The Twelfth Concept (Bill W's Twelve Concepts for World Service), Grapevine, December, 1972, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Committee No. 3

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

The Traditions

Preamble

Concepts

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“The preamble, traditions and concepts describe the principles which constitute an AA group. The closer a group of alcoholics adhere to these principles, the more they constitute an AA group. There is a boundary in AA Tradition relating to the use of the name Alcoholics Anonymous, which when crossed, a group of alcoholics cannot call themselves an AA group.

“Our membership Tradition does contain, however, one vitally important qualification. That qualification relates to the use of our name Alcoholics Anonymous. We believe that any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an AA group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation. Here our purpose is clear and unequivocal. For obvious reasons we wish the AA name to be used only in connection with straight AA activities.” (Bill W. ‘Tradition Three’, AA Grapevine 1948, The Language of the Heart page 79-80)

“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, The Language of the Heart page 80)

“Tradition six also enjoins the group never to go into business nor ever lend the AA name or money credit to any ‘outside’ enterprise, no matter how good.” (Bill W. ‘Tradition Six’ AA Grapevine 1948, The Language of the Heart page 83)

“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)

“Some years ago, numbers of AAs formed themselves into ‘retreat groups’ having a religious purpose. At first they wanted to call themselves AA groups of various descriptions. But they soon realized this could not be done because their groups had a dual purpose: both AA and religion”. (Bill W. ‘Problems other than Alcohol,’ AA Grapevine February 1958; The Language of the Heart page 222).

The preamble states: “AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution;” Therefore, if a group of alcoholics were to use principles contained in non A.A. published literature, attempting to re-enact carrying the alcoholic/Oxford Group Christian message of 1935-1939; (a time before Alcoholics Anonymous was formed as a non religious organization) then they could not call themselves an AA group. The Oxford Group was a religious Christian organization and an entirely separate organization to A.A.

It also follows that if a group of alcoholics were to use principles contained in non A.A. published literature, following non AA 12 step programmes, based on the Big Book; or which revive Oxford Group aggressive evangelism, the use of the Lord’s prayer in a group setting, offering spiritual guidance for it’s members, spiritual retreats, etc; or certain Tradition deviant religious or educational practices deployed by some early AA groups in the 1940s; then they could not call themselves an AA group. Their purpose, as a group, would be religious or lending the AA name to a related facility or outside enterprise. These group purposes would be outside the boundary in A.A. Traditions and General Warranties of Conference, therefore they could not call themselves an AA group.

“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 AA Group pamphlet, page 24, reminds AA members that “Regularly scheduled meetings, of course, are the chief activity of any AA group. The group continues to exist outside meeting hours, ready to offer help when needed.” Group activity therefore, includes that of any alcoholics gathered together as a group under the AA name, whether it be in a meeting, in member’s homes, in sponsorship, or anywhere.”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Court mandated AA attendance - Concept 12 Warranty 5/Tradition 6

“Hi,

Thanks for the mail. In the case of meetings which have outside affiliations (ie. no longer an AA group) we refer you to the following:

Concept 12, warranty five: “And at times the Conference will need to take certain protective actions especially in the area of Tradition violations.…….. Individuals, sometimes outside organisations may try to use the A.A. name for their own private purposes……..Whenever and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also; especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous. This combination of counter forces can be very discouraging to violators or would be violators. Under these conditions they soon find their deviations to be unprofitable or unwise…” (see http://aacultwatch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/minority-report-continued4.html for the relevant page extracts from the Concepts)

Extending the above principle to local AA service structures (which extension Bill Wilson makes reference to in the Concepts themselves), where they have identified groups that have deviated significantly from the guidelines (specifically Tradition 3 but with reference also to Tradition 4) they may take action to ensure that outside agencies are made aware of these. In the instance you have cited this group presumably has been delisted under Tradition 3. It is therefore to be deemed itself an "outside organisation". If it continues to represent itself as an AA group (either explicitly or implicitly) to other agencies then these should be notified accordingly by the local AA service structure ("intergroup" in Great Britain). It should be made clear to the relevant courts that this group is no longer affiliated with AA, and therefore may not be regarded as an AA group. This should be sufficient for the courts themselves to recognise that any documents emanating from this group may similarly be considered illegitimate. Of course this problem would not arise at all if AA itself had not breached its own traditions by participating in the court mandated system. But then we don't seem to learn from our past mistakes - co-operation is fine but not endorsement! The "court card" system goes way beyond the former and certainly constitutes (literally) an endorsement of judicial policy - whether or not courts wish to refer offenders to AA is their business - but it certainly isn't ours!

Cheers

The Fellas”

Comment: A reply to an enquiry from a member in the US. Court mandated attendance in the US is equivalent to the “chit system” in the UK. Our participation in both are quite clearly contrary to AA tradition – with the consequent (and inevitable) problems. People are being referred to AA who are determined (by the courts) to have an alcohol problem which in some way contributed to the commission of their crime. It does not follow from this that they are necessarily alcoholic drinkers any more than most of the “binge” drinkers who clutter up town centres (and subsequently hospital A and E) are necessarily so either. Nevertheless AA is being used as a 'dumping ground' regardless. Our continued participation in this judicial remedy constitutes an endorsement of the policy, and is contrary to Tradition 6:

“Six—An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose”

(Long form – extract): “While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one. “

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

A Minority report (continued)(4)

“The advice given in David C’s Big Book Recovery website on professional counsellors, medication and step 5 are a direct contradiction with the Alcoholics Anonymous “Big Book” and the “Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions”:

“Those of us belonging to a religious denomination which requires confession must, and of course will want to go to the properly appointed authority, whose duty it is to receive it… … If we cannot or would rather not do this, we search for our acquaintance with a closed – mouthed, understanding friend. Perhaps our doctor or psychologist will be the friend. It may be one of our own family, but we cannot disclose anything to our wives or parents which will hurt them or make them unhappy.” (Alcoholics Anonymous, “Big Book” page 74,)

“This person may be one’s sponsor, but not necessarily so… … Perhaps, though, your relationship to him is such that you would care to reveal only a part of your story. If this is the situation, by all means do so… … It may turn out, however, that you’ll choose someone else for the more difficult and deeper revelations. This individual may be entirely outside of A.A. – for example, your clergyman or your doctor. For some of us, a complete stranger may prove the best bet.” (The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, page 62)

“An A.A. sponsor does not offer services such as those provided by counsellors, the legal, medical or social work communities, but may sometimes help the newcomer to access professional help if assistance outside the scope of A.A. is needed. (Questions and answers on sponsorship, page 14) http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-15_Q&AonSpon.pdf

“A.A. Does not….solicit members….follow up or try to control its members…. Make medical or psychological diagnoses or prognoses… … provide … … any medical or psychiatric treatment; offer religious services; engage in education about alcohol… … or any other welfare or social services; provide domestic or vocational counselling…” (Members of the clergy ask about Alcoholics Anonymous page 18) http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-25_membersoftheclergyaskaboutaa.pdf

“If we recognise religion is the province of the clergy and the practice of medicine is for doctors, then we can we can helpfully cooperate with both” (Concept 12, warranty five)

It is a sad day indeed, when victims of abuse in A.A. seek support elsewhere; when the safeguards and procedures already available are not being used; when professional alcoholism counsellors write to the A.A. Grapevine, asking A.A. to read its own literature.

It is a sad day when a District Committee Member (D.C.M.) in the USA, does not appear to be able to find important information from within the A.A. Service structure; but instead, the concerned A.A. member feels the need to source it from a non AA UK internet forum:

“In this USA area, about 2 1/2 years ago in 2008, a Yellow cover book - "Back to Basics " by Wally P., began to be passed around; soon many were buying it and some malcontented [sic] people from a few AA groups began to gather to discuss the book. They were generally outspoken and not recieved [sic] well by AA groups and the strong opposition seemed to bond the malcontents to each other. They had a fixed idea of how the 12 steps should be done, an out of balance view of AA history and statistics. Like claiming that AA once had 75% success rate; and futher [sic] claimed AA lost that sucess [sic] rate when AA became organized!

The movement has grown more active and now "seeds" meetings and discussion rooms with individuals who push their views. Now, there seems to be an organized effort for 6 to 10 "Back to Basics" people to meet before a target meeting - they split up a few small groups - go to various tables or each Meeting Room and steer discussions into issues which give them a format to present half truths and thier [sic] "sprituality" [sic] claims.

Many of us "regular" AA people are concerned. It seems to me that your experiences are similar and may be repeated here in this USA area. I found your "Cultwatch" site on the Bing search engine. The information is valuable and appreciated by me and I have passed the web address on to a DCM friend”. (aacultwatch forum; subject entitled “Back to Basics movement”) http://forums.delphiforums.com/aacultwatch/messages/?start=Start+Reading+%3E%3E

There needs to be better communication within the fellowship.

This is a statement at the bottom of the page on Wally P’s Back to Basics website:

“After receiving notification from the General Service Office about our mission statement, the Board of Directors of the Back to Basics Foundation met in a special session and voted to change the wording of the statement so it would be in compliance with the Twelve Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The Board also voted to move all materials pertaining to other Twelve Step programs to separate web sites, so there would be no confusion about the primary purpose of the Back to Basics Foundation.

We ask for your patience in this matter because, at the present time, we have no means to accomplish this objective. We have no paid employees, and continue to operate with a negative cash flow. If it is God’s will, there will be sufficient individual donations to make the wishes of the Board of Directors a reality.

The Back to Basics Foundation is a 501 (C) 3, not-for-profit Corporation dedicated to saving the lives of alcoholics. Our modified mission statement is listed below” http://www.aabacktobasics.org/

Perhaps the A.A.W.S. Trustees ought to take note of Bill W’s leadership when passive negotiations fail with “Our promoter friend” turned “alarming poser” (A.A. Comes of Age page 130 -131), such as they have with Wally P; and when necessary, to call on support from the A.A. groups. If Wally P says his foundation “at the present time has no means to accomplish this objective,” then perhaps he needs some assistance. We are sure some two million A.A.s worldwide would be only too willing to help both another alcoholic and the Trustees as well.

“Strong letters … … … letters of a kind the sponsor might not like to receive” as Bill W. put it, is a powerful dissuasive tool for any Traditions violator. And as Bill W. recognised, the “right of petition” is recognised in any democratic society. It cuts both ways.

We wonder why warranties five and six have not been carried out to their full. Why information about Back to Basics has not been disseminated throughout the world service structure down to the G.S.Rs and a request to intergroup Public Information committees to inform the general public of misuses of the A.A. name.

“Privately, however we can inform Traditions violators that they are out of order. When they persist, we can follow up by using such other resources of persuasion as we may have, and these are often considerable…….. And to this end we shall need to maintain a continuous education of our public communication channels of all kinds concerning the nature and purpose of our Traditions……….. Whenever and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also; especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous. This combination of counter forces can be very discouraging to violators or would be violators. Under these conditions they soon find their deviations to be unprofitable or unwise." (Concept 12, warranty five).

“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).””

Comment:

The AA Service Manual combined with the Twelve Concepts for World Service (2011-2012 edn). And see below for the relevant pages (Concept 12: Warranties 5 and 6 in full)

From the above it can clearly be seen that the Back to Basics movement is an entirely separately run organisation with its own financing, service structure, literature, meetings directory etc. As such it falls into the category of an “outside organisation” and under AA traditions an AA group which affiliate themselves with such are in breach of Tradition 3 (long form):

“—Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. 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 affiliation.”

(our emphasis)

In our view, and in accordance with the above tradition, (and with reference to the above mentioned warranties) where such a group is listed in any AA directory (local and/or national) it should withdraw its listing immediately or be removed. Moreover any GSRs associated with Back to Basics groups should exclude themselves (or be excluded) from service at AA intergroup level (and indeed at any level in the service structure). Steps should also be taken to inform all relevant outside agencies e.g via PI, HL etc that these groups are not affiliated with AA and should not be taken as such. In this way a clear demarcation will be established between the two entities. The same principles apply with regard to the Primary Purpose movement, and on similar grounds eg. separate meeting directories (although they still represent themselves as being part of AA). Nevertheless their continued – and deliberate - misrepresentation of AA recovery rates, their abusive sponsorship methods and moreover the existence of commercial interests operating within this grouping further disqualify them from any claim to be associated with AA. The Visions/Road to Recovery groups are for their part not so easily identifiable as a collective (although there is an unofficial network of these groups in existence with the usual emphasis on abusive sponsorship practices, anti-prescribed medication/counselling policies etc). In this case each group should be treated individually and where they fail to mend their ways (which is usually the case) should similarly be excluded from the service structure with all outside agencies being notified accordingly. It is only by applying such admittedly drastic methods that we can ensure that these groups (and their members) no longer inflict harm on newcomers and thereby bring AA into disrepute. Inaction on our part is no longer an option

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS See our UK and US “Cult Where to Finds” for a preliminary listing of these groups. However we believe that these represent just the tip of the iceberg!

A Minority report (continued)(2)

“The incidents with Chuck D. and “Our promoter friend” show that in the past, cult groups in AA have been stopped before they could even begin by active intervention of “trusted servants” and “elder statesmen” upholding A.A. Traditions. They recognised the link between figureheads and “degeneration into a cult.” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23) In other words, the rise of a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power.” (Concept V). These “trusted servants and” “elder statesmen” in the 1940s and 1958 were therefore evidently “prudently ever on guard against tyrannies great and small.”(Concept 12, warranty six). They also clearly understood the Traditions to be principles upon which the survival of the fellowship depends, rather than “just suggestions.” They evidently understood it to be their responsibility and duty to be active guardians of Traditions by informing “Traditions violators that they are out of order” (Concept 12, warranty five). They evidently understood their duty of care to protect a vulnerable minority from coercion and abuse, “That care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities,” (Concept 12, warranty 6). They evidently understood their responsibility and authority as “trusted servants” that they were trusted to actively guard the principles of AA Traditions and assert their leadership in Tradition Two, to perform the “duty of leadership, even when in a small minority, to take a stand against a storm,” (Concept IX), - The upholding of Tradition Two, of which Bill W. was later to go to great lengths to explain in the Twelve Concepts for World Service in 1962:

“…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 X) “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 II) “Trusted servants at all A.A. levels are expected to exercise leadership, and leadership is not simply a matter of submissive housekeeping” (Concept VII) “Leadership is often called upon to face heavy and sometimes long-continued criticism” (Concept IX) “All around us in the world today we are witnessing the tyranny of majorities and the even worse tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” (Concept V) “that care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities… …That our Conference shall ever be prudently on guard against tyrannies, great and small, whether these be found in the majority or in the minority” (Concept XII: Warranty 6). “Feeling the weight of all these forces, certain members who run counter to A.A.’s Traditions sometimes say that they are being censored or punished and that they are therefore being governed. It would appear however, that A.A.’s right to object calmly and privately to specific violations is at least equal to the rights of the violators to violate. This cannot accurately be called a governmental action” (Concept XII, warranty 5).

In contrast to the leadership described above, recent history reveals the apparent lack of it, perhaps a 20-30 year trend toward liberty above that of our common welfare, leading to a “tyranny of apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed, …..majorities” (concept V), this in turn, has led to the presence of figureheads, and the motivation for an “even worse tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” (concept V), and in some groups, a “degeneration into a cult” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23). This has resulted in abuse of the vulnerable and bad press for AA, as reported in the Independent (UK) and in the Washington Post (USA).

The difference between good service leadership and no leadership at all in the face of rising dictators, spells the difference between future A.A. unity and anarchy. If A.A. continues the current trend in autonomous groups, “personality before principle” speaker recordings, lectures, guides and trinket business, then this may eventually lead to a systemic failing of the “but one ultimate authority” in Tradition Two. The experience of the disintegration of the Washingtonian movement (Language of the Heart page 5; Tradition 10, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions page 180-183) predicts the future:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingtonian_movement

If, on the other hand, A.A. opts for A.A. Tradition, “Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole”, then the exception to group autonomy in Tradition 4 implies that “elder statesmen” and “Good Service Leaders” (concept IX) will face their responsibility to intervene when necessary. As Synanon cult leader Chuck D recalled 1958: “They made things difficult for us… ... and we never went back to A.A. again.” And as Bill W. recalled his encounter with “Our promoter friend”: “We assured our well-meaning friend that we would certainly uphold his right to free speech. But we added that he ought to uphold ours, too. We assured him that if his “lectures” went on air, we would advise every A.A. group of the circumstances and ask them to write strong letters… ... … letters of a kind the sponsor might not like to receive.” (A.A. comes of Age page 131)”

Comment: The emphasis in this section is clearly upon the moral responsibility of “leaders” to LEAD (by example), to have the COURAGE to SPEAK OUT when they witness corrupt practices, to CHALLENGE those who would abuse their power, and finally to DEFEND AA and its principles against those “personalities” who would subvert our fellowship. However we would go further than this and argue that it is the duty of every AA member to actively uphold our traditions, and that when they witness evil they should oppose it; failure to act, to look the other way, is no longer an option. Cult leaders have demonstrated time and time again their utter contempt for our principles. They are more than willing to set these aside or indeed pervert them in pursuit of their sole aim: personal power. Their victims constitute the most vulnerable section of our fellowship - the newcomers. We are manifestly failing in our duty of care to these and if we continue to do so why should we expect others to place their trust in us; we simply would not deserve it. The writing is very clearly on the wall. If we do not learn from the lessons of the past then history will surely repeat itself..... Either we shape up or ship out!

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)