A Viewpoint article by a brother retired bishop entitled "Voting Rights for Retired Bishops" [TLC, July 28] stated that retired bishops should not have the right to vote on legislative matters for which they will have no responsibility or accountability because they are retired and therefore without jurisdiction. Years ago, in opposition to a resolution in the House of Bishops that retired bishops be deprived of a vote, I told this story: A Japanese freighter with a full cargo of Yo-Yos sank at the entrance of the harbor. It sank 40 times!

I thought we had finished with this "Yo-Yo" at the General Convention in Denver in 1979. But it surfaced again in Detroit at General Convention in 1988 when this old retired bishop was on a honeymoon in Destin, Fla. I am sure I had more fun in Destin than bishops and deputies had in the "Cavern of the Winds" called Cobo Hall in Detroit. As far as I know, there was no new evidence to try us again other than perhaps the fact that we had become older and more experienced than before. It appears we are now the victims of double jeopardy, which is illegal in the United States and in many other countries.

One of the resurfacing "Yo-Yos" is this: It has been said that ours is the only House of Bishops in the Anglican Communion that allows retired bishops to vote. We ought to be proud of that.

We knew that long ago when it was decided to extend that right to retired bishops. Why then should we take it away now? It cannot be because we have a deeper concern for consensus within our beloved Anglican Communion. We have voted unilaterally on more than one important issue already.

It should be recalled that the House of Bishops was the first to vote against the continued discrimination against women of the Episcopal Church by the House of Deputies. Women were refused, time after time, eligibility to be elected deputies. Certainly we would not wish to reverse that decision to allow full membership to women in that house today. To reverse the decision to grant votes to retired bishops should be equally reprehensible: definitely a step backward. It would show that we don't really believe in equal rights for all members of this house.

From a sociological and civil rights point of view, it is only fair to continue to give retired bishops a vote as well as a seat and a voice and not to create another category of membership for us which would be second class.

What is even more important is the nature of our orders - the theological reason that our house grasped more fully than others when it granted equality to all bishops in this house. It is simply this: That we were ordained and consecrated to the sacred office of a bishop in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of God.

The essence of the episcopate is not jurisdiction. If that were so, and we were to be completely consistent, not only bishops but suffragan bishops should be disenfranchised.

But wait! How about coadjutors? They have only partial jurisdiction, which means their diocesans do not have full jurisdiction either. According to Bishop Spears, these bishops should therefore not have full votes in this house. Only a minority of missionary bishops and bishops of smaller dioceses would be entitled to complete voting power under this proposal. This is not a modest proposal; it is a warning. I am not in favor of class distinctions in the House of Bishops.

However, in the full pursuit of consistency, we might pass a resolution to deprive lay persons from eligibility to election in the House of Deputies. I doubt this idea would sit well in that house. We all know that it is possible for any bishop to lapse into a momentary state of asininity. Sampson once slew many with the jawbone of an ass, a feat occasionally duplicated in our house on a smaller scale. I confess to such lapses, even as a non-retired diocesan. But I console myself by thinking, "Heber, you may be an 'ordinary,' but you are not an ordinary jackass; you are a consecrated jackass." From partisan legislation and other forms of jackasininity, Good Lord deliver us.

Therefore, as bishops consider whether or not they should let their retired senior colleagues down, they should ask themselves, "If I were retired, or if I had no jurisdiction as a bishop, would I be less a bishop? Would I have less responsibility and accountability for maintaining the faith and order of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of God? Would I have less love for the church? Would my loyalty be decreased, my honor and conscience be diminished?

At one time I had episcopal oversight of Anglican work in the five countries of Central America; also the republics of Panama, Colombia and Ecuador in South America. There are now 10 Anglican bishops where I was once the only one. In 1934 as deacon, in 1935 as priest, in 1945 as bishop, I stated I would solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church.

I have kept this vow with God's help and intend to do so as long as I live in this world. I still don't know how long that will be. As soon as we're born, we're old enough to die. However, I do know this: I do not wish to be called out sliding for home. q