andyaddict

I received The NA Way Magazine in the mail today (written 16 September 2001). As I browsed through it, I stopped to read the response from H&I Slim. In it was a reference to “clarity statements� used in Narcotics Anonymous meetings and H&I panel presentations. I would like to express my opinion as to why I believe these statements are inappropriate and contradict the spiritual principles in many of our traditions

Let me begin by saying I feel our First Tradition calls on each individual member to overlook the differences that may divide us, such as language, and focus on our common identity as unified members of a greater whole. Tradition One does not justify what one could define as self-righteous attempts to shoehorn members into certain beliefs about the propriety or impropriety of particular language. Our common welfare hinges not so much on our ability to impose uniformity as on every individual member’s willingness to surrender any defect standing in the way of unconditional acceptance

These “clarity statements� are often adopted in the name of group conscience, but the essay on Tradition Two in our Basic Text tells us that “true spiritual principles are never in conflict; they complement each other. The spiritual conscience of a group will never contradict any of our traditions.� The will of our ultimate authority ought to be expressed through this conscience—not the will of a few more popular individuals who may attempt to disguise political motives as spiritual ones.

The Basic Text tells us that our reaction to drugs is what makes us addicts, not what we used. The Third Tradition tells us that our desire to stop using is what makes us members, not what we say. It is not our job to pressure other members to talk or act “correctly.� We teach by example, welcoming others as they comfortably come to their own understanding of recovery, in God’s time.

Tradition Four speaks of group autonomy. With that autonomy comes a great measure of freedom, but this freedom does not come at the expense of principles embodied in other traditions. As stated in our Basic Text, when a contradiction exists between group autonomy and another tradition, “we have slipped away from our principles.�

Our message, as spoken of in our Fifth Tradition, ought to express love and focus our collective energy through the spirit of encouragement, patience, tolerance, and acceptance of all members at any phase in their development. To criticize, correct, reject, categorize, or disapprove of other members’ language is to carry a message of fear. If ever our message might be “blurred,� it would be as a result of the latter.

Many clarity statements borrow the name of Narcotics Anonymous and carry with them an implied blanket endorsement. To me, having served on a literature committee in NA and experienced some of the laborious efforts put into every piece of approved literature in our fellowship, these statements are very disturbing. These statements have not gone through this process of approval in NA. Consequently, groups and committees displaying, printing, and reading these statements are themselves contradicting our Sixth Tradition through the endorsement of an opinion, not the principles of NA.

What is the purpose of such clarity statements? To edit the language used by our members in communicating their experience, strength, and hope? Or could it be a self-righteous, misguided “control� issue, an attempt to organize NA, as such? Could this have the effect of creating a top-down bureaucracy dictating to our members, making our members responsible for serving the will of their service committees rather than the other way around? Remember our Ninth Tradition: “NA, as such, ought never be organized, but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.�

So, then, what is NA’s opinion of the “sober alcoholic� member? Answer: NA has no opinion. NA does not endorse language or concepts of addiction tied to specific drugs—but neither does NA oppose them. That is the simplicity of Tradition Ten. NA stands neutral on these issues, neither endorsing nor opposing. Therefore, groups and committees using statements opposing causes—language, in particular—are also in opposition to Tradition Ten.

We hear it said, over and over, that in recovery “we teach by example.� I have found that when an ideal or concept is repeated throughout a lesson, it ought to be given special consideration. The concept of “teaching by example� allows our fellowship to practice creative freedom while at the same time removing any threat of self-righteousness. This spiritual concept, taught in our Eleventh Tradition, is neither practiced nor encouraged through the implementation of clarity statements. The example of each member’s recovery and our success as a fellowship speaks for itself. This success is sufficient attraction to Narcotics Anonymous, making it unnecessary for us to promote any part of our program.

And finally, language specificity could never be an issue when humility is practiced through the spirit of anonymity in our Twelfth Tradition. When the principle of anonymity is squarely in place, members cannot be earmarked as “adjective addicts�; they can only be seen as simple, anonymous parts of a greater whole—they ought never be maliciously separated or distinguished from other recovering addicts. The principles of recovery that unite us ought always be paramount over the forces of personality that may divide us.

“Truly, anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions. Without it, the unity upon which personal recovery depends would dissolve in a chaos of conflicting personalities. With it, our groups are given a body of guiding principle, our Twelve Traditions, helping them join the personal strengths of their members in a fellowship that supports and nurtures the recovery of us all.� (It Works: How and Why, page 215)

andyaddict
Los Angeles

http://www.na.org/pdf/naway/en/usnaway_jan2004.pdf