Since I first posted this essay on the
web in 1999, it has generated more response than
anything else I have written. Before you write to
complain that I have misrepresented AA, or to tell me
how much AA has helped you, or to give me sources to
read on the history AA, please note that this is not my
current field of research nor will it be any time soon.
Please note that this essay is not intended as a
personal criticism nor does it intend to deny that God
is free to work as he wills. I understand that some have
been helped by AA. That fact, however, does not change
the will of God revealed in Holy Scripture (Deut 29:29).
That God has used AA to bring one to faith in Jesus is a
cause of thanks, but it is not a reason to withhold
criticism of AA. This essay is intended primarily to
encourage confessional Reformed and Presbyterian
churches to take up their responsibility to love
sinners. Revised February, 2006.
Copyright 2006 R. Scott Clark. All
rights reserved.
Introduction
The Twelve-step movement and the language of
co-dependency has become an accepted part of evangelical
church life. It has not always been so nor is the
status quo necessarily right and good for the
church. This essay is a plea for reconsideration of this
trend in the light of Biblical teaching and Christian
doctrine.
Alcoholics Anonymous was born in the midst of the
religious turmoil in the 1930's, in the midst of a great
ecumenical fervor, growing anticipation of a war in
Europe, and a fight between Fundamentalists and
Modernists for the religious and theological soul of the
nation's Christians.1
In 1935 in Akron, Ohio, a "sudden spiritual
experience" relieved one stockbroker of his obsession
with alcohol.
Following a meeting with an alcoholic friend who
had been in contact with the Oxford Groups of that
day....Though he could not accept all the tenets of
the Oxford Groups, he was convinced of the need for
moral inventory, confession of personality defects,
restitution to those harmed helpfulness to others,
and the necessity of belief in and dependence upon
God.2
That broker and his physician friend armed with a
description of "alcoholism and its hopelessness" created
their own synthetic spiritual remedy for their malady.
What followed was an explosion in popularity any church
growth program would envy. By 1939 membership had
reached 800, with the support of Harry Emerson Fosdick,
and the Episcopalian magazine Liberty. In 1940 John D.
Rockefeller declared his support for AA By 1941 AA had
2000 members and the support of Jack Alexander in the
Saturday Evening Post "The mushrooming process was in
full swing. AA had become a national institution."3
In this same time period the group began to formulate
its creeds and confessions known as the Twelve Steps and
Traditions.4 In 1939
they produced their authoritative book: Alcoholics
Anonymous called by the group the Big Book.5
Some forty years after its seminal meetings the group
has blossomed to 50,000 groups world wide in 110
countries and membership is conservatively estimated at
well over 1,000,000. Its strength lies not only in
numbers but in the attractiveness of its program, i.e.,
its anonymity, and its eclecticism. There are very few
alcoholism treatment centers not wholly controlled
intellectually by the theology and methodology of AA.
It will be useful to know a little bit more about the
Oxford Groups from which AA has borrowed its methods.
The Oxford Groups were founded by a Lutheran minister,
Frank Buchman, in the early twenties. They gained their
nickname from informal house parties around Oxford
University. They called themselves the "First Century
Christian Fellowship." Their emphasis was upon mystical
guidance, akin to the Pentecostal Word of Knowledge, if
not as dramatic, surely as subjectivist.6
Focus was not upon the Bible as the revealed Word of
God, but upon personal experience. The movement later
became known as "Moral Rearmament" when Buchman declared
that the nation could not save itself (1938) with guns
but with guidance from God.7
Much of his evangelism in the USA was centered around
Park Avenue and had its headquarters in a local New York
City Episcopal parish. There is also an intellectual
connection with modern positive thinking movements such
as that led by Norman Vincent Peale and later Robert
Schuller. There were four absolutes upon which he
insisted:
- Perfect Honesty
- Purity
- Unselfishness
- Love
"Five C's" for which the group is known are:
- Confidence
- Confession
- Conviction
- Conversion
- Continuance.8
It was a relatively simple matter to adapt the nine
points listed above to the self-help methodology of AA.9
It has also been a regular practice of AA to borrow
liberally from the Bible and the Christian tradition
while denying their substance and meaning.10
One cannot doubt that AA speaks in overtly religious
terms and teaches religious doctrine. The very words of
the founder, Bill W., are quite clear in this respect.
I had always believed in a Power greater than
myself. I had often pondered these things, I was not
an atheist...I had little doubt that a mighty power
and rhythm underlay all. How could there be so much
of precise and immutable law, and no intelligence? I
simply had to believe in a Spirit of the Universe,
who knew neither time nor limitation....With
ministers and the world's Religions I parted right
there....To Christ I conceded the certainty of a
great man, not too closely followed by those who
claimed Him...My friend suggested what seemed a
novel idea. He said, Why don't you choose your own
conception of God? That statement hit me hard...I
stood in the sunlight at last. It was only a matter
of being willing to believe in a power greater than
myself. Nothing more was required of me to make a
beginning ...There I humbly offered myself to God,
as I then understood Him, to do with me as He would.
(italics original).11
The Big Book is a combination of the Bible and
Augustine's Confessions for Alcoholics Anonymous.
Just as the Christian turns to the heart warming story
of Augustine's conversion after that great intellectual
struggle with the foolishness of the Gospel, so this
collection of stories stands as an even more
authoritative account of the spiritual journey of the
Founding Fathers and authors of the Big Book.12
The Big Book is, authoritative for AA because it
was written by alcoholics for alcoholics and most of all
because, in their words, "it works."13
Law or Gospel?
There are only two sorts of words in this world, law
or gospel. The former says, "Do this and live," (Luke
10:28). The law demands perfect obedience. It tells us
that we must "do," in order to stand before God. By
contrast, the gospel says that Jesus Christ has "done,"
for us, he has obeyed God's law and satisfied divine
justice on behalf of all those who trust him.
The first word from the moral rearmament movement was
"law," or "do," but there was no gospel. No message of
genuine hope for sinners. The same is true of AA. The
first word to the alcoholic is "admit you are
powerless," that your life has become "unmanageable."
This is not "law," or "gospel." It is a muddle. Hence
the second word, "came to believe" in a "power greater
than ourselves..." is equally muddled and helpless. AA
has a fundamental problem. Instead of using the
categories of "sin" and "redemption" or "law" and
"gospel," it has introduced alien categories.
The Disease?
How should Christians understand the behavior of the
alcoholic? Is alcoholism the result of an allergy (their
early explanation) or a disease (their more recent
explanation) which makes the drinker not responsible for
his abuse, or is it sin? Alcoholics Anonymous interprets
Bill's problem as a disease. Modern medicine has never
been able to find any solid evidence of a viral or
bio-chemical cause for alcoholism.14
Whatever the cause, they assert that only certain
people who can treat the alcoholic's problem: other
alcoholics. In AA this is accepted dogma. The first
thing an AA member learns is that his problem is unique,
that he has a disease, and that no one else understands
him but other alcoholics. These are the cornerstones of
the first tradition and the first step.15
Biblical Data
What does Holy Scripture say? As we know,
drunkenness, not drinking, is condemned throughout
Scripture. We think immediately of the injunction: Be
not drunk with wine but be filled with the Spirit.
(Ephesians 5:18) In fact there are at least thirty
separate passages dealing with drunkenness and drinking
in some way. Scripture is very realistic in its
portrayal of drunkenness. It describes what behaviors
accompany it, what it leads to, what a drunkard is like
and how he will be punished.
Proverbs 23:29-35 warns vividly of the folly of
drunkenness. Earlier in the chapter we are warned of the
consequences of excess. These are not ivory tower
descriptions. The writer speaks of the attraction of the
wine, how it sparkles, and the morning after red eyes,
bed spins, hang over and the repetition of such
behavior. The prophet Isaiah describes the filth of
vomit such that there is no clean place, and drunkenness
such that no one wishes to do the work of the Lord
(Isaiah 5:11; 24; 28:1-7).20
One of the marks of a rebellious son is drunkenness
(Deuteronomy 21:20). Israel's sin is described in terms
of drunkenness (Ezek 23:42; Joel 1:5).
Paul, in warning the Thessalonians to watch for the
advent of Christ, reminds them graphically of the
nocturnal life of the alcohol abuser (1 Thess 5:7).16
He warns the Corinthians that they ought to neither
associate with drunkards nor should they expect
drunkards to inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 5:11;
6:10).
These are not isolated patterns. This is the Bible's
description of addiction to alcohol. There is a clear
acceptance of the fact that if abused, alcohol can have
devastating spiritual, social, and physical effects. The
biblical writers, under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, were fully aware of the behavior which is now
called alcoholism. Yet it is never once treated like a
disease. It is always classed with other sins:
fornication, adultery, over-eating, homosexuality,
murder, stealing etc. By implication, alcoholism does
not appear to be considered a disease any more than the
other sins mentioned along side it.
There are no Biblical grounds for distinguishing
between alcoholism and what God's Word calls
drunkenness. It is true that we don't usually consider
the high school senior who gets drunk for the first time
on prom night an alcoholic. The Bible however does not
distinguish between the professional drunk and the
amateur. Is a sin any less a sin if it is committed once
instead of a hundred times?
A given sin does take on a different character once
it becomes habitual. The effects of one type of sin may
be more devastating than the other. Still, there is no
Biblical warrant for calling any transgression of the
Word of God a disease simply because it becomes habitual
and life dominating. As we will see, nearly any sin can
take on that character. At the suggestion of John Murray
and Jay Adams, we will take Ephesians 5:15-20 as our
guide for the Biblical solution to the problem of
excessive drinking.
Be very careful then, how you live--not as unwise
but as wise, making the most of every opportunity,
because the days are evil. Therefore do not be
foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. Do
not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.
Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one
another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing
and make music in your heart to the Lord, always
giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (NIV).
Paul's words are the revealed will of God, our rule
and the rule for the alcohol abuser as well. Paul says
to put off one behavior/lifestyle to put on another. It
is not implied that it is a short or simple process, but
only that, by the grace and Spirit of Christ, it must
and can be done.
This is the consistent message of the New Testament.
Colossians 3.10 says the same thing: put off the old and
put on the new. There is a new creation, in Christ.
There is growth in grace by the power of the Holy
Spirit. All of Paul's commands assume the life giving
work of the Spirit described in Ephesians chapter one.
These are evidences of the sanctifying work of the
Spirit.
Personal Responsibility and
Religious Authority
AA's second tradition explains their view of
religious authority. For AA, God's will is discovered
either privately, or through the collective conscience
of the local meeting. In this, AA substitutes its own
rules for God's Word. AA's fourth step speaks of a
"fearless moral inventory". Without God's Word, how can
one make such an inventory? By the experience of others?
By one's pre-alcoholic experience? There is no way to
determine certainly what man is, or what life is, once
one forfeits the biblical doctrine of man. The absence
of an absolute standard against which to judge behavior
results in moral and spiritual confusion.
The Doctrine of God
The reader will note an abundant use of the word
"God" in the Twelve Steps and Traditions. A God concept
is crucial to their system, as a regulative notion, or a
useful idea. He is, however, quite unlike the God of the
Bible, not a God who speaks. So when the second step
says, "came to believe that a Power greater than
ourselves..." AA does not mean the self-existent, Triune
God of the Bible.
It is inescapably true that the very language of the
second step, "a power greater than..." refers to an
impersonal force. The anonymous god of AA is also mute.
The god of AA cannot speak to humans because their god
is an "it". In the nature of things, however, one can
not have personal relations with an impersonal entity.
Therefore to camouflage their implicit agnosticism, AA
speaks of the god of AA as a "Him".
To any Christian who has ever said, "I believe in God
the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth," AA's
agnosticism should be most obvious and disturbing.17
The Christian God is Triune. That is, he is one God in
three persons, therefore he is the beginning of
personality. Because he is personal, he speaks to us, he
knows us and can be known by us. The God of the Bible is
"...a Spirit, (John 4:24) infinite, (Job 11:7-9)
eternal, (Ps 90:2) and unchangeable, (James 1:17) in his
being, (Ex 3:14)wisdom, (Ps 147:5) power, (Rev 4:8)
holiness, (Rev 15:4) justice, goodness, and truth. (Ex
34:6-7)"18
AA tells the Alcoholic to worship God "as we conceive
of Him". This is the very thing the Bible does not want
us to do. God's Word says, "I am the LORD your God...You
shall have no other gods before me" (Deut 5.6-7).19
What AA calls god, the Bible calls an idol. We are
precisely called not to make up our own gods, but to
turn away from them to the true and living God who made
and redeems us.
The Doctrine of Man
Because God is personal, and we have been made in his
image, we are persons. Hence one of the reasons AA is so
harmful is that it ignores the Bible's teaching that man
is created in the image of God. Ephesians 4:24 says that
we were created in the image of God in knowledge,
righteousness and holiness of truth.
The Christian faith is that he was crucified to
restore us as the image of God, which image will be
consummated at the last day. Man as the image of God is
essential to Christianity, but not to AA. If, with AA,
we deny this doctrine, Christ died for nothing. For
Christians such an idea is blasphemous (Gal 2:21).
AA says that alcoholism is not sinful pattern of
behavior, but a loss of sanity. There are grave
consequences to describing sin as sickness. P. E. Hughes
said,
Sickness is not penalized: it is treated.
...Being sick and the victims of forces beyond their
control, they must be sent off for "treatment."
...There is ample evidence of the way in which this
therapeutic benevolence may be tyrannically extended
beyond corrupt and violent persons to those who are
politically or religiously out of line in the eyes
of officialdom and who are consequently placed
behind prison walls or in the wards of "mental"
hospitals ostensibly for the purpose of being
"treated" and "cured".20
The spiritual consequences of describing sin as
sickness are even worse. To refuse to describe alcohol
abuse as sin is to implicitly deny humanity to the
sinner by robbing him of moral responsibility before
God. We hold sinner accountable for their actions to
because the responsible moral agents with a mind, and a
will. To categorize sinners as victims is to rob them of
their moral agency and hence their personality.
To refuse to describe alcohol abuse as sin is also to
deny hope for the patient. A disease may be hopeless,
but there is a Savior for sinners.
For these reasons God's Word pushes us away from
thinking of any sin in terms of personal
irresponsibility to personal responsibility. How can we
ask of the person struggling with the sin of alcohol
abuse any less than that which God demands of him?
To deny that one drink led to another, and for
whatever sinful motivation, the sin became habitual and
life dominating, leading to other sins and disastrous
consequences of all sorts, is not to deny the greatness
of the sin, but rather it is to put that sin in its
biblical perspective. If we neglect to put the problem
of alcohol abuse in its proper terms, sin and
redemption, then we deny needy sinners the help they so
need and can find only in Christ.
Christ and Redemption
Christianity is centered in the incarnation (taking
on our humanity), obedient life and death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
God, the second person of the Trinity.21
Because Christianity is so Christ-centered, it is
necessarily exclusivist and intolerant of other
religions. Jesus taught us to think this way when he
said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one
comes to the Father but through me" (John 14:6).21
AA, in contrast, is simultaneously universalistic
(embracing all world religions) and exclusivist
(rejecting all other world religions except their own).
On the one hand they speak as if there is no one true
faith. On the other hand, they also say that they alone
have the true way of deliverance from addiction to
alcohol. This makes them effectively the one true
religion.23 Either
claim (universalism or AA's exclusivism) is patently
incompatible with Christianity.
AA also never describes the human condition in terms
of sin and therefore never speaks of redemption in
Christian terms. In contrast, the Christian religion
begins with Adam and our fall in him. It finds salvation
for sinners in Christ and his righteousness for us,
received by faith (trusting Christ) alone.
If there was no first Adam, whose fall and sin is
imputed to us, there is no need for a second Adam,
Christ, whose obedience and righteousness is imputed to
us. AA's apparent rejection of the heart of Christianity
is the most serious (and most disheartening) consequence
of their teaching.
Christians and AA
Many Christians, including Evangelical and even
Reformed Christians, have said that the disease model is
sufficient to explain the success of AA and its
offspring. Several writers have even tried to justify
the synthesis of the pragmatism of AA with various
Christian forms. One notable attempt was the late G. A.
Taylor's A Sober Faith (1953). Taylor is
remembered in Reformed and Presbyterian circles as the
editor of the Presbyterian Journal
In the preface, Russell Dicks called Taylor a friend
of both the Church and AA.24
This is only half true. Taylor wished to be a friend to
both, but such is impossible. One cannot have two
masters. He must love the one and hate the other.25
Taylor fails to make necessary and biblical distinctions
between AA and Christianity. Christianity is God's
covenant relation to and redemption of his people from
their sins, but AA is not.
Taylor says,
In its own unique way it [AA] goes about leading
men and women to God who never before gave Him much
thought. I hope the more conservative of my brethren
who may feel inclined to question AA's theology at
this point will withhold their judgment for the
moment. AA's success constitutes a powerful
recommendation for its methods.26.
With all due respect, Christians cannot withhold
theological or moral judgment upon a vaguely utilitarian
basis. Other sects, e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, also
claim to lead one to god, but it is clearly not the God
of the Bible. Isaiah complains about hand made idols,
Paul complains about those whose god is their belly. If
the god to whom one is brought is not the Lord Jesus
Christ then it is vanity. There are no intermediate
steps to God.
In fact, AA is not the worship of the true and living
God but is specifically applied peer pressure to alter a
particular behavior pattern, often by replacing one
addiction for another, in the nature of the case, bottle
support for group support.27
Taylor's claim that, at some point, every serious
member of AA is confronted by necessity with
Christianity is simply not true.28
In fact the leading currents of thought are moving away
from the more overtly religious emphasis of years past
to a more mechanistic and secular faith. The authority
of Bill and the other founders of AA is also waning.
After all isn't one persons experience just as normative
as anyone else's? Agnosticism reigns in AA. "God as we
conceive of Him" and the authority of God "as He is
expressed in our group conscience", has taken its
natural course. If someone became sober without any god,
then god isn't strictly necessary. Of a course the god
which began as a useful idea gives way to bare
agnosticism.
Taylor admitted the parallels between Christianity
and AA. Rather than chalking these apparent similarities
up to plagiarism, Taylor says that there is just the
right amount of religion in AA to make it effective
without scaring this diseased person away from
Christianity. After all, he says, alcoholics are
notorious for their bad feelings about religion. Taylor
thinks AA is a good introduction for Alcoholics to
Christianity.29
Taylor's biggest error was to deny the biblical
teaching regarding human responsibility for sin. By
saying as he does, with AA, that alcoholism (or any
other excessive behavior for that matter) is a matter of
treating a disease then one has removed the problem from
the proper sphere of reference (sin and redemption) and
conceded that biblical revelation, the work of Christ
and the means of grace (preaching of the Word and
sacraments) are insufficient for redemption and the
Christian life.
God's Word consistently describes our lot
differently. "All have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God" (Rom 3:23). All hold down the knowledge of
God in unbelief (Rom 1:18). All are prone, by nature, to
hate God and their neighbor. The Christian view of the
matter is that the alcoholic, no matter how tragic his
case, has no advantage over the average son of Adam in
that respect. The answer does not lie with a synthesis
of obvious Christian behaviors and doctrines (or
facsimiles thereof) with modern disease models.
The answer lies in real repentance and faith in the
living God, the second person of the Trinity, the Jesus
who died for sinners and was raised again for our
justification and who through the Holy Spirit
effectively calls us to faith and who gives us new life
and who makes us holy in himself.
What is the real difference between addictive sexual
behavior and alcoholism? Once one becomes addicted to
the sensations of orgasm he does not want to quit and
will order his life around it. The question is not how
much, but why, the inappropriate and damaging behavior
continues? The "why" of the behavior is the same. All
human beings are addicted to sin. Who of us in our old
life was not? This is not to deny that alcoholism is not
damaging, but to assert that all sin has its own form of
fallout. The affects are different in some regard, but
the progressive nature of the addiction begins with the
will to sin. The effects of sin do not justify calling a
sin a disease. In which case habitual drunkenness is no
more a disease than habitual use of pornography. Neither
sin is excusable no matter what the cause.
A 1982 book by A. C. DeJong, Help and Hope for the
Alcoholic, is little improvement over Taylor. DeJong
takes the middle road. DeJong's approach is very similar
to Taylor's because his belief is that the Bible does
not speak about the abuse of alcohol, (or that what it
says is outdated), that Alcoholics Anonymous is a useful
adjunct to the Church, and most importantly that
alcoholism is not sin, but a disease.30
DeJong says that he once thought that alcoholism is
sin, but since his own recovery (from alcoholism) he has
come to see the error of that position.31
The reason for the change in his position was not
exegetical (determined by detailed study of the Word of
God) but experiential. DeJong, on the strength of his
experience and assumptions, recommends all his alcoholic
parishioners to AA and to all its subsidiary
organizations.32
Like Taylor, DeJong argues that to call alcoholism a
sin is not helpful. DeJong says that if the effects are
this devastating, and no rational person would inflict
this much damage upon himself and loved ones, not even a
sinful one, then the cause must be disease over which
the alcoholic had no control. DeJong admits that there
is no known cause of the disease and that the origin of
the disease is a mystery.33
DeJong still claims that for a non-alcoholic to call
alcoholism sin is prideful.34
DeJong wants us to believe that AA is Biblical. He
uses Scripture to support each of the Twelve Steps.35
DeJong admits that the alcoholic starts out in sin but
he says that, in the end, the alcoholic is really a
victim and not a sinner.36
Where Scripture and AA part ways, DeJong consistently
follows the AA program. He makes the astonishing claim
that alcoholism is not self inflicted. How then, one
asks, did this catastrophe take place? He has already
admitted that there is no known cause of the disease,
nor any substantial medical support for the disease
claim, so who or what secret and dark force foisted this
disease upon him?37
In each chapter DeJong gives a summary of the meaning
of one or more of the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics
Anonymous. Chapter four deals with "unconditional
surrender". The third of the Twelve Steps.38
He compares this surrender to the biblical descriptions
of contriteness, repentance and brokenness of heart.39
On the surface this seems appropriate, but in fact it
is distinctly unchristian. How? Even when the later
steps speak of "our wrongs" and "character defects" they
are not gauged against the Word of God which is the only
standard against which sin can be judged (1 John 3:4;
Rom 7:7). In the Bible, to repent of one's sins, to
acknowledge the depth of one's sin and misery, entails
fleeing to Jesus who lifts our burden and replaces it
with His light yoke.
This is not what AA has in mind. One does not, when
he admits that he is "powerless" over Alcohol, confess
that he has held down the knowledge of the Covenant God
in unbelief, sin, and rebellion. Instead what the
alcoholic admits by this confession is his lack of moral
responsibility for his situation. He confesses that his
disease has gripped him to the point that it has begun
to control him above all his other defects. Moreover he
confesses these slips to a god of his own
imagination--to himself ultimately! These are two
fundamentally different confessions of faith.
DeJong makes another breathtaking claim, in contrast
to Taylor, that AA is not a religious fellowship because
it does not require subscription to a specific set of
doctrines for membership. He also contradicts reality.
The Twelve Steps and the Twelve Traditions are in fact a
catechism and confession. AA is a confessional religion.
There is not any non-religious or neutral confession of
a god. Either one confesses the God of the Bible or he
is an unbeliever.40
This helps us get to the heart of DeJong's problem.
At every point he allows the alcoholic to remain in
charge. The Bible simply forbids such an approach.
DeJong has simply ignored the Biblical data we surveyed
earlier. It is clear towards the end of the book, where
he quotes the AA Big Book more and more, that his
position is driven by a bible but not the revealed Word
of God.
Never does the Word of God allow such self
sufficiency. Clearly DeJong has somehow justified to
himself the sacrifice of a biblical world-view for that
of Alcoholics Anonymous. At every one of the Twelve
Steps, important differences can be shown between what
the Bible teaches and what each Step or Tradition
teaches.
Your Church and the Alcoholic
Phillip Yancey calls AA "The Midnight Church." There
are ways in which AA is like a local Church. What
attracts alcoholics to AA is the fellowship, mutual
support and acceptance they find in AA.41
Members are bound together by a common struggle against
a common problem.
Like other para-church groups, AA grew up in a vacuum
left by the church. In the past Christians have
encouraged the growth of AA by looking down at
alcoholics as sinners of a special sort. When Christians
treat the alcoholic as though his sin was worse than
ours, we've reinforced the idea that only alcoholics
understand other alcoholics and that the church is
irrelevant to the alcoholic.
It is not as if there is no alcohol abuse in the
church. The truth is that there is more alcohol abuse
and addiction than many recognize. By ignoring it and
giggling about drinking problems, we have sometimes
pushed the alcoholic into the arms of AA. Just as we
have become sensitive to the needs of those facing the
crisis of abortion, divorce, or spouse abuse, the church
should make an effort to become aware of the specific
symptoms of alcohol abuse so that we can spot it and
address it in our own congregations. We cannot expect
the alcoholic struggling with alcohol addiction and
abuse to trust us, if we're not willing to admit that
those who confess Christ sometimes fall into the sin of
alcohol abuse.
To correct the problem Christians much first realize
that it is God's will for sinners of all sorts to find
their fellowship, acceptance, mutual support, and
strength within the bonds of the local church, the
Christ confessing covenant community, composed of
confessing believers, redeemed sinners, saved by grace.
No one can confront any life-dominating sin apart
from the saving grace of God in Christ. The first step
toward freedom from alcohol abuse is to turn away from
all sin and to place one's trust in the righteous
obedience of Jesus Christ as our substitute and Savior
(Acts 2:28-9; 10:43; Rom 1:16-7; 10:17;
Gal 2:16).
The location of our life in Christ and the source of
our daily help is the grace of God administered in the
congregation through the preaching of the Gospel and the
administration of the sacraments.
In Eph 5:18-20 Paul gives explicit directions in this
regard. Paul is assuming that in Christ we are a new
creation with new life patterns and new friends. Paul
suggests that part of the new life means being subject
to our brothers and sisters in the visible body of
Christ instead of alcohol.
Second, we Christians must make a commitment to
accepting the alcohol abuser into our midst, as someone
no more or less dependent upon God's grace than we. If
we as the visible community of the redeemed truly see
ourselves as lost sinners saved by grace, then how can
we not accept other sinners into our midst? How can we
distinguish between one type of pre-Christian behavior
and another? We can't and neither should the alcohol (or
other substance) abuser.
Notice how Peter classes alcohol abuse in 1 Peter
4:1-4:
Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm
yourselves also with the same attitude, because he
who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a
result, he does not live the rest of his earthly
life for evil human desires, but rather for the will
of God. For you have spent enough time in the past
doing what pagans choose to do--living in
debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and
detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you
do not plunge with them into the same flood of
dissipation, and they heap abuse on you (NIV).
The Apostle Peter frankly recognizes the difficulty
of leaving the old life behind and uniting with a new
group of friends, the church. Verse four, "They think it
strange..." seems to indicate even that some of the
believers were being persecuted by their old drinking
buddies. The verse also illustrates the need for the
alcoholic to replace his old associations with new ones
(cf. 1 Cor 15:33). The church is God's agency for the
helping the alcohol abuser.
Third, we must make a commitment to dealing openly
with one another about our sins. Here we need to reclaim
territory we have conceded to AA. In an AA meeting there
is usually a remarkable degree of openness in the
meeting to one another. Pretense is difficult in a room
full of people who have been doing exactly what you have
been doing and telling the same lies. If someone is
having a difficult time of it, he is encouraged to seek
help from a qualified fellow member and even from the
group as a whole. This seems to fit the situation
envisioned by the Lord in Matthew 18:15-19 and by Paul
in Col 3:16. and by James 5:16.
Fourth, we must become available to serve one
another. We are all sinners. Any sin could be life
dominating. It is not necessary to be an alcoholic to
serve the spiritual needs of the alcoholic.
Part of that ministry requires the mature, sober
alcoholic to go on call (much the way a doctor is on
call) for a 24 hour period. When on call one's phone
might ring day or night with call from a fellow member
who is about to "fall off the wagon". Strong bonds of
love and mutual encouragement are formed when one spends
the night holding another's hand who is shaking and
vomiting under withdrawal symptoms. Do we love one
another in Christ as much as AA members love each other?
Would it not make a difference in one's life, when
tempted to commit some sin for the thousandth time, one
knew that there was a Christian friend one might call
who would show the love of Jesus by giving
encouragement, praying with one, taking one out for
coffee and providing some redirection? I think it would.
Fifth, there are a many Christians who attend AA, who
live a dual life, because they believe the Church will
scorn them because of their past alcohol abuse. This is
very sad. It is the Church who has the good news for
alcoholics--sin will not have dominion over believers!
(Rom 6:14).
Those Christians who are leading this double life
must help the Church learn to deal openly with alcohol
and drug abuse. Christians with an alcoholic past must
trust their brothers and sisters in Christ enough to
show them how to minister to the addict.
Conclusion
The Church has been entrusted with the great
commission to make disciples, even of alcoholics. AA
constitutes a field of hurting, gospel needy people,
white for the harvest. The question is, are we hungry
enough to harvest?
It may be old fashioned, but we must describe to the
alcoholic the depth of his sin and misery, how he can be
redeemed from all his sins and misery and how he is to
be thankful for such redemption.42
Obviously the presentation of the gospel must be
sensitive and thoughtful and will vary from case to
case, but the essentials, as we will see, cannot be
compromised, even (or perhaps especially) for one as
desperate as the alcoholic. We dare not throw too short
a rope to a drowning man. Only the gospel rope will do.
Bibliography
Adams, J. E., The Christian Counselor's Manual.
Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed: 1975.
-- Competent to Counsel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970.
Alcoholics Anonymous. New York: A A World
Services 1976.
Alcoholics Anonymous, Twelve Steps and Traditions.
New York: AA Grapevine and AA World Services, 1953.
Crossman, R. H. S., ed., Oxford and The Groups.
Oxford: Blackwell, 1934.
DeJong, A. C., Help and Hope for the Alcoholic.
Wheaton: Tyndale, 1982.
Henry, C. F. H., Christian Personal Ethics.
1957; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
Henson, H. H., The Oxford Groups. Oxford University
Press: London, 1933.
Hughes, P. E., Hope for a Despairing World: The
Christian Answer to the Problem of Evil.
Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977.
Leon, P., The Philosophy of Courage. London:
George Allen and Unwin, 1939.
Machen, J. G., The Christian View of Man.
1937; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1984.
Shipp, T. J., Helping the Alcoholic and His
Family. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Taylor, G. A., A Sober Faith: Religion and
Alcoholics Anonymous. New York: Macmillan Company,
1953.
Wisdom, C., "Alcoholic's Anonymous--A Biblical
Critique of AA's View of God. Man, Sin and Hope", The
Journal of Pastoral Practice, 1986.
Endnotes
1 Alcoholics
Anonymous, xvii.
2 ibid
3 ibid. xviii, xxii.
4 The 12 Steps are:
-
We
admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our
lives had become unmanageable.
-
Came
to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could
restore us to sanity.
-
Made
a decision to turn our will and our lives over to
the care of God as we understood Him. (emph. orig.)
-
Made
a searching and fearless moral inventory of
ourselves.
-
Admitted too God, to ourselves, and to another human
being the exact nature of our wrongs.
-
Were
entirely ready to have God remove all these defects
of character.
-
Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings
-
Made
a list of all persons we had harmed, and became
willing to make amends to them all.
-
Made
direct amends to such people wherever possible,
except when to do so would injure them or others.
-
Continued to take personal inventory and when we
were wrong promptly admitted it.
-
Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our
conscious contact with God as we understood Him,
praying for knowledge of His will for us and the
power to carry that out. (emph. orig.)
-
Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of
these steps, we tried to carry this message to
alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all
our affairs.
The 12
Traditions are, in part:
-
Our
common welfare should come first; the personal
recovery depends upon AA. unity. Each member of
Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great
whole. AA. must continue to live or most of us will
surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first.
But individual welfare follows close afterward.
-
For
our group purpose there is but one ultimate
authority--a loving God as He may express Himself in
our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted
servants; they do not govern.
-
The
only requirement for AA. membership is a desire to
stop drinking. Our membership ought to include all
who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none
who wish to recover. Nor ought AA. membership ever
depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three
alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call
themselves an AA., provided that, as a group, they
have no other affiliation.
-
Each
group has but one primary purpose--to carry its
message to the alcoholic who still suffers.
-
Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside
issues; hence the AA. name ought never be drawn into
public controversy. No AA. group should ever, in
such a way as to implicate AA., express an opinion
on outside controversial issues--particularly those
of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion.
The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one.
Concerning such groups they can express no views
whatever.
-
Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our
traditions, ever reminding us to place principles
before personalities....we of Alcoholics Anonymous
believe that the principle of anonymity has an
immense spiritual significance...It reminds us that
we are to actually practice a genuine humility. This
to the end that our great blessings may never spoil
us; that we shall forever live in thankful
contemplation of Him who presides over us all (Alcoholics
Anonymous, 17; Twelve Steps, 5ff).
5 The Big Book
has revised several times since its publication.
6 Pentecostal
Christians teach a sort of on-going revelation and that
God speaks to Christians directly and about specific
things apart from the Scriptures. See W. S. Hudson,
Religion in America, 378 ff., W. W. Sweet, The
Story of Religion in America, 423ff, H. H. Henson,
The Oxford Groups, 5; P. Leon, The Philosophy
of Courage, 112ff.
7 Sweet, 423
8 Hudson, 378. The
historical relationship between AA and the Oxford Groups
is hinted at in the quotation from the Big Book
above in the phrase, "though he (Bill W.) could not
accept all the tenets...."
These
tenets, though attached originally to an apparently
Christian para-church organization, are not
distinctively Christian, if only because they do not
flow from a distinctively Christian confession. That is,
there is nothing about them which requires one to be a
Christian to practice them. The assumption of this essay
is that Christianity is a unique religion in that it is
divinely revealed, its God is triune, and its doctrine
of redemption and ethics are organized around the
God-Man Jesus Christ, who died as a substitute for all
his people. Christian ethics is nothing more or less
than the grateful response by the redeemed to God's
grace toward sinners in Christ.
9 ibid. xvi.
10 For example, it is
a regular practice to recite the Lord's Prayer in their
meetings. Jesus prayed "Hallowed be thy name", or "Your
name is Holy", with the clear intent of declaring that
God's name (Yahweh), indeed God Himself, is distinct
morally and in his being from humanity. Yet in step
three and tradition two AA rejects explicitly such a
view of God. Jesus prayer is exclusivist in that it
implies that there are no other gods besides the God of
the Bible.
There
are other hints of the Bible in the Twelve Traditions of
AA Some examples of such borrowing: tradition three
speaks of the gathering of "two or three" an obvious
reference to Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three of
you are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst".
The Twelve Steps and Traditions refer to God as "Him",
complete with the uppercase pronoun traditionally
reserved in English for the Biblical Deity.
Interestingly, the published prayers of AA are even
written in a sort of 17th century English, apparently to
lend them an air of tradition and authority.
11 Alcoholics
Anonymous, 12-3. See also, Twelve Steps and
Twelve Traditions, 132ff.
12 Chapter four of the
book even contains an apologetic for their doctrine of
God and their view of revelation.
13 Many AA meetings
close with the chant, "keep coming back, it works".
1414 L. P. Jacks,
Oxford and the Groups, 129; See also J. Alsdurf's
review of H. Fingarette's The Myth of Alcoholism As a
Disease, "Alcoholism: Is It a Sin After All?", (Christianity
Today, February 3, 1989). See also L. M. Thomas,
"Alcoholism is Not A Disease", in Christianity Today,
October 4, 1985. For a contrary view see. A. Spinkard's
article in Christianity Today August 4, 1983, 26.
15 A. Spinkard, 26; T.
J. Shipp, Helping the Alcoholic and His Family,
91ff.
16 See the similar
exhortation in Rom.13:13.
17 The first article
of the Apostles' Creed says, "I believe in God the
Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth."
18 The Westminster
Shorter Catechism, Q/A 4.
19 The Revised
Standard Version (1973; New York: Oxford University
Press, 1977)
20 P. E. Hughes,
Hope For a Despairing World: The Christian Answer to the
Problem of Evil, 26-7.
21 The Westminster
Shorter Catechism Q/A 22 says, "Christ, the Son of
God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, (Heb.
2:14,16, Heb. 10:5) and a reasonable soul, (Matt. 26:38)
being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the
womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, (Luke
1:27,31,35,42, Gal. 4:4) yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15,
Heb. 7:26)"
22 From the New
American Standard Version.
23 Alcoholics
Anonymous, 46-7.
24 ibid, the preface,
vii.
25 Matthew 6:24.
26 A Sober Faith,
4ff;52.ff
27 ibid., 32ff.,
esp.42.
28 ibid., 59.
29 ibid., 35, 78, 87.
30 ibid., 18, 38, 41.
31 ibid.,18.
32 ibid., 14, 57.
33 Thus Jay Adams
calls the use of the word disease in the context of
alcoholism meaningless.
34 De Jong, Help
and Hope for the Alcoholic, 18, 21; Cf. J. E. Adams,
Competent to Counsel, xiv.
35 Help and Hope
for the Alcoholic, 31ff.
36 ibid., 22.
37 ibid., 35.
38 ibid., p.59ff.
39 ibid., 61.
40 ibid., 114.
41 Phillip Yancey,
"The Midnight Church," Christianity Today,
February 4, 1983, 96. Yancey gives an overly sentimental
and unbiblical description of Alcoholics Anonymous. He
is quite correct, however, when he calls it a "unique
church". Although he does not seem to realize what this
implies. He too has bought into the idea that somehow
Alcoholics Anonymous reflects the true spirit of the
early Church, a church without all those nasty doctrinal
disputes that bother the organized Church. In so doing
he confirms the connection with the Oxford Groups. He
brushes over what he calls the "Christological question"
i.e., how a Christian could actively take part in the
worship of an unknown god or even more to the point:
propagate such a faith without compromising his
Christian faith; with the worst kind of defense: well
the church is full a hypocrites and the alcoholic is
getting his needs met, so what is the difference? The
most blatant inaccuracy, however, in the article is his
insistence that AA requires the alcoholic to take
responsibility for his actions. This is not the case.
While there is a mild formal protest that, yes, the
alcoholic is responsible, the chief doctrine of the
faith is that alcoholism is the result of a disease not
sin, therefore, ultimately, the alcoholic cannot be
fully responsible because no one can justly be held
responsible for actions committed under the influence of
a disease over which he had no control.
42 This language is
drawn from the second question and answer of the
Heidelberg Catechism, a Reformed confessional
document first published in 1563.
