This is a simple discussion, and one which has shown up many times in these pages. But it keeps seeming - to me - that everything comes back to this.

Where do you find out what to do?

There's always only one real question - "What do I do now?" Anything else is daydreaming or curiosity. Even if "what I do now" is go to sleep, it's still the next thing on the agenda.

My pondering this question is a particularly useless exercise; it is a bit of wondering why the world is the way it is, which is a short sidestep away from thinking that it should change. And that attitude is actually the real problem - it's called "playing God", on page 62.

But I was in a Big Book study yesterday, and I found myself wondering these things, again. It seems that AAs (at least) get their instructions from these sources, mostly:

1) The Big Book
2) The 12 & 12 (as much as I say that there aren't any real instruction in there, it's not true; they aren't framed and structured the way I see the BB's instructions, but they can be found or inferred).
3) Their sponsor
4) Things they hear at meetings
5) Their own minds.
6) The Grapevine (and other literature)

The above list is in no particular order, BTW. I said "the Big Book" because that's what comes to mind for me, immediately; I can't tell that most folks go there first.

I have nothing against reading the other literature (including the 12 & 12) or listening at meetings or talking to my sponsor, but I have made a conscious decision that authority rests with the Big Book. Anything that extends what I read in the Big Book is useful; if it seems orthogonal to the Big Book's content, then it might be informative, and if it contradicts the Big Book, then I ignore it with all the vigor that I can muster.

Now, one might note above that number 5 can include God's direction via intuition or inspiration, and I would concur with such a viewpoint. And one might say that God should always be the Ultimate Authority (like our Tradition suggests) and I wouldn't be able to agree fast enough with that statement.

But how do I trust my own mind? I use the same criteria as I do with the other sources: if what I think (or receive from what I believe to be my Higher Power) extends or conforms to the Big Book, then I'm all for it, but if it contradicts the Big Book, then I try to ignore it.

That may mean that I wind up missing some really good stuff from God - but I'm willing to take the chance that He's not going to try to confuse me by sending me instructions that would go against the disciplines that allowed me to find Him in the first place.

This is really a topic that I think more of us could profitably investigate - but that very notion is, once again, playing God, so it's going against the Big Book, so I should shut up now : )

The spammers hit me in force last night, and so I've had to alter my settings to 'moderate all comments' - and to turn off emailing of comments so that my inbox doesn't fill up with bad English suggestions for me to buy Chinese Viagra.

So you can leave a comment if you wish, but it will never see the light of day until they get this bug fixed : )

Sorry about that.

I'm a compulsive overeater.

We OA¹s say that we use AA's 12 Steps and 12 Traditions; when I got here, they told us that the program was in the Big Book, and the Chocolate Book was our personal stories, to replace the alcoholic personal stories in the back of the Big Book.

So good so far.

Then we get the instructions - and with the exception of Steps 1 and 12, they are just the same; Step 12 only changes "alcoholic" to "compulsive overeater", and otherwise it's a good fit. Step 1 changes "alcohol" to "food", and, as the joke about the dwarf goes, "that's when the fight started" :)

In the first place, I don't agree with the use of the word "food" there, strictly speaking. If we're going to replace the term "alcohol", then we need to replace it with the actual problem, and the problem is NOT "food". If food, as food, had the same effect on me that alcohol does on an alcoholic, then there would never be any recovery possible for us compulsive overeaters.

My problem isn't food - it is excess food.

An alcoholic can never safely take in any amount of alcohol, ever again - but obviously I can take in food, and do so several times/day. So obviously we don't mean "food".

So I started some time back using the phrase "excess food" when I am talking about "the thing that starts off a binge", which is what alcohol is to the alcoholic. (I'll admit to the existence of "trigger foods", but I simply include them in this definition, as ANY amount of those items is "excess" : )

But if I'm going to read the Big Book to find out about my illness, it's going to tell me about something called a "physical allergy", and that this allergy manifests as a "phenomenon of craving".

Okay - let's see what an allergy is - seems that if I put the definitions together and find the common ideas, it comes out as an "adverse abnormal reaction to a substance" - it has to be adverse, or nobody would be complaining : ) and it has to be abnormal - else, it would simply be "a reaction". If I take some cyanide, I'll have an adverse reaction, but it won't be abnormal, so I'm not "allergic" to cyanide.

And there's that term - substance.

But how can the "substance" food cause the craving? It doesn't. And the substance of "food" is the same substance as "excess food", only there's more of it.

So I fiddled with this a bit, and something that my sponsor once said (in another context) came back to me - he pointed out that my brain is the biggest pharmacy in the world. My brain (and nervous system) can trigger the production of more chemicals than Dow ever imagined, and they are as powerful as anything Lilly or Roche might come up with.

So, as always, I wanted to follow the Big Book, and thus I followed the alcohol model, and here's what I found.

Alcohol, in small doses, is actually a stimulant, rather than a sedative. So is food.

In larger doses, alcohol acts as a sedative. And it has that effect on everybody, not just alcoholics.

Well, in big enough doses, food acts as a sedative. Or, at least, my body responds to excess food by becoming lethargic - and that's not just true for compulsive overeaters. It works that way for everybody. (Just wait til Thanksgiving and look at everybody in mid-afternoon : )

Heck, it even works that way for animals.

Kurt Vonnegut once said something to the effect of "you can't be really worried when your belly is full".

So what if what's really happening is this - that the body responds to the presence of excess food by generating a chemical that causes lethargy? A biologically-produced sedative? SOMETHING makes all of those people that sleepy. And it's not just the extra weight they are carrying from all the turkey, because for some of them that's not a very big fraction of their body weight : )

So what if the "alcohol" that I'm allergic to, that is a sedative, is actually that chemical that my body is producing when I overeat....?

Further - in order for an allergy to become active, the body must first be sensitized. Just maybe I ate so much popcorn and ice cream that any amount of those things, at all, generates that chemical? -- such that any amount at all of those foods would set off a binge?

This idea is, of course, probably wrong. It might not bear up under any experimental scrutiny. But, just like Dr. Silkworth's original idea of the "allergy", it seems to explain things to me and allows me to use this as a model for moving ahead with my recovery - which may have been the original idea after all.


¹ The term "OAs" bothers me, purely from an English angle : ) because OA stands for "Overeaters Anonymous", so "OAs" would mean "Overeaters Anonymouses" :) - but it's possible that it's a perfectly normal usage of acronyms.

Some time back - oh, ten years or so ago - I heard a young fellow say at a meeting (paraphrased, of course, because I don't remember his exact wording :) -

"I hate that Third Step Prayer - I hate all the "thee"s and "thou"s; it just sounds so stilted, so made-up - but I have noticed that doing things my own way hasn't been working, so I think I'll go ahead and say that prayer, just the way that it's written."

Those of you who know me will know that I sorta smiled inside (maybe outside too : )  when I heard this - and, after the meeting, the young fellow came up to me and asked me to sponsor him.

No coincidence, that, I suppose - I'm known as a fellow who at least tries to pay attention to the directions as given, and I don't spend too much time trying to find a way around them.

But some time later, I got to noticing that I had heard the same sentiment expressed several times - people who found the "thee" and "thy" language in some of the Big Book prayers to be distasteful; some thought that they were too religious and formal, as well.

So I started thinking about those words, myself. Why are they used in so many prayers?

I came to an understanding, but of course it required several levels of uncovering : )

First off, I assumed that this language wasn't accidental - it shows up in so many Christian denominations. So, if it wasn't accidental, then it probably came from a single source.

"Thee" and "Thou" were Elizabethan (and prior) English, of course - and that pointed at a simple and singular source; the King James Bible. And that same source might be the proximate cause of the irritation, no doubt - folks associate the King James Bible with religion, and quite possibly with their religion of origin, which (as we all know)  is ¹the only justified resentment allowed in the Twelve Steps :)

Okay, case closed. It's the King James Bible.

Uh, but wait a minute - I'm willing to accept that as the source of the language, but that doesn't explain the use of "Thee" and "Thy" in the prayers in the King James Bible. Quite often, the King James scholars used "you" and "your", and sometimes they used "thou" and "thy". Why? If I'm going to know where this came from, I have to know why "thee" is used instead of "you".

Well, there's our first clue - there are two ways to say "You" in Elizabethen English - "you" and "thou". Okay, why? Well, any study of any language that is anywhere close to English in geography or lineage shows that all them them, as well, pretty much have two ways to say "You". In German, it's "Sie" and "Du" - in Spanish, "Tu" and "Usted", in French, "Tu" and "Vous".

Okay, why two second-person pronouns? It's obvious to anyone who's studied those languages - one of them is intimate, and one is formal. One shows closeness and familiarity, one shows respect and distance.

Okay, so we know that English is derived from Germanic and Latin roots (mainly), so we can assume that, just like those languages, English has two second person pronouns, as well - one is formal, one is intimate. Okay, lesson learned - we say "Thee" and "Thou" to show respect to God.

Uh, not so fast, my friend : )

If we want to see proper Elizabethan English, there's no better source that ol' Will Shakespeare. So  what can we learn from him?

Well, what did Juliet say when leaning out the balcony, calling her sweetie? "Wherefore art thou, Romeo".

What did Mark Antony say while giving a speech? "Lend me your ears".

"Thee" and "Thou" are the intimate forms of the pronoun. We don't say them to show respect - we say them to show intimacy.

When we're talking to the Almighty, He is, without a doubt, all that and a bag of chips - but a small child of that era would use "thou" in talking to his father, no matter how great a king or lord that father was. When I am speaking to God, I am speaking to somebody who sees me when I'm on the john.

We say "thou" and "thy" in prayer because it's the one place in our culture where we still intend to show that intimacy, that closeness.

And suddenly, it doesn't seem quite so "stilted" or "phony", anymore : )

¹No, of course it's not : ) But it is surprising how often it seems that way - folks can sit in a meeting in a church basement, and badmouth the church, as long as it was the church that they came from - because it seems that so many folks believe that it was what they learned in that church that caused them to become alcoholic/compulsive overeater/whatever. The funniest part of all this, to me, is that Joe will blame his problems on the Catholics and join the Mormons after he's recovered; Phil will blame his problems on the Mormons and join the Catholics : )

Here's one that folks go round and round about.

It can easily start with the question "why doe the Sixth Step say "shortcomings" and the Seventh Step say "defects of character"?" -- there are whole meetings dedicated to this topic, and there is even one Twelve Step fellowship that included a discussion of the differences in their basic text.

All the while, there's material out there that quotes Bill W as saying that he didn't want to end two sentences that close together with the same words : ) What he meant was the same thing, as far as we can tell.

But that begs the question that doesn't often get asked - what in the heck ARE these "defects of character"?

The Big Book never lists them, explicitly. Like the "principles", it references them as being understood, but - unlike those "principles" - no listing is ever provided (we'll talk about the "principles" later : )

I've heard folks say that "Selfishness, Dishonest, Resentment and Fear" are "the character defects", and that they are described as such, and listed, in the Big Book - but nowhere does it ever say that these are the "defects of character", and at least one place, there's a slightly different list (selfish, dishonest, self-seeking and frightened) so things aren't very black-and-white.

To muddy the waters further, the Big Book says that it's the selfishness that is the root of our troubles - which, if that's the intention of the phrasing, then there's only one "defect of character"' it then goes on to say that fear is at the heart of the problem, and even shows the fears being the cause of our resentments. And most of my dishonesty is aimed at avoiding the consequences that my fear and my selfishness have brought about. So those four things seem to be interrelated to some extent.

And Bill - writing as Bill, not with the first 100 checking his text - seems to me to have confused things even more with the 12 & 12.

After some years of parroting what I heard in meetings, I decided that I didn't like doing that any more; I wanted to know what the "defects of character" actually WERE. For one thing, the Big Book has a Seventh Step that mentions asking God to "remove" them, but everybody would sit in meetings and say - of course - that God never actually "removes" these things, but that He relieves them a little bit. And there often seems, to me, to be some sort of smirkiness attached to the idea of God "removing" them.

I don't like smirkiness attached to the Steps, and I don't like the idea that the Steps aren't intended to do what they say that they will do.

So I went back to the only place that I know to go back to - the actual black words on the white pages - to see if I could find out, in the text itself, what in the heck they were talking about.

I can start with that quote from Bill saying that "defects of character" and "shortcomings" are the same things - okay, cool.  I can hang with that.

So I go to the Big Book to find out what, exactly, it says that I am "becoming willing" to have God remove, and there in the directions it says "all the things which we have admitted are objectionable". Hmmm....if there were just four things, it seems to me that they would be listed here. But instead it is saying that there's another list that are the things that I have admitted are objectionable, and that THE LIST IS NOT IN THE BIG BOOK, BUT IS IN MY FOURTH STEP - which would mean that it would be my list, and my list alone; an individual list, not a common set of attributes.

Okay, got that. And, if I've "admitted" that they are objectionable, then it turns out that Step Six happens to be preceded by a Step where I "admit" stuff - the "exact nature of my wrongs". So the "exact nature of my wrongs" and "the things which I have admitted are objectionable" and "defects of character" and "shortcomings" are now seen as four phrases with the same meaning.

It also says that my admitting is not just being selfish or dishonest or resentful or afraid - it says that I'm "illuminating every twist of character, every dark cranny of the past". That doesn't sound like a four-item list.

So let's link those phrases going backwards through the Steps:

DEFECTS = SHORTCOMINGS = ADMITTED OBJECTIONABLES = EXACT NATURE OF OUR WRONGS

Having said that, then, are any of these phrases in the Big Book?

Hmmm...well, since Step Four precedes Step Five, that might be a good place to look. And any Big Book student would be able to tell you where the quickest place to find such an item might be - that would be in the paragraph for the (never named) Fourth Column - the "Our Part" column, as many of us call it.

Putting out of our minds the wrongs others had done, we resolutely looked for our own mistakes. Where had we been selfish, dishonest, self-seeking and frightened....The inventory was ours, not the other man's. When we saw our faults we listed them. We placed them before us in black and white. We admitted our wrongs honestly and were willing to set these matters straight.

Wow - there; it says "our wrongs", in black words and white pages. Okay, cool It also says "we saw our faults", and if there's a more likely synonym for "defects of character" than "faults", I don't know what it might be.

So it combines those phrases with that listing of "selfish, dishonest, self-seeking and frightened" - but it doesn't list them as individual attributes, but instead it asks "WHERE HAD WE BEEN selfish, dishonest, self-seeking and frightened?" - not HAVE we been, but WHERE have we been, those things.

My actions. The things I did, and said, or didn't do - my MISTAKES, as it says. "Selfish, dishonest, self-seeking and frightened" are not mistakes; they are attributes, or potentials, or motives, but it is the ACTIONS THAT I TAKE or THE ATTITUDES THAT I ASSUME base on those things that are my actual mistakes.

That would imply that my MISTAKES == MY WRONGS == SHORTCOMINGS == DEFECTS OF CHARACTER.

Here's a whole new way of looking at things that was right there in the Big Book the whole time. It's not a matter of BEING "selfish, dishonest, self-seeking of frightened" that we're talking about, but it's the ACTIONS AND MISTAKES AND WORDS AND THOUGHTS that I DID that are the real problems, and that have to be addressed.

This seems to follow up as well in the questions in the sexual paragraph, as well. It keeps asking me what I actually DID, and the motives for my ACTIONS. Huh.
 
And finally it made sense, and fits together, for me. It's not that I am dishonest, but it's that  lied to Joe and stole from John. It's not that I was resentful, but that I was angry at Mark and Mary. It's not that I was frightened, but it's that I ran away from those situations that I was scared of. It 's not that I was selfish, but that I acted selfishly.

The Big Book and the Twelve Steps are, of course, not religiously based, but they do tell us in the text that the Steps are based on principles "common to most denominations". The folks who wrote this Book were, after all, Oxford Groupers, and thus they were attempting to practice First Century Christianity - and they were, indeed, CHRISTIANS, most of them.

And Christians believed that, if somebody confessed, was contrite, and made restitution for a sin, then that sin DISAPPEARED. It went away completely - it was, to quote, "cast as far as the East is from the West".

So if I go through these Steps with a situation, then when I get past Step Nine, that situation, from a spiritual perspective, NEVER HAPPENED. It's gone. It's not on my karmic wheel anymore.

So I've chosen, since reading the words on the pages, and taking the phrase from Step Four and finding it in Step Five, and taking the phrase from Step Five and finding it in Step Six, and reading that the phrase in Step Six is synonymous with the phrase in Step Seven, to believe that it says what it means.

My defects of character ARE removed. They are GONE.

They are - forgiven.

I'm posting this purely to keep it out there - it was taken out of the Third Edition of the Big Book.

I am now going to say something opinionated (please don't be shocked - I have no opinion on OUTSIDE issues. I'm eat up with opinions on inside issues : )

I suspect that this story was removed for political correctness.

I have little to go on with that suspicion, other than the fact that, in another story that was carried over from the Third Edition, they replaced the phrase "darkest Africa" with "the ends of the earth".

So here, preserved at least one place on the Web, is the story that was published in the Big Book as "Join the Tribe!"

Son of Tall Man January 05, 2009 Story of the Day

February 1976 Vol. 32 No. 9

I PROUD TO be son of Tall Man, American Indian, and member of AA for many moons. We all one as Great Spirit walks through AA like sun walks through day. This first story I ever write. Sorry for mistakes. Love has no words to spell or lines to start and stop. Our language has few words to say many things.

I was born a Maliseet Indian on reservation in Canada, oldest of thirteen children. Was altar boy at church on reservation. Had first drink in young teens, but was scared of my father, so didn't drink much then. Now think I was alcoholic from first drink. Never forgot magic in firewater.

When I was twenty-one, my cousin come home from U.S. Army on leave, just before Pearl Harbor. I stay with him at aunt's house in Maine. That night, we drink beer at taverns. He had bottle of hard stuff. He gave me many drinks from bottle. Next thing I know, it was next day. First time I have blackout, but not last. My aunt had sharp words for me about drinking. I not listen to old woman.

I hear about Pearl Harbor and join Canadian Army, December 13, 1941. Could not run away from problem. Soon found wet canteens serve drinks to Indians in uniform. Went overseas on beer. Soon change to hard stuff. Then many blackouts for next two years. God must watch over me. Got into no trouble. Came home just before D Day. Met father (Tall Man) at fork in road--one way to reservation, other way to State of Maine. We went to booze joint in Maine. Remember only first two drinks. Then I black out and get home four days later. Now I slide down mountain fast. Take many pledges but break them.

I get arrested on VE Day, again on VJ Day. Judge say I go to jail next time. So I change counties in Maine. When counties run out, I move to Connecticut. Climb on water wagon for few months. Build houses for some cops--ha-ha. Soon I drink beer. Then hard stuff. Then I find jails in Connecticut, too. Cops say for me to call them, they get me out. I think they sorry they tell me this. Next two years, I call them many times. Last time in jail, I have two black eyes. Cops now sick of me, so they buy me one-way ticket to Canada. Pack my clothes and put me on train.

My brother and me find work on turnpike in Maine. I stay on wagon for while, but miserable. Then I drink again, but more miserable. I want to stop this bad life, but where to turn? Last time I drink, I go to room. Think about kill myself. Then went on bridge to jump. By grace of God I stop, think two things: This would kill good father and mother; then remember boys talk about Indian fellow who been sober three years. I hear about AA, but think it religion. I have a religion. But now I change if it bring good life.

I find Indian fellow. We talk long time. Tell him I want to get away from bottle and misery. How he do it? He say he take me to AA meeting. I go with him to first meeting, in small town in Maine. My sponsor say men who talk speak truth. Then I know we walk same trail. This was July 15, 1954. Have not take drink since.

I hear men say, "One day not drink. Not try no drinks for Lent or for life. Just one day." This sound easy, so will try. They say call friend before I buy drink. Talk and meetings make me feel good. So I jump quick from First Step to Twelfth Step to help my brother, living with me. Two weeks later, he come to AA meeting. Came to believe. Have not drink since. We both happy. After six months, we move to Bridgeport, Conn. Find same AA, same Spirit. Year later. I go to Canada to carry message to Tall Man, but he not listen to son. He old, sick, want to he alone with bottle.

Miracles happen all time in AA. Two years later, brother take Tall Man to first AA meeting, September 1957. Tall Man was blind, but soon he see. He stay sober. Start group on reservation, and carry message, help start other groups all over Maritimes and New England. He was old, but now he grow young with new life in AA, and travel all time. When he speak from heart, big men cry. Words of truth and love are strong medicine. Tall Man die September 1970, a sober, peaceful, happy man. Maine newsletter (Boomerang) say: "With tireless devotion and humility, this venerable Indian gentleman traveled thousands of miles humbly pleading for sobriety. He planted many seeds, and it will be many moons before another rises to walk in his shoes." Tall Man now see Great Spirit in Big Group in sky.^[1]

To find work, I have travel much. At every place, I find AA group first. I keep it simple, go to many meetings, carry message to those who listen. To me, program is spiritual. I feel Great Spirit at all meetings and when talk to AA friends. I know peace. "How?" they ask me.

I say, "Just let it happen." This sober Indian say to sick, red-eyed alcoholic who want good medicine: "Put cork in bottle. No drunk hopeless if he want to follow sober guide along right trail. Go to AA meetings. Listen, not just hear noise. Get sponsor and phone numbers. Call friend in AA when bad thoughts come. Let group spirit of love and understanding protect you. Take my hand. Walk with me up Twelve Steps of AA to peace."

To Indians, I say: "Don't be afraid to join AA. I once hear people say only Indians crazy when drunk. If so, AA full of Indians. Join the tribe!"

¹The story of Tall Man was told in the November 1962 Grapevine.

I spent the weekend at an OA retreat in the mountains near Julian, California.

In spite of being Californians, the folks there actually owned Big Books (okay, now, play nice! Don't throw things at your computer screen. It won't hurt me - it'll only hurt the screen) and a lot of them had a lot of things highlighted in their books.

But I still think I was able to bring a good bit to the table, because I tend to read my Big Book simpler than many people do - it's that whole "Black Words on White Pages" notion, of actually reading the text as though I needed to know what was in the text, not as though I were "filling in the gaps around the important stuff that I've heard in meetings and from my sponsor".

Take that word "invariably" on page 62:

Sometimes they hurt us, seemingly without provocation, but we invariably find that at some time in the past we have made decisions based on self which later placed us in a position to be hurt.

During the discussion, there were folks who deny this simple statement - they told me that it wasn't always their fault, that they didn't have a part in their injuries - that it wasn't because of any decisions that they made.

Okay, that's cool - I don't have any intention of changing anyone's mind.

However, the weirdness came up when they said "You're just interpreting it, anyway - it's just your interpretation. It's not always that way".

Okay, ma'am - I can swallow that - but just how, exactly, do you want me to interpret the word "invariably"?

Oh - uh-huh. Yeah. Okay. So then that left the objectors having to, at least, say out loud that they don't believe what the Big Book says. Cool.

But let's make sure that that's what we're saying, and not fuzzying up the words in the Big Book. Because a lot of folks have had a lot of discussions about a lot of the words in the Big Book, and - so far - nobody has made any headway in any attempt to change the wording in any real way.

And that's what I really left the retreat with - the feeling that there were folks who were reading the Big Book after they went home differently than they were reading it before they got to the retreat. And by "differently" I mean "actually reading".

Hard for that to be a bad thing, to my way of thinking.

Now I've just got to rest up from talking for so many hours, non-stop : )

"And I'm trying to get down
 To the heart of the matter
 But my will gets weak
 And my thoughts seem to scatter, but I think it's about -
 Forgiveness,
 Forgiveness -
 Even if, even if
 You don't love me anymore..."
                    -- Don Henley

No, I don't usually quote ex-Eagles in these pages, but this one seems appropriate.

I was in a meeting the other day - an "As Bill Sees It" topic - and they read an excerpt from some of Bill's writings that said (paraphrasing) that, if we're going to go around asking for forgiveness (I assume in Step Nine) that we'd better start out by forgiving those we were angry at - including ourselves.

Bill, Bill, Billy-Bill Bill - sometimes I think that you shoulda stopped when you hit page 165 : )

I don't doubt that forgiveness is important - although the only place that I can find it in the first 164 pages (at least, in a quick mental skimming) is on page 86, where we ask God's forgiveness in our evening 11th Step. But I'm not sure that

a) I need to actually work on forgiving others, or
b) I have any business forgiving myself.

The first part is simple - if I'm angry at somebody (as a steady-state thing) then I have a resentment. If I have a resentment, then I'm supposed to do the work in Step Four. If I do that work, then I will do the fourth column(even if this is a shortened discussion in Step 10, the same principles apply). If I've done the fourth column, then I've seen my part(s) in this situation and/or in the generation of the resentment, and so I'm no longer angry at whoever I listed in the first column. If I am still angry, I have more fourth column work to do, because I haven't really found my part yet.

(N.B. - this does not mean that I'm not capable of generating more anger about it later, even if I have found my part - because if I haven't done 6, 7 8 and 9, it's a pretty sure bet that I'm hanging on to something).

So I won't be getting high-and-mighty and forgiving anybody - I'll be asking for forgiveness, but the wind will be out of my sails.

And this business of forgiving myself - speaking as a person coming from a Christian background, I have no business doing that, either. If I can really forgive myself, then what is God for?

So I don't think that it's by accident that there aren't any "forgiveness" instructions in the Big Book - because it ain't my job. My forgiveness happens as a result of my own inventory.

In the Fourth Step, I'm supposed to set down on my grudge list the names of "people, institutions or principles" with whom I am angry.

Well, how do I know who they are?

That may sound like a silly question - I've once heard someone say that the Fourth Step should be easy, because any drunk knows "who he is mad at, what he's afraid of, and who he's slept with".

But I've done such a good job of hiding from things that I'd rather not look at, that sometimes it's difficult to find them at all, even when I go looking for them. Sure, there are many folks who come to mind right off, but some take more digging - and it's possible that the ones that have to be "dug up" in this way are the ones that I'd best find out before they fester any more.

So I've come up with several methods or questions to find out who's name goes on the list - since the Big Book says that I first write the list, and then fill out the other columns, I have to get the names first, and then the "what I'm angry about" will come to the front of my mind.

Sometimes I just sort through the faces of people that I know, on a mental Rolodex - if the image of a person makes me twinge inside, then I suspect that they belong on the list.

I ask myself "Is there anybody that I dislike?"

"Is there anybody that I would rather not see?"

"When I'm tired, who do I think about?" (this is an interesting one - some years back, I lived on a road in the middle of a long hill. When I would go for a run, at some point I would have a long uphill to climb. I found that when I got tired, I would wind up thinking about somebody that I was resentful at, as this was my mind's way of generating enough adrenaline to get me up the hill. I wound up calling it 'resentment hill" : )

"Is there anyone that I talk to when they aren't in the room?"

And a new one showed up this morning, in my reading - "is there anybody that I would like to see punished?" Other than my children, I have no business deciding who should be punished or how - that would pretty much be (for me) a definitive symptom of "playing God".

It can be as simple (and as petty) as having somebody pass me on the highway in a manner that I see as aggressive, and hoping that I'll turn a later corner and see them pulled over by the police. Or it can be as complex as seeing a behavior in somebody, and hoping that something or somebody intervenes to make sure that they stop that behavior - which is, regardless of how subtle it might see, a desire to see someone punished, which means that I've already decided that they are wrong, and I am right.

I'm even capable of condoning this sort of thinking under the Golden Rule, by saying "well, if I was doing that, I would hope that somebody would stop me" : )

I need to consciously add this query to my list of "ways of finding out who I'm resentful at", whether for Step Four or Step Ten (or Eleven : ) because I suspect that it happens really, really often. One of the downsides of having my behavior improve is that it makes me more self-righteous, which in turn lends itself to being quicker to see others judged- and punished.

A word that has a hard time these days is "advice".

It seems that folks don't want it, and to give advice is considered arrogant.

Sheesh - when I walked into the rooms, I desperately wanted advice. And folks were not at all hesitant to give it to me. Vigorously : )

In Chapter Seven, "Working with Others", we're told that

So I figure that my "advice" to the newcomer is supposed to be about how he can work the Twelve Steps as outlined in the Big Book.

Somebody asked me how I do this; I familiarize the newcomer with the instructions via a series of discussions.

I break it down this way:

* The Doctor's Opinion
* Bill's Story - if they are alcoholic; I also tell them that while they are doing these readings, I want them to read some of the stories in the back of the book. If they are compulsive overeaters, I tell them to read some of the stories in the Chocolate Book.
* Chapter 2 through the italics on page 24, and then we discuss what the BB means by "powerless".
* The rest of chapter 2, then we discuss Dr Jung, the business man, and how alkies got struck sober "here and there, once in a while" and the difference between that and what happened with Roland.
* Chapter 3, and we discuss what's in there
* Chapter 4, and I ask them to find out if it says that we need faith to work this program.
* Chapter 5 through a), b) and c) - and then I ask them if they are convinced of those three things. If they are, then I tell them that "..they are at Step Three" because they've read the book up to this point and are convinced of the three pertinent ideas.
* Through the paragraph after the Third Step Prayer, and I tell them while they are reading this section (over and over?) to find the answers to two questions - 1) what is the first requirement to working the Third Step? and 2) when they try to run their own lives, what delusion are they suffering from? I also tell them to think long and hard about what those pages say, and decide if they want to do that Third Step.
* After they've done that reading, I ask them if they have thought long and hard, and do they want to go through with this? If yes, I do the Third Step prayer with them (after discussing what it means to me).
* We go over the next paragraph together, where it says that in order to have any permanent effect, this Step must be followed by the rest of the Steps. I then send them home WITH A NOTEBOOK and tell them to a) read the rest of the chapter and b) start their grudge list TODAY.
* While they're working on the inventory, we talk about the various sections whenever they have questions.
* When they are near to getting done, I have them read Chapter 6 through the "quiet hour" afterward, and let them decide who they are going to do their Fifth Step with.
* After the Fifth Step, I point out the quiet hour, and what the Big Book says to do for Steps Six and Seven. I tell them that, if they do those Steps, to then take their Fourth Step and put all the names down in a list (leaving some room for what the amends might be) and read Chapter 6 through the Ninth Step Promises.
* Send 'em out with their list, after discussing any questions that they may have about specific amends.
* As they are progressing with their list, I tell them to read the rest of Chapter 6, and then we discuss Steps 10 and 11 as a discipline.
* I then tell 'em to read Chapter 7 and discuss what it says, and tell them that it is time for them to make themselves available to newcomers as a sponsor.


There is nothing in here about if the newcomer should date Suzie, or take that job in Nova Scotia, or stop smoking. I neither know nor care what sort of decisions the pigeon makes; as far as I'm concerned, until they get to Step Eleven, it's all a roll of the dice anyway : )