Struggling with Tradition 6

Tradition 6 "An AA group ought never endorse, finance, or lend the AA name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property or prestige divert us from our primary purpose.”

In the early days of AA a fellow had the idea of setting up a hospital to help drunks get clean. He took it to his AA fellowship. It was a great idea. It would house the medical community and give those who were sympathetic to AA a place to practice and point people to AA for ongoing recovery. This tradition stopped the fellowship from getting involved and a few years later when someone at the hospital almost single-handedly bankrupted the enterprise, AA’s name was not dragged through the mud.

An old timer in AA once said, if I wasn’t in AA I would never know so many millionaires. He wasn’t kidding. Many AA’s are successful type ‘A’ driven people who have made and lost millions and then made them back. There are successful AA doctors, lawyers, entertainers, entrepreneurs, politicians, and authors. AA has members working at the top of Wall Street as well as living on skid row.

These successes have great ideas and they continually bring them to the fellowship: “We could start a half way house for people on their way back into society… We could create a night club for drunks where they could gather to watch the game drink good coffee and eat good food, dance, and socialize… Do you realize what affect on the political process we could have by marshaling our members… we should create a law firm that not only defends drunks but points them on the road to recovery…” The list is endless. All of these could be really good things. AA has decided not to get involved in any of them, lest it detract them from their primary purpose. This single-mindedness has allowed AA to carry out its mission. THe church has approached it's mission differently. How is it doing?

So, individuals, often members of the fellowship but yet separate from them have put those idea in motion and although, many AA’s benefit from them and use them, they are not connected to AA. Oxford houses sprung up all around the country. These Sober living” houses are not connected to AA or NA but serve their members. When an Oxford house gets into trouble AA does not have divert any of its energy to deal with the problem. They don’t have to pay to help mitigate damages; they are separate and able to focus on their mission of helping drunks recover sanity.

This is a hard tradition. I do not think the missionary enterprise is un-biblical in its current structure. I do think that churches need to be involved with Rescue Missions, etc…

Having said all that, I wonder whether the church would be wise in today’s day and age to re-think lending its name and support to so many things. Many great enterprises are co-sponsored by a church, or group of churches. But should they be? There are others that I'm not so sure about. The Conservative Right is considered by many to be synonymous with evangelicalism. Belonging to Right to Life PAC has replaced baptism in many circles as the rite of initiation into the church. The anti-gay lobby wouldn't survive without the backing of conservative congregations

I’ve blogged else where about the chillingly excessive amount of funds spent on church buildings in the Western World. AA has none of those issues to worry about. Owning property would change its focus from helping struggling drunks to taking care of buildings. Maybe that is part of the problem with the church in the West. It has to concern itself with taking care of billions of dollars of properties and can’t focus its attention on loving and being love for a world that needs it. It has focused on fighting abortion or gay rights, or universal health care (I really don't get how fighting universal health care is a Christian value but somehow it must be) and has forgotten about Love and forgiveness. it has looked outside of itself for the problem and has found it. After all, it is much easier to deal with the problem out there than the problems "in here".

The first time I remember the church lending its support to anyone it was to Constantine, and we all know that proved to be disastrous. We didn't learn our lesson though. We keep doing it today. And every time we do we forget a little bit more about love. 

Comments

[Barefootmeg]

I just ended up at this post - http://www.relevantmag.com/god/church/features/18444-the-biggest-waste-of-space-in-america . I think it was through a twitter post.

It got me to thinking... it's exactly things like this (feeling like "hey, we have a building, we should be using it!") that lead us away from our purpose and into all sorts of other things. On the other hand, some of these other things might be entirely within our purpose as a church. Arrrggghhh!!!! It's kinda like that razor's edge that Bonhoeffer talks about. He's referring to grace, but it seems like there's so many areas in which we need to carefully walk the line not falling to one side (wasting space that could be better used) or the other (getting so wrapped up in those other uses that we forget our original purpose).

I think that's where posts/discussions like this are good. Talking with others helps us remember where that line is so we can keep walking on it.

[Barefootmeg]

"The first time I remember the church lending its support to anyone it was to Constantine, and we all know that proved to be disastrous."

Hmmm, I would say it was the opposite. Constantine lent his support to the church. Then he essentially took it over (by being the one to call together the Council of Nicaea and presiding over it, for example).

I don't know what the first thing the church lent itself too was, but I'd guess it might well have been land disputes between the Roman bishop and surrounding countryside (especially as the German barbarians came in). As the Roman government fell, the church pretty much took over a lot of the political jobs (initially as a means of caring for the people, but it rolled into the church being a political entity and not just a religious one -- which I suppose is the key to this whole thing. Getting involved in something other than the church's main goal is simply going to muddy what it is and what its purpose is.)

[Malana Ganz]

Many years ago I considered joining a friend in an anti-abortion group. I prayed and the Lord told me that if I became an issue-oriented Christian people would see the issue first, and not Christ.
I am convinced that politics and "issues" are something we need to pay attention to, and sometimes spend time and money on, but that we must be very careful how we involve our faith in the visible side of the activity. And no church should use their platform for these issues; it should be an individual decision with only individual reprocussions.