc: The Blog of an Anglican Vicar, October 18, 2012. Accessed September 3, 2019. https://leorningcniht.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/three-streams-reconsidered/. Brooks, Philip. “Change the Name If We Must, But Keep the Method.” United Methodist Insight: A Forum for Discerning God’s Will for the United Methodist Church, May 29, 2015. Accessed September 3, 2019. https://um-insight.net/perspectives/keep-the-method/. Collins, Kenneth. “A Hermeneutical Model for the Wesleyan Ordo Salutis.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 19, no. 2 (Fall 1984): 23–37. The Wesley Center Online. Accessed September 3, 2019. http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesleyjournal/1984- wtj-19-2.pdf. Davis, Wade. “Dreams from Endangered Cultures,” TEDTalk, February 2003. Accessed September 3, 2019. http://www.ted.com/talks/wade_davis_on_endangered_cultures/transcript?language=en/. Jensen, David Hadley. “The Big Mac™ and the Lord’s Table: A Theological Interpretation of Globalization.” Insights: The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary 122, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 3–11. Johnson, Barbara. Speaking Pittsburghese: The Story of a Dialect. New York: Oxford, 2013. Maddox, Randy. Responsible Grace:John Wesley’s Practical Theology. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. Proctor, Matt. “Truth.” A Place for Simple Thoughts and Complex Responses, April 2, 2006. Accessed September 3, 2019, https://proctorm.wordpress.com/2006/04/02/truth/. Ritzer, George. The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2014. 15 A World of Difference Lillie and Perabeau 16 Robertson, Roland. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1992. Robertson, Ronald and JoAnn Chirico. “Humanity, Globalization, and Worldwide Religious Resurgence: A Theoretical Exploration.” Sociological Analysis 46, no. 3 (1985): 219– 242. Simpson, Ben. “The Lost Book: The Wesleyan Quadrilateral Conundrum.” SBC Voices: Southern Baptist News and Opinion, January 6, 2014. Accessed September 3, 2019, https://sbcvoices.com/the-lost-book-the-wesleyan-quadrilateral-conundrum/. Smith, Greg. “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” Love the Word, October 23, 2013. Accessed September 3, 2019. http://revgregsmith.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-wesleyan- quadrilateral.html. Thompson, Andrew C. “From Societies to Society: The Shift from Holiness to Justice in the Wesleyan Tradition.” Methodist Review 3 (2001): 141–172. Wesley, John. The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976– .