Response by the Editors

We would like to thank the Quaker Theological Discussion Group for organizing and hosting this panel. It is a privilege indeed to have one’s work given so much attention by such a distinguished set of colleagues. We are very grateful to Jon Kershner, Leah Payne, Paul Anderson, and Madeleine Ward for their perceptive and affirming reviews of Early Quakers and Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723. Their appreciation guides us toward a brief reply. Of course, some response seems in order to a few of the thoughtful observations that they made about our work

Schism as Collective Disaffiliation: A Quaker Typology

This research note builds on a study of British Quakers who have resigned their Membership in the last five years (Dandelion 2002). Quakers leave either because they are \u27de-convinced\u27 or because, in a group which places emphasis on continuing revelation, they are grieving the loss of what has passed before. A third type resigns because they feel the group is too slow to support new revelation. In these latter two cases, the disaffiliated feel left by the group. This typology is placed across the concept of the \u27double-culture\u27 to give six types of ex-Quaker. It is suggested that this extended typology of the disaffiliated, while originating in a study of individual leavers, could be usefully employed in studies of collective schism. Examples of types of schism are given