Not-God (10 page)

As Wilson stated often, strongly, and colorfully, the contributions of the Oxford Group to Alcoholics Anonymous were twofold: positive and negative. Among the positive contributions, direct and indirect, were those having to do primarily with “tone” or “style,” and those finding expression in specific practices.
³³

In the first category of tone and style, three were noteworthy. First, the Oxford Group cherished the informal setting of “house parties” or “drawing-room conversations” which communicated non-verbally that “religion” was a “joy,” that pleasant “fellowship” was of its essence. Second, members of the Oxford Group were not expected to leave their own churches. The movement embraced no specific theological positions but sought only to assist in the practice of a truly Christian moral life. Third, the Oxford Group focused on a “changed life” attained by passing through “stages.” The “changed life” was significant to A.A. ideas because it provided a way of understanding sobriety as something positive rather than the mere absence of alcohol or drunkenness.
⁺
Furthermore, in using the term, Buchman and the Oxford Group were explicitly avoiding the more familiar word, “conversion.” The
idea
of “stages” contributed more to Bill Wilson’s eventual program than the specific stages enumerated by Buchman — the “five C’s” of Confidence, Confession, Conviction, Conversion (as
act)
, and Continuance; but these also had direct impact on A.A. practice, especially as mingled with the “Five Procedures.”
³⁴

A.A. practices directly and consciously derived from the Oxford Group also contained three items. The “Five Procedures” were (1) to give in to God; (2) to listen to God’s directions; (3) to check guidance; (4) restitution; and (5) sharing — telling one’s sins, itself sub-divided into “sharing for witness” or narration of how one’s life had “changed,” and “sharing for confession,” to soothe guilt.
³⁵

The two other A. A. practices present in the Oxford Group were the insistence that its workers — and especially its founder — never be paid for the “soul-surgery” of aiding others to attain the “changed life;” and an emphasis on the obligation to engage in personal work with others in order to change the
helpers’
lives.
³⁶

The early members of Alcoholics Anonymous were aware of the impact of especially the last two Oxford Group principles on their fellowship. Other Oxford Group carry-overs, however, were more hidden, and few if any of the first generation of A.A.s seem to have been aware of their continuing impact even after formal separation. For example, neither Bill Wilson nor any other early A.A. had knowledge of Buchman’s background, which pervaded the movement. Three profound influences played upon Frank Buchman, the Pennsylvania-born Lutheran minister who founded the Oxford Group: “the. conservative Lutheran pietistic influence of his home and the Pennsylvania German people among whom he was brought up;” “the more traditional Protestant Evangelism,” which shaped a life-long interest in the process of conversion; and “the American collegiate evangelism of the early twentieth century,” which traced directly to Buchman’s self-conscious identification with the great evangelist Dwight L. Moody.
³⁷

There were two further “tone-setting,” indirect contributions of the Oxford Group to Alcoholics Anonymous: the Group’s efforts were directed to the “up and outers” rather than to the down and out; and they operated under “six basic assumptions” (1) men are sinners; (2) men can be changed; (3) confession is prerequisite to change; (4) the changed soul has direct access to God; (5) the Age of Miracles has returned; and (6) those who have been ‘changed’ must ‘change’ others.”
³⁸

In the final category of indirect or unconscious contributions to A.A. practice were the “undervaluation of intelligence” manifest in the love of slogans such as “Study men, not books,” “Win your argument, lose your man,” and “Give the
news
, not your views;” and the practice of “getting rid of guilt feelings” through the “discovery that others have been or are bedeviled by the same conflicts or problems.” Such “discovery” became fundamental to the key practice of “story-telling” in Alcoholics Anonymous, although A.A. diverged in its insistence that as a result of such “sharing,” lowered aim was to be accepted rather than increased accomplishment attempted. Except for this last point, the positive contributions of the Oxford Group to Alcoholics Anonymous were many, diverse, profound, and not always conscious.
^39
+

The Oxford Group was a conscious attempt to return to primitive, fundamental Christianity. The briefest statement of the fundamental, primitive Christian message runs: “Jesus saves.” The fundamental first message of Alcoholics Anonymous, proclaimed by the very presence of a former compulsive drunk standing sober, ran: “Something saves.” “Salvation” as the message remained. Yet A.A.’s total omission of “Jesus,” its toning down of even “God” to “a Higher Power” which could be the group itself, and its changing of the
verbal
first message into hopeless helplessness rather than salvation: these ideas and practices, adopted to avoid any “religious” association, were profound changes. Since these ideas and practices were consciously embraced to deny any Oxford Group implication, they indicate a negative contribution on the part of the Oxford Group. Wilson “learned from them
what not to do
as far as alcoholics were concerned.”
⁴⁰

Four particular “negative contributions” merit consideration: Alcoholics Anonymous steadfastly and consistently rejected absolutes, avoided aggressive evangelism, embraced anonymity, and strove to avoid offending anyone who might need its program.

Wilson’s deepest problem with the Oxford Group concerned that movement’s famous “Four Absolutes.” A.A.’s co-founder pointed out that

This explicit rejection of any claim even to an aim that was absolute became more significant to Alcoholics Anonymous than anything it derived more positively from the Oxford Group.
⁴¹

The early and newly sober alcoholics felt discomfort with “the principle of aggressive evangelism so prominent as an Oxford Group attitude.” Their early experience revealed to the New York alcoholics “that this principle, which may have been absolutely vital to the success of the Oxford Group, would seldom touch neurotics of our hue.” The problem was twofold. Drinking alcoholics did not respond well to an aggressively evangelistic approach; and sober alcoholics who still held jobs justly feared the consequences of being publicized as “alcoholics.” The promise of anonymity removed one obstacle which might have led prospects to fear even investigating the program.
⁴²

Painfully, some of the early adherents to the program of Alcoholics Anonymous learned that publicity brought the re-inflation of self-pride and thus endangered a sobriety rooted in the deflation of hopelessness. If they drank again, they lost their own sobriety and damaged the very credibility of their program. Bill Wilson summed up this reason for abandoning the aggressive evangelism of the Oxford Group: “Excessive personal publicity or prominence in the work was found to be bad. Alcoholics who talked too much on public platforms were likely to become inflated and get drunk again. Our principle of anonymity, so far as the general public is concerned, partly corrects this difficulty by preventing any individual receiving a lot of newspaper or magazine publicity, then collapsing and discrediting A.A.” Thus a profound negative contribution of the Oxford Group was embodied in the fellowship’s very name. They were “Alcoholics
Anonymous
.
⁴³

The final contribution emerged only very slowly and under one specific concern. Wilson always stressed the need for inclusiveness and tolerance in Alcoholics Anonymous, and explicitly expressed the fear that, “Were we to make any religious demands upon people I’m afraid many Catholics would feel they could not be interested.” As late as the eve of the publication of the book
Alcoholics Anonymous
in 1939, A. A. in New York City had but one Catholic member, and he very recent, while Akron A. A. — still meeting side by side with if not within the Oxford Group — acknowledged none. By 1953, when he was about to begin work on the history of the fellowship which would be published as
Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age
, Wilson had attained sufficient distance to be more honest about one aspect of his concern over the Oxford Group connection. “The main reason” for omitting mention of the four absolutes, he wrote, “was possible trouble with the Catholic Church. … It seemed wise to omit any material that would identify us with the Oxford Group. Just at that juncture, the Pope had decreed that no Catholics could come to Oxford Group meetings. Therefore, if we used any of their words or phrases, the same sentence might fall on us.”
⁴⁴

There is an interesting postscript. By mid-1947, Bill Wilson was taking instructions in the Catholic faith from Monsignor Fulton Sheen, to whom he had been introduced by Fulton and Grace Oursler. Wilson dropped his interest after about a year. The usual explanation for Wilson’s not accepting Catholicism follows Bill’s own as given in a letter of ten years later. He feared that his conversion to Catholicism might adversely affect Alcoholics Anonymous.
⁴⁵

From his correspondence at the time, however, a different — and more consistent — picture emerges. As attractive as Wilson found some aspects of Catholicism, especially the mystical ones, he simply could not stomach the idea of infallibility — not only the personal infallibility of the Pope, but the infallibility claimed for the effectiveness of sacraments in Catholic theology. “These excursions into the absolute are rather beyond me. Though no disbeliever in all miracles, I still can’t picture God working like that.” This particular concern linked to another one, and in its expression we approach close to the source of the protective instinct that led Alcoholics Anonymous to reject being apprehended as in any way a “religion.” Wilson summed up his thoughts on his instruction experience in a 1948 letter to a close friend and continuing mentor: “The thing that still irks me about all organized religion is their claim how confoundedly right all of them are.”
⁴⁶

Wilson had not spoken the Oxford Group “absolutes” at least partially because of concern for what the Catholic Church thought. Ironically but consistently, in time he turned from Catholic thought itself because of that tradition’s own absolutes.

Meanwhile, Dr. Bob continued his efforts with alcoholics in Akron in close connection with the Oxford Group. The detailed narration of Bob E., who attained sobriety in February of 1937, furnishes a glimpse into the style and approach of the Akron branch of the yet unformed fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. The difference from the philosophy and methods evolving among the New York alcoholics both reveals a significant development and casts light on a continuing tension within Alcoholics Anonymous.
⁴⁷

A member of one of Akron’s wealthiest families, Bob E., had drunk himself into total alienation from his father. One day early in 1937, Bob sat in his favorite bar, nursing both self-pity over his plight and the cheese sandwich and beer which he had just bought with thirty cents begged from a former business associate. His main life problem, he reflected, was whence would come his next meal — and drink. His meditation on this momentous concern was interrupted by the entrance into the bar of a former drinking companion, Paul S., whom he had not seen for some time. Instead of joining him or ordering a beer, Paul asked for a pack of cigarettes. “He was all dressed up, and I could tell by the looks of him that he hadn’t been drinking. I knew he used to drink every day and I couldn’t figure it out. I went up and said hello, figuring he’d be good for a beer, at least.”
⁴⁸

Paul asked how his friend was, “and if I was still drinking.”

“Not very much,” Bob replied. “I don’t have any money to drink on — no job.” Ignoring the implicit plea, “Paul said he wasn’t drinking and if I ever wanted to know anything more about how to quit, he would be glad to talk to me.” Bob E. made an appointment for the next day, but kept it only a week later. Other friends — easier marks — had come in after Paul had left, and Bob had passed the intervening six days in a drunken stupor.
⁴⁹

“But I did show up at Paul’s office a week later and he told me about this program of the alcoholic squadron of the Oxford Group and what it had done for Dr. Bob Smith, and if I would be willing to talk to Dr. Bob, … he would make arrangements for me to see him that noon.” Fortified with a drink furnished by Paul on the way, Bob E. talked with Dr. Smith at his home for most of that afternoon. According to his memory, the doctor stressed “that I was chemically constituted differently from the average individual” and encouraged him to hospitalize himself. “He stayed away from the spiritual angle.”
⁵⁰

Having one fear thus set to rest, for Bob E. had marked his friend Paul as a religious enthusiast, the man who was to become “A.A. Number Twelve” signed himself into Akron City Hospital. His physical withdrawal proved not difficult. By nine the next morning under the ministrations of Dr. Smith, Bob felt himself relatively clear-headed for his meeting with Paul. At least clear-headed enough to begin to wonder about this “new therapy,” for over the next five days it seemed to consist simply of being visited by groups of two or three men. “None of them said anything about what I had to do — they just introduced themselves and started telling me their experiences.” Bob E. listened carefully. He heard words such as “resentment” and “self-pity,” and by the third day he began to feel refreshed after the visits — he knew not why. Beyond this ignorance of “why,” Bob realized that neither did he know “how.” His visitors told him nothing but their experience, with occasional allusions — especially by Joe D. — to a “day at a time” or a “twenty-four hour” way of living. But what else was there to it? Each time Bob tried to ask, his visitors simply again recounted their experiences — drunk and now sober.
⁵¹