I read with interest Bishop Spears impassioned plea concerning votes in the House of Bishops as a legislative body, though it should be pointed out that the direction in which he wants the church to move is accomplished by the inequity of that about which he complains. Was that not the case in Portland? The retired bishops who feel "uncomfortable with changes," as he puts it, are far outweighed by others who have change as their aim and have, in large part, ushered in what they could not accomplish in their day.

He mentions that it is in the United States alone that retired bishops have votes. It is also true that in a large part of the Anglican Communion the suffragan bishops, coadjutors and assistants do not even attend the House of Bishops, let alone have votes. Indeed, coadjutor is a particularly American thing.

The diocesans act as jurisdiction. Because they carry the accountability, it is they who should compose the House of Bishops and have votes over that for which they have to exercise accountability and oversight. The power of voice is larger than the vote in many ways, and it is often the case that retired bishops, suffragans, coadjutors and assistants have the most to say. Was it not Bishop Pike who said, "They may be sorry they gave me voice but no vote."? That is very true in the House of Bishops, and often the loudest voice gets the party to follow.

(The Rt. Rev.) Terence Kelshaw

Bishop of the Rio Grande

Albuquerque, N.M.