It's the same thing that obtains in the military -- where "obedience to your superior" is required, the soldier takes an oath, and that duty is enforced by the UCMJ.
NEVERTHELESS, it is not required to obey one's superior officer when that superior officer gives one an UNLAWFUL ORDER. To take an extreme example, if your captain orders you to massacre civilians, you must disobey on pain of prosecution. Similarly, if your bishop orders you to do something obviously illegal -- like, say, cook the books or steal from the church pension fund -- you must disobey or you will be prosecuted right along with him.
Since Scripture and Tradition remain primary over the (temporary and transient) diocesan authority of the bishop, then if a bishop gives an order which is unlawful in the light of Scripture and Tradition, it is permissible . . . nay, it is the DUTY . . . of the priest to refuse to comply.
That's the primary reason, but here's another. The bishop is also subject to authority -- the clear instructions of the Anglican Communion and Lambeth -- which HE is disobeying. They just seem to lack the stomach for Gestapo tactics, which Smith obviously has in abundance.
That's exactly the root of the problem, however.
The revisionists in the ECUSA do not consider themselves to be under any authority except the "urgings of the Holy Spirit." As such, they are not bound by Scripture, are logically required to discount Tradition entirely, and are clearly under no obligation to recognize any outside constraints on the political decisions of the ECUSA.
This sort of thinking bears the stamp of the "false prophets" of, e.g., Matthew 24.
Very good answer! Thanks.