Question about AA/NA cross-speakers
Stopping the Train...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sevierville, TN - in the valley of the Great Smoky Mountains
Posts: 978
Question about AA/NA cross-speakers
We have a very small NA group and getting outside speakers coming in isn't always easy. We've done well so far. Some of us have a question about using AA speakers for our NA group. A few of the AA people in mind have started out as NA members, but for whatever reason went the AA route. They carry a good message of recovery.
Is there anywhere in the traditions where AA can't speak in an NA meeting or vice versa?
Is there anywhere in the traditions where AA can't speak in an NA meeting or vice versa?
Now with fewer opiates!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,405
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using drugs.
A lot of alcoholics I encounter today often identify as both an addict and alcoholic. Therefore, if they are truly sober...abstaining from other drug use, they are NA "clean". However, if their primary story does not include drug use, they may not be adequate speakers at an NA meeting.
Hope I'm making some kind of sense. It's been a loooooooooooonng week trying to get my show up and running.
A lot of alcoholics I encounter today often identify as both an addict and alcoholic. Therefore, if they are truly sober...abstaining from other drug use, they are NA "clean". However, if their primary story does not include drug use, they may not be adequate speakers at an NA meeting.
Hope I'm making some kind of sense. It's been a loooooooooooonng week trying to get my show up and running.
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 76
Hey Whisker,
I am no expert on the Traditions. But your question piqued my curiosity, and I just spent some time rereading the Traditions from our Basic Text. I didn't find an answer for you that I can cite from the Text. But as I was reading, I realized how strongly I felt about your situation, and I wanted to let you know my understanding of the issue:
We hold NA meetings to carry the NA message of recovery. An AA member leading an NA meeting may confuse the newcomer.
If your group is lacking a suitable lead, maybe you could have a literature meeting that night. Or open by asking if anyone has a recovery-related topic to open the discussion?
Best of luck to you and your group. Thanks for giving me a good reason to revisit the Text tonight. I really needed that.
I am no expert on the Traditions. But your question piqued my curiosity, and I just spent some time rereading the Traditions from our Basic Text. I didn't find an answer for you that I can cite from the Text. But as I was reading, I realized how strongly I felt about your situation, and I wanted to let you know my understanding of the issue:
We hold NA meetings to carry the NA message of recovery. An AA member leading an NA meeting may confuse the newcomer.
If your group is lacking a suitable lead, maybe you could have a literature meeting that night. Or open by asking if anyone has a recovery-related topic to open the discussion?
Best of luck to you and your group. Thanks for giving me a good reason to revisit the Text tonight. I really needed that.
Stopping the Train...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sevierville, TN - in the valley of the Great Smoky Mountains
Posts: 978
Thanks Aphrodite~
I have not found it in the traditions either, but as I think about it more, these are two different programs though NA was formed from AA because clearly AA was not reaching many addicts. They are both recovery programs, and the message is the same, but the programs are different.
I DID however read in "The Group Booklet" of NA and found the 6 points "based on our Traditions".
1. All members of a group are drug addicts, and all drug addicts are eligible for membership. (Third Tradition)
2. As a group, they are self-supporting. (Seventh Tradition)
3. As a group, their single goal is to help drug addicts recover through application of the Twelve Steps of Narcotics Anonymous. (Fifth Traditon)
4. As a group, they have no affiliation outside Narcotics Anonymous. (Sixth Tradition)
5. As a group, they express no opinion on outside issues. (Tenth Tradition)
6. As a group, their public relation policy is based on attraction rater than promotion. (Eleventh Tradition)
Those 6 points have been adapted from AA, but they are the points that NA groups use to conduct how the groups are ran without relying on personal opinion. These are here as simple guidelines to take "self" out of the thought process. These also run in conjunction with the 12 Concepts. Nice to have guidelines. It takes the guess work out of it. If I had remembered to read that stuff before I guess I would have had my answer, but I'm glad it got you into your Basic Text...
I have not found it in the traditions either, but as I think about it more, these are two different programs though NA was formed from AA because clearly AA was not reaching many addicts. They are both recovery programs, and the message is the same, but the programs are different.
I DID however read in "The Group Booklet" of NA and found the 6 points "based on our Traditions".
1. All members of a group are drug addicts, and all drug addicts are eligible for membership. (Third Tradition)
2. As a group, they are self-supporting. (Seventh Tradition)
3. As a group, their single goal is to help drug addicts recover through application of the Twelve Steps of Narcotics Anonymous. (Fifth Traditon)
4. As a group, they have no affiliation outside Narcotics Anonymous. (Sixth Tradition)
5. As a group, they express no opinion on outside issues. (Tenth Tradition)
6. As a group, their public relation policy is based on attraction rater than promotion. (Eleventh Tradition)
Those 6 points have been adapted from AA, but they are the points that NA groups use to conduct how the groups are ran without relying on personal opinion. These are here as simple guidelines to take "self" out of the thought process. These also run in conjunction with the 12 Concepts. Nice to have guidelines. It takes the guess work out of it. If I had remembered to read that stuff before I guess I would have had my answer, but I'm glad it got you into your Basic Text...
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA Native
Posts: 2,509
Y'all should already know what I think on this subject.
Same basic disease, same basic programs of recovery, and I'm a member of both fellowships, so ... I probably wouldn't even notice if I was at an NA meeting and the person chairing gave their share and didn't mention doing narcotics but mentioned having a drinking problem.
Others, of course, are free to feel differently, but I'd be all for it myself, esp. if it was a good recovery message they were sharing.
And I don't see anything in the traditions that preclude what you're talking about, not without getting extremely (imho overly) literal in their interpretation.
Same basic disease, same basic programs of recovery, and I'm a member of both fellowships, so ... I probably wouldn't even notice if I was at an NA meeting and the person chairing gave their share and didn't mention doing narcotics but mentioned having a drinking problem.
Others, of course, are free to feel differently, but I'd be all for it myself, esp. if it was a good recovery message they were sharing.
And I don't see anything in the traditions that preclude what you're talking about, not without getting extremely (imho overly) literal in their interpretation.
Stopping the Train...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sevierville, TN - in the valley of the Great Smoky Mountains
Posts: 978
I'm in both fellowships, too. Both fellowships are very careful about even mentioning the other by name during the meeting. I go to AA as a supplemental thing, but I hear good messages from the people there. I work an NA program, however. The felowships are divided for a reason. There is enough in the traditions that say they do not support each other. This is where the whole of the Sixth Tradition comes in. These traditions are set in place to avoid controversy and problems of the primary purpose of each group. If we don't follow these traditions then a break down in the system (I hate that term) results and the individual groups tend to fall apart.
I tend both NA and AA speaker meetings, too. Many of the ones working the AA program tel their story which includes drugs more times than not. It's jut rare to have a single addiction these days. The stone-cold alkies are still out there, but nowadays it's joined by dope more and more.
I like following the Traditions. It keeps a sense of stability and focus for a disfunctional set of people where opinion get get us into trouble. If we stick to the foundation there's no room for the "self" to f*ck it up.
I tend both NA and AA speaker meetings, too. Many of the ones working the AA program tel their story which includes drugs more times than not. It's jut rare to have a single addiction these days. The stone-cold alkies are still out there, but nowadays it's joined by dope more and more.
I like following the Traditions. It keeps a sense of stability and focus for a disfunctional set of people where opinion get get us into trouble. If we stick to the foundation there's no room for the "self" to f*ck it up.
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA Native
Posts: 2,509
I would have to say that the 'group conscience' thing could logically trump such loosely worded traditions as the sixth, in this case. What I mean is this: this scenario you describe, it's not even close to being enough of an 'affiliation with outside group' that it would clearly run afoul of the tradition. This person would be arriving and speaking as an individual, not speaking 'on behalf' of some outside group.
A simple unanimous vote of approval at the NA meeting that it's okay for the AA member to chair at that NA meeting would certainly 'make it okay' in my book. If you can find an AA member to speak who is okay with showing up despite the (imho extremely minor) possibility that one of the members might vote 'No' to their sharing, then I think that scenario is perfectly within the 'confines', if you will, of the traditions. Just MHO, of course
A simple unanimous vote of approval at the NA meeting that it's okay for the AA member to chair at that NA meeting would certainly 'make it okay' in my book. If you can find an AA member to speak who is okay with showing up despite the (imho extremely minor) possibility that one of the members might vote 'No' to their sharing, then I think that scenario is perfectly within the 'confines', if you will, of the traditions. Just MHO, of course
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,486
I missed this topic...I'm an NA member that has been to several AA meetings before I found a home. I was open minded enough to expose myself to both fellowships until I knew where I could best be helped.
I have all due respect for AA and cooperate fully with that fellowships traditions. Likewise with NA traditions.
Since I have been an NA member I have learned from various NA members with many years in recovery it is very important to carry a clear NA message at an NA speaker meeting/event. Our traditions do help us maintain the groups.
I have been taught a speaker should be a member of the fellowship for which they are speaker along with attending that fellowships meetings on a regular basis and have worked the steps with a sponsor from the same fellowship. These are all the best weapons against relapse and it's in the fellowships best interest to share by example.
AA is great...get an AA speaker.
NA is great...get an NA speaker.
Im not saying an AA member cannot deliver a spiritual message of recovery in a an NA setting but why confuse the comer?
We certainly have no place endorsing AA or it's literature in NA meetings.
NA stands on its own.
It may be a small area but it may get smaller if they switch to AA!
Even if an AA member can successfully carry an NA message verbally, only how is it a clear NA message when they leave they go back to AA?
Could send a do as I say and not as I do message.....lead by example is what I say.
Peace,
Missy
I have all due respect for AA and cooperate fully with that fellowships traditions. Likewise with NA traditions.
Since I have been an NA member I have learned from various NA members with many years in recovery it is very important to carry a clear NA message at an NA speaker meeting/event. Our traditions do help us maintain the groups.
I have been taught a speaker should be a member of the fellowship for which they are speaker along with attending that fellowships meetings on a regular basis and have worked the steps with a sponsor from the same fellowship. These are all the best weapons against relapse and it's in the fellowships best interest to share by example.
AA is great...get an AA speaker.
NA is great...get an NA speaker.
Im not saying an AA member cannot deliver a spiritual message of recovery in a an NA setting but why confuse the comer?
We certainly have no place endorsing AA or it's literature in NA meetings.
NA stands on its own.
It may be a small area but it may get smaller if they switch to AA!
Even if an AA member can successfully carry an NA message verbally, only how is it a clear NA message when they leave they go back to AA?
Could send a do as I say and not as I do message.....lead by example is what I say.
Peace,
Missy
Stopping the Train...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sevierville, TN - in the valley of the Great Smoky Mountains
Posts: 978
That's more along the direction I feel like the differences need to be addressed and separated. Thanks for putting into words what I couldn't Missy.
Where the differences lie actually made a huge impact on our small group. When I first joined NA some of the literature used was from AA, AA speakers were brought in, Traditions were changed to their liking or completely skipped over. They had their own agenda. It was called a "sick group" for several years. The traditions were not held up and the two fellowships were intertwined. There were all of 6 regulars. Almost 9 months later - the AA literature is out, Traditions are being learned by a new group with a stronger sense of working the NA program with a deep interest in attracting the newcomers and we are regularly getting in new people that stay. Last meeting we had 15 regulars and 4 relative newcomers that have come back more than once.
We do have people come from AA to join our fellowship and they share recovery - but they do not state the AA literature simply sharing their own recovery - and vice versa. We all know which program we follow and respect that...but the programs are different enough that the distinction should be kept in perspective and separate - including the speakers.
It's extremely important to me to know how the NA program worked for someone else. I cannot relate to anything quoted from the AA literature. I feel disconnected from direct references from the Big Book. I CAN relate to the recovery and hold that to the regular meetings, but impressing the literature to the matching program has a definitive line between them.
Where the differences lie actually made a huge impact on our small group. When I first joined NA some of the literature used was from AA, AA speakers were brought in, Traditions were changed to their liking or completely skipped over. They had their own agenda. It was called a "sick group" for several years. The traditions were not held up and the two fellowships were intertwined. There were all of 6 regulars. Almost 9 months later - the AA literature is out, Traditions are being learned by a new group with a stronger sense of working the NA program with a deep interest in attracting the newcomers and we are regularly getting in new people that stay. Last meeting we had 15 regulars and 4 relative newcomers that have come back more than once.
We do have people come from AA to join our fellowship and they share recovery - but they do not state the AA literature simply sharing their own recovery - and vice versa. We all know which program we follow and respect that...but the programs are different enough that the distinction should be kept in perspective and separate - including the speakers.
It's extremely important to me to know how the NA program worked for someone else. I cannot relate to anything quoted from the AA literature. I feel disconnected from direct references from the Big Book. I CAN relate to the recovery and hold that to the regular meetings, but impressing the literature to the matching program has a definitive line between them.
Stopping the Train...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sevierville, TN - in the valley of the Great Smoky Mountains
Posts: 978
LOL Windy...
. We had one paper-signer - and one of the other kids had a buzz-on I found out later. No nodders or newspaper readers, though!
. We had one paper-signer - and one of the other kids had a buzz-on I found out later. No nodders or newspaper readers, though!
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dayton, OH.
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Stagebear 
A lot of alcoholics I encounter today often identify as both an addict and alcoholic. Therefore, if they are truly sober...abstaining from other drug use, they are NA "clean". However, if their primary story does not include drug use, they may not be adequate speakers at an NA meeting.
I think it's a great idea if the speakers have a lot of great stuff to share, and they would be more than adequate. It doesn't matter WHAT they were addicted to. It matters only that they are carrying the message!
Stopping the Train...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sevierville, TN - in the valley of the Great Smoky Mountains
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by CrackQuack
I think it's a great idea if the speakers have a lot of great stuff to share, and they would be more than adequate. It doesn't matter WHAT they were addicted to. It matters only that they are carrying the message!
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dayton, OH.
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by whiskerkissed
But doesn't it matter what program they work? Wouldn't working the Steps of either program be different? Speakers share about the program that got them clean/sober. Wouldn't this be confusing in another fellowship. As Missy said - AA is great - NA great...but separately to avoid any contradictions and using the tools of each program for that program is what I would have thought.
Every speaker I've heard talks about working the steps. They don't go into massive great detail about it. They say "I worked such and such step and these are the feelings and emotions I went through and the things I learned". I really have no idea how different the programs are, but if you are considering the speakers, do you plan to introduce them as AA members? If so, maybe explain to the newbies why, and keep looking for the similarities between fellow addicts.
I just can't see the reasoning behind excluding someone just because they are an AA member, but then again, I am NOT in AA and I have no clue how their program works or what kind of mayhem it may cause. I just have my opinions and experience in the NA.
I have a Daily Meditation book that is AA related and a 12 Step book for women that is AA related. Having just started to read both of them, I see similarities and I can use all that AA material in my NA program.
Honestly, to me, and this is just my opinion, both of these programs have been around long enough to grow up and not come off to be so exclusive sometimes. One is based from the other anyway.. It's all addiction to me.
I just kind of wanted to give my opinion on the question asked.... Just my POV.
Honestly, I have a hard time wrapping my head around both programs being so different from each other. From all outer appearances, and from the fact that I know NA is "derived" from AA, they don't appear to be that different. We're all survivors of addiction.
Maybe I need to be set straight or get to an AA meeting or two and see what the difference is?? I have no clue. I just thought, if the speakers have a good message of recovery, who cares which program they work? To me, and I am pretty much a newbie, I am more concerned about what I can relate to with the speaker than which program they work. All that matters, to me, is that the one they are working, works.
Sorry. I am weird...
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,486
My sponsor and mentors in recovery have helped me learn that when we use the language of the text others can identify. I don't mean we quote the text all over the place, I mean when we use certain words and talk about specific principles written about in the book the others can get some examples of our experiences which directly relate to what is in the book.
For example, next meeting we may hear someone rationalize some outrageous sort of nonsense that really messed up their lives.....when I hear someone caught up in this and they project some way-out (bs) stuff to justify it.....well I can share what our basic text says. I don't tell them what page it is on but I do say something like "there's a place in our Basic Text where it says.....we had rationalized the most outrageous sort of nonsense to justify the mess that we made of our lives" We sometimes continue to do that after we stop using. As we pay attention and take action to learn and grow we do recover.
Using the language of the text takes personalities out of it and opens up for the spiritual principle to become apparent. When there is no specific personality attached, it seems to be easier to accept.
I have learned this fosters unity.
peace,
Missy
For example, next meeting we may hear someone rationalize some outrageous sort of nonsense that really messed up their lives.....when I hear someone caught up in this and they project some way-out (bs) stuff to justify it.....well I can share what our basic text says. I don't tell them what page it is on but I do say something like "there's a place in our Basic Text where it says.....we had rationalized the most outrageous sort of nonsense to justify the mess that we made of our lives" We sometimes continue to do that after we stop using. As we pay attention and take action to learn and grow we do recover.
Using the language of the text takes personalities out of it and opens up for the spiritual principle to become apparent. When there is no specific personality attached, it seems to be easier to accept.
I have learned this fosters unity.
peace,
Missy
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
