NA History - Recovery Challenges in Early NA

Some addicts hate change. That is a fact that has been universally proven during NA service meetings since early in our fellowship.

I have two examples to share of how addicts responded to proposed changes in early NA. The first example was the discussion at the World Service Conference (WSC) on creating a Basic Text on recovery from addiction. Before our Basic Text was created many groups across the country openly used AA's Big Book and AA's 12 and 12 in meetings. No doubt that in reading that you are shocked that some groups would go against the spirit of our Traditions.

Let me put this situation in historical context. Back in the mid 70's we had no NA literature that addressed recovery from addiction (other than a handful of pamphlets adopted from AA). Nor did we have widespread understanding of the steps and traditions. The only way to learn about the 12 Steps and 12 Traditions back then was to either attend AA meetings or to use the 12 and 12 (AA's Steps and Traditions study book) in our own meetings or with your sponsor. Most in AA didn't mind us using their literature for 2 reasons: we were contributing financially to AA's financial health AND as long as we didn't identify ourselves as addicts or talk about drugs, we could stay and contribute to their groups recovery process. 

Even though many recovering addicts longed for literature they could relate to and study, there was a small number of addicts who outright refused to embrace anything other than AA literature. and saw the creation of our own Basic Text as a colossal waste of time and money. In fact, that was when the phrase "if it ain't broke don't fix it" first came into being in service meetings. This minority viewed the creation of our literature as a threat that could destroy a somewhat fragile and still emerging fellowship.

In the months that preceded that service conference, there were members in groups that came to blows in service meetings over this issue.  In my own neighborhood there were meetings that were forced to relocate because the fights escalated to physical and property damage (as a result of objects thrown across the rooms) thus involving the authorities. In other groups, business meetings were overwhelmed by those of one side of the argument to force a change or vote, only to have that vote changed the following month by a different faction. That's why till this day some groups still require you attend 2 business meetings before being able to vote or celebrate in their group.   

At the 1982 WSC the Regional Motion for the creation of the Basic Text was passed with a vote that was not unanimous. Out subsequent literature has faired better in that those votes were nearly unanimous,

It was in this type of setting that NA's Board of Trustees (BOT) was called upon to weigh in on this issue asking for their wisdom once our Basic Text  began was published and some groups refused to embrace it, let alone use it in their meetings.

Below is an excerpt of the BOT news bulletin that addressed this issue at length (if you think this piece is long... check out the news bulletin) in 1985.

As any NA community matures in its understanding of its own principles (particularly Step One), an interesting fact emerges.  The AA perspective, with its alcohol-oriented language, and the NA approach, with its clear need to shift the focus away from specific drugs, don’t mix well.  When we try to mix them, we find that we have the same problem as AA had with us all along!  When our members identify as "addicts and alcoholics" or talk about "sobriety" and living "clean and sober," the clarity of the NA message is blurred.  The implication in this language is that there are two diseases, that one drug is separate from another, so a separate set of terms is needed when discussing addiction.  At first glance this seems minor, but our experience clearly shows that the full impact of the NA message is crippled by this subtle semantic confusion.....

As a fellowship, we must continue to strive to move forward by not stubbornly clinging to one radical extreme or the other.  Our members who have been unintentionally blurring the NA message by using drug-specific language such as "sobriety," "alcoholic," "clean and sober," "dope fiend," etc., could help by identifying simply and clearly as addicts, and using the words "clean," "clean time," and "recovery," which imply no particular substance.  We all could help by referring to only our own literature at meetings, thereby avoiding any implied endorsement or affiliation.  Our principles stand on their own.  For the sake of our development as a fellowship and the personal recovery of our members, our approach to the problem of addiction must shine through clearly in what we say and do at meetings. 

Our members who have used these arguments to rationalize an anti-AA stand, thereby alienating many sorely needed stable members, would do well to re-evaluate and reconsider the effects of that kind of behavior.  Narcotics Anonymous is a spiritual fellowship.  Love, tolerance, patience, and cooperation are essential if we are to live our principles. 

Let's devote our energies to our personal spiritual development through our own Twelve Steps.  Let's carry our own message clearly.  There's a lot of work to be done, and we need each other if we are to be effective.  Let's move forward in a spirit of NA unity.
 (Reprinted from Newsline Vol. 2, No. 6 - 1985)

It would still take a few more years and a few more bulletins (such as #15 and #17) to try and persuade some groups to use our literature exclusively [we wouldn't have a step and traditions book to replace the 12 and 12 until 1993]. till the , identify .  Below is an excerpt from BOT Bulletin #17 published in 1989 on this issue:

This essay is intended to stimulate members' thinking and discussion about the nature of addiction. As members awaken spiritually and share with one another, the answers get woven into the fabric of the fellowship's conventional wisdom. Then, just when our thinking begins to harden into dogma, another generation comes along to challenge us and keep our perspective fresh.  

We urge NA members to remain open-minded and flexible. It is important to look to our literature and our experienced members for guidance, but ultimately each member has the right to understand and apply this program in the way that works best for her or him.

The reason for that last sentence was because those with clean time in NA continued "working" the steps and traditions in the manner they were taught from their predecessors in AA. Their understanding and experience were invaluable in service.  However, we began to see that these experienced members would sometimes challenge our ability to come together in service. In many meetings we could still hear: "that's not the way it's done... this is how things are done in AA." Without meaning to, this would alienate those who had never known anything other than NA's way of recovery and service.

Then a motion proposed at the WSC in 1999 (17 yrs after the draft of the Basic Text was first circulated), to adopt a "clarity" or "identity" statement, in order to really bring members in our fellowship together to finally accept "one disease, one language, one fellowship" in order to better carry our message of recovery to those that still suffered.

Today things are much different. We are not as rigid as other fellowships. We are more open-minded and flexible and thus able to evolve in our ability to find ways to reach out to those who still suffer in this current environment. If we are to grow as a fellowship we have to also grow with the times, just as Jimmy did when he used taped recordings of meetings, to carry the message to areas where there were no meetings. Just like Danny Carlson, Jimmy tried many new, innovative ways of reaching out to those who suffered.  So grateful that he dared to be guided by his higher power, to do things differently than were done in the AA meetings of his day.  It was his own innovative ways that helped our fellowship grow into who and what we are today.