07/31/15

A Common Spiritual Path

A self-identification as having no religious affiliation was the big news in a study by the Pew Research Center, the 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. “The number of religiously unaffiliated adults has increased by roughly 19 million since 2007.” Those individuals who are religiously unaffiliated generally are less religiously active, but many believe in God and even pray on occasion. According to the Religious Landscape Survey, “Many people who are unaffiliated with a religion believe in God, pray at least occasionally and think of themselves as spiritual people.”

This spiritual, but not religious group of individuals—those indicating that they have no particular religious affiliation, reported as “nothing in particular” in the survey—are the third largest “religious” group in the U.S. behind Evangelical Protestants (25.4%) and Catholics (20.8%); Nothing in particulars (15.8%). So there is a large group of Americans who are not atheists or agnostics; nor are they religious. I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant percentage of this group were active within 12 Step groups like Alcoholics Anonymous.

For a number of years I have been struck by the fact that there are both religious and nonreligious individuals who are critical of the presumed religiosity of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.). Nonreligious critics see it as too religious; religious ones believe it isn’t religious enough. Ironically, A.A. and other Twelve Step recovery programs modeled after it consistently claim they not religious at all.

Historical, religious influences upon A.A. are readily acknowledged by the organization, as are its nonreligious influences. Somewhere in the mix is the claim that it is a spiritual, but not religious program—a claim that is too often dismissed by its critics without an understanding of its origins and meaning. At the center of this debate are the Twelve Steps themselves, whose treatment of God is the flashpoint for both sides.

A.A. was founded in 1935, in the midst of a full social and cultural retreat away from the influence of Christian religious belief on American life. Doctrine, dogma and creeds were found to be increasingly irrelevant after the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. In the Scopes Trial, a high school biology teacher named John Scopes was found guilty of violating Tennessee’s Butler Act, which made it unlawful to teach evolution. The trial pitted modernists, who saw Christian religion as consistent with evolution, against fundamentalists who believed that evolution was contrary to Scripture and Christian belief and therefore should not be taught in public schools.

In many ways, the issues debated in the Scopes trial now haunt the dispute over A.A. and the Twelve Steps. And it seems these concerns can be articulated within three basic questions. First, is there a place for God in the practice of addiction recovery? Second, is Twelve Step recovery consistent with the Christian religion? Third, should Christians holding to the importance of the Bible as the rule for faith and life participate in Twelve Step recovery programs?

Many individuals have answered the first question with a resounding “No!” and organized intentionally nonreligious support groups such as: Rational Recovery, SMART Recovery, Secular Organizations for Sobriety, and Women for Sobriety. On the other hand, many Christians believe there is a place for God in recovery. But they question if Twelve Step recovery is consistent with Scripture and feel that Christians should be cautious about participating in groups that do not explicitly affirm that Jesus is Lord. So they organized faith-based support groups that reach out to the still-suffering addict and alcoholic from a self consciously Christian perspective. Some of these include: Alcoholics for Christ, Alcoholics Victorious, Celebrate Recovery, Christians in Recovery, and Overcomers Outreach. Then there are the Twelve Step-based groups that answer “yes” to all three questions: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, Marijuana Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Emotions Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Clutterers Anonymous, and many more.

My own answers to these three questions would be nuanced. With regards to the first question, is there a place for God in addiction recovery, I would answer with a resounding “Yes”! I’d also reject the charge that such an affirmation makes Twelve Step addiction recovery inherently religious. The supposed religiosity of the Twelve Steps rests upon the premise that any belief in a Supreme, Transcendent Being is inherently religious. A.A., which originated the Twelve Steps, held that belief in some sort of God was normal. The A.A. Big Book said: “Deep down in every man, woman, and child, is the fundamental idea of God.” Twelve Step recovery believes that a religion takes this fundamental belief in God and the rituals that accompany it, and then institutionalizes them. See “What Does Religious Mean?,” “Spiritual, Not Religious Experience,” and “The God of the Preachers” for more on these distinctions.

With regard to the second question, is Christianity consistent with the Twelve Steps, I would say it is and it isn’t. There are many parallels between Christianity and Twelve Step recovery. Yet Biblical Christianity makes an explicit claim that Jesus Christ alone is the way to God: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:7). When Christians hold that these words are infallible, that along with all the remaining words of the Bible they are the very breath of God, then compromising them as A.A. does is considered to be a serious break with orthodox Christian belief.

Lastly, I would say that Bible believing Christians can and should participate in non-Christian Twelve Step groups. But I would add that this participation is not a substitute for their fellowship with other members of the body of Christ. Christian faith matures within the context of fellowship with other Christians. Members of A.A. know this is true for alcoholics as well. Recovery matures within the context of fellowship with other recovering alcoholics. Sadly, Christian fellowship alone is often not vibrant enough for addicts and alcoholics to establish and then maintain their abstinence and sobriety. Their recovery can be strengthened within the fellowship of Twelve Step-based groups.

I plan to use the book of Romans as the anchor point for a series of articles that will illustrate how there is a common spiritual path upon which Christians and individuals can travel together—at least for part of their journeys. So there are two primary audiences to whom this series of articles is written: bible-believing Christians who find participation in Twelve Step groups helpful and even necessary for their recovery, and members of Twelve Step groups who desire to grow spiritually within the context of Christian fellowship.

I hope to demonstrate to both groups that they can do so without fear of compromising either their Christian faith or their recovery. Religious critics of A.A. can also gain an understanding of what is meant by its claim to be a spiritual, but not religious program. And perhaps soften their opposition to Christians participating in Twelve Step recovery. There is a richness and depth to the compatibility of Twelve Step recovery and Scripture that proceeds from the deep structure of Scripture.

But the concerns that will be addressed here are not just those encountered by Christians involved in self-help groups based upon the Twelve Steps. Increasingly, Western culture itself has become “spiritual, but not religious” in a way that builds upon the view of religion and spirituality found in the Twelve Steps. I think the 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey illustrates this. Americans in particular have historically had diverse opinions on what it means to be “one nation under God” that fits with the idea being spiritual but not religious. Self-defined higher powers and the subjective experience of transcendence articulated in the writings of William James have become a basis for the spirituality of millions of individuals.

The same religious and theological challenges encountered as we journey along the path of recovery through the book of Romans occur repeatedly when discussing the relevance of Christianity to the lives of the millions of spiritual, not religious individuals who sit beside us on planes and in coffee shops; who live in our neighborhoods; who commute to work with us; and who even sit in the church pews beside us on Sunday.

If you’re interested, more articles from this series can be found under the link for “The Romans Road of Recovery.” “A Common Spiritual Path” (01) and “The Romans Road of Recovery” (02) will introduce this series of articles. If you began by reading one that came from the middle or the end of the series, try reading them before reading others. Follow the numerical listing of the articles (i.e., 01, 02, etc.), if you want to read them in the order they were originally written. This article is “01,” the first one Enjoy.

06/1/15

The God of the Preachers

On December 11, 1934, a thirty-nine- year-old man named Bill was admitted to the hospital for the fourth time in fifteen months because of his alcoholism. As the withdrawal effects of alcohol wore away, a former drinking buddy, Ebby, came to visit. At the time, Ebby was in the midst of an extended period of abstinence. He had looked up Bill a month previously to renew their friendship and to tell him about his abstinence. Bill noticed the difference in Ebby immediately because he refused the offer of a drink. When Bill asked him what had happened, Ebby said, “I’ve got religion.”

Ebby then told Bill how he’d almost landed in prison, but had his own encounter with a few men from the Oxford Group who became sober by practicing its principles. Ebby said he gave the program a try and it worked for him. He stopped drinking. Bill wanted the sobriety Ebby had, but he couldn’t believe in the God Ebby talked about. After Ebby left his hospital room, Bill fell back into a deep depression. Ahead of him, he saw only madness and death. Science, the only god he had at the time, had declared him hopeless. Without faith or hope, he cried, “If there be a God, let Him show Himself!”

Suddenly his room was filled with a white light. He was seized with an ecstasy beyond description. Every joy he had known was pale by comparison. Then, seen in the mind’s eye, there was a mountain. I stood upon its summit, where a great wind blew. A wind, not of air, but of spirit. In great, clean strength, it blew right through me. Then came the blazing thought, “You are a free man.” . . . . “This,” I thought, “must be the great reality, the God of the preachers.” (From the A.A. conference approved book, Pass It On, pp. 111-125)

This man was Bill Wilson, one of the cofounders of Alcoholics Anonymous. As he retold this spiritual experience in the years to come, he’d add that never again did he doubt the existence of God. He also never took another drink.

When Ebby returned for another visit, he wasn’t sure what to say about Bill’s experience. Ebby himself had neither stood on a mountaintop nor had he seen a bright light when he stopped drinking. But he did give Bill a book that others suggested might help him begin making sense of his encounter with the “God of the preachers.” That book was The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. Bill started reading it the moment Ebby left his hospital room.

Bill said he gleaned three principles from reading William James. First, spiritual experiences like his were the product of utter desperation when all human resources have failed to solve the problem. Second, this experience involved the open admission of that defeat. The person admitted his own defeat as utter and absolute. Third, there was an appeal to a “Higher Power” that could take many forms, “and it might or might not be in religious terms.” From his initial reading of James, Bill was exposed to the idea that a spiritual experience was not necessarily a religious one, that spirituality was not necessarily religion, and that a Higher Power did not have to be the God of the preachers. This distinction became a cornerstone expression of what was to become the spiritual (but pointedly not religious) program called Alcoholics Anonymous.

When Alcoholics Anonymous (the “Big Book” from which the movement took its name) was first published in 1939, chapter one told “Bill’s Story” of how he first became sober. Interestingly, he did not retell his so-called “hot flash” encounter with the God of the preachers. Bill related Ebby’s assertion that he was sober through religion, and that he’d come to pass his experience on to Bill—if Bill cared to have it. As Bill recounted his personal struggles with religion in the Big Book he wrote, “I had always believed in a Power greater than myself.” Despite the “living example” of Ebby before him, Bill said, “The word God still aroused a certain antipathy.”

Ebby suggested that Bill choose his own conception of God. The suggestion hit him hard, melting his “icy intellectual mountain” of doubts. “It was only a matter of being willing to believe in a Power greater than myself. Nothing more was required of me to make my beginning.” This ability to imagine God to be whatever an individual has imagined Him to be has remained a hallmark of the spiritual worldview of A.A. In a 1949 address before the American Psychiatric Association, Bill Wilson explicitly stated that A.A. was not a religious organization because it had no dogma. He also stated that the only theological proposition—of a Power greater than one’s self—would not be forced on anyone.

In 1961, Wilson wrote in the AA Grapevine, “Our concepts of a Higher Power and God—as we understand Him—afford everyone a nearly unlimited choice of spiritual belief and action.” He suggested that this was perhaps the most important expression to be found in the entire vocabulary of A.A. Every kind and degree of faith, together with the assurance that each person could choose his or her own version of it, opened a door “over whose threshold the unbeliever can take his first easy step into the realm of faith.” (“The Dilemma of No Faith,” AA Grapevine, April 1961. The AA Grapevine is the international journal of Alcoholics Anonymous)

This remains true today in AA. The December 2006 edition of the AA Grapevine has an article by a Muslim member of A.A. who was fearful that while sobering up, he would be “transformed into a Christian through osmosis.” He reported that nothing could have been further from the truth. “As a Muslim AA member who received a miraculous spiritual awakening in an Anglican Church basement, I am eternally grateful to the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.” (“Along Spiritual Lines,” AA Grapevine, December 2006).

When I first read of Wilson’s encounter with the “God of the preachers,” I wondered what difference it would have made if Ebby had brought Bill a copy of the Bible instead of The Varieties of Religious Experience (VRE). But now it seems to me that it would have made little difference in the eventual formulation of spiritual experience in the Twelve Steps. Although the distinction between ‘spiritual’ and ‘religious’ found in VRE seems to have been popularized within the Twelve Steps of A.A., non-alcoholics also read VRE, and the ideas they found there resonated with an emerging spiritual, but not religious sense of God and how we relate to Him.

This is the third of three related articles (What Does Religious Mean?, Spiritual not Religious Experience, The God of the Preachers) that more fully describes some of the influences I believe helped to shape the spiritual, but not religious distinction of 12 Step recovery.

05/25/15

Spiritual, Not Religious Experience

The Varieties of Religious Experience (VRE) by William James had an important influence on Bill W. and Alcoholics Anonymous. There is a free edition of VRE available here. Within VRE are several notions common to the A.A. sense of spiritual, not religious, experience. The first is the distinction between spiritual and religious. William James distinguished between institutional and personal within the broader field of religion. Worship, sacrifice, ritual, theology, ceremony, and ecclesiastical organization were the essentials of what he referred to as institutional religion. Limited to such a view, he said religion could be viewed as an external art of winning the favor of the gods.

James said that within the personal dimension of religion, the inner dispositions of human conscience, helplessness and incompleteness were of central importance. Here the external structures for winning divine favor took a secondary place to a heart-to-heart encounter between the individual and his maker. He proposed to confine himself, as much as possible within VRE, to discuss pure and simple personal religion.

If someone felt that the term religion should be reserved for the fully organized system of feeling, thought, and institution typically called the church, then James was willing to accept almost any name for what he called personal religion. He suggested two: conscience or morality. Alcoholics Anonymous and Twelve Step recovery have called it spirituality.

Personal religion/spirituality for his purposes was defined as “the feelings, acts, and experiences of [the] individual . . . in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.” In the broadest sense possible, this spirituality consisted of the belief that there was an unseen order to existence, and supreme good lay in harmoniously adjusting to that order.

A second notion from VRE important to A.A. was that a higher power could be anything that was other than and larger than the person’s conscious self. Towards that end, James said that spiritual experience could only testify unequivocally to two things: the possible union with something larger than oneself and the great peace that was found within that union. Spiritual encounters could not unconditionally confirm a traditional belief in the one and only infinite God. James suggested that the practical needs and occasions of religion were sufficiently met by the belief that beyond each person, a larger power existed that was friendly to him and his ideals. All that was required was that the power should be both other than and larger than a personal conscious self.

“Anything larger will do, if only it be large enough to trust for the next step. It need not be infinite; it need not be solitary. It might conceivably be only a larger and more godlike self.” There was something—a sense of reality or perhaps a feeling of objective presence—that was a deeper and more general perception of actuality than science supposed was possible with any of the particular human senses. This supreme reality was what Christianity called God.

According to James, humanity had an instinctive belief regarding this supreme reality of the universe that could be stated simply as: “God is real since he produces real effects.” Yet most religious/spiritual people spontaneously embraced a wider sphere than this immediate subjective religious episode. Based upon the perception of godly order in existence and the supreme good found in adjusting to that order, they took a further step of faith concerning God. James said religious people formulated a hypothesis that the existence of God was a guarantee that an ideal order would be permanently preserved, even beyond the probable destruction of this world. Only with this further step of faith, in which remote objective consequences were predicted, did religion become free of its immediate subjective experience.

The third place where James influenced AA’s understanding of spiritual experience was in his view of conversion. In VRE, James stated that in general terms, conversion signified the gradual or sudden process by which a person became unified and consciously right, superior, and happy as a result of a firmer hold upon religious/spiritual realities. To be converted, to be regenerated, to receive grace, to experience religion, to gain assurance, all referred to the same process.

Taken at face value, James equated religious or spiritual experience with conversion. Before this “conversion” process, the person was initially divided, consciously wrong, inferior, and unhappy. This was true whether or not the person believed that a direct divine operation was needed to bring about such a moral transformation. After an extensive discussion of the psychology of conversion, James noted that as long as the religious life was spiritual, and not a consequence of outer works, ritual, or sacraments, the self-surrender element of conversion was always the vital turning point of the religious life. The Jamesean conversion and surrender process became formalized in the first three Steps of AA.

In 1949, Bill Wilson said that conversion, as broadly described by James, was the basic process of AA. Everything else was but the foundation to this process. He declared that by 1949, AA spoke little of its recovery process as a conversion because so many people were afraid of being God-bitten. Nonetheless, it was the basic process of AA. One alcoholic working with another could only consolidate that process of conversion, built upon a foundational faith in God as we understand Him. (William Wilson, “The Society of Alcoholics Anonymous,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 106 [Nov. 1949], 370-375)

This is the second of three related articles (What Does Religious Mean?, Spiritual not Religious Experience, The God of the Preachers) that will more fully describe some of the influences I believe helped to shape the spiritual, but not religious distinction of 12 Step recovery.

05/8/15

The Deep Desire of True Ambition

Recently I watched the 1947 movie, Gentleman’s Agreement for the first time. Starring Gregory Peck and Dorothy McGuire, it told the story of a reporter, Phil Green (Gregory Peck), who poses as a Jew to uncover anti-Semitism in post World War II America. In a climatic scene, Phil’s fiancée, Kathy (Dorothy McGuire), realizes it’s not enough to privately abhor prejudice; you have to do something about it. In the context of Matthew 5:13-16, you have to be salt and light.

Further developing what he’d been teaching his disciples, Jesus said: “You are the salt of the earth. . . . You are the light of the world.” In verses 5:3-10, he described the blessings available to those who were his disciples. He warned them in 5:11-12 of the persecution they would face simply because they wanted to live righteous lives on his account. Here he said you can’t fly under the radar and avoid persecution. Theirs was not to be a life of quietism and retreat from the world. Rather, as Craig Blomberg said, they “must permeate society as agents of redemption.”

The first metaphor was a statement of fact—you are salt of the earth. In our time we think of salt as something that adds flavor—as a supplement—to what we eat. But up until the invention of refrigeration, salt was an essential preservative. That is the meaning of the salt metaphor here. Jesus is saying his disciples are to be a preserving influence on earth. According to Sinclair Ferguson in The Sermon on the Mount, “Christians whose lives exhibit the qualities of the ‘blessed’ will have a preserving impact” upon society.

Salt losing its taste is another saying that makes no sense to moderns, who get pure granulated salt from a Morton’s salt container at the grocery. But the salt used in first-century Palestine was most likely taken from the Dead Sea, where it would have been mixed with other minerals. If the sodium chloride somehow dissolved out of the mixture, it would leave “salt” that had lost its “saltiness” (sodium chloride). Good for nothing, it was tossed into the street, which was the garbage can of ancient cities.

Once again in Matthew 5:14 Jesus directly addresses the disciples, now saying they are (factually) the light of the world. It’s the same message as in the previous verse, but with a different image. In each case the target is broadly described—the earth and the world. It’s like saying, if you didn’t get it the first time, I’ll tell you again another way: “you are the light of the world.” You can’t hide; and you shouldn’t hide.

We lose some of the power of the metaphor today as we live with electricity in huge cities, where darkness is typically an annoyance or inconvenience, not something that stops human work and activity until the sun comes up the next day. Rural living or wilderness vacations get moderns closer to an understanding of the image. Until the widespread use of electricity, nightfall was DARK. A city on a hill, with its cooking fires and torches would have been an incredible contrast to the surrounding darkness. You could not hide it.

Conversely, it makes no sense to light an oil lamp and then put a basket over it. You put it on a lamp stand where it can illuminate the entire room. Now the light from an oil lamp doesn’t compete well with that from even a forty-watt light bulb. But recall how grateful you were to get that one candle lit when your electricity went out and the batteries in your flashlight were dead.

Notice also the contrast between the light of a city on a hill that can’t be hidden and that of an oil lamp that could be hidden. The disparity of the two images suggests that, whether your “light” is big or small, you shouldn’t try to hide it. It makes no sense and ultimately can’t be done. Rather, let it shine so others can see it.

The “light” is the light of righteousness in verse 5:10 that is ultimately from Jesus Christ. He is the great light who has dawned upon those dwelling in darkness (Matthew 4:16). He is the light of the world (John 8:12). His disciples, those who have been brought out of the kingdom of darkness into his kingdom of light (Colossians 1:12-13), are to now live as children of the light (Ephesians 5:8). Again turning to Sinclair Ferguson:

Jesus is underlining the challenge, which is stated so clearly in his Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20): the whole world is to be our sphere of influence. To reduce it to anything less would be tantamount to restricting the power, authority, and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is not a Christianized “jihad,” calling for forced conversion or subjection. The light of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount is seen in his disciples as they are poor in spirit, mourning for sin, meek, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, and peacemakers in their daily lives with other “earth” people living in this world. “In the same way, let your light shine before others so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Mathew 5:16).

Parallel to the followers of Jesus living out the beatitudes as they are salt and light to the world, members of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) put their program into action as well. Bill W. said repeatedly that “A.A. is more than a set of principles; it is a Society of alcoholics in action. We must carry the message, else we ourselves can wither and those who haven’t been given the truth will die.” You can find this statement in The Language of the Heart (p. 160), Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age (p. 139), and the pamphlet, A.A.’s Legacy of Service.

In A.A. Comes of Age, Bill added that action was the magic word. “Action to carry A.A.’s message is therefore the heart of our Third Legacy of Service.” He defined A.A. service as “anything whatever that helps us to reach a fellow sufferer—ranging from the Twelfth Step itself to a ten-cent phone call and a cup of coffee. . . . The sum total of all these services is our Third Legacy of Service.” The Twelfth Step reads: “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and practice these principles in all our affairs.” The linked pamphlet, A.A.’s Legacy of Service, goes on to tell some of the early history of A.A. More detail of that history, focusing on the Three Legacies, can be found in The Language of the Heart and Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age.

The life of service and recovery within A.A. is not identical to that described by Jesus within the Sermon on the Mount to his disciples. But I suspect they would all agree with this statement from Bill W.’s “Step Twelve” essay in Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions: “True ambition in not what we thought it was. True ambition is the deep desire to live usefully and walk humbly under the grace of God.”

This is part of a series of reflections dedicated to the memory of Audrey Conn, whose questions reminded me of my intention to look at the various ways the Sermon on the Mount applies to Alcoholics Anonymous and recovery. If you’re interested in more, look under the category link “Sermon on the Mount.”

04/17/15

The Blessing of Persecution

It seems Jesus thought what he said in the eighth beatitude, namely that his disciples will be persecuted, needed to be driven home and required some unpacking. Leon Morris noted where Matthew used the verb “persecute” in three consecutive verses (5:10-12), underlining the importance of the concept. In Matthew 5:11 and 12, Jesus then switched from the third person to the second person, now speaking directly to his audience. You are blessed when others revile (mock) you and persecute you (harass you for what you believe) falsely on his account. You are to rejoice and be glad if it happens, because you must be doing something right.

What they are doing right is living out the righteousness he just described in verses 5:3 through 5:10. There is also a warning in what Jesus said. If you attempt to live righteously in this world for me (on my account), then you will be persecuted. When we try to live as Jesus would live, we should expect the same persecution he received. As he said elsewhere, “If the world hates you, know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18).

The hatred, persecution or abuse can be both verbal (mocking, demeaning, reviling) and physical. Pointing to the persecution of the prophets, then telling his disciples to rejoice when they are persecuted as the prophets were persecuted, clearly indicates this. Jeremiah’s life and ministry is a good example. He was mocked for his prophetic declaration of God’s judgment against Judah (Jer. 18:18). The religious leaders and false prophets also tried to have him executed for treason when he was imprisoned in a cistern (Jer. 38:1-6).

When I look at the character traits listed in the beatitudes, there doesn’t seem to be anything that should target the disciples of Jesus for persecution. Striving to be poor in spirit, meek, merciful, pure in heart or a peacemaker seem to be good things. Individuals who grieve or mourn their own sinful actions aren’t readily seen as people who need or should be mocked and reviled. In a similar way, I don’t get the mocking and ridicule I’ve seen heaped upon Alcoholics Anonymous and Twelve Step recovery. Here are a couple of examples.

The first is the “Cougarblogger.” Here is a sampling of some of her articles: “12 Things the Cult of Religion of the 12 Steps Does NOT Want You to Know;” “Rules for Sex Offenders—Attendance in 12 Step Cult Meetings;” “Dangerous Criminal in You Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting;” Fake ASAM ‘Doctors’ Push AA Cult for Profit;” “Never Call Yourself an “Alcoholic” or “Addict.” Here is a quote from the last listed article:

“Why do you hate 12 step programs so much?” When I get asked this question, in my head I think, “Why don’t you?!?!” Then I realize they are either ignorant, have a relative/friend in the cult, (who gives all credit for their very lives to the cult), or are a stepper (or ex-stepper), themselves. What is most astounding is when ex-steppers defend the cult, but then I quickly realize the power of the brainwashing. Even those who have left (gotten free really), feel the need to defend the cult.

There is no way to have a conversation with someone like that. Her mind is made up. To use a 12 Step recovery saying, it’s either her way or the highway.

The charge of A.A. being a religious cult has been around for awhile. I think the classic argument for this position is Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? by Charles Bufe. Even Bufe, who assessed A.A. according to a description of what a cult was that he himself developed, acknowledged that it is difficult to answer if A.A. is a cult. Unequivocally, he thought A.A. was religious (the first of his 23 criteria). He distinguished between institutional and communal A.A and thought that institutionally, A.A. was a cult; but communally, it wasn’t, “though it comes close, and does have many dangerous, cult-like tendencies.”

Another blogger, julietroxspin, is a self-described activist for secular treatment options for alcohol and drug abuse treatment. She also blogs on The Fix (as Juliet Abram). A sampling of her articles on A.A.R.M.E.D. with Facts, are: “There are No Rules Only Suggestions;” “I’m Deathly Allergic to AA;” “AA Needs to Give a Damn About It’s Bad Reputation.” A sampling of her articles for The Fix are: “Normies React to the 12 Steps;” “Can an AA Critic and a 12-Step Advocate Get Along?;” “Recovery Bullies.” In “I’m Deathly Allergic to AA,” Juliet stated:

I can say I worked the steps, I felt the mental shift inside changing my interpretation of the past. Guilt. Blame. Darkness. The steps were harming me, not because I “quit before the miracle happened,” but because I “kept coming back.” Because I’ve been abused, I can get addicted to abuse. It’s real simple, and real deadly.

While Juliet is clearly anti-A.A., I think she is trying to be more objective than “Cougarblogger.” I suspect that both of them would see my reflections on how the Sermon on the Mount applies to A.A. and recovery as evidence of how A.A. is religious. But to do so you have to assume an understanding of “religion” that different than that of A.A. and William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience from which they self consciously drew their distinction between “spiritual” and “religious.”

Evangelical Christians have also been critical of A.A. and what they saw as integrating psychology with Christian doctrine. Gary and Carol Almy said that: “The 12-step groups follow the doctrine of the psychology gospel and are determined to grab the benefits of what Paul called ‘the new life in Christ’ without the crucifixion of the old.” Martin and Deidre Bobgan see A.A. as Christless religion, offering a counterfeit salvation: “Because of the many versions of God represented in AA, professing Christians are uniting themselves with a spiritual harlot when they join A.A.”

The “persecution” of A.A. and 12 Step recovery has been mocking and demeaning at times—curiously—from both religious and nonreligious sources. But remember what Jesus says here in the Sermon on the Mount: “rejoice and be glad” when you are persecuted. Nonreligious members of A.A. won’t like or agree with the promised reward in a heaven they don’t believe in. But they could see an “eschatological” ending of their own by working the Steps—continuing in abstinence until they die.

One last comment related to the “prophets” mentioned by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Stanton Peele, another A.A. critic, approvingly mentioned Charles Bufe’s prediction of the end of “A.A.’s reign of terror over” American alcoholism treatment. Bufe, writing in 1998, suggested that several factors would “virtually ensure that AA will begin to shrink significantly” within five to ten years. “They make it entirely possible that AA will cease to exist as a significant social movement by the second quarter of the 21st century.”

In 2014, Alcoholics Anonymous estimated its total groups at 115,300, with more than 2 million members in over 170 different countries. Data on A.A. members and groups I received in 2007 indicated there were an estimated 2,044,855 members and 113,168 groups worldwide. (See my free ebook, The Age of Miracles is Still with Us). So far, it doesn’t seem that A.A. is “shrinking significantly.” And it doesn’t seem likely that it will “cease to exist as a significant social movement” by the beginning of the second quarter of the 21st century. Will it still be around by 2050? Let’s wait and see. I think the words that Sam Shoemaker, an Episcopal minister, spoke in 1955 are relevant: “I believe that A.A. will go on serving men and women as long as it may be needed, if it keeps open to God for inspiration, open to one another for fellowship, and open to people outside for service.”

03/27/15

Present and Future Blessings

The Beatitudes are named and structured after the Greek word makarios, meaning someone who is the privileged recipient of divine favor. It is also a literary form found in both the Old and New Testaments. For example, the book of Psalms opens with a beatitude: “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.” The greatest concentration of beatitudes in the Old Testament is within the Psalms and the Wisdom literature. Robert Guelich indicated there were 44 examples of beatitudes in the New Testament, primarily in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Jesus begins his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount by underlining the various ways his disciples have and will receive divine favor. Both the poor in spirit (5:3) and those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake (5:10) receive the kingdom of heaven now, in this present time. The others—in between—have a future promise of fulfillment. Beginning and ending with the same expression is a stylistic device called an inclusion, according to D.A. Carson. So then the present and future blessings are all part of the same theme—the kingdom of heaven. Craig Blomberg said: “Complete fulfillment of Jesus’ promises often requires waiting for the age to come.”

Implied in the Greek word for blessing, is having a right relationship with God and enjoying fellowship with Him. Instead of focusing on what we are to do, the Beatitudes describe the blessings. The obligations or expectations in this relationship come later on in the Sermon on the Mount. Sinclair Ferguson commented that the blessings also weren’t new teaching or revelation. Jesus took some of the themes from the Psalms and Isaiah and applying them to the disciples. “He was pointing out what God’s word tells us is the blessed life.”

Several commentators have noted where Matthew has eight beatitudes, Luke’s Sermon on the Plain only has four (Luke 6:20-22). Another difference is how Matthew’s blessings are all in the third person (5:3-10), where Luke’s are in the second person. Biblical scholars have given a variety of explanations, but it seems to me the best is to see the two sermons not as edited versions of the same one, but as two occasions where Jesus used the “beatitude” approach. So those who receive divine favor are poor in spirit, mourners, meek, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, and persecuted.

The poor in spirit are those who recognize their spiritual bondage. They are conscious of their sin debt, which separates them from God. All they can do is “cry for mercy, and depend upon the Lord.” D.A. Carson said poverty of spirit was: “The personal acknowledgement of spiritual bankruptcy. . . . The conscious confession of unworth before God.” Note how Carson’s thoughts reflect the process of coming to believe in the first two Steps.

Poverty of spirit becomes a general confession of a man’s need for God, a humble admission of impotence without him. Poverty of spirit may end in a Gideon vanquishing the enemy hosts; but it begins with a Gideon who first affirms he is incapable of the task [powerless], and who insists that if the Lord does not go with him he would very much prefer to stay home and thresh grain.

The mourners grieve the evil and sin they see in themselves and the world around them. The meek are “humble, gentle and not aggressive.” These are not typical qualities of the movers and shakers of this age. But in the age to come, they will lead the meek to come into the possession of what the movers and shakers sought to possess in this age—the earth.

Meekness as humility is throughout the A.A. Big Book. Bill W. said that when making a Third Step with an understanding person, if it was “honestly and humbly made,” it could sometimes have a very great effect at once. Working the Steps meant relying upon God rather than ourselves. “To the extent that we do as we think He would have us, and humbly relay on Him, does He enable us to match calamity with serenity.” The process of the first three Steps is one of admitting spiritual bondage to alcohol and turning it over to God. The Third Step prayer in the Big Book reads:

God, I offer myself to Thee—to build with me and do with me as Thou wilt. Relieve me of the bondage of self, that I may better do Thy will. Take away my difficulties, that victory over them may bear witness to those I would help of Thy Power, Thy Love, and Thy Way of life. May I do Thy will always!

By combining hunger and thirst in 5:6, Jesus intensifies the sense of longing after righteousness—the quality of judicial correctness or justice, with a focus on redemptive action. This righteousness is then seen in granting mercy to others; being pure in heart; being a peacemaker.

Mercy is being concerned about other people in their need; being compassionate. Those who show others mercy will be granted mercy. The final judgment comes to mind here: “Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40).

In January of 1953, a man in the Huntsville Texas prison reflected in the Grapevine (“From Within These Walls”) on how A.A. helped him and others gain a new conception towards those who were distressed. He said the alcoholic prisoner tended to look upon the world through “a mist of resentments.” The desire for revenge poisoned the life of the person who cherished it. Revenge begets revenge, he said. “While forgiveness melts the stony heart and brings reconciliations.” If anyone were to ask him what was the most inherent and conclusive proof from the Gospels that Jesus understood humanity, he would point to the Beatitude: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

Being pure was to be free from moral guilt. Leon Morris noted this is the only time in the New Testament where purity is predicated of the heart. “To be pure in heart is to be pure throughout.” And in the age to come they will see God, reversing the separation to goes back to the Garden of Eden. The Greek word for peacemaker occurs only here in the New Testament and refers to someone who works to restore peace between people; who seeks reconciliation or amends with others. They will be called sons of God. Craig Blomberg said: “Others will identify them as God’s true ambassadors, as those being conformed to his likeness.”

Becoming a peacemaker is embedded within the Eleventh Step. In Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, Bill W. suggested the St. Francis Peace Prayer as a beginning for meditation and prayer in Step Eleven (See “Make Me an Instrument of Your Peace” for more on the Peace Prayer and A.A.)

There are many other ways that the Beatitudes and 12 Step recovery are associated. If you start your own study, you will discover them. This is part of a series of reflections dedicated to the memory of Audrey Conn, whose questions reminded me of my intention to look at the various ways the Sermon on the Mount applied to Alcoholics Anonymous and recovery. If you’re interested in more, look under the category link “Sermon on the Mount.”

03/13/15

Light in the Spiritual Darkness

In his commentary on Matthew, Craig Blomberg thought that no other religious discourse in history has attracted the attention devoted to the Sermon on the Mount. Both Christians and non-Christians alike have admired the teaching contained here. Leo Tolstoy believed the Sermon on the Mount was the true gospel of Christ and centered his book, The Kingdom of God is Within You on what it taught. Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King were influenced by Tolstoy’s teachings on nonviolence in that work. Gandhi reportedly said that when he read the Sermon on the Mount, it “went straight to my heart.” Dr. Bob, one of the cofounders of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.), said that the Sermon on the Mount was one of the “absolutely essential” passages of Scripture in the early days of A.A., before the Big Book was written. It is this last association that I want to explore here.

According to Sinclair Ferguson, the Sermon on the Mount is not about an ideal life in an ideal world. Rather, it is about “kingdom life in a fallen world.” In a similar way, the 12 Step recovery program is about sober life in a drinking world. Whether you are trying to live out a kingdom life or a sober life, they both call for radical lifestyle changes within their respective worlds.

At times, there has been some cross-pollination between those two worlds. When Bill W. introduced Sam Shoemaker at the 20th anniversary convention for A.A., he said that “It is through Sam Shoemaker that most of A.A.’s spiritual principles have come.” In his talk, Shoemaker said he thought the great need of our time was for a vast, world-wide spiritual awakening. He believed that A.A. was one of the great signs of that spiritual awakening. He thought that A.A. had indirectly derived its “inspiration and impetus” from the insights and beliefs of the church. And he hoped the reverse would be true. “Perhaps the time has come for the church to be reawakened and revitalized by the insights and practices found in A.A.”

The Sermon on the Mount seems to be one of those places where A.A. was cross-pollinated with some of the insights from Scripture. Here are a few examples. In the Big Book, Alcoholics Anonymous, it says that resentment is a “number one” offender. “It destroys more alcoholics than anything else. From it stem all forms of spiritual disease.” Three separate sections of the Sermon on the Mount could be relevant. There is one on anger (5:21-26); one on retaliation (5:38-42); and one on loving your enemies (5:43-48). Oh, and one of the Beatitudes (5:7): “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”

The A.A. website said there is nothing concrete to point to when or where the saying “one day at a time” became one of the slogans of A.A. It could have originated with the Oxford Group; or it could have been originated with Bill and Dr. Bob. In the A.A. book, Dr. Bob and the Good Oldtimers (p. 282), Dr. Bob is quoted as saying: “‘Easy Does It’ means you take it a day at a time.” A.A. historian Dick B. wrote that Anne Smith, Dr. Bob’s wife, mentioned “one day at a time” in her notebook. Both Anne, Dr. Bob and Bill W. were active with the Oxford Group in the 1930s. In his book, The Akron Genesis of Alcoholics Anonymous, Dick B. reported that one of Dr. Bob’s early sponsees, Clarence S. said Dr. Bob told him the concept for one day at a time came from Matthew 6:34.

The principle of anonymity, which is so important to A.A. (it’s even part of the program’s name, Alcoholics Anonymous), can be found here as well. The forms of piety (giving alms, prayer and fasting) that Jesus addressed in Matthew six are all tied together with anonymity. In his book Turning Point, Dick B. made the same point and even cited where Bill W. wrote on the importance of anonymity as he sought to convince A.A. to adopt what would become the Twelve Traditions. First appearing in the Grapevine in November of 1948, and then gathered into the A.A. published book, The Language of the Heart, Bill W. began his essay on Tradition Twelve:

One may say that anonymity is the spiritual base, the sure key to all the rest of our Traditions. It has come to stand for prudence and, most importantly, for self-effacement. . . . In it we see the cornerstone of our security as a movement; at a deeper spiritual level it points us to still greater self-renunciation.”

Matthew began the Sermon on the Mount simply. When Jesus saw the crowds following him, he went up onto a hill (or mountain) and sat down, signally to his disciples that he was getting ready to teach them. So they gathered round him (Matthew 5:1-2). The Greek word translated here as disciple meant someone who was learning through instruction; someone who was an apprentice. We might even suggest it could refer to a sponsee in 12 Step recovery.

There seems to be a careful, intentional structure to the Sermon on the Mount. There is a beginning (5:1-2) and ending (7:28-29) to frame his teaching. The Beatitudes (5:3-12) and the “salt and light” passage (5:13-16) serve as an introduction. Matthew 5:17-20 declares the righteousness required by those who would follow Jesus—they have to be more righteous than the most religious sect of his time, the Pharisees.

Then within a series of six antithetical teachings on anger, lust, divorce, oaths, retaliation, and loving your enemies, Jesus contrasts his teaching with “what they have heard” in Matthew 5:21-48. Beginning in chapter six, Jesus contrasted true and hypocritical piety (6:1-18). Next he turns to address social and personal issues regarding money (6:19-24), how we will live (6:25-34), and how we should treat others (7:1-12).

Jesus then ended his Sermon by urging his listeners to enter into life (7:13-14). The gate leading to destruction is wide and its way easy. But the gate leading to life is narrow and the way is hard. He cautions them to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing. You’ll know them by their fruits. Those who enter the narrow gate are those who do the will of the Father—and not necessarily those who did many works in His name. If you hear his words and do them, you will have a solid foundation.

On November 10, 1948, General Omar Bradley gave an address in celebration of Armistice Day. His words fit here as well as speaking to the timeliness of spending time reflecting on the Sermon on the Mount.

With the monstrous weapons man already has, humanity is in danger of being trapped in this world by its moral adolescents. Our knowledge of science has clearly outstripped our capacity to control it. We have many men of science; too few men of God. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. Man is stumbling blindly through a spiritual darkness while toying with the precarious secrets of life and death. The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.

You can find a series of further articles that look at passages from the Sermon on the Mount under the category link by that name. This series is dedicated to the memory of Audrey Conn, whose questions reminded me of my intention in seminary to look at the various ways the Sermon on the Mount applies to Alcoholics Anonymous and recovery.

12/15/14

Growing Out of Alcoholism

lightwise / 123RF Stock Photo

While driving home, I caught the end of an NPR program, “This American Life,” with Ira Glass. I later learned the feature I was listening to was the third segment of a program they titled “The Leap.” The interview was of a woman, Tina, who came into Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) at the age of 13. As an adult, she began to question whether or not she was truly an alcoholic, decided she wasn’t, and now drinks socially. Still not really intrigued? Her story of getting sober at 13 is in the A.A. pamphlet, “Young People and A.A.”

So what about Tina? How did she grow out of alcoholism; or are we waiting for the “yet”—the inevitable slide back into drinking alcoholically? The above link for “The Leap” will take you to a page to either listen to the broadcast or read a transcript of the program. Tina’s segment, “The Wisdom to Know the Difference,” is the third of three in the broadcast and transcript.

For twenty years of her life she didn’t question that she was an “alcoholic.” Then she began to wonder what would happen if she drank. “Asking herself, should I take a drink, was basically asking, should I turn my back on what I believed about myself for 20 years?”

As a child, Tina’s parents had been part of The Children of God, a cult or “new religious movement.” In what seems to have been normal for members at the time, they moved around a lot—four different countries before she was three years old. Her life with The Children of God would have been full of dysfunction, abuse and trauma. This is speculation on my part from easily obtained information on The Children of God, especially the stories of former cult members. She would have been primed to become a preteen who turned to alcohol and drugs.

She was eventually sent to a girl’s group home, where she lived until she graduated from high school. It was while she was there that she began attending A.A. meetings. She became a popular A.A. speaker—“the girl who got sober when she was 13, and could tell the hell out of her story.” By the time she was 33, Tina had been married for several years. She was a columnist and political commentator, “a long way from the miserable, angry girl she’d been who dropped out of school and spent her time drinking and smoking pot with the older kids.”

So when she began to wonder if she could drink alcohol socially, she talked it over with her husband, who was supportive of whatever she decided. She discovered that she could drink socially, and now believes that: “I’m not an alcoholic. Not by any measure.” No personality changes from drinking; no gradual increase in how much she drinks.

So how does a non-alcoholic child come to believe that she’s an alcoholic? Tina makes sense of what happened to her this way. She went to her first A.A. meeting for something to do. While she was there, she found she could relate to what other people at the meeting said. They had been rejected by family too. They had felt trapped and furious and desperate too. People told her they used to be exactly like her.

There was no other way of explaining at the time. And it wasn’t until, I mean, this is very recently, there was no way for me to figure out why I kept on getting locked up. Why I kept on being sent away. Why my mother was fuming at me.

If she was an alcoholic, she could make sense of her life—and she could fix the problem. A.A. gave her a new life, with goals, discipline, a belief system. And most importantly, people to relate to when things were bad or when they were good.

It’s really liberating to find your people. To find people who you relate to. To find people that ask you to come back. And that was what I experienced. I didn’t have people asking me to come back. . . . And being able to feel true happiness, just feeling like I was OK, and there was no crisis, that was what I learned in Alcoholics Anonymous. That is the irony, right? I’m not an alcoholic, but my life was saved by AA.

Tina’s story illustrates the elasticity of terms like “addict” and “alcoholic.” In one sense it also challenges the sense of the saying, “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.” But it doesn’t negate the validity of 12-Step recovery organizations like A.A. Here’s why I think so. What Tina really grew out of was her addictive behavior.

The addiction researcher Carlton Erickson doesn’t like the terms “addiction” or “alcoholism.” He said in his book, The Science of Addiction, that they aren’t scientific. They are too broad, too vague and too easily misunderstood. He said he prefers the terms alcohol dependence or drug dependence, saying they are closer to what scientists mean when the terms alcoholism or addiction are used by nonscientists. Similarly, he prefers the term drug misuse to drug abuse, “because it more clearly places the responsibility for drug use on the person.”

Erickson’s distinctions become important when we turn to how drug users are diagnosed within the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Well, that is how they were diagnosed within the fourth edition of the DSM, when there was substance (or drug) abuse and substance (or drug) dependence. The current edition of the DSM, the fifth, has a continuum of substance use disorders, which confusingly combines two distinct types of substance use problems into one continuum.

Drug abuse (or misuse) is the intentional overuse of drugs “in cases of poor judgment, self-medication, overcelebration, and other situations where drugs can be harmful or illegal.” Drug dependence is “compulsive, pathological, impaired control over drug use, leading to an inability to stop using drugs in spite of adverse consequences.” Erickson then said:

Anyone who has a drinking problem and who wants to stop is welcomed into their group [A.A.] and declares, “I’m an alcoholic.” There is no formal distinction between “abusers” and “dependents” in community A.A. meetings. . . . A proper diagnosis is not important when people are trying to find a way to stop drinking. If successful, they are much better off than before they worked the fellowship program” (p. 20).

An individual like Tina can use A.A. to stop abusing alcohol, as described by Erickson, and then turn her life around. She would identify as an “alcoholic” during the time she was an active member of A.A. But, applying A.A.’s Third Tradition (which says you are a member of A.A. if you say you are), if she no longer had the desire to stop drinking, if she does not see herself as a member of A.A., then in that sense, she’s no longer an alcoholic. Diagnostically, it would seem she was an alcohol abuser who grew out of the need to self-medicate because of the dysfunction of her early life.

12/12/14

Humility Through Anonymity

Stockfresh image by tashatuvango

“We live in a world where anonymity is the key to keeping yourself.” (Quotes About Anonymity, Dominic Riccitello)

Matthew 6:16 -18 applies the principle of anonymity to fasting, the third and final aspect of personal piety discussed in this passage of the Sermon on the Mount. As with the first two (almsgiving and prayer), fasting was supposed to be done anonymously. But as D. A. Carson pointed out, what began as spiritual self-discipline, was eventually prostituted into pompous self-righteousness. “What was once a sign of humiliation became a sign of self-righteous self-display.” So Jesus is saying here that if you made a public show of your fasting, then you have all the reward you are going to get. It wasn’t a true act of piety.

And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:16-18)

A self-righteous day of fasting at that time meant you would intentionally neglect your appearance. But this was more than just a bad hair day. Your hair wasn’t to be brushed or combed; your face wasn’t to be washed—you get the picture. And by doing this, EVERYONE WOULD KNOW WHAT YOU WERE DOING—without having to say a word. The look on your face and the way you were dressed was enough to let everyone know how “spiritual” you were by fasting that day. This kind of false humility can be found in a wide variety of human activities.

D. A. Carson observed: “Almost anything that is supposed to serve as an outward sign of an inward attitude can be cheapened by this hypocritical piety.” The truth of Carson’s observation has been embodied within the Eleventh Tradition of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.): “Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.” Personal anonymity meant that A.A. was saying, “It wished to publicize its principles and its work, but not its individual members.”

Bill W. observed that A.A.’s Eleventh Tradition was much more than a sound public relations policy or an institutional denial of self-seeking. It was “a constant and practical reminder that personal ambition has no place in A.A.” Anonymity is further embedded in A.A. within their Twelfth Tradition: “Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.”

Here again is the foundation of what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 6 on anonymity: Do not mix self-promotion with personal piety or spirituality. D. A. Carson voiced a helpful question for individuals who think they may be doing just that:

Who am I trying to please by my religious practices? Honest reflection on that question can produce most disquieting results. If it does, then a large part of the solution is to start practicing piety in the secret intimacy of the Lord’s presence.

Again, Bill W. captured this truth in the opening statement to his essay on the Twelfth Step: “The spiritual substance of anonymity is sacrifice.” Bill went on to describe how A.A. learned that “anonymity is real humility at work.” Moved by the spirit of anonymity, its members try to give up their natural desire for distinction both within A.A. and before the general public. “We are sure that humility, expressed by anonymity, is the greatest safeguard that Alcoholics Anonymous can ever have.”

Humility is a safeguard for the church as well as A.A. Jonathan Edwards said that humility prepares the mind for divine light, clears the eye to look at things as they truly are, and keeps believers out of the devil’s reach. Another Puritan, Thomas Brooks said: “God delights most to dwell with the humble, for they do most prize and best improve his precious presence.” Remember that your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And finally, we of Alcoholics Anonymous [and the church of Christ] believe that the principle of anonymity has an immense spiritual significance. It reminds us that we are to place principles before personalities; that we are actually to practice a genuine humility. This to the end that our great blessings may never spoil us; that we shall forever live in thankful contemplation of Him who presides over us all (the long form of Tradition Twelve).

This series is dedicated to the memory of Audrey Conn, whose questions reminded me of my intention in seminary to look at the various ways the Sermon on the Mount applies to Alcoholics Anonymous and recovery. If you’re interested in more, look under the category link “Sermon on the Mount.”

12/1/14

Look Before You Speak

© Panpalini | Dreamstime.com - Toad Photo

I am concerned about an article I read recently on alcohol treatment, “The Best Treatment for Alcohol Use Disorder Your Addiction Counselor Isn’t Telling You.” It seemed like it was more of a rant than an attempt to constructively make a point. The author is an epidemiologist who wanted people to know that “medication is a vital key” in treating addiction. But some of the comments he made were surprisingly biased for someone who is “a published healthcare statistician and epidemiologist currently pursuing a doctorate in epidemiology.”

One example of this is a study from the Journal of Alcohol Studies that he linked in his article. He cherry picked how the study found that 29% of a sample of A.A. members said they received some pressure to go off their medication (of any type). But he failed to report that over half of the A.A. sample believed that using relapse-preventing medications “either was a good idea or might be a good idea.” Seventeen percent didn’t think that it was a good idea to take relapse-preventing medications; and only 12% said they would tell another member to stop taking it. Sixty-nine percent of these didn’t listen and continued taking their medication. The conclusions from the article’s abstract were:

The study did not find strong, widespread negative attitudes toward medication for preventing relapse among AA members. Nevertheless, some discouragement of medication use does occur in AA. Though most AA members apparently resist pressure to stop a medication, when medication is prescribed a need exists to integrate it within the philosophy of 12-step treatment programs.

He described the benefits of two medications for treating alcohol use disorder, Naltrexone and Campral (acamprosate) and claimed that: “ These medications are very likely the ones that your counselor or sponsor is not telling you about. In fact, the majority of the rehabs in the United States do not use any of this medication.” The author made, but did not support that claim.

The rehab I work for part time knows of and supports the use of both of these medications and has done so for a number of years. A.A. sponsors might be violating their Traditions in recommending or telling people they sponsor that they should try Naltrexone or Campral. They certainly would be involved in ethically questionable advice-giving since their sponsor role is not as a doctor or an addictions professional.

The most disturbing claim was that “Naltrexone is an opioid inhibitor that has been FDA approved as a constant low dose (daily intake) or as a supplement prior to drinking.” He noted its use to inhibit cravings for chronic alcoholics, cautioning that it could “up-regulate” the opioid system and cause worse relapses when the person was off Naltrexone. Then he suggested that it was best served as an “emergency relapse drug.” From the article:

Patients, prior to relapse, have taken this drug and report significantly lower impact of their relapse. In fact, naltrexone works so well to reduce relapse that many alcoholics use it to successfully drink on a regular basis with very few reports of high binge drinking. It is entirely possible that rather than going to AA meetings, the majority of alcoholics in the near future can simply carry a bottle of naltrexone with them for drinking occasions.

I’ve reviewed information on Naltrexone from Medline Plus, WebMD, Drugs.com, and SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) here and here. I did not find ANY indication that Naltrexone was “FDA approved” as a supplement prior to drinking. To be sure, Naltrexone is an FDA-approved medication for alcohol dependence. But there was no indication that Naltrexone was approved as a “supplement prior to drinking” or as an “emergency relapse drug” that “many alcoholics use it to successfully drink on a regular basis with very few reports of high binge drinking.”

There have been studies that indicated Naltrexone led to reduced drinking in both the amounts of alcohol and the frequency of drinking. And there have been studies where individuals used Naltrexone to limit or control their drinking, as with pharmacological extinction in the Sinclair Method. Here is an article written by John Sinclair, after whom the method was named. There is also information on the Sinclair Method here and on Facebook. Also see my article, “A ‘Cure’ for Alcoholism.” But Naltrexone is not FDA approved to limit, control or extinguish alcohol use at this time.

To make the claim as the author does—“It is entirely possible that rather than going to AA meetings, the majority of alcoholics in the near future can simply carry a bottle of naltrexone with them for drinking occasions”—is foolhardy, irresponsible, and dangerous. Also, it is a wrong interpretation of the state of current research into the use of Naltrexone with alcohol use disorders.

The most positive statement I found about Naltrexone in that regard on the above noted websites was in one of the SAMSHA publications, “Incorporating Alcohol Pharmacotherapies Into Medical Practice.” What follows is that statement:

Naltrexone appears to be effective for attenuating craving in people who are alcohol dependent (Monti et al., 1999, 2001). By blocking craving, naltrexone may enhance the ability of patients to abstain from drinking. By blocking the pleasure from alcohol, naltrexone also may reduce the amount of heavy drinking in those who do drink.

If he wrote the article as a rhetorical device to help people see how medications can be helpful when treating alcoholism, okay. He accomplished that goal. It had generated 1276 comments as of 10/25/2014 when I last looked. But if he was attempting to give credible information as an epidemiologist on pharmacological treatments for alcohol use disorder, he did not succeed.

Faith Seeking Understanding

Charles Sigler, D.Phil.

Tag Archives: alcoholics anonymous