There are few matters in British Quakerism that
seem to excite as much disagreement as the question of membership.
Theological diversity is certainly one, but in my experience
membership is certainly up there among the most contentious, though
probably still somewhat behind the concern over non-theism.
Membership was not an idea that seemed to matter
much – or necessarily be thought of at all – in the early years
of the Religious Society of Friends. Accounts vary somewhat as to why
it became important, whether it was in order to know who should get
material support from a Meeting when they were in hardship, or in
order to demonstrate bureaucratic structures to satisfy the secular
government (if the government could be said to be secular at that
time), or various other explanations. Whatever the reason, it became
necessary to identify who was a member, and procedures for bringing
people into membership – or indeed removing them from membership.
For a long time, in Britain, those born to parents in membership were
considered to be in membership themselves, from birth - “birthright
membership”; the possibility of only one parent being a member
wasn't often a concern, given the fact that marrying someone not in
membership was cause to be removed from membership, and society in
general being such that children born to unmarried parents were, at
least visibly, unusual. I suspect that where a widow came into
membership during her pregnancy, the child would be considered a
birthright member; I don't know what happened with new members who
brought small children with them – it would make an interesting bit
of research, but not one I have time for at present.
