Bucky Rogers

The Contributions of John Haynes Holmes and Clarence Russell Skinner to Early 20th Century Liberal Theology: Valuing the Writings of Parish Ministers

Today we know that an atom is composed of electrons and protons, and that these particles, if they may be called such, are the negative and positive charges or units of electrical energy. The apparent mass, form and weight of objects in the physical world are due to the number and arrangement of the electrons and protons within the atom, and to the varying velocities at which they move. In other words the atom is not a solid and indivisible substance at all but an aggregation of units of energy. Which means that matter has no reality! It is neither eternal nor ultimate, but merely a temporary and local expression of energy.1

Liberal religion in America is rooted in the findings and achievements of academic institutions, but its advancement is not thanks solely to them. Biblical criticism in the 19th century and theological integration with natural scientific discoveries of the 20th century have been defining factors in the development of liberal religion, and both have taken place
1 John Haynes Holmes 1879-1964. Rethinking religion. New York: Macmillan Co, 1938. Print. pp. 138.

primarily in the academy. Two parish ministers and Community Church leaders of the early 20th century, John Haynes Holmes and Clarence Russell Skinner, demonstrate that novel expression of theological concepts in liberal religion was not limited to the academy, but took place in the works of parish ministers as well. This paper will chronicle specific contributions of Holmes and Skinner to liberal religion in the early 20th century, and seek to answer the question of whether their efforts deserve greater recognition than either currently receives in the realm of the history of liberal religion. Neither is currently included in survey accounts of the development of liberal religion of this time period in any depth and neither has had a full-length biography written about them. Is such a status indicative of their ranks as early 20th century liberal theologians in America? Have they been overlooked by contemporary historians because so much of their thinking and writing was done outside of the context of theological journals? Should they be credited with contributions to liberal religion as separate from their theological writings? In the final evaluation, despite their breadth of work, it is difficult to find evidence that Holmes and Skinner made novel contributions to liberal theological scholarship on the level of those who are currently held n that pantheon. However, as parish ministers during this era they performed valuable experimentation and were able to translate the conclusions of liberal theology into their practice of liberal religion in important ways. Without their preaching and organizing, the institution of liberal religion in America would be weaker than it is today; for that reason, they are deserving of further study. In the true spirit of Unitarian Universalist teachings, they should be held up for their deeds, not their creeds. In order to evaluate whether Holmes and Skinner are given proper attribution for their theological works, we must first state the degree to which they are currently recognized by 21st century historians. Let us examine two works of contemporary historical scholarship from the last decade, one detailed and one general, to determine how they are currently

perceived by historians. We will begin with Gary Dorrien's in-depth examination of American liberal theology between 1900 and 1950 and then consider Paul Rasor's more succinct evaluation of contemporary liberal religion, noting Holmes' and Skinner's place in each. In Gary Dorriens 660-page tome The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity, John Haynes Holmes is mentioned both politically and theologically only in response to Reinhold Niebuhr2. While Niebuhr is clearly the more influential theologian, Holmes, as we will see below, advanced the work of other important theological thinkers. Holmes' most significant role model in pursuing ministry was Theodore Parker. Parker has his own chapter (along with Ralph Waldo Emerson) in the first volume of Dorrien's trilogy on American liberal theology. Throughout his career, Holmes emulated not only Parker's radical political stances, but also his advancement of liberal theology. Parker did a great deal for introducing Biblical criticism and modernity into mid-19th century American religion while simultaneously taking the stance of radical abolitionism; analogously, Holmes helped to articulate and advance what we now know as process theology at the same time as he stood up for pacifism in the face of America's entry into two World Wars. This question of how Holmes' career and writings compare to Parker's is an important one for determining his historical legacy- we will revisit it near the conclusion of this paper. Skinner's place in Dorrien is even less prominent than Holmes'- he is not mentioned in the book at all. Many factors, including Skinner's only having written three books, are likely to have contributed to this. Additionally, Skinner's influence was primarily on the Universalist religion, which was in decline during his years of leadership and eventually found itself with little choice other than merger in order to retain existence and relevance.
2 Gary J. Dorrien. The making of American liberal theology : idealism, realism, and modernity, 1900-1950. 1st ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Print.

The exclusion of Holmes and Skinner from Dorrien's early 20th century liberal religion work makes sense in light of that author's stated emphasis on the liberal theology done in academic institutions (he calls Union Theological Seminary, University of Chicago Divinity School and Boston University School of Theology the three anchors of early 20th century liberal theology). Theology was still being advanced by writers outside the academy as well, and this paper will demonstrate why excluding ministers from the discussion of theology in this period is inaccurate and damaging. Paul Rasor mentions neither Holmes nor Skinner in his overview of modern liberal religion, Faith Without Certainty. Neither does he write about Theodore Parker or Alfred North Whitehead, so it is difficult to judge how he might evaluate all but the upper pantheon of religious liberals in this period. Rasor's is an attempt to provide an overview of modernity in religion for a lay audience, and as such a difficult barometer for the historical credence given to some theologians. However, his book does demonstrate that a bias towards academic theologians exists not only with authors writing from within the academy themselves- Rasor is a fellowshipped Unitarian Universalist minister. Although he works at the Center for the Study of Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College, Rasor has undergone the training and formation required of ministerial candidates, unlike most religious studies professors. Thus, if there is a bias to be corrected here, it must be corrected across the entire spectrum of authors addressing liberal religious history, not just one sect. Having established where Holmes and Skinner currently are (or are not) in the canon of liberal theology, let us turn to assessing whether they are accurately placed there. Regarding John Haynes Holmes and his comparison to Theodore Parker, one must ask the question, was Holmes merely repeating or emulating Parker, without adding his own substance to liberal theology? In response, it must be noted that just as Parker drew on the most advanced European voices of his 19th century era (most notably Kant, Hegel and

Schelling), Holmes similarly drew on the work of Henri Bergson. Holmes quoted Bergson's book Creative Evolution in his own work, both in radio addresses and in his authorship. Holmes internalized and understood the advances that Bergson was making as they applied to theological thought and made them accessible in ways that few if any others at the time did. Let us examine what Holmes was able to write in regards to Bergson and how he used him in forming and articulating his own views on religion in order to evaluate whether his extrapolations on Bergson's work deserve such comparisons to Parker. Bergson's primary contribution to philosophy upon which Holmes drew was the former's conception of evolution. Bergson saw evolution as driven by a vital impulse, or vital force, in French an lan vital. According to Bergson's contemporary Carl Emil Wilm, the Frenchman's notion of a vital impulse was a ...tension or inner urgency which is the real driving force of evolution, the power behind the whole of things, without which there could be no change or development at all.3 Wilm emphasizes that for Bergson, Evolution means the genuine elaboration of novelty, an actual augmentation of reality, in which fresh items of being, unprecedented features, spring constantly into existence.4 Holmes knew from natural science that external, material being was not reality in the classically portrayed sense. But it was Bergson who allowed him to retain a theistic point of view. In studying Bergson's notion of creative evolution, Holmes came to believe that human beings were the point where life's energy encountered the descending movement of matter5. This led him to believing the coevolution of God and the world together, in a mutual process of self-creation.6 Bergson's own vision of evolution was based in natural science and augmented by a philosophical belief in a vital impulse that drove the process of evolution and the universe's becoming. His discussions were nuanced and slightly technical, often drawing on the
3 Emil Carl Wilm 1877-1932. Henri Bergson; a study in radical evolution. New York,: Sturgis & Walton, 1914. Print. pp. 87. 4 Ibid. pp. 92. 5 Holmes. pp. 159. 6 Ibid.

differences between Darwinian and Lamarckian points of view. Using the example of germs, Bergson described how generational change embodied the vital force of evolution that he pictured as foundational to its functioning, writing:

A hereditary change in a definite direction, which continues to accumulate and add to itself so as to build up a more and more complex machine, must certainly be related to some sort of effort, but to an effort of far greater depth than the individual effort, far more independent of circumstances, an effort common to most representatives of the same species, inherent in the germs they bear rather than in their substances alone, an effort thereby assured of being passed on to their descendants. So we come back... to the idea...of an original impetus of life, passing from one generation of germs through the developed organisms which bridge the interval between the generations.7 Holmes picked up on Bergson's view of this process as one of far greater depth than the individual in which that process and its results were passed on to their descendants and found that it fit effectively with his analysis of the social function of the church. Having already formulated his own notion of what he wanted the church to be in the world in his 1912 book The Revolutionary Function of The Modern Church, Holmes began thereafter and throughout his career to incorporate Bergson's view of creative evolution into the framework into which his church efforts fit. Holmes' efforts were able to simultaneously achieve two important tasks. First, he managed a combination of Bergson's philosophy with a spiritual interpretation. Combining views of evolution and progressive theology was a common stance at this time, but no one else had picked up on Bergson's view of creative evolution to achieve the synthesis that Holmes did, which makes his a genuine and important theological contribution. Secondly, he made these teachings accessible, preaching them, putting them in radio addresses, and writing them in books accessible to laypeople. His interpretations were less technical than Bergson's.
7 Henri Bergson 1859-1941. and Arthur Mitchell 1872- tr. Creative evolution. New York: H. Holt, 1911. Print. pp. 87.

But his message did not suffer, and the clear persistence with which he articulated those notions helped his parishioners and other liberal religionists to see their work together as part of a broader process. Thus in the 1910's and throughout the early 20th century, Holmes was integrating and articulating the work of some of the most advanced philosophers of his time for a lay audience. But was he genuinely doing it in a new and different way? In order to determine whether the advances that Holmes made in read Bergson constitute a novel contribution to the era's scholarship, we must ask whether there is evidence that he wrote about process theology in Bergson before Whitehead or other theologians. His first major book, written in 1912, was The Revolutionary Function of the Modern Church. Its focus is primarily on the social gospel message (Holmes describes it as an argument for the essential identification of religion and the social question8), and it does not reference Bergson. Holmes continued to write about what he called the social question, and soon he found Bergson's work to be very helpful in creating and articulating his conclusions. Three years after publishing The Revolutionary Function, Holmes took up the social question from another perspective, iterating that humans lived after death through the impacts of their words and actions on their societies. Holmes' earliest mention Bergson in his published works appears to be in his 1915 book Is Death the End?: Being a Statement of the Arguments for Immortality. In Is Death the End, Holmes makes use of Bergson to reenvision God not as conscious and guiding, but aimless and without direction. In the process of describing God, Holmes relied on Bergson's vision of lan vital; Holmes used this vital impulse to distinguish a flowing and creative9 source of life, as distinct from the thinking, purposeful God10 of classical theology.
8 John Haynes Holmes 1879-1964. The revolutionary function of the modern Church. New York ;London: G.P. Putnam, 1912. Print. pp. v. 9 John Haynes Holmes 1879-1964. Is death the end? being a statement of the arguments for immortality; a justification, from the standpoint of modern scientific and philosophic thought, of the immortal hope; and a consideration of the conditions of immortality and their relation to facts and problems of present human existence, New York,London,: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1915. Print. pp. 140. 10 Ibid. pp. 140.

Holmes may have incorporated Bergson's teachings early on, but he was not a Bergson scholar- Bergson's work is only used as part of his broader articulation. However, it would be a mistake to say that Holmes employed Bergson's words for the sake of prestige or novelty. The different vision of God that he is able to provide with Bergson's help is a very important theological shift to Holmes' overall point in the book. Given this importance, his use of Bergson cannot be taken as merely peripheral but rather as critical to his growth and visioning as a theologian; Bergson was someone who Haynes read and used carefully, understanding the radicalness of the Frenchman's vision11 and incorporating it into his own teachings over the course of more than three decades. Roger Wellington Holmes, Holmes' son and a professor of philosophy at Mount Holyoke College, also emphasized Bergson's importance to his father. The younger Holmes compared Bergson's influence on his father with that of Herbert Spencer, his father's chief 'mentor'12, writing that he was impressed and moved by the creative evolution of Henri Bergson and its religious implications.13 Having demonstrated that Holmes' use of Bergson was not trivial, there are two other principle questions to address in deciding whether Holmes' writings could be considered worthy of a greater position in the history of liberal religion in the early 20th century: Did Holmes write about Bergson before other theologians of his era? How original was Holmes' take on Bergson when he wrote it? Let us take up these questions in turn to determine what special claim our subject might have to scholarly and theological novelty in his era. As stated above, Holmes first use of Bergson was in 1915 in Is Death the End, in which he employed that thinker's vision of creative evolution to describe a God more compatible with his social view of human existence. Let us compare this chronology to some of Holmes' contemporaries in process thought.14 John Dewey references Bergson for the first
11 Holmes referred to Bergson's vision and not his conception, because Bergson is more of a seer than a systematic thinker.- Ibid. pp. 140. 12 John Haynes Holmes 1879-1964., et al. A summons unto men : an anthology of the writings of John Haynes Holmes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971. Print. pp. 15. 13 Ibid. pp. 15. 14 Process thought is used here as opposed to process theology because of Dewey's largely humanist

time in 1925 in his book Experience and Nature.15 Dewey uses Bergson peripherally, and in less depth than Holmes does in Is Death the End. Bergson influences Dewey but he is not centrally important to his philosophy. Dewey should not be supplanted by Holmes in any intellectual history of early 20th century America; Holmes did not make theological or religious contributions that were on par with Dewey's alterations of the religious landscape. But in terms of process thought, Holmes deserves recognition for his early integration of the prominent themes of continental philosophy and social views of religion. The other most prominent process thinker of this era to whom Holmes draws natural comparisons is Alfred North Whitehead. Whitehead was eventually rightfully credited with having done a good deal more with Bergson's notion of creative evolution. However, Holmes not only wrote about Bergson earlier than Whitehead but also made significant use of his ideas before they made their way into Whitehead's work. Whitehead's writings do not reference Bergson until the Tarner Series of lectures at Trinity College he gave was published in 1920. While clearly Whitehead is aware of Bergson and his work, he does not expound on his ideas to the same extent as Holmes, and does not articulate them in full book form until his writing of Religion in the Making in 1926, and further in his essay Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology in 1929. Still, in these cases, he does not discuss Bergson specifically, rather advancing his ideas in a more general sense. Whitehead is given ultimately given greater credit for process theology's advancement with good reason. But it appears that in the 1910s, after Bergson published Creative Evolution in 1911, Holmes was one of the first if not the first thinker to pick up on the significance of his work and apply it to liberal theology. Given the chronology of Holmes' writings in relation to those of his process thought contemporaries, it is undeniable that he made novel contributions to process theology through
perspective. Dewey is used as an example in addition to Whitehead here to demonstrate Holmes' primacy not just in theology but in the broader North American intellectual discourse as well. 15 John Dewey 1859-1952. Experience and nature. New York: Dover, 1958. Print. pp. 50.

his use of Bergson's vision of creative evolution. As examined above, his use of Bergson was also meaningful in advancing the understandings of liberal theology in early 20th century America- he cited Bergson not merely in order to sound like he understood the intellectual framework he was supposed to, but because he found in Bergson something that genuinely resonated with him and helped him to more thoroughly and with greater nuance articulate his theology. He took that understanding and applied it to a major question of the period, that of the social gospel, and followed his first book on the subject with one that framed it in this light. While Is Death the End has received little lasting attention historically16, it contains an important syncretization of the message of the social gospel and that of process theology. This was not trivial, as it addressed a central question of the period. Many liberal theologians were seeking at this time to answer the question of whether they were too individually focused. In writing about both immortality and process thought, Holmes brought together some of the different answers that were being proposed into a coherent set of ideas. Those ideas inspired him, his followers and several colleagues to stoke the Community Church movement for several decades of his life. So why has his thought not been lauded to a greater extent in subsequent decades? Let us pause and take a look at his views on immortality for clues regarding the answer to that question. In my reading I have found two primary reasons why Is Death the End may have been less than wholeheartedly embraced by scholars and colleagues. The first is that it dances precariously close to taking the notion of immortal life literally for liberal taste. Not all the language Holmes uses regarding his goals in writing the book or his views on what he takes immortality to mean is entirely metaphorical. He writes I want to live on an on, simply because I am sure that within a narrow span of seventy or

16 Holmes' page in the on-line Dictionary of Unitarian and Universalist Biography does not list Is There Life After Death among the notable books he published. A Summons Unto Men, the anthology of his writings published posthumously by his colleagues, excerpts that book only very briefly, and combines its view of immortality with The Affirmation of Immortality, another book Holmes wrote three decades later.

eighty years I never can learn all I want to learn, do all I want to do, or love all I want to love.17 This reasoning and these hopes begin to sound to sound suspiciously literal. Yet in the final evaluation, Holmes' view comes across as such because he takes very seriously the eternal nature of the soul and the permanence of the project of creative evolution in which we are all engaged. He believes that there is something in humans that lives on after death and that we are perpetually part of the process of God's and the Universe's becoming. These are not views that clash with modernist efforts at metaphorical interpretation, but rather sustaining beliefs which other liberals give us no specific grounds for dismissing. The second aspect of his writing that has hindered its staying power is that he writes about evolution in a teleological fashion. Evolution, he writes, as the method of life upon this planet, is not a madness inconsistent with its own system of harmonious order, but a motive, or purpose, directed to an end.18 Part of the point that Bergson and others (including Holmes) were making at this time was that evolution was random, creative, generative, flowing, not pre-scripted and oriented towards a final end goal or favoring certain traits over others. However, Holmes' point of view should not be taken as such; the goal of which he writes is in fact the immortal soul, that is, the end goal of this process of evolution is the developing of that which is eternal, not some final stopping place. Having examined these objections, and the solid additions that this book and others Holmes wrote made to liberal theology in the early 20th century, we have established solid ground for the claim that he deserves a more prominent place in our historical memory of the era. Being thus confident in Holmes' deserving a more prominent place in liberal religious history, can we say the same thing about Clarence Russell Skinner? The most obvious analogy in Skinner's writing to Holmes' novel use of Bergson would be Alfred North Whitehead. Skinner quotes Whitehead on the title page of his 1945 edition of A Religion for
17 Holmes. pp. vi. 18 A Summons Unto Men, pp. 114.

Greatness, that I hazard the prophecy that that religion will conquer which can render clear to popular understanding eternal greatness in the passage of temporal fact.19 However, Skinner does not expound on his understanding of Whitehead's philosophy explicitly in the book. In The Essential Clarence Skinner: A Brief Introduction to His Life and Writings by Charles Howe, Whitehead is mentioned only regarding the inspiration Skinner took from his famous quote that: Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things; something which is real, and yet waiting to be realised;"20. Skinner's writing shows a deep understanding and synthesis of process thought with the social role he envisioned for the church, but it was not novel in its building on other thinkers of his era. Skinner did a great deal for Universalism and creating a lasting impact for that religion and its doctrine, but his work was not written in a way that is comparable or analogous to Holmes' treatment of Bergson. Although Skinner may not have made contributions to liberal theology in direct response to other thinkers, his articulations of liberal religious principles in an inspiring fashion was noteworthy. His writings appear often in contemporary UU readings and prayers, especially ones that focus on creating a new and more accessible God for a new era of social and scientific human understanding. For example, he continues to inspire congregations with his quote A democratic people demand a democratic God, a robust deity who likes his universe, who hungers for fellowship, who is in and of and for the whole of life...21 While Skinner is rightfully left out of the conversation of influential liberal theologians for his era in terms of who advanced the discipline in novel and significant ways, he should by no means be forgotten, especially by those seeking inspiration and sustenance in carrying forward the project of liberal religion today.
19 Clarence Russell Skinner 1881-1949. A religion for greatness. Boston: Universalist Pub. House, 1945. Print. 20 Clarence Russell Skinner 1881-1949. and Charles A. Howe 1922-. The essential Clarence Skinner : a brief introduction to his life and writings. Boston: Skinner House Books, 2005. Print. pp. 64. 21 Clarence Russell Skinner 1881-1949. The social implications of Universalism. Boston: Universalist Historical Society and Beacon Press, 1965. Print. pp. 21.

One further measure of importance that may help us to determine whether and how Holmes and Skinner are thought of today is the Required Reading list for the Unitarian Universalist Association. Skinner's Social Implications is on this list, but not anything written by Holmes. Given how well adroitly Skinner speaks to liberal religionists throughout the ages in his work, how effectively he continues to inspire seekers in today's world, his place on this list can be considered well-earned. Holmes' absence on this list, however, in light of the degree to which he can be appropriately compared to Theodore Parker in his novel usage of his era's philosophy and persistent embrace of radical political stances, should be seen as an oversight. A classmate of mine (who had not yet taken this course) lamented last year that 20th century UU thought was much less interesting than 19th century. All of our good, influential thinkers, this person reasoned, lived during the 19th century. John Haynes Holmes is perhaps the best counter-example to this worry. Though he was not in ministerial fellowship as a Unitarian for much of his career, he began there, accepted honors from them after retirement, and was part of a movement that was cited by the Commission on Appraisal. Both of the markers we have used in this paper for evaluating whether a thinker is historically valued, presence in historical surveys and on the MFC reading list, leave Holmes off. His inclusion in a survey like Dorrien's would create a more full and accurate picture of liberal religion in the early 20th century, and having him on the MFC reading list would demonstrate an appropriate level of pride in his contributions to the UU tradition. In order to determine what might be a suitable comparison for Holmes' position in the canon of liberal religion, let us return to our discussion of him alongside Theodore Parker. As noted in the introduction, Theodore Parker was an analogous religious thinker to Holmes, yet receives a great deal more attention. Having demonstrated Holmes claim to novel and significant contributions to liberal theology, let us revisit his comparison to Parker in order to

recalibrate the former's place in history. Parker perhaps receives more recognition for his political stances because his cause (abolition) was achieved within two years of his death with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, whereas pacifism has no such milestone to which to point. Should Holmes then be ignored because he was less successful in fighting for what he believed in? Is such the standard by which we wish to judge our prophetic voices of the past? What grounds, then, are we left with for giving Parker his own chapter in a survey of liberal religion and relegating to Holmes to his current status as Niebuhr's more politically and theologically radical older colleague? Holmes, we can conclude, has not been given sufficient credit historically for his work. As a prolific writer and preacher and persistently engaged social leader, he undeniably shaped both his own era and the future of liberal religion. In addition to his work as a writer and minister, Holmes worked persistently for interfaith understanding with his close friend Rabbi Stephen Wise. He carried on a long correspondence with Mohandas Gandhi, introducing America to that great man's teachings. Perhaps most significantly for his legacy, Holmes was a founding member of both the NAACP and the ACLU. His Community Church movement did not outlive him in a significant manner, but these organizations certainly have. He was able to plant something of lasting and considerable worth to the cause of liberalism in both those institutions. These achievements should be held up to the same degree as Parker's radical convictions, especially given that Parker's church-building efforts were no more successful in terms of longevity than the Community Church movement. I was formerly inclined to agree with my classmate that 20th century UU thought does not, unfortunately, contain the influence and depth of 19th century writings in that same lineage. Transcendentalism is unique amongst American contributions to the study of theology, not to mention those of a specific denomination. But a new Transcendental

philosophy was not what was called for in the era of Holmes and Skinner. Instead, those ministers responded to the trend of integrating scientific and social teachings with religion and experimented with new and different ways to bring their prophetic voices into the world. Some of the institutions they created survived and flourished while others only inform us by their absence. Reflecting on their work nearly one hundred years after each began writing books as prospective minister in these authors' tradition, I am proud of the work they did. Naturally, a century later, there are also elements of their writings I am uncomfortable with. Specifically, I would like to have the opportunity to look more closely at Holmes' ideas about evolution and how they relate to his theology. I sense that some of the neo-Lamarckian teachings that Bergson was basing his interpretations of evolution on are scientifically incorrect in the present day, but I do not know which ones, specifically. Which of his evaluations do not hold up today? How does that affect Holmes' use of Bergson? How much of Holmes' framework must be discarded because of a scientifically inaccurate basis for it? Even without a biologist's background, closer comparison of Bergson's understanding of evolution with the accepted tenets of that discipline today could be fruitful. Writers from each era who base their theology on science of that era inevitably end up with holes in their work as scientific understanding progresses from where it was during their time- this fact should not disqualify Holmes from being part of the liberal religious canon. But it does mean there is room to reexamine his writings and reevaluate their applicability. Overall, Holmes deserves greater historical recognition and Skinner is given approximately appropriate historical weight. Holmes' work on early process theology was novel and significant, and UUs and other historians of liberal religion should recognize it as such. Skinner would not add a great deal to the canon of his era's liberal religious history by his inclusion, but having his Social Implications on the MFC reading list is more than appropriate given his importance to Universalism and liberal religion.

Works Cited Bergson, Henri, 1859-1941., and Arthur Mitchell 1872- tr. Creative Evolution. New York: H. Holt, 1911. Print. Dewey, John, 1859-1952. Experience and Nature. New York: Dover, 1958. Print. Dorrien, Gary J. The Making of American Liberal Theology : Idealism, Realism, and Modernity, 1900-1950. 1st ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Print.

Holmes, John Haynes, 1879-1964., et al. A Summons Unto Men : An Anthology of the Writings of John Haynes Holmes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971. Print. Holmes, John Haynes, 1879-1964. Is Death the End? being a Statement of the Arguments for Immortality; a Justification, from the Standpoint of Modern Scientific and Philosophic Thought, of the Immortal Hope; and a Consideration of the Conditions of Immortality and their Relation to Facts and Problems of Present Human Existence,. New York,London,: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1915. Print. ---. Rethinking Religion. New York: Macmillan Co, 1938. Print. ---. The Revolutionary Function of the Modern Church. New York ;London: G.P. Putnam, 1912. Print. Skinner, Clarence Russell, 1881-1949., and Charles A. Howe 1922-. The Essential Clarence Skinner : A Brief Introduction to His Life and Writings. Boston: Skinner House Books, 2005. Print. Skinner, Clarence Russell, 1881-1949. A Religion for Greatness. Boston: Universalist Pub. House, 1945. Print. ---. The Social Implications of Universalism. Boston: Universalist Historical Society and Beacon Press, 1965. Print. Wilm, Emil Carl, 1877-1932. Henri Bergson; a Study in Radical Evolution. New York,: Sturgis & Walton, 1914. Print.