God’s Will [updated]

I lopped off the corner of my finger with a chef’s knife last night, so this post is gonna be a little clumsy. Typing is hard, but unpacking moving boxes is harder (I bashed my finger one too many times). I’ve been meaning to write about this for a couple of days, anyway… So, sorry about any half-formed thoughts and unedited messes to follow:

Aside from the appalling absurdity of the fact that the addictions treatment industry in this country has been co-opted by a juggernaut of quackery – by a program of spiritual awakening, for which sobriety is only a perk (or evidence that one has achieved enlightenment) – and is treated with all seriousness by conventional wisdom, which would never in a hojillion years put up with this kind of crap from any other branch of medicine, there is also the utter lunacy that it fosters among AA members and 12-Steppers, generated by the nebulous standard of transcendence called “Getting It.”

The 12-Steps are not a recipe for sobriety. They are a recipe for opening up a direct line to God, to whom you have turned over your will, so that you may now do his. But, as one poster over a SoberRecovery asked, How do you know what God’s will actually is? This is the essential question that newcomers to AA must ask themselves, because their recovery depends upon knowing the difference between one’s base desires and God’s will.

 

Steppers Without Defects of Character? by Mykeru

Have you seen this man?

Steppers without Defects of Character

by Mykeru

The other night, after a small Alcoholics Anonymous meeting where the lead’s topic was “Using Your Higher Power”, I stood outside the venue, a nondescript building in Arlington, Virginia which might have once been some sort of school, but now functioned as a Baptist church, smoking a cigarette and talking to one of the more intelligent members of this group.

These moments, I think, are my real reason for being in AA: Just to talk to people, one-on-one, without reference to The Big Book or the pointless God-boggled self-loathing and infantile babbling that characterizes “sharing” within the AA meeting itself.

In AA a “Higher Power” is, at first, a pretty amorphous entity — a door knob, a bedpan, a “Group of Drunks” — right up to the point where it transmogrifies with a sleight-of-hand jolt into the easily petitioned, micro-managing, diaper-changing, Great Go-fer God of Bill Wilson’s Buchmanite imagination.

Despite the baited hook of nebulous “Higher Powers” Wilson makes the nature of this “higher power” unequivocal by page 46 of the Big Book: “We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results, even though it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God.”

“Which is God”. Not a doorknob “higher power”, not a God “as we understand Him”, but God.

Period.

 

Alcoholic Files a Complaint

Thank you, Susan, for tipping us to this article from the CBC News:

Religious Rehab Sparks Alcoholic’s Complaint

A Winnipeg man who has struggled with alcoholism for decades says he has filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission over the lack of a treatment program that’s free of religious or spiritual elements.

Rob Johnstone said he has battled alcoholism for 40 years and can’t find a treatment program that doesn’t rely on religion or spirituality as part of the recovery process.

[…]

Johnstone said the presence of spiritual elements in rehab programs exploit vulnerable addicts.

“We get involved in mood-altering substances and mind-altering substances,” Johnstone said. “That means the person is very vulnerable when they come in and that person should not be subjected to someone else’s religion.”

He’s hoping his human rights complaint pushes the province to create a treatment program that’s free of spiritual or religious elements. The commission wouldn’t comment on the status of his complaint.

The response from representatives of the treatment industry is just straight-up dingbattery:

“Spirituality … is part and parcel of everyone’s life. For some people, their spirituality is more important than others, but it’s a dimension of all of our lives as human beings,” Goossen said.”When they’re in … programming, we do want them to go look for a grain of something that will be helpful for them and disregard the rest,” Goossen added.

Other people who work with addicts hold a similar view.

Maj. Karen Hoeft of the Salvation Army in Winnipeg suggested it’s nearly impossible to separate addictions treatment from spirituality.

Go read it all.

 

“Christians get on my nerves.”

Have you ever found yourself wishing that you could be a self-righteous pain in the ass? You’ve tried going to church with your family, who just end up listening to the sermon! You’ve tried “lording over” everyone, but your toupee makes them laugh! No one takes you seriously. And you thought people would gaze in amazement at your new Prayer Cross from the Montebello Collection, only to find that the !#$%&* bluehair in the front pew got hers first.

And then there’s that huge-ass Bible-whatever, with the onionskin pages, and all those goddamn words in it. Who even really “gets” that, anyway?

What does an ignoramus like you have to do to get people to listen to you? Well, my friend, it’s time to toss out that Bible; take your family to IHOP before the church crowd shows up, cross your arms, peer down your nose, and relax.

Finally, there’s an easier, softer way to become a complete self-righteous pain in the ass! With our revolutionary 12 Steps to instant insufferability!

Wideman also went through a crisis years ago, one that ended up strengthening his faith. But in a curious shift, it also left him questioning something that few believers seem to ask these days: Can you really find God in church?

Wideman is no longer sure.

“For me, I said I’ve got to drop this title of Christian,” he said. “It doesn’t work for me anymore.”

Again, that doesn’t mean Wideman is an atheist or agnostic. He’s found his “church,” if you will. As a former deacon in a Baptist church in Montgomery, Ala., he now finds his greatest source of faith within a very different organization: Alcoholics Anonymous.

Order within the next ten minutes — we can’t do this all day — and get your free Magic 12-Step Ball, which will answer your questions faster than your pastor:

Answers include:

• Call Your Sponsor
• One Day at a Time
• Easy Does It
• You Need a Meeting
• First Things First
• You Can Recover
• …and More

 

Cuda:

From the Comments:

First off there are at least two AA’s
One is AA by the book which turns out to be instructions on how to live your life. When you live life by the instructions the desire to return to drink is gone. (in a nutshell)
The second AA is a place to go socialize. “Pop AA” Which I will speak out against whenever I get a chance. If you’ve read any of my statements to Jonathan you’ll see.
Now here at ST I would like to see which AA you agree with and which AA you don’t.
I’m getting a mixed message.

Cuda, I don’t doubt that you’re receiving a mixed message from us – but I’d like to suggest that it might have more to do with your range, than with any cognitive dissonance from ST.

Plainly, we don’t agree with either version of AA. But there’s a difference, as far as the purpose of ST is concerned, which is this:

1. Pop AA is the villian here. It’s more than just a place to go and socialize. It’s a place to go and get your mind fucked with. Some of these meetings might consist of a loose bunch of people who treat it like a support group (as does Jonathan); but in this country (where Jonathan does not live) Pop AA meetings are cesspools of all kinds of horrible, destructive shit – which we detail here every day. And the reason we butt into other people’s business like this is that it’s not personal business. It’s an industry and an institution, and it has a monopoly on the addictions treatment, and it does enormous harm, with any good being incidental or coincidental.

(I do get the sense that maybe you’re wondering why I don’t, for instance, call Jonathan a twat, though. And that’s because he’s not. He’s a respectful person, and I can disagree with someone without calling them a poo-flinging monkey, or even privately thinking that they are one.)

2. By the Big Book AA is not on our radar, as I said. We might not agree with your spiritual beliefs, but the way you practice AA has never been the subject of this blog. We hassle with “Team

 

The Anti-Religion Religion

One of our readers, Dan, wrote the following in our comment section. We thought it was good summary of the religion of AA. With his permission, we decided to post it as blog entry:

_____________________________________________________

AA dogma on the Second Step is primarily contained in the Twelve & Twelve where the theme is transcendence from atheism, agnosticism, AND the religion of the Bible to a supposedly higher-level spirituality based on AAs precepts and practice. Any sop toward organized religion in the texts or heard at meetings is strictly a rhetorical ploy which will be dismissed with in short order during every newcomer’s formal indoctrination at the feet of a watchful adept, his sponsor. A newcomer will rarely question the religious beliefs of his new sponsor, but this is irrelevant since no matter what belief a sponsor professes to have as a come-on, it is going to be unadulterated indoctrination in the AA religion. So, what is the AA religion?

Looking at its history gives some clues. Both its founders were Ouija board-using spiritualists claiming communication with the dead and spirits. Bill W’s wife was a Swedenborgian and Dr. Bob was a freemason, both of which deny the Divinity of Christ. Today’s AA, however, is more self-indulgent New Age mysticism than like its Jazz Age, New Thought spiritualist roots. In my experience from attending meetings for 15 years, I’d say it’s essence is an anti-religion religion–that’s its main appeal–and any spirituality is acceptable and may be freely expressed at meetings, just so long as it’s not the theological teachings of the Christian faith. That will immediately elicit disapproving body language, coughs, chairs moving around, and so on.

This anti-religion religion has a strong appeal to those looking for the benefits of organized religion without the moral consequences of its teachings. Spiritually, AA is itself the “easy way out” it claims to oppose. If there is one sentiment that characterizes AA “sharing” on spirituality, it’s the venomous resentment of organized religion from the predictably ignorant and contrived catalog of its failures. This is odd since AA claims resentments are the number one reason for relapses, while these resentments against religion are voiced with passion, and often rage.

 

Battle of Delusions

Among our regular readers of this blog is a fundamentalist Christian, John, with an interest in the heresy of AA and the 12-steps. He is a nice guy, and though he does not comment in the public forum, I have received regular correspondence from him since we started a little less than a year ago. I don’t doubt that after reading this blog for a year, he believes that we are headed toward eternal damnation, and after reading his blog, I feel he is off the charts, batshit crazy. That’s OK, because we still like each other, and we have an understanding – and though we agree on few things, we have a common disdain for Alcoholics Anonymous – albeit for different reasons.

 

Stinkin’ Thinkin’ Flashback

MA’s recent post sparked a little discussion that reminded me of a post I wrote a few months ago, and, just to save myself (and you all) from writing it again, I thought I would pull it back up.

Authoritarian Alcoholics Anonymous

I have long been baffled by people who cannot separate God from morality. I’m talking about those people for whom the two are so inextricable from each other that they don’t see how someone without God could possibly have any sense of morality at all. These are the ones who ask – with every intention of being rhetorical — “If you don’t believe in God, what’s to stop you from murdering someone?” So many pathologies and logical leaps can be teased out of that question that one could write a book – and many have. (Here’s the whole post.)

 

The Grapevine Gives Me The Kiss-Off & An Open Question

If you’re anything like me (and H[ocus] P[ocus] save you if you are), you’ll be both shocked & amazed to know that ‘The Grapevine’ (The International Journal of Alcoholics Anonymous) gave me the official “thanks, but no thanks” on my  submission for publication, “12 Rights For AA New-Comers” (12 Rights For New-Comers To AA/12 Step):

Thank you for your e-mail submission to the AA Grapevine.  While I don’t think we’ll be using it, we are grateful for your interest in the magazine and hope you’ll feel free to send us more material in the future.  As you can imagine, we receive hundreds of manuscripts every month and many good manuscripts must be turned down because of space limitations. For more information about the Grapevine, its related items, including subscription information, guidelines for submitting articles, and current Calls for Articles, please see our Website: www.aagrapevine.org.

Best wishes,

The Editors 
The AA Grapevine magazine

If you’re wondering what the smell coming off the ‘shock & amazement’ expressed earlier is, that’s sarcasm.  I really was under no illusion that The Grapevine had any interest in publishing anything that might actually empower individual AA members.  Still, a man’s gotta do … etcetera, etcetera.

I am curious as to why “The Editors” used the singular ‘I’ followed by the royal ‘we’ in offering up ‘their’ rejection of the material.  There go my dreams of conquering the publishing world starting with a by-line from The Grapevine.

In other news …

I went last night to hear author Eric Maisel speak on his new book, “The Atheist’s Way: Living Well Without The Gods”.  The talk was sponsored by the local Center For Inquiry chapter and — while a little too top-heavy on the snarkiness toward theism & religion in general for my personal tastes — it was still two hours well spent.  You can listen to Maisel talk about his work here: www.pointofinquiry.org.

My ears perked up when Maisel talked about the linguistics of ‘belief’ and how as early as the 19th century academics had identified that it wasn’t the content of the language that was important so much as its ability to be memorable & easily repeated.  After all, what does, “God is good” really say about the probability of the existence of [g]od or an objective understanding of ‘goodness’?  It’s just a good catch-phrase — kind of like, “Utilize, don’t analyze.”  Language and its malleability within the 12-Step experience has long been a hobbyhorse of mine.

One very interesting part of Maisel’s presentation was his suggestion that atheists (existentialists, secular-humanists, non-believers, [fill-in-the-blank]ers) purposefully re-cast mystical language when they are confronted with it.  Specifically, he challenged his audience to ask of someone who claims to have had a ‘spiritual experience’, “What made that experience meaningful for you?”

The substitution is subtle but does, I think, greatly shift the terms of the discussion.

So I offer an open question to steppers, non-steppers, and all those somewhere in between: Is meaningful experience a fair substitution for spiritual experience?  If so, why, and if not, why not?

All input is welcome.

ADDENDUM: All input may indeed be welcome but irrational input will be ridiculed relentlessly for exactly what it is.  Now back to our regularly scheduled trolling … .

ADDENDUM II: Thanks so much for all the effluvia, kids.  It really was terribly invigorating reading all the commentary on this post … that never actually addressed anything in the post (yes, Cuda, I’m thinking of you).  But playtime’s over.  Go troll YouTube or ‘help’ people out in Colorado (again, Cuda, it’s all about you).  This post is officially closed for business.

 

“Resistance Is Futile” … Or Not (Part I)

“Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.” (Alcoholics Anonymous, Tradition 1)

At first glance, the two independent clauses seem harmless enough  — an invocation of good old American team spirit.  There’s no “I” in ‘team’.  One for all & all for one!

But why is it necessary to clarify the first clause with the second?  How does an organization’s common welfare directly translate to personal recovery being dependent on AA Unity?  Wouldn’t that make personal recovery contingent on AA Unity?  Wouldn’t that make personal recovery subordinate to AA Unity?  Wouldn’t that make personal recovery secondary to AA Unity?

How is the common welfare of an organization whose stated primary purpose is “to stay sober & help other alcoholics achieve sobriety” served by making personal recovery secondary to AA Unity?