Love and tolerance of others is our code (84:1). Additionally, we must be free of anger (66:1). Anger will arise, but we must let it pass through us and not hold onto it. Or we die, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.
Whenever I am angry at someone else's wrong, I am the one in trouble. Hence I pray for ME to be saved (from the anger) (67:0), so I can be useful.
Lack of love and lack of tolerance are never justified. Holding onto anger is never justified. Resentment is never justified. Lack of acceptance is never justified.
This does not mean, however, that action is not required.
There is cruelty in the world, and people need to be protected; there is harm in the world, and that needs to be rectified; decisive action is regularly required.
In fact, the most loving thing to do can appear quite cold and cruel, at times.
The overriding principle lies in Tradition One—unity. The common good comes first; the personal good comes a close second.
Whether in AA or out of AA, action regularly needs to be taken to protect the group from the individual, because, if the group fails, the individual will fail also.
Is this intolerant? Absolutely not. Intolerance consists in observation, judgement, and attack. And judgement and attack only worsen the separation felt by the individual at fault.
When I see a door left open, I close it. I do not need to judge the person who left the door open or feel victimised by the draught.
When I see a child playing with razor blades, I take the razor blades away, even though the child may scream. I do not need to judge the child.
Clear, decisive action is best devised and taken from a position of total peace. Then, the action will be right. Emotional disturbance will always muddy the waters, because getting rid of my emotional disturbance will inform the decision and override other factors.
An example: a good AA group will encourage good conduct in its opening notices, suggesting or requesting that, for instance, disruptions be kept to a minimum, cross-sharing be avoided, and discussion be kept to the topic. The individual is then left to comply or not comply. My observation is that, when this approach is adopted, compliance levels are high, and the occasional extreme infraction can be dealt with by the loving hand of the group. A loving voice showing total respect for the individual concerned but suggesting an alternative course of action, in my observation, always works if persisted in.
Additionally, any such code must be agreed on in accordance with Tradition Two and Concept Twelve, with God speaking through the group, and the decision being reached by discussion, vote, and substantial unanimity, under the principle that the group is a single spiritual entity. Decisions should not be made in secret or negotiated under the table between business meetings.
Alternatively, some groups are run with rules and regulations rather than suggestions. They are over-organised (see Tradition Nine). "Repeated disruptions [e.g. leaving the room during the meeting] are not acceptable in this group" is one particularly aggressive notice I've heard, and I hope, in that case, that no newcomer with a bladder complaint attends the group. I've seen policing of sharing, too, either before, during, or after the meeting. This creates an atmosphere of discipline rather than love, and fear in the place of tolerance.
Tradition Two suggests our leaders are but trusted servants ... they do not govern. I can lead by example and I can contribute to a Tradition Two discussion about how to implement Traditions One and Five in the group. But I cannot be the one who dictates the group's conduct or the conduct of any individual member. I'm not the AA police. I'm a co-guardian of the Traditions and Concepts, along with every AA member. One voice. One vote. That's it.
Whenever I am angry at someone else's wrong, I am the one in trouble. Hence I pray for ME to be saved (from the anger) (67:0), so I can be useful.
Lack of love and lack of tolerance are never justified. Holding onto anger is never justified. Resentment is never justified. Lack of acceptance is never justified.
This does not mean, however, that action is not required.
There is cruelty in the world, and people need to be protected; there is harm in the world, and that needs to be rectified; decisive action is regularly required.
In fact, the most loving thing to do can appear quite cold and cruel, at times.
The overriding principle lies in Tradition One—unity. The common good comes first; the personal good comes a close second.
Whether in AA or out of AA, action regularly needs to be taken to protect the group from the individual, because, if the group fails, the individual will fail also.
Is this intolerant? Absolutely not. Intolerance consists in observation, judgement, and attack. And judgement and attack only worsen the separation felt by the individual at fault.
When I see a door left open, I close it. I do not need to judge the person who left the door open or feel victimised by the draught.
When I see a child playing with razor blades, I take the razor blades away, even though the child may scream. I do not need to judge the child.
Clear, decisive action is best devised and taken from a position of total peace. Then, the action will be right. Emotional disturbance will always muddy the waters, because getting rid of my emotional disturbance will inform the decision and override other factors.
An example: a good AA group will encourage good conduct in its opening notices, suggesting or requesting that, for instance, disruptions be kept to a minimum, cross-sharing be avoided, and discussion be kept to the topic. The individual is then left to comply or not comply. My observation is that, when this approach is adopted, compliance levels are high, and the occasional extreme infraction can be dealt with by the loving hand of the group. A loving voice showing total respect for the individual concerned but suggesting an alternative course of action, in my observation, always works if persisted in.
Additionally, any such code must be agreed on in accordance with Tradition Two and Concept Twelve, with God speaking through the group, and the decision being reached by discussion, vote, and substantial unanimity, under the principle that the group is a single spiritual entity. Decisions should not be made in secret or negotiated under the table between business meetings.
Alternatively, some groups are run with rules and regulations rather than suggestions. They are over-organised (see Tradition Nine). "Repeated disruptions [e.g. leaving the room during the meeting] are not acceptable in this group" is one particularly aggressive notice I've heard, and I hope, in that case, that no newcomer with a bladder complaint attends the group. I've seen policing of sharing, too, either before, during, or after the meeting. This creates an atmosphere of discipline rather than love, and fear in the place of tolerance.
Tradition Two suggests our leaders are but trusted servants ... they do not govern. I can lead by example and I can contribute to a Tradition Two discussion about how to implement Traditions One and Five in the group. But I cannot be the one who dictates the group's conduct or the conduct of any individual member. I'm not the AA police. I'm a co-guardian of the Traditions and Concepts, along with every AA member. One voice. One vote. That's it.
To sum up: there is no exception to the code of love and tolerance. But tolerance refers to a state of mind and is not a charter for inaction, and love is the guiding force of action: what is in the best interests of all?
The peace of God passes all understanding, and it is in peace, not shrill self-righteousness, that real strength lies.