Embarrassingly, I have spent too much time in the past picking on individual one-liners heard in AA and 'proving' they're inconsistent with the Big Book ('the book'). I think I did this in part in order to feel smug and superior by pulling someone or something else down. I'm no longer convinced this is a worthy form of discourse, or that it helps anyone. I suspect that, if those of us who have found a solution take potshots at the fellowship of AA and the many slogans and ideas that have arisen in it, we become unattractive to the very people we're trying to help.
Having said that, there are some ideas I've heard in meetings which are not really open to multiple interpretations and which conflict with the programme as originally set out in the book, chief among which is the injunction to work the first nine Steps very slowly indeed (for instance one Step a year, reaching Step twelve only after eleven years, therefore). Even in these cases, the potshot's probably not the best approach for carrying the message. A different way would be this:
'I did the Steps very quickly, over a few weeks, and I got the following results: ...' I can then let that attract anyone who is interested. I don't need to let them know that they're wrong. They're smart enough to figure out it's different than 'a Step a year'.
Most one-liners can be construed in multiple ways, however. If I'm looking for inconsistency with the book, I'll find it. If I'm looking for consistency with the book, I'll find it.
The most egregious example is 'Don't drink and go to meetings'. If this is understood to mean 'All you have to do to recover is not drink and go to meetings', then, of course, it is contradicted by the mere presence of a much more extensive programme set out in the book. It would indeed be misleading to suggest that, at least for alcoholics of the type described in the book.
In my experience, however, one-liners are rarely used with such exclusive import, as if to say, 'This being true, nothing else is true'. Telling someone that they need to brush their teeth does not mean that they do not need to eat their vegetables or mend their roof.
Let's look at how the injunction to not drink and go to meetings fits with the book.
The book does indeed suggest not drinking ('The only relief we have to suggest is entire abstinence.') Bill, Bob, and Bill D, on page 188, also talk about the need to stay away from alcohol 24 hours at a time:
'The next question they asked was, “You can quit twenty-four hours, can’t you?” I said, “Sure, yes, anybody can do that, for twenty-four hours.” They said, “That’s what we’re talking about. Just twenty-four hours at a time.” That sure did take a load off of my mind. Every time I’d start thinking about drinking, I would think of the long, dry years ahead without having a drink; but this idea of twenty-four hours, that it was up to me from then on, was a lot of help.'
The book also talks about daily meetings ('At these informal gatherings one may often see from 50 to 200 persons,' page 16, 'Seeing much of each other, scarce an evening passed that someone’s home did not shelter a little gathering of men and women,' page 159). If persisted in, daily meetings will indeed add up to ninety meetings in ninety days.
When I look for corroboration in the book for AA's one-liners, I tend to find it. It's a touch perverse to construe all such one-liners as precluding the existence or relevance of all other truths.
The same perversity underlies a lot of argument between big book adherents. A false opposition is set up, and then we have at it. A good example is where someone suggests that service keeps up sober, going on to illustrate all the ways they are of service and how that has enabled them to stay sober and thrive. Some smart alec (sometimes me) comes along and points out that it is in fact God that keeps up sober ('there is no doubt in my mind that you were 100% hopeless, apart from divine help,' page 43). A horrible argument ensues. The argument is based on the false premise that we have to pick. In fact, two ideas can be true at the same time. Maybe we need both reliance on God and service to others to stay sober.
Much the same goes for the debates about 'recovered' vs 'recovering', 'twofold vs threefold', etc. Whilst there is some validity in good-natured discussion to bring out the ostensibly opposing points so they can be reconciled, the premise that 'someone has to be wrong, and it sure ain't me' tends in my observation to lead to fruitless wrangling.
I now tend to agree with almost everyone, because I seek to find what is right, not what is wrong, in what they're saying, and not actively seeking out interpretations that serve as targets for attack.
I asked my friend Tom, sober since 1976, whether we're recovered or recovering. He said, 'Yes'.