Space Coast Intergroup, Overeaters Anonymous

Maureen

Detroit, MI

---

(A writing I did to share — no obligation to read it, just passing along to a smattering of program peeps in case any interested. Have a muy blessed day!) Big Book, page 164:

“Abandon yourself to God as you understand God. Admit your faults to Him and to your fellows. Clear away the wreckage of your past. Give freely of what you find and join us. We shall be with you in the Fellowship of the Spirit, and you will surely meet some of us as you trudge the Road of Happy Destiny.”

When I was more than a year sober from food, I found myself with what felt like less freedom than when I was in the food. All right, the compulsion had been removed – where was my perfect life? If I wasn’t going to get everything I wanted when and how I wanted it, what was I doing this for?

I’m so lucky I have a sponsor with some 25 years recovery who knows the ropes of this recovery deal so well. She was able to share her experience, strength and hope about “the second surrender” (often known as “the sober surrender”) – that time long after you take the third step out of desperation to get free of the your addiction, when what that really means starts to become clear.

What is the sober surrender to step 3? As I heard a speaker say once, it isn’t just giving over the food or what you don’t like about your life – it’s giving over everything and letting God as you understand him take over. That can mean some stuff you liked is leaving, and some stuff you didn’t want is coming. That The Higher Power the Big Book calls the Principal, the Director, the New Employer juuuuust might not have the same ideas about what should and shouldn’t be we do.

The DECISION to turn my life and my will could be made before I knew what it entailed. (You know, in that two out of three frogs on a log made a decision to jump, how many left? Three – they just made a DECISION kind of a way). The full impact didn’t hit me after I had enough recovery to be hooked – smart of God, because the fact that recovery didn’t mean I was going to get my Santa Claus list fulfilled on demand was shocking news. The second surrender was about coming to understand that, and ACTUALLY turning my life and my will over.

This came up the other night when a sponsee was wrestling with her sober surrender. For her, the key issue is what size she gets to be. (For me, it was getting a man and family.) If she wasn’t going to be guaranteed she’d get to be a size six, what was she doing this for, she wanted to know? I remember thinking in those terms – having to choose whether to fully take my chances on God with the new clarity that that didn’t mean I could use Him to FORCE getting what I wanted when I wanted it circumstantially.

And wouldn’t it be nice if I could offer an easy-to-follow formula for how I did it? Three sleepless nights, four phone calls, read this passage, go to that meeting and call me at 5:15 p.m., and you’ll have surrendered. I have to laugh looking back at how I pleaded with my sponsor to tell me HOW to surrender, and how she couldn’t. In fact, the closest I’ve come to a definition of it is the passage above…

“Abandon yourself utterly…” I remember my sponsor suggesting I might have to give up my hopes and dreams, which were really manifestations of that self I was supposed to abandon utterly. As a human, as an American, as a smart professional woman, that sounded ludicrous. But she asked what good they were doing me, and I had no good answer for that. I wanted to say they gave me hope, but it was more like every day I didn’t get them, I lost hope. So I don’t know how I came to understand that surrendering them didn’t mean I wouldn’t get them, just that they weren’t something I could try to hold over God’s head as a threat I wouldn’t turn my will and my life over to Him, that they couldn’t be something that could come between He and I. But the “how” was somewhere in those words “Abandon yourself utterly,” methinks…

“We shall be with you in the Fellowship of the Spirit…” Part of the surrender was being able to turn to those in the Fellowship in the Spirit who could say, “Yes, I’ve been there. Yes, fighting surrender was part of my path, and I didn’t eat over it. You see I’m not there anymore. Keep going. It’s worth it.” As another speaker said, they could give me enough I could relate to while having what I wanted that I could trust them bit by bit about taking actions I didn’t yet understand.

“As you TRUDGE the Road…” Part of the surrender seemed to be in there – acceptance that it can sometimes be but isn’t always SKIPPING ALONG that road of happy destiny. That a fair amount of life is trudging, that that’s the human condition — wonder of wonder, even normies aren’t happy and struggle-free all the time. Acceptance of that was part of my sober surrender.

“…the Road OF Happy Destiny.” Oh, the 12 step way of life isn’t a road TO happy destiny? I don’t get to take 12 steps and then take the rest of my life off with pay? These were parts of what had to be accepted as part of the sober surrender. This isn’t a journey TO. The journey IS the destination, 24 hours at a time.

When did my second surrender happen? Part of its unformulaic pattern was I didn’t even seem to choose it. My sponsor could point it out and I could recognize it HAVING happened long after the patch during which it did.

Now, that patch during which at some point the second surrendered happened was maybe a year and a half ago, and I still don’t have my list fulfilled. Many of you have read I still long for a man and family – a lot. And I hardly live in PERFECT surrender. It just doesn’t come BETWEEN God and I anymore to where I’m petulantly threatening to walk away from Him – and recovery — every five minutes.

And more importantly when my sponsee, knowing I still don’t have everything I long for, asked plaintatively: “You don’t feel like you have a second class existence?,” man, I didn’t have a second’s hesitation.

No way. In fact, mostly I feel spooked wondering why I’m so lucky. Who goesaround losing 260+ pounds and from being stark raving mad, tottering on the edge of real insanity, to be restored to being a high-functioning addict with a manageable – and some days, great — personal and professional life? It’s so rare…why me?

Not to even mention, I couldn’t know then how LUCKY I was God didn’t give me a man in my time. I would have replaced Him with “him” in a heartbeat as the being who was supposed to make and keep me well, at that point. I would have groveled for his approval. I would have brought so much to the table that really should be worked through before I could really show up for a relationship. The relationship wouldn’t have had the chance it might today at being developed in a healthy manner. And even if it never happens, I have no reason not to believe that THAT life, if in line with God’s will, wouldn’t be better than me trying to force a man and family on my terms.

So I can say to that struggling sponsee: Yes, I’ve been there. Yes, fighting surrender was part of my path, and I didn’t eat over it. You see I’m not there anymore. Keep going. And, best of all…it’s worth it.

I don’t know why me, God. But thank God, me – and thank God for my sponsor, my sponsee and everyone traveling the road OF happy destiny.

Maureen in Michigan
maureenoa@hotmail.com
Abstinent since Jan. 04
Weight loss 260+

 Neil R.
Baltimore, MD.

---

I understand that group autonomy was a focus of a discussion at the Region 6 Assembly. What must a group be aware of when trying to abide by the spirit of Tradition Four? In a perfect world, every meeting would represent OA’s guiding principles. In actuality, many meetings have many more “active eaters” than those in recovery. These meetings can become a series of heavy, painful shares. There’s little “power of attraction” in this. Such meetings eventually suffer other problems like open service positions, too few sponsors, disorganization, and little support for a newcomer before or after the meeting.

There may only be one requirement to be in OA, but there are many suggestions. A Food Plan and a Sponsor are suggestions, but how many OA’s succeed without both?

What if people don’t take suggestions and the meeting suffers? Well-intentioned members try to implement changes that are sometimes considered by others to be “controversial”. This is the razor’s edge of autonomy. Is everyone’s happiness our goal, or is recovery?

This is why having a clear format with suggestions (not requirements) is advised, so that everyone can make a choice – to honor the group’s wishes, or find another meeting more to their liking. (Continuing to attend and sulking is only going to cause friction and disunity.)

If a format suggests that members attain a certain number of days of continuous abstinence before sharing, it is not a break of Tradition Four. If someone is cut off in mid-share because they don’t – that IS a break of tradition. Were the “sharer” to do this repeatedly, speaking to them privately about why they feel the need to “push back” against the collective wishes of the group might result in an important exchange that could help the group in the long run.

An active eater can enjoy the support of a group like this by saying (during announcements) that they are struggling and would like a chance to speak to someone after the meeting. This requires making a contribution and taking an action, both of which are good for their recovery.

The traditions say that a group conscience is supposed to reflect “what is best for the group”, yet groups often resort to personal preferences or squabbling when discussing changes. Conflict is not inherently bad. In fact, it is inevitable. Learning to deal with it is recovery.

If a group persists in staying “sick”, the traditions say that they will eventually die out. In reality, sometimes that happens, sometimes not. Certainly, it’s not the best outcome.

I have a long-time abstinent OA friend who says “freedom isn’t free”. Each seat at a meeting costs us plenty. And recovery costs even more. Some people view OA as a complete democracy, but a group’s insistence to do things a certain way sometimes comes at the expense of common sense, and the result is a less effective meeting.

That’s just the way it is. But when abstinent people ask intelligent questions about the welfare of OA as a whole, and what their meeting’s “OA responsibility” is in this regard, the principle of autonomy is being honored, whether clear resolutions are forthcoming or not.

The important thing is that meeting members communicate with each other on a regular basis.

Neil R.,

Baltimore, MD

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

Ray F.
Space Coast Intergroup
1/29/07

---

Time has passed and the wheels of OA have turned. This year the question of God’s prescribed gender has come to the surface. But, first things first. In my previous article on the subject, “God is a He…at least for now”, I laid out the method by which OA’s Twelve Steps, Twelve Traditions, and Twelve Concepts may be changed. I was incorrect in my description of the method, and, so, must print a retraction.I my first article I described the procedure as follows:

“…it takes a motion brought to the floor of the World Service Business Conference by
an Intergroup/National Language Service Board or higher level of OA
organization, in order for a change to the Steps or Traditions to be
considered. Further, it takes a ¾ vote of all groups
registered as member groups of Overeaters Anonymous with World Service
Office to pass such a motion. Not just ¾ of the
representatives present and voting, that’s ¾ of all the groups
in the world!…” In truth, the procedure is that if the motion gets to the floor of the WSBC, it takes a 3/4 vote of all of the WSBC Delegates present and voting to pass.

So now here we have an intergroup bringing two motions for the consideration of the WSBC to change the Steps and Traditions in a way that refers to God in a gender-neutral manner. This is being done the way it should be done. Now it is our responsibility as members of the Fellowship of Overeaters Anonymous to help decide the question.

Our intergroup and region WSBC delegates will vote on this question if it gets to the floor of the WSBC. At this point whether or not the question gets to the floor has still not been decided. Let me give you the pertinent paragraphs in the 2007 WSBC Agenda Questionnaire Cover Letter that govern our actions:

---

“Each service body is asked to review each proposed new business motion and bylaw amendment and vote to determine if it should be included on the agenda at the 2007 WSBC. An agenda questionnaire is included for your service body’s vote on each item.” “Please carefully consider each proposed new business motion and bylaw amendment in order to decide if the delegates should discuss and vote on it at WSBC 2007. Does its debate benefit OA at this time? Your “yes” or “no” vote is not a vote to approve or disapprove the content of the business motion or bylaw amendment. Rather it is simply to determine whether or not it should be considered at Conference. Those agenda items discussed and voted on by the 2007 Conference delegates will affect OA as a whole for years to come; therefore, they should be important to the Fellowship as a whole.”

“Only those new business motions receiving a “yes” vote from at least 30% of the responding service bodies, and only those bylaw amendments receiving a “yes” vote from at least 40% of the responding service bodies, will be considered at WSBC 2007.”

---

As you can see, it becomes our job to advise our intergroup whether or not to vote to include these motions in the WSBC 2007 agenda. Since these motions are bylaws amendments, 40% of the responding intergroups must vote “yes” before the motions can be debated on the floor of the WSBC.This year God has tasked me with representing Region 8 at WSBC. I was elected as a region delegate at the November, 2006 Region 8 Assembly. Since I will not know the conscience of the congress of region 8 reps on these and the other motions to be considered until March, I can only go on the conscience of my intergroup to guide me. As such, I am asking that you as individual members of meetings who send reps to Space Coast Intergroup to consider carefully the questions put before you.

There are no “They” or “Them”. There are only “We” and “Us”. And though we may not individually have a vote in these matters, it is still our responsibility as members of this fellowship to give our elected representatives the information they need to help form our fellowship’s Group Conscience.

As I said in my previous article, “…I will be happy to do what I can to help determine OA’s Group Conscience if the question ever actually gets to the floor of the WSBC. But until then I will continue to read the Steps as written, and attempt, with all the love I can find and express, to enlighten those who don’t why they should.” Please help to guide me in this task.

In service,

Ray F.

Space Coast Intergroup

Region 8 WSBC Delegate

Ray F.
Space Coast Intergroup

---

Page 164 in Alcoholics Anonymous (The Big Book) states, “Abandon yourself to God, as you understand God.” This is the final reference to God in the first 164 pages of that book, and it empowers us to refer to God in any way we choose. And why not? Doesn’t the Big Book go into great detail in many places to assure us that we can and should have our own concept of God? This is a pivotal concept of recovery. We are not bound by someone else’s idea of who and what God is.Over the years I have heard God referred to as ‘goddess’, ‘big guy’, ‘baby’, ‘my personal guide’, their dog (God spelled backwards), ‘Good Orderly Direction’, the ‘Gift Of Desperation’, the perennial ‘doorknob’, and also many religious terms. The advisability of refering to God as such might leave a person open to ridicule, gossip, and possibly even preceived personal attacks if the one who objects has the guts to do so at a meeting. But, all these instances were during personal shares and are allowable, since the Big Book empowers us as above.

So why is it such a bone of contention? Why does it set some people’s hair on fire when someone else, feeling empowered, refers to God as ‘She’ when reading the Steps at a meeting? Or when someone, feeling ecumenical, takes all male pronouns out of the Steps and/or Traditions, in an effort to make all who are attending the meeting feel welcome? Why not? God is not a He or a Him! The Big Book tells me so…in so many words. Doesn’t it?

The answer is a resounding no. But not becasue of some sort of double standard. The problem lies in the timing. When we read the Steps and Traditions, we are reading OA’s Twelve Steps and OA’s Twelve Traditions. That’s the heart of the problem as I see it. I will not attempt to solve it, but I do feel that I must explain why we must refer to God as He and Him when reading our Steps and Traditions.

The answer is simple, and binding for all groups who wish to be part of OA. The Steps that we read at the beginning of our meetings are published by OA, as adapted by OA from the original AA version, and as such, are Conference approved literature. Our Fourth Tradition tells us that we may not take any action that would affect OA as a whole. And changing the Steps or Traditions on the fly while reading them does just that. Doing so also dishonors the First Tradition because it fosters disunity within OA.

This doesn’t mean that the Steps and Traditions cannot be changed. As a matter of fact, OA allows us to change the Steps and Traditions, however, they may only be changed under strict conditions. And these conditions, published in Overeaters Anonymous Inc., Bylaws, Subpart B, bind OA’s entire fellowship. This is something that is quite rare.

Honoring our Second and Fourth Traditions OA gives us guidance in the form of suggestions. And OA suggests many things. OA suggests ways to conduct a meeting. OA suggests the amount of our donation and the way we should disburse our groups’ excess funds. OA suggests ways to run group business meetings. OA suggests certain closing ‘prayers’ that it feels are appropriate. OA even suggests the form our Intergroup bylaws should take. None of these suggestions are mandatory. The Second and Fourth Traditions protect our groups’ right to conduct their meetings as they see fit. So we may, if we choose, adopt these suggestions, or we may not. Each group according to its own conscience.

But OA very rarely requires anything of us. And this is one of those times. The Twelve Steps, Twelve Traditions, and Twelve Concepts of OA Service are written into OA Bylaws. According to the way I read Overeaters Anonymous Inc., Bylaws, Subpart B, it takes a motion brought to the floor of the World Service Business Conference by an Intergroup/National Language Service Board or higher level of OA organization, in order for a change to the Steps or Traditions to be considered. Further, it takes a 3/4 vote of all groups registered as member groups of Overeaters Anonymous with World Service Office to pass such a motion. Not just 3/4 of the representatives present and voting, that’s 3/4 of all the groups in the world!

So that’s why when we read the Steps and Traditions at our meetings we refer to God as He and Him. However archaic in form they may now appear to be written, however discriminatory some people would consider their form to be, the content and the wording are the part of the bylaws that bind our organization. It’s not intended to be discriminatory. It’s not intended to inflame some people’s sense of self, or in some way destroy one’s inner child. It’s just the rule. This is a rare occasion where we are bound by a rule. Something that we have been told, ad infinitum, there are none of in OA. So the reality is that there really are rules.

I will be happy to do what I can to help determine OA’s Group Conscience if the question ever actually gets to the floor of the WSBC. But until then I will continue to read the Steps as written, and attempt, with all the love I can find and express, to enlighten those who don’t why they should.

Ray F.
Space Coast Intergroup