Aa history Lovers 2006 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page
Yüklə 13,83 Mb.
|
|
Doctor Bob was raised in the Congregational and Christian Endeavor traditions. Puritans. He and his wife Anne were members of The Presbyterian Church in Akron. They also attended St. Luke's, Westside Presbyterian, and lastly, St. Paul's Episcopal in Akron. Bob's funeral was held at St. Paul's. Listing Doctor Bob as Episcopalian paints an incomplete picture of his church attendance.
______________________________ Dr. Bob attended the Congregationalist Church while he was a child in Vermont. Puritans were back in the 1600's. There were no Puritans anymore by Dr. Bob's time, and there hadn't been any for a long time.
were Protestant liberals, while others were more traditional in their beliefs.
interdenominational Protestant evangelical youth group called Christian Endeavor, which was designed to appeal to teenagers. Dr. Bob was born on August 8, 1879. He wasn't a Fundamentalist during his childhood, because the Protestant Fundamentalist movement didn't start until the 1910's and 1920's, and was extremely small even in the 1930's.
Fundamentalist group in the modern sense. The Congregationalist Church never (to the best of my knowledge) got on board the Fundamentalist bandwagon. They are part of the United Church of Christ (UCC) today. The UCC has been in the news recently because they wanted to air a commercial on television which made it clear (without overdoing it) that people who were gay or lesbian were welcome in their church services. They are one of the most liberal Protestant denominations in the U.S. today. At their seminaries, their ministerial students are taught modern historical-critical biblical interpretation. They are not biblical literalists.
as a child. This is important to note, because there are people who note that Dr. Bob belonged to groups which read the Bible and sometimes prayed and sang hymns to Jesus, and have jumped from that to the claim that Dr. Bob was brought up believing what were essentially Fundamentalist Protestant beliefs and doctrines and dogmas. They don't say this explicitly, but it is clear from the conclusions they draw about how AA "must" be practiced to get back to "genuine old time AA."
and sing hymns to Jesus. That observation does not tell you whether they are Protestant or Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. They could be Amish and refuse to drive automobiles or use electricity. The Berrigan brothers who carried out protests against the Vietnam War that landed them in prison, were associated with all the major liberal causes in the U.S. during the 1960's, but they read the Bible and prayed to Jesus, because they were Catholic priests.
get older. Childhood religious beliefs may or may not be relevant to understanding what an older person believes. Dr. Bob was born on August 8, 1879 which meant that he was already 55 years old when he met Bill Wilson. Most people by the age of 55 no longer believe the same things they did when they were 15.
the Presbyterian Church, and later switched to the Episcopalian Church. There were not a lot of Congregationalist Churches in the upper midwest. The Presbyterians and Episcopalians would both have been "socially appropriate" for a doctor or lawyer. Both of these denominations (at that time) had enough of an upper middle class feel to be appropriate for people of their background, and this may have been a far more important issue than any specific doctrinal beliefs. But obviously we don't know about that for sure. THE OXFORD GROUP As good AA historians have known for years, it is the Oxford Group connection that is truly important for understanding where both Dr. Bob and Bill Wilson were coming from. The Oxford Group had strong links to the Protestant missionary groups of the early twentieth century which were trying to preach the Christian gospel in non-Christian countries like China and most of India. This was the world of H. A. Walter and John R. Mott. Frank Buchman did missionary work in China before he came to Cambridge and Oxford.
Keswick Holiness movement, which centered around the annual Keswick Convention in the English Lake District, and mixed traditional gospel preaching with (sometimes) the kind of Catholic mysticism which we see in St. John of the Cross (look for example at Hannah Hurnard, "Hind's Feet on High Places"). Frank Buchman had his decisive spiritual experience while attending the Keswick Convention. The Oxford Group also had strong links to the kind of late nineteenth century American and British revivalism which we see in Henry Drummond ( see http://hindsfoot.org/kML3rc1.html ), who was closely associated with the great revivalist preacher Dwight L. Moody ( see Mel B's book "New Wine," http://www.walkindryplaces.com/books.html )
the findings of modern biblical criticism, and most of them put themselves on record as being totally opposed to the new Fundamentalist movement. They were all aware, for example, that if you put the sayings of Jesus as found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in three parallel columns, that the wording was slightly different in the three different gospels. So they were not biblical literalists in the Fundamentalist sense.
Oxford Group.
a rephrasing, in modern language, of the old message of the founders of the evangelical movement back in the 1730's, see: 1. The Oxford Group and the Eighteenth Century Evangelical Movement http://hindsfoot.org/oxchang1.html 2. Power to Heal the Soul http://hindsfoot.org/oxchang2.html 3. House Parties, Confession, Surrender, and Guidance http://hindsfoot.org/oxchang3.html 4. Quiet Time, Guidance, and God-Bearers http://hindsfoot.org/oxchang4.html 5. The Four Absolutes and the Dangers of Legalism http://hindsfoot.org/oxchang5.html 6. The Balanced Life: Seeking the Golden Mean http://hindsfoot.org/oxchang6.html
Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley in the 1730's, that is, back to the beginnings of the modern evangelical movement. DR. BOB'S RELIGION Dr. Bob (along with most of the early AA people) read the Bible and prayed sometimes to God the Father directly and sometimes to Jesus. This is so obvious and well established, that it requires no elaborate "proofs."
early sources of ideas for the early AA movement came (in order of importance) from (1) the Oxford Group, (2) the Upper Room and the Southern Methodists ( http://hindsfoot.org/UpRm1.html ), and (3) New Thought as represented by Emmet Fox's "Sermon on the Mount" and James Allen's "As a Man Thinketh" (see http://hindsfoot.org/kML3rc1.html ). Questions about Christian Endeavor and Swedenborgianism are interesting, and I am still very curious myself about the latter, but they should not divert us from seeing the main and obvious sources of early A.A. ideas.
AA, was that already in the Big Book, after long debate, all references to Jesus were taken out except for one referring to him as a good man and a wise teacher, and most but not all biblical quotations. ("Not my will but thine be done" is Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane.)
pamphlets, the Detroit/Washington D.C. pamphlet, the Little Red Book, Twenty Four Hours a Day, and so on), the same policy was followed. No prayers to Jesus, and no statement of any Christian doctrines about being saved by Jesus' blood shed on the cross, and so on.
employ more biblical quotations and references to traditional Christianity than any other early AA literature, followed that same policy. The three portions of the New Testament which were still emphasized as containing good AA teaching, were chosen in part because none of these three portions of the New Testament make any reference to the divinity of Jesus or being saved by Jesus' death on the cross or praying to Jesus: see the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 to 7), the epistle of James, and 1 Corinthians 13. What makes that significant was that it is not easy to find any place at all in the New Testament where those doctrines do not appear. It took work for them to find three reasonably long places in the New Testament which totally avoided those doctrines, which means it almost certainly was deliberate.
obvious section of the New Testament to have newcomers read, because that was the place where the New Testament stated in clearest fashion the basic principle which lay behind AA, the Oxford Group, and the early evangelical teaching of Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley: only God's grace had the power to free human beings from deeply obsessive and compulsive sins. When we could not stop by using our own will power, and found ourselves powerless, we had to call upon the power of liberating grace. But Romans 7 to 8 continually put it in terms of "the spirit of Christ," and the early AA people had found that God "as we understand him" will save us from our alcoholic compulsion, even if we do not approach God by praying to Jesus and calling upon Jesus' name. And already by 1939 and the early 1940's, the majority of early AA's wanted to "deChristianize" AA to the extent of freeing members from any necessity of HAVING to follow any traditional Christian doctrines or practices at all.
continued to use the Upper Room as their main meditational literature all the way down to 1948. Some prayers in the Upper Room are to God the Father, but others are to Jesus. Lots of biblical passages are quoted. But since that little pamphlet was published by the Southern Methodists, who were Protestant liberals, the readings in the Upper Room hardly ever in fact referred to the divinity of Jesus or being saved by Jesus' blood shed on the cross (in fact, I cannot remember ever reading any passages in the little pamphlets from those days which talked about either of those ideas). And the Upper Room also pretty much stayed away from any of the miracle stories in the Bible. When Richmond Walker published Twenty Four Hours a Day in 1948 in Daytona Beach, Florida, and began printing it on the printing press in the county courthouse and distributing it under the sponsorship of the Daytona Beach AA group, AA people all over the United States started clamoring for copies of the new book.
http://hindsfoot.org/RWfla2.html http://hindsfoot.org/RWfla3.html
the Big Book and all the AA writings of the 1940's. He eliminated all (or most) references to Jesus, and never prayed to Jesus. He used almost no biblical passages at all, although he did use a few: "And underneath are the everlasting arms," for example, and references to two of Jesus' parables, the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, both of which had special significance to recovering alcoholics. We came to God like the Prodigal Son, and discovered to our surprise that he welcomed us with open arms and all forgiving love. Our duty then became to act like the Good Samaritan and do whatever it took to help other suffering alcoholics (the people who were left to die by the side of the road, with everyone else walking by in disgust and refusing to lift a finger to help).
15:11 to 32, and the story of the Good Samaritan is in Luke 10:29 to 37.
assistant priest) in the story of the Good Samaritan represented all the religious people who insist on following every single point of doctrine and dogma, and following every one of their hundreds and hundreds of religious rules, and tell you that you will go to hell if you don't read the Bible in one specific translation, and so on. They were afraid that if they tried to help the man who was lying beside the road dying, and he died on them while they were ministering to him, that they would be rendered ritually contaminated. Because the rules they followed said that those who had touched a corpse were "unclean" and could not approach the altar of God, without elaborate cleansing rituals. And the direction they were walking on the road meant that they were going to Jerusalem to help in the Temple services. (The man who lay beside the road had been going from Jerusalem to Jericho, and the priest and the levite came upon him while they were walking down the road going the opposite direction, which meant they were going from Jericho to Jerusalem.) The priest and the levite were willing to let people die rather than take the risk of breaking a single one of the hundreds and thousands of rules and minor distinctions which they had written down and memorized.
in the little story which Jesus told was a Samaritan, which meant that he didn't believe in most of the Bible at all. He only believed in five books out of the entire Bible, and he interpreted those in a different kind of way. He did not, for example, believe in any kind of last judgment or life after death. When you were dead, you were dead as far as he was concerned. People like the priest and the levite were convinced that the Samaritans were going to hell. (The real historical Jesus, the Jesus for example of the Sermon on the Mount, disagreed with these rule bound fanatics, with all their doctrines and dogmas and desire to scold and condemn other people. And he had a real sympathy for the Samaritans, in spite of some of their religious beliefs, and on one occasion praised a pagan Roman official for the power of his faith.) Both of these parables (the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan) were referred to by other AA authors during the 1940's.
of Indianapolis) in his Golden Books. http://hindsfoot.org/pflou1.html http://hindsfoot.org/PfLou2.html http://hindsfoot.org/PfLou3.html
it "Prodigal Shepherd." By that he meant that, as a Catholic priest, he was supposed to have been the shepherd of his flock. But like the Prodigal Son, he had gone astray, and had to return home and ask for God's forgiveness and mercy. And he lived and worked, after he had gotten sober, at the Convent of the Good Shepherd in Indianapolis, which continues this image. God had not only welcomed him back, but had allowed him to become one of his good shepherds again, reaching out this time to the fallen alcoholics of the world. AA's ROOTS: AA's roots are almost totally Christian. This is obvious and undeniable, and does not have to be "proven" with elaborate proofs.
the surface Christian elements, and all of the references to Christian doctrines like the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and the substitutionary doctrine of the atonement, began being removed in 1939 and the early 1940's BY THE ORIGINAL AA PEOPLE THEMSELVES, the people who had gotten sober prior to 1939 in Akron and the New York City area.
the Little Red Book (all of which had Dr. Bob's approval), in the same way that it was going on in other parts of the United States and Canada during the 1940's. You cannot play "Akron vs. New York" on this issue. We find none of the original AA people (who got sober prior to 1939) complaining about the Big Book once it had been published, or any of the AA literature that was published during the 1940's. They agreed that this approach was best.
tradition, and particularly in the Protestant evangelical movement called the Oxford Group.
AA's roots. Glenn Chesnut (South Bend, Indiana) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 3420. . . . . . . . . . . . Moderator out of town May 3-9 plus another notice From: Glenn Chesnut . . . . . . . . . . . . 5/3/2006 4:29:00 PM
a computer from Thursday, May 3 till Tuesday, May 9, 2006.
a few days, I would appreciate it. ______________________________
notice), in the basic guidelines for the AAHistoryLovers as established a long time ago, Nancy Olson and the other original members were very clear that they did not want the AAHL to turn into an AA chat group, of which there were already plenty. ______________________________ So we don't post messages that are just statements of opinion, no matter how heartfelt. We try to stick, as much as possible (although it isn't always easy to draw this line one hundred percent), with messages about historical questions which have objective answers, based on verifiable historical facts and documents.
on AA history, and we pride ourselves on also trying to use really good historical methodology in the messages that are posted in the group. Also they jump on me, and write me highly critical emails if I don't (grin). Like a prominent AA historian who wrote to me about six months ago and said, "and are you posting fairy tales in the AAHistoryLovers now?"
personal response to someone else's message should be sent directly to the email address of the person who posted the message (such as "oh gee, I really loved your message, it was tremendously good" or "you dirty dog, your message betrayed all the holy principles which we truly good AA members hold dear"). We can't post those messages either. Glenn Chesnut, Moderator South Bend, Indiana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 3421. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: AA photographs for framing From: kilroy@ceoexpress.com> . . . . . . . . . . . . 5/3/2006 4:17:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII General Services has a package of wonderful shots. These photos are fit for framing. Kilroy W. 4021 Club Philadelphia PA
(Shakey1aa at aol.com) GSO in NY archives has 2 different sets of photos reasonably priced and perfect for hanging in meeting rooms. Frames purchased locally will cost you extra. It's a great way to develop interest in AA archives.
Shakey Mike IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 3422. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Ernest Kurtz on Bill W. and Sam Shoemaker falling out From: Archie Bunkers . . . . . . . . . . . . 5/3/2006 5:21:00 PM
fabled 'Thank heaven for Hitler' remark by Buchman. In this interview published in August 26, 1936, Buchman said "I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler...."
_________________________________ The full quotation from that website is: One of the biggest issues with MRA was the fabled "Thank heaven for Hitler"
remark by Buchman. In this interview published in August 26, 1936, Buchman said
"I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a front line of defense
against the anti-Christ of Communism ... Of course I don't condone everything the Nazis do." This statement brought criticism to Buchman as a Nazi lover and his statement of Himmler being a great lad got him the label of a pro-Nazi. _________________________________ > From: Ernest Kurtz > Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 > To: Glenn Chesnut > Subject: Re: Bill W. and Sam Shoemaker falling out? > > Glenn,
> > In briefest outline, Bill and Sam fell out when > Bill left the OG. After Buchman's 1939 praise of > Hitler, Sam repented a bit and himself left the > OG in 1941. His 1955 St. Louis talk reflected that. > > Copies of relevant correspondence may be at Brown, > though more likely in Bill White's materials at > Chestnut Hill in Bloomington. Cf. also this note > from Not-God, which I think sums up the matter Yüklə 13,83 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|