A GOVERNANCE MODEL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY?

Eric Meade, Vice PresidentInstitute for Alternative Futures

May 6, 2013

THE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM OF 1648

Key Questions We’ll Try to Answer

1. What does the Cambridge Platform say?

2. What is its relevance to 21st century governance?

BACKGROUND

What is it?

• A church document created at the request of a civil magistrate, approved by a synod in 1648.

• Heavily cited from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible

• Section 1 describes ecclesiastical governance, and Section 2 (not relevant to our discussion) is a “confession of faith.”

• Still viewed by several Christian denominations as a foundational governance document.

• Also used by Boy Scouts, Alcoholics Anonymous, and other groups where participation is recognized as intrinsically motivated.

BACKGROUND

Why are we talking about it?

• It offers principles for democratic self-organization by people into local nodes on a global network.

• It has a 365-year track record of successful application.

• It could inform our thinking on 21st century governance.

DEFIN

ITIO

N“A Congregational church is by the institution of Christ a part of the militant visible church, consisting of a company of saints by calling, united into one body by a holy covenant, for the public worship of God, and the mutual edification one of another, in the fellowship of the Lord Jesus.”

My translation:

A TEAM is an entity consisting of a company of good people united by a voluntary covenant for the public and manifest advancement of a shared vision, and for the mutual edification of its members.

TEA

MS

The TEAM is a fundamental unit of organization. Each TEAM is autonomous and distinct.

A TEAM should be big enough to do the work, but not bigger than can conveniently meet in one place.

Members of TEAMS are bound together by a voluntary covenant whereby they apply themselves toward the vision and observe common ordinances.

The TEAM’s vision should be stated as simply as possible so that:

• It is easily kept in mind, and

• It is clear who’s in and who’s out.

A TEAM continues to exist even when things go wrong.

LEA

DER

SH

IP

Three types of leaders:

• MENTORS (pastors/teachers) – provide motivation, wisdom, knowledge, and care; “called” by members.

• GUIDES (elders) – provide general administrative leadership (more on this later); chosen by members.

• TREASURER (deacon) – manages financial matters; chosen by members.

Leaders should be “tested” and “proven” before being placed in office.

No other officer positions should exist.

GU

IDES

Responsibilities of GUIDES:

• Admission and dismissal

• Enforcement of discipline

• Convening TEAM meetings

• Handling private matters

• Attending to personal needs of TEAM members

• Rendering other service as required

In general, GUIDES perform these functions with the consent of the TEAM.

REC

RU

ITM

EN

T

Aspiring TEAM members must be examined before being allowed to join.

Aspiring TEAM members must make a public declaration of purpose (e.g., of their alignment with the TEAM’s vision) to the TEAM.

MO

VEM

EN

T

BETW

EEN

TEA

MS

Members cannot move between TEAMS of their own accord.

A TEAM may recommend one of its own members to another TEAM. That TEAM makes its own decision as to whether or not to accept the new member.

Everyone must be part of a TEAM. Stand-alones are not allowed. If you leave, you give up your membership status.

CO

NFLIC

T

RES

OLU

TIO

N

For private matters between members:

1. An offended party should confront the offender and seek amends.

2. If that doesn’t work, the offended party should bring along one or two other members to confront the offender.

3. If that doesn’t work, the offended party should brief the GUIDES, who will have the entire TEAM confront the offender.

4. If that doesn’t work, the TEAM can suspend the offender from key privileges.

5. If that doesn’t work, the TEAM can dismiss (fire) the offender.

CO

NFLIC

T

RES

OLU

TIO

N

For public matters:

The TEAM may dismiss a member for an act “of a more heinous and criminal nature.”

CO

NFLIC

T

RES

OLU

TIO

NThe Cambridge Platform does not say how a conflict would be resolved if the “offender” and “offended” are not clearly distinguished, or when the TEAM is divided as to the proper resolution.

Discernment and humility are required in the handling of offenses and conflicts.

• “The best of us have need of much forgiveness from the Lord.”

• “On some have compassion, others save with fear.”

At each step in the process, forgiveness is available – even after dismissal (excommunication).

NETW

OR

K

GO

VER

NA

NC

E

TEAMS are distinct and equal.

TEAMS interact voluntarily in the following ways:

1. Mutual care and support

2. Mutual consultation – e.g., a TEAM can seek advice from another TEAM or from the entire NETWORK

3. Admonition of an TEAM that is headed in the wrong direction

A. The admonished TEAM remains autonomous

B. Other TEAMS can individually and voluntarily break ties with that TEAM

4. Mutual participation of members, when appropriate

5. Mutual recommendation of members

EX

PA

NS

ION

When a TEAM grows too big, some of its members should break off to start a new TEAM somewhere else.

QU

ES

TIO

NS 1. How is this model

similar/dissimilar to other emerging governance models like anticipatory democracy and peer networks?

2. What elements of this model are anachronistic?

3. What elements of this model are timely?

QU

ES

TIO

NS

Any other questions or comments?