Rev. Steve Edington Higher Power

Sermon by Steve Edington
April 20, 2008

Stories have a way of staying with me when they make an impact. I'm sure that's the case with many of you. This one is from a minister's retreat I attended before I even began my ministry here. One session called for us to share a formative experience that shaped our religious and spiritual journeys. One was told by a minister who'd returned to the parish ministry after a struggle with alcoholism that had necessitated him stepping away from it for a time. He passed away a couple of years ago for reasons unrelated to his earlier struggles with alcohol - which he'd managed to overcome.

The colleague of mine recounted how after numerous attempts to get himself sober by relying on the power of his will he found himself, once again, stretched out on cot in a detox ward after yet another bottoming-out episode. One of his sons had found him passed out in his apartment and brought him there. He related, "This time, instead of trying to pull myself back together again, I just gave up. I decided I had nothing left in me to help deal with my addiction." But then, he went on to say, it was that very act of giving up that turned out to be the beginning of his recovery. When he stopped relying strictly on his own resources and turned to whatever Powers That Be, which were in some sense beyond him, my one-time colleague recounted, he found a strength he didn't know he had in dealing with his addiction. He went on to become involved in Alcoholics Anonymous and, to the best of my knowledge, stayed sober for the rest of his life.

What struck me about his story as I got to know this man better over the years is that, theologically speaking, he and I were pretty close. Like me, he was a religious humanist who disavows the idea of a Supernatural Supreme Being who can directly intervene in the working of nature and in human affairs. But the reality of a Power in some way greater than the self, became very real for him. Higher Power, Deeper Power, Inner Power were all terms he came to be comfortable with, even though, like me, he treads lightly with the word God.

I thought of this friend and colleague some years later when our denominational magazine, The UU World, ran a feature article called "Twelve Steps/Seven Principles" in which it looked at the role that the recovery movement, with its emphasis upon the need for a Higher Power in one's life's - which includes and goes well beyond AA, plays in the lives of many Unitarian Universalists. While the article did offer a critique of the 12 Step/Higher Power approach to both dealing with addiction and with structuring one's life, it was largely positive. I found this interesting in that I would imagine a good number of UUs would be more than a little suspect about a movement that calls on its adherents to recognize there "powerlessness" and their need to surrender their wills to a "Higher Power." One of the critiques made of UUs is that we have a hard time imagining any kind of a Higher Power higher than ourselves. Like most slogan-type critiques that one is partly true and partly unfair.

But given that some of our fellow UUs find an affinity between the 12 Steps and our liberal approach to religion, I want to deal with the subject by focusing on three areas. I'll take a brief look at the origins of the 12 Step Movement. Then I want to devote some particular attention to what I think the terms "letting go" and "Higher Power" actually might mean - because there's in interesting dynamic there. And finally I'll end up by asked that we be a "welcoming congregation" to people who have found a positive direction for themselves by way of the 12 Steps and belief in a Higher Power - as varied as those beliefs actually are.

To interject a quick personal note, I'm fortunate in that I've never had to deal with a life threatening or life diminishing addiction. My fixation on computer solitaire worries me a bit, but that's pretty much it. I also feel very blessed in that I was raised in a safe, and secure - although somewhat overly moralistic - family setting, which, while not perfect, was hardly dysfunctional. So I've not had to seek recovery from either a personal addiction or a painful family past - either by a 12 Step program or any other means. This makes me an outsider to this movement. We do have several recovery groups who use our facility here for their meetings; and I'm pleased we make it available to them. But I'm really on the outside looking in; so that's the perspective from which I speak.

Okay, now for the story. Those of you who are in AA or any of its various spin-offs know this one better than I. Most movements, religious or not, have a founding story and AA is no exception. This one is set in Akron, Ohio in the summer of 1935. A salesman from Vermont - who had relocated to New York, and who had been through a series of business successes and failures, found himself down and out in Akron, when a deal he'd pinned a lot of hope on fell through. The man, named Bill Wilson, had developed a drinking problem in course of his career in business, for which he sometimes sought help through the teachings of what was called the Oxford Movement.

The Oxford Movement, to do a quick hit on it, was an evangelical Christian enterprise that was largely aimed at American college campuses in the early 20th century. It was founded by a Mr. Frank Buchman who set up shop next to England's Oxford University and gave his organization the name The Oxford Movement. It had no ties at all to the esteemed University other than geographical proximity. Mr. Buchman was seeking somehow bask in the glow and academic aura of Oxford just because it was next door.

This movement stressed the need for the complete surrender of one's life to Jesus Christ, the confession of all wrongdoing, making amends and repentance, and turning oneself over to the guidance of God once the surrender was complete. This organization was the forerunner of a movement called Campus Crusade for Christ with which I had some rather interesting dealings during my campus ministry days.

Alright, back to Akron in the summer of '35: Bill Wilson is about to reach for the bottle when his hoped for deal falls through, but something stops him and he thinks better of it. With the help of a local minister he locates someone in Akron - a physician named Bob Smith as it turned out - who was also a devotee of the Oxford Movement. Bill and Bob; doesn't get much more basic than that. Dr. Bob was just coming off a pretty heavy drinking round himself when Bill called him. The two got together and hit it off. They promised each other that - using their own take on the Oxford Principles - they would support each other in keeping sober. And from that meeting in Akron they started a movement.

What became the 12 Steps, and what is known in AA circles as the "Big Book" is essentially Bill Wilson's reworking of the Oxford Principles. He took them out of their conservative Christian context to make them more widely acceptable across religious and cultural lines, and maybe even applicable to a secular mindset as well; and he applied them specifically to combating alcoholism. He "de-Christianized" the Oxford Principles, removing the references to Christ and using the terms "God" and "Higher Power" interchangeably. And that's the Cliff Notes version of how Bill W. and Doctor Bob started AA.

Over the past 70+ years the movement has spun-off, as already noted, programs to deal with other such addictions as overeating, narcotics, and gambling to name a few. If we were to chronicle the past 73 years in Biblical style it would go something like this: Bill W. and Doctor Bob begat AA, which begat the 12 Step/Higher Power movement, which begat the treatment of other self-destructive addictions and compulsions; which begat the treatment of family members affected by such addictions, AlAnon and the like; which begat the Adult Child and Inner Child victims of dysfunctional families Recovery Movement. By the time you get to that last one the 12 Steps and a Higher Power may not longer even be invoked, but the links are there.

Whether or not one considers AA to be a religion (and I'm not going to argue that one today) it did have religious origins, and it has evolved in a variety of ways into a cultural phenomenon that has become a spiritual path for millions of people. It has become more that a deliverance from addiction or psychic pain into a way of life.

I'll cite the first three of the 12 Steps now as I'll be focusing in on them. With some minor tweaking, this is the original Bill W language:

A first reading - or even a second and third take - of just these three Steps would, I can imagine set off all kinds of alarm bells for religious liberals, to say nothing of secular humanists. The whole notion of being powerless, and turning our lives over to a Power greater than ourselves and looking to Him, Her, or It to remove our character defects is a bit more than most of us can deal with I'd daresay.

But don't blow it off too quickly. I find that when I look through the language of the 12 Steps and it's references to a Higher Power, rather than simply at it, it takes on some meaning which I as a religious humanist can appreciate - even as I retain some measure of wariness. The best way for me to explain this is to back up a bit and take a quick look at one of the harsher critiques of the 12 Step/Higher Power movement. Then I'll offer my critique of that critique. Just hang in with me; we'll get there.

The critique to which I refer is a book called Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? The title gives you the gist of the book. It's by two very esteemed psychologists, Dr. Charles Bufe and Dr. Albert Ellis. Dr. Ellis is the founder of Rational Emotive Therapy, an approach to psychological treatment that has had a positive effect on many person's lives. The essence of these two gentlemen's argument is that buying into a 12 Step Program and affirming a belief in a Higher Power makes on powerless and devoid of any self-esteem. They concede some human value in the 12 Steps and conclude that AA and it's related spin-offs are not quite a cult, but that's as much as they'll give.

Among their assertions are things like: "It is difficult to see how Step One can do anything for those who accept it other than contribute to low self-esteem..." Of Step Two they say, "It Promotes the idea of individual helplessness." Of Step Seven - which calls for asking forgiveness of those you've wronged they say, "Humility is the virtue of those with poor self-images." And on it goes; you get their drift. Dr. Ellis has done some good work in his field; I know much less about his partner in writing, Dr. Bufe. I would agree with them that following the 12 Steps and believing in a Higher Power have the potential for producing the consequences they describe.

But I have to take issue with them on several counts. For openers, to assert that seeking forgiveness is the signal of a poor self image is silly. I daresay we've all sought forgiveness at one time or another in our lives; and it's usually because we've realized that our behavior, intended or not, has been harmful to another person and we want to make things right. I fail to see any kind of a diminished self-image in that.

But that's not my main issue - or issues - with these guys. I have to take them on on two counts. First, their claims do not square with my own reality. By that I mean the reality of what I've seen and know of people in these programs. And second, there is a paradox, a very subtle interplay between being "in control" and in "letting go," that these two learned gentlemen, for all their knowledge, are just plain missing.

On that first point, the people I've known - some of them quite closely - who have used the 12 Steps and for whom the concept of a Higher Power is very real, are anything but helpless zombies in the manner that Drs. Ellis and Bufe suggest. To the contrary, they are usually people who have finally come to feel some sense of personal empowerment and self-worth after years of feeling worthless due to their addiction. Their self-esteem is already shot, as it were, and it's following the 12 Steps that help them get it back.

As for the admittedly heavy-laden God talk in these steps, the 12 Step people I've known take a line from that old song about "take what you need and leave the rest." By this I mean they adapt the language to their own religious, spiritual, or even secular perspectives. They use the 12 Step language to build a spiritual base that is their own, rather than just swallowing a bunch of verbiage unquestioningly.

For example, an oft invoked phrase in 12 Step/Higher Power language is "let go and let God." Those words are usually invoked not for the sake of swallowing down some pre-packaged notion of God, but rather as a way of helping a person to lighten up a bit on him or herself. I recall a conversation with a new member here some years ago who had come to UUism by way of the 12 Steps. For her the operative word in the Let Go/Let God phrase was "let go," and then let whatever "let God" might mean take care of itself. There's a paradox at work here - and I'm one of those who believes that most truths are found in the midst of paradoxes instead of straight out, its gotta be true or its gotta be false statements. Which is another way of saying that I prefer paradoxes to polemics when it comes to my own searches for truth.

This gets me to my second argument with Ellis and Bufe, who are polemicists with little apparent appreciation for, or understanding of, the workings of a paradox. What they don't seem to be seeing is the paradox, or the interplay, or the interweaving between being in control and letting go - or between personal power and powerlessness. They don't seem to get it. Recall again my late colleague's story that I opened up this sermon with. After relating how he "gave up," he went on to say that when he let go of so desperately trying to control himself and his drinking, that he discovered - and who knows from what source? - some kind of a renewed power that he was able to tap into to get his life back in order. Neither he, nor I could offer a "rational" explanation for that; he just knew it was the case and I believed him.

Well this may not be a rational explanation, but let me play off a bit on what I've just said. It seems to me that this 12 Step Process, and the reliance on a Higher Power, takes the immediate weight of whatever a person is struggling with off his/her back in such a way, that the person then actually gains some freedom and power to deal with it. That is the paradox: Once I stop trying so blasted hard to be, as that line from Invictus has it, "the master of my fate and the captain of my soul" I find I actually have the power to do just that. So call it a Higher Power, call it God, call it - and this is my preference - a Deeper Power; call it whatever one wishes. The idea is to find a reference point other than the already overburdened self, as a source of strength and trust that one can rely on.

From my own religious and spiritual perspective, that "Reference Other Than The Self" or "Power Greater Than Oneself" ultimately proves to be some of the deepest wellsprings of the self. But if you are desperately trying to maintain control on one level of your being or psyche, you could be blocking yourself from reaching some of the wellsprings that are at some other level of your being. You have to let go on one level that is, in order to take control on another. This is the truth that I see beyond what I know can be for some the troublesome language of the 12 Steps.

Maybe another way of putting all this is to say that you have to get over yourself one level in order to really and truly find yourself on another. That, in fact, is my personal translation of the phrase "Let go and let God."

I want to move to a close by citing two of our UU principles that I think are relevant to this subject. The Seventh One says we affirm "the interdependent web of existence of which we are all a part." That's not a theological statement so much as it is a self-evident truth. We are part of a large, inter-connected Web of Life that ultimately sustains and nurtures us. We do not live entirely on the strength of our own will and self-direction, crucial as these things are to a meaningful life. The message contained in this Principle is that we need our connections as much as we need our self-reliance: Our connections to one another, our connections to the Earth and its rhythms, or connections to what we know and believe ultimately grounds us and in which we place our final trust. One of the reasons for a liberal religious community and congregation like this one is to be a place where these kinds of connections are discovered and celebrated and lived out. Perhaps a UU variation on the phrase "Let go and let God" would be "Let go and embrace your connections."

The second Principle I'd put before us is the one that says we covenant to affirm and promote the "Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations." Among the many paths that bring people to our doors and into our community is one that has involved a spiritual awakening of one kind or another which has come in the midst of a time of crises or trial. Some persons come looking for a place to deal with, and make some sense, of that awakening. I hope we can offer a safe and accepting place for them.

I recall being at a workshop at a District UU conference several years ago where UUs who were recovering alcoholics - and some of who were in 12 Step programs - spoke of why they need a liberal religious community that they could be a part of. As one woman put it: "I go to AA on Friday nights to continue my recovery from alcoholism; and then I go to church on Sunday morning to reaffirm and recover my theology." That was nicely put I thought.

We come here, then from many journeys of the spirit - as have the new members we welcomed this morning. People come to us by way of many paths of discovery and meaning. For all of these journeys may we continue to commit ourselves to offering for all of them a welcoming home.

Stephen Edington
April 20, 2008