Dick B.
© 2013 Anonymous. All rights reserved.
© 2013 Anonymous. All rights reserved.
My
Search for the Curious Nonsense “gods” Floating Around in Recovery Talk
As many know by now,
my searches for the history of A.A. began when a young man told me when I was
three years sober that A.A. had come from the Bible. I told him I had never
heard such a thing in the thousand or more meetings I had attended. He then suggested
I read the A.A. General Service Conference-approved book, DR. BOB and the
Good Oldtimers. Which I did. And the young man was right.
Then, as many have
also heard, I realized that A.A. had many roots. Some had never been
researched. Some were scarcely known in the Fellowship. Some had systematically
and intentionally been discarded; or, at best, they had been distorted.
By 2000, I was
speaking at the archives meeting of the A.A. International Convention in
Minneapolis. I reviewed for the large audience A.A.’s major roots--in the
Bible, in the Oxford Group, in the writings of Rev. Samuel Shoemaker, in Anne
Smith’s personal journal, in Quiet Time, and in the literature of Dr. Bob’s own
library. But there was much more to be learned.
By the end of that
ensuing decade, I had researched and identified many more roots—some large in
importance, some mythical or incomplete as they had been reported, some
virtually unknown, and some correctly highlighted.
These included Dr.
William D. Silkworth, Professor William James, Dr. Carl Gustav Jung, the
Salvation Army, the Young People’s Society of Christian Endeavor, the Young
Men's Christian Association (the YMCA), gospel rescue missions, conversions,
and the evangelists like Dwight Moody, Ira Sankey, F.B. Meyer, and Billy Sunday.
But by that time,
critics of A.A. were pumping out new assertions and assumptions. They erroneously
claimed that New Thought was the basis for A.A. They also pointed to
spiritualism as the basis for A.A. They pointed to Bill Wilson’s obsession with
adultery and LSD as evidence of imbalance. They even claimed that Free Masonry
had put its nose under the tent of A.A. Little documentation, but lots of
attacks.
Critics also made
stronger arguments that A.A. was not for Christians, that it was the product of
“automatic writing,” and that it amounted to “twelve steps to destruction.”
Most important, they claimed that no Christian could fellowship with other AAs
based on what the naysayers termed biblical injunctions. Strangely, some
critics recognized that those who mentioned God, His Son Jesus Christ, the
Bible, and religion in A.A. were often intimidated and denounced by a few
“bleeding deacons” who cited “the Traditions” and “Conference-approved” status
as supposed authority for their remarks. And these objections fostered new
Christian fellowships like Teen Challenge, Celebrate Recovery, and Footprints.
The First Look at What Rev. Shoemaker
Called the “Absurd Names for God”
Along the way, I was
asked to publish a study of all the “nonsense gods” that had crept into the
A.A. picture— idols like a “Higher Power,” “a Power greater than ourselves,”
“God as we understood Him,” and one’s “own conception of God.” Plus some 50 or
more other absurd names for the new deity that was emerging in A.A., in treatment,
and in writings. An A.A. that ranged from light bulbs to the Big Dipper to a
rock to Mighty Mouse—not Mickey, but Mighty! And, to explain as much as I had
found to that time, I published God and Alcoholism: Our Growing Opportunity
in the 21st Century in 2002.
Still, the clamor
against A.A., by a few Christians, by many atheists and humanists, and by many
many disgruntled AAs—as well as “erudite scholars” seeking to change the
recovery movement and foster a new “therapeutic” program—increased and reached
far beyond the darkness that was already clouding A.A.’s original reliance on
the Creator for deliverance from alcoholism.
The
Increasing Body of Evidence about Modern Recovery’s Nonsense “Higher Powers”
Many years ago, I
accurately identified the fact that it was mostly the New Thought writers who
had invented the “higher power” idea as an integral part of their theology.
Their curious chain
of efforts began at least around 1900 with Ralph Waldo Trine and Professor
William James. It grew with the Emmanuel Movement. And it reached a temporary
peak in the writings of Emmet Fox. But these people and movements were just
seed planters as far as the revision of recovery ideas was concerned.
Successors to and admirers of the early planters somehow believed they could
fertilize and propagate widely the idea that higher powers, not-gods, and
pseudo “spirituality” were an integral part of the origins and history of A.A.
and effective recovery. But they weren’t. Dr. Bob did a lot of reading about
such matters; but, as he pointed out in his last major address, they believed
the answer to their problems was in the Bible. And the Bible sure didn’t talk
favorably about not-gods, “spirituality,” or some man-made “higher power.”
In another article
just posted on my main blog (www.mauihistorian.blogspot.com), I listed all the subsequent
advocates of some peculiar higher power, of some strange and undefined spirituality,
and of absurd names for “a” god. Just any old god that came to their mind—a Coke
bottle, Santa Claus, “Something,” a
tree, a door knob, a light bulb. These folks were not all New Thought
advocates. To their ranks I added an occasional Oxford Group writing, an
occasional remark by Rev. Shoemaker, numerous theories by a few A.A historians,
and lots of inventions by counselors, clergy, and AAs themselves.
But there remained
the puzzling question: Why did Bill Wilson use such strange synonyms for what
he openly acknowledged that they key to recovery and healing was the power of
the Creator. Almighty God, the “God of our fathers,” our Maker, our Heavenly
Father, and the Father of Light—all biblical descriptions of Yahweh. However, Bill capitalized all sorts of strange
names, and he put them in his writings. In so doing, he bequeathed a state of
total confusion about what these strange new gods were and what they could do
for the alcoholic who still suffers.
The
Best Early Resource for the Wilson Self-made god Language that I Have Thus Far
Found
Ralph Waldo Trine was
a New Thought writer who published In Tune with the Infinite. Trine may
have been the first to invent this new “Higher Power.” But even Trine never
seems to have stooped to calling his higher power a light bulb, the Big Dipper,
Something, Ralph, or “not-god.”
Recently, however, I
stumbled upon the following book Trine published in 1917. Here is the citation:
Ralph Waldo Trine, The Higher Powers of Mind and Spirit (New York: Dodge
Publishing Company, 1917). And it is filled with data which foreshadowed Bill
Wilson’s love affair with New Thought writing and idolatrous language.
Here are some ideas
which can provide homework for those who wonder about strange A.A. Big Book
language—language that never came from the Bible, but was usually capitalized
to indicate it referred to some “God,” and was concurrently accompanied by all
sorts of quotes from the Bible and references to the Creator, Almighty God,
Jesus Christ, and the Bible itself.
The
“Higher Power” That Ralph Waldo Trine Promoted
Here are some
references by Trine to “this higher power”:
.
. . we open our lives so that this Higher Power can work definitely in and
through us. [p. 40]
.
. . guidance of this higher wisdom and in all forms of expression to act and to
work augmented by this higher power. [p. 166]
Here are some of the
sources for ideas that Trine mentioned in support of his characterizations:
Our
own William James, he so splendidly related psychology, philosophy, and even
religion, to life in a supreme degree, honored his calling and did a tremendous
service for all. [p. 9]
Containing
a fundamental truth deeper perhaps than we realize, are these words of that
gifted seer, Emmanuel Swedenborg: There is only one Fountain of Life, and the
life of man is a stream there from, which if it were not continuously
replenished from its source would instantly cease to flow. [p. 33]
The
Emmanuel Movement in Boston in connection with Emmanuel Church . . . is an
attestation of this. That most valuable book . . . Religion and Medicine.
[p. 142]
[the
higher power] is making actual the proposition enunciated by Emerson . . . [p.
166—This was a reference to Ralph Waldo Emerson who some have claimed was the
author of the whole “New Thought Movement.”]
And if you are
wondering how a few Christian A.A. critics have managed to manufacture, label, tar
and feather A.A. as spiritualist and an offspring of Emmet Fox (an adherent of
New Thought), just look at the roster of Trine’s New Thought advocates—William
James, Emmanuel Swedenborg, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. And at least two of these
had in fact dabbled in spiritualism. Just as Bill Wilson himself had through
having been introduced to Swedenborgian ideas by his marriage to and the family
of Lois Burnham Wilson, his wife.
The contemporary erring
Christian critics ignored the plain teachings of the New Testament that “even”
Christians walked after the flesh, were
carnal in their meanderings, and violated God’s commandments. See Romans,
Chapter 8, for example. But Wilson’s vagaries—ranging from New England
Congregationalism in his youth to atheist thinking after his girl’s death in
high school to Swedenborgian influences to born-again Christianity at the Calvary
Mission to spiritualism so common to Lois’s religion to Roman Catholic doctrine
to psychic experiments—could not alter A.A. or even Wilson’s status as a
Christian.
For Wilson’s long
experience with Christianity stems from recently documented about the role that
Bill’s grandparents played at East Dorset Congregational Church (where Bill
heard Scripture read, salvation and the Word preached, Christian hymns sung,
and Christian confession and creed a part of the church doctrine). It came from Bill’s Bible study with his
grandfather Fayette Griffith, the Sunday school Bill attended, the revivals he
saw, the conversions he beheld, and the
conversion experience of his grandfather Willie which cured Willie of
alcoholism for life. Bill’s experience also came from extensive Christian
training at the Congregational-dominated
Burr and Burton Seminary in Manchester Vermont where Bill attended daily
chapel, heard sermons, heard Scripture read, participated in prayer meetings,
and attended Manchester Congregational Church. Bill was also president of the
Young Men’s Christian Association at the Seminary. And years later, after
uncontrolled drinking, Bill made his decision for Jesus Christ at Calvary
Mission—the validity of which is for God and God alone to judge—not some
anti-A.A. Christian writer. Bill wrote at that time: “For sure I’d been born
again.”
The “Higher Power” Deities Which Crept
into Bill’s Later A.A. Thinking
Here
are some of New Thought advocate Ralph Waldo Trine’s own capitalized deity
names along with other ideas that so typically seemed to invite Wilson’s
creation of unique and strange new gods and a supposed possible “relationship”
with them:
Infinite
Power [p. 10]
Life
Force of all objective material forms [p. 10]
The
Supreme Intelligence God [p. 11]
Divine
Wisdom . . . Divine Power . . . Divine Voice [no page number given]
Voice
of the Spirit [no page number given]
Eternal
Divine Life . . . Divine Being [p. 25]
.
. . eternal, Unity. . . . This Unity is God. All things have come from the
Divine Unity [p. 29]
God-consciousness
[pp. 33, 91]
Let’s
look at Wilson’s capitalized man-made “gods” whose presence is still extant in
one form or another in the fourth edition of Alcoholics Anonymous, published
in 2001:
Creative
Intelligence, Universal Mind . . . Spirit of Nature . . . Czar of the Heavens
[p. 12]
Power
beyond ourselves . . . Supreme Being . . . Power greater than ourselves [p. 46]
All
Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence [p. 49]
Spirit
of the Universe [p. 52]
Great
Reality deep down within us [p. 55]
Presence
of Infinite Power and Love [p. 56]
Our
Director . . . the Principal . . . new Employer [pp. 61-62]
Great
Fact [p. 164]
These
man-made Wilsonian deities can simply not be found in the King James Version of
the Bible that early AAs studied prior to publication of the Big Book in April
1939.
Were
these new gods? New names for a “god?” Wilson’s own self-made “god?” Or lingo that he had
picked up from his association with writings of William James, Swedenborg, and
Fox? I don't know.
What
we do know is that Wilson also placed a far greater emphasis on biblical
descriptions of God—as God is known or described in the Bible from which Dr.
Bob said the basic ideas of the Twelve Steps had come. Originally, there were
no absurd names for God in the Steps. And the Big Book refers to Almighty God
with biblical descriptions many many many times—e.g., “God,” “Creator,”
“Maker,” “Father of Lights,” “Father,” and “Heavenly Father.”
But
the duality of references—some New Thought and some biblical—clearly opened a
door to what Wilson called the “broad highway” which he paved when he deleted
“God” from Steps Two, Three, and Eleven just before the first edition of the
Big Book went to print. And Wilson himself made it clear he created the Step
duality to appease atheists and agnostics.
[See,
for example, the photo of the hand-written notes and amendments in the
“printer's manuscript of the Big Book found in The Book That Started It All:
The Original Working Manuscript of Alcoholics Anonymous (Center City, MN:
Hazelden, 2010), page 58. See also Bill’s explanation on pages 166-67 of Alcoholics
Anonymous Comes of Age that the substitution of “a Power greater than
ourselves” for “God” in Step Two, and the addition of the modifying phrase “as
we understood Him” (emphasis in the original) to “God” in Steps Three, and
Eleven were changes made to assuage atheists and agnostics.]
Bill
seemed to lay the primary responsibility for those major changes in the Twelve
Steps at the feet of his partner, Henry Parkhurst, claiming that Parkhurst “had
come to believe in some sort of ‘universal power.’” [Alcoholics Anonymous
Comes of Age, p. 163]. But this was the same “[partner”] who was drunk soon
after Big Book was published.
And
Bill’s wife, Lois Wilson, confirmed that a “universal” program had been agreed
upon. In fact, her comments indicated a leaning in that direction. In Lois
Remembers: Memoirs of the Co-founder of Al-Anon and Wife of the Co-founder of
Alcoholics Anonymous (NY: Al-Anon Family Group Headquarters, Inc., 1987),
Lois made the following remarks:
The pros and cons were mostly about the
tone of the book. Some wanted it slanted more toward the Christian religion;
others, less. Many alcoholics were agnostics and atheists. Then there were
those of the Jewish faith and, around the world, of other religions. Shouldn’t
the book be written so that it would appeal to them also? Finally, it was
agreed that the book should present a universal spiritual program, not a
specific religious one, since all drunks were not Christian. [p. 113]
Then, near the close of 1935, the
powers-that-be behind the Calvary Mission forbade the alcoholic boys living
there to come to the Clinton Street meetings, saying that Bill and I were “not
maximum.” This not only hurt us but left us disappointed in the group’s
leadership. . . . In spite of the rebuff, Bill and I were not immediately
discouraged with the Oxford Group as a whole. . . . But in the summer of 1937
Bill and I stopped going to OG meetings. [p. 103]
God, through the Oxford Group, had
accomplished in a twinkling what I had failed to do in seventeen years. One
minute I would get down on my knees and thank God . . . , and the next moment I
would throw things about and cuss the Oxford Group. [p. 99]
I felt I already had the knowledge and
discipline these kinds of folks were seeking. [p. 98]
Bill belonged to a team for a while,
but I didn’t. [p. 93]
I felt no personal need for their
teachings. I had had a sound spiritual training [from her Swedenborgian family
and church]. . . I did not think I needed the Oxford Group. [p. 91]
As for me, I had never believed in
emotional conversions. [p. 88]
I tried to get the Y to send me abroad
as an aide to the wounded. . . . But the National Board of the YWCA refused
because of my religion. Their letter of rejection stated that Swedenborgians
(the sect to which I belonged) and Unitarians were not considered Christians! .
. . This seemed to me not only narrow but illogical, a “non-Christian” could
instruct children but could not aid wounded soldiers. [p. 26]
It
will be for others to decide how much Lois’ background and prejudices
influenced Bill Wilson’s eventual surrender to universalism and Swedenborgian
ideas. This surrender had taken place despite Bill’s Christian upbringing as a
youngster in Vermont, his conversion to God through Jesus Christ at Calvary
Mission, and his active participation in the Bible studies, prayer meetings,
required conversions, and Quiet Times in Akron.
But
then there were Lois’s Swedenborgian convictions (including those perhaps
pertaining to the Wilson obsession with spiritualism); Lois’s distaste for
conversions; her resentments against the Christian ideas of the Oxford Group;
and her strange omission of mention of A.A.’s biblical roots and practices.
These certainly could have added fuel to the fire for the last-minute
compromise that resulted in the major changes relating to “God” made in Steps
Two, Three, and Eleven, and opened up the “broad highway” to multiple gods and
no God that swept into A.A. as the years went by.
Note
also that in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, Bill had said of the
Episcopal clergyman
Sam Shoemaker: “It was from him that Dr. Bob and I in the beginning had absorbed most of the principles that were afterward embodied in the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous” (p. 39). And, before he yielded at the last minute to the urgings of his partner Henry Parkhurst, Bill said:
Sam Shoemaker: “It was from him that Dr. Bob and I in the beginning had absorbed most of the principles that were afterward embodied in the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous” (p. 39). And, before he yielded at the last minute to the urgings of his partner Henry Parkhurst, Bill said:
We were still arguing about the Twelve
Steps. All this time I had refused to budge on these steps. I would not change
a word of the original draft, in which, you will remember, I had consistently
used the word “God,” and in one place the expression “on our knees” was used. .
. . Though at first I would have none of it, we finally began to talk about the
possibility of compromise. [Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, pp.
166-67]
And
sadly, the compromises that resulted have moved many a sick alcoholic away from
the God of the Bible through the years since the Big Book was first published.
Is All This Confusion Fuel for
Condemning A.A.? Absolutely Not!
For many it is. For others in A.A., it
all seems perfectly normal. Settling for a “convenient” God or an “expedient”
God is okay with them. A.A. historian Wally P. so claimed. One thing we know is
that many AAs don’t know Who God is, or how to “find” Him, or to Whom they are
supposed to pray. Is it the Creator? Is it a rock? Is it Somebody? Is it Santa
Claus? Is it the Great Fact? Is it the Spirit of the Universe? Is it Creative
Intelligence? Is it Ralph? Is it Gertrude? Is it a tree? Or is it a light bulb?
For all these absurd names keep popping up—regularly!
If Dr. Bob were still alive, he would
be focusing on God, his Heavenly Father. If Bill Wilson were still alive, who
knows? If a few want to condemn A.A. because of some strange ideas emanating
from Trine, Swedenborg, James, and Fox—who were not involved in A.A.--so be it.
But for me, there was a clear challenge based on the history of A.A. itself to
find out and report the role of God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Bible in the
A.A. that was founded and flourished before the nonsense gods made their
mysterious and confusing entrance into “recovery.”
Some of us still want to help drunks.
Some of us came into A.A. as drunks and were helped by AAs. Some of us saw the
clear promise in A.A.’s Big Book that God could do for us what we could not do
for ourselves. Lots of us have learned by experience what God actually can do.
Lots of us do not support those who talk of the gods of Ralph Waldo Trine,
spiritualism, and some “scholar’s” linguistic manufacture. More and more of us
are becoming part of a current, growing movement to report and talk about the
deeds, healings, power, forgiveness, and love of the one true living God.
My own experience is that a newcomer
(properly armed with the same power of which Dr. Bob spoke—“Your Heavenly
Father”) has little or no taste for or interest in relying on rocks, trees,
light bulbs, or idols. The malady is too serious; the consequences unchecked
are too disastrous; and the stakes too high to warrant playing around with a
man-made creation that couldn’t answer the prayer of a cricket.
Those who today argue that A.A. is not
Christian are right. Those who argue that no Christians should be in A.A. are
patently ignorant of the thousands and thousands of Christians who participate
in A.A. They don’t know AAs’ own ignorance of the great compromise based on the
fears of Wilson, the prejudice of Parkhurst, the belated carnal Christian walk
of Bill, or the influence of Bill’s wife. A compromise that has caused many to
stop helping drunks rely on Almighty God for their recovery.
The revisionists patently ignore the
fact that today the Red Cross, the United Way, the YMCA, the Armed Forces, the
Congress, and the Constitution authorize no litmus test that will bar either
Christians or non-Christians from the service work that all constantly render.
Isolation and prohibition will not stop the devil’s intrusion, nor can they
stop the work of Almighty God—with Whom nothing is impossible.
Gloria
Deo
