I have often heard it remarked that, wherever you go in the
world, you can walk into a meeting and be at home. This is very valuable for
the individual, and what underlies this is what assures the unity of AA as a
whole.
Sometimes people vociferously defend the use of non-Conference-Approved
Literature at meetings, citing the wide range of literature read at early AA
meetings, the lack of explicit prohibition in the Traditions, etc. These
arguments are legalistically sound but miss the point.
The reference to early AA meetings is to a fellowship that
was a long way from growing from what it was to what it is today. The
Traditions and the Concepts both have played a major role in ensuring
sufficient unity that AA has grown into a single worldwide fellowship. Both
sets of principles are built on what went wrong in the first twenty or thirty years.
Citing a phenomenon as dating from the early days of the late 1930s does not necessarily
legitimise it as part of AA in the 2013. There are plenty of things that went
on in early AA that it was realised were mistakes and were discarded, e.g.
membership rules. The appeal to the false authority of early AA is misplaced.
People cite the autonomy of groups to do what they want.
Absolutely: except where it affects other groups as a whole. If a group gives
an impression to newcomers that it is Christian, or even a particular brand of
Christian, this affects AA as a whole as it feeds into public opinion and
distorts the public perception of AA. AA groups must therefore, under Tradition
Four, be very careful in what they present AA as being.
It is really clear at an AA meeting that individuals sharing
are sharing their own experience. The wide range of views and experiences heard
at a single meeting would strike most visitors as being just that: the
expression of an almost alarming diversity. As soon as the group itself reads
from a piece of literature, the impression is very different, as the activity
is shared, and the literature effectively appears sanctioned by the group, just
as a reading in a church or a school will appear to be sanctioned by those institutions.
The beauty of the concept of Conference-Approved Literature is
that the fellowship as a whole has expressed its view that the material in
question is kosher AA. Whilst we sell AA magazines on literature table whose
contents have not been approved, the distinction to the onlooker is clear: the
AA books set out as spiritual texts or guides are clearly setting out AA's
message, whilst the magazines are clearly AA members' experiences, and would
not necessarily seek to appear to represent AA as a whole.
Consequently, AA need never have an argument about whether a
particular piece of literature is acceptable at an AA meeting, and a huge
amount of controversy is avoided: either it's Conference-approved, or it is
not. It would not do to allow all sorts of, I'm sure, worthy Christian or
Buddhist spiritual literature but then for Intergroup to have to intervene when
a group starts reading racist, xenophobic, or morally censorious literature
(e.g. about single mothers, sex before marriage, or minority sexual
persuasions). AA would be in a constant state of alert, and there would be no
court of appeal to resolve such matters.
Very often, when people argue in favour of other materials
being used, they are approaching the matter from the viewpoint of the particular,
not the general: they want their favourite book, or material they themselves
have written, to be used as part of the format. Sometimes people feel slighted
that AA is telling them what to do. What AA is certainly doing is suggesting
that we consider the common good and the good of AA as a whole.
This is where the freedom comes in: there is a wide range of
AA literature, most of it never touched in AA meetings as part of the meeting
format. The full range of topics and experience in relation to alcoholism and
recovery therefrom in AA is broad enough to provide any group with sufficient
material in perpetuity. There is no paucity of material, both Conference-approved
and in terms of members' experience. There is simply no need for other
materials.
Other materials are certainly quite valuable. I use other
materials with sponsees and on my own. I have been tempted in the past to want
to introduce such materials into meetings. I have held workshops for AA members
on The Sermon On The Mount and on other materials, and wanted to advertise
these in AA meetings. Really, I wanted to do this, as the network of AA
meetings seemed the perfect marketing structure for my endeavour. And that is
the issue: the endeavour was mine, not AA's; no one in AA had mandated me as
its servant to undertake these workshops or to produce these materials. As
such, I was acting on my own account, not AA's.
I did not advertise such workshops, however, and I did not introduce
such materials. I have no right to bring other materials into AA (for reasons
explained above) but AA also does not prevent me from holding such workshops or
producing such materials, provided that I do not pass them off as official AA
events or materials.
Just because something (a piece of written material or an
event) is by AA members, for AA members, and about AA matters does not make it
AA. AA, to preserve itself, has the principle, in Concept I, of accountability
to the group through the service structure. This, ultimately, serves as the
mechanism of checks and balances to ensure that whatever purports to be AA (whether
a piece of written material or an event) is accountable to AA, so that, if the
material or the event is likely to bring AA in disrepute or divert us in some
way from our primary purpose (see Traditions Six and Ten), the fellowship of AA
as a whole can do something about it.
Again, this simple principle—that AA events are events sponsored
by an Intergroup, or Region, or GSO, with the attendant financial and operational
accountability to AA as a whole on the part of its servants—saves endless arguments
about what is and what is not AA. No AA entity need therefore express an
opinion on other events; all we need to do is determine whether or not we are
sponsoring the event, which is a point of fact, not a point of opinion. This produces
clarity and simplicity.
So, I am a fan of the principle that only
Conference-Approved Literature be used in meetings and only events sponsored by
an entity in the structure be announced at meetings or advertised through the
structure. Here, the vision is for the AA of the future. I would like anyone
transported forward in time, in one hundred, two hundred years, to recognise
the AA they find.