An interesting, unusual dilemma has been posed. A small segment of our readership has challenged our news judgment. At issue is the matter of the Singapore Two. It doesn't seem to matter to many of these folks whether the Rev. Charles Murphy and the Rev. John Rodgers were really consecrated as bishops in Singapore last January. Their concern is whether news of their doings belongs in TLC.

Good question. Obviously, we think some of the events involving the Singapore Two are legitimate news stories. Otherwise we wouldn't have put them in the magazine. As far as I can determine, the Rt. Rev. Charles Murphy III is a bishop of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda, and the Rt. Rev. John Rodgers is a bishop of the Church of the Province of South East Asia. They are not recognized as bishops by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States, nor has their consecration been given any official status by the Archbishop of Canterbury. That's the easy part. Then it gets complicated.

When the Singapore story broke in mid-winter, we reasoned it this way: Here were two American priests, fairly well known, consecrated by American bishops and others at a cathedral in Singapore. At that time, the issue for us wasn't whether their consecrations were legitimate or recognized. It was simply an interesting news story.

We didn't stop there. We published interviews with the Singapore Two. What were they thinking? Why did they do this? What happens now? That's when the mail, the e-mail and the phone calls began. We've been accused of being PR agents for the Singapore Two (we're not), of having misguided news judgment (that's at least up for debate), and of hoping schism takes place (we don't).

I don't want to sound defensive, but I think it's helpful to let folks know why we've run some news stories on the Singapore Two and their Anglican Mission in America. It seems to me that when a 600-member congregation votes to leave the Episcopal Church and decides to move under the jurisdiction of one of the Singapore Two [TLC, Oct. 1], that's a news story. And if the Singapore Two are part of a new endeavor that's set up to receive parishes which intend to leave the Episcopal Church [TLC, Aug. 27], that's also news.

They're not Episcopalians!, goes the cry of our critics. They've left the church! They're in another denomination! You don't publicize other denominations!

Those claims, of course, are not all true. We do publish news of other churches - Roman Catholic pronouncements [TLC, Oct. 1], Methodist and Presbyterian national conventions, Lutheran ordinations. But they're all related to what the Episcopal Church is doing, you say. Maybe. So are the Singapore Two, I would say. And let's not be sure the Singapore Two have left the fold. More important people than TLC's editor will determine that. They may have left the Episcopal Church, even though one continues to minister in the parish where he was rector, and at least one has been involved in confirmation and ordination services with Episcopal bishops who are in good standing.

We do not intend to publicize everything the Singapore Two decide to do this year. There will be more congregations, more individuals, who will leave the Episcopal Church for their jurisdictions. We won't cover them all. But as of today, the Singapore Two continue to be a news story. At some point, the rest of the Anglican Communion will decide what to do with them, and their status should be clarified. Until then, it's a strange dilemma.

David Kalvelage, executive editor