Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Autonomy

(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:
  1. Do I insist that there are only a few right ways of doing things?
  2. Does my group always consider the welfare of the rest of the organization?
  3. Do I put down other members' behavior when it is different from mine, or do I learn from it?
  4. 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?
  5. Am I willing to help a newcomer go to any lengths - their lengths, not mine - to grow spiritually?
  6. Do I share my knowledge of spiritual tools with other members who may not have heard of them?

No comments:

Post a Comment