Big Book History #21: from Religious to Spiritual - A Historical Evolution (1934-1941)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Once again taking a slightly broader look at A.A. history than what was presented in his book, "Writing the Big Book: The Creation of A.A.", William Schaberg takes on what he considers to be the most fallacious myth regarding early A.A. history - namely that when Bill Wilson left Towns Hospital after his ‘white light’ experience, he was already preaching a very liberal version of A.A.’s approach to spirituality based on William James’ "Varieties of Religious Experience" and Ebby Thacher’s suggestion that he ‘choose his own conception of God’.
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 25 วันนี้!! "อเล็กซิส vs รีเกียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/suVr9a6BM2g/mqdefault.jpg)
Another awesome and helpful presentation. Very hard for simplistic dogmatic AAs to swallow. As was done to the Bible, the Big Book is nearly worshiped rather than understood as a tool. Love your work Bill. Please keep sharing your historical perspective
Yes, those darn simplistic dogmatic A.A's...lets hope they don't drink over it.
I been crucified, lost friends, laughed at, and talked about by the dogmatic collective in AA.
By "dogmatic" do you mean, those in the program that adhere to "the design for living" outlined in the Big Book?@@bgarcia951
@@bgarcia951 Aye. I've never seen such a group of hypocrites who where the antithesis, of that which they preached, then that crowd. They're mostly just a bunch of lying pieces of shit. AA is thought of as this glorious institution, when it's more just a day centre, for the mentally ill, lower classes.
I used to rent a house next door to an AA meeting building. I'd be in the backyard, with a bunch of them milling around in the parking lot, before and after meetings. They were forever hanging over the fence, trying to bum cigarettes, and upon occasion, money. I didn't drink, but they were constantly asking me if I did, saying that I should come to one of their meetings. And yes, as you stated, all they could do is shit talk people, behind their back. When I finally told them off, a lot of them just got insulting, calling me a dry drunk, etc. I just told them they were fucked in the head. And quite often, when I'd come outside, I'd find big books and other of their literature, left on my doorstep. Yeah, I've no use for them, at all. When I see all the whitewashed, bullshit AA propaganda, in the media, I just shake my head.
This is the most interesting coverage of AA history I've ever seen. The video on Hank Parkhurst is a must-watch. We owe him a great deal. I have read Varieties, the academic text is a turgid read but the verbatim personal accounts of spiritual awakening are enjoyable.
On p.155 in “Writing The Big Book”, you write "By defining the solution as primarily religious- while pointedly insisting it must not be affiliated with any particular dogma or church-Wilson has resolutely staked out the basic grounds upon which the future Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous would be built”.
You go on to explain that neither camp; Dr.Bob’s Akronite's and their “religious outlook,” nor Parkhurst’s "moral psychology-first" point of view, fit Wilson's vision of what was needed to capture the attention of the many who needed “The Solution”.
He didn’t compromise his own vision for either of these two models, and yes, we owe him everything for that.
However, I have no issue with those first alcoholic men in the midwest of the 1930’s, who saw “Jesus” as the answer to their spiritual search.
What were you expecting from that level of consciousness in America pre WWll? An openness to the Paramahnsa Yogananda, searching the Sanskrit Vedas, or the Metaphysics of Emmet Fox?
Looks to me like lots of those Akron folks “got sober on Jesus” as you put it; not so much Parkhurst’s reliance on his "moral psychology first” idea, leading to spiritual consciousness. That was the theory he proposed which unfortunately, did not work for him.
So, let’s not be so quick to lump those "dogmatic AA’s" into a basket.
Dogma worked for many when that was the general idea abroad in the land, now, not so much, as consciousness of the Spirit and It’s realms is an ever unfolding spiral upwards in the last 82 years.
Thanks for taking the time to find the truth of early AA. I find it fascinating to see the work you have put in to help see those early days as they actually were. Just rereading your writing the big book. Thanks one more time.
ICSAA presentation was 🔥 it's always inspiring to listen
Dogmatic AA”s will hate this 😂thank you for you’re work.❤
Thank you!
Hank Parkhurst and Jim Burwell as well as others in New York AA were always trying to pull Bill back away from an all out revival meeting atmosphere. Hank wanted working with others and being better people to be the emphasis of AA rather then the slavish devotion to the Christian concept of God like Bill and Bob wanted early on. Even Silkworth joined them in that with the necessity for the alcoholic to work with other alcoholics. The God stuff was fine but not absolutely crucial to the degree Bill and Bob were taking it in. I'm glad Hank inserted " use your own concept of God" into the book. It has saved millions of alcoholics who otherwise would have just turned away from it all
'Slavish devotion to Christian concept of God"? Slavish? Really? That's a bit over the top, no? The "God" of the Bible and the Christian church were pretty standard "concepts" of God in the America of 1935. Wilson and the founders latched on to the outline in the Oxford movement, and it worked for them and thousands of others when nothing else did.
Hank Parkhurst's idea of moral betterment and helpfulness to others was a good idea, but obviously not good enough to get himself sober and stay sober. And the moral betterment idea kind of disappeared in his own jealousy and bitterness towards Bill Wilson for the rest of his life.
Might be a lesson in that somewhere.
@@michaelscully7303 Surely you don't mean to suggest that those at the more "religious end" of AA have no trouble with relapse, resentment, and bitterness. Or do you? By focusing narrowly on Hank, the way you did it didn't explain Jim Burwell. Who never drank again. For every non Christian or irreligious person in AA you can point to who relapsed I'll bet I can point a thousand to one the number of devout believers who did. You ought to think your argument out better before you step out on it. At any rate the irreligious have showed themselves to be as viable in the fellowship as the religious.
Yeah, but I have no ax to grind about those "irreligious" in the fellowship, as you appear to have for those who do believe.
That's unfortunate@@lynnglidewell7367
Some good stuff in hear but… He could’ve read it maybe not in one day but people grew up reading books then there was no tv he was a brilliant guy played the violin in high school was an artillery officer they are of a different breed of minds but in his talks he said he found the evidence of in “Variety” he also got the knowledge that God can come to you in the educational variety as well slowly through time. But to say its wrong is wrong dont tell people what to think give them something to think about make a case for both then let us decide also when Ebby said he got religion it was kind of a joke he said he had the religion of common sense. Religious and Spiritual are the same thing its sectarianism thats the issue William James definition of religion is “feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their. solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine” Sounds the same to me. Organized religion or a sect thats where the problem arise. Alot of good stuff though but maybe use “yes and” to describe see where it is right its easy to see where it is wrong or say this is my opinion it could be wrong do your own research you get more ears that way. Easy does it.