Any discussion of the circuit speaker brigade cannot fail to include that most prestigious of venues - the Bristol Reunion. This was apparently set up to "... mark the first European Convention of Alcoholics Anonymous in 1971 …...", and it has been running ever since (according to its very own website, and which incidentally does as fine a job of blowing its own trumpet as ever we've seen. In fact God knows how the rest of AA might have managed without the Bristol Reunion that's all we can say!!). Over the years it has hosted such notables as Joe and Charlie (we quote again from the site: "...the incomparable Joe and Charlie and their Big Book Study, the most original, if not the greatest, thing to have happened to AA since the publication of the Big Book in 1939. Such great men and such a grand forum for not only Big Book Study but also for their terrific weekends which accomplished for hundreds of thousands of members the living link we all have with AA history" – Wowsa!! Who could possibly follow that! Well not us for sure!). This particularly engaging double act drew in the punters from far and near for their much-acclaimed Big Book Study, and who can blame them?.... The punters that is....After all it's a helluva lot easier to let someone else do your thinking for you isn't it? Anyways Joe finally shuffled off to that Great Saloon in the Sky and no one knows what happened to Charlie. Now here's a problem - who's going to fill the spot? The venue's booked, the cabaret is all set to go, the dancing girls are warming up in the wings but still no main speaker. Sure we've got the Big Book Thumpers launching into yet another resounding rendition of "We're all right and you're all wrong" with backing vocals from the "Vision for You Choir Eternal" giving it "LARGE" to all and sundry (whether they want to listen or not). But no main man, no head honcho, no enchilada beyond all compare! So what's to be done. The show must go on! But suddenly a flash of inspiration strikes! Someone (who must remain anonymous) suggests that they consult the archives and perhaps therein they will find the answer to this most perplexing of problems. A minion (some hapless sponsee no doubt!) is despatched post haste to bring the Holy Book from its dank depository located far beneath the city walls. After the passing of many hours he returns from his solemn quest, sweat dripping from his pale and terrified face, his hands shaking violently as he hands over the dust-covered and mildew-sodden tome to his masters, the words of prophesy soon to be revealed, or so they most earnestly hope! (Oh come on! Use your imagination!). Nervously the REUNITED ONES pore over the sacred words, the smell of desperation hanging heavily in air as they seek the WAY forth from their dreadful dilemma. All would seem lost or so it might appear! But what is this that reveals itself before their astounded eyes? Yay...the truth finally is disclosed. Lo! The blessed name. He who must be obeyed. The SECOND COMING!.. Yes....Yes... It's... It's... Clancy! The chosen one has at last been revealed to those of the faithful who have truly sought! Spurred on by this blessed revelation the brethren study eagerly the sacred texts desirous yet of further confirmation of his true calling, and surely enough before their astonished eyes is demonstrated indisputable testimony of his predestined calling. One from amongst their number reads aloud the holy words:
“1988 Clancy comes to Bristol”........ a long pause.....
“1994 Clancy Comes Back to the Reunion”...... a deep intake of breath......
“1998 Clancy at Bristol ‘The Miracle of a Changed Life’”..... sighs of relief
“2001 Reunion with Clancy ‘The Path Continues’”... now the way indeed is clear....
“2002 Reunion with Clancy ‘A Disease of Perception’” .... and then clearer still....
“2004 Bristol Reunion with Clancy” ...... Bliss! Oh bliss! (but here a petulant voice is heard to demand in the background: "Why not just call it the Clancy Reunion?" The malefactor is sternly admonished and falls silent once more)
"2005 Reunion with Clancy ‘Where do we go from Here?’" (the recalcitrant one offers a suggestion to this rhetorical question – one which cannot be repeated here - the heretic is cast from the room never to be seen again)
Yes the WAY is clear. The Blessed One has manifested himself before them time and time again but until now they have not had eyes to truly see! It is to him and to him alone that they all must turn in this hour of need. And so it came to be:
We kid you not!!
(Whatever did happen to Tradition 12. Ah well! Never mind! It wasn't that important after all!! It only applies to mere mortals doesn't it!!)
The Players:
Joe and Charlie are also credited with being the inspiring force behind the Dallas Primary Purpose movement - you remember them don't you? They're the ones who are so fond of presenting false stats on AA recovery rates and blaming everyone (and their uncle) for the so-called parlous state of AA today. Oh Cassandra wherefore are thou!!)
Clancy (or the Venerable C): Pacific Group guru and one time sponsor of Mike Q (he of Midtown groups fame). When it comes to "Disease of Perception" Clancy must surely be speaking from experience. His apparent minimisation of what was going on in the Midtown groups (when asked to comment on the situation) must surely rank as a classic symptom of this particular affliction!
See: Washington Post
We'll be back!!!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Joe and Charlie. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Joe and Charlie. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Sunday, 18 October 2009
A few observations from the States
Pacific Group:
"The anti-medication madness has little support locally, when mentioned it is usually decried. Out here the notion is ascribed to Clancy and his 'Pacific Group' in Southern CA. This group is notorious for abusive sponsorship and groupthink. Jackets and ties/skirts or dresses are required for meeting attendance, gurus have scores of sponsees who dress alike and perform chores for sponsors etc. etc."
The 'Oxford Group' and 'Moral Re-Armament':
"Another recommendation. For those who only know of the Oxford Group through AA, Tom Driberg's expose The Mystery of Moral Re-Armament is a must. Rereading it lately, I find I missed Driberg's repeated hints that Frank Buchman was a self-hating homosexual. Also, no one approaching the OG/MRA would have had any reason to expect any help for alcoholics. MRA was strictly concerned with money property and prestige. Nowadays, the latest incarnation of MRA takes responsibility for founding AA, and claims NOT to be a religious organization!"
Gresham's Law
"......Gresham's Law & Alcoholics Anonymous article, by Tom P. senior, 1974, may be a primary source for the success claims nonsense. Certainly Mr P is certain that HIS new program does it the 'right way.' I wrote to them, and after 50 years in existence, All Addicts Anonymous doesn't even try to maintain a meeting list. The magic formula only seems to work in their treatment center/commune/work camp in upstate New York."
Not God:
"Ernest Kurtz's history, published variously as Not God, and AA the Story, alludes to a long standing strain between OG dominated 'Akron' AA and 'New York' AA, he even identifies geographical zones associated with each."
Joe and Charlie [well known circuit speakers]:
"Your own 'Enquiry into Primary Purpose/Back to Basics' paper [see here] identifies Joe and Charlie as wellsprings of cultishness. They seem to link quite directly to 'Back to Basics.' ...."
Note: "The excellent 'An Enquiry Into...' needs a correction. The author confuses the First ed. Big Book with the pre-publication multilith version. This, with its intensely prescriptive and religious language, is widely promoted as somehow 'purer' or 'realer' than the actual Big Book. Of course the multilith was rejected by the original membership until modified to the form we know."
'The Pod People':
"....near San Francisco, we have another cultish subgroup called the 'pod people' (Invasion of the Body Snatchers and all that) This group defines the 'program' as consisting of a daily written 10th step and not much else. Members avoid non-pod meetings, poach for sponsees, and speak in an annoyingly uniform style--even imitating the grating giggle of their original guru. There are many rumors of sexual misdeeds. Sponsors require their sponsees to PAY to receive meditation mantras from Transcendental Meditation (and receive kickbacks)."
Some features of the cult operation in the US:
"Promotion of fundamentalist Christianity (this may be more overt in the US).
Distorting AA history to attempt to whitewash the Oxford Group.
Promoting compulsory (and usually abusive) sponsorship.
Obsessive reading of 9th step 'promises' at every meeting."
Finally, our contributor comments: "I had my 21st birthday last month. Over the last 5-10 years I have been increasingly bothered by odd new mannerisms posing as 'old' or 'real' AA. As an atheist, I tended to downplay my discomfort as hypersensitivity, and the cultishness as part of the general rise of the religious right in the US. Examining the 'Joe and Charlie' and 'Back to Basics' material convinced me that a quasi-organized movement to suborn AA was in action."
"The anti-medication madness has little support locally, when mentioned it is usually decried. Out here the notion is ascribed to Clancy and his 'Pacific Group' in Southern CA. This group is notorious for abusive sponsorship and groupthink. Jackets and ties/skirts or dresses are required for meeting attendance, gurus have scores of sponsees who dress alike and perform chores for sponsors etc. etc."
The 'Oxford Group' and 'Moral Re-Armament':
"Another recommendation. For those who only know of the Oxford Group through AA, Tom Driberg's expose The Mystery of Moral Re-Armament is a must. Rereading it lately, I find I missed Driberg's repeated hints that Frank Buchman was a self-hating homosexual. Also, no one approaching the OG/MRA would have had any reason to expect any help for alcoholics. MRA was strictly concerned with money property and prestige. Nowadays, the latest incarnation of MRA takes responsibility for founding AA, and claims NOT to be a religious organization!"
Gresham's Law
"......Gresham's Law & Alcoholics Anonymous article, by Tom P. senior, 1974, may be a primary source for the success claims nonsense. Certainly Mr P is certain that HIS new program does it the 'right way.' I wrote to them, and after 50 years in existence, All Addicts Anonymous doesn't even try to maintain a meeting list. The magic formula only seems to work in their treatment center/commune/work camp in upstate New York."
Not God:
"Ernest Kurtz's history, published variously as Not God, and AA the Story, alludes to a long standing strain between OG dominated 'Akron' AA and 'New York' AA, he even identifies geographical zones associated with each."
Joe and Charlie [well known circuit speakers]:
"Your own 'Enquiry into Primary Purpose/Back to Basics' paper [see here] identifies Joe and Charlie as wellsprings of cultishness. They seem to link quite directly to 'Back to Basics.' ...."
Note: "The excellent 'An Enquiry Into...' needs a correction. The author confuses the First ed. Big Book with the pre-publication multilith version. This, with its intensely prescriptive and religious language, is widely promoted as somehow 'purer' or 'realer' than the actual Big Book. Of course the multilith was rejected by the original membership until modified to the form we know."
'The Pod People':
"....near San Francisco, we have another cultish subgroup called the 'pod people' (Invasion of the Body Snatchers and all that) This group defines the 'program' as consisting of a daily written 10th step and not much else. Members avoid non-pod meetings, poach for sponsees, and speak in an annoyingly uniform style--even imitating the grating giggle of their original guru. There are many rumors of sexual misdeeds. Sponsors require their sponsees to PAY to receive meditation mantras from Transcendental Meditation (and receive kickbacks)."
Some features of the cult operation in the US:
"Promotion of fundamentalist Christianity (this may be more overt in the US).
Distorting AA history to attempt to whitewash the Oxford Group.
Promoting compulsory (and usually abusive) sponsorship.
Obsessive reading of 9th step 'promises' at every meeting."
Finally, our contributor comments: "I had my 21st birthday last month. Over the last 5-10 years I have been increasingly bothered by odd new mannerisms posing as 'old' or 'real' AA. As an atheist, I tended to downplay my discomfort as hypersensitivity, and the cultishness as part of the general rise of the religious right in the US. Examining the 'Joe and Charlie' and 'Back to Basics' material convinced me that a quasi-organized movement to suborn AA was in action."
Sunday, 26 May 2013
Big Book Study Guides? AAWS Arrives at a Position (1977)
We
quote:
“Increasing
numbers of requests come to A.A. World Services for permission to
reprint the Twelve Steps and other parts of the Big Book in "study
guides" and other interpretive material. Some come from
treatment centers that try to give instruction in the A.A. Program to
their patients. Other requests originate within A.A. After several
months of study by a committee appointed for the purpose, a policy
was adopted. The members of the committee unanimously recommended
that permission should not be granted to reprint portions of
basic A.A. recovery literature in study guides or interpretive
material, and that if such guides are necessary, A.A. should publish
them itself.
Here
is what some A.A.W.S. Directors said. One trustee-director wrote:
"The
individual A.A. member does not need another person or institution to
think for him or her - in fact, this could be a very bad thing.
Part of the beauty and magic of A.A. is that persons from all walks
of life, with varied backgrounds, may benefit from the Big Book, the
Steps, the Traditions, and the Concepts, from their own points of
view. Placing guidelines on paper seems to say, ’This is the way
- the only way.’
"The
authors of this priceless material knew what they were doing. Their
words require study, not interpretation."
Another
trustee-director enlarged on this line of thinking as follows: "As
it is now, to the extent A.A. takes positions, it is in our
literature, etc. and if it isn’t there, A.A. does not have a
position. This is clear and simple, and we should keep it this way.
I
am of the opinion we should not prepare interpretive or study guides
ourselves. Since we feel that alcoholism is a self-diagnosed disease,
it follows that recovery is a program of self action. Our
literature, our program, the Steps, the groups, and the meetings all
facilitate self-diagnosis and self-action within the A.A.
environment.
I
see our literature, particularly the books, as being study
guides. It’s all there. I see the meetings, particularly closed
meetings, as the interpretive workshops. Often, comments at meetings
have gotten me back to the source documents for further study or have
shed additional light on the printed word. I almost have the feeling
that the words are living, changing, growing.
One
of our slogans is ’Keep it simple.’ I believe our books are just
simple enough to stand as they are and just complex enough to live
and grow."
A
third trustee-director said, "My knowledge of recovery has
been received in the Fellowship through the experience of one drunk
sharing with another, not on an instructive basis or in a classroom
atmosphere. I believe we in A.A. communicate with each other in a
language of the heart."
The
board has adopted the following policy statement:
"The
A.A. World Services Board of Directors feels strongly that permission
should not be granted to outside publishers or other parties to
reprint A.A. literature for the purpose of study guides or
interpretive or explanatory texts, etc. If such interpretive or study
guides are to be prepared, they should be published by A.A. World
Services, Inc.
The
board recognizes, however, that A.A. is a program of self-diagnosis,
self-motivation, and self-action and that the use of study guides,
courses, classes, or interpretations is therefore not generally
appropriate. The program is spiritual rather than academic. Hence, it
is preferable that the individual member or prospect interpret the
literature according to his own point of view. For these reasons,
the board does not plan to publish study guides or interpretations of
A.A. literature at this time."
The
full position paper is available from G.S.O.”
(our
emphases)
See
also here
Comment:
So they were saying this back in 1977 and yet still the recovery
'industry' both within and outside AA continues to churn out material
of questionable value (and we're being extremely generous here)! Joe
and Charlie, Primary Purpose, Back to Basics, The Last Straw
Foundation (oops …. the Last MILE Foundation) and other
assorted members of that age old fraternity – the 'snake oil'
purveyors - continue to bombard anyone within range with their
particular 'take' on the recovery programme. Of course what works for
Joe and Charlie may be be fine …. for Joe and Charlie. For our part we'd
rather do our own thinking thank you very much! But there may well be
members of the Fellowship who are so weak-minded that they are unable
to figure it out for themselves .... but then who wants to admit that! Our own recovery course (carefully hidden away in the Articles
section) is an approach not an interpretation and allows the widest
possible latitude for the exercise of the critical faculties …..
but yours not somebody elses!
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
Our thanks to the member for drawing this document to our attention
Saturday, 14 January 2012
A Minority report (continued)(1)
“One can only take an informed guess from the words of Bill W. in the article about “Our promoter friend” who turned “alarming poser” (AA comes of Age page 130-131), how he and those trustees would have responded to the rise of the figurehead Joe McQ; who elevated himself to "teacher" and author of the book “Carry This Message – guide to Big Book Sponsorship;” which carries his “message.” - a “strange mixture of AA and his own religious ideas” (AA comes of Age page 130) and his treatment centre Recovery Dynamics program.
The
following are extracts from “Carry This Message – a guide to Big
Book Sponsorship”, by Joe McQ:
“As
sponsors we know, there are certain things we require of a sponsoree
[sic]… … … he has to carry out his assignments and do the
things you ask him to do” (page 25).
“…
… we
are working with an undisciplined person. Assignments should be
given, and the sponsor should make it clear to the person that
assignments have to be done by a specific time…..there are certain
things we require of a sponsoree [sic]… … He has to carry out his
assignments and do the things you ask him to do … … Dr. Bob said
‘Get down on your knees.’ And they took step 3… … But an
alcoholic can do just about anything you make her do. If you insist
that she do certain things, she’ll get them done. She has to go
from the undisciplined to the disciplined… … At our treatment
centre, Serenity Park, we require all the clients get a sponsor
within the third week… The sponsor teaches discipline… …
everything is working on this undisciplined person… …. An
undisciplined person may fight discipline, but it has to be enforced
to help the person….” (Pages, 26, 27) You can’t just say to the
sponsoree [sic] ‘go start on your inventory’ because it might
take him a month, maybe two. Create a schedule by saying something
like, ‘We are going to work on resentments for two days’ then do
the other inventories similarly, with a schedule for each one which
doesn’t allow the sponsoree [sic] to skimp, but moves him or her
along at a good pace….(Step Four assignment). You need to move your
sponsoree [sic] along pretty fast…. but you need to keep the
sponsoree [sic] busy and keep her moving… you should just move him
right on through them bam, bam, bam, bam. Keep the momentum…..” (Page
65)
“Remember
that all the people in our fellowship groups are not really
alcoholics… … … They aren’t really alcoholics – because an
alcoholic can’t do that. They don’t usually stay; they just come
in an out of our fellowship. But they don’t have a message to
share…..” (Page 65)
The
Online Oxford dictionary definition of brain wash:
verb
[with
object]
pressurize
(someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using
systematic and often forcible means: people
are brainwashed into believing
family life is the best (as
noun brainwashing)
victims
of brainwashing http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/brainwash
Extracts
from “The Steps we took”, Joe McQ. of the ‘Big Book Study
Tapes’:
“There
is a story in the Bible how all this conflict began. The Garden of
Eden story… … the Bible says ‘we are God-like’… … So he
created Adam and Eve and put them in Serenity Park…. One day a
snake came up to Eve and he said… … ‘Hey Eve you’ve got self
will’… … Eve had never heard such a thing so she said ‘What’s
that?’… … So the snake ran it down to her. He said ‘You can
do whatever you want to!’ She couldn’t wait, she ran
to
tell Adam, ‘Adam, Adam we’ve got self –will.’ He probably
said ‘What in the world is that?’ So she explained it to him…
…” (Page 40, 41)
“I
think one of the mistakes many people are making today is this: not
only as individuals, but groups of people, get together and talk
about their problems. They never seem to talk about what to do
about
them… … … There is no growth in this way of doing; in fact they
just magnify their problems. I call this ‘group sickness…’
(Page 128)
“I
think Jesus may have been teaching the principle of the first step
when he said ‘deny thyself.” (Page 19)
“Step
1 opens the door to Step 2. I like to use the parable of the prodigal
son (Luke 15:11-32) (Page 24)
“The
Bible says, ‘…ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make
you free.’(John 8:32).” (Page 25)
“David
said in the 23rd psalm, ‘The Lord is my shepherd.’ (Page 53)
“It’s
like in the Bible, where it says there is time for everything.
(Ecclesiastes 3:1).” (Page 64)
“Jesus
said, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.”
(Page 124)
“I
love the passage in the Bible that says, ‘ Thou shalt not be afraid
of the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; nor for
the pestilence that walketh in the darkness; nor for the destruction
that wasteth at noonday.’(Psalms 91:5-6)
“I
also like the story of David the little shepherd boy and the giant
Goliath.” (Page 146)
“..That
they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly
(John 10:10) (page 155)
“When
we finish step 9 we get the promises.” (Page 123)
“Since
Bill didn’t have the capacity to write like a great expert in
spiritual things, he laid out a beautiful, simple daily exercise.”
(page 137)
This
program may well have worked in his treatment centres. But by mixing
this outside enterprise inside A.A. and by placing the books in the
hands of the still emotionally suffering alcoholic sponsors who
barely understand how irrational they are, the dictatorial,
judgemental and disciplinarian terminology he used therein, has now
left A.A. with the legacy of a cult following and an abusive style of
coercive sponsorship from which it will take a lot of effort to
recover. - A legacy of the violation of Traditions four (long form)
six and twelve.
A
disaffected alcoholic tells his story:
“Thanks
for this forum guys and gals. I am having grave difficulties with AA,
as my experiences with it are not good, and I have been looking for a
site to confirm my prejudices. I thought I had found it in the Orange
Papers, but methinks that the author doth protest too much, and I am
being turned off this site. I have been subjected to the
primary
purpose group by my sponsor whilst in treatment, and this was the
tipping point for me. However, I was judging AA - all AA by the
rantings of Chris R. Now I see that there ARE moderates in AA, people
like yourselves, because whilst I realise that AA is not for me, I do
respect the argument that it IS good for some people, and I look
forward to reading the posts in this forum”. (aacultwatch forum
subject entitled “AA cult.”)
In
1941 the good news was written in the press and A.A. began to take
off:
“Because
of the absence of figureheads and the fact there is no formal body of
belief to promote, they have no fears that Alcoholics Anonymous will
degenerate into a cult.” (The Jack Alexander article about AA, page
23)
We
wonder if the co-founders of AA would say the same thing if they were
around today. Today our public image is not so good:
1998:
The Independent: "Cult or cure: the AA backlash" ----
"Alcoholics Anonymous is under attack. Those who have been
through its mill claim it is `authoritarian' and `fascistic', employs
brainwashing techniques and is cultlike in its attitude to members.
Ursula Kenny talks to the disaffected who have rejected its road to
recovery...."
2009:
The Independent: "Tom Shone takes on the all powerful cult of
Alcoholics Anonymous"
Washington
Post: “AA Group Leads Members Away from Traditions” by Marc
Fisher, July 22, 2007:
Newsweek:
A struggle inside AA, by Nick Summers, May 6th, 2007:
Cult
Help and information library:
The
public debate moves on from the press into various A.A. member’s
websites and forums and non-AA related websites, including the parent
toddler website mumsnet.com. - The disaffected A.A. members posting
their experiences:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090817093018AAgtZ3F
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-clancy_i.html
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-clancy_i.html
There
can be little doubt, there is evidence that coercive sponsorship is
being deployed by a minority of groups in A.A. and this is beginning
get A.A. the reputation of being a cult. To avoid further loss of
public confidence in A.A. and if vulnerable people are to be
protected from abuse, then we need to see more examples of the Santa
Monica pro A.A. Tradition elder statesmanship of 1958. (Concept IX in
action). --In this modern World however, to be of effect to meet the
present day needs of the fellowship, this needs to be both
communicated and operating throughout the A.A. World Service
Structure, top to bottom, as soon as possible.”
Comment:
Prompted
by the Minority report a member of the aacultwatch team was delegated
the job of locating a transcript of the Joe and Charlie product and
giving it the “once over”. Apart from a heavy ladening of
Christian exegesis (something not to be found explicitly demonstrated
in conference approved literature and which would be quite contrary
to AA traditions by the way!) they did come across the following
quote under the section dealing with Step 12:
“We
don’t want to go through this next chapter
(Working with Others) we don’t have the time, but I [Joe or Charlie
presumably] do want to look at two or three things in it very
briefly.”
and
true to their word they did indeed very briefly consider this
section. This would go some way to explain the dogmatic sponsorship
style advocated above which is nowhere demonstrated in Chapter 7
Working with Others. Interestingly these two it would seem are as
guilty as those they criticise, of approaching the programme
“cafeteria style” ie. take what you like and leave the rest. In
this instance in their so-called Big Book study they have managed to
omit virtually an entire chapter. Not bad going! Now what's the word
for this? Ah yes! Hypocrisy!
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends
of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
For more coverage of the Joe and Charlie epic insert “Joe and
Charlie” in the local Google search on the aacultwatch site.
Thursday, 12 September 2013
Bristol Reunion?
We quote:
“AA Reunion in Bristol, October: For reasons we do not understand or accept, our local service structure, for the first time in years, is not supporting the Reunion notice in 'Share' magazine this year. As in every year, a big commitment has been made to a beautiful venue in the centre of Bristol in order to have the annual reunion of those who attended the First European Convention held in Bristol in 1971. Since then the annual Reunion has continued to hold the traditional big speaker meetings (as in the 1980s) plus those and Joe and Charlie Big Book Studies in the 90s, and more recently several visits from this year's principal speaker, affectionately known as 'the Honorable [sic] Member for Los Angeles', and whose sobriety date is 31.10.1958! The notice in 'Share' was always helpful in informing the Fellowship about the dates for the Reunion. Our plea to readers is please, please tell all your friends about the Reunion. In this way you will be helping us not only meet our obligations but also helping us welcome the Honorable Gentleman from the Pacific group, LA - 'a man with love in his eyes for his fellow alcoholic' -and you can be sure there will be a cake for a 55-year-old! A big thank you from the Convenors.
(From 'Bristol Fashion', the newsletter produced by members of the Bristol Newcomers group).”
Comment: Having just about 'recovered' from exposure to the quite nauseating sycophancy exhibited above we would like to draw your attention to a few pertinent points:
Joe and Charlie's so-called Big Book study (see Primary Purpose) omits almost completely one key, some might say almost pivotal section ie. Chapter Seven “Working With Others” (Step 12). Apparently the fellowship's low key, non-dogmatic approach simply didn't accord with our Big Book 'experts' opinions. The solution – leave it out!
The “Honourable Member for Los Angeles” when asked to comment on the allegations of widespread abuse (including rape) perpetrated by the Midtown Group replied thus:
"there probably have been some excesses, but they have helped more sober alcoholics in Washington than any other group by far"
For our part we've never heard rape referred to as “some excesses”. As for the assertion that the group “helped more sober alcoholics.....” - where's your evidence? This apologist for the Midtown Group used to sponsor Mike Q(uinones) (now deceased), the ring leader and key participant in some of these “excesses”. The local AA service structure for their part failed to take any action to deal with the problem falling back on that time honoured, well-worn misquote of Tradition Four (“each group is autonomous”) thereby managing to wash their hands of the entire affair. So much for the concepts of collective and individual “responsibility”! (Incidentally Clancy also sponsors Wayne P – Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group – who similarly suffers from 'falling down trouser' syndrome – what a coincidence!}
It may be that the Bristol local service structure (and Share magazine) have woken up to the fact that they have been supporting a group whose main 'business' (and we mean 'business') has been to promote personalities ahead of principles for some years now. Joe and Charlie's highly questionable study course is patchy to say the least and merely represents the views of a couple of alcoholics no more or less worthy of consideration than those of any other member of the fellowship (although we would say less!). Another example of this propagandist and essentially personality-driven approach is their reference to the “Honourable Gentleman from the Pacific group”. {This assertion might itself be challenged twice: anybody who implies that rape is a mere “excess” is neither honourable nor a gentleman). Surely the purpose of an AA convention (if in fact that is what the Bristol Reunion represents) is not to celebrate one individual's birthday (no matter how long he has refrained from committing suicide using alcohol) but to carry the AA message, a message we fear the “Honourable Member” lost touch with long ago!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS Our thanks to the member who drew this article to our attention
Saturday, 25 February 2012
AA Minority report 2012 (continued)(6)
“It
has to be seriously considered whether an A.A. group affiliated to a
website is not in fact affiliated to an individual member’s private
enterprise. Whether groups so affiliated to an outside enterprise can
call themselves A.A. groups, whether GSO and intergroups ought to
register groups so affiliated, unless the group and website are
separately incorporated, giving no implication that the two are
connected.
It
has to be considered whether it is still wise for GSO to register
groups without prior consultation with the local intergroup and
whether certain groups which operate outside the A.A. service
structure ought to be A.A. registered, when separately incorporated
companies are competitively trading off the AA name and encouraging
their own groups to operate both inside and outside AA:
Back
to Basics AA meetings list:
Competitive
public information:
Back
to Basics Foundation – (Donations accepted):
Back
to Basics merchandise:
It
has to be considered whether it is wise to register groups that are
directly or indirectly
affiliated to non-AA 12 step treatment centre programs which trade
off the A.A. name:
Kelly
Foundation, Joe McQ’s “Recovery Dynamics”:
http://www.kellyfdn.com/about.htm (Donations accepted)
“Big
Book Study” A.A. Groups:
“Big
Book study” A.A. groups directory:
Primary
Purpose group of AA (Dallas) Big Book study groups directory:
A
you-tube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCLXt7zzX1w
“Showcasing
the work of the Kelly Foundation and Serenity Park with our partners
in Japan: Serenity Park Japan and Serenity Program, Inc. Carrying the
message and the legacy of Joe McQ to alcoholics and addicts around
the world. Please contact the Kelly Foundation for more information:
www.kellyfdn.com”
(Featuring
the plaque of Joe McQ (Founder). Bill W, Dr, Bob. And the Twelve
Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous (Scroll available from GSO).
Joe
McQ memorials:
Charlie
P memorials:
(Donations
accepted)”
As
Bill W. States:
“That
we must, at all costs, avoid the professionalization of AA; that
simple Twelfth Step work is never to be paid for; that AAs going into
alcohol therapy should never trade on their AA connection; that there
is not, and never can be, any such thing as an ‘AA therapist’.”
(Bill W; Co-founder of A.A., A.A. Grapevine, June 1946, Language of
the Heart page 29)
"Our
membership Tradition does contain, however, one important
qualification... .....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)
The
new dynamics to A.A. have exposed a double headed executive and
created a situation in which neither A.A. Traditions nor warranties
of Conference are withstanding. Clearly in Today’s A.A. a group can
have another purpose or affiliation, contrary to warranty six:
“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.”
There
appears to be no body ultimately responsible for ensuring that the
provision in this warranty is upheld.
There
is no clear ultimate authority of Tradition Two; neither the trustees
and GSO, nor the A.A. group Conscience appear to have clear delegated
and ultimate responsibility, since both the intergroup and GSO can
register A.A. groups.
Paradoxically,
the present authority GSO has to register groups, over and above the
intergroup conscience, serves a “tyranny of very small minorities
invested with absolute power” (Concept V) rather than the ultimate
authority of the A.A group conscience within the intergroup.
Therefore the ultimate authority in the A.A group conscience is
hamstrung. There is now a strong case for the trustees and GSO to
pass ultimate authority and responsibility for group registration
directly to the A.A. Group conscience within the intergroups.
“A.A
as such ought never be organised; but we may create service boards or
committees directly responsible to those they serve.” (Tradition
Ten)
“A
condition to be avoided at all costs is double headed business
or policy management. Authority can never be divided into equal
halves.” (Concept X)
“The
main principles of Tradition Two are crystal clear: the A.A. groups
are to be the final authority; their leaders are to be trusted with
delegated responsibilities only.” (Concept I)
While
the A.A. Service Structure deliberates, perhaps not yet adapted to
the speed of modern communication and the newfound skills of our
ubiquitous and ever perennial “promoter friend” (AA comes of Age
page 130), the disaffected victims of coercion and misrepresentation
are leaving, A.A. Is getting the public image of being a religious
cult, and intergroups are experiencing strained relationships.
Extracts
from conference question and committee responses, UK General Service
Conference 2011, Committee 4, Question 2:
“Can
Conference make suggestions on how groups and Intergroups can work
better to carry the message to the still suffering alcoholic? - There
is evidence that strained relationships between some Groups and
Intergroups could be inhibiting the effectiveness of our primary
purpose.” (AA service News 145, 2010)
“This
committee found that strained relations between some groups and
Intergroups can inhibit the effectiveness of our primary purpose…..”
(Committee 4, Question 2) (AA Service news 147, 2011)
With
30 certified facilities worldwide (Kelly Foundation website) and
nearly 400 treatment centres using Recovery Dynamics materials
(“Carry This Message”, Joe McQ, rear cover) indoctrinating
alcoholics in Joe McQ's hybrid A.A./Recovery Dynamics program,
alongside subtle indoctrination of A.A. members via “Joe and
Charlie” Big Book Study audio recordings, and a global affiliation
of Primary Purpose Big Book Study A.A. groups, headed by the Primary
Purpose Group of A.A. (Dallas), intergroups ought to prepare a
strategy for de-programming any confused, brainwashed newcomers who
believe they are on a dual purpose mission to educate A.A. and the
still suffering alcoholic. Moreover, Public Information committees
ought to be developing a strategy for informing the general public,
especially emphasising the fact A.A. is not a religious organisation or an alcoholism education program.
“Of
highest importance would be our relations with medicine and religion.
Under no circumstances must we get into competition with either. If
we appeared to be a new religious sect, we’d be done for. (AA
Grapevine June 1955, Language of the Heart page 150)
“Education
will not only pay off in numbers treated; it can pay off even more
handsomely in prevention… … Now who is going to do all this
education? Obviously, it is both a community job and a job for
specialists. Individually, we AAs can help, but AA as such cannot,
and should not, get directly into this field.” (Bill W. AA
Grapevine March 1958. Language of the Heart page 186-187)
“Nothing
however, could be so unfortunate for A.A.’s future as an attempt to
incorporate any of our personal theological views into A.A. teaching,
practice or tradition.” (Bill W. AA Comes of Age page 232)
“Beyond
a Higher Power, as each of us may vision him, A.A. must never, as a
society, enter the field of dogma or theology….. Lest we kill our
usefulness by being bogged down in theological contention” (Bill W.
Letter 1954, As Bill sees It page 116)
“If
we recognise religion is the province of the clergy and the practice
of medicine is for doctors, we can helpfully cooperate with both”
(Concept 12, warranty 5)
“We
have no doctrine that has to be maintained, no membership that has to
be enlarged, We have no authority that has to be supported, no
prestige, power, or pride that has to be satisfied” (Concept 12,
warranty five)
Comment:
The
problem of 'outside affiliation' has been clearly identified here -
specifically the “Back to Basics” and “Primary Purpose”
franchises (among others). Moreover the 'blurring' of the lines
between AA proper and the various enterprises (in some cases clearly
commercial) utilising the 12 Step method has led to widespread
accusations that AA itself is profiting from the recovery “industry”.
In most cases this is untrue - with the exception of literature
sales. Income from this source is utilised to subsidise the
activities of the service structure (in clear contravention of our
own traditions ie. Tradition 7). Since a proportion of these sales
go to outside agencies eg. treatment centres etc then effectively the
fellowship is being subsidised by these (again a clear breach of the
traditions). This problem has twice been acknowledged by the AA
Conference in Great Britain and on both occasions our delegates have
ducked their responsibilities. Third time lucky perhaps? Thus far
the leadership, which should have been forthcoming, is more often
than not entirely absent. It is time therefore for the groups (and
members) – and quite rightly - to take direct responsibility (and
be accountable) for the conduct of the fellowship. Inclusion in the
AA directory should be administered solely by the relevant
intergroups (ie. local Where to Finds). These local lists (and only
with the approval of the local groups) should then be submitted to
GSO for inclusion in the national register. (In this connection it
may be that the intergroup itself is compromised eg. West Kent,
Plymouth, 'Wessex Intergroup' et al, and steps may need to be taken
to ensure that these elements of the service structure are similarly
'quarantined'). Any group which has an outside affiliation should be
“delisted” and its members (qua group members) refused
participation in the AA service structure. Groups which run websites
(as argued above) should also be considered as having an outside
affiliation and treated accordingly (eg. Road to Recovery, Design for
Living etc). Additionally the service structure at every level
should take care to ensure that ALL interested parties are notified
of the “delisting” and therefore that these groups (and their
representatives) may no longer be considered as being associated in
any way with AA. All parts of the service hierarchy need to adopt a
much more active role in ensuring that AA principles, programme,
history etc (as outlined in AA conference approved literature) are
communicated clearly not only within the fellowship but also to those
agencies with which we cooperate. At the moment the message we are
sending out is mixed, and frequently communicated by people who have
little or nothing to do with AA. All of this boils down to a single
important principle
WE
ARE RESPONSIBLE …. OR ARE WE NOT!
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Big Book Sponsorship – so-called?
And so we return to Joe of “Joe and Charlie” fame. This particular duet were particularly noted for their workshops on the Big Book (and trend-setters for the current craze of “circuit speakers” in Great Britain) turning in a number of guest appearances at a range of venues over the years including the Bristol Reunion (Remember! Always place “personalities before principles”!)
Our renewed interest in the pair was sparked by some extracts from a book produced by the former on the subject of “Big Book Sponsorship”, and which we perused eagerly for any insight they might afford us. What was more revealing, however, was not so much the content of this particular function but rather the author's attitude to the nature of the relationship between “sponsor” and “sponsee”.
Joe begins his discussion reasonably enough. He argues that the sponsor should “find out about the person through conversation” and that while…. “It's true we all have some important things in common – our inability to drink normally, for instance – [….] everybody is different in other ways. I think we should work with each person in the way that best suits him or her.” Unfortunately this principle is as quickly dismissed as it is introduced. Now we discover that it is also Joe's view that “.....some guidelines (?) do have to be established because we are working with an undisciplined person”, and he goes on to exemplify this practice (including the allocation of assignments with a timetable attached). His basic premise would seem to be that one must assume (and regardless of the specific characteristics of the person with whom he is dealing) the sponsee is “undisciplined” and therefore needs to be treated accordingly ie. “disciplined”. “Discipline” does indeed seem to feature prominently in Joe's interpretation of the AA programme. Later on in the work he cites the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” to support this contention:
However (and to continue the theme) we present a few more illustrations of the kind of 'guidance' that Joe proposes:
Cheerio
Our renewed interest in the pair was sparked by some extracts from a book produced by the former on the subject of “Big Book Sponsorship”, and which we perused eagerly for any insight they might afford us. What was more revealing, however, was not so much the content of this particular function but rather the author's attitude to the nature of the relationship between “sponsor” and “sponsee”.
[Note: We should point out here that the basic text (“Alcoholics Anonymous”) itself does not use the terms “sponsor”, “sponsee” or “sponsorship” even once - nor for that matter does the word “sponsee” appear in any dictionary! However it does give some pointers on how an AA member might communicate the programme of recovery with someone relatively new to the fellowship (most notably in the Chapter “Working With Others”)].
Joe begins his discussion reasonably enough. He argues that the sponsor should “find out about the person through conversation” and that while…. “It's true we all have some important things in common – our inability to drink normally, for instance – [….] everybody is different in other ways. I think we should work with each person in the way that best suits him or her.” Unfortunately this principle is as quickly dismissed as it is introduced. Now we discover that it is also Joe's view that “.....some guidelines (?) do have to be established because we are working with an undisciplined person”, and he goes on to exemplify this practice (including the allocation of assignments with a timetable attached). His basic premise would seem to be that one must assume (and regardless of the specific characteristics of the person with whom he is dealing) the sponsee is “undisciplined” and therefore needs to be treated accordingly ie. “disciplined”. “Discipline” does indeed seem to feature prominently in Joe's interpretation of the AA programme. Later on in the work he cites the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” to support this contention:
“We alcoholics are undisciplined, so we let God discipline us in the simple way we have just outlined.” (AA, p. 88)
On examining this quote it is evident both directly and in context that there is no suggestion whatsoever that this disciplining process should be administered by anyone other than God (Higher Power) or the individual themselves ie. that they should practise SELF-discipline. There is no indication that this regime ought – or must – be applied by another human power eg. a sponsor or indeed anyone else.
Nevertheless, and according to Joe:
“Assignments should be given, and the sponsor should make it clear to the person that assignments have to be done by a specific time. In my experience, this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”.
Now it is unclear here at what point these “guidelines” were translated into “... have to be done...”. A guideline surely is a suggestion and no more, and therefore one is under no obligation to abide by it? (Note: this is a defence frequently raised by the cult when they are themselves seeking to evade the traditions, but only on those occasions where it suits their own egocentric ambitions and not because a more judicious interpretation would lend itself better to the particular and prevailing circumstances). Moreover it is declared not only is this the way to proceed with sponsees but, in “[Joe's] experience, this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”. [Note the use of the indefinite article before the word “alcoholic”. This principle would seemingly apply not to some alcoholics, nor even a majority of alcoholics, but to alcoholics in general].
So which is it? If it is the case that everybody is different then how does it make sense to assume that everyone must be “disciplined” (if at all) in the same way? (ie. “this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”) Or - if everybody is in fact similarly constituted then why bother getting to know them as individuals? Why not just 'process' them 'assembly line' style and have done with it! (this conducted with or without discipline – but probably the former, for after all assembly lines require a set and imposed structure!). On the contrary we would assert that most alcoholics do in fact sustain (or retain) a remarkable level of self-discipline. This may frequently be motivated by rather negative considerations but nevertheless they do manage (often) to indulge in an extremely destructive drinking habit whilst pursuing careers, raising families etc. It may well be in the latter stages of the progression of the disease this tends to disintegrate but that is not to suggest that they are intrinsically incapable of exercising some degree of self control once the drink has finally been put down. We would argue that the relative stability and consistency offered by AA meetings is quite sufficient in itself to restore some level of equilibrium within their lives, and that they can by these means quite easily adjust to a less chaotic and more ordered life style. None of this suggests that they need to be “disciplined” by anybody else. Finally if someone does demonstrate such a level of incapacity we would propose that the better tactic to employ would be to afford them encouragement (and NOT direction or manipulation!), and thereafter progressively greater levels of responsibility (but at their own discretion) within AA eg. via group service positions, which would allow them to acquire sufficient self-confidence and self-respect to bring their own lives back into some order. What they quite categorically do not need is someone telling them “what to do”!
However (and to continue the theme) we present a few more illustrations of the kind of 'guidance' that Joe proposes:
"As sponsors, we know there are certain things we require of a sponsee: he has to be willing to go to any lengths to get sober, and if he expects you to work with him, he has to carry out his assignments and do the things you ask him to do"
"It is also important to work the Steps in sequence and not to draw the work out over too long a time. I have heard of people taking a week or even a month on each Step. That is not an effective approach. This process works better when we work one Step and then immediately work the next. Keep your sponsee moving!"
He gives here an example of Dr Bob taking someone through the first three steps in seconds flat (concluding with a "Get down on our knees" to pray!). He does not indicate whether this particular prospect remained sober thereafter! (This is usually an important factor when considering the efficacy of a method – something which the cult so far have failed miserably to demonstrate with regard to their own 'techniques')
And then:
“Many people don't understand about working with alcoholics [except of course for Joe]. They may say, "Well, alcoholics are so new and unaccustomed to the way we do things that I don't think you can get them to do it". But an alcoholic can do just about anything you make her do. If you insist that she do certain things, she'll get them done. She has to go from undisciplined to very disciplined, and the sponsor is the one who helps her build the bridge between the two".
He then goes on to expand on a treatment centre approach with which he is involved, and the methods applied therein. Discipline and more discipline are the watchwords here. Extraordinarily a minutia of sanity fleetingly returns at this point with at least a passing recognition that this approach may not suit all. However this notion is again brushed aside in favour of..... more "discipline"!
Additionally he believes that the same sponsor should take the sponsee through Step 5. He asserts that this will determine whether in fact they have done the first three steps adequately. Playing God perhaps!?
Moreover it would seem even the choice of sponsor is not left to the candidate. Guess who? - It's the sponsor's choice!
And so to the next 'axiom':
"An undisciplined person may fight discipline but it has to be enforced to help the person. If he had had that discipline, he wouldn't be in the shape he's in." (Ah! So that's the problem is it? Lack of discipline or as it's otherwise known - willpower). We don't have enough willpower ourselves so we have to rely on ….. whose willpower? Our sponsor's of course! Now what was that bit in the Big Book about human power? Surely Joe must know about it? He is after all something of an expert – isn't he? Ah yes! We remember now. It's the second pertinent point in Chapter Five just before the outline of Step Three: “b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism”. Maybe that's not in Joe's version of the book? Never mind.....
However Joe relents somewhat at this point recognising that sometimes these undisciplined people might not do "everything we ask them to do". But never mind -onward and upward – and even if you don't like it!
And so he continues (and largely in this vein) through the remainder of the programme (although he does make the point that sponsoring too many people is not a good idea - ie. this demonstrates "ego on the sponsor's part" – now who would have thought it!)
In the last part of the extract there is the usual descent into reminiscences about the good old days etc. Apparently then everybody (or at least in his particular little corner of the fellowship) worked the steps in six weeks. Moreover "Everybody was required to do them." But of course now AA has been infiltrated by backsliders it's all gone to pot! In fact some of them are "not really alcoholics...... [they're] "hard drinkers". ..... They aren't really alcoholic"
(all our emphases)
To conclude - an extract from an article submitted to Share magazine (July 2007 and with the author's permission):
"Are all changes for the better?"
"... in the late 1980s 'authorities' on the Big Book began arriving from America like missionaries. Their 'disciples' were indoctrinated at Big Book weekends and study groups. Some, ablaze with zeal, went around meetings telling oldtimers who were already 'happily and usefully whole' how it should be done! ... I believe these zealots are like religious fundamentalists who insist that the Bible or Koran is the literal, inviolable, revealed word of God. But the spirit blows where it will - not necessarily where a Big Book 'expert' says it should. Some members tell me their recovery has been enhanced by attending a Big Book study; but these extramural courses have also been a source of conflict, tension and division, setting member against member. At meetings I hear new members say, 'I haven't done the Book study yet.' They seem to think it is expected of them. Are these classes in Big Book dogma an example of 'the good as the enemy of the best' in Bill W’s phrase? Certainly, any group insisting that a member study the Book could not call itself an AA group, since 'the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking'. There is no requirement on anyone to even read the Book, let alone to study it. Bill W said, 'In AA great suffering and great love are our only disciplinarians - we need no others.' I have no need of a self-endorsed teacher to 'take me through the Book'. We each have to work out our own salvation. The Big Book speaks for itself; anything else is commentary.
I then quoted from the Service News reprint of the Box 459 article emphasising, "...it is preferable that the individual member or prospect interpret the literature according to his/her own point of view..."; which echoes Bill W's observation, "... every AA has the privilege of interpreting the program as he likes..." (Letter dated 1949, quoted in "As Bill Sees It"); and, "There are few absolutes inherent in the 12 Steps. Most Steps are open to interpretation, based on the experience and outlook of the individual. Consequently, the individual is free to start the Steps at whatever point he can or will..." (Letter, 1966, "ABSI").”
So there you have it!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
