I’ve been coming to OA since 1990, and have been abstinent since January of 1996.
I weigh and measure my food when I’m able, which is most of the time. I don’t have flour and sugar, caffeine or artificial sweeteners. I arrived at this gradually, after it became clear to me that working the steps was not a substitute for being committed to my physical recovery… The most powerful evidence of my desire to stop eating compulsively is actively doing everything that I can to keep down the first compulsive bite. And I lean on other abstinent compulsive eaters whose example shows me how to do that.
This is my orientation, and I’ll bet it may stir up certain emotions in some of you.
But the purpose of this workshop is to explore some of the underlying causes of disunity between our members. And as with most efforts at self-examination, it might touch on areas that we’ve ignored that we’ll need to think about changing if the situation is to improve.
I have little doubt that most of the people here feel very passionately about OA, and want only the very best for its future. I can’t think of a more important topic to discuss with an open mind, and maybe a sense of humor, that will stimulate dialogue that we can bring home and share with our groups and intergroups.
I’d like to take a look at some of the things that somebody experiences in OA every day, and see whether we can find a way to deal with them in a more constructive fashion.
1) Defining terms: What is our message?
Are we all on the same page when it comes to basic elements of OA recovery?
Sometimes, even certain words and phrases can evoke a variety of reactions primarily because we may tend to believe that our interpretation is the RIGHT interpretation.
For example….ABSTINENCE – The umbrella under which all of us co-exist.
One of the observations that I’ve made that accounts for tremendous disunity is that some of us in OA believe that abstinence is maintained every meal/every day, while others believe in the principle of abstinence, and consider compulsive eating and relapse a part of the recovery process.
In AA, someone who drinks occasionally is called an active alcoholic. Yet in OA, the term “imperfect abstinence” encompasses a degree of flexibility that leads to passionate disagreement over the fundamental question of whether being in recovery means not eating compulsively all of the time, or just some of the time.
Where I’m from, many people consider a willful or negligent departure from their committed food plan as a break of their abstinence, the same as when an alcoholic picks up the first drink. When it happens, we’re encouraged to accept the fact that we may have developed a blind spot that resulted in complacency… That we relaxed the state of vigilance suggested in the big book, and will continue to suffer slips until something in our approach changes.
The tools pamphlet says that physical recovery affords us an effective vantage point to move beyond the food to a broader, deeper recovery.
Often, OA members who define specific measurements for their meals, and completely avoid certain foods that set up their cravings are often labeled as rigid, extreme, or not particularly representative of OA as a whole. Words like accurate, precise, or specific would also describe their approach to their physical recovery, but I rarely hear them utilized.
Speaking for myself, for a long time, this had a chilling effect on whether I shared details about my program because it might turn into a debate about whether or not “there are no rules in OA”.
I’d like to present the possibility that OA has perpetuated this source of discord by failing to say clearly enough that continuous abstinence is our goal, and that the desire to stop eating compulsively is not a part time commitment.
A chronic, abusive relationship with food results in significant health risks. Shouldn’t living in recovery mean trying to aggressively reverse as many of these side effects as possible? Instead, we invest enormous amounts of energy…& resources that we can scarcely afford debating whether food is, or should be, an outside issue. On a very simplistic level, it seems preposterous.
We are told, and it is reinforced in our literature a hundred-fold that where our spiritual condition is concerned, we must strive for nothing less than spiritual ideals. Yet when our physical recovery is mentioned, discussion of a healthy body becomes contentious because it seems to fall outside of the general definition of abstinence as just “refraining from compulsive eating.” We can still be far from a healthy body weight, living sedentary lives, making terrible food choices in view of our family health history, and still be considered living in recovery.
How many people here just wanted some guidance to lose weight when you first came in?
Yet we’ve spent the last few years in fierce debate over whether providing literature to satisfy that basic need sends the wrong type of message to the typical newcomer, who may not have a clue as to how pervasive their problem is, and how much work lies ahead.
Have we set the bar too low in the area of physical recovery?
Does this have anything to do with polarity that exists between our members today???
There is a tremendous correlation between people who intermittently pick up the food and the degree of unmanageability in many other areas of their lives.
Are we, as individual OA members, willing to be more honest about the state of our commitment to abstinence each and every day?
Nazi… it’s one of the most reprehensible words of the 20th century, but I’m sure all of us have heard it used to refer to people with structured programs who use checks and balances to measure portions, or maintain a healthy weight.
Admittedly, one can see how strict disciplines around food may closely parallel our old diet mentality, but how many faithful, abstinent OA members have we driven to other fellowships because of this attitude? We are people of extremes….compulsive people who take comfort in repetition and ritual. Is a program that focuses on normalizing our weight-related problems so objectionable as to merit this type of negative characterization?
Somewhere along the line, it became popular to assume that a person too strongly committed to physical recovery somehow lacked an equally developed spiritual dimension. When I first came to meetings with lots of members with long term recovery and physical abstinence, I’d hear them say “the most spiritual thing that I do on a daily basis is weigh and measure my food.” In time, I learned that this was just to correlate physical recovery with spiritual surrender, and it helped me keep my eye on the ball when times got rough, and the food started looking good. I was encouraged to use the tools, and to see the potential for a slip in my reluctance to make a phone call, rather than when I got on the scale on the first on the month and saw that my weight had gone up ten pounds.
** On the other hand, we have people who address the physical aspect of their disease more slowly…or maybe they have achieved a measure of success combating their weight issues, only to see their weight loss slow or stop for long periods of time. It’s not difficult to see that their lives have been changed for the better, so there’s no argument as to whether or not OA has helped these people.
But long-timers who bristle at the suggestion that they don’t seem to be particularly motivated to reach a healthy weight often lose sight of how their own limited physical recovery serves as a marker of their credibility when encouraging newcomers to place their trust in OA..
Please understand, I believe that each OA member has an absolute right to move at their own pace and feel good about their participation in OA. This isn’t about creating a class system based upon the size of the package. As we all know – many, many OA members who still struggle with their weight seem to gravitate towards OA service… and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude for their contributions.
But would OA be better off by more assertively asking each OA member to take personal responsibility for what type of example we’re setting? Perhaps some of the bad vibes that are passed between us are nothing more than the frustration of well-intended members, wondering what’s becoming of our fellowship? We’ve lost thousands of meetings over the last ten years, and we’re in deep disagreement over what the best remedy for the problem might be. Some of you may remember when the chairman’s report a couple of years ago accentuated the point by saying that eleven years from now, there would be no more OA at the rate that we were losing meetings.
The big book says that we can’t transmit something that we haven’t got, and OA’s credibility rests on the power of our example. Without physical recovery, all of the kindness, tolerance and quotes from the literature won’t help us. The world’s population is getting larger every day, and we have an opportunity to secure a successful future by evolving beyond our petty squabbles into a truly attractive haven for the still suffering food addict.
** I’d like to take a moment now to talk about something else that seems to generate a lot of heat within OA. I’m referring to “Weak meetings” and “Strong meetings” We’ve all heard the terms, and I’ll do my best to discuss them without being too unfair.
A weak meeting may not start or finish on time. It usually doesn’t have enough people to handle the various service positions. Its focus wanders from carrying a message of hope and recovery. If it’s a speaker meeting, there is often no speaker lined up, or someone is asked to lead whose success staying abstinent is marginal.
Business meetings are intermittent, and also short, because there’s no point in recommending any significant change, because the one or two people doing all the work simply can’t or won’t do any more. If it has a regular treasurer, it might have far more money in the treasury than the one-two month prudent reserve that is recommended.
There’s also tremendous acceptance at these meetings. There is an unconditional awareness that the members need each other…there is no moral stigma in being back in the food, because those who struggle with relapse know that they can come there and be welcomed with open arms.
A strong meeting has “discipline”. Sometimes enough discipline to make you crazy.
Their formats are comprehensive. They detail everything that is to be said, and they generally recommend the ideal candidate to say them. They have enough literature to sink a ship. They are booked with speakers three months ahead. They actually have people who WILL interrupt to say that a tradition is being trampled.
They will also have very long business meetings. They will lobby for things, and do it using Robert’s Rules of order. Where I’m from, they have a hard time giving a newcomer the flexibility to get up to speed gradually in the program. It can be “my way or the highway” with many of them; and this works a lot, but it also scares the bejesus out of some people.
They have many thin members who really stick together, but sometimes they give people in relapse the vibe that they are doing something wrong, and they’d better get on the stick before something REALLY bad happens to them.
So we have skinny people that are called nazi’s and overweight long-timers deeply hurt or resentful because they feel that they aren’t being taken seriously.
Does that sound about right?? Well, welcome to Overeaters anonymous, welcome home.
Weak meetings that are willing to ask for help from their intergroup or members with strong recovery will find that help is available. They may be invited to take a group inventory, modify its format, or try to determine how to generate the type of commitment from its members that will reverse the decline in attendance, and inject enthusiasm and hope back in the rooms. Sometimes, it might even be best for two smaller meetings to join into one stronger meeting… To consider these options is to be living in the solution.
Some years ago in my area, we had over 100 “strong” meetings in our intergroup. They decided that their approach to physical recovery was so successful, and the prevailing winds in OA so strong against their approach, that they stopped trying to please OA and continued to run their meetings the way they wanted.
Their formats had something called a “definition of a food addict” which contained specific food references. There was no OA literature on the table…only the Big Book, the AA 12 + 12, and the Hazelden “24 hours” book. They were strongly influenced by a select group of people, whose sponsees followed closely behind them. They all attended intergroup and made a lot of noise at this world service business conference in defense of physical abstinence as the foundation for a solid three-fold recovery.
Their greatest mistake was leading newcomers in their area to believe that all of OA, or at least the part of OA that counted, saw things the way they did… it resulted in tremendous disunity and an eventual chasm that tore apart a community that had brought much good to the area for a long time.
Eventually, the core of that movement formed another fellowship and left. From out of their wake came other committed, abstinent OA members who wanted to rebuild with a more well-rounded foundation. I am fortunate to have been one of their descendants.
I see the wisdom of our traditions, and the danger in asserting anything so powerfully as to challenge the spirit of our guiding principles. I see that physical recovery is something you can count on to get people’s attention, but you can’t beat anyone over the head with it and expect them not to notice that you’re trampling on a lot of other people’s toes to make a point.
I see that the welfare of OA as a whole is the most important perspective from which to discuss unity. The operative question is…”Is what I believe, and what I’m asking others to consider, going to make OA a place that will attract people who need something to invest in for the long haul?”
Spiritual recovery is the fuel that drives our engine. But abstinence IS the engine, and without it, we will never be the force that Rozanne envisioned in 1960.
A few years ago, the World Service Business Conference, over forty years after OA’s inception, legislated that the delegates who came to this function needed to have a minimum of ONE YEAR of ABSTINENCE to represent their area. The major decisions guiding an international fellowship serving people with a chronic, life threatening illness were being delegated to members, some of whom only had one year of physical recovery.
Is this realistic? Does this seem equitable? Participation at similar levels of service in AA required vastly more recovery. If AA had had the same standards that we now have, would we even have considered modeling ourselves after them??
Each year, we gather here in order to establish an informed group conscience to guide OA. And in the last four years that I’ve been coming to the WSBC, we’ve spent a considerable amount of time trying to undo the very decisions that we made the previous year. I believe that this tendency to disrespect our group decisions hurts OA unity. Acceptance of the group conscience means continuing to support OA even when our point of view is in the minority. I think we have much to learn in this area.
I’ve suggested that our slowness to mature as a fellowship may be based in part on disagreements among ourselves as to the relative importance of achieving continuous abstinence. .. or that we have lost a sense of personal responsibility for what it means to be an OA member.
We can’t seem to agree on whether there ought to be consequences to intergroups that refuse to make a written commitment that they will abide by the OA steps and traditions in order to seat delegates at the WSBC.
Instead, we receive suggestions that our leaders (whom we selected) are unfairly burdening a segment of our OA community. Are we being unreasonable to seek accountability for how our meetings are being run, and how intergroups service their constituents?
—————————
This year, we are being asked to consider a request to grant full acceptance to online meetings. Because of advancing technology, we are hearing from another group of OA practitioners….one that feels slighted that being referred potential members by the WSO as a courtesy only is a declaration that online meeting are lacking in some way…This is also a group of people who offer no physical contact or voice-to-voice interaction between its members, and has no geocenter.
There was a time when Alcoholics Anonymous was a book, and the people who read it got sober as a direct result of its teachings. Today it’s a lot more than that. It’s a deeply personal experience that is shared by connecting with others with our words and our eyes and our hearts. We spend time in rooms listening and observing and interacting.
I believe that OA’s unity problem exists in part because we have tried to become too many things to too many people. Maybe we ought to consider that a democracy with no absolutes is just anarchy, and a breeding ground for unhappy or unfulfilled citizens?
We tread softly with anyone whose feelings have been bruised, even those who are killing themselves with food, whom we try to appease, even as we approach them in kindness.
Each member is the keeper of his own definition of abstinence, but one’s abstinence can mean anything from intermittent eating to starting over because of having eaten an extra pea, missing a meal, or any number of mistakes in preparation or intention.
There are no OA police. Nor should there be. It falls to each individual member to reinforce their personal recovery by studying and learning about the tools, the steps and the traditions and passing along their knowledge within our service structure.
We wait around for Solomon-like solutions to recurring issues because we’ve lost a basic sense of who we are and what, as a fellowship, we’d like to be. Attempts at the WSBC to impart greater group autonomy seem to inspire fear that terrible mistakes will be made.
Maybe if we felt that we were free to make more of our own mistakes, we’d ultimately arrive at a place of real tolerance and acceptance of each other, regardless of our differences.
But whatever those differences are, if the one thing that we agree upon is that abstinence is not a part time objective, then we will find ourselves better qualified to work out constructive solutions to our problems.
Neil R.
Masssachusetts Bay Intergroup
