I once worked in a suburban bureau of The Washington Post. One of the challenges reporters in such positions face is how frequently to report on incremental developments in ongoing stories. Write too frequently and you bore your audience with what they might consider minutiae. Write too infrequently and you lose readers to community newspapers for whom these incremental developments sometimes constitute a major story.
I am beginning to feel similarly about developments in the saga of the Anglican Communion. I know some of you visit to keep up with every twist and turn. This is the blog’s bread and butter. But sometimes it seems to me that all we do is twist and turn without ever moving forward. And chronicling such pseudo-developments becomes tedious. Today’s story is that the bishops of Pittsburgh and Forth Worth have refused an invitation from the bishop of Virginia to attend another meeting about alternative primatial oversight in New York. You can read Bishop Iker’s letter to Bishop Lee, here.
Is this significant? I am not sure. Since becoming our presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori has said that if push comes to shove, she will fight to uphold the constitutions and canons of our church. Her statements of resolve have now been met by statements of resolve on the part of those bishops who are eager for alternative primatial oversight. I emphasize the word “statements” because nobody has actually had to demonstrate any resolve yet.
Does this advance the story much? You tell me. I have some thoughts (but no inside information) of how the various actors intend to play their hands in the months ahead, but I don’t have the time to flesh them out this morning. I hope to come back to this, and to the Radner-Goddard piece I mentioned yesterday at a later date.
Update: Lionel is worth reading, too.