BAD SERVICE

Dear Friends,
Hi, I'm a grateful recovering addict in South Miami named David.
Recently I have seen some rather heated letters from some members, who were outraged at some of the angry comments being made by some other members, regarding service bodies, officers, concepts, fund-flow, etc.
I have to say first that I agree on one score: ANGRY, bitter, cynical, vicious and cruel comments do not win friends or influence people. Speaking with daggers only serves to preach to the choir; it does nothing to win sympathy from those who are not informed, but rather paints the ranter as a bad-tempered bad loser. If you really want to exert any positive influence, you must RESTRAIN yourself from vitriolic displays -- no matter how good the outbursts feel!
As people from every public sphere can tell you, it isn't just what you say, but also HOW you say it, that affects others' receptivity to your message.
Having said that, I believe that the newcomer to service, desperately confused when they see two people they respect and love going for each other's jugular, needs to understand the ancient root of the conflicts, and deserves an explanation for why some members have been angry, and continue to be angry, over the ways in which service bodies and those who run them have at times lost touch with principles, and in the process have harmed each other and thus the fellowship.
Now I know some will say, "Bringing all that old stuff up, over and over again, is just living in the past.
Why don't you forget it and move on?" Simply put, failing to learn from the past con-demns us to repeat it. If someone poked you in the eye, would you listen to someone who told you, "FORGET about that poke! CERTAINLY they wouldn't DREAM of poking you in the OTHER eye!"? No, as quickly as you could, you would push the would-be reassurer aside and start looking carefully (out of your good eye) for another poke!

Try to remember that those who are performing service in NA are, in spite of the best of intentions, addicts. This means that they are prone to denial, heir to sick thinking, susceptible to self-will and easily influenced by suspicion and negativity. And they've been thinking that way most of their lives, so it passes for normal. (I remember one "very famous addict," speaking in a convention, admitting that his sponsor told him: "You don't think; you plot!" As it happens, it took one to know one.)
No-one works anything even remotely resembling a "Perfect Program." We all fall short. Unfortunately, many members who have given much and worked hard have been hero-worshipped, and have not possessed the humility and clarity to climb down from the pedestal and insist upon being treated equally with others.
More still have become adept at mimicking the appearance of humility; after all, we can be such good actors! (Never heard of a veteran NA speaker who carried a great message with his eyes closed -- while on a relapse and high as a kite? Keep coming back; you will.)
The temptation to play off one's influence is often stronger and more long-lived than one's devotion to principles. So over the years, many addicts have cultivated the power of their personalities; and convinced their sponsees and other followers to support and work to bring about their personal agendas. From the half-blind arrogance of "I know best for NA," certain key members have plotted behind the scenes, have built up power bases, and have carefully crafted "sponsorship families" and "lineages" in their own image, devoted to the success of their vision. These codependent families have been encouraged to become reliant upon one another in a kind of "fraternity," or a "fellowship within the fellowship;" to support one another and gang up on one another's enemies, often without regard to principles like truth or fairness. At times, these groups have resorted to dirty tricks and power plays, not the least of which have been smear tactics to damage the reputation of their opponents.
All this may go on in many walks of life. Surely, legislatures, businesses, civic groups, and even churches, can have internal conflicts dominated and orchestrated by powerful people with big egos.
However, when this stuff goes on among addicts, it tends to push all the addict buttons. Not the least of which is denial; "After all, what we're doing is for your good and the good of the fellowship!
Whatsa madda, don't you trust your trusted servants?"

Inevitably, those who question or object are painted as trouble-makers, rebels, ingrates, radicals, and even lunatics. Like a voice in the wilderness, those who warn and disagree are treated,not with respect, but with disdain. When painted with the broad brush of "rabble-rousers," those who are simply trying to suggest caution or wisdom can be rendered irrelevant, or worse, a laughing-stock; or worst: a "dangerous addict." In some areas or regions, there may be two armed camps, taking pot shots at each other and trying to destroy each others' credibility.
On the world level, as in most areas, there has mainly been one entrenched power party, and those who object have been called, at best, the "standing minority," or worse, the "lunatic fringe." Or worst, the traitors.
In this atmosphere, one has to "go along to get along." Those who differ are not merely "honorable members who suggest an alter-native course." Rather, they are "enemies." In a way quite peculiar to addicts, just one infraction is enough for you to be written off. The compulsion to conform is powerful, especially among people who are insecure, or unprincipled, or not possessed of a well-trained intellect that can think for oneself.
Usually it is not the leaders of cliques who do the most direct damage, but rather it is their lackeys who are eager to please them and impress them with their loyalty. If all this sounds analogous to the thought-processes of gangsters, it is worth remembering that many addicts come from criminal backgrounds, and are not necessarily so far in their minds from their past to keep them from resorting to terrible means to get their way. Many addicts, even years into clean-time, can only afford to be principled and spiritual when their personal power is not at stake. When their ox is gored, they try to get even. And they're clever enough to make it look righteous to all but those who already mistrust them.
Repeatedly, just as you might expect, the power plays and divisions in the fellowship have followed the track of "money, property and prestige." The reason so much has been made over the literature conflicts is that, especially since the approval of the Basic Text, literature sales have largely funded World Services, and was most responsible for its explosive growth in the '80s. Efforts to "control the process" has to do mostly with control of future rights of ownership and publication. If authorship and ownership are in question, then so is control. The more like a "work for hire" the literature becomes, the more those who swing the gavel or sign the contracts can control the literature, and the funds it generates. Most of the "literature wars" have their origin in this issue.
As time passed, participation on world committees became less inclusive and more exclusive; most of those who wrote the Basic Text could not be voted to the World Lit. pool today, let alone to the committee itself. The stultifying effect of conformity has resulted in not necessarily the best writers, but rather the most adept or least offensive players, being asked to participate.
Those who are new to service, or who have been coached in naivety by their sponsors or other elders in service, will think I am making all this up or at least grossly exaggerating. Those who have been on the pointy end of the stick will say I am being too gentle. All I can tell you is that just as things are neither as wonderful or as terrible as those in either camp would have you think, so also addicts in service are neither as spiritual nor as depraved as they or their opponents would have you think. It's a mixed bag. It would be quite naive to assume that addicts had only purely spiritual motives; we deceive ourselves too well.
Let me assert strongly: everybody wants the best for NA. Nobody is actually "out to tear the fellowship apart," regardless of what their detractors say. But addicts in service can get tunnel vision; can fail to see that their will has been partially corrupted by some less-than-pristine impulses; and can blame others for their own failings -- and that stuff does begin to tear NA apart.
To my continuing regret, addicts with otherwise good motives continually resort to bad tactics, arousing the suspicion and enmity of others. Repeatedly, those who have been entrusted with great responsibility, have acted shortsightedly, or used careless shortcuts, or used their positions for political purposes. When called on their errors, they have tried to kill the messenger rather than hear the message. The cost, not just in money but also in other worthy trusted servants who give up in disgust and leave, has been enormous. Disagreeing with the powerful renders you impotent. This has resulted in a quite predictable rage.
Underlying apparent goodwill in the service structure, are a series of fault lines that have fractured and tremored repeatedly, and will continue to do so until we at last have the collective wisdom to work real collective Steps on our collective disease. The body politic in NA, the "Great Big Addict" that is our collective consciousness, is still plenty sick. So far, only a rare few have acknowledged this, and have the willingness to call a spade a spade without playing to either "side."
In reality, as long as the marginalized outsiders yell and scream and can be made to look ridiculous, very little will change. (People don't switch their vote to a loyal opposition unless they appear more competent than those in power.) It is going to take level-headedness, wisdom, charity and forbearance on all sides if we can even hope to heal the conflicts in NA service. There are hard feelings going back several decades, and telling people to "just stop whining" when they have been stabbed in the back, shows a want of empathy and compassion.
Telling people who have been tricked and character-assassinated that they should just "forgive, forget and get with the program" is to ask those who have been injured to just eat shit and be silent, even when occasionally time has proven them right. Many victories in service have gone, not to the wisest course of action, but rather to the slickest dope-fiending. Unfortunately, our memories can be long, and those who have been wronged repeatedly may get caught up in a revenge mode, though they may have a hard time admitting it.
Until everyone, on each side and the middle of each conflict, are prepared to forgo vengeance and find the middle ground to meet on, we just won't get anywhere. The paralysis in service of late is not due to obsolete service manuals; it is due to a miasma of mistrust that haunts us and prevents co-operation.
Some folks have gloated over their victories -- little realizing that when there are winners and losers, in the end we all lose. Making snide and cynical comments about others, or holier-than-thou pronouncements over the failings that we actually all share, do nothing to further the healing that must come. It is about time that we learn how to be "wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves" -- i.e., able to identify and witness to wrong decisions or sick behavior, yet not compelled to react wrongly or sickly. NA History is so full of missed opportunities and failed chances, mostly because our own "rightness" blinded us to the greater needs of the fellowship, and the highest good of all concerned.
If it sounds like the typical "life of an addict," it is because we are together what we are individually; the whole is a lot like its parts. But just as we have individually found enough success, humility, forgiveness and spirituality to overcome much of our disease, so can we collectively do the same. It won't happen till we get over our collective denial. Let's stop kidding ourselves: addicts in groups can behave as badly as a lynch-mob, or as harmoniously as a choir. Conscious intention is the key. Let us help every voice find its part in the music of recovery. Let us make a place at the table for everyone. Let's root out the mob mentality that allows us to justify sick thinking and behavior just because it is loyal. Let's encourage the rigorous self-examination that reminds us that those who criticize us may be doing us a far greater favor than those who butter us up; the same thing applies in service. And let's remember the "We" in everything we do.
Armed with principles and forewarned of our sicker tendencies, we might someday begin to achieve our potential -- and stop being an "under-achiever" among spiritual fellowships!

Love and Blessings, David H. in S. Fla

Back To The Top Of Page | Back To Previous Page