That's your opinion. There is no defined teaching of the Church that actually says that. Certainly, nothing that I have written here could be confused as endorsing an antinomian perspective. Again, that's just your opinion. It is an ad hoc attempt to justify schism, and it runs afoul of everything episcopal polity stands for, especially as far as the proper attitude of the laity toward the clergy is concerned. You may think a particular bishop was a 'heretic' but you, as a layperson, do not get to act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner over a bishop in an episcopal polity. There is a system in place to deal with that, and just because the system fails here and there does not remove one's obligation to obey it once one is a member of it. "I'll obey my bishop as long as he/she doesn't tell me something I don't like or don't agree with" is simply not the attitude of a faithful layperson. That is a Baptist attitude, not an Anglican one. It is not ridiculous. We either live our lives according to a rule or we don't. It is not my place (or yours) to judge another man's soul. Did you know Bishop Spong? Did you ask him what he meant when he said 'x' or 'y'? As I said above, I'm not defending Spong or his public statements. I am saying that in an episcopal polity, laypeople do not have the right to pass their own post mortem verdict on any person, let alone a bishop. We don't get to pick and choose which parts of episcopal polity we're going to follow and which parts we aren't. Do it all or don't do any of it. So who's being antinomian here? A seemingly half-hearted endorsement of episcopal polity and a simultaneously holier-than-thou attitude in the very act of justifying its arbitrary rejection is not an institution that will last. You claim, without evidence, that having heresy trials is necessary for the Gospel to be proclaimed, yet also claim that heresy trials are not necessary to know that a hierarch is in fact guilty of heresy (so that you are no longer obligated to obey him/her). Which is it? If you don't think you actually need them to justify disobeying a bishop, then what is their purpose after all? Your position is incoherent.