Question
2:
“Would
the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group,
within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to
Traditions 4 - 6?
Background
Consider
the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and
practical implications when deliberating each question.”
Extract:
“I
disagree with ….....’s view that “…groups do not have to be
part of the AA Service structure or be part of (or in harmony with)
their local intergroup...” This appears to be an increasingly
common misconception of AA Tradition which is being dangerously
propagated at all levels. This viewpoint may be appropriate when
considering isolated groups in remote areas of the world where there
is not yet an existing local service structure in the form of an
intergroup, but it is not an appropriate viewpoint to apply to groups
in populated areas where there are already established AA groups and
intergroup. On the one hand this misguided viewpoint gives those in
the service structure at all levels a convenient excuse to look the
other way when they ought to take appropriate action, and on the
other hand, it gives some group leaders a misguided belief that they
have sheer license to do as they please. This attitude is not AA
Tradition according to Bill W.
“Obviously, if any individual, group, or regional committee could take an action that might seriously affect the welfare of Alcoholics anonymous as a whole or seriously disturb surrounding groups, that would not be liberty at all. It would be sheer license; it would be anarchy, not democracy.” (Bill W. “Tradition Four” AA Grapevine March 1948. The Language of the Heart page 81)
Tradition One states that each individual “is but a small part of a great whole; that no personal sacrifice is too great for the preservation of the fellowship.” It can be understood from this that an AA group is but a small part of a great whole. This is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of choice. Tradition One also states: “As we had once struggled and prayed for individual recovery, just so earnestly did we commence to quest for the principles through which A.A. itself might survive. On anvils of experience, the structure of our society was hammered out.” It can be understood from this that an AA group is not only but a small part of a great whole, but that this great whole is now the AA world service structure; of which all AA groups are part. This is a matter of fact hammered out on the anvils of experience. It is not a matter of choice.
Some group leaders may well mislead new AA members to think that as a group they do not have to be part of the AA service structure or in harmony with the intergroup. This does not mean that the group is not part of the AA service structure. It simply means that under such misguided leadership a group is a disintegrated and dysfunctional part of the AA service structure. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see that if enough groups were to elect dysfunctional leadership and who were then to become disintegrated with the AA service structure, that this structural dysfunction at intergroup level could threaten the very survival of the whole fellowship.
An intergroup is an AA group. Within its own affairs of all the AA groups within its geographical boundary, each intergroup is autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole. It is free to act according to the intergroup conscience. There is no obligation in Tradition one for an intergroup to call a group of alcoholics an AA group, if as a group, they have another purpose or affiliation. In some cases, there will be the duty under Tradition One, and warranty five for the Public Information committee to inform professional agencies and the general public of misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous.
While I would agree with …......’s comment that “an AA group does not stop being an AA group because someone else says so.” It stops becoming an AA group when it has another purpose or affiliation. This much is clear in AA Traditions and warranty six: “…finally that 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.” (Extract from Concept XII, warranty six). http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/en_bm-31.pdf
The need to remove the AA name from such a dual purpose group is obvious according to 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. The Language of the Heart page 225) “
“Obviously, if any individual, group, or regional committee could take an action that might seriously affect the welfare of Alcoholics anonymous as a whole or seriously disturb surrounding groups, that would not be liberty at all. It would be sheer license; it would be anarchy, not democracy.” (Bill W. “Tradition Four” AA Grapevine March 1948. The Language of the Heart page 81)
Tradition One states that each individual “is but a small part of a great whole; that no personal sacrifice is too great for the preservation of the fellowship.” It can be understood from this that an AA group is but a small part of a great whole. This is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of choice. Tradition One also states: “As we had once struggled and prayed for individual recovery, just so earnestly did we commence to quest for the principles through which A.A. itself might survive. On anvils of experience, the structure of our society was hammered out.” It can be understood from this that an AA group is not only but a small part of a great whole, but that this great whole is now the AA world service structure; of which all AA groups are part. This is a matter of fact hammered out on the anvils of experience. It is not a matter of choice.
Some group leaders may well mislead new AA members to think that as a group they do not have to be part of the AA service structure or in harmony with the intergroup. This does not mean that the group is not part of the AA service structure. It simply means that under such misguided leadership a group is a disintegrated and dysfunctional part of the AA service structure. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see that if enough groups were to elect dysfunctional leadership and who were then to become disintegrated with the AA service structure, that this structural dysfunction at intergroup level could threaten the very survival of the whole fellowship.
An intergroup is an AA group. Within its own affairs of all the AA groups within its geographical boundary, each intergroup is autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole. It is free to act according to the intergroup conscience. There is no obligation in Tradition one for an intergroup to call a group of alcoholics an AA group, if as a group, they have another purpose or affiliation. In some cases, there will be the duty under Tradition One, and warranty five for the Public Information committee to inform professional agencies and the general public of misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous.
While I would agree with …......’s comment that “an AA group does not stop being an AA group because someone else says so.” It stops becoming an AA group when it has another purpose or affiliation. This much is clear in AA Traditions and warranty six: “…finally that 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.” (Extract from Concept XII, warranty six). http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/en_bm-31.pdf
The need to remove the AA name from such a dual purpose group is obvious according to 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. The Language of the Heart page 225) “
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
Incidentally the anonymised individual referred to above (as in
“.......'s view”) is a member of the Plymouth Road to Recovery
cult group – so no surprises there! This is a group whose members
have so mangled the traditions – to their own advantage – that
these are barely recognisable any more!
