What’s being referred to here is called “disownment” in the Religious Society of Friends (for those who are not aware, “Quaker” is the nickname of Friends). It’s often comparable with excommunication in other religious groups. People who were disowned were removed from the membership of the Religious Society of Friends and not supposed to identify themselves as Friends. Disownment was a consequence of violating the discipline, the written rules that governed Quaker religious life.

Disownment could occur for many reasons; some of these included behavioral violations such as gambling, or they could be violations of Quaker traditions, such as swearing a judicial oath. In the nineteenth century, the most common reason for disownment was “marrying out of meeting.” This was when a Quaker married a non-Quaker, violating the group’s practice of endogamy. Quaker meetings were often quite zealous about disowning wayward members; some scholars estimate that nearly half of the membership of American Quakerism was disowned in the nineteenth century. In the schism of 1827, when American Quakerism broke into rival groups, the Hicksites and the Orthodox factions both officially disowned each other (though both claimed their rivals did not have the authority to disown).

Violation of the testimony against war, as mentioned in the article you linked, was a quick route to disownment. During the American Revolution, a group dubbed the Free Quakers argued in favor of American independence and supported taking up arms in rebellion. They were disowned by the rest of the Religious Society of Friends and formed their own meetings, which existed independent of the rest of Quakerism into the early nineteenth century. Free Quakers actually changed Quaker religious practice on a number of other topics as well, and even tried to restrict their Free Quaker meetings from being able to disown anyone on any grounds.

The process of disownment was done by a monthly meeting, the smallest unit of Quaker polity and comparable to a congregation in other Christian traditions. Usually a small group appointed by the meeting would visit the offender, offering them a chance to show contrition and return to good standing. If this visit was rejected, or the individual did not indicate repentance, the Monthly Meeting would disown them at their next Meeting for Business (where Quakers transacted all official church governance).

Disownment was not necessarily final. Former Quakers could approach their meetings, offer statements of repentance, and rejoin them. Quaker meetings for worship were open to the public, including disowned former Quakers. Some people who were disowned continued to live essentially the same lifestyle as they had prior to being disowned, worshiping alongside Friends. However, other people simply abandoned Quakerism for good after being disowned.

Being disowned did have a few practical consequences. It meant that an individual was not supposed to represent themselves as a Quaker, which could have business consequences because Quakers tended to deal with each other and had a reputation for fair dealing with outsiders. Disowned individuals were not supposed to attend Meeting for Business. Disownment also meant that individuals were no longer eligible to receive meeting funds. Meetings administered poor relief to their members, so this could have practical consequences for the destitute.

It’s not uncommon to find evidence of people who were repeatedly disowned from Quaker meetings. Benjamin Lay, the eighteenth-century abolitionist, was disowned for his disruptive behavior and readmitted to Quaker meetings several times. Dolley Madison’s mother was disowned for marrying her father, a non-Quaker, though both were later admitted as members of a Quaker meeting. Several decades later, Dolley’s father was disowned for what their meeting saw as dishonest business practices.

There were some disownments over men who choose to serve in the Civil War, but meetings were usually tolerant of military service in that conflict and disownment became far less common by the late nineteenth century. Disownment still can occur in modern American Quakerism, but it is very rare. The last time I’m aware of it being a major topic of debate was during the Nixon presidency, when there was a failed campaign by liberal Quakers to get Nixon’s home church, East Whittier Friends, to disown him.

Recommended Resources:

Dandelion, Ben Pink, and Stephen W. Angell, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Dandelion, Ben Pink. An Introduction to Quakerism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Hamm, Thomas D. The Quakers in America. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.