As our congregations retool for the new reality, we are going to have to figure out different ways of being a beloved community. And we want to be able to do that with intention and inclusion and faithfulness. The circle is a way that we can do all of those things.
The way things happen in most organizations is, a small group of people get together, and they make a plan, and they make something happen. We have called those committees or working groups or teams. But the way we make decisions in those groups can be helpful or it can be harmful. So I'm going to share this model of a circle, and how you can use a consent circle a peace circle – there are a lot of names for them -- and how you can use a circle process to do all of the ministry, and all of the other tasks and initiatives, that will happen in your congregation as you're retooling for the new reality.
This comes out of a framework that I’m learning about called sociocracy. It's also called dynamic governance, but really the core of it is the circle. So imagine -- actually we probably don't even have to imagine -- we're going to have to rethink how we do something. I'm going to use the example of membership because the way we invite new people into our community at this moment in time is going to be different because we aren't face to face anymore. We aren't able to make have those casual conversations at coffee hour or other sorts of things. The path to membership is going to really look different. So imagine a membership circle. In this kind of circle the group shares in turn around the circle. You always go around the circle in order, and there's a convener of the circle, and the convener has a little bit of skill at running the circle. But really what comes out of the circle comes from the members of the circle. So I want to make sure that's important in the DNA.
So in the case of this -- what do we do about membership -- the first thing you want to do is have a shared understanding of what the challenge is. So one way of thinking about this is “forming a picture,” the big picture of what's going on. If you think about the classic story about the blind people and the elephant, one person pulls on the trunk and one person feels the ear and together they sort of get the big picture of an elephant,  where just seeing one little part isn't necessarily helpful for the big picture. So the first round would be to form a picture together so everyone in the round shares what they see are the challenges. Another way of thinking about this is that you're weaving together a story with different threads and creating a tapestry of sorts. You go around the circle until you have a shared understanding of what the challenge is.
And then you switch into another mode. So there's this first forming, so once you all agree: “we agree that this is the circle,” have everyone in the circle affirm the big picture that's been formed. 
Then you have another round of proposal of ideas, we might call this brainstorming but it's a little bit different, again because you want to make sure everyone in the circle is heard. What's really amazing about this is (I've been using this in my activism work locally) is decisions end up not being the usual kinds of decisions, because the quieter voices, and often the more considered thoughts, are being shared with the group, where often in the way brainstorming (happens) it's really the extroverts who get heard and the introverts not so much. 
So again it's important that everybody shares proposals and of ideas that people might have about how path to membership might look online. As that goes around you'll start noticing patterns, and you might be able to organize some of these ideas and affirm the ideas that seem to have merit within the group. At this point you'll have a sort of this idea of what might be in a proposal, but it's not been really refined at all. This is where you don't want to design something by committee. You have a smaller group -- one term for this is shapers (we're using that in emerging understandings such as Octavia Butler's “shaping change”) So you have shapers take the ideas that came out of the group and create a proposal. And then the proposal comes back to the group and the group makes sure that the proposal includes the ideas that were agreed to by the group. So perhaps if there's a the path to membership, maybe the shapers missed an idea that the group liked about how outreach might happen on social media, so the shapers would have to go back and include that, and re-present the proposal.
 So once it's been agreed that the proposal fulfills everything that the group asked for, then you evaluate the proposal. So first you make sure it's complete, and then you can go into processing the proposed proposal by evaluating it. So when you're in that mode, the first time you go around is clarifying questions about the proposal. Once people understand fully what their proposal is with their clarifying questions then they can start the process of how they react to the proposal. Do they have any objections to the proposal? E.g.” This is what I’d really prefer to do.” And then there's “I can live with this.” And then there's “I object to this.” And so this is what we call consent decision making. It really expands the realm of possibilities. Imagine, for example maybe, I want to paint something purple, and you want to paint something green, but I hate green but I'm okay with yellow and you're okay with yellow. So yellow is not either of our first choice, but it's in the realm of possibilities for both of us. And so this process enables us to find a way forward that is mutually approved by the group. The group all agrees on it. It may not be their favorite thing but no one's objecting to it either. 
One of the beauties of this ability to object something is that if there's a person who's marginalized in the group, it requires the group to address the concerns of the person, and include that in the final proposal. 
So you know this is a piece where there has to be open-heartedness. All these other qualities that we talk about -- the Brene Brown vulnerability, braving, trustworthiness -- all these things have to be present in the group. If there's a member of the group who is using coercion or other sorts of force – bullying, teasing, anything like that -- it can disrupt the process. So it really has to be an open-hearted process.
And so at some point if everybody can sense, and there's no objections, or any objections that were raised have been addressed, then the decision is made and you go out and do: you carry out what the proposal said. 
But you're not done. Just as important is having a circle after you do whatever the thing is. Don't forget to celebrate what you did, and what you learned, but also to share what you've learned, what you might have done differently. Do a circle -- sort of a wrap up circle -- with what went really well, with what are your wins for doing for whatever you tried, and then what should we do differently, and then what should we adjust. Then you have you know you come to a common understanding. Maybe you have to really pivot, and you might go through a proposal process again using what you learned, and come up with a new proposal. Or maybe you just tweak whatever you did. But again you have to make sure you do these rounds to make sure that there are no objections to the tweaks, and that there is agreement that everyone can live with, everyone can sense to the new way forward.
So this iterative process is a way to really deeply listen to everybody in your group, to have your intentions go through all of your decision making, and to be able to adjust as you go along.