Direct Response
to Joel Wendt
The Twelve Steps
From: Steinerhead
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:12 pm
Subject: the Twelve Steps
In a message dated 1/10/04 8:25:25 PM !!!First
Boot!!!, golden3000997
writes:
3. The 12 step program has lots of flaws
and the first step, admitting that one is "helpless"
to control one's addiction and that one has to "surrender"
to a Higher Power may be effective but it certainly does not
speak to working out of the EGO. "Let Go and Let God"
is a wonderful excuse for NOT accepting responsibility for our
lives and karma. It's like substituting the addiction to God
for the addiction to alcohol.
4. I never heard of the 12 step program
as being part of the Risen and Etheric Christ and if you say
it is so, you would have to seriously prove how.
Hi Christine:
In a way, the Twelve steps lead me to the
door, so to speak; but it was Knowledge of Higher Worlds, and
the Philosophy of Freedom, that showed me the most effective
way to open it, and keep it that way.
And yes, the "let go and let God"
thing drives me nuts sometimes. I've watched so many people over
the years use it as an excuse to sit on their ass and wallow
in the pink cloud of religious zeal.
If it weren't for Anthroposophy, I might be
dead right now. I remember exhausting all concepts of a "higher
power" and standing on a bridge, wishing that I had the
courage to jump.
My experience is that many people are helped
by twelve step fellowships, to change certain behaviors. But
not many (in my experience) really take the steps to the door
of their true inner-selves. It took me Ten years to experience
an inkling of my true-self, and when I tried to explain it in
the groups, I could tell some were awed, and sorta knew what
I was talking about, but hadn't had the experience yet. There
have been very few that have come to me and looked me in the
eye, and hugged me, and knew what I was fumbling for words to
describe. Funny thing is that we then really didn't have much
to talk about. We just knew, and smiled, and sometimes shed a
tear or two.
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Steinerhead
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:42 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] the Twelve Steps
Hey Christine,
Yeah, I meant to say that I in no way (anymore)
think that Twelve step groups are the "one and only right
way," but I was in a hurry to get somewhere. I did go through
a phase where I did indeed think that though.... Arrggg, seems
pretty dumb now.
I'm still having trouble letting go of the
"Twelve Traditions" as a better model for a truly humane
self governing society though. Especially, "For our group
purpose, there is but one ultimate authority, a loving God as
he may express himself in our group conscience, [and here's the
kicker] OUR LEADERS ARE BUT TRUSTED SERVANTS, THEY DO NOT GOVERN.
Of course I might like to reword it a bit,
I'd say: For our group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority,
the power of Love, as may be expressed in our group conscience,
our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern.
I worked on many service committees for many
years that used the twelve traditions as guidelines. It was in
these committees that I learned to value the process of developing
a "group conscience," painful though it was. Everyone's
demons would expose them selves; sometimes all at the same time
(I used to bring a big bottle of advil with me). There were often
shouting matches, and an occasional chair flying across the room
(Incidentally, In the early US congress there was an occasional
beating, and there was one incident where a gun was pulled).
But falling back on "the ultimate authority" idea,
would eventually bring us back to some kind of sanity.
I've seen many great things come out of these
groups that have helped scores of people. Including some excellent
up to date literature on working the Twelve steps. I sat on an
editing committee and happily rewrote a couple of paragraphs
once. When the book finally came out, I searched like crazy for
my profound writing. Unfortunately there were other editing committees
involved after ours, and my wonderful profound paragraphs were
rewritten again. Oh well, I probably couldn't have handled the
fame.
Anyway, can you imagine a government with
"trusted servants" that did the will of the people,
and did not govern? Ben Franklin did. I think he advocated very
low pay for government service. Probably something like what
teachers make today. Funny how the most important people in our
society are the least paid (almost).
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:56 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] the Twelve Steps
Hi Mike,
Number One, don't think it was "dumb".
It was a worthwhile learning experience for you, helped you tremendously
and gives you a means of comparison for other forms of group
work you may participate in now and in the future.
Number Two, maybe positions like politician,
teacher, doctor, lawyer, etc. should become "vocations"
and treated like the medieval concept of monks and nuns (I say
concept because the reality is something different many times).
I mean vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience. And the "higher"
one rises in one's vocation, the stronger and more strict those
vows become. THEN, whoa, then - only people who really have a
deep burning desire to serve their fellow human beings would
put themselves up for that kind of work. What a different world
it might be then!
The only danger, of course is if it were done
in "the name of God" or some other such concept which
would limit and bind the freedom of the individual. As you illustrated
regarding AA, the time for group work that tries to unify under
an abstract concept that one has to surrender one's will to is
long past.
The only "ideal" would have to be
to see what actually needs to be done and to do it to the best
of one's ability. "Steiner says" (oh yeah) that people
do not want to do deeds of love because they are all paying off
debts to the world.
They store up nothing for ourselves. No "Brownie
points" in heaven. There needs to be a real selflessness
and the only motivation is a desire to serve Humanity and to
foster its development in the light of the Spirit.
One more thing, you often say "Love"
and I say "Truth". We are not differing, at least in
my mind. I just like to add it lest anyone reading these posts
take love in the mushy sense. I already shared with you my definition
of love as "love-in-action" in the sense of Madeline
L'Engle's "A Wind at the Door" - "Silly Human,
love is not a feeling - love is what you do!" Thinking -
Feeling - Willing all need to be activated and become "Conciousness"
or "Christ Conciousness" which is, to my belief system
- LOVE or LOVE IN ACTION. Words like Love and Christ are so overused
today that one has to be semantically cautious, I think. When
I use Truth, you can substitute LOVE IN ACTION or CHRIST CONCIOUSNESS
and it would be the same thing to me, semantically.
Happy Sunday!
Christine
PS - How old are your kids? : )
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:01 am
Subject: Truth and Love and semantics
Hi Christine, a while ago, you wrote:
One more thing, you often say "Love"
and I say "Truth". We are not differing, at least in
my mind. I just like to add it lest anyone reading these posts
take love in the mushy sense. I already shared with you my definition
of love as "love-in-action" in the sense of Madeline
L'Engle's "A Wind at the Door" - "Silly Human,
love is not a feeling - love is what you do!" Thinking -
Feeling - Willing all need to be activated and become "Conciousness"
or "Christ Conciousness" which is, to my belief system
- LOVE or LOVE IN ACTION. Words like Love and Christ are so overused
today that one has to be semantically cautious, I think. When
I use Truth, you can substitute LOVE IN ACTION or CHRIST CONCIOUSNESS
and it would be the same thing to me, semantically.
Happy Sunday!
Christine
PS - How old are your kids? : )
Mike:
Thanks Christine, I so much agree with the semantic cautiousness.
Many years ago I was involved in some very heated group conscience
meetings at my home twelve step group. There was a tradition
carried down from AA (this was not an AA group) that had us using
the Lords prayer to close the meetings. To many of us, this was
not an ideal prayer to use in a group that supposedly did not
endorse any religious, or other outside enterprise. We felt that
in our day and age, many people were being excluded from the
opportunity to recover from addiction,by the religious overtones
that were spread by using the Lords prayer. Indeed I remember
seeing many people come in jonesing from the street, and catching
a glimpse of hope, only to see it dashed in there eyes when we
formed a closing circle, arm in arm, and murmured this old religious
prayer. On top of that, of the twenty of us that were regulars
at the meeting, only about half would actually recite the prayer;
the rest of us would remain silent.
So it got to the point where we called a group consciousness
meeting and voted to change the closing prayer. The next week
our meeting was inundated by old-timers (that had not attended
the meeting for years) who called for another group conscience
meeting, and voted back the Lords prayer. The following week,
the group of us who had been attending regularly, changed the
closing prayer again (to the Serenity prayer).
Well, this whole situation turned into an arduous six month process,
that opened up a huge can of worms. We had to define who was
a voting member of our group, as well as what was a religious
affiliation, and what was not. Many old timers felt, because
they were around when the group was started, that "if it
works, don't fix it." Many of us younger members knew all
to well the potential turnoff that religious dogma can present.
So, as I bet you can imagine, a war of semantics ensued. it was
"the Gods against the anti-Gods" as one member put
it. As I said, the process took about six months, and looking
back, it was much like the flame wars that we experience on e-mail
lists, only it was face to face -- Needless to say this is a
bit more difficult, and in this type of group, it was potentially
dangerous.
I remember someone defining the difference between tradition,
and traditionalism: tradition being "the living faith of
dead people;" and traditionalism being "the dead faith
of living people." Of coarse we can argue in favor of our
different ideas that we all might have in this regard, either
way. And perhaps this is necessary to a degree, but there came
a point in our group where what I call "true Empathy"
started to sway. This is where, I think, the meaning of "truth
and Love" started to grasp some of us. It'something that
I can barely scratch the surface of in this written form. It
was one of the most profound learning experiences of my life.
I feel grateful now to have been a part of the "process"
of uncovering "truth and Love."
And as the saying goes: "More will be revealed."
Incidentally, the reason why I almost always write "truth
and Love" at the end of my posts, stems from the first time
that I watched the movie "Gandhi." There is a scene
where he in lying in his bed, week and feeble from fasting for
peace, where he says to someone something like "that Truth
and Love always win out in the end."
My son Jakob is 6 and my adopted daughter Jessica is 10. Both
attend the Monadnock waldorf school, here in Keene NH. Where
it is a balmy 18 below zero right now :^O
So without semantics, I will try to say again:
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Truth and Love and semantics
Hi Mike!
Gotcha!! I like the "Truth and Love always
win out in the end." even if it might not be an exact quote.
: D
What is so sad, in a way is that the kind
of arguement that started in the group you spoke about is that
it is "two wrongs" not finding any kind of way to make
a "right". Please let me be clear, I am not using the
word "wrong" in a judgemental way - just that neither
side could shed any real light on the subject. This is the kind
of area that Steiner's gifts to us could be so useful, if we
had them when we needed them. If the group as a group could have
sat down together and STUDIED the MEANING of the Lord's Prayer
as RS helped us to know and understand it, then there would have
been a completely different relationship to it on EVERYONE's
part and the old battle lines would have dissappeared. A hand
out could have been created that gave an explanation of the Lord's
Prayer and its use for new comers, who could then ask questions.
You see, it isn't the prayer that is the problem, it is the individual's
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP to it that causes the problems. Blind and
ignorant acceptance is no better than blind and ignorant rejection,
is it? Saying it like an "Our Father" - by rote, thinking
about how quickly you can say it and get your penance over is
definitely not going to foster any real "soul connection"
or any understanding that could be communicated to someone else.
Not having been raised Catholic, I was an
eensy-weensey bit shocked to find out how Catholics are trained
to say the Our Fathers and Hail Marys and even the Rosary - real
quick-like. Kind of like a mantra that just repeats over and
over.
This being said, there is some efficaciousness
in repetition of words outloud because they can build forms in
the Etheric. But doing it without forethought and fore-knowledge
probably doesn't do much more for the soul than sprinkle pixie
dust on it.
The Lord's Prayer as a MEDITATIVE Prayer,
however, is very, very powerful. My personal "devotional"
life has gone much by the wayside, but there have been times
in my life that I have used it as such and it's like a spiritual
blow-torch in its ability to transform!
Any prayer, mantra or verse will become just
a routine unless an individual or a group of individuals is committed
to the re-newal and re-enlivenment of those words so that they
can live in and among them.
But you knew that already, didn't you? ; )
STAAAAAAY WARMMMMMMM!!!!!
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:26 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Truth and Love and semantics
Hi Christine:
Sorry so late in reply, but I am just to cold to type that much
:(
I agree with what you wrote, and yes I did eventually come to
the understanding that you mention, as I have read Rudy's lecture
on the subject.
At the time of these difficult meetings though, and still today,
it just was/is not possible or practical to try to explain the
spiritual significance of this wonderful prayer to Jonesing drug
addicts that come in off the street. To many people of this mind
set will find it to be nothing but religious dogma.
But. Toward the end of this six month process, the group conscience
meetings (held every week after the regular meeting) dwindled
down to 12 dedicated members. We, in favor of the change, were
confident that we had the 2/3 majority to finally, once and for
all, settle the matter. There were eight of us that were strongly
in favor of change, and four that were dedicated to keeping the
Lords Prayer. On the final night, before the final vote, we all
shared our feelings on the matter. One of our most ardent supporters
in favor of change was deeply troubled that night, after listening
to the pleas of those who loved the Prayer. To our astonishment,
at the last minuet, when the final vote was taken, after six
months of hashing it out -- She raised her hand in abstention.
The motion failed: 7for, 4 against, and 1 abstention.
That was a defining moment for me. It really put into perspective
the idea of a will other than what my little self likes to think
is right.
Eventually though, all the people that hung in there in favor
of the prayer felt uncomfortable and stopped attending the meeting.
so the change did finally come.
Consensus is a difficult thing aint it? At my teacher training
classes, someone said that we are not quite there yet, when it
comes to evolving the abilities needed to really work this idea
into a societal level.
Truth and Love
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
January/February
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
