(Taking a look inside of small group structure through the lens of A.A. Traditions)
"With
respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no
other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the
welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted.
And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any
action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with
the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common
welfare is paramount."
When
Jesus sent out his disciples, I don't believe he formed watchdog groups
to make sure the disciples were doing it right. There had to be a level
of trust there. Jesus had to trust that his disciples weren't going to
screw up the message he wanted to send out into the world. As so,
churches that commission small groups as well as non-profits that
commission branches have to be able to trust the people running these
groups without being micro-managers in the process.
With
that said, it is the responsibility of the members of the said group to
take no actions that affect the common welfare of the whole. There is a
balancing act that must be done here.
This
tradition flies in the face of what I wrote two mornings ago. Although I
was trying present a clear example of what happens when groups decide
to have senators and not servants, I presented a negative picture of my
church. I affected the common welfare of the whole. I recognize that as I
write this morning.
Part of the joys of being part of a small group is the freedom that
comes with it. We have the ability to govern ourselves. However, I've
been part of groups that were strictly influenced by the church which
commissioned them. The church didn't trust the people in the group, so
established rules and regulations for the group to follow. In A.A., the
only rule groups ought to follow is not affecting A.A. as a whole by its
actions. The group does what its conscience says.
When a group becomes dependent on outside authority, its ability to
make an impact in the world around it becomes constricted to the point
of unconsciousness. On the other hand, when a group has a bone to pick
with outside authority, chaos and division ensues. There's gotta be a
balance here. Maintain autonomy and promote harmony. If the catalyst for
starting a group is being "better than the rest," then the group is already off in a direction that asks for divisiveness.
So, when a church or organization wants to make an impact in the world,
and sends people out to make that impact, there's got to be a level of
trust coming from the church or organization, and a level of
responsibility coming from the ones going out. The church, in a sense, has to let go of control over the group. At the same time, the group has to "move out of the parents house,"
and become self-governing and autonomous, while maintaining harmony
with the church or organization. The whole reason people get sent out
from churches and organizations is, they have the characteristics and
personality to really make a difference. So why bind them to a bunch of
rules and regs? Let them do what they do best, and let them be
responsible should they mess up and affect the whole organization.
Group
Question: Does our group do anything that does not conform to the
principles of the organization and affect other groups or the
organization as a whole?
Personal Questions:
- Do I insist that there are only a few right ways of doing things?
- Does my group always consider the welfare of the rest of the organization?
- Do I put down other members' behavior when it is different from mine, or do I learn from it?
- Do I always bear in mind that, to those outsiders who know I am in ___________, I may to some extent represent our entire beloved fellowship?
- Am I willing to help a newcomer go to any lengths - their lengths, not mine - to grow spiritually?
- Do I share my knowledge of spiritual tools with other members who may not have heard of them?
No comments:
Post a Comment