“They’re breaking up that ol’ gang of mine.”

Does anyone know to which group Bishop John Rogers belongs?

AnglicanInk keeps referring to the bishops as “assistant” bishops. The Gulf Atlantic Diocese makes very clear that +Miller will serve as “assisting” NOT “assistant” bishop. See http://www.gulfatlanticdiocese.org/letters.

“Assisting Bishop” is the role proposed by Archbishop Duncan and others, and is used in the recent understanding that has been created between AMiA and ACNA to help during this time of transition for AMiA. An assisting bishop is someone called to a particular and often temporary task, in this case to oversee Anglican Mission parishes in transition. It is not the same as an “Assistant Bishop,” which is a bishop whose appointment requires the consent of Synod. An assistant bishop would be a member of our ACNA College of Bishops, while an assisting bishop would not.

See also the ACNA Communique itself: http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/413.

As an assisting bishop, which does not automatically seat one in the ACNA College of Bishops

While there may be a local distinction between assisting and assistant bishops, there is no distinction between the terms in the greater scheme of things.  An assistant bishop is an assisting bishop—the distinction is made in the area of their responsibilities.  Anglican Ink (and the Church of England Newspaper for that matter) serves a pan-Anglican audience and strives to be consistent in its nomenclature.  That is why I never use the phrase “Canon Dr” that has surfaced in recent years.  The article in question lays out the responsibilities of the bishops in question and uses terms recognizable to the wider Anglican world.

Well if there’s one thing that I’ve always said that ACNA needs more of, it’s bishops!

#5 -   Nicely said.

I’ve often thought that the best thing in the world for those that left TEC (back before ACNA and all that) when they were still under Global South bishops was that they had no bishops of their own.  I think that a detoxification of the church from bishops would have been one of the best long-term developments for orthodox North American Anglicanism.  Not that bishops are inherently bad, but I do think that Anglicans tend too easily towards clericalism.  A lack of bishops and priests would have required the new Anglicans to really think things out.

I realize that my comment #6 might be mis-interpreted.  I am not advocating a church permanently without bishops - rather, my point was that one major part of TEC’s problems (which I think has been partially carried over into ACNA) has been how it views bishops, appoints them, treats them, etc.  Same thing with priests.  I think that an extended time without bishops (and without priests for new plants) would have been a good thing because it would have served as a firewall to importing North American Anglicanism’s problematical issues with bishops into the ACNA.

#7—This is not new. In 1789 the southern states argued at the first General Convention that the new US Episcopal church did not need in residence bishops. SC and Virginia in particular felt bishops were bothersome meddlers. Now, I have known a lot of bishops over the years and some of them were Godly, righteous and sober men/women; but more of them were___________.  (You may fill in the blank).

Lets not forget that there are something like 200 congregations in former AMiA.  Those congregations need oversight. 

Until it is known where each congregation is going, the precise need for permanent episcopal arrangements will not be known. 

But whatever view one takes of this kerfuffle, at least some of the existing AMiA bishops are going to find employment, because those congregations have to be pastored.

A church without priests or bishops isn’t Anglican.