“According to Dick B, the religious elements of the Akron program were responsible for Akron’s success with alcoholics, and the decline of these practices has led to a vastly decreased rate of success in AA. Dick B and many Conservatives like him look to the early days in Akron as a golden age, one which they hope to revive someday.

There is a quip that has made the rounds of A.A. rooms in recent years. It goes like this: Akron is like Bethlehem . Something good happened there a long time ago; and nothing much has happened there since.

The Akron Genesis of Alcoholics Anonymous
Dick B.”

Just so we’re clear then. The idea that the religious, and let’s not mince words, the Christian, elements of early Akron AA were responsible for its success–this IS one of the main points in the article we are discussing here, yes? And the corollary idea that moving away from embracing these religious elements is the explanation for a purported decrease in AA success. This is also at issue, yes? This is what this whole article is about.

It is only these ideas, central to the topic of this article, The Conservatives, that I have been addressing. And my position is that these ideas represent both faulty logic and bad science. And I feel obligated to speak up when I encounter them, because my own recovery in AA was only made possible through a very different approach to our program.

I owe my life to the principles of surrender, honesty, humility, assisted self-assessment, justice, constancy, service, love, obedience to truth–and all the other virtues and tools I learned in AA. These things are available to any alcoholic who wants to practice them for ANY reason, be he Christian, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, Deist, Pantheist, atheist, agnostic, etc.

To say that these principles are unique to a particular religious or supernatural understanding of the world (or of why AA works) is exactly the conservative position under discussion in this article. It is a wrong-headed idea, and not useful. And very few who subscribe to that view can admit that. Promptly or otherwise.

Fortunately, growth in our understanding of what we’re doing and why, and how it is effective, and how it could be more so doesn’t depend upon them. It depends only upon our willingness to remain teachable. And upon the successful treatment of the co-addiction that nearly all of us come into the rooms suffering from.

The addiction to certainty.

Best regards,
Frank M.

That’s my best understanding, and I may very well be quite wrong. I have been before and will be again.

Best regards,
Frank M.

If an adherent of Islam asks that the Prophet intercede for him with Allah to cure his alcoholism, and subsequently he recovers, is that proof that Mohammed is truly God’s Prophet? Or could something else be at work there? Is that man’s believing that Mohammed cured him inarguable proof that Mohammed in fact cured him?

Of course not. Despite the fact that many, many Muslim alcoholics have done exactly this, and have recovered.

We have our experiences, and we have our understandings of them, of what caused them, and those are not the same thing. In the latter instance we can be wrong, and we frequently are. We are human and fallible.

Bill Wilson, delirious with DT’s, high on belladonna, had an experience in Town’s Hospital. And he had an understanding of what caused that experience. And in the latter, he could well have been mistaken.

tiny.cc/7sp4aw

But his experience changed him. And that’s all that it needed to do. It convinced him that he had a purpose in life, a very grand Purpose, which belief I imagine suited Bill’s personality quite well. He could not drink and also serve that purpose. And I suspect that this, as much as anything else, formed the foundation of his lasting sobriety–but in that I’m doing little more than speculating.

Bill also believed that he was channelling the ghost of a dead Benedictine monk named Boniface for parts of the 12 and 12. Should we say that because he believed this, it also must be true? After all, it’s written in a book, just like his other beliefs!

Best regards,
Frank M.

Dick B. is making the mistake of concluding that since the early pioneers in Akron believed Jesus was curing them, that this is in fact what was happening.

Whoever Frank M. is, I would suggest he start with page 191 of the 4th edition of the Big Book. He won’t find Dick B., but he will find Bill Wilson and A.A. Number 3 stating that the Lord had cured them. QED

Let’s refrain from knocking down straw men.

The important thing for me here is this: the truth has no parent. It neither knows nor cares where it’s found. The principles of recovery are older than AA, older than the medical model, older than modern psychology, older than Christianity itself.

Humility, honesty, love, service, fellowship, inspiration, truth–no one can lay claim to having discovered or first applied these agents to healing hearts and minds.

Dick B. is making the mistake of concluding that since the early pioneers in Akron believed Jesus was curing them, that this is in fact what was happening.

The only way to test that theory would be to ask a group of secular alcoholics to practice the same kind of humility and honesty, self-searching, restitution and service, and ethical living that those men in Akron pursued through their Christianity, and then to compare recovery rates.

The specifics of ethical living described and practiced by some followers of Christ are not detailed in AA literature, for good reason. AA is not a religion. It’s spiritual kindergarten. But continued education–somewhere, somehow–in these principles, which are not unique to Christianity by any means… this appears to be critical for the recovery of many alcoholics.

I have made the analogy before. Men who drank willow bark tea, because they believed the God of Headaches lived in willow trees, would find their headaches well treated. And that doesn’t prove that the God of Headaches lives in willow trees. And demonstrating, in the manner of Dick B., that it was historically true that these men did believe the God of Headaches lived in willow trees–this would not, of course, prove that He did either.

There’s aspirin in willow bark.

And there’s healing in humility, honesty, self-searching, restitution, service, and heartfelt dedication to an inspiring source of truth. Why you apply these principles–as long as you do it with passion and conviction and determination–is about as relevant as why you take your medicine.

If you take the medicine, it works. Reality could care less what you believe. Reality knows nothing except what you do.

Best regards,
Frank in LA

Let me offer this analogy to the discussion.

If you think the god of headaches lives in willow trees, you might try to access that power by drinking a tea made from its bark. You headache goes away. You urge others to try the tea, and their headaches go away too.

Does this prove your theory about the god of headaches? If you demonstrate that historically the first men to brew willow tree bark believed this idea, does that prove the theory?

Of course not. Thorough investigation would eventually show you that there was something in the bark. We call it aspirin today.

The belief that surrendering one’s life to the God of the bible, or to his Son, or to the Spirit of the Universe can treat alcoholism is in fact a poorly tested theory, given that the program of AA involves so many practical actions too, and always has.

I suspect those actions are actually the aspirin here. And they can be describes as follows:

*Surrendering to the truth of your disease.

*Turning the decision to get loaded or not over to a reliable source of truth, something other than your own unguided thoughts and feelings of the moment.

*Applying that same principle (of surrendering to the truth) to the rest of your well-examined life.

*Practicing forgiveness and repairing the damage you’ve done.

*Maintaining contact with and a humble relationship to a reliable source of truth.

*Finding meaning and purpose in life through helping others with your experience.

Since before the big book was even published, members of AA like James Burwell have been finding sources of direction and truth other than a personal God, or any god or supernatural power at all.

That reality–that these principles work as long as your source of truth is inspirational and reliable and you surrender to it–has saved my life. And I will pass this understanding on to anyone who needs it.

Best Regards,
Frank M.

The label conservative is not perjorative, but merely descriptive. If it compromises the principles of love and tolerance then that is in the eye of the beholder. The author was not casting aspersions at Christians, he was merely noting that many 12 Steppers are concerned to note preserve and follow the Steps as they were originally laid out. Many also take a keen interest in the Christian roots of the movement. Such people, like myself, often had a terrible time at recovery until they were brought through the Big Book.

I’m as liberal as they come politically, but I proudly were the mantle of conservative when it comes the 12 Steps!