A
member from the States writes:
“Fellas,
Thank you
for taking the time to respond. I also thank for your service to AA.
There has been a large scale watering down of AA in the last three
decades. I it is easy for us who have suffered through the “court
slip issue” to point a finger at that being the source. I assume it
can all fall under the general debate that is similar to which came
first, the chicken or the egg. My guess is that we all can remember
the days when we were told to take what we can use and leave the
rest. This is at the heart of just sharing our experience, strength
and hope. Those who were here could be confident in saying that
because they knew if you have a desire to stop drinking you would
have a vested interest in analyzing what you want to keep and the net
result would be you would keep a lot of what was being said. Once we
let people in who do not have desire to stop drinking all bets are
off. They have vested interest in finding an easier softer way; not
in finding a pathway to sobriety.
I suspect
the gurus and dogmatists who you refer to as a problem are in part
afraid of losing the AA that they were raised in. Once they have a
cause to fight for, they allow their ego’s to run ramshod. Some use
the dogmatic approach to justify the affiliation with Courts. How
have I discovered this? I have to work every day to keep my own ego
in check as I attempt to address the Tradition breaks that I
see........
The reason
I don’t “just” go with stronger traditions based meetings in
our area is that I believe that other like minded parties would come
to them and this would leave even weaker AA behind. I do remain
concerned of what grade of meeting the next drunk who truly wants
sobriety will find and I don’t want it left to chance. Where we
differ from other areas is that we have had this problem for 25+
years and we have Judges that have gotten National recognition for
their “Sobriety Court” and they have gone hog wild. Our “closed”
meetings average 50% court mandated parties. Some convenience
meetings average 90%. By convenience meetings I mean a meeting at a
clubhouse that exists for no other reason than to handle the overflow
caused by this issue.
So many
members have no first hand experience of AA of any other kind and
they attack any who object.
Thanks for
your time and any efforts you may make to put me in contact with
others who are attempting to deal with this matter.”
Our
response:
“Hi …..,
Thank you
for your mail.
Firstly
may we assure you that you are by no means alone in your concerns
about the introduction and implementation of the 'chit' system (or
CMA) within AA. We have long campaigned against its employment in
Great Britain arguing similarly that it runs directly contrary to our
traditions (non-endorsement, non-affilation etc) but so far to no
avail. We have had plenty of emails from the States already on the
subject all of which condemn the practice and cite examples of the
abuses stemming both directly from its employment (primarly fraud)
and indirectly (those to which you have already alluded). We suspect
one of the reasons for its growing popularity with politicians on
both sides of the Atlantic is that AA represents a free 'dumping
ground' for anyone with even the slightest hint of a drinking
problem. No thought is spared as to whether these 'referrals' would
be at all suited to AA or AA to them. (It is our understanding
moreover that such action ((in the US) is a violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. ie. it is
unconstitutional). Moreover we believe that those in AA who support
this policy are motivated in part by a misconceived desire to boost
AA attendance figures in order to counter the static or even
declining numbers.
Incidentally
your proposal to form Tradition based meetings seems hardly
controversial. It may be that other groups will follow suit once they
see how these work in practice.
With
regard to our campaign it is mostly directed at the abuses being
perpetrated within AA by dogmatists who have so perverted the
programme (and fellowship) as to render these virtually
unrecognisable. In particular the elevation of the 'sponsor' to a
position formerly occupied by a Higher Power is pernicious and leads
to all sorts of abuses eg, bullying, anti-medication (prescribed),
anti-therapy, local 'gurus', Big Book experts etc We refer you to
the blog for more information on this.
As for the
minority report we refer you to the following link: The AA Service
Manual combined with the Twelve Concepts for World Service and
Concept V in particular. Here you will see reference to "minority
reports" in the introductory comments. You will see that any AA
member has the right to submit a report for consideration by the
conference if that member (or members) believes the majority may be
in the wrong. We suggest you read through this and if you have any
queries please do not hesitate to contact us.”
We
would be interested to hear from other AA members with regard to
their own experience and/or observations of the CMA ('chit') system
(good or bad). We can be contacted at our email address here.
Confidentiality assured
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
Our thanks to this member for their contribution to the debate
