The Rev. John Frizzell [TLC, Oct. 4] writes that bishops who do not accept the ordination of women ought to resign, and that any priest of the same conviction who is elected bishop should not accept election. "A principled man can do no other," he writes.

I would find this argument compelling if those who supported the ordination of women as priests and bishops had gained their objectives by reasoned argument and godly persuasion, rather than by outlaw actions such as the "Philadelphia 11." It would also be more compelling if those who argue for the acceptability of the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons did not act contrary to positions taken by General Convention and the House of Bishops on the subject of homosexuality. It would be further compelling if the House of Bishops were to discipline Bishop Spong for his rejection of the whole of the Christian faith.

The Eames Commission spoke of the process of reception of the ordination of women, a process that might well take decades. The 1998 Lambeth Conference gave its opinion (not binding but surely worth something, unless one claims that U.S. bishops are the only ones led by the Holy Spirit) that no one should be forced to accept ordination of women to be a member in good standing of the ordained ministry of the churches of the Anglican Communion.

Given the doctrinal disarray of the Episcopal Church, it is difficult to make a case that the only point of doctrine to be compelled by the church is the ordination of women to the offices of presbyter and bishop.

(The Rev.) Charles F. Sutton, Jr.

Trinity Church

Whitinsville, Mass.