Someone emailed
me about the last post and asked about the difference between principles and
rules.
Here are two
rules that some people in AA express:
‘Amends have to
be made face to face, or they don't count.’
‘Never say no to
an AA request.’
These are rules,
because no judgement is involved: if you have an amend, it must be made face to
face; if someone in AA asks you to do something, you must.
Principles are
invariably applied alongside other principles picked from a constellation of
principles.
Two examples:
The suggested
rule that amends must be 'direct'. In 1939, when the Big Book was written, the
concept of 'face to face' was available and expressed as it is in now with the
phrases 'face to face' and 'in person'. The fact that the Book says 'direct'
not 'face to face' is telling and deliberate. Face to face is often better and
clearer and there are many amends I would not dream of making in writing or in
some alternative way. The Book clearly suggests face to face as the best way of
making amends in many cases but concedes other options.
Another couple of
pieces of background information: Bill is extremely sketchy, frankly, on
whether he made amends and, if so, how. One might expect a little bit of detail
somewhere in his 36-year career in AA on how he actually made them, but we have
almost nothing. Bob made them all in one day, by driving around Akron. We learn
nothing from Bill about how to make amends other than being told general
principles and how others he knew made amends. We know from Bob's amends, which
were completed in one day, that he did not make amends to anyone outside Akron
and that he made amends only to as many people as he could see in one day.
I got to AA when
I was 21 (compared to Bob, who was much older), and I had amends to make all
over the world, by then; people in different cities, people in different
countries. If I had lined them up, I could have made the top ten to fifteen
amends in one day. No way could I have made all of them. I did a second round
of amends when I was around 36. I had 78 names. Again, if you added up the time
these took, it was way more than one day. My friend N had around 270 amends.
Many people I know have over 100.
My conclusion:
the amends process as described in the Big Book set the threshold very, very
high indeed for making amends; only the most egregious crimes made the list.
Given the
scrupulousness with which we draw up complete amends lists these days, covering
every little theft and every broken relationship, however minor, we have to
conclude, I believe, that we do a far better job of this than the founders. If
Bob could complete his amends in one day, he was either saintly for having so
few people to see or was applying different criteria. I presume the latter was
the case.
Now, all of my
top amends (basically the closest friends and family members) absolutely had to
be seen in person. What about the rest?
Here's where
other principles come into play: tact, consideration, proportionality, decorum,
respect, efficacy.
There are many
amends that are best made in writing (with a phone call and/or a face-to-face
meeting offered as a follow-up if the recipient would like). These include (but
are not limited to): people who live a long way away where trekking across the
city, country, or world would appear to the recipient utterly disproportionate
and self-aggrandising; amends where the recipient is so reactive and
domineering that the only way a clear message can be conveyed without being
rebutted, garbled, or diverted is in writing; amends where the difference in
status is such that demanding or even requesting the person's time would be
quite disrespectful or presumptuous; amends where what you did was so creepy
the last thing the recipient wants to do is see your leering face; exes where
there is the risk of re-igniting romantic feelings; amends that must
necessarily remain anonymous; there are scores of such examples.
Get this wrong,
and you'll get sub-optimal results; I know, because sponsees have reported
great reluctance on the part of potential recipients to meet and the attempt to
meet actually hampered the amend; good judgement in advance often means
approaching certain people in writing instead.
Here, the
principles must be applied in concert and with plenty of prayer and
contemplation.
Let's turn to the
other question: never saying 'no' to an AA request.
The only way I
could comply with this would be to neglect my immediate and extended family and
to give up work. This is insane. We're supposed to rely on God for guidance,
not develop a one-off rule so we don't have to rely on God. That's the whole
point of rules: they're a way of manifesting self-reliance, as you rely on the
rule you've chosen not on the relationship with God.
Do I do a lot for
AA? Well, frankly, yes. So, yes, I do say 'yes' to a lot of AA requests. Most
days I spend about three hours sponsoring. Sometimes more, occasionally up to
five. Often a lot less at weekends, perhaps an hour or two on each day. I
redirect about two-thirds of people who ask me for sponsorship to sponsees or
friends of mine in AA, and I reserve the ‘yes’s for people I am uniquely
positioned to help; we are responsible for ensuring the hand of AA is there to
help, not to be that hand in all circumstances. The same principles apply in
saying ‘yes’ to service opportunities, whether in the service structure or in
groups.
What we do in AA
is an avocation not a vocation. When, in the past, I neglected my family, work,
friends, and other interests (which the Big Book enjoins us to engage in!), I
was not more helpful, honestly, and was not a good example to others. To be a
good sponsor you need successful relationships in your life and a worthy
occupation, because otherwise there is nothing to attract people with; the
subject matter of my life is my life, not AA: my career(s), family
relationship, close relationship with my partner, and friendships are the
worked examples of how to work the programme. If I were to sacrifice my life
for the sake of never saying 'no' to an AA request, I would destroy my ability
to be useful.
To sum up: the
only rule is to be cautious about rules; principles and God-reliance offer a
much safer course.