Not to belabor the point in my last post, but inside the United States, or any modern state which reserves unto itself the absolute monopoly of violence (in the form of the police and military authorities), NO other organization, including religions, no matter how free, is ever WHOLLY free of the power of the state, and indeed the state is ULTIMATELY the arbiter in any dispute, without exception, that is bitter enough.
Why?
Because if a dispute is bitter enough, the side that loses an argument or an internal procedure will not respect the rules, will DEFY the rules and change them, and PHYSICALLY sit on whatever they have. Suppose these parishes, the conservative ones, really believe in their hearts that ECUSA is not just in error, but is actually serving the DEVIL. Then cooperating with it, when the internal rules say they must go, is cooperating with the Devil. So, they go through the internal motions, lose, and then tell the Bishops and his minions to go pack sand. The Bishop and his cronies show up at the Church, but the wardens REFUSE to hand over keys and block the door.
If the Bishop or his minions physically push their way inside, they have committed the civil crime of assault. There is absolutely NO exception, NONE WHATEVER, that allows ANY organization, religious or otherwise, to commit assault to enforce its rules. ALL organizations, no matter how private, are EXCLUSIVELY limited to PERSUASION. If they win the argument, but the other side folkds it arms and refuses to act based on rules or reason, that is the END of the line for private action. If one side will not PHYSICALLY budge, no matter how "right" the other side is in its arguments, if it PHYSICALLY touches the ones standing their grounds, they have committed civil criminal acts, and are liable for prosecution. The police and courts do not give a damn if the REASON the assault happened was because somebody wasn't obeying the bishop. A bishop enforcing his full powers within the Church has ZERO authority to physically assault another person EVER.
This is why possession is nine-tenths of the law, because the stubborn possessor can ONLY be removed from possession by the threat of physical force BY THE STATE. NOBODY else, no OTHER organization in all of society - not churches, not clubs, not companies - has the rlegal right to PHYSICALLY assult another in order to get its way. If these churches shut their doors to the bishop and ignore him and his officials, their SOLE recourse is to go to the police, who will do NOTHING without a court order.
And so, the court will be forced to decide every internal issue of every church if one side or the other refuses to yield when it loses. If one side or other refuses to respect the internal rules, and will not yield when they lose, then the state must decide the case, because the state, and the state alone, can send in the sherriff to physically drag the other person out. If anybody ELSE does that, even if he or she is legally RIGHT, it's a crime and they go to jail.
Example: some guy doesn't pay his rent to the landlord for 6 months. The landlord has to go to court to get an eviction, and the sherriff has to effect the physical eviction. If the landlord physically evicts the non-payer, the landlord has committed a crime and will be prosecuted and quite possibly jailed for assault. About the only exception to the absolute monopoly on violence held by the state is the right to self-defense againt threats to life or limb. That never applies in the case of an internal dispute within a Church.
So, the bottom line is that if the dissidents (either way) are stubborn enough, the state will be FORCED to decide the issues. Fold arms and sit on the property. Be unreasonable. Only the police can enforce an evcition.
The problem is that ECUSA (or PECUSA...or TEC...or whatever it's called now) is definitely not serving God any more. Judging by the new Presiding Bishop's obession with the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, ECUSA is definitely serving The World now, and we Anglicans know who is the "prince" of this world.
Actually, in theology and morals, 'in error' and serving the Evil One are equivalent concepts, and if persistent even when correction is given 'in error' is called 'in heresy'. (Of course, PECUSA decided in the late 1960's that 'heresy is no longer a relevant category.')