Jyotsna  Patro of the Church of North India, using resources from her participation in that same gathering, opened  the conversation on interfaith dialogue among women and men in her region. Margaret Auma, in partnership with Anglican sisters, changed the conversation about the low place of widows in her city of  Kisuma. Rita Simeni, after two weeks with Anglican sisters at the UN last March, began declaring that women’s work in Papua New Guinea merits center stage.

These conversations, vital to the mission of the church, are essentially missing from the decision-making tables of the Anglican Communion.  These voices of women working  at the center of their communities, living out Christ’s mission, are far from the center of the official  dialogue on  faith and order, which shapes the official conversation on reconciliation in our church today.  They were heard at the United Nations gathering because they were sponsored by the  Anglican Observer’s Office to the UN.

In recent months, it has come as a surprise to many to realize that the Anglican Communion’s official  instruments of unity ( i.e., the decision-making bodies -- the archbishop of Canterbury, the primates, the bishops, members of the Anglican Consultative Council) include only 30 women among a membership of 800.

There are, of course, many reasons for this -- historically, theologically, traditionally.  But the fact remains that a part of the Body is largely absent.  When that is the case, then the decisions do not reflect the whole. 

Make no mistake, having women at the table does not automatically ensure a  more nurturing,  child-supportive, less-violent church or world, though I would wager that is likely.  But it does ensure that the conversation and perhaps even the priorities of the church will be different.

Even with the best will in the world, speaking on behalf of others is no substitute for the authentic voice at the table.  The conversation will be more difficult.  Consensus will be more of a challenge,  but the outcome will reflect a diversity that mirrors the church. 

For those of us who feel strongly about one issue or another, this can be dangerous territory. But if we are serious about partnership and global understanding, this is the ground on which we are called to tread. 

Recently, the Council for Women’s Ministries, representing a variety of Episcopal Church women’s organizations, gathered for its annual meeting.  Of 20 women, nine were women of color. No longer was white privilege the invisible norm.  For the first time, the agenda became a common agenda and not one in which minority representatives were seeking a piece of The Pie. The pie itself was shaped by the whole.  Participants left the meeting with excitement and ownership about what is to come in that council and in the church.

What could  come, if the council and the Anglican delegation to the U.N. commission are any indication, is an agenda good for  the whole church.  And it will be hard work -- claiming a public voice for women, joining the conversation at every level.  It means shaping new ways of working with the whole Body.  Lee Hancock, dean of Auburn Theological Seminary, speaker at  the council, put it this way:  “We must engage new paradigms for the church moving from margin to center, from hierarchy to relationship, from power and control to wisdom.”    

The work before us and the wisdom we seek includes the voices of Nema, Jyotsna, Margaret, Rita and countless others.  When they are truly at the table, the conversation will change the world.  

To respond to this column, write to Episcopal Life or e-mail commentary@episcopal-life.org. We welcome your own Commentary at the same address.