“It
can be understood that whenever trusted servants exercise their
“right of decision” (Concept III) to refuse A.A. registration to
alcoholics gathered together as a group with another purpose
or affiliation; this cannot accurately be called punitive or
governing, but a responsible, informative and assertive statement of
Traditions One, Two and warranties 5 and 6. It follows that if a
“such a dual purpose group should not insist that it be called an
AA group nor should it use the AA name in its title.” (Bill W. AA
Grapevine February 1958. Language of the Heart pages 222-225), then
there is no compulsion in Tradition One for to any part of A.A. to
register it as one. – It can be seen that if, at any time a
compulsion were to be imposed on a trusted servant’s “right of
decision” then this would violate the principle in Tradition One
and Concept III,
thus making Traditions and warranties of Conference invalid.
“No
AA can compel another to do anything”. (Tradition One , Twelve
Steps and Twelve Traditions page 133)
“We
ought to trust our world servants with these discretions, because
otherwise no effective leadership can be possible. Let us consider in
detail, therefore, why the need for a ‘right of decision’ in our
leadership is imperative, and let us examine how this principle can
be applied practically in all levels of our structure of world
service” (Concept
III)
“Therefore
some traditional and practical principle has to be devised which at
all levels will continuously balance the right relation between
ultimate authority and delegated responsibility.” How, then are
we to accomplish this? …… The right A.A. solution has been
found, however, in the latter part of Tradition Two, which provides
for “trusted servants.” This really means that we ought to trust
our responsible leaders to decide, within the understood
framework of their duties, how they will interpret and apply their
own authority and responsibility to each particular problem or
situation as it arises.” (Concept III)
It
can be understood that whenever trusted servants exercise their
“right of decision” to refuse A.A. registration to alcoholics who
as a group, do have another purpose or affiliation; then this
cannot accurately be called expulsion from A.A. membership. This is
because if as a group, they have another purpose or
affiliation, then according to Tradition and the provision in
Warranty 6, they have expelled themselves from any right to call
their group an A.A. group, as stated by Bill W:
“But
obviously, such a dual purpose group should not insist that it be
called an AA group nor should it use the AA name in its title.”
(Bill W. AA Grapevine February 1958. Language of the Heart pages
222-225).
“Finally,
any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call
themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have
no other purpose or affiliation”. (Concept 12, warranty 6).
The
trusted servant’s “right of decision” to refuse A.A.
registration to a group, does not expel any individual alcoholics
within the group from A.A. membership since A.A. registration is only
applicable to alcoholics gathered together as a group. It can
be understood in Tradition Three, that individual alcoholics are
unconditionally entitled to be members of any A.A. group and as well,
indulge in any ex-curricula group activities they wish to. – ice
hockey, football, religious sects and denominations, atheist
societies, arts and crafts, whale watching, the study of coercive
techniques, flower arranging, leatherback turtle conservation,
bullying techniques, paint ball, hang gliding, knitting, cult
psychology, ballet dancing, members' social clubs, horse riding,
alcohol free dances and social events, rock climbing, - the list is
endless. However, if an A.A. group with such dual purpose were to hit
the headlines with news of A.A. newcomers being trampled by horses or
swallowed by whales; or if the neighbouring A.A. groups were
disturbed by the need for them to give first aid to newcomers showing
up at their meetings traumatised by hoof shaped head injuries; then
it can be seen in A.A. Tradition, since each group is part of the
whole, the principles of Traditions One and Two take precedence over
the dual purpose group’s autonomy. The trusted servants and elder
statesmen within the intergroup are therefore responsible to apply
the “specific application” of Tradition Four. The trusted
servant’s “right of decision” to refuse A.A. registration to a
group cannot accurately be called an act of government or punishment
because the group and its individual A.A. members are not, in any way
whatsoever, being coerced or commanded to stop any other purpose or
affiliation, nor are punitive sanctions being applied. Instead, the
trusted servants, being “happy joyous and free” under Tradition
One, are glad to extend a “cheerful invitation” to “those who
wish to secede from A.A.” as stated in warranty five:
“If
individual A.A.s wish to gather together for retreats, Communion
breakfasts, or indeed any undertaking at all, we still say ‘Fine.
Only we hope you won’t designate your efforts as an A.A. group or
enterprise’….. To all who wish to secede from A.A. we extend a
cheerful invitation to do just that. If they can do better by other
means, we are glad.” (Concept 12, warranty five)
If
on the other hand a dual purpose group’s dictators do not wish to
secede, it can be understood that a trusted servant’s “right of
decision” to refuse them A.A. Registration as a group,
relates purely to a protective action against misuse of the A.A.
name. It has nothing to do with individual’s membership, or
restricting A.A. member’s liberty as individuals or as a group,
- It can be seen in Warranty five; their liberty is not restricted in
any way, whatsoever:
“If
individual A.A.s wish to gather together for retreats, Communion
breakfasts, or indeed any undertaking at all, we still say ‘Fine.
Only we hope you won’t designate your efforts as an A.A. group or
enterprise.” (Concept 12, warranty five).
They
may wish continue to misuse the A.A. name by calling themselves an
A.A. group, but they may not insist others call them an A.A. group.
Nor may they insist that an intergroup does not apply the “specific
application” of Tradition Four and warranties 5 and 6; nor may they
compel trusted servants not use their “right of decision”:
“No
AA can compel another to do anything.” (Tradition One, Twelve Steps
and Twelve Traditions page 133)
“Finally,
any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call
themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have
no other purpose or affiliation”. (Concept 12, warranty 6)
“Whenever
and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also;
especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous."
(Concept
12, warranty five).
Herein
lays the key to the paradox in A.A. Traditions One and Two, and how
the ultimate authority in Tradition Two is applied without coercion,
command or governance, through the liberty afforded to the individual
in Tradition One; and “must be implicit from the top to the bottom
of our active structure of service.” (Concept II).
It
can be seen that the trusted servant’s “right of decision” to
refuse A.A. Registration to a group only the removes the A.A. name
from other purposes or affiliations. It does not affect individual
liberty or A.A. Membership whatsoever, in any other way. It can be
seen that A.A. group service leaders are free to lead their group to
any activity they choose, for example, the recreations of tennis,
white water rafting, coercive book study, bungee jumping, no-one
would attempt to stop them; but if these group leaders are
irresponsible to lend the A.A. name to such another purpose or
affiliation, lets say, bungee jumping; then the implicit nature of
“but one ultimate authority” within the service structure trusts
the responsibility of not lending the A.A. name to the delegated
authority of whoever is responsible for registering the group:
“We
cannot lend the AA name, even indirectly, to other activities,
however worthy. If we do so we shall become hopelessly compromised
and divided. We think that AA should offer its experience to the
whole world for whatever use can be made of it. But not its name.
Nothing can be more certain." (Bill W. Tradition Three, AA
Grapevine 1948, Language of the Heart page 79-80)
It
can be understood a trusted servant’s “right of decision” to
refuse A.A. Registration to a group with another purpose or
affiliation is responsibly assertive of the following:
Tradition
One: “Our common welfare should come first,”
Tradition
Two: “There is but one ultimate authority,”
Concept
II: “Hence the principle of amply delegated authority and
responsibility to “trusted servants” must be implicit from the
top to the bottom of our active structure of service. This is the
clear implication of A.A.’s Tradition Two….”
Concept
X: “…All of this is fully implied in A.A.’s Tradition Two. Here
we see the “group conscience” as the ultimate authority
and the “trusted servant” as the delegated authority. One
cannot function without the other..”
Concept
IX: “Good service leaders, together with sound and appropriate
methods of choosing them, are at all levels indispensable for our
future functioning and safety.”
Such
action is assertive of the “specific application” of Tradition
Four, as stated by Bill W:
“Tradition
Four is a specific application of general principles already outlined
in Traditions One and Two. Tradition One states: “Each member of
Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole……..
Hence our common welfare comes first………….there is but one
ultimate authority…” (Bill W, Tradition Four, Grapevine March
1948. Language of the Heart page 80).
This
“right of decision” also ensures the integrity of AA Traditions
and Warranties of Conference:
“Finally,
any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call
themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have
no other purpose or affiliation”. (Concept 12, warranty 6).
It
can be understood that assertive behaviour to ensure the integrity of
A.A. Traditions and warranties of Conference and to protect the A.A.
name, cannot accurately be claimed to be punitive or governing. And
it can be understood that if the “right of decision” granted to a
trusted servant to refuse A.A. registration to alcoholics who as a
group have another purpose or affiliation were to be removed by
obligation, then the principles of Traditions One, Two and warranties
5 and 6 would be rendered invalid.”
Comment:
The above distinguishes between AA membership (which is irrevocable,
and refers to the individual's relationship with the fellowship), and
group participation within the service structure (which is
conditional, and relies not only upon the group's own conscience ie.
its autonomy, but also the collective conscience of the wider
fellowship (on the grounds cited above)). To put it simply: where a
group fails repeatedly to respect the guiding principles of AA to
such an extent that it PLACES ITSELF outside the service structure,
and moreover refuses thereafter to amend its conduct, then it is the
RESPONSBILITY and DUTY of the fellowship (according to its collective
conscience and exercised through its trusted servants) to remove the
AA name from that group (or groups) and therefore its continued
participation (as a group) within that service structure. The basis
for this action is made explicitly clear in both the concepts and the
traditions (see above); this constitutes the difference between
active leadership and passive collusion.
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
