Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Ohio Yearly Meeting’

Before I present Ken Silva’s article, I want to present some background from my own experiences with Quakers. I grew up in what today is called the EFCI (Evangelical Friends Church Intl.), traditionally known as Gurneyite Friends. I thank the Lord that, between approximately 1854-1965, Gurneyite Friends held a born again, biblically sound Wesleyan Holiness theology – particularly in Ohio Yearly Meeting.

Unfortunately, the Evangelical Friends/Gurneyite Friends never completely broke away from the heretical heritage of the Quakers. I would estimate that from approximately 1930 on, Evangelical Friends leaders behind the scenes were increasingly pushing for more relations with non-evangelical (aka heretical) Quaker denominations.  These Evangelical Friends leaders were very hesitant to point out the history and heresy of George Fox’s “Inner Light” teaching (perhaps for fear of alienating nonevangelical Quaker denominations). Even today, Evangelical Friends professors and pastors paint George Fox  as a born again, biblically sound evangelist. This, despite the fact that Fox’s own writings show he was a heretical “Christian mystic.”

Only in recent years, after reading articles like the following by Ken Silva, did I realize just how heretical and nonchristian my own Quaker ancestors had been (prior  to 1854).

I would note that today the Quakers (both evangelical and nonevangelical denominations) vary widely in theology. Evangelical Friends speak very little of the Inner Light; many newer members have never even heard the term. Yet as we know, the Evangelical Friends have fallen head over heals in love with Spiritual Formation’s Richard Foster, who grew up, pastored and taught in the Evangelical Friends denomination.

I find it very odd that Foster chose to preach and teach among Evangelical Friends. His heretical teachings line up much more closely with two other major Quaker denominations, both considered nonevangelical: 1) the moderate Friends United Meeting (FUM) which nonetheless has many Christian universalists, and 2) the liberal Friends General Conference (FGC).

I’m sure Richard Foster fancies himself as walking in the footsteps of George Fox. It’s obvious in his various writings that Foster loves Fox’s “Inner Light” teaching. So what exactly did George Fox mean by the “Inner Light”, and why is this heresy so dangerous? Ken Silva explains, in his article reposted below. Click here for the original site of Silva’s article.

CONTEMPLATING THE INNER LIGHT OF THE QUAKERS (PT. 2)

By on Aug 25, 2008 in Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism, Features, Richard Foster

We now continue this examination of the history of the Quakers and their core doctrine of the Inner Light that is allegedly within all of mankind and which supposedly was “revealed” by God to their founder George Fox. In Part One I opened with testimony concerning current Quaker beliefs from author and mystic Dr. Mary Conrow, a third generation member of The Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers). We also got further corroboration through an article by Friend Anne K. Riggs which as of today (5/5/06) is found at the official Friends website Quaker.org.

Shedding Light On Quaker Origins

Dr. Riggs by the way is also co-editor of QUEST: Quaker Ecumenical Seminars in Theology. I then showed that the contemplative spirituality currently taught by Quaker Richard Foster is so consistent with the mysticism of New Age teachers and the meditation of Zen Masters that he is listed (as of 5/5/06) at the Living Spiritual Teachers Project among an odd assortment of heretics and unbelievers.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica brings out that the term “Quaker,” according to founder George Fox came to be applied to this group “because we bid [people] tremble at the word of God.” In addition however, it is “likely that the name, originally derisive, was also used because many early Friends, like other religious enthusiasts, themselves trembled [i.e. quaked] in their religious meetings and showed other physical manifestations of religious emotion” (9/838). This is confirmed in New Religions: A Guide while Richard Hoskins is teaching about a sect of “healers and ‘spiritual’ leaders” from the Dominican Republic called “The Ngunzist movement.” Hoskins tells us the “Ngunzists are often called trembleurs because of their ecstatic shaking (rather like the origin of the term Quakers) (55,emphasis mine).

Next, from his fine work Christianity Through The Centuries (CTTC) noted Church historian Dr. Earle Cairns tells us that:

The Quakers appeared on the English religious scene during the chaotic period of the Civil War and the Commonwealth. They set aside the doctrines of an organized church and the Bible as the sole and final revelation of God’s will in favor of the doctrine of the Inner Light, by which they meant that the Holy Spirit can give immediate and direct knowledge of God apart from the Bible (381, emphasis mine)

The well-respected Handbook Of Denominations In The United States (HOD) from Mead and Hill adds that the Quakers date “from the late 1650’s in England” and “ the Society of Friends, or Quakers, is an unconventional but esteemed Protestant body.” The Quakers are unique because “they affirm the ‘Inner Light,’ the spiritual nerve center that God has placed in every person.” As we saw in Part One as well “classical Friends deny the validity of clergy, liturgy, and sacraments” (140, emphasis mine). HOD then gives us a further historical background:

The Society of Friends began with the vision of George Fox (1624-91), a British seeker after spiritual truth and peace during the turmoil of the English Civil War and its aftermath. After failing to find satisfactory truth and peace in the churches of his time, Fox discovered what he sought in a direct personal relationship with Christ: “When all my hopes in [churches] were gone… I heard a voice which said, ‘That is the Inner Voice, or Inner Light, based upon the description of John 1:9: “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (KJV)” ‘ “ This voice, Fox maintained, is available to all and has nothing to do with the ceremonies, rituals, or creeds over which Christians have fought. Every heart is God’s altar and shrine (140,141, emphasis mine).

In World Religions: From Ancient History to the Present we find out further it was in the wake of “the struggle” within various religious sects following the Reformation that:

Quakerism was born. These “seekers,” [sound familiar?] as they called themselves, abandoned all traditional Christian outward forms – ministry, creeds, sacraments, liturgy, systems of theology – and waited in silence, meditating on the Bible until they felt the “inner light” of God dawning within them and the Holy Spirit to speak. In their small communities they stressed the comradely life of love and works or charity inspired by the mystical experience of Christ through the Spirit (445, emphasis mine)

The Divine Spark Emerges In The Inner Light

Christian researcher Ray Yungen shares an interesting bit of information about the Quaker Guru of Contemplation Richard Foster with us in A Time of Departing when he asks:

Just how influential has Foster become in Christian circles? For certain, his effect on the evangelical church cannot be overestimated. In a 1993 poll by Christianity Today, the magazine revealed that Foster’s book, Prayer: Finding The Heart’s True Home, was the number one most popular books with its readers. Astoundingly, this is the same book that well-known New Ager Rosemary Ellen Guiley has on her suggested reading list in the back of her book, The Miracle of Prayer (80).

Guiley is also the author of Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience (HEMPE) published by HarperSanFrancisco, the company that also happens to publish Foster himself. It should strike us as odd that a “Christian” sect should be found in such a secular publication devoted to spiritualism. And yet Guiley tells us in HEMPE that Quaker theology “stresses a personal, almost mystical knowledge of God and the workings of the Lord’s ‘inner lightwithin all people.” And Fox himself taught:

faith is based solely on firsthand knowledge of Christ as a living, personal reality, not on logic, reasoning, historical reporting, or even Scripture. This empirical proof came to be called the Quaker Way: the idea that worshippers need not consult preachers or the Bible to receive knowledge of the Holy Spirit–the so-called “inner light of Christpresent in every human heart (556, emphasis mine).

This idea in Quaker theology that every man has this alleged “Inner Light” is further corroborated in GREAT RELIGIONS of the World which tells us that Fox “insisted that the ‘light of Christ’ glimmered in all men” (375, emphasis mine) We’ll be coming back to this “inner light” that is supposed to glimmer “in every human heart,” but first, in his classic two volume set A History Of Christianity (AHOC) the great historian Kenneth Scott Latourette adds a bit more background information about the person through whom the Quakers originated:

Their founder was George Fox (1624-1691). Of humble birth, from boyhood he had heard Puritan preaching and had acquired an intimate familiarity with the text of the English Bible… For four years he suffered severe spiritual depression induced by the spectacle of human suffering,…and by the doctrine of predestination which he heard expounded from Puritan pulpits. By temperament a mystic, he was eager for direct and unhindered access to God… Eventually (1647) the light broke. He came to feel Christ could speak to “his condition,”… He believed that God is love and truth and that it is possible for all men so to open their lives to Him… [Fox] would follow and have others follow the Inner Light” (Vol. II, p. 822, emphasis mine)

The True Light Of Holy Scripture

The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. (John 1:9-10)

As we get set to shed additional light on the unique Quaker doctrine of the “Inner Light” we need to remember that George Fox was a seeker and a mystic by nature, well versed in the Scriptures, and a man who chose to rebel against solid Biblical preaching. This is actually not too unlike what we see leaders within the Emergent Church doing today. Fox apparently didn’t like the fact that God instituted an authority structure within the local church so he decided to seek the Lord on his own terms. And sure enough Fox finally hears what he wanted to hear all along as he tells us “I heard a voice which said, ‘That is the Inner Voice, or Inner Light, based upon the description of John 1:9: “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (KJV)” (HOD, 141). Not only that but this seducing spirit allows for Fox’s defiance of authority as well as he is told that this Inner Light “is available to all and has nothing to do with the ceremonies” of the local church. Then in the mystic tradition of classic Gnosticism Fox hears that all mankind has a spark of divinity because every human being “is God’s altar and shrine” (141).

This above information is extremely important to understand regarding the spiritual excesses of the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers). Now you should be able to see an aberrant view of mysticism is already rooted in the base theology of the Quakers. Their founder George Fox, who was himself prone to mysticism, wished for a “personal” approach “to God” that ended up being “apart from the Bible.” As such Fox began with his theology already turned backward by believing that it is man who seeks after God and as a result the Scriptures were forced to take a back seat to his own way of approaching the Lord. We need to carefully consider the above information. Fox is seeking a “direct” and “mystical experience” with God. Admirable yes, but it is the LORD God Almighty–the glorious and transcendent Creator of the universe–Who set the prescribed means of interacting with us through conscious prayer and His Words in Holy Scripture.

I will show you more about this “Inner Light” below, but notice that Fox was “eager” long enough while waiting “in silence” until “the light broke.” And he finally received his mystic delusion that “it is possible for all men” to “open their lives” to God. As I said, the “experience” of George Fox shoved the Truth of the Bible into a secondary place in favor of this mystical view that it is possible that “all men” are capable of opening themselves up to God. Clearly this would appear to be a reaction on his part to the strong Biblical “Puritan preaching” which assisted him in acquiring “an intimate familiarity with the text of the Bible.” For you see Fox has absolutely no excuse for missing this critical Truth from God’s Word:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.(Psalm 14:1-3)

And it’s not like this is some obscure passage the Puritans latched onto but is open to various interpretations, because it appears again in Psalm 53 below almost verbatim:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one (vv.1-3).

We aren’t able to escape this absolute Truth concerning the actual nature of mankind in the New Testament either. O the sappy sentimentality of new evangelicalism just loves to focus on the goodness of God and to tell us that He sent Jesus to meet our every need and to solve all of our problems. However, as I will continue to say, Christ Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator–the dreadful and awful–holy and majestic LORD God Almighty standing upon His planet. And concerning the fallen nature of humankind the Master unequivocally tells his Own disciples – “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:11)

And then Jesus even clarified what He meant by “though you are evil” as He says – “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly” (Mark 7:21-23). Why you’d almost have to think our Creator is trying to get a point across to self-centered and arrogant mankind when later the inspired Apostle Paul is led by God the Holy Spirit to pick up those very same passages in the Psalms mentioned earlier:

As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one (Romans 3:10-12)

You won’t hear all of this preached by e.g. by men like Joel Osteen in The Ecumenical Church of Deceit, but the bottom line in all this simply couldn’t be any clearer than Ecclesiastes 7:20 – There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins. Ah, that is except – Jesus Christ, the Righteous One (1 John 2:1). So tragically, because George Fox denied this clear teaching from God’s Word, two major and spiritually fatal flaws emerged in his theology. Out went the Pastoral Epistles for God’s prescribed method of spiritual leadership within His local churches; and instead of objectively judging all experience by Holy Scripture, “the Quaker way” became proper understanding of the Bible would be determined by subjective mystical experience in “the Inner Light.”

And it is this very same mortal theological wound of interpreting the text of the Bible by the spiritual experiences a given person may have that is also central to the postmodern approach of the Emergent Church, of which Richard Foster is unquestionably “a key mentor.” I’ve already pointed out that Foster considers mystic Teresa of Avila as one of “the great writers of the devotional life.” You will come to see that even this is also consistent with Quaker theology and interestingly enough, on the page prior to the coverage of the Quakers by Dr. Cairns in CTTC is a short piece about a mystic movement within “the Roman Catholic Church during the seventeenth century” that would come to be known as “Quietism.”

The Inner Light Reveals The Global Family

I now draw your attention to the fact that “the Inner Light” just happened to be a core teaching of this Quietism. Dr. Cairns informs us that this theological view within the Church of Rome:

emphasized an immediate intuitional approach to God by the passive soul opening itself to the influence of the inner light. It was a reaction to the emphasis on the rationalization of dogma. [Sound familiar?] Forerunners of the Quietists were Ignatius Loyola; the godly Charles Borromeo (1538-84), cardinal and archbishop of Milan; Teresa of Avila (1515-82); and Francis de Sales (1567-1622) of France… These mystics of the Counter-Reformation were succeeded by the Quietists of the seventeenth century. (ibid., 380, emphasis mine)

You can see that Teresa of Avila was prominent among those who influenced what would itself become a “quiet” reformation within the Roman Catholic Church and would end up bringing it further and further away from Biblical doctrine in favor of this mystic superstition. George Fox and the Quakers would somewhat parallel this quiet decent into the mystical silence of demonic deception. It’s a trap as old as the Garden of Eden where the Devil promises good will come to men who follow him in opposition to what God has said in the Bible. There have been mystical approaches to God virtually since the time of the Fall and the LORD God Almighty has already told us that rather than “emptying” our minds of all thought we are instead to – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30).

In AHOC Latourette also supplies another key piece of information in understanding the deadly flaw which has emerged from the theology of Fox when he brings out that “Fox and other Quakers insisted that every man who comes into the world is illuminated by an inner light which is Christ” (Ibid., p. 981, emphasis mine). Men and women, here we glean some critical insight into why we are seeing the reemergence of interest in Contemplative/Centering Prayer (meditation) within new evangelicalism. This above view by “Fox and other Quakers” is also indicative of the inevitable result of the practice of this “Christian” mysticism as well. Can you see it: If this alleged Inner Light is already within every man then we don’t have to risk persecution as we stand for the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Because now we will have opened the door to a universalism which negates any real need for anyone to have to be “born again.”

And here we have uncovered the reason why so many professing Christians today can believe that all religions should be friends now and seek our common ground as we work together to usher in “the kingdom” of God’s Global Peace. Take an honest look at the warped and toxic theology of men like Richard Foster, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Alan Jones, Steve Chalke and even the Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren–all men involved to one degree or another in the practice of contemplative spirituality. You see no bold stance on their part that the only way any human being anywhere upon God’s planet can ever be saved from an eternity of conscious torment in a literal place our Creator called Hell is personal faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His vicarious penal substitutionary atonement on the Cross. In fact, you will see in my article “Evangelicals” Attacking The Atonement it is actually quite the contrary.

Read Full Post »

[revised 09/19/12]
(formerly titled “A Great Cloud of Witnesses: A brief history of  the biblically sound Ohio Yearly Meeting (Gurneyite), 1854-1965”)

Update: In July 2011, the EFC-ER (Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Region) held its 2011 Yearly Meeting. And in July 2012  the EFC-ER commemorated its Bicentennial. Many EFC-ER members were thrilled to attend these events. Yet, many don’t realize there are serious heresies in the EFC-ER and the EFCI (Evangelical Friends Church Intl.) – as well as in almost all evangelical denominations today.

I would love to see the heads of the EFCI stand up at the EFC-ER Yearly Meeting, be honest and say something like this:

“Dear EFCI members, as a people of truth [in the Quaker tradition] we want you to know we’re becoming Emerging/Emergent. Except for some smaller churches in the EFC-ER, we have not continued to be  “conservative and evangelical” as our EFCI History page says. No, we are going in a new direction, a new, postmodern way of  “doing church” (as those in Northwest Yearly Meeting, especially, will attest). We will tell you the positions and beliefs of all of the Emerging/Emergent authors we quote in our colleges and seminaries, our sermons, our Sunday School lessons. And we are giving you the opportunity to get with this Emerging/Emergent program or leave the EFCI.”

Of course you will never hear the EFCI (or any other denomination) say this openly.

Am I angry with the EFCI proponents of Emerging/Emergent teachings? You bet! Read on.
————————————————————————————————–
Some in the EFCI (Evangelical Friends Church International) have suggested I be more “positive” in my denominational blogs.  Currently I don’t have very much positive to say about the EFCI, due to the involvement of most of its Regions in the following heresies. These are in roughly chronological order; dates are approximate:

1) Failure to confront and condemn Quaker Universalism (aka George Fox’s Inward Light/Inner Light teaching) in non-evangelical Quaker denominations (1948 on)
2) New Evangelicalism (1948 on)
3) Quaker ecumenism (1970 on)
4) Spiritual Formation (1978 on)
5) Emerging/Emergent/Emergence teachings (1995 on)
6) Postmillenial Emerging/Emergent/Kingdom Now eschatology (1995 on)
7) The Convergent Friends movement (1995 on)
8 ) Accommodation of an IHOP college group (2008 on)

In the EFC- ER’s favor, it seems the EFC-ER is still the most biblically sound of the EFCI Regions in North America.

In spite of my serious concerns over the EFCI, I loved the Ohio Yearly Meeting before it joined with other Yearly Meetings in 1965. (The Ohio Yearly Meeting was later renamed the Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Region [EFC-ER].)

Imagine a born again, biblically sound evangelical denomination that embraced Wesleyan-Holiness theology, that preached regular salvation messages, had altar calls at many services, witnessed to the unchurched at every opportunity, etc. Then imagine that, over the years, various individuals, in various ways, led the denomination astray from its biblically sound beliefs and practices. This is what I believe has happened in the EFCI. Can you blame me – and other “old timers” in the EFCI – for being upset? Those who have led the denomination astray have committed a great offense not only against the denomination, but against our Lord Himself. What an abomination!

In spite of my harsh words, it is not my purpose to be inflammatory and divisive here. I am providing this blog as an historical and doctrinal “baseline” so to speak, for what I favored in Quakerism as well as what I am blogging against. Read on.
———————————————————————————————-

Many discernment ministry articles (Ken Silva’s Apprising.org articles, for example) have criticized George Fox and the Quakers for the heretical, mystic teaching of  “the Inner Light” – and rightly so.

However, these critiques are not totally accurate. These articles have painted all Quakers as having held to the heretical teaching of “the Inner Light.”  There was a wonderful Quaker movement which did not – an anomaly if you will in Quaker history. I am proud to have been part of this movement: Gurneyite Friends, also called Holiness Friends (and later called Evangelical Friends) (1). The term “Holiness” comes from the Wesleyan-Holiness movement of the late 1800s.

I am compiling a list [at the bottom of this blog] of  my favorite Evangelical Friends individuals who have passed on to glory. Specifically, born again, biblically sound men and women of God. Many were preachers, preaching the Bible without apology, sharing the gospel of the Blood and the Cross, the gospel of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. Others were missionaries, going throughout the world to reach the lost for Christ. And yet others were denominational leaders who boldly stood up as fundamentalists against modernism, Quaker ecumenism, etc.

I am proud to have been a part of Ohio Yearly Meeting (OYM) prior to 1965. I believe it was the most biblically sound Quaker denomination in all of Quaker history. It was the only Quaker denomination/Yearly Meeting to ever officially condemn the heretical “Inner Light” teaching (in 1877 and 1879).

Timeline of Ohio Yearly Meeting (OYM) history

1812 – Quakers first settled in Ohio and formed OYM. (2012 marked their Bicentennial gathering.)

1828 – OYM Hicksite-Orthodox separation at Mount Pleasant, Ohio.  The Hicksites were extremely heretical. The other spin-off, those who preceded the Evangelical Friends in the timeline of Ohio Quaker history, were Orthodox Quakers (1828-1854).

Were the Orthodox Quakers “born again” in a biblical sense? No! Edward Mott,  one of my favorite Evangelical Friends, confirms this in his testimony.  Mott was a prominent Evangelical Friend and taught alongside J. Walter Malone in OYM.  Mott grew up in Glens Falls Quarterly Meeting in New York. George Fox DeVol, OYM missionary to China, also came from Glens Falls.

Now on to Edward Motts’ testimony. I have emphasized certain points by bolding:

Our Meeting services were held on the basis of silence, as it was termed in those days… In these there was no regular ministry, and often none at all. Occasionally a minister would break the silence with what was impressed upon his mind at the time. In this the Scriptures might be referred to but seldom read. There was no desk or place on which to rest the Bible, so he relied upon his memory for the most part. There was a fear that the use of the Bible might be of the letter and not of the Spirit.

The preaching was therefore not Scriptural as to its emphasis. The doctrines of the Gospel as stated in the Bible were given no special consideration. There was no preparation of sermon material; all must be immediate without precedent thought. The matters of interest were largely of a moral and social character. The betterment of society, local and at large, received careful consideration, but no appeal to the individual to accept the Gospel in a personal, experiencial [sic] manner reached my mind. The first Gospel sermon I remember was delivered in a local school house by a minister of another denomination. It was at this time that I was strongly impressed and convinced that I needed Christ as my Savior.” (Edward Mott, Sixty Years of Gospel Ministry, pp. 14,15)

Like most Gurneyites/Evangelical Friends since the 1850s, I believed there was an unbroken line of born again, biblically sound Quakers from George Fox to the present. But since leaving the EFCI, I have become convinced that most Quakers from George Fox through the Orthodox Quakers (including my own Quaker ancestors) are in Hell today, lost for eternity. Why do I say this? Because they rejected the biblical way to be saved. Throughout their history, Quakers were surrounded by preachers (and denominations) who presented the full gospel of salvation through a born again repentance-conversion experience. Several examples of “full gospel preachers” are John Bunyan (1628-1688), Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and Charles Wesley (1707-1788). Yet, instead of accepting Christ as Saviour, the Quakers chose to continue in their own heretical belief system, basing their faith on George Fox’s fabricated Inner/Inward Light, literally “that of Christ in every man.” And despite their Christian vocabulary, the supposedly “born again” writings of George Fox (1624-1691), Robert Barclay (1648-1690) and William Penn (1644-1718) contain many clues regarding their heretical, nonchristian Quaker teachings.

Evangelical Friends (today’s EFCI denomination) go through a process called conversion, and view Christ as Saviour and Lord. All other Quaker branches (and all Quakers from George Fox through the Orthodox Quakers) are non-evangelical; they go through a process of convincement, and view Christ as Teacher and Lord.  There is a huge difference!

Back to the subject at hand: I view the 1828 Ohio separation between Hicksite and Orthodox Quakers as a separation between a more heretical unsaved group and a less heretical unsaved group.

1837-1840– Joseph John Gurney tours Canada, the United States (including Ohio, Indiana and other states), and the West Indies.  Gurney played a major part in leading Orthodox Quakers in a more biblically sound direction. For example, he pushed for more Bible study, placing less emphasis on immediate revelation (aka the Inner Light).

1854 – Wilbur-Gurney controversy leads to a split in OYM (Orthodox) (2). The Gurneyite branch eventually becomes known as Evangelical Friends (today’s EFCI denomination). In the coming decades, large numbers of Gurneyite Quakers turn away from the nonexistent, heretical “that of Christ within,” accepting as Saviour the Living Christ, the One who died on the cross for our sins. By 1892, when J. Walter Malone began his Bible school in Cleveland, Ohio,  OYM could truly be called  a born again, biblically sound denomination.

But there were troubles brewing even in 1854. Looking back, it proved tragic that these born again, biblically sound Evangelical Friends continued to identify themselves with Quakers. I’m not sure exactly why they did not separate completely from what I call “the Quaker cult.” I do know the Evangelical Friends have been referred to as “more Wesleyan than Quaker” (and I thank the Lord for this). But for whatever reason (I do have some theories on this), the Evangelical Friends never took the step of becoming “Wesleyans who used to be Quakers.”

As a result of this non-separation, Evangelical Friends have always felt tension  between the non-evangelical (non-born again) “theology” of George Fox’s Inward Light/Inner Light/immediate revelation and the evangelical (born again) theology of the Wesleyan Holiness movement. Between referring to themselves as Quakers and condemning (rightly so) heretical Quaker groups. Between continuing to be called Quakers and (partially) separating themselves from heretical Quakers (all non-evangelical Quaker groups). Ultimately, because the Evangelical Friends did not completely separate from non-evangelical Quakers, the pendulum of Quaker separation/ecumenism began to swing strongly back towards Quaker ecumenism. A heretical milestone occurred in 1970 with the St. Louis Conference (see 1970 in the timeline below), where ecumenical ties were established  between Evangelical Friends and all non-evangelical Quaker groups.  What an abomination! But I’m getting ahead of myself – back to our timeline…

1860s – Friends renewal movement (Hamm, Transformation, pp. 96-97)

1867-1880 – Holiness Friends revival movement (Hamm, Transformation, pp. 96-97)

1869-1871 – David B. Updegraff begins his ministry, bringing Wesleyan Holiness teachings to OYM.

1877, 1879
– OYM condemns “Inner Light” teaching.

late 1800s – The Great Revival continues to draw many in the OYM into a closer born again relationship with Christ (3).

1892J. Walter Malone founds what eventually becomes Cleveland Bible College (4).

1895-1948 – Fundamentalists in the OYM and other denominations battle Modernism (7).

1895 – 1942 – Fundamentalist Gurneyites battle modernist Quakers. I am providing a lengthy excerpt from Hugh Barbour, Quaker Crosscurrents: Three Hundred Years of Friends in the New York Yearly Meetings, p. 213 (text available online).  I’m not sure why Barbour states 1895-1917 as the time period for the Quaker fundamentalist-modernist – I assume the answer can be found on p. 214 which is not available online. For now I prefer to set the ending date not at 1917, but at 1942 – the approximate year New Evangelicalism began ala the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). Many of the “fighting fundamentalists” among Gurneyites were passing away between 1917-1942. But I know Edward Mott was battling modernist Quakers and Quaker ecumenism up until his passing (1955) – or until whatever year he became incapacitated by age and infirmity (sometime between 1948-1955).

The following excerpt from Barbour’s New York history is a great description of the struggles of Gurneyite Quakers – including OYM – during this time period:

Between 1895 and 1917 the Gurneyite yearly meetings in the United States were embroiled in the same controversies between fundamentalists and modernists that the rest of American Protestantism experienced. Quaker modernists such as [Rufus] Jones attempted to “broaden” Quaker thought in a number of ways: [following are a few of their heresies] viewing the Atonement as an act of love rather than propitiatory justice; discounting biblical literalism; emphasizing the Social Gospel over evangelism through revivalism; and giving prominence to the Inner Light, a Quaker teaching that had almost been obliterated by the revival. They also gave new attention to Quaker history and reached out to Hicksite Friends. All of these were anathema to the [Gurneyite] holiness revivalists and their spiritual heirs among Gurneyite Friends, who were especially strong in Ohio, Iowa, Oregon, Kansas, and California yearly meetings. From the local meeting up to the yearly meeting, in sermons, in pamphlets, and in the pages of the liberal American Friend and the holiness Evangelical Friend, they fought over the future of Quakerism. After the Gurneyite yearly meetings (Ohio excepted) formed the Five Years Meeting in 1902, it and its boards and bureacracies became another battleground (39)(Hamm, Transformation, Ch. 7).

All evidence is that the holiness opponents of moderism were never very strong in New York. Edward Mott, the inflexibly fundamentalist editor [thank the Lord he was so “inflexible” – he is one of my Quaker “heroes of the Faith”] of the Evangelical Friend, was a native of Moreau, New York, but he spent his career in Bible colleges in Ohio and Oregon. There were some pastors trained at the Cleveland Bible Institute, such as Samuel Hodges and Fred Ryon, who blasted the growth of  “infidelity” and its proponents like Elbert Russell. Such currents were especially strong in Clintondale and Glens Falls. A few older Friends disliked the new developments as well. Alexander M. Purdy of Palmyra… was by 1907 blasting “so-called Friends” who were reframing the Atonement. “I ask where are we drifting?” he wrote to Mott. “May our heavenly Father save us from that kind of theology.” [The next page – p. 214 – unfortunately is not available online.]

Thomas D. Hamm provides a similar description of the period 1900-1947 (The Quakers in America, pp. 58-60, text available online):

Not all Gurneyite Friends approved of [liberal Quaker Rufus] Jones or his vision.  [In Ohio Yearly Meeting, very few Gurneyite Friends approved of Jones]. By 1900, many of the surviving leaders of the Great Revival, such as John Henry Douglas, Esther Frame, and Luke Woodard, were strong critics. They perceived Jones and his sympathizers as unenthusiastic about revivalism and prone to overintellectualizing religion… The most important opponent of Jones, however, was of his generation: J. Walter Malone. (49)[I don’t have the info for sources #49 – or for #50 or #51 below – the text of the footnotes is not available online]

Malone was born into an old Quaker family in southwestern Ohio in 1857 and moved to Cleveland as a young man, where he achieved considerable success in business. He and his wife Emma had become converts to holiness Quakerism, and in 1892 decided to use their wealth to found [Cleveland Bible College], a Bible college or “training school for Christian workers,” as they called it, which eventually became the Friends Bible Institute… The Malones and all of the teachers at Cleveland [at that time] were deeply suspicious of Quaker modernism.  By questioning the inerrancy of Scripture,[Quaker modernism] threatened the authority of the Bible. By emphasizing the Inner Light, it seemed to minimize the need for definite experiences of conversion and sanctification. By stressing social service and reform, it seemed to suggest that humans could save the world, rather than looking to the Second Coming of Christ. And by dwelling on the mercy and love of God, it seemed to ignore His judgment [notice how similar the modernist Quaker teachings are to the Emergent Church teachings of today]. In 1902, Malone began publishing a journal, the Soul Winner, to advance his views. In 1905 he changed its name to the Evangelical Friend, which became increasingly outspoken in its attacks on Jones and other modernist Quakers.  Malone and his coadjutors were consciously part of the larger movement in American Protestantism that would become known as fundamentalism. (50)

For the next two decades, modernists and holiness Friends struggled for the control of the Five Years Meeting and its yearly meetings. The battle had at least three fronts. One was the personnel of the Five Years Meeting – its central office staff and its missionaries. Central to this struggle was the American Friend, the official organ [edited by Rufus Jones until 1912, then edited by like minded liberal Quakers]. The second front was the Quaker colleges. [Sound familiar? Colleges and seminaries today are one of the main venues in which Spiritual Formation and the Emerging/Emergent movements are brainwashing today’s Evangelical Friends youth.] Holiness Friends did their best to exclude modernist teachings from schools like Earlham in Indiana, Whittier in California, Pacific in Oregon, Friends in Kansas, and Penn in Iowa. The results were uneven… Earlham became a modernist bastion. [Gurneyite Quakers] had more influence at Friends, Penn, and Pacific. Finally, the battle was fought in dozens of Friends meetings, usually over the preaching and views of individual ministers. By the 1920s, Friends had a clear sense of which meetings would be likely to call a pastor of modernist views and which would prefer someone educated at Cleveland. (51)

These tensions reached a climax early in the 1920s, a time when conflict between modernists and their fundamentalist opponents divided most Protestant denominations in the United States. Holiness Friends now openly identified with the larger fundamentalist movement in American Protestantism…

Various journals, such as the Friends Herald in the pastoral Ohio Yearly Meeting, and the Friends Minister, affiliated with the Union Bible Seminary in Indiana, provided communication… [Several following pages are unavailable online – I am hoping to locate this book in a Quaker archive.]

A note regarding various historical sources – It seems that, in the interest of  ecumenical ties with non-evangelical Quaker denominations, various Evangelical Friends have not been totally forthcoming. They have  reinterpreted, omitted, or in a few cases even denied the combative, anti-modernist side of J. Walter Malone and other Gurneyite Quakers.  Two of these writers are Byron Osborne (in The Malone Story) and Walter R. Williams (in The Rich Heritage of Quakerism). [I plan to share various examples from these two books in separate blogs.] I personally feel deeply betrayed by these individuals whom I once trusted and admired as my denominational leaders. How pathetic and ironic, that non-evangelical writers have provided detailed  information about the history of fundamentalist/anti-modernist Gurneyite Quakers, whereas Gurneyite Quaker writers themselves have provided  very little info and/or distorted the info.

In spite of his “progressive evangelical” NWYM Friends bias, Dr. Arthur O. Roberts (in Through Flaming Sword, pp. 93-94, text available online) provides some additional helpful info for the period of approximately 1895-1948:

Overshadowed by a more vocal modernism during early decades of the [20th] century [debatable – I would say the Quaker fundamentalists and Quaker modernists were equally powerful and equally vocal at the time], Quaker proponents of experiental holiness [Gurneyites] increasingly found fellowship with other evangelical churches in America that stressed a holiness message. So they attended and shared leadership in camp meetings with the “holiness churches” – Free Methodist, Pilgrim Holiness, Church of the Nazarene, and disenchanted Methodists [among other denominations][tragically, nearly all evangelical Holiness denominations are becoming strongly Emerging/ Emergent; the conservative Holiness denominations have not sunk nearly as far into heresy] – who made up the fellowship of the National Holiness Association. Antiliberal reaction tended to shift the holiness witness toward non-Quaker forms. Terminology – as well as interchurch fellowship – became mostly Wesleyan. Much missionary support during the 1920s and 1930s went to the National Holiness Missions (later known as World Gospel Mission). The Quaker peace witness was rejected, or given low priority, because it seemed to belong to the liberals, and because in those years social ethics [what Roberts really means is the liberal “social gospel” which has now spread to many Emerging/ Emergent Evangelical Friends congregations] had low priority in the ethos of the Wesleyan holiness movement.  (Roberts, pp. 93, 94)

Some prominent Quaker leaders transferred to other denominations. Others, however, held high the vision of a restored, evangelical Quakerism and labored patienty to that end. One of these people was Edward Mott, originally of New York Yearly Meeting. Under his leadership a Bible School had been established in Portland, Oregon. Elsewhere Western and Midwestern Quaker Bible schools were established to counteract colleges deemed too liberal in theology or too generalized in curriculum… (Roberts, p. 94) [Unfortunately, all the “descendant” Friends schools in all these areas are today well on their way to being Emerging/Emergent.]

1902 – OYM refuses to join with some other Gurneyite yearly meetings in forming the more liberal Five Years Meeting (5).

1909 – OYM still refuses to join the Five Years Meeting (6). To this day (2011), their successor the EFCI has officially remained a separate denomination (although they unfortunately have had official ecumenical ties since 1970).

1910-1915 – Individuals from various denominations write The Fundamentals, a series of articles used by Fundamentalists in fighting Modernists.

1920 – Edward Mott,  another staunch champion of fundamentalist Gurneyite Quakerism, leaves the OYM for ministry elsewhere (Mott, Sixty Years, p. 41), but continues to have a strong positive influence on the OYM.

Approx. 1922 – even at age 16, Everett L. Cattell (___-1981) is becoming well known among Evangelical Friends, being one of the first to plant the heretical seed of Gurneyite Quaker/Evangelical Friends ecumenism. Note – apparently various Gurneyite Quakers worked at cross purposes. J. Walter Malone and Edward Mott strongly opposed Quaker ecumenism their entire lives. In the next generation, it seems that Everett L. Cattell, Byron L. Osborne and Walter R. Williams [all three of whom I greatly respected in the past] ended up favoring Quaker ecumenism.

1929The Evangelical Friend magazine, newly relocated, publishes an article by Edward Mott criticizing the heretical, universalist Hicksite Quakers (The Evangelical Friend, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 3,7).

1929The Evangelical Friend publishes the 1929 statement from the National Association for Promotion of Holiness, condemning Modernism and speaking “in favor of Fundamentalism” (The Evangelical Friend, Vol. I, No. 7, p. 13).

1935 – J. Walter Malone, a staunch champion of fundamentalist Gurneyite Quakerism, passes away. I believe J. Walter Malone and Edward Mott were the two most outspoken Gurneyites against Quaker modernism and Quaker ecumenism. It is unfortunate that Malone did not live as long as Mott (Mott passed away in 1955).

1932The Evangelical Friend publishes “The Christian Warfare”, an article by John Pennington criticizing “Spiritual Pacificism” [compromise with Modernism]. Pennington quotes Fundamentalists Dr. A.C. Dixon, A.T. Pierson, and others. (The Evangelical Friend, Vol. IV, No. 12, pp.7 and following.)

1947Billy Graham crusades begin. Gurneyite Quakers/Evangelical Friends heartily endorse these crusades. Unlike many Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, most in OYM apparently do not realize the dangers and heresies of ecumenism underlying the Billy Graham crusades. (Click here for a more recent expose of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. And here is another recent expose.)

1948-1965 – Between 1948 (when Harold Ockenga coins the term “New Evangelical”) and 1965, more and more Evangelical Friends compromise with New Evangelicalism. It becomes more and more difficult to find “true” fundamentalist Evangelical Friends. (I am defining a “true” fundamentalist as a separatist fundamentalist – one that 1) is “militantly” opposed to false teachers, and 2) practices primary and secondary separation from false teachers.)

1955 – Edward Mott passes away. It seems Edward Mott was one of the last Evangelical Friends “watchmen on the wall.” That is, he was one of the last Gurneyite Quakers/Evangelical Friends to stand strongly for fundamentalism, and to speak out strongly against modernism, Quaker ecumenism, etc. And he was one of the last “SEPARATIST fundamentalist Evangelical Friends.” I know personally of many “NONSEPARATIST fundamentalist Evangelical Friends” pastors (aka “conservative holiness Evangelical Friends”) up until about 1970. These pastors still used the King James Bible only, had traditional services only (hymns and choruses), had a piano and organ only, had frequent altar calls, etc.). But unlike Edward Mott, they did not speak out against modernism, Quaker ecumenism and other liberal teachings/heresies.  Following the New Evangelical mindset, they concentrated on “positive” salvation and holiness messages. As years passed, like New Evangelical Billy Graham, they preached less and less of a “negative” message (“hellfire and brimstone”). Instead, they preached more and more about God’s love and forgiveness (a “positive” message).

1956 – Association of Evangelical Friends (an informal association) is formed (8).

1957 – Cleveland Bible College relocates to Canton, Ohio, becoming Malone College (later renamed Malone University).

1965 – OYM joins the EFA (Evangelical Friends Alliance), ceasing to be its own separate entity (9, 10).

1970 –St. Louis Conference on the Future of Friends – a controversial Quaker ecumenical conference, hosted by pro-ecumenical Evangelical Friend Everett Cattell. As late as 1970, I have found documentation of Evangelical Friends speaking out against heretical trends such as Quaker ecumenism. For example, at the St. Louis Conference, there were a number of Evangelical Friends who objected to the ecumenical ties being proposed with heretical, non-evangelical Quaker denominations. Unfortunately, objections were overridden by Dr. Cattell, who stated in conclusion, “let the conversation [with nonevangelical Quakers] continue.”

At the 1970 St. Louis Conference, ecumenical ties were established  between Evangelical Friends and all non-evangelical Quaker groups. Non-evangelical Quakers include many heretical, ungodly groups – such as Christian universalist Quakers (many in the Friends United Meeting denomination aka FUM), nonchristian universalist Quakers, liberal/modernist Quakers (Friends General Conference denomination aka FGC), LGBT Quakers, Buddhist Quakers, Hindu Quakers, Jewish Quakers, New Age Quakers, atheist/nontheist Quakers, etc. etc.), all under the umbrella of the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC).

Following is a summary of the St. Louis Conference, an abomination to all born again Evangelical Friends. This summary is included in the Wikipedia article on the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC):

All yearly meetings but three in the USA are represented at the St. Louis Conference on the Future of Friends, responding to the call ‘to seek, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a workable, challenging and cooperative means whereby the Friends Church can be an active, enthusiastic, Christ-centered and Spirit-directed force…’ There is a sense of a new dawn of ecumenical conversation [emphasis mine] within the Religious Society of Friends. At the close of the conference, Evangelical Friend Everett Cattell suggests that FWCC’s American Section should administer the follow-up to the conference. The Section publishes the report “What Future for Friends?”. Superintendents and Secretaries of yearly meetings at their annual meeting in St. Louis propose a broadly representative follow-up body to be called the Faith and Life Planning Group, and suggest that each yearly meeting appoint two persons to a Faith and Life Planning Committee, with FWCC American Section providing the staff service.

1976 – the first National Friends Ministers Conference, in Dallas, Texas (Walter R. Williams and Paul Anderson, The Rich Heritage of Quakerism, 2nd ed., p. 264). This was the first of many such ungodly ecumenical conferences (which are still being held even to this day), attended by pastors from the Evangelical Friends denomination (today the EFCI) and the nonevangelical, increasingly “Christian universalist” Friends United Meeting (FUM).

FUM openly opposes the concept of being born again. The ECFI follows Christ as Saviour and Lord; the FUM refuses to use this phrase, blatantly referring to Him instead as Teacher and Lord. So why do EFCI pastors fellowship so eagerly with FUM pastors? Why aren’t EFCI pastors witnessing to FUM pastors, convicting them of sin and the need to have a born again repentance-conversion experience?

1978  – Evangelical Friend Richard Foster’s bestseller Celebration of Discipline published. Note – Foster credits his Evangelical Friends co-pastor Dallas Willard as his mentor in Spiritual Formation. Foster and Willard did not “invent” Spiritual Formation (which includes occultish contemplative spirituality). They just popularized this practice among evangelicals; the practice already existed, primarily among Roman Catholics.

1980 – the second National Friends Ministers Conference – an ecumenical gathering with Evangelical Friends pastors and FUM pastors attending, St. Louis, Missouri (EFC-ER Bicentennial commemorative book, 2012, p. 11).

1985 – the third National Friends Ministers Conference – an ecumenical gathering with Evangelical Friends pastors and FUM pastors attending, Chicago (EFC-ER Bicentennial commemorative book, 2012, p. 11).

1990 – Evangelical Friends Alliance (EFA) renamed Evangelical Friends Intl. (EFI)((EFC-ER Bicentennial commemorative book, 2012, p. 11).

2010 – EFC-ER invites its youth to attend the Friends Youth Summit 2010. The heretical Emerging Movement’s Dan Kimball (who associates with George Fox University) is keynote speaker. Many EFC-ER youth are introduced to the occultish/contemplative prayer labyrinth (which is endorsed by Dan Kimball).

2011 – an EFC-ER church hosts heretical Emergent David Crowder and his band.

2012 – yet another National Friends Ministers Conference – an ecumenical gathering with Evangelical Friends pastors and FUM pastors attending, Middlebury, Indiana.

———————————–

Perhaps in 1965-1970  I could have recommended the newly formed EFA (today called the EFCI). Tragically, since 1965-1970, various heresies have taken root and spread in the denomination [the heresies I see are listed mainly in the first paragraph of this blog]. For this reason, I cannot currently recommend the EFCI.

There are various labels used for OYM members from 1854-1965. Some of these time periods are just estimates (I am attempting to find more exact dates):

1854-1870s – Gurneyite Friends
1870s-1900 – Revivalist Friends, Holiness Friends
1900-1948 – Holiness Friends,  fundamentalist Evangelical Friends, Evangelical Friends
1948-1965 – Evangelical Friends

Technically, the term Gurneyite Friends could describe this branch of Friends from 1854-1965 – and on up to the present time. Although we rarely hear the term anymore, the term “Gurneyite Friends” today is synonymous with the term “Evangelical Friends.”

Note – even among Gurneyite Friends, there was a wide spectrum of views over the years. For example, many took a strong stance against Quaker ecumenism. Others were not as adamant against Quaker ecumenism (or perhaps were not as aware of its dangers), yet they preached wonderful gospel messages.

Unfortunately, as decades passed between 1900-1965, there were increasing numbers of individuals who labeled themselves as Gurneyite Friends yet strayed further and further away from the fundamentalist stand against Quaker ecumenism and similar issues. Most of the “straying” individuals I cannot recommend. [A number of sources discuss Gurneyite Friends history and theology between 1854-1907. I am still looking for sources that cover 1907-1965 in as much detail.]
———————————————————————————————-
I am just starting to compile my list of favorite Gurneyite Friends (mainly between 1854-1965). I am hoping to add many more individuals. These individuals were primarily in the OYM. I am trying to locate online sermons and articles regarding each of these individuals. I am only listing individuals who are deceased:

William Allen – a Holiness preacher in OYM between 1875-1890
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 103

Almira Bergman – an evangelist in Indiana Yearly Meeting between 1875-1890
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 103

Harvey Bergman – an evangelist in Indiana Yearly Meeting between 1875-1890
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 103

Micajah J. Binford (1852-1902)
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 102

Dougan Clark, Jr. – an 1860s Friends Renewal preacher who wholeheartedly supported the 1867-1880 Friends Revival (Hamm, Transformation, p. 96)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 96, 108
– Kostlevy, pp. 68-69
– Roberts, p. 89
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1
Dougan Clark (link leads to several of his online books)

Elizabeth L. Comstock – warning – took part in 1870s revivals, but not fully in favor of them (Hamm)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 94,95
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198
[also, Google brings up many hits]

Charles E. DeVol – I have access to many of his unpublished sermon outlines; they are very biblical, with many salvation messages.
– Williams, Me and My House, various pages

George Fox DeVol
– Williams, Me and My House, various pages

Mary Isabella French DeVol
– Williams, Me and My House, various pages

John Henry Douglas – an 1860s Friends Renewal preacher who wholeheartedly supported the 1867-1880 Friends Revival (Hamm, Transformation, p. 96); a Holiness minister in N.Y. Yearly Meeting in 1872 (Hamm, Transformation, p. 89)
– Hamm, Quakers in America, p. 58
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 89,96
– Kostlevy, p. 97 (p. 97 not available online)
– Roberts, p. 89
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1

Robert W. Douglas
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Esther G. Frame – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm, Transformation, pp. 96-97); a Holiness minister in N.Y. Yearly Meeting in 1872 (Hamm, Transformation, p. 89)
– Frame, Nathan T., Reminiscences of Nathan T. Frame and Esther G. Frame (online)
– Hamm, Quakers in America, p. 58
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 89,96-97
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Nathan Frame – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm)
– Frame, Nathan T., Reminiscences of Nathan T. Frame and Esther G. Frame (online)(mentions Walter J. Malone and Emma Malone, and others in OYM Gurneyite)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 96-97
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Luther Gordon
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Joseph John Gurney
Friend Joseph John Gurney
– Williams, Rich Heritage, pp. 194-195
[Google also brings up many hits]

David Hadley (1842-1915)
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 102

Laura S. Haviland
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Charles Haworth
– Mott, p. 39

David Hill – an 1860s Friends Renewal preacher who wholeheartedly supported the 1867-1880 Friends Revival (Hamm)
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 96
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Samuel Hodges – a pastor trained at Cleveland Bible Institute
Quaker Crosscurrents, p. 213

John Y. Hoover – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm, pp. 96-97)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 96-97
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

William G. Hubbard
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Asahel H. Hussey – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 96-97
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Benjamin B. Hyatt
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Allen Jay (1831-1910) c; a Holiness Friends minister in North Carolina in the 1870s (Hamm, pp. 90,91)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 90,91,96,218
– Williams, Rich Heritage, pp. 197-198

Amos Kenworthy – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm, pp. 96-97); held a Holiness revival in Indiana in 1873 (Hamm, p. 94)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 94,96-97
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Thomas Kimber – an 1860s Friends Renewal preacher who wholeheartedly supported the 1867-1880 Friends Revival
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 96)

Rufus P. King
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Thomas W. Ladd – an 1860s Friends Renewal preacher who wholeheartedly supported the 1867-1880 Friends Revival
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 96

David J. Lewis a Holiness preacher in OYM between 1875-1890
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 103

Emma Malone (1859-1924)
– Hamm, Quakers in America, p. 58
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 102
– Malone, J. Walter and John William Oliver, J. Walter Malone: The Autobiography of an Evangelical Quaker, University Press of America, 1993
– Osborne, Byron L., The Malone Story, United Printing, Inc., 1970. (I have access to a copy of this book.)

J. Walter Malone (1857-1935 [or 1937?])
my blog
– Frame, pp. 260, 277-279
– Hamm, Quakers in America, p. 58
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 102
– Kostlevy, pp. 190, 191, 360 (text not available online)
– Malone, J. Walter and John William Oliver, J. Walter Malone: The Autobiography of an Evangelical Quaker, University Press of America, 1993
Osborne, Byron L., The Malone Story, United Printing, Inc., 1970. (I have access to a copy of this book.)

William F. Manley – a Holiness preacher in a yearly meeting other than OYM between 1875-1890
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 103

Noah McLean – a Holiness preacher in OYM between 1875-1890
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 103

L. Edwin Mosher (1929-2011) – I have access to many of his unpublished sermons; they are very biblical, with many salvation messages.

Robert E. Mosher – I have access to many of his unpublished sermons; they are very biblical, with many salvation messages.

Edward Mott

Quaker Crosscurrents, p. 213
– Kostlevy, pp. 109, 209 (pages not viewable online)
– Roberts, pp. 94,95
my blog
– also, I have a copy of the book Sixty Years of Gospel Ministry (ca 1948) by Edward Mott.

Robert Lindley Murray – an 1860s Friends Renewal preacher who wholeheartedly supported the 1867-1880 Friends Revival
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 96

O.L. Olds a Holiness preacher in OYM between 1875-1890
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 103

John Pennington (1846-1933)
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 102

William P. Pinkham (1844-1925)
– Hamm, Transformation, various pages
– Roberts, p. 89

Calvin W. Pritchard – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm, Transformation, pp. 96-97); held a Holiness revival in Indiana in 1873 (Hamm, Transformation, p. 94)
– Hamm, Quakers in America, p. 58
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 94,96-97,103
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Esther Tuttle Pritchard
– Hamm, Transformation, various pages
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1

Alexander M. Purdy
Quaker Crosscurrents, p. 213

Hulda Rees (1854-1898)(Seth’s wife)
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 102

Seth C. Rees (1854-1933)
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 102

Claude Roane – I have access to a “self-published”, spiral bound compilation of a number of his sermons.

Mary H. Rogers
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Fred Ryon – a pastor trained at Cleveland Bible Institute
Quaker Crosscurrents, p. 213

David F. Sampson – a Quaker evangelist in North Carolina [North Carolina Yearly Meeting?] between 1875-1890
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 103

Elwood Scott
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Murray Shipley
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Sarah F. Smiley – a Holiness minister in N.Y. Yearly Meeting in 1872
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 89

Hannah Whitall Smith – preached Holiness revival among Philadelphia Friends, but left Philadelphia Society of Friends by 1872 (Hamm, p. 95) [warning – she later became heretical, a strong follower of Universalism]
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 95
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Sarah Smith – preached Holiness revival among Philadelphia Friends, but left Philadelphia Society of Friends by 1872 (Hamm, p. 95)
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 95
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

Caroline Talbott – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm, pp. 96-97); a Holiness minister in N.Y. Yearly Meeting in 1872 (Hamm, p. 89)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 89,96-97
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

David B. Updegraff (1830-1894) – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm, pp. 96-97);  traveled throughout various yearly meetings (Hamm, pp. 88,89)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 88,89,96-97
– Kostlevy, pp. 299-300
– Roberts, p. 89
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1
Family History (a summary)

William Wetherald – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm, pp. 96-97); a Holiness minister in Indiana Yearly Meeting in 1871 (Hamm, p. 89)
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 89,96-97
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

George W. Willis a Holiness preacher in OYM between 1875-1890
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 103

Anna J. Winslow
– Hamm, Transformation, p. 102

Luke Woodard (1832-1925) – a leading revivalist in the Friends Revival 1867-1880 (Hamm, Transformation, pp. 96-97); a Holiness minister in N.Y. Yearly Meeting in 1872 (Hamm, Transformation, p. 89)
– Hamm, Quakers in America, p. 58
– Hamm, Transformation, pp. 89,96-97
– Spencer, “Exchange on Holiness”, Pt. 1
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198
Info on Luke Woodard
Biographical Info on Luke Woodard (click on Administrative/Biographical History)

Isom P. Wooden
– Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 198

ENDNOTES

(1) I am looking for online articles detailing the history and theology specifically of Holiness Friends; you will find references to some of these articles in my other blogs about the EFCI. I am striving to find books and articles by Holiness Friends about Holiness Friends. Also, I am trying to find accurate books and articles. Some of the Wikipedia articles about Quakerism, for example, contain numerous historical errors about Holiness Friends.

(2) Articles with info about the Wilbur-Gurney controversy: Quaker Theologies in the 19th Century Separations (note – this article is written from a non-Holiness Friends point of view).

(3) Walter R. Williams, The Rich Heritage of Quakerism, 1987 edition, pp. 194-201.

(4) Thomas D. Hamm, The Quakers in America (online), p. 58

(5) Hamm, Quakers in America, p. 55

(6) Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 209

(7) Hamm, Quakers in America, pp. 58-60

(8) Williams, Rich Heritage, pp. 212-213

(9) Williams, Rich Heritage, p. 266-267

(10) It is my impression that, in 1965, 1) OYM was more biblically sound than the other Yearly Meetings which joined the EFA, and 2) various individuals in the other Yearly Meetings began to drag the OYM (renamed the EFC-ER)  astray from biblically sound teachings. To verify this, I will be researching the history of each of the other Yearly Meetings. I hope to write a separate blog about each of these Yearly Meetings.

SOURCES FOR LIST OF NAMES

Frame, Nathan T., Reminiscences of Nathan T. Frame and Esther G. Frame (online)

Hamm, Thomas D., The Quakers in America (online)

Hamm, Thomas D., The Transformation of American Quakerism: Orthodox Friends, 1800-1907. This book provides an excellent discussion of the history and theology of Holiness Friends during part of the time period I am researching: 1854-1907. (many pages of text are online.)

Kostlevy, William, Historical Dictionary of the Holiness Movement (many pages of text are online)

Mott, Edward, Sixty Years of Gospel Ministry [I have a copy of this book-DM]

Quaker Crosscurrents: Three Hundred Years of Friends in the New York Yearly Meetings, Ed. Hugh Barbour et al (online)

Roberts, Arthur O., Through Flaming Sword. [The back cover states Roberts was a professor-at-large at George Fox University. Although he discusses Holiness Friends at various points – often seemingly favoring them – he also speaks favorably of non-evangelical Friends. I would view Roberts as a “progressive evangelical.”] Many pages are available online (click on link).

Robins, R.G., A.J. Tomlinson: Plainfolk Modernist, Chapter 7: Quaker Holiness (pp. 89-101)

Spencer, Carole. “Thomas Hamm & Carole Spencer: An Exchange on Holiness, The Soul of Quakerism.  Quaker Theology #16  — Fall-Winter 2009. See online version of article, Part 1. Note this quote: Spencer ignores [among] holiness Friends everyone recognized as central to the revival movement: David B. Updegraff, Nathan and Esther Frame, Luke Woodard, Calvin and Esther Pritchard, John Henry and Robert W. Douglas, and, above all, Dougan Clark. All left significant bodies of writings[I am trying to  locate these writings. Hopefully many of them will be online.]See also the online version of the above article, Part 2.

Williams, Walter R., Me and My House, Barclay Press, out-of-print (I have access to a copy-DM)

Williams, Walter R., The Rich Heritage of Quakerism, 2nd ed. (many pages available online)

—————-

This article deals primarily with Friends United Meeting, but also has a number of references to OYM and Holiness Friends: “Friends United Meeting and Its Identity: An Interpretative History” (viewable online), by Thomas D. Hamm. Hamm provides a thorough history of Gurneyites in the Five Year Meeting/Friends United Meeting, during approximately the same period as Ohio Yearly Meeting (1854-1965).

See also this history of Quaker splits over the centuries, covering a wider time frame (1600s to the present). The article also includes a number of links to other Internet resources:

http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/fracture.html

And:

Dandelion, Pink. The Quakers: A Very Short Introduction (portions viewable online).

Founded by Friends: The Quaker Heritage of Fifteen American Colleges and Universities (viewable online)

Hamm, Thomas D. Quaker Writings: An Anthology, 1650-1920, by  (portions viewable online)

To Bind Up the Nation’s Wounds (Post-Civil War to 1900)(viewable online)



Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: