Our bishop, of course, is not one of the radicals, some of whom now so reinterpret classic Christian doctrine that, even though they dress up in traditional garb and recite a somewhat familiar sounding liturgy, they are, in fact, like the pagan priests of the late Roman Empire whom Gibbon so devastatingly described as, "Viewing, with a smile of pity and indulgence, the various errors of the vulgar, they digilently practiced the ceremonies of their fathers, devoutly frequented the temples of the gods; and sometimes condescending to act a part on the theater of superstition, they concealed the sentiments of an Atheist under sacerdotal robes."

So the bishop finds himself in a drama worthy of Sophocles: Parishes fed up with TEC's reinterpretation of Christian doctrine have been affiliating with other Anglican jurisdictions and have expected to take their property with them, but TEC's Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor have claimed all parish real estate as TEC's property.

A bishop therefore faces hard choices: On the one hand, to litigate against a departing church is to align himself with the TEC radicals. On the other hand, to give up claim to the property without a fight possibly runs the risk of legal action against himself by TEC for not sticking to "the company line."

TEC has already made such threats against orthodox bishops who want to pull entire dioceses out of TEC.

The present situation is not immediately of the bishop's making, but when assumed his present office in 1995, he knew that thousands of orthodox Christians had already left TEC to form new non-TEC parishes, and he must have known that, one day, entire parishes would be leaving TEC and expecting to take their property.

I intentionally write "their property," because from the very beginning of Christianity, faithful Christians have devoted their time, money and talents to the worship and glory of God and for places of worship, not for the possession of secular, hedonistic organizations such as the present TEC.

Except in the case of new missions (which are presently rare in TEC), the funds to build and maintain houses of worship typically have come "up" from church members, not "down" from a larger Church organization.

In fact, in the United States, diocesan and TEC demands for funds, misused too often for bloated bureaucracies and radical political causes, historically have siphoned resources from parishes, resources that could have been used better for local Christian outreach.

Moreover, contributions from church members certainly have not been given to support litigation against themselves in secular courts. And in the case at hand, the parish existed before the creation of TEC.

Moral issues aside, the bishop's situation is made even more complex by the fact that TEC's claim to parish properties is based on the Denis Canon (religious law) voted on in 1979 by the General Synod of the Episcopal Church. This canon attempted to transfer title of all parish property to the national church. It is now being contested in various secular jurisdictions, and the matter probably will land ultimately before the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Denis Canon ultimately is held to be invalid, litigation initiated by dioceses will turn out to have been rather Quixotic wastes of resources and good will. If the Canon is upheld, resources and good will still will have been wasted, but thousands of TEC parishioners, more likely hundreds of thousands nationwide, will leave TEC for more orthodox affiliations.

Litigation is a lose/lose situation for TEC and its dioceses. And the Christ Church situation is not unique. Individuals, parishes and dioceses all over the U.S. are examining their options. Even though the national population grows every year, TEC membership declines every year. "He who has ears, let him hear."

A third set of problems concerns the Bishop's allies. He did not choose them, but they are there anyway. Should he remain on the same side as the local critics of Christ Church's Rector, critics who are themselves, in doctrine - or lack of it - more or less in league with TEC's radical innovators?

I repeat: our bishop certainly is not one of TEC's radicals, but to litigate is to do the radicals bishops' bidding while their local disciples cheer.

Virtually all of the public statements by the supporters of Christ Church intended departure have been models of moderation. This generally has not been the case with critics of the move.

Their comments have ranged from sentimental ramblings to the effect that "our family has had a nice time at Christ Church for generations," to heated letters that show little understanding of theological issues, Holy Scripture, or the Church. One such letter compared Christ Church's rector to Islamic terrorists, and then, in self-contradiction, stated that he was not being so compared - as if saying that took it all back.

Several letters containing personal attacks on the rector are larded with such stuff as: "intellectual and moral cul-de-sac," "intolerance," "provincial, small-minded, behavior," "mediocre, unpleasant and unnecessary," "demagogues," "preying upon our fears," "righteousness trumps sense and kindness," "anger and ugliness," "hypocrisy," "egotism," "holier than thou," "pious platitudes," "well-known prejudices," and "where bigotry and hypocrisy could strike a sanctimonious stance," "twisted and distorted," "preposterous," "organizes religions are confused, fearful and dysfunctional," "These old, tired, worn out religions have miserably failed."

My favorite letter had as its brilliantly informative final sentence a plea that we "stop worrying about doctrine and just sing." Well, the only creatures I know of that sing without worrying about doctrine are birds: canaries, mockingbirds, cuckoos, and the like. Thus, the Avian Heresy has been hatched.

To paraphrase Lincoln, this is a new religion "of the birds, by the birds, and for the birds," with "liberty and justice for all" thrown in for good measure to accommodate even the stubbornly unrepentant.

Avianism, perhaps with Tweetie Bird and Daffy Duck as its patron saints, will be an attractive menace to the younger set despite its loony perspective on doctrine. For me, it already has added a wonderfully unexpected dimension of meaning to that old gospel favorite, "I'll Fly Away."

Our bishop, for whom I have great sympathy, needs to explore the possibility of a negotiated compromise as a way out of the present mess.

---Herbert Guerry is an Episcopalian and a local writer