To use the line from the old Westerns — “It’s quiet around here.  Too quiet.”

Yes, at least for the last day it does seem that office holders and members of the Church of Scotland have been observing the “urged” “quiet period” regarding public discussion of issues related to human sexuality.  One day down, 735 to go.  (For the record, I am an office holder and member in another Presbyterian denomination.  I can’t imagine our gang being so well behaved.)

Anyway, sarcasm, cliches, and snarky comments aside, I have to admit that I have been very impressed with how “all the usual suspects,” on both sides of the issue, have taken this to heart.  Stewart Cutler did comment on the “gag” order itself.  Ian Watson posted the text of a news story about the quiet period.  Danny expresses the concern that waiting another two years just allows each side to become entrenched.  And Chris Hoskins, in his reflection on Monday, says he’ll avoid that topic in his daily reflection.

What are the instructions?  The minutes have not been posted yet, and I don’t see a full read-back in the daily updates, but tracking back the changes (and checking it against Stewart’s text) it seems that the sections dealing with the quiet period say

2. Instruct all Courts, Councils and Committees of the Church not to
issue press statements or talk to the media or to make public comment,
whether in publications or otherwise, on decision-making in relation to
contentious matters of human sexuality, with respect to Ordination and
Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2011;

and

3. Urge all members who are subject to the discipline of the Courts of
the Church of Scotland to act in accordance with the process outlined
in 1 and 2.

And it was understood in the debate that blogging was included in the prohibited communication.

The exact parameters are still not specifically understood and I am sure the boundaries will be worked out as people “test the limits” of the motion.  As people have a chance to think this through there may be official guidelines.  And while I consider it unlikely, there may even be a complete breakdown for individuals since the term is “urge,” not a strict instruction like “shall,” leaving little force for ensuring compliance.  In fact, the limits are being tested already, as reported by the Scotsman, with one minister writing a letter to that paper criticizing the Assembly’s earlier action in the Aberdeen case.  As a member of a presbytery it is being debated if he is representing the presbytery after being “instructed” not to comment, or acting as an individual after being “urged” not to.  As is customary in Presbyterian polity it will be up to the presbytery to decide on a case to discipline a member.

And what constitutes “public comment?”  Could the suggested actions of some sessions to withold their payments to the larger church in protest be considered a form of public comment?  This is a form of protest and comment that has been used in the PC(USA) and has clearly gotten the attention of some governing bodies there.

So there are many uncertainties and two years to go with this.  We will see what understandings develop as time goes on.