Will Rowan Williams' two-track proposal gain traction? And if it does, will this be a good thing for conservative and moderately conservative Episcopalians, particularly those who are minorities within more liberal or progressive dioceses?

We have Communion Partner bishops and Communion Partner rectors. I've proposed that there be a Communion Partners Clergy Association that would include all clergy, regardless of order or position.

And what about the laity who wish to jump on the Covenant bandwagon?

What we need is something akin to a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval--a Good Churchkeeping Seal of Approval. Up until now, that "Seal" has been structural and visible communion with the See of Canterbury. But as we have seen in recent years, communion with Canterbury is no bar to rougish and unedifying behavior on the part of either the left or the right, nor does it incentivize good behavior.

Enter the Covenant. As first presented, it was a way for provinces of the Communion to regain their Good Churchkeeping Seal of Approval. Covenanting provinces would be recognizably Anglican in a theologically coherent and ecumenically recognizable way. A covenanting province's leadership, lay and ordained, could reasonbly be expected to speak for the Anglican Communion as a whole in ecumenical dialogue, and to rely upon mutual consultation and discernment in inter-Anglican affairs.

But then pro-Covenant folks in provinces ambivalent or downright hostile to the notion of an Anglican Covenant began to ask: What will happen to us if our province refuses to sign on to the Covenant? Enter the Communion Partners Bishops. The question now before the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Instruments of Communion is whether dioceses in non-covenanting provinces should be allowed to accede to the Covenant (assuming this did not wreak havoc with that province's constitution and canons).

But wait, what about those poor rectors in non-covenanting dioceses in non-covenanting provinces? Enter the Communion Partners Rectors. The idea here seems to be that kindly non-covenanting diocesan bishops would give these rectors permission to come under the delegated episcopal oversight (DEPO) of a covenanting bishop. (The question of hostile non-covenanting bishops has yet to be addressed head-on.)

Now, I'm just a lowly curate. I'd like to be a covenanting curate, however. What if my rector and vestry doesn't want anything to do with the covenant, and I'm in a non-covenanting diocese in a non-covenanting province? The logical answer that some have given me is: leave for a covenanting parish/diocese/province. But that's easier said than done. If I believe that God has called me to exercise my ministry in a particular place that happens to be non-covenanting, yet my own ecclesial identity is wrapped up in this notion of the covenant as the sine qua non of catholic communion (vis-a-vis Canterbury), what's a poor curate to do?

All of this has been oppresively clerical, hasn't it? What about all the baptized? If being a member of a particular parish doesn't automatically make you a member of the Anglican Communion anymore because of this two-track system, what then? I suppose the reply is that we should all calm down, we are all still Anglicans. But if you're a leading layperson who wants to be involved in ecumenical and inter-Anglican endeavors, won't you have a "credentialing" problem if you aren't aligned with a Covenant-tracked parish/diocese/province?

My suggestion is that the Archbishop start issuing lapel pins with the Good Churchkeeping Seal of Approval as soon as possible to everyone who officially signs on to the Covenant. That way, those who had the lapel pins could be reassured in their anxiety that they are, in fact, fully in communion with the See of Canterbury and duly qualified to serve in any capacity for which that person is qualified in the Anglican Communion, regardless of which "track" one's parish, diocese, or province ends up taking. I suggest the Compass Rose, with a circle around it engraved with the legend, "A Covenanted Member of the Anglican Communion." Wouldn't that be great?

You could call this suggestion "microcovenanting." Instead of relying on your institutional affiliation for your Anglican identity, you rely on personal affiliation.

The question then arises: What would wearing the lapel pin mean? Would it be code for "I don't think gay people should get married or have their unions blessed in church"? Would it be code for "I don't like Katharine Jefferts Schori"? Would it be code for "Gene Robinson should resign?" Or, "I oppose Communion without Baptism"? Or "I oppose lay presidency at the Eucharist?" I hope not. I wouldn't wear a pin that sent those messages, even if I happened to agree with them.

Rather, being a "covenanted" Anglican would, I hope, mean the following:

My identity as a catholic Anglican is rooted in an ecumenical vision of the church that emphasizes our call to visible unity and common mission.

My identity as a catholic Anglican is rooted in a desire to engage in common discernment across the provinces of the Anglican Communion.

I want to contribute to the Anglican Communion's growth into "a theologically coherent ‘community of Christian communities’."

I want to be mutually responsible to my brothers and sisters in Christ in such a way that, regardless of what I want for myself or others, I will choose to be in relationship over insisting on my own rightness, and I will rely on God's power to resolve, over time, any theological differences we might have.

I will be respectful of the fact that I cannot force the truth as I see it on others in the name of a justice that others may experience as violating or violent.

When I stand up for the oppressed and the marginalized, I will do so in such a way that is fully transparent and accountable to the negative reactions of the powerful, and I will stand in solidarity with the poor and neglected, sharing in their sufferings as a witness to justice.

Those who had the lapel pins would know that wherever they found themselves in Anglicanland, their place was assured and they could live into their catholic identity with integrity, without compromising their principles or disparaging those who did not share them. Perhaps such a Good Churchkeeping Seal of Approval would help parishes choose fitting clergy, and dioceses elect appropriate bishops. Perhaps it would help lay people when moving from city to city to find a parish that would nurture their communion and catholic identities, parishes that would teach them what it means to be in a committed relationship not only with those we choose, but with those God sends to us. Perhaps such clarity would break down the wall of hostility currently separating Anglicans pursuing separate "tracks," so that what "they" did didn't threaten who "we" are--and vice-versa.

These are some of my thoughts about what it would mean to be a "microcovenanted Anglican."

The question is: Do I need to wait for my lapel pin from Canterbury? Or can I start living a microcovenanted life now?