Ultimate Authority

(A look inside the Twelve Traditions of A.A., which have held the organization together for over sixty years.)

Tradition Two: "For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern."

    

Who of us likes to let go of the things we attempt to create? Who of us likes to be told that our ideas are not the best ideas for the common welfare of a community? This essentially is the principle behind the second tradition.

     When churches, small groups, and non-profits start out, there are founders. The founders are the people who took their ideas and put them into action. They created the space for the seed to be planted and nurtured. They are willing to go to any length to find a fellowship with other people who are striving after the same things - to grow spiritually and carry the message out into the world.

     After a time, people become attracted to the group. People plant themselves into the group. It's at this point that the group, in my opinion, either heads toward fallout or healthy growth. At my current church, I was not one of the founders. There were five people who founded the church. All filled with the desire to grow in their own lives and to take what they'd found into the world, they hung together with the desperation of drowning people. They knew that they had to work together as well as play together in order to make the thing work. The years went by, and they developed a pretty good following of close to eighty people. 

     These eighty people shared the same vision, and jumped on board. However, as the community grew, the same five voices who founded the community continued to be the same five voices six years later. They managed to hush the rising tide of democracy coming from the eighty, and stuck to the ideas they had managed to hold onto for all those years. Over time, even the insiders began to disagree, unbeknownst to the eighty. What used to be one circle of people aspiring to experience wholeness and to show others exactly how they did so, became several concentric circles of confusion, secrecy, and disagreement. The space that had once served as a think tank for the original five never developed to include the added members. Although the majority would have liked to see the ship go in a different direction, the ship stayed on its original course. Several of the founders left, as well as many of the mainstay members over the years. 

     The second tradition is what keeps any person or persons from running away with the vision of the group. It is believed that the only way to know God's direction for the group is to hold a "group conscience," in which the members lay their ideas on the table and vote. The collective decisions are then put into action. One might ask, "Well, who are the members?" Without any need for formal head counts or membership applications, the members are the ones who have become mainstays. They're the ones who show up. They're the ones who are pouring their lives into the welfare of the group. They're the ones who are desperate to seek wholeness as well as giving it away. 

     Obviously, in order to start a group, there have to be one or two people wearing all the hats. But eventually, as people become involved and interested, the hats have to be shared. Why? Because the members demand it. 

     How many times have we "heard the voice of God," only to sit with a group of friends and be told that the voice we heard wasn't compatible with the welfare of all? That is what happens with the second tradition. No matter the power or the conviction we sense in our ideas, the ultimate authority is the voice of the group conscience. In order for this to happen, there needs to be members - those who keep showing up. The members know who they are, without having to be questioned or surveyed. Once their are members, their needs to be a space created in which the members throw their ideas, suggestions, and concerns on the table for discussion. Once again, these meetings are not closed. They are open to anyone who considers themselves members. In these meetings is where the "voice of God" gives direction to the group. It requires mutual submission and individual humility and surrender. As more people become members, more ideas are entered into the discussion. The direction of the group should always represent the diversity of its members. In this way, the majority and the minority are always given a voice. 

Group Question: 

1. Does our group do anything that misrepresents the conscience of the majority of the group?

Personal Questions:

1. Do I criticize or do I trust and support my group leaders?
2. Am I absolutely trustworthy, even in secret, with my group responsibilities? 
3. Do I look for credit in my responsibilities, praise for my ideas?
4. Do I have to save face in group discussion, or can I yield in good spirit to the group conscience and work cheerfully along with it?
5. Although I have been spiritually balanced for a few years, am I still willing to serve my turn at group chores?
6. In group discussions, do I sound off about matters on which I have no experience and little knowledge?