Wanted to continue a couple of conversations I have had recently regarding the recovery culture.
Alcoholics Anonymous is a people full of contradictions (but really, who isn't?) Anonymity proves to be elusive, especially for celebrity 12-steppers. The 12 Traditions declares AA ought never be organized except locally, but a quick glance at the website shows plainly it is now an international behemoth. Despite wanting to have no opinions on outside issues, AA exerts heavy influence on the penal system and medical research. Because of AA's religious DNA, it also draws comparison and criticism from the Christian church.
I spent 4 years in the 12-step community, and continue to recommend it even though it has been over a decade since I last attended meetings regularly. It just seems obvious to me that the Christian church is generally inhospitable to recovering addicts, except perhaps at advanced stages of sobriety. If you have seen otherwise, please let me know.
There are of course 12-step off-springs that specifically claim the name of Christ, but those remain in the shadows of church basements. It is as if addicts somehow embarrass us, blemish the pomp of our rites, or worst: addictive behaviors might be contagious.
Leprosy happens to be one of the major metaphor for sin in the Bible. If we could somehow recover (!) the fundamental doctrine of Original Sin and embrace all of its implications, we might have a chance at breaking bread openly as fellow addicts. Here are some of the benefits of recognizing the connections between addictions, sin, and disease:
1) We are first and foremost victims of sin. Whatever evils we can and have inflicted on others, our responsibility to repentance comes after the relief of acknowledging our helplessness. Get this order wrong and we are forever addressing the symptoms of the illness rather than its causes.
2) Most Christian traditions recognize that sin is not the things we do, but something we inherit from the Fall. When we forget this (and we do often) we minimize sin to the trivial infractions we see in our lives, and create a gulf between us and the addicts who exhibit this nature in much more obvious ways.
3) Consequently we would also have a new category to measure contrition. Without this deep understanding of the baffling and insidious nature of sin, we can only hold up as examples people who are far removed from external signs of sins, as opposed to folks locked in mortal combat with lust and envy. Abstinence is good, but even AA understands there's more growth that must happen beyond being a dry drunk. Key to this growth is the posture of weakness/victimhood mentioned above.
*Title of this post stolen from Betty Soo, without permission but ample admiration.
I think the thesis postulated by Rienhold Niebuhr, and title of his timeless classic, "Moral Man, Immoral Society" applies to this. He states that man (being an individual) can be self critical but Nation States (or in this case, collective organizations such as church denominations) can ill afford such criticism.
ReplyDeleteeg. I can admit a personal failure and even do it in such a way as to have that admission credited to me as nobel/humility, the US cannot afford to admit failure in the same way as it will inevitable contribute to a lack of status in the international community.
Thus while the church should be the first and most welcoming of places for an addict to turn, the unfortunate perception of reality is one that association with addiction will harm the perception of the church. The true reality is quite the contrary; failure to engage with those struggling with addiction is damaging church perception far more than welcoming them in ever would.
Of course I speak in generalities, as indivdual examples of churches and christian communities can be found that truly do care for addicts. I like to think that I belong to one of them, though of course improvements can always be made.