Tradition Four: Abiding by the Spirit

I understand that group autonomy was a focus of a discussion at the Region 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
Originally Printed in the newsletter of the Baltimore Area Intergroup