As one of those bishops who "chose not to attend" the spring meeting of the House of Bishops - or any such meeting since I retired from diocesan jurisdiction - I wish it known that my absence is from no intention of discourtesy or shirking of responsibility or hurt feelings, but because I continue to believe firmly that those to whom the usual standards of accountability cannot be applied have no business participating in the voting of a legislative body for whose actions others must take responsibility in the life and work of the church.

At the time of the meeting of the House of Bishops in Portland, Ore., in 1995, the membership consisted of 127 members who held accountable jurisdictional office and 149 members who were retired from any such responsibility. There are now more retired bishops than all the diocesan, coadjutor, suffragan, missionary and assistant bishops put together; more retired bishops with a vote than there are active and directly accountable bishops with a vote.

In several contentious issues which came before the bishops acting in their responsibility as corporate authority in the church, the outcome was greatly influenced or finally decided by the votes of bishops who no longer occupy accountable office in the church.

In 1979, the suggestion of removing the vote from retired bishops was rejected by the House of Bishops on a sentimental appeal which pictured the adoption of a concept of responsible participation as if it meant rejection of bishops who held long-standing and valued membership in the house. Retired bishops on that occasion could use their vote to save their vote, and they did. In the Anglican Communion, it is only the Episcopal Church in the United States that gives the retired bishops a vote. Elsewhere, as here, the continuing value of such bishops in the life of the church is exercised in other ways. But everywhere else the full and clear responsibility for making and carrying out decisions remains with those who hold jurisdictional authority and accountability.

Why is this example of responsible authority throughout the Anglican Communion not given the weight so often accorded to other areas of "Anglican tradition?" Can it be because voting in the House of Bishops is the last defense some bishops feel they possess against changes with which they feel personally uncomfortable? Do the retired confuse their personal sense of authority as bishops with the canonically established authority which they exercised prior to retirement?

How much longer will the Episcopal Church be satisfied to carry a heavy burden of resistance from leaders who continue to apply the solutions of the past to the changing opportunities of the present? As Stephen Fielding Bayne once said in a debate in the House of Bishops, "It is said that the church is not ready for this action. As far as I can see from reading history, the church has never been ready for anything." (The subject then under debate was whether to ordain women as priests.)

If he wishes, let the new Bishop of London bear witness to his conviction that the views of the Anglican Church about ordination and marriage were finally and irrevocably settled in the 17th century. But those who have been paying attention to what the new winds which always blow through God's world have brought us all in succeeding centuries need no longer believe that a tradition which rests solely on past scholarship should be the only source for identifying God's continuing activity. Archbishop Coggan reminded a meeting of the Lambeth Conference that the gospel is not a document which supports the theory that nothing should be attempted for the first time.

I offer this statement as one of the many retired bishops who still have an active place in the church and the world as Christian witnesses and ministers. I try to exercise that calling in a variety of settings by the grace of God. Voting in an ecclesiastical legislature where I have access by office but no accountability in fact is not one of them.

Other retired and active bishops may have absented themselves from the House of Bishops meetings for other reasons. My opinions on this matter are not shared by all. Here, I am indeed attempting to exercise influence, but not with an authoritative vote. When I look at the difficulties associated with attempting to reach accord on important matters in the church through votes in a legislative body, a majority of whose members have no accountability for the results, I am not surprised at the confusion which follows. A change in the voting status of retired bishops would do much to improve the situation. q

The Rt. Rev. Robert R. Spears, Jr., is the retired Bishop of Rochester. He resides in Rochester, N.Y.