http://mikelrecovery.blogspot.com/2009/06/aa-began-before-dr-bobs-last-relapse.html
This week, I received a comment and opposing view on that blog from Dick B., a rather well known AAer, writer and historian.
Dick commented:
Interesting point about WHEN A.A. began. Lois thought it began back in New York. T. Henry thought it began when Dr. Bob dropped to his knees with the little fellowship and prayed for recovery. And some dispute the dates. However, as I wrote some time ago in The Akron Genesis of Alcoholics Anonymous, the key point is not WHEN A.A. began. The key point is that it did begin in Akron in 1935; and Bill and Bob dated the beginning of the first group Akron Number One as the day that A.A. Number Three Bill Dotson walked out of the hospital a free man. It should be noted that there were no Steps or Traditions or meetings or drunkalogs. And no Big Book. All three men turned to God for help and then were cured by the power of God. There's a lesson there.
http://www.dickb.com/index.shtml
God Bless, Dick B.
My response to Dick follows:
Dick--I agree that it doesn't really matter about WHEN AA began, but I wasn't trying to make a historical point. I was trying to make a "meaning" point --- which was that in my opinion (no authority needed for that) one of the most important points in time in the process of AA "becoming" was the talk between Bill and Bob at that kitchen table on Mother's Day, 1935. A talk that was, according to Bob's conditions for even meeting with this stranger, supposed to last no more than 15 minutes. It ended up lasting 6 hours more than those 15 minutes.
It was, according to the author of A Member's Eye View of AA, the first recorded time that one alcoholic reached out to another drunk with the intent to that it would help them stay sober.
You and I may disagree about when AA began, but that disagreement would be akin to a Pro Lifer and a Right to Lifer arguing about when "human life" begins: at conception? at birth? Who knows.
We also seem to disagree about the "key point" in terms of the importance of AA's beginning: you identify the importance being the turning to God for help and that God somehow cured these 3 men.
I rather think that the "key point" in AAs coming about was (and is!) the fact of two alcoholics coming together to help each other with their disease. In addition, one of the "key points" in this weird organization's continued success was the two early AAers who were atheists and what they did to ensure this organization would survive beyond a few weeks, months or years. These two atheists helped keep AA from becoming a religious, non-denominational or not, organization which it would have certainly become had these three supposed spiritual giants, Bill W., Dr. Bob and Bill D. had their way.
It was these two atheists who fought tooth and nail against the over-religiosity of early AA (under the strong influence of the Oxford Group and others...) and I believe it was that atheistic stubbornness which eventually resulted in several AA literary gems that many, many members now attribute as a major reason why they were and have been able to stay in AA: "Higher Power," "as you understand Him" and "a power greater than yourself". Those phrases didn't originate from Bill: they were pushed down his throat and the throats of the other pioneers of AA by two stubborn atheists. Not Agnostics. Atheists.
I personally think that AA's doing quite well today. I don't have any desire to get AA to get back to its roots. I suspect that you do -- I wish you well on your endeavor of herding cats.
The reason we don't do things like they did in the early days is not because we've become lazy or followers of Satan. We no longer do things like make newcomers kneel down in a room upstairs and say the 3rd step prayer BEFORE being allowed into their first meeting anymore BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK NOW and probably didn't work all too well back then...at least long term.
But that's my opinion. AA as an organization, and as a group, traditionally has "no opinions" on outside issues, but the fact that most people fail to understand is that as an organization, groups and members: AAers have ONLY opinions about INSIDE issues. Should we or anyone else disagree on that statement, well, that just goes to prove my point.
I suppose that is also another key reason I've been able to stay in this weird organization.
Take care Dick. I have to admit that I am honored to have such a well known AAer and historian visit my blog. That said, I'm not at all overwhelmed by your celebrity or supposed authority. I was mentored by one of the greats in AA and one of the great lessons he taught me was to be careful of the "I Know The Way Gang". There is no "outside authority" in or within AA: the only "ultimate" authority is what's found to be true in our individual hearts.
Our names for that ultimate authority are different; none of us has to be wrong.
Take care!
Mike L.
Sometimes the comments I receive are amazing and I hate to have them buried down so deep in the blog... So for this one, I thought I would like to highlight it a little.
Take care!
Mike L.
5 comments:
The courteous tone of Mike's letter makes it worthy of a further short comment. He certainly is right that we disagree. However, the disagreement arises because he doesn't have his facts even close to correct. It has nothing to do with atheism, higher powers, and the alteration of the Big Book manuscript just prior to publication in 1939. I'll cite just one example. Bill and Bob did not meet at the kitchen table. Henrietta Seiberling asked Bob to come to her Gate Lodge and meet with Bill. Bob was too drunk to make it until the next day when Smitty (his son) drove him to Henrietta's; and Bill and Bob spent some 6 hours conversing. Similar errors can be found in other portions of Mike's comment. And that's precisely why it has taken some 19 years of research, interviews, and study to get the facts correct and complete. History is not what someone thinks it should be; it's what the facts show as to what actually occurred. I would suggest all viewers look at pages 29, 181, and 191 of the Fourth Edition of the Big Book and start their quest for the truth at that point. God Bless, Dick B.
Dick--
I have no problem conceding the inaccuracy of the kitchen table, but I suspect our disagreement doesn't center on meaningless details like that. I suspect it's more our view of 'history' -- you seem to see history as something that something that should result primarily in objective provable facts. I don't disagree about the existence or knowability of objective facts, but rather, I think we disagree on the ultimate importance of some objective facts to the meaning to be found within history. That it was a kitchen table or a coffee table or a bar makes me no (subjective) difference in terms of the meaning of this event...for me.
For me,the significant event was that in 1935, a man six months sober experienced a business failure in his life that would have normally led him into the Akron hotel's bar--and not for just a ginger ale! Instead of moving toward ultimately would have led to his taking a drink, he went the other way and began looking for another suffering alcoholic, he found Bob, he shared his-story (interesting use of the word "history" isn't it!) and it worked! Bill stayed sober that day and didn't drink.
For me, that was probably THE key insight of Bills that led to the ultimate creation of AA. AA had been born...for me at least. I suspect your key event is different and I have no problem with that at all. It works for you.
The same key event that kept Bill sober then, is the same key event that is keeping me sober today --- reaching out to another suffering alcoholic keeps me sober today. A miracle.
Again, I very much appreciate your entering into dialogue with me. I love AA history, especially as it's passed down through stories. My favorite AA historian is the author of "The Spirituality of Imperfection" and "Not God: A History of AA" -- Ernie Kurtz. i talked with Ernie once just before Dr. Earle died and he shared with me some his conversations with Earle when he was researching his dissertation which later became Not God.
Maybe that's another indication of you and I being like ships passing in the night--- I like Ernie's assertion that the unique discovery of AA (as organization and as individuals) wasn't God, per se, but rather that they (the organization or the individual) were not God. We'd used alcohol as a tool to become God-like and it simply didn't work. Knowing that I am Not God is more important to me than knowing the objective or subjective truth and/or reality of God's existence.
Take care!
Mike L.
Well, AA'ers predisposition for lengthy debate means you will find many the making of fine lawyers in an AA room. :) We do love to disagree, bless our cottons.
I'm sure you are both describing the same thing in a different way. I find words hopelessly inadequate in describing my views. There is always something missing, and its very easy to get attached to the terminology and preferred definitions and concepts.
Besides, I am a woman and you guys should !!! know by now that us ladies are ALWAYS right. :) hehehe
That one always makes the guys chuckle at work..
One thing and old timer used to say about the alcoholic attraction to power-driven argument was ""Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."
..which i find kind of funny..
Right. Well I have to be a stand in secretary in a matter of hours so I will have to take my leave. Have a lovely Sunday!
IFoB--
You're funny. I suspect that you also don't like arguments or debates. I love 'em.
Dick's comments aren't so much addressed to me though as to those who read this blog. For some reason, I doubt many who find an affinity for Dick's view of things spend much time at all reading my blog.
Yesterday, I happened to watch a portion of Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show (he's an absurdly far left liberal/atheist and anit-religious comedian) and as one of his guests was being interviewed, you could see that he was trying to find words that would not offend any far right conservatives --- and then he realized that no far right conservatives would be watching Bill Maher! So he could talk freely.
Dick, I doubt any one reading this blog is going to take the time to look at pages 29, 181 or 191 to find the beginnings of a quest for truth. I did though and see why you hold so tightly to them: they support your God-centered recovery.
I have also found a means of staying sober and much of what has helped me can find its source in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous. Including a line on p. 45 (strangely enough, in We Agnostics) where it answers the question, "Where and how can we find that power?" by stating, "Well, that's exactly what this book is about. It's main object is to enable you to find a Power greater than yourself which will solve your problem."
You and many others translate that Power into "God" -- but I don't. I would not characterize my recovery as God-centered. I have found a power greater than myself to help me stay sober and most of the time don't call it God. I am not bothered by members of AA talking "about God" -- but I get nervous when some of them start pushing their God, usually Christian in nature, down my throat.
Take care!
Mike L.
haha yeah you're right. i don't like arguments or debates. I always reckoned it was a ? guy thing. as Ive only ever met guys that seem to get a kick from them. I just don't find them much fun. gawd knows why..
Post a Comment