PA-QUAKERS-L Archives

Archiver > PA-QUAKERS > 2006-09 > 1158939883


From: "Nancy" <>
Subject: Re: [PA-QUAKERS] Disownment
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:44:43 -0700
References: <bd2.41bc5c5.32449b12@aol.com>


I am the editor of the quarterly produced by our local genealogical society.
We produce a very good quarterly...our layout editor is fantastic.
I would like permission to print your response below into our quarterly.
Many members have Quaker ancestors, and our quarterly goes to many libraries
for researchers.

Nancy K. Kilbourn
Editor, Rabbit Tracks
Of Conejo Valley Genealogy Society
(Thousand Oaks, California)


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [PA-QUAKERS] Disownment


> Yes, it was usual in 17th-early 20th century Friends Meetings for a member
> who "married out" i.e., married someone not a Quaker and/or not by Friends
> procedure) to be "disowned." Disowned meant that one was no longer a
> member - some
> who were disowned continued to attend services, etc., for years and their
> children often joined Meeting. It was NOT shunning, as the Amish and some
> other
> sects do.
>
> As a modern Friend, I understand the historical reasoning behind it, but
> it
> certainly diminished the number of Quakers. <G> Friends were historically
> concerned about maintaining their religion without outside influences
> creeping in,
> having their children raised in "guarded" (i.e., Quaker) situations and
> insuring that the family was united in religious belief and outlook.
> "Marrying out"
> risked all this, and might represent a lapse in religious belief by the
> member.
>
> And yes, one could always be readmitted IF sincere repentance was
> demonstrated to the Meeting as a whole (usually done to a committee
> appointed by the
> Meeting to look into the problem, but sometimes done orally in front of
> the entire
> Meeting when assembled for business) and especially if the non-Quaker
> spouse
> would join or allow the children to be raised as Friends. There are many
> cases
> of members being readmitted after having children or after a few years of
> "considering." And one's spouse did not have to join for such readmission.
>
> Over the centuries, people were also "disowned" for such things as
> military
> activities, drunkenness, debt, inappropriate sexual behavior, etc., and
> for one
> period in the late 1900s, for wearing beards. The latter seems a bit harsh
> to
> us now, but I know churches which denied membership to people on the same
> basis, on having choirs, on wearing red on Sunday, etc. A different world.
>
> Hope this quick note helps.
>
> Thy friend, Nancy Webster, Swarthmore MM
> Curator, Friends Historical
> Association
>
> BTW - Buffington is a Birmingham - Kennett area name, as is the location
> of
> Bradford. Have you tried looking in those MM records? And Garrett is also
> a
> good Quaker name!
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: