1. “The Circumstances Leading to the Richmond Conference and its Influence on the Origin of the
Five Years Meeting, Focusing on the Involvement of David Updegraff and Ohio Yearly
Meeting”
By Daniel Christy
In the mid-to-late 19th century, American Gurneyite Friends faced challenges to unity
based around both doctrinal issues and disagreements regarding practice. In the search for
answers to these questions of what Friends should believe and how they should interact with
each other, various steps were taken by the several yearly meetings. Perhaps the single largest
effort towards unity among American Gurneyite Friends was the Richmond Conference of 1887
and the subsequent establishment of the Five Years Meeting. Particular disagreements sparked
the call for this conference, and the products of its proceedings in turn had particular
consequences for American Gurneyite Friends. Each of these will be explored and explained,
with special attention being paid to the interaction between Ohio Yearly Meeting and the
precursors of the Five Years Meeting. This is for two reasons. The first is that although the
conference was held in Indiana, figures from Ohio Yearly meeting were central to the Richmond
Conference being held. The second is the nature of the location and venue this paper is being
presented at, an institution that is linked to the Evangelical Friends Church, Eastern Region,
which descends from Ohio Yearly Meeting. Having laid out that short preview, I will now delve
into the topic:
The story of the Five Years Meeting begins with the impact of the holiness movement on
American Quakerism in the 19th century. Revivalism had swept through Orthodox Quakerism in
mid-century. By the late 1870’s and early 1880’s, the changes that this movement brought about
were causing deep rifts of division in all yearly meetings. Three major questions had arisen out

2. Christy 2
of the holiness-rooted revival movement, over which there were harsh disagreement. The first of
these was regarding the doctrine of the Inner Light. What was it? Did it even exist? The biblical
literalism of the holiness movement found no justification for such a doctrine in the scriptures.
Still, more traditional Friends continued to cling to it, one of the seminal articulations of Quaker
spiritual theology that had been handed down from early Quakers, while using language to
describe the doctrine that was more acceptable to holiness Friends. The general trend was away
from using the language of the Inner Light (Transformation, 122-124).
The second question was one of pastoral ministry. Friends had always unanimously
objected to paid clerics until the influence of the revival movement. Thomas Hamm proffers that
the influx of new membership from the revivals of mid-century necessitated more structure being
put in place to deal with greater numbers of people, which translated into paid clergy
(Transformation, 125). David E.W. Holden disagrees that new membership was the true catalyst,
because membership did not spike until after the time that the first hireling ministers were
implemented. Instead, he proffers that it was the influence of young Friends and their love for
new styles of worship that instigated the change (Holden, 108). The revival movement was
centered around preaching and styles of programmed worship (such as prayer meetings (Holden,
107)) that required pastors to lead the services. Whatever the initial cause, these two factors
working together served to usher in the acceptance of hireling ministers in most areas. However,
there was great dissent by moderates and traditionalists because having full-time pastoral staff
created a social hierarchy within the church and compromised Friends’ values about the
inclusion of all in leading and ministering. Even some revivalist leaders dissented. The
movement, though, was not slowed (Transformation, 124-130).

3. Christy 3
The third and most divisive question was of the practice of what Friends call the
ordinances, generally known in Protestantism as water baptism and communion. Were these
legitimate practices for Friends? History said no, but they were part and parcel with the worship
style and biblical interpretation of revivalism. When it came, so did an impulse for them,
although it took until the late 1870’s. During this time, some Friends ministers began to be called
by conscience to be baptized (Transformation, 130-131). Their position was a minority, but they
took a strong stance. David Updegraff, from Ohio Yearly Meeting, became the leading voice of
advocacy for acceptance of the ordinances for those whose consciences called them to take part
in them (Sartwell, 38-39). A man of great influence in the yearly meeting, his position was
pushed against strongly not only by moderates, but also by many holiness Friends
(Transformation, 131-135). Hamm argues that the reason water baptism and communion were
not smoothly integrated into Friends practice was not only because of the belief that their
practice was not scripturally mandated, which Updegraff believed, but because the spirituality of
the sacraments was one of the last vestiges of Quaker distinctiveness amidst the many changes
implemented in the wake of the revival movement among Gurneyite Friends. If converts were
being baptized with water, what was the significance of even being called Quaker
(Transformation, 135-136)? Because of the centrality of the issue to Quaker identity, majority
opinion was firmly against freedom to practice the ordinances, except in Ohio Yearly Meeting,
where Updegraff’s influence was strongest. Their opinion was stated, in 1886, to allow the
practice of the ordinances. Some called for a schism, but elderly John Butler, the only highly
influential voice for the moderates, died by the next year, and Ohio Yearly Meeting passed
firmly into the leadership of ordinance-accepting ministers, elders, and clerks (Transformation,
136-137).

4. Christy 4
Controversy about the ordinances and these other matters of change and disagreement
were particularly harsh in Indiana Yearly Meeting. Most scholars agree, along with
commentators of the time, that these controversies were the primary factor in Indiana Yearly
Meeting calling for a conference of Friends yearly meetings on matters of unity. The year was
1887 (Sartwell, 88-89) (Mott, 141). All Orthodox Friends groups in America were invited.
Nearly all attended (Holden, 110). This conference would not only produce the most significant
Quaker statement of faith since Fox’s “Letter to the Governor of Barbados” and Barclay’s
Apology, but also bring about the formation of the Five Years Meeting, the forerunner of today’s
Friends United Meeting.
Despite its centrality to motivating the conference, at the request of Jacob Baker from
Ohio the matter of the ordinances was not discussed explicitly at the Richmond Conference
(Sartwell, 47). This was because, although that matter had caused much of the worst division, all
yearly meetings had already come to conclusions at that point about whether the ordinances
should be permitted, Ohio being the only yearly meeting to accept them. By the time of the
Richmond conference, reestablishing unity going forward was the primary concern.
With this goal in mind, matters of worship, pastoral ministry, and theology were
discussed. After a few days, the conference decided to move toward writing a declaration of faith
that summarized the sense of the conference and could serve as something for all Friends to look
toward in matter of doctrinal concern. This declaration, drafted primarily by Joseph Brathwaite,
an Englishman (Transformation, 137), became known as the Richmond Declaration of Faith. It
was strongly evangelical in tone, reflecting views influenced heavily by the revival movement in
Quakerism. Its statements about the nature of God were quite orthodox and creedal in format.
Justification and sanctification were presented distinctly, although they were inextricably linked,

5. Christy 5
as moderates would have it. Hireling ministry was accepted. The Inner Light was not
emphasized. Water baptism and communion were rejected as outward manifestations which
robbed the richness of their proper spiritual expression (Proceedings, 24-43). All speakers at the
conference were in support of the declaration except Updegraff, on the grounds that all yearly
meetings already had statements of faith, making this one useless unless it was intended to take
away the autonomy of the individual yearly meetings (Sartwell, 46). Surprisingly, Updegraff had
few qualms with the clause about water baptism, since it did not condemn the practice, but
simply stated that it was not instituted by the Lord. Updegraff agreed with this, as he only
advocated that the practice be allowed for those who were called to participate in it (Sartwell,
48).
The general sense of agreement and productivity at the end of the conference sparked
new ideas for the future. William Nicholson proposed that there be triennial meetings of all the
yearly meetings in order to establish more accountability. Such a body would have authority over
the respective yearly meetings present. Updegraff dismissed such a notion as antithetical to
Quaker ideals of autonomy and freedom of conscience. Yet, Nicholson’s suggestion went on to
have a large impact on the face of American Quakerism, as shall be described later
(Transformation, 138) (Sartwell, 89).
In the aftermath of the conference, all the yearly meetings fully represented accepted the
declaration of faith, except Ohio Yearly Meeting (although they did distribute it for reading to
their quarterly meetings, and it can be found in the Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Region
Faith and Practice today (Sartwell, 90-91)). This was mainly due to the influence of Updegraff
and his suspicion that it would lead to a forfeiture of authority to others by the meeting.
However, his opinion of the conference was positive, and Ohio Yearly Meeting sent him and

6. Christy 6
other delegates back when another conference was held five years later in 1892. Former Malone
President of the Student Body and current George Fox Evangelical Seminary adjunct professor
Richard C. Sartwell claims that this might have been due to the influence of Walter and Emma
Malone, who were supporters of the 1887 conference (Sartwell, 91-92).
By the conference in 1892, and the following one in 1897, the matters of the ordinances
and styles of worship faded into the background. In those years, the moderate-dominant mindset
continued to hold sway over the tone of the conference. Matters of discussion drifted toward
unification and the sharing of authority (Sartwell, 92). There was a general desire to form a body
with a uniform discipline, under which each yearly meeting would sacrifice some authority to the
unit. Rufus Jones was chosen to draft a uniform discipline at the 1897 conference in Indianapolis
(Quakers, 55).
By 1901, all the Gurneyite yearly meetings except Ohio had accepted the uniform
discipline. However, the Malone’s from Cleveland were at least quite open, if not perhaps even
supporting, of Ohio Yearly Meeting including themselves in the unification. Walter Malone was
on the planning committee for the 1902 conference (Sartwell, 93). At the 1902 conference, the
meetings officially became unified under the title of the Five Years Meeting (Quakers, 55) (Mott,
142). Ohio was present, but as visitors only. Despite sensing a state of isolation, Ohio was loath
to unite and sacrifice disciplinary autonomy, or be united with Friends who sometimes had
significantly less evangelical beliefs. Delegates from Ohio were considered for the 1907
conference, but the idea was decided against. The closest Ohio Yearly Meeting ever got to unity
with the Five Years Meeting was putting representatives on the American Friends Board of
Foreign Missions for a few years, one of whom was Emma Malone (Sartwell, 95). When this

7. Christy 7
endeavor ended, so did almost all direct cooperation between Ohio Yearly Meeting and the Five
Years Meeting.
The Five Years Meeting Continues to meet to the present day, now under the name of
Friends United Meeting, or FUM. From its early days though, it did not experience as much
unity as desired, because of the rise of modernism and the disagreement that movement caused
(Quakers, 56) (Mott, 143-144). In 1926, Oregon Yearly Meeting withdrew from the Five Years
Meeting (Mott, 151). Since that time, the group has experienced many splits within its yearly
meetings. Nevertheless, much good work was accomplished early on in the Five Years
Meeting’s existence. The most significant was global missions. In 1902, some of their
missionaries began work in Kenya. Kenya is now home to more Friends than any other nation in
the world. By 1910 they were supporting missionaries in China, India, Mexico, the Caribbean,
and Alaska (Quakers, 56).
The later history of the Five Years Meeting and its successor, FUM, is beyond the scope
of this paper. So is the aftermath of Ohio Yearly Meeting’s isolation from the other Gurneyite
yearly meetings in the US. Ohio followed its own path and its successor, Evangelical Friends
Church-Eastern Region, or EFC-ER, with its current associates in Evangelical Friends
International, is also involved in many world missions and has grown greatly worldwide. The
two Gurneyite Friends bodies of FUM and EFC-ER are now quite distinct, although there have
been some small attempts at cooperation or reunification in recent decades, which have proven
mostly unsuccessful. However, there is communication between individuals from Evangelical
Friends International churches and those from more evangelical FUM yearly meetings. One
personal example I can cite are a few groups from FUM’s Western Yearly Meeting, Indiana
Yearly Meeting, and Iowa Yearly Meeting who were at Friends Summit, a young Friends

8. Christy 8
leadership conference organized by EFI yearly meetings that I and several other Malone alumni
attended last December. I know of one person from EFC-ER who recently took a high position in
Iowa Yearly Meeting, and I have a few personal acquaintances from FUM yearly meetings.
There are many people from each body who have like mindedness with each other in what they
believe and how they think about Quakerism in a modern context. The results of the Richmond
Conference sped along the development of a long-lasting schism between the respective
progenies of Ohio Yearly Meeting and the other Gurneyite yearly meetings, but the narrative is
not all negative in the long run whatsoever, for each body has grown significantly and gone on to
do great things while carrying the banner inscribed ‘Friends’.
This content is from a paper entitled “The Circumstances Leading to the Richmond Conference
and its Relationship to the Origin of the Five Years Meeting, Focusing on the Involvement of
David Updegraff and Ohio Yearly Meeting”, written 8 May, 2015 in ‘HIST 323, The Quakers’,
taught by Dr. Jacci Stuckey Welling at Malone University in Canton, Ohio, USA, and was
presented by the author at EFC-ER Yearly Meeting, At the Friends Heritage Symposium, a
function of Malone University’s Center for Christian Faith and Culture, Malone University, on
17 July, 2015.

9. Christy 9
Works Cited
Hamm, Thomas D. The Quakers in America. New York: Columbia UP, 2003. Print.
Hamm, Thomas D. The Transformation of American Quakerism Orthodox Friends, 1800-1907.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1992. Print.
Holden, David E. W. Friends Divided: Conflict and Division in the Society of Friends.
Richmond, Ind.: Friends United, 1988. Print.
Mott, Edward. The Friends Church, in the Light of Its Recent History. Portland, Ore.: Loomis
Print., 1935. Print.
Proceedings, including Declaration of Christian Doctrine: Of the General Conference of
Friends, Held in Richmond, Ind., U.S.A., 1887. Richmond, Ind.: Nicholson & Bro., 1887.
Print.
Sartwell, Richard C. The Influence of Leading Friends in Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends,
Evangelical, 1854-1919. Richmond: Earlham School of Religion, 1974. Print.