What is harsh is probably in the eye of the beholder. For Quaker's who married out of unity, they knew the consequences. Perhaps it was not so harsh to them as having to not marry the person he/she loved and being obliged to search for someone else, possibly of less attraction. Disownment as punishment suggests that there is room for improvement. In the case of marrying out of unity, was there an expectation that the disowned Quaker would seek a divorce and return to unity? Disownment was removal from membership. Disowned Quakers could no longer be involved in the decisions and actions of the Meeting. To some, disownment may have seemed like punishment, but judging from the number of disowned Quakers who apparently did not seek to return unity, I wonder if disownment was liberating? Interesting, too, most disowned Quakers did not seek to have their children attend Meeting. When did Quakers cease the practice of disownment? I am member of a Quaker Meeting. I am unaware of any member having been "disowned" in my life time. Gordon Trueblood ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 11:55 AM Subject: [Q-R] Getting booted from the Society (disownment) > > Let's not get too loosey-goosey here. Disownment was a punishment, the > most > severe the society could mete out. It was a club, in every sense of the > word. Do X and you will be disowned, i.e., expelled. Expulsion can't > be > seen as anything less than a punishment. The fact that it was not > accompanied by church-compelled shunning or disinheritance doesn't mean > that > it wasn't punishment. > > > > Disownment was the tool Friends used to compel adherence to its basic > principles. Most people who know anything of the Religious Society of > Friends know that, when slavery was legal, it forbade its members to own > slaves. Well, the tool of disownment is how it enforced that policy. > Meetings did expel members who refused to free their slaves as directed. > Earlier in the history of the society, members -- and, I believe, entire > meetings -- were expelled from the larger body when they refused to set > up > separate women's meetings. (Women's meetings were held to be essential > mechanisms with which to empower the female half of the membership to be > potential instruments of Divine will.) > > > > The idea of disownment scares modern Quakers because they have, as a > whole, > embraced the sort of flabby "I'm OK; You're OK" philosophy common in > U.S. > churches. Dietrich Bonhoffer called it cheap grace, which accepts > everything and everyone as they are. Our Quaker predecessors expected > more > from their religion. > > > > Mark > Jan 11, 2009 09:40:23 AM, [1][email protected] wrote: > > I believe Jean Leeper's analogy is much closer to reality. > "Disownment" > was > not "banishment". Quakers who were disowned were still permitted to > attend > Meetings, they just no longer had a vote or voice in the actions and > decisions of the Meeting. It may be true that after "disownment" they > transferred membership to another church, especially if they married > out > of > unity (as was often the case in my part of the country). If they left > the > Meeting, it was the decision of the individual, not the Meeting. Many > did > remain with the Meeting. We see in the minutes that some disowned > members > were restored to unity. > Gordon Trueblood > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean Leeper" <[2][email protected]> > To: "QUAKER ROOTS" <[3][email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:53 AM > Subject: Re: [Q-R] Leaving the Society (disownment) > > Forget the word disownment. By today's definition it is a little > > harsh and in most cases it was not a harsh action. Think of a > current > > church you know, don't they periodically remove members from their > > rolls because they join another society/church, moved away and once > > and awhile because of their behavior with the church? Yes, there > were > > some issues like marrying contrary to discipline, fighting, gram > > drinking, fighting in a war; they were disowned for, but they could > > always write a letter to the meeting asking to be forgiven and > become > > a member again. Today churches have rules some are enforced and some > > are not. When tracing one of my husband's ancestor, where early 1800 > > records of a Primitive Baptist Church still exist, members were > > removed from the church rolls for many of the same reasons, the > > Quakers were. They just did not use the word disownment. > > > > When looking at the records of Salem MM in Iowa; the meeting there > > disowned ca 50 people over slavery but the interesting thing was the > > majority had already left and were attending the anti-slavery > meeting > > so they were officially purging their names from the rolls. There > > were a few actions of hatred related to some of those leaving and > > maybe some who never spoke to each other again like human nature is > > today and probably some family splits like happens sometimes today. > > In a few years many who left over slavery started offering a letter > of > > apology and were accepted back and became leaders in the meeting > > again. Forgiveness is the key as to whether families stayed together > > or the person was accepted back. How are we each doing on > forgiveness? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Jean Leeper > > > > [4][email protected] or [5][email protected] > > > > [6]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee > > > > LQM: [7]http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm > > > > Cedar Creek Book Update Page: > > [8]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm > > > > Cedar Creek Cemetery picts: > > [9]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Bridget Rorem wrote: > > > >> Please remember that being disowned is not the same thing as being > >> excommunicated, either. Disownment refers to one's relationship > >> with the > >> Meeting, not one's relationship with God. Quakers do not make > >> judgments > >> concerning an individual's relationship to God. > >> > >> Bridget Rorem > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:24:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > >>> [10][email protected] writes: > >>> > >>> But there are many instances in my Townsend Quakers where > >>> individuals > >>> married outside of > >>> the Quaker Faith (their spouse was of another faith), and were > >>> disowned from > >>> being a Quaker; they were not given a certificate to transfer, and > >>> that > >>> meant they couldn't go anywhere else (Quaker) > >>> without showing they had transferred from another meeting. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kim, > >>> > >>> I'm sure there were differences in practice from one Yearly > Meeting > >>> to > >>> another. But I don't think "disowning" meant ostracism. The > >>> reasoning (in > >>> many > >>> Quaker communities, anyway) was that if you were not willing to > >>> conform to > >>> the > >>> accepted practices of Quakerism you should not be considered a > >>> member of the > >>> Society, to participate in the business of the Monthly Meeting or > >>> present > >>> yourself to the rest of the community as a Quaker. This did not > >>> mean you > >>> were > >>> disowned by your family, and I'm quite sure you could attend > >>> Quaker worship > >>> if you chose to. Some of the signers of Quaker marriage > >>> certificates were > >>> not > >>> members of the Society. > >>> > >>> Again, practices and individual attitudes would vary from group to > >>> group. > >>> > >>> Dolly > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is > >>> making > >>> headlines. ([11]http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) > >>> > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >>> [12][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > >>> without the > >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> [13][email protected] > >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > >> the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [14][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [15][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > References > > 1. mailto:[email protected] > 2. mailto:[email protected] > 3. mailto:[email protected] > 4. mailto:[email protected] > 5. mailto:[email protected] > 6. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee > 7. http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm > 8. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm > 9. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm > 10. mailto:[email protected] > 11. http://news.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002 > 12. mailto:[email protected] > 13. mailto:[email protected] > 14. mailto:[email protected] > 15. mailto:[email protected] > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This is an interesting question. We need to keep a couple of things in mind. First, most disownments tended to be of young people between 20 and 30, the majority for marrying out of meeting. They were members not because of their own action, but because of birthright membership--they were Quakers because their parents were Quakers, not because of an decision they had made themselves. My sense is that many of these young people did not want to be Quakers, and rather enjoyed rebelling. Losing membership that they didn't value wasn't a big thing. There were exceptions, of course. Some Friends who were disowned did leave accounts which show that it could be a very painful experience. Those I've seen tend to involve Friends who were on the losing side of theological controversies. Until the late nineteenth century, divorce was an offense against the Discipline of Friends as much as marriage out of a meeting. Marriage was binding no matter whether it took place in meeting or not. Disowned Friends were free to attend meetings for worship, and, if they were willing to acknowledge that they had violated the rules and regretted it, they could regain membership. Spouses could be become members at request as well. Disownment rules changed gradually between 1860 and 1900 among different groups of Friends. By the 1890s, only the most traditionalist groups still made it an offense to marry out of meeting. Disownment was reserved for serious moral lapses, such as adultery or theft, etc. Today, most Quaker groups, to my knowledge, still reserve the right to expel members, but I've only heard of one such case in the last two decades. It got attention because it was so unusual. Really disaffected members tend to leave voluntarily. Tom Hamm What is harsh is probably in the eye of the beholder. For Quaker's who > married out of unity, they knew the consequences. Perhaps it was not so > harsh to them as having to not marry the person he/she loved and being > obliged to search for someone else, possibly of less attraction. > > Disownment as punishment suggests that there is room for improvement. In > the case of marrying out of unity, was there an expectation that the > disowned Quaker would seek a divorce and return to unity? Disownment was > removal from membership. Disowned Quakers could no longer be involved in > the decisions and actions of the Meeting. To some, disownment may have > seemed like punishment, but judging from the number of disowned Quakers > who > apparently did not seek to return unity, I wonder if disownment was > liberating? Interesting, too, most disowned Quakers did not seek to have > their children attend Meeting. > > When did Quakers cease the practice of disownment? I am member of a > Quaker > Meeting. I am unaware of any member having been "disowned" in my life > time. > > Gordon Trueblood > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 11:55 AM > Subject: [Q-R] Getting booted from the Society (disownment) > > >> >> Let's not get too loosey-goosey here. Disownment was a punishment, >> the >> most >> severe the society could mete out. It was a club, in every sense of >> the >> word. Do X and you will be disowned, i.e., expelled. Expulsion can't >> be >> seen as anything less than a punishment. The fact that it was not >> accompanied by church-compelled shunning or disinheritance doesn't >> mean >> that >> it wasn't punishment. >> >> >> >> Disownment was the tool Friends used to compel adherence to its basic >> principles. Most people who know anything of the Religious Society of >> Friends know that, when slavery was legal, it forbade its members to >> own >> slaves. Well, the tool of disownment is how it enforced that policy. >> Meetings did expel members who refused to free their slaves as >> directed. >> Earlier in the history of the society, members -- and, I believe, >> entire >> meetings -- were expelled from the larger body when they refused to >> set >> up >> separate women's meetings. (Women's meetings were held to be >> essential >> mechanisms with which to empower the female half of the membership to >> be >> potential instruments of Divine will.) >> >> >> >> The idea of disownment scares modern Quakers because they have, as a >> whole, >> embraced the sort of flabby "I'm OK; You're OK" philosophy common in >> U.S. >> churches. Dietrich Bonhoffer called it cheap grace, which accepts >> everything and everyone as they are. Our Quaker predecessors expected >> more >> from their religion. >> >> >> >> Mark >> Jan 11, 2009 09:40:23 AM, [1][email protected] wrote: >> >> I believe Jean Leeper's analogy is much closer to reality. >> "Disownment" >> was >> not "banishment". Quakers who were disowned were still permitted to >> attend >> Meetings, they just no longer had a vote or voice in the actions and >> decisions of the Meeting. It may be true that after "disownment" >> they >> transferred membership to another church, especially if they married >> out >> of >> unity (as was often the case in my part of the country). If they >> left >> the >> Meeting, it was the decision of the individual, not the Meeting. >> Many >> did >> remain with the Meeting. We see in the minutes that some disowned >> members >> were restored to unity. >> Gordon Trueblood >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jean Leeper" <[2][email protected]> >> To: "QUAKER ROOTS" <[3][email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:53 AM >> Subject: Re: [Q-R] Leaving the Society (disownment) >> > Forget the word disownment. By today's definition it is a little >> > harsh and in most cases it was not a harsh action. Think of a >> current >> > church you know, don't they periodically remove members from their >> > rolls because they join another society/church, moved away and >> once >> > and awhile because of their behavior with the church? Yes, there >> were >> > some issues like marrying contrary to discipline, fighting, gram >> > drinking, fighting in a war; they were disowned for, but they >> could >> > always write a letter to the meeting asking to be forgiven and >> become >> > a member again. Today churches have rules some are enforced and >> some >> > are not. When tracing one of my husband's ancestor, where early >> 1800 >> > records of a Primitive Baptist Church still exist, members were >> > removed from the church rolls for many of the same reasons, the >> > Quakers were. They just did not use the word disownment. >> > >> > When looking at the records of Salem MM in Iowa; the meeting there >> > disowned ca 50 people over slavery but the interesting thing was >> the >> > majority had already left and were attending the anti-slavery >> meeting >> > so they were officially purging their names from the rolls. There >> > were a few actions of hatred related to some of those leaving and >> > maybe some who never spoke to each other again like human nature >> is >> > today and probably some family splits like happens sometimes >> today. >> > In a few years many who left over slavery started offering a >> letter >> of >> > apology and were accepted back and became leaders in the meeting >> > again. Forgiveness is the key as to whether families stayed >> together >> > or the person was accepted back. How are we each doing on >> forgiveness? >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > >> > Jean Leeper >> > >> > [4][email protected] or [5][email protected] >> > >> > [6]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee >> > >> > LQM: [7]http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm >> > >> > Cedar Creek Book Update Page: >> > [8]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm >> > >> > Cedar Creek Cemetery picts: >> > [9]http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jan 10, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Bridget Rorem wrote: >> > >> >> Please remember that being disowned is not the same thing as >> being >> >> excommunicated, either. Disownment refers to one's relationship >> >> with the >> >> Meeting, not one's relationship with God. Quakers do not make >> >> judgments >> >> concerning an individual's relationship to God. >> >> >> >> Bridget Rorem >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:24:50 A.M. Pacific Standard >> Time, >> >>> [10][email protected] writes: >> >>> >> >>> But there are many instances in my Townsend Quakers where >> >>> individuals >> >>> married outside of >> >>> the Quaker Faith (their spouse was of another faith), and were >> >>> disowned from >> >>> being a Quaker; they were not given a certificate to transfer, >> and >> >>> that >> >>> meant they couldn't go anywhere else (Quaker) >> >>> without showing they had transferred from another meeting. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Kim, >> >>> >> >>> I'm sure there were differences in practice from one Yearly >> Meeting >> >>> to >> >>> another. But I don't think "disowning" meant ostracism. The >> >>> reasoning (in >> >>> many >> >>> Quaker communities, anyway) was that if you were not willing to >> >>> conform to >> >>> the >> >>> accepted practices of Quakerism you should not be considered a >> >>> member of the >> >>> Society, to participate in the business of the Monthly Meeting >> or >> >>> present >> >>> yourself to the rest of the community as a Quaker. This did not >> >>> mean you >> >>> were >> >>> disowned by your family, and I'm quite sure you could attend >> >>> Quaker worship >> >>> if you chose to. Some of the signers of Quaker marriage >> >>> certificates were >> >>> not >> >>> members of the Society. >> >>> >> >>> Again, practices and individual attitudes would vary from group >> to >> >>> group. >> >>> >> >>> Dolly >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is >> >>> making >> >>> headlines. ([11]http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------- >> >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> >>> [12][email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' >> >>> without the >> >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> >> [13][email protected] >> >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> >> the body of the message >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> > [14][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the >> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [15][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> References >> >> 1. mailto:[email protected] >> 2. mailto:[email protected] >> 3. mailto:[email protected] >> 4. mailto:[email protected] >> 5. mailto:[email protected] >> 6. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee >> 7. http://www.rootsweb.com/~ialqm/index.htm >> 8. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccfbook.htm >> 9. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee/ccrestore.htm >> 10. mailto:[email protected] >> 11. http://news.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002 >> 12. mailto:[email protected] >> 13. mailto:[email protected] >> 14. mailto:[email protected] >> 15. mailto:[email protected] >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >