Let me see if I've got this right. Two respected American priests travel to Singapore, where they are consecrated as bishops by six Anglican bishops - two of them archbishops of other provinces and two of them distinguished retired American bishops. The new bishops, validly consecrated, are sent back across the Pacific to minister in this country to congregations which request pastoral support, guidance and oversight. I don't get it. Do you?

All of this sounds terribly familiar, doesn't it? There were the ordinations of women as priests in 1974, ruled "irregular" but later legitimized. The ordinations created an uproar, but basically nothing happened. During the '80s and '90s, we had blessings of same-sex couples and ordinations of non-celibate homosexual persons. Try and stop us, their advocates said. No one did.

It would appear that the participants in the Singapore service decided to use the same tactic. Unfortunately for them, the circumstances are different. They're not in the majority. They may be validly consecrated bishops, but without jurisdiction, they haven't got much going for them. They're bishops without a diocese or even a province.

For all practical purposes "the Singapore Six" would appear to have formed the latest in a series of "continuing" Anglican churches, a myriad of small bodies which seem unable to get along with one another. And maybe that's why this sounds so familiar. Remember when bishops were consecrated for the continuing churches in 1977? There had been hope by those who departed in 1977 that they would be recognized by Canterbury, but that never happened. Only one Episcopal bishop stepped forward to consecrate the new bishops, and the continuing church movement foundered from the start.

Particularly difficult to understand is the timing of the consecrations. From all indications, there had been an understanding among conservative leaders from various parts of the Anglican Communion that they would wait until the primates of the 38 Anglican provinces met in March in Portugal before taking any action. Something brought about a change of minds. Logic would have put the Singapore Six and others into a waiting mode. After all, the primates were supposed to have had the matter of what to do about the plight of American traditionalists on their agenda. Now that the consecrations have taken place, there seems to be little for them to discuss.

Another logical strategy would have had them wait until General Convention takes place. Because it is the sexuality issues - blessing of same-sex couples and ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons - which have brought about the idea of another province, wouldn't it have made more sense to wait and see whether General Convention would adopt these innovations? A sizable portion of the House of Bishops and an unknown number of convention deputies believe legislative action, especially at this time, is not the way to go about solving the sexuality issues.

Bishops Murphy and Rodgers will have difficult ministries. If they are invited to minister to congregations which are currently at odds with their diocesan bishop over the sexuality issues, chances are they will be heading into dioceses in which they are not welcome. They are not likely to be granted permission to minister in many dioceses, and will be viewed as troublemakers by many diocesan bishops. They may even be regarded suspiciously by conservative congregations which have a good relationship with their bishop and are not anxious to cause trouble.

I sympathize with the persons who took this action. They represent thousands who are simply trying to live faithful lives believing as Anglicans have always believed. Unfortunately, they've made it more difficult for that to happen.

David Kalvelage, executive editor