Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions (contd)

aacultwatch's perspective on:

The AA (General Service conference approved) book:

“Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions: A co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous tells how members recover and how the society functions”

(an almost as wildly discursive commentary as our 'take' on the Big Book)

This tome is much reviled in cult circles (especially amongst the Big Book nutters who regard it as almost heretical! (A point of interest: if you're looking for meetings largely free of the aforementioned 'fruitcakes', and for that matter sundry other screwballs, then a Twelve Step meeting following the format of the above text is usually a safe bet). The text we will be using is as indicated above. And now we come to:

Step Two (pp. 28-33)

“Step Two

“Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.”

“…..... Consider next the plight of those who once had faith, but have lost it. There will be those who have drifted into indifference, those filled with self-sufficiency who have cut themselves off, those who have become prejudiced against religion, and those who are downright defiant because God has failed to fulfil their demands [and again there are those who have arrived at an agnostic or atheistic position through quiet reflection and careful consideration]. Can A.A. experience tell all these they may still find a faith that works [ie. a faith (or confidence) based upon sceptical examination as opposed to one based upon hearsay, custom or the reputation of 'authorities'. In this connection it might be useful to consider the Kalama Sutra (Buddhist)]?

Sometimes A.A. comes harder to those who have lost or rejected faith than to those who never had any faith at all, for they think they have tried faith and found it wanting. They have tried the way of faith and the way of no faith. Since both ways have proved bitterly disappointing, they have concluded there is no place whatever for them to go. The roadblocks of indifference, fancied self-sufficiency, prejudice, and defiance often prove more solid and formidable for these people than any erected by the unconvinced agnostic or even the militant atheist [incidentally not all atheists are “militant” any more than all religionists are bigots]. Religion says the existence of God can be proved; the agnostic says it can’t be proved; and the atheist claims proof of the non-existence of God. Obviously, the dilemma of the wanderer from faith is that of profound confusion. He thinks himself lost to the comfort of any conviction at all. He cannot attain in even a small degree the assurance of the believer, the agnostic, or the atheist. He is the bewildered one.

Any number of A.A.’s can say to the drifter, “Yes, we were diverted from our childhood faith, too. The overconfidence of youth was too much for us [or again perhaps they 'drifted' through choice rather than by 'diversion']. Of course, we were glad that good home and religious training had given us certain values [Are all such values derived from “religious training”? May they not be acquired otherwise?]. We were still sure that we ought to be fairly honest, tolerant, and just, that we ought to be ambitious and hardworking. We became convinced that such simple rules of fair play and decency would be enough.

“As material success founded upon no more than these ordinary attributes began to come to us, we felt we were winning at the game of life. This was exhilarating, and it made us happy. Why should we be bothered with theological abstractions and religious duties, or with the state of our souls here or hereafter? [Good question: why should we?] The here and now was good enough for us [some philosophies are based precisely on that perspective]. The will to win would carry us through. But then alcohol began to have its way with us. Finally, when all our score cards read ‘zero,’ and we saw that one more strike would put us out of the game forever, we had to look for our lost faith [or alternatively develop a more workable perspective]. It was in A.A. that we rediscovered it. And so can you.”

Now we come to another kind of problem: the intellectually self-sufficient [to be distinguished from the intellectually rigorous] man or woman. To these, many A.A.’s can say, “Yes, we were like you—far too smart for our own good [which is preferable to being too stupid for our own good?]. We loved to have people call us precocious. We used our education to blow ourselves up into prideful balloons, though we were careful to hide this from others. Secretly, we felt we could float above the rest of the folks on our brainpower alone. Scientific progress told us there was nothing man couldn’t do [does it?]. Knowledge was all-powerful [was it?]. Intellect could conquer nature [could it?]. Since we were brighter than most folks (so we thought), the spoils of victory would be ours for the thinking. The god of intellect displaced the God of our fathers [which suggests one possible solution: abandon gods of any kind!]. But again John Barleycorn had other ideas. We who had won so handsomely in a walk turned into all-time losers. We saw that we had to reconsider or die. We found many in A.A. who once thought as we did. They helped us to get down to our right size. By their example [ie. not by dictat – a much favoured cult strategy eg. do as I say not as I do!] they showed us that humility and intellect could be compatible, provided we placed humility [note in particular: “having a clear perspective and respect for one's place in context”] first. When we began to do that, we received the gift of faith [or merely refined an already existing faculty], a faith which works. This faith is for you, too [but see “faith” above].”

Another crowd of A.A.’s says: “We were plumb disgusted with religion and all its works. The Bible, we said, was full of nonsense; we could cite it chapter and verse, and we couldn’t see the Beatitudes for the ‘begats.’ In spots its morality was impossibly good; in others it seemed impossibly bad. But it was the morality of the religionists themselves that really got us down. We gloated over the hypocrisy, bigotry, and crushing self-righteousness that clung to so many ‘believers’ even in their Sunday best. How we loved to shout the damaging fact that millions of the ‘good men of religion’ were still killing one another off in the name of God [a not entirely inapt observation given the current situation in the Middle East as one example]. This all meant, of course, that we had substituted negative for positive thinking [but not blinkered vision for dispassionate observation]. After we came to A.A., we had to recognize that this trait had been an ego-feeding proposition [in some circumstances undoubtedly; in others not]. In belabouring the sins of some religious people, we could feel superior to all of them. Moreover, we could avoid looking at some of our own shortcomings. Self-righteousness, the very thing that we had contemptuously condemned in others, was our own besetting evil. This phony form of respectability was our undoing, so far as faith was concerned. But finally, driven to A.A., we learned better.

“As psychiatrists have often observed, defiance is the outstanding characteristic of many [but not all] an alcoholic. So it’s not strange that lots of us have had our day at defying God [ie. a Higher Power of your understanding] Himself. Sometimes it’s because God has not delivered us the good things of life which we specified, as a greedy child makes an impossible list for Santa Claus [an interesting, and quite possibly telling juxtaposition of concepts!]. More often, though, we had met up with some major calamity, and to our way of thinking lost out because God deserted us. The girl we wanted to marry had other notions; we prayed God that she’d change her mind, but she didn’t. We prayed for healthy children, and were presented with sick ones, or none at all. We prayed for promotions at business, and none came. Loved ones, upon whom we heartily depended, were taken from us by so-called acts of God. Then we became drunkards, and asked God to stop that. But nothing happened. This was the unkindest cut of all. ‘Damn this faith business!’ we said [all (and each) of which might very well lead to the conclusions that either there is no such interventionist power or that if such a power does exist it possesses no benign intent – two possible – alternative - interpretations].

“When we encountered A.A., the fallacy of our defiance [if defiance indeed is what constitutes the obstacle] was revealed. At no time had we asked what God’s will was for us; instead we had been telling Him what it ought to be [or alternatively we might consider reflecting upon the fact that we are but one causal agent participating in the nexus of life and therefore not the sole determinant of any outcome]. No man, we saw, could believe in God and defy Him, too. Belief meant reliance, not defiance. In A.A. we saw the fruits of this belief: men and women spared from alcohol’s final catastrophe. We saw them meet and transcend their other pains and trials. We saw them calmly accept impossible situations, seeking neither to run nor to recriminate [it would appear from this that they have acquired what might be termed effective 'coping mechanisms'. Again such strategies are not necessarily derived through adopting a purely conventional religious perspective]. This was not only faith; it was faith that worked under all conditions. We soon concluded that whatever price in humility we must pay, we would pay.”

Now let’s take the guy full of faith, but still reeking of alcohol. He believes he is devout. His religious observance is scrupulous. He’s sure he still believes in God, but suspects that God doesn’t believe in him. He takes pledges and more pledges. Following each, he not only drinks again,but acts worse than the last time. Valiantly he tries to fight alcohol, imploring God’s help, but the help doesn’t come. What, then, can be the matter? [see above]

To clergymen, doctors, friends, and families, the alcoholic who means well and tries hard is a heartbreaking riddle. To most A.A.’s, he is not. There are too many of us who have been just like him, and have found the riddle’s answer. This answer has to do with the quality of faith rather than its quantity. This has been our blind spot. We supposed we had humility when really we hadn’t. We supposed we had been serious about religious practices when, upon honest appraisal, we found we had been only superficial. Or, going to the other extreme, we had wallowed in emotionalism and had mistaken it for true religious feeling [a not infrequent occurrence we would suggest]. In both cases, we had been asking something for nothing. The fact was we really hadn’t cleaned house so that the grace of God could enter us and expel the obsession [or alternatively our prejudices and fears had prevented us from carrying out a more searching examination and then revaluation of our lives]. In no deep or meaningful sense had we ever taken stock of ourselves, made amends to those we had harmed, or freely given to any other human being without any demand for reward. We had not even prayed rightly. We had always said, “Grant me my wishes” instead of “Thy will be done.” The love of God and man we understood not at all. Therefore we remained self-deceived, and so incapable of receiving enough grace to restore us to sanity [or alternatively remained unable to face our own true nature thereby obstructing any corrective action on our part].

Few indeed are the practising alcoholics who have any idea how irrational they are, or seeing their irrationality, can bear to face it. Some will be willing to term themselves “problem drinkers,” but cannot endure the suggestion that they are in fact mentally ill. They are abetted in this blindness by a world which does not understand the difference between sane drinking and alcoholism. “Sanity” is defined as “soundness of mind.” Yet no alcoholic, soberly analysing his destructive behaviour, whether the destruction fell on the dining-room furniture or his own moral fibre, can claim “soundness of mind” for himself.

Therefore, Step Two is the rallying point for all of us. Whether agnostic, atheist, or former believer, we can stand together on this Step [or possibly not]. True humility and an open mind can lead us to faith [or a more healthy attitude], and every A.A. meeting is an assurance that God will restore us to sanity if we rightly relate ourselves to Him [or to any sufficient principle tending to lead us to a more balanced outlook].”

(our emphases)(our observations in red print)

Coming next – Step Three

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)