The reason you find flaw is because you choose to miss the point:
Quote:
|
1) One is adopted as representative of our fellowship via its Conference Approved status the other was "rejected" as representative of our fellowship via its failure to achieve Conference Approved status, not once, but twice.
|
Your point was that the clarity statement suggests others adopt language, behaviors and customs - and by doing so is an example of self-righteousness. My point is that any suggestion associated with NA isn't self-righteousness. You still refuse to share "why" a clarity statement wasn't approved. From what I understand, it was not approved because a blanket statement was against group autonomy - not because a clarity statement was bad, wrong, or against or traditions (as you assert).
Quote:
|
2) One is a suggested as a "Proven" program of recovery that leads us to a meaningful relationship with God. The other is neither proven nor in any way effective in growing spirituality or a relationship with God - actually the opposite.
|
Once again, what's written in our literature is written in general terms. I'm sure there are those who'll say that it isn't proven and that proof doesn't apply to them. The statement you refer to about NA being a proven program is an example of NA's self-endorsement, self-promotion and self-advocacy. One could argue that there is no "proof" other than what NA says.
Quote:
|
They are a part of NA, but by NO MEANS should attempt to speak as representative of NA.
|
The same could be said of the literature committees.
