If you're like me, you shudder when you hear the phrase "This is a selfish program".

Usually this phrase will be followed with a statement about one's behavior - quite often, totally reasonable and unselfish behavior (to my way of thinking), but behavior that the speaker seems to feel guilty about, and thus wants to plead mitigation for because (as he was told) "this is a selfish program".

But a problem here is that newcomers hear this, and then go out and engage in some pretty selfish stuff, because somebody told them that "this is a selfish program". I've heard of folks telling their family members that they have to get rid of their booze or demanding other accomodations from their friends or employers, all because "this is a selfish program".

Now, as we've already discussed, selfishness is the problem, not the solution. And the Big Book itself tells me that I cannot recover at another person's expense - that's why the Fifth Step must be done with someone who will "understand, yet be unaffected", and the Ninth Step can't be done if it will injure the recipient, or a third party.

For a long time, I just sort of internally shook my head; while it's my responsibility to explain about this to anyone that I work with, it's not my job (and not my privilege) to chase anybody else down and explain it to them; besides, I've often noted that, if one thinks that they've been given a license to behave selfishly, it's difficult to derail that sort of thinking : )

But not too long ago, when this topic came up during a meeting, it suddenly hit me -

"And it come to me
It come like a flash
Like a vision burnt across the clouds" -- The Motorcycle Song (The Significance of the Pickle) - Arlo Guthrie

-- this can't be a selfish program, because it works.

The Big Book tells us, on page 60, what happens when we act out of selfishness - there's a whole paragraph of what I call "the signs and symptoms of self-will.  It says "what usually happens? The show doesn't come of very well....he becomes angry, indignant, self-pitying...is he not, even in his best moments, a producer of confusion rather than harmony?"

None of these things are what happen while we are avidly following the program - therefore, the program can't be selfish.

Contrariwise - if we think that we're "working the program" and these things happen AS A RESULT OF OUR EFFORTS, then we're off the beam entirely.

I'm glad we had this little talk :)

I answered the phone a while ago, and had a very brief chat with a pigeon; when I hung up, a friend sitting nearby (an NA type) must have heard the same sort of abbreviated conversations before, because he asked me "Sponsee?"

I answered (before I thought about it) "Yep".

But a bit later, as we were walking, I told him that I should not have answered "yep", as the word "sponsee" is not actually a word.

We've played this gamed before, but that's all right - I don't mind.

If somebody is (for instance) inducted into the army, then the person who manages the process is the "inductor", and the person who undergoes the process is the "inductee".

If someone is causing an orchestra to conduct itself in a particular way, that person is the "conductor" and the folks playing the instruments are "conductees".

If someone performs an oration, then he is an orator, and the people listening are oratees.

But nobody ever "sponses" anybody - they SPONSOR them.In order for the word "sponsee" to actually be a WORD, then "sponse" would have to be a VERB - i.e "Joe sponsed me for the first five years, but now Ted sponses me".

Back when I was a little baby drunk in central Texas, I learned the word "pigeon", because we take care of 'em, we keep 'em locked up until they're able to fly on their own, they often seem to poop on everything - and we hope, someday, that they will carry a message.

The Big Book uses neither term - it says "protoge" or "prospect" for the person to whom one is carrying the message to (for the first time) - after that, it simply says "the new man". But, then, the Big Book never even discusses the sort of long-term relationships that we now indulge in, through the process of "sponsorship". It allows as to how you make two visits to a man, and - if he decides that he wants to go through the program - you make yourself available for Steps 3 and 5.

Hmmm...I wonder....it's just a notion, an unclear idea - but maybe (just maybe, and I'm only questioning this myself) I should even be DOING those kind of long-term relationships; perhaps I'm doing the "pigeonee"¹ a disservice by taking on a role or responsibility that is not described or dictated in the Big Book. It's entirely possible that that is one of those things that my current sponsor calls "AA Folklore" (and it's funny that I can reference my sponsor in a passage that is questioning whether or not the term itself describes a valid concept :)

I wonder if that sort of long-term relationship actually fosters dependence on another person, rather than dependence on God? I've always understood my responsibility, as a sponsor, to be to get the protoge/pigeon/pick-a-word as quickly as possible to Step 11, so that he can then detach from me and get his instructions directly from God. Why, then, would we keep the relationship going after that?
I would figure that, if this were a necessary part of sobriety, that it would be in the Book? -  maybe this is one of those "God will constantly disclose more to you and to us" thingies.

I don't like ambiguity. I reckon that I'm gonna have to do some more reading - and praying.



¹ Yes, I know that's not a word either. Just a little Rule #62 on my part :)

(N.B. - this post will be sent off to the OA Lifeline. Now, I'm not saying that it will be PUBLISHED there, but it's my intention to send it there)

Well, the Mon/Tues/Wed/'Thurs night meetings of Overeaters Anonymous at the North Scottsdale Fellowship Club formed themselves into a group - the Into Action group of Overeaters Anonymous.

We got ourselves a chairman, two co-secretaries, filled all of the office, got a checking account - and, when we tried to get registered with the World Service Office in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, we ran into a little hitch.

OA doesn't have "groups".

Forgive me - OA has groups, that are MEETINGS, but if you have more than one meeting, each meeting has to be a group. We do NOT allow "groups" to form that have more than one meeting.

Now, this is Overeaters Anonymous, the bunch who says "...we use AA's Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, changing only the words "alcohol" and "alcoholic" to "food" and "compulsive overeater"." Now, that's not entirely true - we got rid of a comma in the Twelfth Step, and we added "television and other public media of communication" to the Eleventh Tradition.

I don't know how we got smarter than the Big Book and decided to rewrite the Step - I suppose that we, as a fellowship, must have approved that.  And I can see how "television and other public media of communication" is in the spirit of the Eleventh Tradition, although I've noticed that AA has managed to get along without updating that wording; folks aren't stupid, and AAs seem to be more concerned with leaving openings for weirdness to sneak into their program than they are with having to cover all of the bases.

But this particular bit of strangeness - forcing each meeting to be a group - seems, right off, to violate the Traditions immediately by blowing off group autonomy - I can just imagine what would happen if AA's General Service Office tried to tell some group how many meetings that they could have.

In addition, it messes with the Second Tradition, by (it seems) allowing folks to belong to more than one group, thus allowing their votes to be reflected more than once at Intergroup, Region and World Service levels.

But more than that - it's a concept, a restriction, that is completely foreign to the AA way of implementing their Traditions. Most AA groups have more than one meeting - many of them have as much as (say) 35 meetings/week (early morning, noon, early evening, evening, late night, for seven days a week).

But OA has decided that we won't do things the AA way.

So why are we still saying that we follow AA's Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions? There is nothing about the difference between compulsive overeating and alcoholism that would require a different interpretation of these Traditions.

I reckon that this is just a small part of a much bigger issue - that being that we keep moving away from the way AA does things. It seems to me that the further away that we get from the AA way, the worse the results get.  Yet we seem to keep trying to be creative; trying to prove that we are more than just an AA knockoff.

And that's just a bad idea. What in the world is wrong with copying the Miracle of the Twentieth Century? - it reminds me of some NA bumper stickers that I've seen - "My book isn't Big - it's Basic" - loudly proclaiming "Hey, look - we're different than AA!".

Yes, we are different from AA. And the more different we get, the more obvious it is.

A couple of weeks ago, during the Friday morning Big Book Study, we talked a bit out the fact that, in Chapter Seven, the Big Book changes mood and person, from first person plural declarative (in the past tense) to second person imperative. In other words, it stops saying "We did this" and "We did that", and starts saying "You do this - you do that".

I've noticed it before, but never really thought too much about it. But, for some reason, on this particular morning, it really struck me.

It is very obvious just where and why the Big Book uses the first person plural, past tense - it's because of that bit in Chapter Two, where it tells us how the first 100 are going to pass this message on to us -

"It is the purpose of this book to answer such questions specifically. We shall tell you what we have done"

So they are going to tell us what they have done - this means that, with few exceptions, Bill and his buddies are going to give us leadership by example, all the way up through Chapter Six. Every now and then they will break out with specific advice, but usually they keep things in the tone of "here are the things that we have done", with an understanding that, if I want what they have, then I'll be willing to do what they have done.

But, right at the first paragraph of Chapter Seven, it switches to the imperative mood -

"Carry this message to other alcoholics! You can help when no one else can. You can secure their confidence when others fail. Remember they are very ill."

When I finally got to thinking about why they do this, it hit me like a ton of bricks - it's because I am now one of the we!

See, all the way through the first eleven Steps, they are telling me what they have done, as a result of which they have had a spiritual awakening; at the start of Chapter Seven, it is assumed that  I have now actually done the same things that they have done, which makes me one of them; at that point, I become one of them -I become one of "us".

From that point on, the book is talking about how I will meet another alcoholic, and how I will carry the message to him - and, as I note from the directions, that message-carrying follows the same format that the Big Book used to carry the message to me.. So, at that point, I am now telling him what I have done.

But that alone wouldn't force a change of mood - the book could go right ahead and keep saying "We have done this - you do it too". But, as it happens, that's not actually the case. You see, the First 100 didn't go out all alone to carry the message; with the rare exception, they actually acted together in carrying the message, and the contacts were already in place, so they can't say (for instance) anything like this -

"Perhaps we were not acquainted with any drinkers who wanted to recover. We could easily find some by asking a few doctors, ministers, priests or hospitals"

No, they have to say -

"Perhaps you are not acquainted with any drinkers who want to recover. You can easily find some by asking a few doctors, ministers, priests or hospitals"

(italics mine - jim p)

....So, when Chapter Seven tells us to go out, alone, visiting these professionals or institutions to seek out drunks, then they are telling us to do something that they, as a group, hadn't done - they hadn't been alone. Thus, they had to drop the "we did this...we did that" format of using their own examples, and go out on a limb by giving us instructions to do things which many of them had never done - because we would not have the benefit of direct contact with them while we were getting started.

(yes, I know that some of 'em did do just that - Clarence in Cleveland comes to mind - but still, it wasn't their normal way of doing things, so simple rigorous honesty forces them to shift from "we did this" to "you do that" : )

Of course, nowadays, very few of us are all alone in some remote place with just a Big Book in our hands. So we don't have to follow those exact instructions for finding other drunks, as it just so happens that most communities will have gatherings of drunks most nights of the week.

But it still helps me, when I am having my first talks with a prospect, to pattern them after those first and second visits outlined in Chapter Seven, because - after all - now I have stopped being "you" and become "we", which makes the guy on the bed the new "you" :)

I'm setting this up as an entry - just so that I can use the same look and feel. I'll make a link to it in the sidebar, so that folks can always get to it.




Just in case anybody is interested - here are some MP3s and such that you might find interesting.

(N.B. - the ones currently listed are just me; when/if I get permission, then I'll put the general sessions up here as well)

Dallas OA Convention 2009

Friday Night Speaker
 
Friday Night Talk Part I - for some reason, the folks doing the recording broke my story into two parts :)
Friday Night Talk Part II

Satuday Sessions

The Problem I - Saturday Session AM  
                                      ------                        (One Powerpoint presentation that spans both sessions)

The Problem II - Saturday Session PM

Sunday Sessions

People Who Need People - Sunday AM Session
Powerpoint


ASDI Sponsorship Workshop September 2007

Powerpoints
Disk 1
Disk 2

ASDI Summer Retreat 2006

Disk 1
Disk 2
Disk 3

I spent this last weekend at an OA convention in Dallas, TX. (Gotta love Dallas :)

One of the most interesting things that I heard, I heard not in a meeting or from a speaker, but in a private conversation with my oldest friend.

He pointed out that there's a comfort zone, and that people have to be pushed out of their comfort zone in order to grow; as long as they are comfortable, there's too much inertia causing them to stay the way that they are. Okay, nothing really new there - I've been hearing, and saying, that for years - except for the idea of that area of discomfort, just outside of the Comfort Zone, being called the "Growth Zone".

But he followed that up by saying that if folks get pushed too far our of their comfort zone, they wind up in the Panic Zone, and they can't grow there either - instead of being unwilling to move because they are comfortable, they are unable to move because they are paralyzed with fear.

I liked it so much that I drew a picture :)

                                          

So I brought that home, and thought about it, and it really explains a lot - and then, during this morning's Big Book Study, we were reading about "the first meeting with a man, in Chapter Seven (page 91) talking about the Twelfth Step -

"After a while, turn the talk to some phase of drinking. Tell him enough about your drinking habits, symptoms, and experiences to encourage him to speak of himself. If he wishes to talk, let him do so. ... If he is not communicative, give him a sketch of your drinking career up to the time you quit.... If he is in a serious mood dwell on the troubles liquor has caused you, being careful not to moralize or lecture. If his mood is light, tell him humorous stories of your escapades. Get him to tell some of his."

...and I thought back on all of those first conversations I've had, after a meeting or when they first give me a phone call, and I realized how perfectly the above instructions map into these thoughts about "Panic Zone, Growth Zone, and Comfort Zone".

See, telling my own story, and doing so from the perspective of "yes, it really was that bad, but I'm all better now", has the tendency to pull the listener into the Growth Zone, regardless of which zone he's in now.

If he's ready to grow, we can identify, and then we get moving.

Then, for the ones that are a little too placid - the ones who think "gee, I'm not that bad a drunk" or  "I couldn't really be a compulsive overeater" - me telling my story, and focusing on those examples of powerless that got my attention, might cause them to think "Uh, oh - huh, I drink/overeat like that" and - as the Big Book says -

"Maybe you have disturbed him about the question of alcoholism. This is all to the good. The more hopeless he feels, the better."

So the comfortable ones get "disturbed", and that's a good thing - they get pushed out into the Growth Zone. Maybe not right away - but perhaps a few more episodes, a few more binges, might get them there - especially when they have our words still ringing in their ears.

But then we have the other ones - the ones who are almost hysterical with grief and remorse. These sad, sick cases have reached the point where they don't believe that anything can be done for them. (It's funny how quickly many of us go from "I don't have that bad a problem" to "nobody can help me - I'm a goner" :) When I think of these, I tend to think of Bill D., "Anonymous Number Three", who was the Man On The Bed - the one who was sure that he was too far gone, the one exhibiting maudlin remorse over having punched a nurse the night before.

These folks are in the Panic Zone - they are ready to jump off a bridge (but not just yet) and will quickly deflect any attempts to help them by saying "No, no - nobody can help me. I'm too bad, too evil, too sick"; however, hearing a quiet recitation of our own struggles, our own powerlessness - while there we sit, obvious examples of recovery - can have the power of calming these hystrionic ones down, and moving them into the Growth Zone, where they are ready to get started.

It sort of reminds me of the old circuit riding preacher¹, who would show up once a month and say "I am here to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable"; this helps both groups. The afflicted can't grow until they hear a message of hope; the comfortable can't grow until you light a fire under them.

I'll close with this further illustration - this model also explains some of my own behavior, as a sponsor, and the funny stuff I've seen from my own sponsors.....Have you ever noticed how, when you explain to your sponsor how bad things are, he tells you that they're not so bad?...but then, when you give him a smug answer, and you're puffed up with your own self-satisfaction, he'll burst your balloon quickly and tell you that you're in danger, and that you'd better get to work? :)



¹ Aside to Alan - yes, I'm still using that "circuit-riding preacher" analogy. I'm sure that it will wear off eventually :)

For years, it's bothered me to sit in gratitude meetings.

I never could figure out just why - I don't see anything wrong with gratitude, of course. I'm GRATEFUL for gratitude. I enjoy being grateful. Gratitude is that wonderful response to a gift - it's not a smug triumph over something I've "earned". (I used to be resentful that I didn't get everything that I deserved; after a few inventories, I'm very glad that God is a God of mercy, not justice :)

But when I would sit in a gratitude meeting and hear people talk about making gratitude lists, it sorta made me squirm inside. And part of my squirming was discomfort over not knowing what I was uncomfortable about - after all, what's wrong with making a gratitude list?

Absolutely nothing, of course. I even managed to convince myself that a gratitude list was a good example of a meditative exercise, such as the Big Book talks about in Step 11, where it says that "there are many helpful books also" - I decided that a gratitude list was an implementation of St. Paul's instructions to the Phillipians:

"Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things" (Philippians 4:8).

And that may, indeed, be the case - I might still believe that.

However, coming up with that way to look at things didn't stop my squirming. I'd still get the heebie-jeebies every time the subject came up.

I found some comfort in my wife's notions - she said that telling people to be grateful reminded her of how mothers used to say "Eat your peas and be grateful that you have them - there are children starving in [pick distressed country or continent of the decade] who would love to have those peas."  As far as she could tell, all that did was make the kid feel guilty - it didn't make him feel grateful, although he would (no doubt) shut up and eat his peas.

At today's noon AA meeting, however, I finally got my answer - now I know why the mention of "making a gratitude list" always made me squirm.

It's not in the Big Book.

Yes, you know that and I know that - however, as I said above, I could find a place in the 11th Step instructions where it might fit quite well. But a friend of mine mentioned today that it's not in the Big Book, although to him that was no big deal

But then, the next person who shared was a young drunk saying today that his sponsor told him to make a gratitude list every time he started to get angry or self-pitying (as far as I could tell, pretty much any negative emotion) - that a gratitude list would keep that emotion from growing and leading him to a drink.

a-HA! As soon as he said that, I had it.

We don't recommend that people do gratitude lists as meditation - we tell them to do those lists as a treatment for the emotions that might make them drink - and that feeds into the belief that it's emotions that get us drunk; that we're drinking as a result of our feelings, and that we should be treating those feelings directly, rather than get to the underlying causes.

My book says that when I feel those negative emotions, I'm supposed to

1) ask God at once to remove them
2) discuss them with somebody else immediately
3) make amends quickly if we have harmed anyone, and
4) resolutely turn our thoughts to someone we can help.

Instead of - and as a replacement for - all of that structure and introspection, we often tell folks that "you should make a gratitude list". So we give this advice as a substitute for the Steps, rather than as an adjunct or supplement;.

And then, with that simple notion in place, I was able to expand on Ethel's "eat your peas" objection - when we tell somebody to make a gratitude list, we are telling them that they should change the way they feel - which is always dangerous advice for a drunk.  And the making of a list seems to be us telling ourselves "These are the circumstances that should be making me happy" - which follows that old false belief  that I worshiped for so long - the belief that my circumstances are my problem, rather than my internal state.

(I did say, above, that prescribing a list is telling somebody to change the way that they feel; I'll admit, however, that6 it's possible that we might indeed be saying "change the way you think, which should then change the way that you feel" - but even that is saying "Treat the mental issue directly", which is a step back from AA's 12 Steps. Those Steps seem to me to say "Take an action on the spiritual plane, and the mental, emotional and physical results will follow from that.")

As far as I can tell, gratitude does not lead me to humility; nope, it's the other way around. The 12 Steps operate on a spiritual basis to generate "ego reduction at depth", and that leads me to a simple humility - and, when I am humble, I don't HAVE to make a gratitude list; being grateful then becomes my normal state. Everything that comes along is met with a smile and a heartfelt "thanks, God!"

Contrariwise - if I'm trying to fix my mental or emotional state directly, quite often I find that everything on that gratitude list of mine is actually onerous indeed; the very same possessions, relationships or events that seem to be blessings on Tuesday can be burdens on Thursday.

AA is a spiritual program; we're not psychiatrists or psychologists, and what we have to offer is not gimmicks or motivational therapy. It's miracles, plain and simple. If we stick to the Steps, then gratitude is the RESULT of our actions - it's not the CAUSE.

Some time back, I was going over the Third Step in the Book.

I have every intention of taking the Big Book literally. But sometimes, some of the phrases seem to skew my ability to do so. For instance, there's that sentence in Chapter Three where it says "Nobody likes to think he is bodily and mentally different from his fellows".

Hah. I used to "like to think" exactly that - specifically, that I was mentally different - mentally superior, in point of fact :)

The evidence that eventually accumulated caused me to drop that pretense, although it still shows up from time to time. But still, whenever I read that phrase, it makes me do a double-think, trying to figure out - am I that strange, or does the book mean something other than what it seems to be saying?

And suddenly I realize - this is the same page where it says "the delusion that we are like other people, or presently may be, has to be smashed". It doesn't specify drinking, but elsewhere in the book it tells us that many alcoholics are entirely normal except in the effect alcohol has upon them.

So, when it says that the idea that we are like other people is a delusion, it means "with respect to drinking". So I reckon that when it says "bodily or mentally differnet", in this context, it means "inferior; sickened; weaker or flawed in some way" - specifically, that we can't drink like other people.

So, when I saw on page 62 this admonition -

" Above everything, we alcoholics must be rid of this selfishness. We must, or it kills us!"

...and I really took it in, it sorta gave me the heebie-jeebies. I mean, do you know any alcoholic who has gotten rid of selfishness? It doesn't say "have it reduced", or "maybe not be quite as obnoxiously self-centered as we were in the old days" - it says "we must be rid of this selfishness...or it kills us".

That bothered me for a long time.

Then, one day while going through the Step 3 prep with a pigeon, I realized that there is an extra word in there - "this". Not "we must be rid of selfishness", but "we must be rid of this selfishness".

And I realized what was being addressed. Self-centeredness - that is the problem.

The Third Step is where we ask to have our self-centeredness be replaced with God-centeredness (that's a term from Appendix II) - up until this point, I don't have any other option. I operate on the basis of self, and, when that doesn't work - I "try harder", still operating on the basis of self.

But now, I am no longer centered on SELF - I have another Voice in me. I have another Option - another Decision Maker. Now, when I realize that I'm being self-centered, I can actually stop - and turn to that Other that has awakened in me,

The book doesn't say (in Step Four) that I'll get drunk if I have resentments - it says "if I HARBOR them" - give them a safe place to stay. When I'm self-centered, that's my only option. But when I am God-centered, I have another option.

Same with Step 10 - I still have selfishness at this point (it says "When these crop up", not "If these crop up : ) - but I can turn to something other than Self to be relieved of it.

So the way that I get rid of this selfishness is that I make a decision, work the rest of the Steps - and I have another Self awaken in me.

Where I got sober, we had five signs across one wall (as I recall; it's a little hazy. It's been about 8563 days, after all), all in a sort of Gothic font - red letters on a white background - that had "the slogans", as they were called.

The five "slogans" were

Live And Let Live
Easy Does It
But For The Grace Of God
Think Think Think
First Things First

and I recall spending a surprising amount of meeting time talking about them. They kept coming up; they seemed to be important, but I was never sure why. It seemed to me that four of them indicated attitudes that I was to take, and the fifth (Think Think Think) was an action that I was supposed to do.

I recall that somebody said "Live Easy But Think First", that being a sentence created by taking the first words of each slogan and ordering them in a syntactically (and semantically) sensible matter.

(I remember that my sponsor at the time told me "Do you see that last one there? "Think Think Think"? That doesn't apply to you. When it does, I'll let you know." It's been twenty-three years; he hasn't let me know yet).

As time went by, I found out that three of these slogans were in the Big Book; I wasn't sure where the others came from, but - since they were on the wall at the meeting house - I figured that they must be good ideas. I learned that the "suitable for framing" prints themselves could be purchased through the Grapevine, and that meant - to my understanding - that they must be solid, hard-core Conference Approved you-betchas, and that I'd best listen to them.

Well, I don't listen to all of them any more. And I don't listen to any of them in the same way.

First off, I became aware of just where the three slogans that are in the big book are located - they are at the end of Chapter Nine, "The Family Afterward". In other words - these slogans represent attitudes that I am supposed to assume as I assume this spiritual path as a way of life - they are NOT mentioned earlier in the text, when I'm being directed through the Steps before entering that way of life.

I suspect that this may have something to do with the peculiar role that the Steps have taken - as seen by many in the Fellowship - in the intervening years; once upon a time, the Steps were something that were to be grasped "with all the desperation with which a drowning man grasps a life preserver" - now, they seem to have been relegated to some sort of background process, with the idea that going to meetings, hanging out with sober people, and talking to one's sponsor (about WHAT?) are "the program", and the Steps are something that are supposed to be done whenever one gets around to it. In the meantime, "Easy Does It".

So I'll talk about the three slogans from the Big Book later; today, I'd like to talk about the other two, because (see) "they ain't in my Big Book" :)

I understand that "not being in the Big Book" is not an indictment; there are a lot of things that are true and good that aren't in the Big Book. "Two plus two equals four", "you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd" and "keep your weight forward and your belly-button downhill" are all good and true, and none of them are in the Big Book.

But none of those sayings are slogans that are being proposed as part of a comprehensive program aimed at a spiritual awakening designed to guarantee a profound personality change sufficient to bring about recovery from alcoholism. That's what the Big Book is supposed to be; it's supposed to provide everything that we need to get this job done. So, when phrases or slogans or ideas get added to that program after the fact, then perhaps they should at least be inspected for validity, or (at least) consistency.

And the two non-Big-Book slogans just do not cut it, to my way of thinking.

To one of them, my objection is fairly basic, and that is "Think Think Think". And it's true that my sponsor told me that that didn't apply to me, but that's not the problem here - the Big Book says that, by Step Eleven, God will direct my thinking, and it tells me in there to think quite a bit; it also tells me how to think.

But this slogan is (always?) used to mean "Think the drink through - think about what will happen if you take that drink" - in other words, it is asking me to rely upon a mental defense.

What does the Big Book say?

"At a certain point in the drinking of every alcoholic, he passes into a state where the most powerful desire to stop drinking is of absolutely no avail. This tragic situation has already arrived in practically every case long before it is suspected.

"The fact is that most alcoholics, for reasons yet obscure, have lost the power of choice in drink. Our so called will power becomes practically nonexistent. We are unable, at certain times, to bring into our consciousness with sufficient force the memory of the suffering and humiliation of even a week or a month ago. We are without defense against the first drink.

"The almost certain consequences that follow taking even a glass of beer do not crowd into the mind to deter us. If these thoughts occur, they are hazy and readily supplanted with the old threadbare idea that this time we shall handle ourselves like other people. There is a complete failure of the kind of defense that keeps one from putting his hand on a hot stove."  -- page 24

" the actual or potential alcoholic, with hardly any exception, will be absolutely unable to stop drinking on the basis of self-knowledge. This is a point we wish to emphasize and re-emphasize, to smash home upon our alcoholic readers as it has been revealed to us out of bitter experience." -- page 39

"Once more: The alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink. Except in a few cases, neither he nor any other human being can provide such a defense. His defense must come from a Higher Power." -- page 43

 So much for "Think Think Think". It's basically a slogan that is telling me to rely on something that the Big Book says will not, can not, work - the problem being that, when folks try this and then it doesn't work, they have little choice but to say "AA didn't work for me", since it was the AAs who told him this silliness in the first place.

Then there's the other one - and it's really sneaky (I'm going to step outside the fourth wall here and add this phrase - "....to my way of thinking". I don't really see any reason to do that, since - OBVIOUSLY - this whole blog is being written from my viewpoint. But, since I'm going to talk about a slogan that has God's name in it, I have to be very, very careful) to my way of thinking, because it almost sounds like good AA doctrine. When I hear this one elaborated on, it's in the context of "If it weren't for the Grace of God, I'd be drunk, like those other folks who aren't sober - there, but for the Grace of God, go I".

And - apologies to anyone who finds this offensive - no, I don't think that that's what's operative here at all. It sounds all humble and everything, but it actually seems to me to be one of the most arrogant statements that a person can make.

Again - this is just the way that I see it - but my own conception of a Higher Power doesn't include a God who will shed his Grace on one man, and not another.

So there must be something else operative here.

What might it be? How about this? "Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path".

I have little doubt that it is the power of God that is keeping me sober; but my Big Book tells me that that power can only save me if I am willing to take certain actions and attitudes - twelve of them, to be precise. Why is one member of AA sober, and another out there drunk? Because one of them thoroughly followed the path, and the other one didn't do so.

So this slogan is pretty sneaky, in that it promotes the idea that my sobriety is the result of unearned favor or merit (Grace) and has nothing to do with my own effort or willingness. And that's a thought that will kill a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, as sure as a gun to the head.

So, once again, I find that those things that we've added to our "AA Folklore" just don't suit me; I can't see that they add to the Program as outlined in the Big Book, and they seem to me to actually be misleading.

Funny about that.

Not too long ago - a couple of years back - I was given the opportunity to lead a "Sponsorship Workshop" for our local OA intergroup.

It wasn't a big deal - just a few hours in which I gave my understanding of what a sponsor is supposed to do in OA. (Interested parties can find the Powerpoint and audio files here). It was occasioned by many folks asking the question "What does a sponsor do?" and not getting a satisfactory answer.

Well, if you ask me a question, then you're (generally) gonna get one of two things:

1) What I think the Big Book says about the topic, or
2) What I think about the topic, if I don't think that the Big Book covers it.

If I'm completely clueless, then I might just tell you what my sponsor said about it (or what I've heard) but that will be accompanied by a pretty big disclaimer.

At the time, I told them that, as far as I could tell, the idea of "sponsorship" as we use it today - meaning an ongoing, long-term relationship with an "elder member" of the fellowship who acts as a sort of life-coach and sounding board - simply was not a part of the Big Book message; and I still find that to be the case.

But lately we've been reading Chapter Seven in our Wednesday Night Big Book Study meeting ("study" means "read on paragraph and beat it to death, then - if there's enough time left - move on to the next paragraph". I was sad to miss the night, some weeks back, when we were finishing up Chapter Six - I wanted to know if we could make a whole meeting out of the shortest paragraph in the Big Book - "It works - it really does." I'm betting that if Harlan was there, they got an easy forty-five minutes out of that one :) - anyway, we've been going through the chapter "Working With Others", and I'm struck by how simple the instructions are, and - once again - by how internally consistent the Big Book is.

The Big Book is meant to be the ultimate Twelfth Step - it is meant to be read by the lone alcoholic, so that - by following the instructions - he can have a spiritual awakening (which, as a by-product, keeps him sober) and then - having had that spiritual awakening - he carries that message to other alcoholics, and thus winds up forming a fellowship about him.

After a brief medical introduction (to give the book some credibility :) it starts out by telling us the personal story of one of the Fellowship's founders; it then gives us two chapters of information about the illness of alcoholism - with increasingly alarming details that hammer home the hopelessness of the situation - and follows that with a chapter detailing the need for - and the possibility of - an investigation into a spiritual solution.

After that comes the instructions (yes, that's right - if you'll read the next-to-the-last page of Chapter Two, it tells you that you won't get any instructions until Chapter Five :) for working the recovery program (up to and including the instructions for carrying the message to others), chapters addressed to the wives and employers of alcoholics, a discussion of the family life after recovery, and then a brief (anonymous) history of the movement so far, along with a hope that the reader will further that movement in his own locale.

What I find very interesting is that, in Chapter Seven - when the Big Book tells me how to carry the message to a newcomer - it seems to follow (very closely) the same order of operations that it (the Big Book) follows itself in bringing the message to me.

First off, on my first meeting with a prospect, I'm supposed to tell him some stories of my own drinking and the progression thereof; as I've moved into this, he's free to match my stories with some of his own (just the way that we all do, when we are reading Bill's Story). After he has done this - basically saying "Hey! I drink like that!" we are supposed to describe ourselves as alcoholics.

We then tell him that it's an illness, and we discuss the nature of that illness - the physical allergy and phenomenon of craving, coupled with the mental illness that causes us to drink even when we don't want to - and give a good picture of how hopeless it is.

(That's kind of a trap - we don't say "Hey! Guess what! Alcoholism is a progressive, incurable, and terminal illness! Now that I've told you that, let's find out if you have it!" No - instead, we let them identify as being the same sort of drinkers that we are, and then tell them that we're alkies, and just what that means and what it entails. Sneaky of us, isn't it? :)

Once that foundation of hopelessness is laid, we then tell them that the only remedy is a spiritual remedy. We briefly outline the program of action, and then we leave them alone; not only that, but - if they still want to quit - we leave them with our copy of the Big Book.

That's just how Bill Twelve-Stepped us all, in those first sixty pages - he told us his story, he described the illness and hammered home the hopelessness, told us (in Chapter Four) of the need for a spiritual solution, outlined that solution (in the short, numbered version of the Twelve Steps) and told us that "if you want what we have, and are willing to go to any lengths to get it, then you are ready to take certain steps".

Then, on page 60, we have to decide - are we convinced of a), b) and c)? If so, then ..."we were at Step Three" and it was time to get into action.

The original manuscript says, at that point, that if we were not convinced, that we should reread the book up to that point, or throw it away.

Then, at the second meeting, things are much simpler; at this point, it is assumed that  the newcomer has read the book. Nowadays that's a pretty big assumption; but with those first last-gaspers, it was pretty much "root, hog or die". But that was what was necessary for the newcomer to continue with the program; since the program was in the book, then the book had to be read.

But since the newcomer has read the book and has some idea of what is to be required of him, I'm supposed to let him know that I am available "if he wishes to make a decision and tell his story".

That's powerful stuff. Funny about those first eleven Steps; the only time that another person's assitance is required is in Step Five ("tell his story"), and it is considered very helpful when saying the Third Step Prayer ("make a decision"). So the book says that my roles - once the newcomer has decided that he's going to go through with this - is just to be the person to pray Step Three with, and the person to share the Fifth Step with.

And not even those are mandatory; the book goes on to tell me "do not insist upon it if he prefers to consult someone else".

And that's pretty much it. After that, it talks a little bit about possibly helping him to find a job, or giving him a place to stay if it seems appropriate. But nothing about having them call me every day or telling them what meetings to go to or advising them on their marriages or divorces - nope, none of that.

I'm not saying that it didn't HAPPEN. Just that it's not in the INSTRUCTIONS.

And I'm trying - still, again, all the time and after all these years - to learn to follow the INSTRUCTIONS; to read the black words on the white pages :)