Via Kate Norris and John Zahl’s excellent breakout session on Grace In Addiction at the Mockingbird Conference:
Our behavior is as absurd and incomprehensible with respect to the first drink as that of an individual with a passion, say, for jay-walking. He gets a thrill out of skipping in front of fast-moving vehicles. He enjoys himself for a few years in spite of friendly warnings. Up to this point you would label him as a foolish chap having queer ideas of fun. Luck then deserts him and he is slightly injured several times in succession. You would expect him, if he were normal, to cut it out. Presently he is hit again and this time has a fractured skull. Within a week after leaving the hospital a fast-moving trolley car breaks his arm. He tells you he has decided to stop jay-walking for good, but in a few weeks he breaks both legs.
On through the years this conduct continues, accompanied by his continual promises to becareful or to keep off the streets altogether. Finally, he can no longer work, his wife gets a divorce and he is held up to ridicule. He tries every known means to get the jaywalking idea out of his head. He shuts himself up in an asylum, hoping to mend his ways. But the day he comes out he races in front of a fire engine, which breaks his back. Such a man would be crazy, wouldn’t he?
You may think our illustration is too ridiculous. But is it? We, who have been through thewringer, have to admit if we substituted alcoholism for jay-walking, the illustration would fit exactly. However intelligent we may have been in other respects, where alcohol has been involved, we have been strangely insane. It´s strong language-but isn’t it true?
—————–
The first requirement is that we be convinced that any life run on self-will can hardly bea success. On that basis we are almost always in collision with something or somebody, even though our motives are good. Most people try to live by self-propulsion. Each person is like an actor who wants to run the whole show; is forever trying to arrange the lights, the ballet, the scenery and the rest of the players in his own way. If his arrangements would only stay put, if only people would do as he wished, the show would be great. Everybody, including himself, would be pleased. Life would be wonderful. In trying to make these arrangements our actor may sometimes be quite virtuous. He may be kind, considerate, patient, generous; even modest and self-sacrificing. On the other hand, he may be mean, egotistical, selfish and dishonest. But, as with most humans, he is more likely to have varied traits.
What usually happens? The show doesn’t come off very well. He begins to think life doesn’t treat him right. He decides to exert himself more. He becomes, on the next occasion, still more demanding or gracious, as the case may be. Still the play does not suit him. Admitting he may be somewhat at fault, he is sure that other people are more to blame. He becomes angry, indignant, self-pitying. What is his basic trouble? Is he not really a self-seeker even when trying to be kind? Is he not a victim of the delusion that he can wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this world if he only manages well? Is it not evident to all the rest of the players that these are the things he wants? And do not his actions make each of them wish toretaliate, snatching all they can get out of the show? Is he not, even in his best moments, a producer of confusion rather than harmony?
Our actor is self-centered-ego-centric, as people like to call it nowadays. He is like the retired business man who lolls in the Florida sunshine in the winter complaining of the sad state of the nation; the minister who sighs over the sins of the twentieth century; politicians and reformers who are sure all would be Utopia if the rest of the world would only behave; the outlaw safe cracker who thinks society has wronged him; and the alcoholic who has lost all and is locked up. Whatever our protestations, are not most of us concerned with ourselves, our resentments, or our self-pity?
Selfishness-self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles. Driven by a hundred forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking, and self-pity, we step on the toes of our fellows and they retaliate. Sometimes they hurt us, seemingly without provocation, but we invariably find that at some time in the past we have made decisions based on self which later placed us in a position to be hurt.
COMMENTS
15 responses to “Two More from Alcoholics Anonymous’ Big Book”
Leave a Reply
Dave, I agree, but the ‘any life run on self-will can hardly be a success’ bit gets me because I’m not at the stage where I can do anything else. Surely there must be something beyond simply diagnosing oneself to death as a self-involved individual?
Dylan, see Thesis 1 of Luther’s famous 95. Same thing. “All of the Christian life is meant to be characterized by…” The book is setting the stage for desperation being the only avenue through which a “spiritual” experience can occur, i.e., as opposed to by virtue. You’re referring to AA’s very down-to-earth description of repentance. It’s law before Gospel, no Barth in the room type stuff. -JAZ
“That you cannot do anything else” is the point!
John, I wasn't actually troubled by that old chestnut (i.e. law–> gospel), or because I wanted to find a new diagnosis, but because I feel that self-diagnosis can only go so far.
In other words, my concern is that just as a dearth of self-examination can lead one to underestimate their sinfulness before a holy God, so too much introspection becomes neurotic and self-centered (as in Luther and the elusive 'perfect confession'), and leads one away from Christ as the one who has taken all that sin upon himself.
I'm not sure I understand what 'no Barth in the room' means, but I assume that you're suggesting he transposes law/gospel…is this correct? I forget who said it, but the saying goes something like 'For every look at oneself, take 100 looks at Christ.' I find that comforting, knowing that the gospel is even closer to me than the law.
What's more, I suppose I feel that there is no other option aside from running one's life by self-will. So I wonder if AA breaks down here, because it seems to posit that after we become aware of the fact that our souls are concave, we can change things with a little help from our friends (God, one another). It just sounds a bit too optimistic/therapeutic.
However, there is no other option to self-will as I see it. If we could possibly run our life by a higher will–I'm constantly hearing pastors talk about living by 'God's will' as if it is something attainable through self effort–we wouldn't need to self-reflect or repent. In other words, there is no one else at the controls of my will aside from my ego.
Of course, at times we like to talk about a Holl-esque spontaneity where the will mystically synchronizes with the will of God after we experience something of grace, but I have always thought that these epiphanic episodes sounded a little bit fictional. Perhaps they are anomalies that arise once or twice in a lifetime, though.
That said, if I understand your point, then Synecdoche, New York is the PERFECT movie reference to accompany this post. That permanent earpiece that PSH wore toward the end of the film is one of the greatest images of Romans 7 that I've ever seen…the voice is always there with us, dictating our next move, and we dance to its music. [For those of you who haven't seen the film, or if you just need a fresh reminder about the gravity of life…run, don't walk to see it!]
Dylan, no, AA says there is not other option than self-will. Listen to the talk from the conference, where I talk about how, in AA, “will power is checked at the door.” You understood exactly what I meant by no Barth in the room. There is another option to self-will, and that is the option that is born out of the perogotive of God, which is grace as an intervening force upon that which is opposed to Him (i.e., sin).
AA does not suggest that self-awareness produces any ability to change. Consider the following quote from the Big Book: “Self-knowledge was no avail.” The point of the quote, “the first step in recovery is that we be convinced that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success” lies in the word “convinced”, which is a word that refers to a truth that is born out of bitter experience, not insight. Convincing is something that happens to a person, not something that is done by a person. Do you see what I mean?
The Luthero-Gospel insights to be drawn from AA are astounding, but they benefit from helpful interpretation. I can probably help a bit on that front.
Thanks for the explanation John…very helpful, though I think the confusion arises from the way people often use the word ‘convinced’ to refer to a new insight.
I notice that the word is used in both ways in the Webster’s dictionary: [convinced himself that she was all right — William Faulkner] [something I could never
convince him to read — John Lahr]
[Sorry to go all Wittgenstein on you, my man, but I’m trying to be sure I follow your point.]
I suppose you are using ‘convinced’ to speak about a transformation rather than a newly-arrived-at conviction from within?
The tricky thing about some of these discussions (which I truly appreciate!) is that they occasionally depend on fine distinctions. I feel, like in mathematics, one almost needs a section of ‘givens’ prior to the discussion.
I hope that you will continue to add more instalments of this sort in the future.
i stood by the train tracks one day
i saw a little train coming my way
he passed on by stone cold gray
“i think i can’t, i know i can’t”
i swear that’s what i heard him say
(sorry for the above deletion, now, I think, I understand what your initial concern was:)
Dylan–every time I see your picture it reminds me of Judge Smails:)–
I’m not sure that the point of AA (or the Gospel for that matter) is “simply diagnosing oneself to death as a self-involved individual”. In fact, I think that to the extent that the “Gospel,” at least, can manifest like you’re described is actually more proof of the validity of the initial insight regarding self-centerdness.
The power of AA–even when used simply (and incorrectly) to justify extreme introspection– lies in its descriptive ability to help lead a person to the awareness of the pre-existing condition of his/her enslavement to self. And yes, it has to do with the “old chestnut”, because it deals first with reality (Law) not with an appeal either to or from abstracted “love.”
(which, incidentally, Barth gets completely wrong ;-)–and I realize in saying that I’m probably opening myself up to a protracted theo-fight, to which I declare a pre-emptive surrender (on this point) and say, “hey man,why don’t we trade thesis’ in a few years and have a beer and talk about it:)”
Anyway, just some thoughts. . .
Hi Jady,
I’m not against the premise of the AA book as an ancillary resource for talking about life. When I was introduced to the book in seminary, I found it to be a reliable narrative/commentary on the human condition. I also really don’t want to be critical of something which has been helpful to many people, so I say the following with a soft voice:
I agree that it has some powerful imagery for the bondage of the will and the futility of self-effort, but I am reluctant to give it too much latitude since it locates the solution outside of Christ, specifically. In addition, while it is strong on the idea of repentance, it has rather heavy Arminian language about making a decision to turn things over to God which doesn’t exactly have a Pauline ring to it. Are those caveats we should add, or is this being too picky?
Nonetheless, the church I pastored in Pittsburgh opened its doors to AA a few times a year, and there were many testimonies, applause, etc. It was a great source of encouragement to many of the men there, and for that, I am grateful!
BTW, does anyone know if the Big Book underwent a change since its first printing in terms of specifically ‘Christian’ terminology?
As for Barth, I’m no Barthian with respect to soteriology or the nature of Scripture, but I also can’t write him off on everything…especially since I haven’t even come close to reading the entire CD!
Hey Dyl. .
I don’t think that those caveats are being too picky and would want to bring in some of the same concerns, but since I’ve never used the “big book” as anything except for a specific theological illustration, I’ve been able to address them as they’ve come up. .
as for Barth–well, keep me updated on any revelations garnered from his CD:)
I don’t know a thing about the “Big Book” but I really like John’s point that being “convinced” is something that happens TO you, not a decision you make (although it may appear that way from the outside) This is such a crucial point. Jesus said no one comes to me unless the Father draw him, and Paul said we are dead in our sin. “Stone cold dead when I stepped out of the womb” as Bob Dylan sang. This is not just an abstract theological point; it is everyone’s reality, whether they know it or not. Those of us ( which is all of us) with “besetting sins” are constantly being “convinced” of this by God. I have been crucified with Christ and the life I now live… We are all dead men walking, because only a dead man can live the gospel.
Jady:
CD revelation: the CD is a good way for every theologian to fill up those empty spaces in their wall to wall bookshelves.
Also, after you are done being a theologian (for money), you can get a tax write off when you donate them to your local charity booksale. 😉
Michael:
Yes, and empirically true! RC Sproul does a great job of arguing this point in his ‘Chosen by God’ series. Have you read/heard it?
Have not read the Sproul series. My impression of Spoul is that he is great on the pre-conversion condition, and on the “cause” of conversion, but less good, and a bit too optimistic, on the ability of the “converted” to “chose” to follow Jesus, by the “power of the Holy Spirit.” The power of the Holy Spirit, to me, is to constantly point the dead believer to the live Christ, and thereby give him life, but only in his living Lord. So the Christian life is always lived out in “imputation” rather than “infusion.” I could be totally wrong about Sproul, since it has been some time since I read anything by him.
Dylan, you wrote:
“I agree that it has some powerful imagery for the bondage of the will and the futility of self-effort, but I am reluctant to give it too much latitude since it locates the solution outside of Christ, specifically. In addition, while it is strong on the idea of repentance, it has rather heavy Arminian language about making a decision to turn things over to God which doesn’t exactly have a Pauline ring to it. Are those caveats we should add, or is this being too picky?”
Have you listened to the talk on Addiction that Kate and I gave at the conference? I deal specifically with your first issue.
As far as the second issue, re: Arminian terminology is concerned, the Big Book does not speak with one voice, but with two. It has a semi-Pelagian thread within it, but that thread is always trumped by the inspired Monergistic understanding of God that it puts forth in light of the bound will that it diagnoses. Does that sound a little like any other book that you and I are fans of?