(Extract from the
NATIONAL CLERGY CONFERENCE ON ALCOHOLISM, THE "BLUE BOOK", Vol. 12, 179-210,
1960. Q and A session with AA's co-founder Bill
Wilson)
“ …...[AA]'s first step was derived largely from my own
physician, Dr. Silkworth, and my sponsor Ebby and his friend, from Dr, Jung of
Zurich. I refer to the medical hopelessness of alcoholism -- our "powerlessness"
over alcohol.
The rest of the Twelve Steps stem directly from those
Oxford Group teachings that applied specifically to us. Of course these
teachings were nothing new; we might have obtained them from your own Church.
They were, in effect, an examination of conscience, confession, restitution,
helpfulness to others, and prayer.
Before the Twelve Steps were written, these ideas were
circulated in some six "word of mouth" steps. I don’t remember that anybody in
particular formulated these. If this formulation was the work of some one
person, he merely stated in our language what we had already learned from the
Oxford Groups. When the Twelve Steps were written, it was thought wise to
further define and amplify these basic ideas. That is the substance of it, as
well as I can recollect. I have no recollection of the person you have
described.
In passing I should acknowledge our great debt to the
Oxford Group people. It was fortunate that they laid particular emphasis on
spiritual principles that we needed. But in fairness it should also be said
that many of their attitudes and practices did not work well at all for us
alcoholics. These were rejected one by one and they caused our later withdrawal
from this society to a fellowship of our own -- today's Alcoholics
Anonymous.
….....perhaps I should specifically outline why we
felt it necessary to part company with them. To begin with, the climate of
their undertaking was not well suited to us alcoholics. They were
aggressively evangelical, they sought to revitalize the Christian message in
such a way as to "change the world." Most of us alcoholics had been subjected to
pressure of evangelism and we never liked it. The object of saving the world
-- when it was still very much in doubt if we could save ourselves -- seemed
better left to other people. By reason of some of its terminology and by
exertion of huge pressure, the Oxford Group set a moral stride that was too
fast, particularly for our newer alcoholics. They constantly talked of
Absolute Purity, Absolute Unselfishness, Absolute Honesty, and Absolute
Love. While sound theology must always have its absolute values, the Oxford
Groups created the feeling that one should arrive at these destinations in short
order, maybe by next Thursday! Perhaps they didn't mean to create such an
impression but that was the effect. Sometimes their public "witnessing" was of
such a character to cause us to be shy. They also believed that by
"converting" prominent people to their beliefs, they would hasten the
salvation of many who were less prominent. This attitude could scarcely
appeal to the average drunk since he was anything but
distinguished.
The Oxford Group also had attitudes and practices which added up to a
highly coercive authority. This was exercised by "teams" of older
members. They would gather in meditation and receive specific guidance for the
life conduct of newcomers. This guidance could cover all possible situations
from the most trivial to the most serious. If the directions so obtained were
not followed, the enforcement machinery began to operate. It consisted of a sort
of coldness and aloofness which made recalcitrants feel they weren't wanted. At
one time, for example, a "team" got guidance for me to the effect that I was no
longer to work with alcoholics. This I could not accept.
Another example: When I first contacted the Oxford
Groups, Catholics were permitted to attend their meetings because they were
strictly non-denominational. But after a time the Catholic Church forbade its
members to attend and the reason for this seemed a good one. Through the Oxford
Group "teams," Catholic Church members were actually receiving specific guidance
for their lives; they were often infused with the idea that their Church had
become rather horse-and-buggy, and needed to be "changed." Guidance was
frequently given that contributions should be made to the Oxford Groups. In a
way this amounted to putting Catholics under a separate ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. At this time there were few Catholics in our alcoholic groups.
Obviously we could not approach any more Catholics under Oxford Group auspices.
Therefore this was another, and the basic reason for the withdrawal of our
alcoholic crowd from the Oxford Groups notwithstanding our great debt to
them.”
(our emphases)
Comment: Any of the above sound familiar? eg.
“aggressively evangelical”, “coercive authority”, “specific guidance for the
life conduct of newcomers” etc. It would seem that if the cult had been “running
the show” back then AA would not even exist now. Think on that!
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
