I was stunned and rather disappointed by his claim that 'Loud voices from Africa, aided by the "almighty dollar" and internet lobbyists, are distorting the true picture of what Africa's 37 million Anglicans really think about sexuality and the future of the Anglican Communion'. This is not only disparaging of those who speak with honesty on this issue, but is also false and demeaning to suggest that those who are opposed to the homosexual agenda in Africa do so because they are aided by the 'almighty dollar'. Such an accusation makes me wonder whether Bishop Mwamba's own position has been influenced by the 'almighty dollar' or 'sterling'.

As an African I feel really insulted by this argument and wonder why any one would defend any position, however credible, because of financial inducement. Many Africans who have been unduly subdued by Western paternalism or imperialism need to be delivered of this mindset. They believe that you are not allowed to take a different position to your colonial masters or Americans because of their monetary influence. It is time to learn to be truly African, following in the steps of people like Bishop Ajayi Crowther and James Johnson of 19th-century Yoruba Mission.

Bishop Mwamba further describes those opposed to ECUSA's position on sexuality as "... a voice relatively quiet in speaking out on life-and-death issues of poverty, AIDS, and responsible governance." This to me is a clear demonstration of how little the Bishop knows of other parts of Africa. Certainly you don't get such a feeling from reading through the communiques and Bishops' addresses that come out of synods in the Church of Nigeria. Actually, the Anglican Church of Nigeria could rightly pride itself as a staunch critic of bad governance in Nigeria. It is remarkable that as a Church it has neither been quiet or nor inactive about issues that matter to people on the continent of Africa, including issues of poverty, AIDS, to which he refers.

According to the bishop, 'The minds of most African Anglicans were concentrated on life-and-death issues, and they were "frankly not bothered about the whole debate on sexuality". This is an overstatement and entirely untrue. Actually, the experience of many is that African Anglicans are ashamed to identify with a Church that would openly support or endorse a practice that is considered a flagrant disregard for Scripture.

If Bishop Mwamba and his friends consider this subject to be inconsequential to the faith of people in Africa they better had a rethink, unless they are prepared to preside over an Anglican Church that has no moral authority and is unable to meet the spiritual needs of its members. The Anglican Church that fails to share the gospel with passion and conviction on the continent of Africa might go into extinction before long.

He further suggests that the African voice was "a voice of protest, which advocates separation rather than reconciliation". Referring to the voice of Nigerian Primate, he says, 'Perhaps unconsciously, it was also influenced by interfaith strife in the country.' This is to oversimplify this issue and wrongly makes it a Nigerian issue. It undermines the contributions of other provinces of Africa that have made equally strong statements.

This is misleading and untrue. In fact, the position of the Nigerian Church, as I understand it, is influenced by their understanding of Scripture and their evangelical heritage. As I once argued, to expect them to do otherwise is to ask them to deny their Anglican identity. In reality their position has nothing to do with 'interfaith strife'. This domesticates this issue as if it were an entirely African matter, failing to consider the large body of people within the Church of England who are also opposed to this American version of sexual theology.

Bishop Mwamba is right to emphasize that Africans value so much their Anglican roots and would not want to break it. This is the exactly why they are fighting; they want to see commitment to the faith that brings them together. It is the more reason why the Anglican Communion has to reflect carefully on what it means to belong together. It does seem incredible to me that he does not address the question of the need for every member of the Communion to abide by their agreement and resolutions.

Since he has talked about money, is it not right and expedient in the 21st century that African bishops that he has described as coming from poor dioceses should ask why they would, apart from the risk of travelling, invest so much in a conference that in the end would have no effect anywhere in the Communion. Surely if any member of the Communion disagrees with their resolutions, there must be a decent way to proceed than to wilfully break such agreements. Otherwise where is the respect for other members of the family?

In conclusion, it is unfair to African Anglicans to suggest that their position on the homosexuality debate is influenced by 'the almighty dollar'. The African Church values their membership of the Anglican Communion and their links with the Archbishop of Canterbury. But there has to be a clear guidance of how to proceed from here. The Anglican Communion must learn how to speak with one voice and also listen to the voices of the poor not only of the rich, if every member truly matters.

The issue at stake is a hugely significant one. We must pray for God's guidance for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the president of the Anglican Communion, and the Primates, especially ahead of their meeting in Tanzania this month. No one should underestimate the enormity of this problem. May the Holy Spirit take control.

Canon Dr Stephen Ayo Fagbemi
Sunderland, UK