The consecration was part of a response by conservatives to the decision of the Episcopal Church in 2003 to consecrate a divorced gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as the bishop of New Hampshire and to permit, as a local option, the blessing of same-sex unions. The move enraged conservatives around the world, who saw it as a repudiation of Christian sexual morality and, by extension, of the authority of the Bible itself.

Bitter controversy is nothing new to the churches of the Anglican Communion, which have managed to hold together through thick and thin in spite of longstanding theological differences between liberals, evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.

But the consecration of Robinson as bishop was a turning point for conservatives. It reminded them how deep those differences in the Episcopal Church had become, how unlikely the church was to change, and how remote, therefore, was the possibility of ultimate reconciliation.

The churches in Africa were particularly sensitive to the plight of conservatives in America. They were also sensitive to the general Anglican concern with pedigree.

After all, it is never enough for Anglicans to have bishops. They must have bishops in apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession means that proper bishops are consecrated by bishops who were consecrated by bishops who were consecrated by bishops who were consecrated by apostles. Anglicans -- even evangelical Anglicans who sing praise songs, speak in tongues and listen to Christian rock bands -- want bishops in an unbroken succession to the first century. It is a non-negotiable point.

Which is exactly what the Africans could provide for the conservatives. Bishop Henry Orombi of Uganda took under his wing disaffected Episcopalians who wanted the spiritual direction of a conservative archbishop who clearly stood in apostolic succession. Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda even started the Anglican Mission to America, an alternative evangelical church for Anglicans, complete with its own missionary hierarchy and evangelistic zeal.

But in all these developments, Archbishop Akinola held back. To be sure, he became the principal defender of American conservatives and their most outspoken champion. Still, he waited until May 5 to make his most important move.

The reason for Akinola's delay seems to be that he wanted there to be no doubt that the leadership of the Episcopal Church would refuse to comply with the demands of the worldwide Anglican Communion before he acted -- especially the demand that it accept a "primatial vicar," or alternative chief presiding officer, for conservatives. Once the door to a primatial vicar was closed, Akinola offered a Nigerian alternative.

Which leaves observers with certain unanswered questions. Why did Akinola establish his own Nigerian alternative rather than support the already existing Anglican Mission in America established by Archbishop Kolini? What, if anything, will mark the difference between the two missionary initiatives? Why did the Anglican Mission, for its part, send no representative to the consecration? Does this action represent a further fragmentation of the conservative opposition?

Some liberal commentators think so and point to the fact that very few congregations have actually withdrawn from the Episcopal Church. But that comment may miss the real significance of the African initiative -- namely, to revitalize Anglicanism in America.

Neither Akinola nor Kolini intends to limit the growth of their churches to already disaffected members of the Episcopal Church, competing for ever smaller slices of a shrinking pie. Both know how to grow new churches in unlikely places with new converts. Each assumes that the beautiful liturgy, evangelical theology, and contagious faith that drew them to African-style Anglicanism will draw Americans as well.

And who's to say that they are wrong?

---David C. Steinmetz is the Amos Ragan Kearns Professor of the History of Christianity at The Divinity School at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel