# Curious about this step of discipline



## Wayne (Mar 4, 2014)

Perhaps someone better versed in Reformed Presbyterian church order can illuminate this passage, which comes from the Session Minutes of the First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh, PA:



> Pittsburgh, Tuesday, April 17th, 1832
> 
> James Stevenson was called on who had been summoned to attend this meeting of Session on a charge of meddling with political affairs as specified in a former citation. He testified his sorrow in having thus violated the rules and order of the Church and that for some months past he had resolved not to interfere in any way with Political Concerns in [the] future. He submitted and was by vote of Session admonished and his privileges continued.



I had not thought of RP's as prohibiting, particularly to this extent, involvement by the laity in political affairs. But that is what the above seems to indicate.


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 4, 2014)

From what I understand members were not even allowed to vote until the 1980's. This would seem to match that.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 4, 2014)

It reflects the historic Covenanter view that an unqualified oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is unlawful because of the Constitution's refusal to acknowledge Christ and make the Word of God the standard of civil policy, instead elevating "we the people" to that position and officially sanctioning false religions in the First Amendment. Because of these issues, RP churches expected their members not to vote (because office-holders would have to swear an unlawful oath) or run for office themselves, as well as not to serve on juries, join the military, etc.


----------



## Wayne (Mar 4, 2014)

Good explanation. Thanks.


----------

