dalin
01-06-2009, 01:48 PM
Quite often I find the phrase "if a solution isn't spiritual it isn't
practical," to be the motivating factor propelling me in the
direction of truth. Step One helps me find my place in this world by
introducing perceptions of humility through powerlessness. Today,
though I may be powerless over nearly all people, places, and things,
I understand I do possess the power to change the world as God would
have it, through the power of example, and in sharing my experience.
Steps Two and Three have offered guidance and direction when the
obsession arises to `control' my surroundings. Yet, when an apparent
need emanates to exert my issues of control, I have found turning
these issues over to God being the simplest solution.
In this letter I would like to address the question of how to
define "an atmosphere of recovery" within the fellowship of Narcotics
Anonymous. In the active addiction that caused so much pain and
misery in our lives and the lives of most everyone we came in contact
with; was it not the selfish, self-centered fear driving us into an
isolated death of mind, body, and soul? Truly, it was fear,
manifested in our thoughts and feelings, creating our problems. It
was our lack of faith, not the drugs; using was only a symptom of our
dilemma. Therefore, true recovery lies not in the arena of
abstinence, but rather the surrender to a spiritual way of life.
Incidentally, could we not substitute the phrase "atmosphere of
recovery" with "atmosphere of spirituality? "
Assuming the practice of spirituality lies in the application of
spiritual principals, I would like to offer this perception of
substitution. If true spiritual principals are never in conflict;
any or all ought fit the phrase "atmosphere of recovery," offering
the same perception and application. To demonstrate, lets take any
or every instance where the phrase "atmosphere of recovery" can be
found and introduce a series of spiritual principals in place of the
word "recovery" (i.e. an atmosphere of acceptance.. . an atmosphere
of patience... an atmosphere of tolerance... of unconditional love,
open-mindedness, willingness, surrender, compassion, empathy etc.)
If when using this phrase "atmosphere of recovery," that the exchange
of spiritual principals does not compliment the initial perception of
recovery, a revised definition should be introduced.
I have studied letters, articles, and bulletins stating perspective
and opinion in relation to "an atmosphere of recovery." Many have
points of interest and raise questions in regards to how, we as a
fellowship, can maintain and support this atmosphere, in order that
any addict anywhere has the unbridled opportunity to carry or receive
our message of freedom. I have come to the conclusion that
compliance and adherence to the principles embodied in our Twelve
Steps and Twelve Traditions offer a truly guaranteed solution to
these questions. Often situations arise due to differing perceptions
of NA Tradition. The subsequent information may aid in their
understanding; NA Traditions are comprised of spiritual principals
which are never in conflict, they compliment one another. Therefore,
a correct interpretation will have all Twelve Traditions working in
compliance with one another. If contradiction exists, most often one
or more of the initial perceptions were incorrect.
As for membership in NA; our position ought be one of unrestricted
and inclusive participation. We ought never erect even the slightest
barrier between ourselves and the still using or suffering addict.
More often than not, these addicts will come to us as non-
conformists. Few among us today can claim to not identify with that
position. Hence, we ought neither insist nor suggest that they
conform, not even that they meet us at the half-way point. These
individuals are often too sick, weak, and frightened to overcome any
obstacles. Consequently, in erecting them, we may be sentencing them
if not to death, to many more years of dereliction and institutions.
Grateful for our lives as protected by a loving God, we ought never
hesitate to venture into the darkness where they are, as they are,
and demonstrate that we truly do care and understand. Not having the
power to impose conformity, we do have the power of example. Unable
to spiritually control their thoughts, feelings and actions, we can
rely on our faith in God that they will come to their own
understanding in the time He has allotted. Eventually all addicts
will conform to the principals that guarantee their survival, if not,
they sicken and possibly die. This is our truth and our reality.
Practical application of this viewpoint will provide "an atmosphere
of identification and empathy."
The preceding depicts one of the more frequently contradicted
traditions in our fellowship, our Third Tradition, the only
requirement, no buts, and no exceptions. Quite often
misinterpretations of other traditions lend justification to this
dilemma. I have seen the "complete abstinence" issue brought up as
justification to exclude from, or withhold a full membership status.
Along the same line the phrase `if you have used in the past twenty
four hours we ask that you participate by listening only...' may lead
one to believe that `desire' is not enough. These ideals are
believed and used by some members and groups to supposedly maintain
an atmosphere of recovery. Consequently, they raise barriers and
promote controversy. They offer encouragement to stray from, rather
than adhere to, our Ninth Tradition through the implementation of
special rules and extra membership requirements or, if you rather,
creating a "second class" of membership. These ideals may also
invite some members into a position of government through the
apparently justified enforcement of... promoting deviation from
Tradition Two and blurring the principles embodied in our Third
Tradition. In effect, carrying a mixed and confusing message by
implying our traditions are somehow negotiable.
As for NA opinion; should we, as a fellowship, attempt to
define "using" or "drugs?" If our fellowship were to present a
definition for these words the result would seem immanently self-
destructive. It would invite controversy through individual language
interpretations, professionals and other organizations. All of whom
may find differing definitions. A practical solution could be for NA
groups, boards and committees to have no opinion on this terminology
all together. In respect, it can be left to the individual members
to interpret for themselves these terms and conditions, as they come
to their own understanding in Gods time.
I have seen some argue the difference between medicinal use and
substitution of drugs. While there may be a difference, my
experience has taught me that addiction is a treatable not curable
disease. In many instances, any number of substitutions can occur in
our members programs of recovery; such as food, sugar, caffeine, sex,
relationships, working, spending, and gambling. If we were to have
an opinion, where would we start, and could we ever draw a line? For
example, if our movement were ever to begin being "politically
correct" in this matter, there should be one absolute - an opinion on
nicotine. Not too often does an addict find themselves in jails or
institutions directly related to this substance, but the death rate
attributed to it out weighs all other drugs used by our members
combined. Now, if NA were to have an opinion on nicotine for
instance, that encouraged excluding these addicts from equal and
active participation along with all other service to our fellowship,
the results could be devastating. Yet, having an opinion on one drug
and not others seems almost hypocritical. Point being, drugs
themselves ought be viewed by our fellowship as an outside issue.
This perception works because it not only avoids external controversy
it eliminates internal strife as well. It presents the opportunity
to adhere to our tradition of non-professionalism through exercising
a discipline in having no opinion. It also offers an understanding
of Tradition Ten than compliments our Third Tradition by allowing the
simplicity of "desire" to be the all inclusive benchmark for equal
membership; this encourages fellowship unity.
As for participation; often an individual's personal experience may
be misinterpreted as an "outside issue" or "endorsement" as these
terms are defined in our traditions. Although this sharing may in
itself be an outside issue or endorsement of themselves, these
individuals themselves do not represent NA. It is not the sharing of
our members, but rather our fellowship and service literature
(including meeting formats) that expresses the collective conscience
of Narcotics Anonymous. It would be these forms of expression,
carefully compiled by our committees who are organized for these
services, that ought have neither opinion nor endorsement. The
principals of Traditions Six and Ten offer direction to our groups,
boards, and committees. These Traditions do not imply restriction to
member participation, in effect, complimenting rather than
contradicting Traditions Three and Nine. This understanding allows
any addict with a desire to stop using, the opportunity to share
openly and freely from the heart, without any need for direct or
implied management or control. It is our responsibility to
communicate our collective conscience within the boundaries of our
tradition, not in attempting to create an exclusive mandate in spite
of.
Taking the forgoing into consideration: could we actually be doing
our fellowship a disservice if we were to exclude or withhold our
experiences outside the realm of NA? Does NA have a monopoly on
God's knowledge or His will? Is it not possible that an addict's
experience with recovery outside NA may aid in freeing another member
from the horrors of addiction? In respect, who among us would take
the side of being politically correct over an opportunity to save
lives? Most often in these instances, even if our message were not
spoken in letter, the spirit, if listened for, can clearly be heard.
Understanding this ought lead us to the conclusion anything having an
impact, positive or negative, on an individuals recovery is material
for sharing. This perception works because it eliminates fellowship
opinion, rules, and judgment while encouraging our members to think
and experience for themselves, develop their own opinions, and
express those opinions as they see fit. In effect, we are
creating "an atmosphere of freedom, grounded in tolerance."
On a personal level; I have a disease called Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Even with advanced treatment my condition can become extremely
painful and disabling. If I were to abstain from medication not only
would I be unable to care for myself, the pain alone could move me to
insanity or death. Can any person comprehend such absolute
desperation? To many, I presume the answer would be "yes." Keeping
my experience in mind; would any member wish demoralization on me, or
that I ought be excluded from sharing and service in NA? I surely
hope not. In respect, to generalize "abstinence from all drugs,"
would be in many cases very insensitive and quite often
inappropriate. This is just one more important reason why NA ought
have NO opinion on which drugs are appropriate and which are not,
hence our Tradition of non-professionalism . Addiction has very
little to do with drugs, but rather the resulting symptoms,
consequences, and motives underlying their use. In effect, raising
questions whose answers ought be left to the individual to contrive
for themselves.
In closing, I believe in the atmosphere of spirituality for our
fellowship, the practice of unconditional acceptance, and inclusive
participation of our members. I believe in having no opinion on
another person's program of abstinence, especially in the presence of
prescribed medications (including methadone or anti-depressants) . In
a circumstance when my recommendations may be solicited where I have
no experience, not being a professional, I would rather refrain else
suffer the consequences of passing misinformation that ultimately has
the power to kill. Although, having experience with the horrors of
addiction and severe, physical pain, I believe if I encountered
another individual suffering with both I would share with them what
had worked for me, with the hope of providing, "an atmosphere of
recovery." Isn't that what it's all about?
Author - andyaddict
practical," to be the motivating factor propelling me in the
direction of truth. Step One helps me find my place in this world by
introducing perceptions of humility through powerlessness. Today,
though I may be powerless over nearly all people, places, and things,
I understand I do possess the power to change the world as God would
have it, through the power of example, and in sharing my experience.
Steps Two and Three have offered guidance and direction when the
obsession arises to `control' my surroundings. Yet, when an apparent
need emanates to exert my issues of control, I have found turning
these issues over to God being the simplest solution.
In this letter I would like to address the question of how to
define "an atmosphere of recovery" within the fellowship of Narcotics
Anonymous. In the active addiction that caused so much pain and
misery in our lives and the lives of most everyone we came in contact
with; was it not the selfish, self-centered fear driving us into an
isolated death of mind, body, and soul? Truly, it was fear,
manifested in our thoughts and feelings, creating our problems. It
was our lack of faith, not the drugs; using was only a symptom of our
dilemma. Therefore, true recovery lies not in the arena of
abstinence, but rather the surrender to a spiritual way of life.
Incidentally, could we not substitute the phrase "atmosphere of
recovery" with "atmosphere of spirituality? "
Assuming the practice of spirituality lies in the application of
spiritual principals, I would like to offer this perception of
substitution. If true spiritual principals are never in conflict;
any or all ought fit the phrase "atmosphere of recovery," offering
the same perception and application. To demonstrate, lets take any
or every instance where the phrase "atmosphere of recovery" can be
found and introduce a series of spiritual principals in place of the
word "recovery" (i.e. an atmosphere of acceptance.. . an atmosphere
of patience... an atmosphere of tolerance... of unconditional love,
open-mindedness, willingness, surrender, compassion, empathy etc.)
If when using this phrase "atmosphere of recovery," that the exchange
of spiritual principals does not compliment the initial perception of
recovery, a revised definition should be introduced.
I have studied letters, articles, and bulletins stating perspective
and opinion in relation to "an atmosphere of recovery." Many have
points of interest and raise questions in regards to how, we as a
fellowship, can maintain and support this atmosphere, in order that
any addict anywhere has the unbridled opportunity to carry or receive
our message of freedom. I have come to the conclusion that
compliance and adherence to the principles embodied in our Twelve
Steps and Twelve Traditions offer a truly guaranteed solution to
these questions. Often situations arise due to differing perceptions
of NA Tradition. The subsequent information may aid in their
understanding; NA Traditions are comprised of spiritual principals
which are never in conflict, they compliment one another. Therefore,
a correct interpretation will have all Twelve Traditions working in
compliance with one another. If contradiction exists, most often one
or more of the initial perceptions were incorrect.
As for membership in NA; our position ought be one of unrestricted
and inclusive participation. We ought never erect even the slightest
barrier between ourselves and the still using or suffering addict.
More often than not, these addicts will come to us as non-
conformists. Few among us today can claim to not identify with that
position. Hence, we ought neither insist nor suggest that they
conform, not even that they meet us at the half-way point. These
individuals are often too sick, weak, and frightened to overcome any
obstacles. Consequently, in erecting them, we may be sentencing them
if not to death, to many more years of dereliction and institutions.
Grateful for our lives as protected by a loving God, we ought never
hesitate to venture into the darkness where they are, as they are,
and demonstrate that we truly do care and understand. Not having the
power to impose conformity, we do have the power of example. Unable
to spiritually control their thoughts, feelings and actions, we can
rely on our faith in God that they will come to their own
understanding in the time He has allotted. Eventually all addicts
will conform to the principals that guarantee their survival, if not,
they sicken and possibly die. This is our truth and our reality.
Practical application of this viewpoint will provide "an atmosphere
of identification and empathy."
The preceding depicts one of the more frequently contradicted
traditions in our fellowship, our Third Tradition, the only
requirement, no buts, and no exceptions. Quite often
misinterpretations of other traditions lend justification to this
dilemma. I have seen the "complete abstinence" issue brought up as
justification to exclude from, or withhold a full membership status.
Along the same line the phrase `if you have used in the past twenty
four hours we ask that you participate by listening only...' may lead
one to believe that `desire' is not enough. These ideals are
believed and used by some members and groups to supposedly maintain
an atmosphere of recovery. Consequently, they raise barriers and
promote controversy. They offer encouragement to stray from, rather
than adhere to, our Ninth Tradition through the implementation of
special rules and extra membership requirements or, if you rather,
creating a "second class" of membership. These ideals may also
invite some members into a position of government through the
apparently justified enforcement of... promoting deviation from
Tradition Two and blurring the principles embodied in our Third
Tradition. In effect, carrying a mixed and confusing message by
implying our traditions are somehow negotiable.
As for NA opinion; should we, as a fellowship, attempt to
define "using" or "drugs?" If our fellowship were to present a
definition for these words the result would seem immanently self-
destructive. It would invite controversy through individual language
interpretations, professionals and other organizations. All of whom
may find differing definitions. A practical solution could be for NA
groups, boards and committees to have no opinion on this terminology
all together. In respect, it can be left to the individual members
to interpret for themselves these terms and conditions, as they come
to their own understanding in Gods time.
I have seen some argue the difference between medicinal use and
substitution of drugs. While there may be a difference, my
experience has taught me that addiction is a treatable not curable
disease. In many instances, any number of substitutions can occur in
our members programs of recovery; such as food, sugar, caffeine, sex,
relationships, working, spending, and gambling. If we were to have
an opinion, where would we start, and could we ever draw a line? For
example, if our movement were ever to begin being "politically
correct" in this matter, there should be one absolute - an opinion on
nicotine. Not too often does an addict find themselves in jails or
institutions directly related to this substance, but the death rate
attributed to it out weighs all other drugs used by our members
combined. Now, if NA were to have an opinion on nicotine for
instance, that encouraged excluding these addicts from equal and
active participation along with all other service to our fellowship,
the results could be devastating. Yet, having an opinion on one drug
and not others seems almost hypocritical. Point being, drugs
themselves ought be viewed by our fellowship as an outside issue.
This perception works because it not only avoids external controversy
it eliminates internal strife as well. It presents the opportunity
to adhere to our tradition of non-professionalism through exercising
a discipline in having no opinion. It also offers an understanding
of Tradition Ten than compliments our Third Tradition by allowing the
simplicity of "desire" to be the all inclusive benchmark for equal
membership; this encourages fellowship unity.
As for participation; often an individual's personal experience may
be misinterpreted as an "outside issue" or "endorsement" as these
terms are defined in our traditions. Although this sharing may in
itself be an outside issue or endorsement of themselves, these
individuals themselves do not represent NA. It is not the sharing of
our members, but rather our fellowship and service literature
(including meeting formats) that expresses the collective conscience
of Narcotics Anonymous. It would be these forms of expression,
carefully compiled by our committees who are organized for these
services, that ought have neither opinion nor endorsement. The
principals of Traditions Six and Ten offer direction to our groups,
boards, and committees. These Traditions do not imply restriction to
member participation, in effect, complimenting rather than
contradicting Traditions Three and Nine. This understanding allows
any addict with a desire to stop using, the opportunity to share
openly and freely from the heart, without any need for direct or
implied management or control. It is our responsibility to
communicate our collective conscience within the boundaries of our
tradition, not in attempting to create an exclusive mandate in spite
of.
Taking the forgoing into consideration: could we actually be doing
our fellowship a disservice if we were to exclude or withhold our
experiences outside the realm of NA? Does NA have a monopoly on
God's knowledge or His will? Is it not possible that an addict's
experience with recovery outside NA may aid in freeing another member
from the horrors of addiction? In respect, who among us would take
the side of being politically correct over an opportunity to save
lives? Most often in these instances, even if our message were not
spoken in letter, the spirit, if listened for, can clearly be heard.
Understanding this ought lead us to the conclusion anything having an
impact, positive or negative, on an individuals recovery is material
for sharing. This perception works because it eliminates fellowship
opinion, rules, and judgment while encouraging our members to think
and experience for themselves, develop their own opinions, and
express those opinions as they see fit. In effect, we are
creating "an atmosphere of freedom, grounded in tolerance."
On a personal level; I have a disease called Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Even with advanced treatment my condition can become extremely
painful and disabling. If I were to abstain from medication not only
would I be unable to care for myself, the pain alone could move me to
insanity or death. Can any person comprehend such absolute
desperation? To many, I presume the answer would be "yes." Keeping
my experience in mind; would any member wish demoralization on me, or
that I ought be excluded from sharing and service in NA? I surely
hope not. In respect, to generalize "abstinence from all drugs,"
would be in many cases very insensitive and quite often
inappropriate. This is just one more important reason why NA ought
have NO opinion on which drugs are appropriate and which are not,
hence our Tradition of non-professionalism . Addiction has very
little to do with drugs, but rather the resulting symptoms,
consequences, and motives underlying their use. In effect, raising
questions whose answers ought be left to the individual to contrive
for themselves.
In closing, I believe in the atmosphere of spirituality for our
fellowship, the practice of unconditional acceptance, and inclusive
participation of our members. I believe in having no opinion on
another person's program of abstinence, especially in the presence of
prescribed medications (including methadone or anti-depressants) . In
a circumstance when my recommendations may be solicited where I have
no experience, not being a professional, I would rather refrain else
suffer the consequences of passing misinformation that ultimately has
the power to kill. Although, having experience with the horrors of
addiction and severe, physical pain, I believe if I encountered
another individual suffering with both I would share with them what
had worked for me, with the hope of providing, "an atmosphere of
recovery." Isn't that what it's all about?
Author - andyaddict