Next Article in Journal
Augustine’s Introduction to Political Philosophy: Teaching De Libero Arbitrio, Book I
Next Article in Special Issue
Reconstructing Sikh Spirituality in Recovery from Alcohol Addiction
Previous Article in Journal
The Concept of Periphery in Pope Francis’ Discourse: A Religious Alternative to Globalization?
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Latter-day Saint Approach to Addiction: Aetiology, Consequences and Treatment in a Theological Context
Article Menu

Export Article

Religions 2015, 6(1), 58-81; doi:10.3390/rel6010058

Article
Recovery Spirituality
1,†
and
2,†,*
1
Adjunct Assistant Research Scientist, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School, 1235 Bardstown Trail, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA
2
Emeritus Senior Research Consultant, Chestnut Health Systems, 3329 Sunset Key Circle, Unit 203, Punta Gorda, FL 33955, USA
These authors contributed equally to this work.
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Chris Cook and Wendy Dossett
Received: 19 December 2014 / Accepted: 15 January 2015 / Published: 27 January 2015

Abstract

: There is growing interest in Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) and other secular, spiritual, and religious frameworks of long-term addiction recovery. The present paper explores the varieties of spiritual experience within A.A., with particular reference to the growth of a wing of recovery spirituality promoted within A.A. It is suggested that the essence of secular spirituality is reflected in the experience of beyond (horizontal and vertical transcendence) and between (connection and mutuality) and in six facets of spirituality (Release, Gratitude, Humility, Tolerance, Forgiveness, and a Sense of Being-at-home) shared across religious, spiritual, and secular pathways of addiction recovery. The growing varieties of A.A. spirituality (spanning the “Christianizers” and “Seculizers”) reflect A.A.’s adaptation to the larger diversification of religious experience and the growing secularization of spirituality across the cultural contexts within which A.A. is nested.
Keywords:
Alcoholics Anonymous; spirituality; recovery spirituality; secular spirituality; facets of spirituality; transcendence

1. Prologue

Sometimes, at an Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) meeting, a speaker will describe the “what happened” part of her or his story of “what we used to be like, what happened, and what we are like now” by saying, “I got sick and tired of being sick and tired.”

As long-tenured scholars of the very varied literature on A.A., we find ourselves sick and tired of hearing too often, over too many years, observers (they can hardly be called “students”) of Alcoholics Anonymous decrying its lack of scientifically demonstrated value and its apparent reliance on some nebulous entity called “spirituality”. Some claim that the A.A. fellowship and program lack “proven results”, not realizing how that assertion evidences their own lamentable lack of familiarity with the available scholarly literature on A.A. [1,2,3,4]. Often these critics especially excoriate the claim made by many students and members of Alcoholics Anonymous that “spirituality” has something to do with how A.A. “works”. “Show us the proof”, comes the demand. “Where is the hard data, the substantiated, irrefutable evidence that demonstrates how, and why, Alcoholics Anonymous achieves such a claim? What is this ‘spirituality’?” [5,6].

This critical instinct is correct in a very important way: it is precisely in the realm of spirituality that any approach to understanding Alcoholics Anonymous must take place. This poses a problem for those who deny the existence of such a reality as spirituality. To them, the only possible reply is that traditionally given by the disciples of any wisdom figure: “Come and see.” ([7], p. 90–91; [8], p. 4). And so, if anyone genuinely wishes to come to some valid understanding of Alcoholics Anonymous, let her or him follow the advice given newcomers to A.A. “Attend ninety meetings—insofar as possible, ninety different meetings”—if not in ninety days, then in not more than one hundred and twenty days. Surely any doctoral-level researcher has spent far longer and more onerous efforts in pursuit of some other piece of publishable research. (And those efforts almost certainly did not include free cups of coffee).

At those meetings, you will hear stories—stories that “disclose in a general way what we used to be like, what happened, and what we are like now” ([9], p. 58). Alas, there will be no opportunity to pass out questionnaires or other “instruments”. A funny thing about “instruments” or other paraphernalia—things—intended to measure: they do not work well at capturing the non-physical, and if there is one sure truth about spirituality, clear from its very word/name, it is not a physical entity. And so to try to measure, weigh, or calibrate spirituality makes as much sense as attempting to understand interpersonal love by calculating genital tumescence [10]. Comprehending “the spiritual” requires different “tools”.

So a bit more about those meetings and what you will do there. The requirements we suggest are two, though really one: Listen—with a genuinely open mind, trying to absorb rather than critique, and Identify—strive to put yourself in the frame of mind you might have in reading a good novel. Do not, then, listen for or pass judgment on facts; unless you happen to be an alcoholic, you will likely find incredible many of the details you hear. The facts in any story are of relatively minor import. Listen, rather, for the thoughts and feelings described: that is where the action is in any good story, and they convey depths of truth that transcend the detailing of events [11].

For this is the kind of research on which this article is based. Your co-authors have, between them, been researching 12-Step meetings and other addiction-related professional and peer support modalities for a combined total of 83 years, in many cities beyond the eight in which we have resided, as we both for many years traveled the United States and beyond to offer presentations at addictions conferences and to teach in addictions studies programs at Rutgers University, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Chicago. What follows here is based on those years of careful listening at a wide variety of A.A. meetings, the regular reading of member-stories in the A.A. Grapevine and elsewhere [12,13], and, of course, sustained familiarity with the published research on A.A. and other addiction recovery mutual aid groups. Also, since some explicitly challenge how adequately non-specialists can investigate spirituality [14], Ernest Kurtz has studied theology for four years in a Catholic seminary and two years at Harvard Divinity School and taught for two years in the theology department of Loyola University of Chicago.

2. Introduction

Although addiction recovery mutual aid dates from the mid-eighteenth century, Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) is the benchmark by which past and present mutual-aid groups are measured [15]. A.A. has earned that distinction by its membership size and international dispersion, its organizational longevity, its influence on professionally directed addiction treatment, the breadth and depth of A.A.-related historical and scientific research, and A.A.’s wide adaptation to other problems of living [16].

The early history of Alcoholics Anonymous is well-documented within A.A.’s own literature [17,18,19], through independent historical scholarship [20,21], and through the recent proliferation of biographies of key figures in A.A.ʼs story [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Jeff Sandozʼs article in this issue [31] summarizes the well-known “spiritual rather than religious”1 framework of alcoholism recovery detailed in A.A.’s two basic texts [9,33]. Intriguingly, this “simple program” had by even two decades ago generated thousands of interpretive books, articles, and commentaries, usually revealing more about the authors than about A.A. [34].

One large reason lies behind this plethora of publications by A.A. attackers, defenders, and interested bystanders all struggling to define what Alcoholics Anonymous is and is not: the reality that A.A. is so decentralized that in a very real sense, there really is no such single entity as “Alcoholics Anonymous”—only A.A. members and local A.A. groups that reflect a broad and ever increasing variety of A.A. experience. To suggest that Alcoholics Anonymous represents a “one size fits all approach” to alcoholism recovery, as some critics are prone to do, ignores the actual rich diversity of A.A. experience in local A.A. groups and the diverse cultural, religious, and political contexts in which A.A. is flourishing internationally [35,36,37].

That difficulty is compounded because most who comment on Alcoholics Anonymous attend too much to its Twelve Steps, ignoring its organizationally more significant Twelve Traditions. A.A.’s Twelve Traditions underlie and make not only possible but inevitable the vast varieties among A.A. groups. Anyone wishing to comment seriously on Alcoholics Anonymous must think carefully about how the reality of that deeply internalized organizational blueprint may influence what they observe. The sociologist Robin Room, who has done so, has suggested that its Traditions may be A.A.’s greatest contribution to society, offering as they do a tested pattern for living a chastened individualism [38].

Newcomers to Alcoholics Anonymous are advised, “Try to attend ninety meetings in ninety days”. On a superficial but valid level, this encourages immersion in the A.A. program. But more significantly, this gentle mandate pushes the newcomer to try out many different meetings, hopefully to find some that fit his style, meetings at which she discovers a real sense of being “at home”.

There are two broad patterns of diversification within the history of A.A. The first occurs through organizational schism, when one or more members experience incongruity between their personal beliefs and A.A. practices, prompting them to abandon Alcoholics Anonymous and start an organization that offers an alternative to the A.A. approach. This process is reflected in the genealogy of A.A. adaptations and alternatives. These span (1) religious alternatives (e.g., Alcoholics Victorious, 1948; Alcoholics for Christ, 1977: Millati Islami, 1989; Celebrate Recovery, 1991; Buddhist Recovery Network, 2008); (2) alternatives for other drug dependencies (e.g., Addicts Anonymous, 1947; Narcotics Anonymous, 1950/1953; Synanon, 1958; Cocaine Anonymous, 1982); (3) gender-specific alternatives (Women for Sobriety, 1975) [39]; (4) secular alternatives (e.g., Secular Organizations for Sobriety [40], 1985; Rational Recovery, 1986 [41]; SMART Recovery, 1994); and (5) moderation-based mutual support (Moderation Management, 1994) [42].

The second pattern of diversification occurs when individuals or subgroups seek and promote different styles of recovery within A.A. itself. This latter trend includes organizational adjuncts for A.A. members who pursue spiritual growth through a particular religious orientation—“11th Step Groups” (e.g., Calix Society, 1947; Jewish Alcoholics, Chemically Dependent People and Significant Others [J.A.C.S.], 1979)—and adaptations that seek either to secularize or to Christianize A.A. history and practice. The former include explicitly secular groups within A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous for Atheists and Agnostics, 1975, and other groups [43]); the latter involve groups that promote a more spiritual/religious focus within meetings (the “Primary Purpose” and “Back to Basics” movements). These divergent wings of belief within A.A. and the proliferation of spiritual, religious, and secular alternatives to A.A. are unfolding within a larger recognition of the legitimacy of multiple pathways and styles of long-term addiction recovery [44].

The authors have been involved in sustained investigations into the “varieties of recovery experience” and have published articles on a wide spectrum of addiction recovery mutual aid organizations [15,45,46]. We have conducted historical investigations of spiritual, religious, and secular recovery mutual aid groups, published interviews with key recovery mutual aid leaders [47], and helped develop a key Mutual Aid Guide [48]. Through perspectives drawn from these experiences, we will focus in this article on the growing varieties of A.A. experience, with particular emphasis on the emergence of an atheist/agnostic wing within A.A. and what this development potentially means for the future of secularization or religious revivalism within Alcoholics Anonymous.

3. The Historical Context

Alcoholics Anonymous began in the 1930s within the Oxford Group, an attempt to recapture “First Century Christianity” [20]. Although A.A. early departed those roots, first in New York City, by 1940 also in its Akron, Ohio, birthplace, a strong religious tinge perdured, most evident in its “Big Book” chapter “We Agnostics”, which blandly assumed that all who approached the fellowship would find God. But there were early dissenters; one—atheist Jimmy B.—had a profound effect summarized in the addition of the phrase “as we understand Him” after the word “God” in the 3rd and 11th of A.A.’s 12 Steps.

There were others. Robert Thomsenʼs 1975 biography, Bill W., based primarily on extensive interviews with Wilson, offered a description of the late 1930s Tuesday evening meetings at the Wilson’s Clinton Street Brooklyn home:

There were agnostics in the Tuesday night group, and several hardcore atheists who objected to any mention of God. On many evenings Bill had to remember his first meeting with Ebby. He’d been told to ask for help from anything he believed in. These men, he could see, believed in each other and in the strength of the group. At some time each of them had been totally unable to stop drinking on his own, yet when two of them had worked at it together, somehow they had become more powerful and they had finally been able to stop. This, then—whatever it was that occurred between them—was what they could accept as a power greater than themselves”.

([49], p. 230)

But such individuals were exceptional during A.A.ʼs early years and even beyond. During World War II and the decade of the 1950s, sociologists noted the religiosity of an American public conscious of being confronted by “godless atheistic communism”. The period is aptly summed up in social philosopher Will Herbergʼs best-selling description of American reality in Protestant, Catholic, Jew [50], by President-elect Dwight David Eisenhower’s often mocked declaration, “Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply-felt religious faith—and I don’t care what it is”, and by Stephen J. Whitfieldʼs post-Cold War summary of the era [51]. The counter-cultural 1960s, not least because of the assassinations and war that blotted that decade, witnessed a fraying of that faith. Over that decade and the next, especially in the mid-1970s, those who complained of the “religiosity” of Alcoholics Anonymous were told that its program and fellowship were “spiritual but not religious”—a formulation that would wildfire through the larger culture in the 1990s [52,53,54,55].

In the 1980s, meanwhile, some members of Alcoholics Anonymous who felt oppressed by its religiosity and who, more importantly from the perspective of A.A. itself, saw evidence that the fellowshipʼs religiosity was alienating new members and keeping still others away from even trying its program, departed A.A. to found two secular counterparts: Secular Organizations for Sobriety [40] and Rational Recovery [41]. Even before that decade, in 1975, a group of Chicago A.A. members formed “Alcoholics Anonymous for Atheists and Agnostics”, more familiarly known as “Quad-A”. Other similarly motivated diversely named groups formed in various places over the years, but the next significant development took place in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in 2009 and 2010, when the groups “Beyond Belief” and “We Agnostics”, recognizing the need to make their availability more widely known, formed the website, AA Agnostica. A more complete and detailed history of atheists and agnostics in Alcoholics Anonymous may be found at that website: http://AAagnostica.org/a-history-of-agnostic-groups-in-A.A./http://bit.ly/1vN7rqo [56].2

4. Leading Up To the Present: Lines Are Drawn

The story told there begins not in 1975 but decades later, in 2011, when the Greater Toronto Area Alcoholics Anonymous Intergroup “passed a motion at its regular monthly meeting that the two groups [“Beyond Belief” and “We Agnostics”] be removed from the meeting books directory, the GTA A.A. website, and the list of meetings given over the phone by Intergroup to newcomers”. For despite a long history of tolerance within Alcoholics Anonymous, and the reality that the General Service Office of Alcoholics Anonymous recognizes atheist and agnostic groups, the era that began on 11 September 2001 (and was reinforced on 11 March 2004 and 7 July 2005)—labeled by Jürgen Habermas the “post-secular” epoch [57,58,59,60]—brought to a head the long-simmering disagreement within A.A. between its “Big Book Fundamentalists” and its “Modernizing Secularizers”.3

The “Big Book Fundamentalists” draw their inspiration and practice from their understanding of how Alcoholics Anonymous functioned at its birthplace in Akron, Ohio, during the mid-1930s, when the alcoholics met as “the alcoholic squadron” of the Oxford Group, and in the early-1940s Cleveland “Beginners’ Meetings” offspring of that approach. Although this style infuses many groups to varying extents, it finds its most explicit expression in the “Primary Purpose” and “Back to Basics” movements founded within A.A. in 1988 and 1995, respectively [71]. Followers of these movements continue to give lip-service to the “spiritual rather than religious” shibboleth, but members and groups formed in this Akronite tradition insist on a brand of “spirituality” that harbors no room for disagreement about a very explicitly Christian content. Such explicitness spans efforts to Christianize early A.A. history, elevate Christian literature on par with A.A.’s own literature, and assert Christian conversion as a central mechanism of A.A.’s effectiveness.

The “Secularizers”, meanwhile, interpret the “post-secular” eraʼs reality in a way more congruent with the Habermas understanding. Their “Awareness of What is Missing” [59] focuses on the steadily increasing number of “nones” responding to surveys of religious affiliation. These “nones” tend to be younger, and in surveys that asked their thoughts on the subject, most replied that they were “spiritual but not religious” [52,53,54,55]. Some of these had problems with alcohol and drugs, and some of those who tried Alcoholics Anonymous found it “too religious” for their comfort. The members of atheist/agnostic A.A. groups generally direct their 12th Step efforts at this population, seeking to “make A.A. safe for atheists” [72,73,74].

5. Recovery Spirituality

A true “Recovery Spirituality” will embrace both the quasi-religious spirituality of the “Big Book Fundamentalists” and a more secular spirituality in which atheists and agnostics who have “the only requirement for A.A. membership…a desire to stop drinking” ([9], p. 562) can also find a helpful home [75].

Although “secular spirituality” is not the same as “atheist [or agnostic] spirituality”, it is important to examine the approach of these groups in some detail, for the vast majority of A.A. members—including most who belong to atheist or agnostic groups—view spirituality as the key to what makes A.A. work [76,77]. Some secularizers, especially a few who are less atheist than anti-theist [78], reject the term spirituality, but several recent books argue for its retention. As early as 2002, University of Texas philosopher Robert C. Solomon published Spirituality for the Skeptic [79], describing spirituality as thoughtfulness, and suggesting that “spirituality, like philosophy, involves those questions that have no ultimate answers” and must be understood, ultimately, “in terms of the transformation of the self” ([79], pp. 5–6). Within the next decade and just beyond, other writers developed that insight, at times explicitly exploring an “atheist spirituality.” André Comte-Sponvilleʼs The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality [80], Ronald Dworkinʼs Religion Without God [81], and Sam Harris’s Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion [82] detailed in varying degrees the content of such an approach.4

Meanwhile, specifically in the addictions field, Marya Hornbacherʼs Waiting: A Non-Believerʼs Higher Power [83], Vince Hawkinsʼs An Atheists [sic] Unofficial Guide to A.A. [84], Roger C.ʼs The Little Book: A Collection of Alternative 12 Steps [85], Archer Voxx’s The Five Keys: 12 Step Recovery Without A God [86], John Lauritsenʼs A Freethinker in Alcoholics Anonymous [87], and Adam N.ʼs Common Sense Recovery: An Atheist’s Guide to Alcoholics Anonymous [88] all offered concrete suggestions on how those who resisted the “God-talk” in Alcoholics Anonymous might nevertheless live that program and its spirituality within that fellowship. Also, true to larger A.A. practice, the year 2013 brought the secularizersʼ own meditation book, Beyond Belief: Agnostic Musings for 12 Step Life: finally, a daily reflection book for nonbelievers, freethinkers and everyone, reflecting the experience of someone who enjoyed 38 years of continuous sobriety [89].

The varied vocabulary in the above suggests an important point. Even recalling the diverse names by which atheists and agnostics refer to themselves—“unbeliever”, “non-believer”, “freethinker”, “unconventional believer”, “humanist”, and surely there are others—alcoholic atheists and agnostics are not the only ones seeking and practicing a secular spirituality [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101]. Spirituality, secular or otherwise, escapes clear definition: there are simply too many definitions. Although we deem the best available discussion of spirituality to be that offered by Sandra Marie Schneiders [102], for the purposes of this article, we adopt the brief, broad definition set forth by Celia Kourie ([103], pp. 19, 22): “Spirituality refers to the raison-d’être of one’s existence, the meaning and values to which one ascribes. Thus everyone embodies a spirituality. It should be seen in a wider context to refer to the deepest dimension of the human person. It refers therefore to the ‘ultimate values’ that give meaning to our lives.” “Secular spirituality”, as we use the term, embraces that understanding [104,105,106,107].

Spirituality of any kind, as a non-material entity, is impossible to measure directly [108,109,110]. There exists a wealth of indirect measurements, with attention paid to such qualities as “self-acceptance” or “purpose in life”. But as Harold Koenig has effectively criticized, measuring “spirituality” with “indicators of good mental health”—which seems the practice of most such research—is “meaningless and tautological” ([111], p. 349; [112]). The same seems true of equating spirituality with “positive emotions” [113]. But what, then, can be said of “atheist spirituality” or—more precisely for our purposes—“secular spirituality”, and what light does that phenomenon shed on the spirituality found in A.A. groups and meetings?

6. A Secular Spirituality

The advantage of studying secular spirituality in some detail is that thus reducing the phenomenon of spirituality to a bare minimum allows seeing more clearly its essence. Admittedly, the meetings we attended from which we derive our analysis were populated mainly by Christians and Jews, with a substantial minority of these identifying themselves as “spiritual rather than religious”, with fewer agnostics and atheists, even fewer who professed a Westernized Buddhism, very few Muslims, and none who identified as Hindus. We have tried to supplement that insofar as possible with our reading [114,115,116].

In barest summary, pondering what we heard across the meetings we have attended over the years as well as the stories that we have read in different sources, the spirituality that we witnessed can be summed up in two words—the prepositions beyond and between. These form the schema of any secular spirituality, the skeleton of A.A. spirituality. There is more to that spirituality, of course: that skeleton is enfleshed and clothed, and below, we will examine six such qualities similarly derived from our listening and reading. But we must begin with those prepositions, two words that, we think, aptly and adequately summarize 12-Step spirituality, whether religious or secular, whether of the relative newcomer or the veteran old-timer.

“Beyond”: Beyond derives from the Old English begeondan, a root not found in other Germanic languages, a preposition meaning literally “on the farther side”. It thus implies some kind of barrier, but a barrier that does not obstruct seeing—and perhaps even going—beyond, farther. The barrier, then, is in some way permeable: it invites—indeed teases—transgression. Beyond pulls forwards; it is not content with stasis. Beyond hints “more”, but of different, not of the same. That which is beyond, then, in some way beyonds us, in the striking verb pioneered by literary scholar Kenneth Burke ([117], pp. 44–45).

Beyond awakens and pulls to transcendence [118,119]. For many ages—for most humans for most of human history—beyond pulled towards the horizon. It implied horizontal movement, an invitation to explore. But just about always for some, and in the age of flight and space travel for just about all, beyond points also vertically, pulling upwards, to new heights. Even before flight, of course, many religious traditions located “heaven” in the heavens. Beyond, then, suggests a dual transcendence: out from the narrow confines of the self-centered self; and up toward some reality greater than, larger than, the self-involved self. “Selfishness—self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles”, A.A.’s basic text suggests ([9], p. 62), capturing a truism that applies not only to alcoholics.

“Beyond’s” vertical transcendence implies a going out and up, a movement toward some reality. This need not entail “higher” in the sense of some kind of heaven or sky-god; it rather connotes a getting-out-of-self to that which is “higher” or greater in the sense of some ideal or of some reality larger than the bare, narrow self. That reality might be one of the classic “transcendentals”—beauty, goodness, truth—or one of the “A.A. transcendentals” such as gratitude or sobriety itself. It might also point to the power of the A.A. group or of the fellowship or program itself; there is no need for that “power” to be capitalized, though some may choose to do so. But in whatever way, any spirituality—including any secular spirituality—beyonds its adherents, pulling them to a transcendence to reality larger/greater than the bare self.

This beyonding, this transcending escape from the bondage of self, opens to a capacity for the wonder and awe that grounds all spirituality. Whether in the wondrous perfection of a newborn infant or the sublime grandeur of a glimpsed universe, the recognition and acceptance that there is reality that transcends self opens to a genuinely new perception and appreciation of all reality. This recognition is not easily granted: the bogey of self does not readily surrender its centrality. But when it does, the resulting new vision is greater even than the “new pair of glasses” promised by one of A.A.’s earliest members [120].

And as a post-secular literature makes clear, transcendence can be horizontal as well as vertical [67,121,122,123,124]. Spirituality’s second preposition, between, offers a specification of “beyond’s” horizontal transcendence: it connects with others. “Between” is more apt than “beside” because it connotes actual connection rather than mere next-ness: there is a “something” between, something linking, as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it: “in reference to any objective relation uniting two parties, and holding them in a certain connection (italics added)”. Spirituality, then, in “pulling beyond” also pulls to, connects. And what is there, horizontally beyond? At first, most obvious level, beyond the “self” are others, and between captures the nature of that relationship, the between-ness of equal connection, a connection of equals. “Between” thus orients to the fundamental first reality that the author of the Book of Genesis put in the mouth of the Creator God: “It is not good for man to be alone.” Nor is this an exclusively “religious” observation: given the development of sexual reproduction, some being in the mist of evolutionary pre-history made—and implemented—the same observation, reaching out in some way to an-other [125]. Fundamental to all living existence is the need for others, in one form or another.

This spiritually based human need-for-others, however, has some unique qualities, and one of the most important is the reality of its mutuality. Mutual relationships involve not the giving or getting of competition, nor even the “giving and getting” of cooperation, but a very real and genuine giving by getting, getting by giving [126,127]. This, then, is a very special and even unique kind of between-ness. Mutual bonds are more than alternately reciprocal. And to appreciate the centrality of this to the 12-Step program, we need to recall the basic first two happenings in the story of Alcoholics Anonymous, the first 12-Step program.

A.A. co-founder Bill Wilson, whose “spiritual experience” in New York Cityʼs Towns Hospital in December 1934 had propelled into sobriety, was in Akron, Ohio, in May of 1935. The proxy-fight he was there to pursue was failing, and Bill dejectedly paced the lonely hotel lobby, catching the sounds of pleasant chatter and the tinkle of ice cubes in the adjacent bar, when an old familiar thought rose: “I need a drink”. Recalling how trying to help other alcoholics had freed him of that craving over the preceding months, even though none he had approached had stayed dry, Wilson walked to the lobby telephone booth and began the series of calls that led him the next day to a meeting with Dr. Robert Holbrook Smith, a local surgeon with a known “drink problem”.

Before his journey to Akron, Wilsonʼs physician, Dr. William Duncan Silkworth, had urged him to “stop preaching at the drunks—give them the medical stuff, the hopelessness, etc.”. But how could Wilson teach medicine to a physician? So the next day when they met, Bill simply told Dr. Bob his story, and the surgeon identified and expressed willingness to try what Wilson had done. Bill described this meeting twenty years later, at A.A.’s “Coming of Age” convention:

You see, our talk was a completely mutual thing. I knew that I needed this alcoholic as much as he needed me. This was it. And this mutual give-and-take is at the very heart of all of A.A.ʼs Twelfth Step work today.

([17], p.70, italics in the original)

Bob went on one last “toot” at a medical convention a month later, and it was only after his final alcoholic drink on 17 June 1935, that A.A.ʼs core spiritual insight was nailed down. Not long after, Bill and Bob visited the hospitalized drunk who would become “A.A. #3”, Bill D. They told Bill D. their stories and then asked him to let them know as soon as possible whether or not he was interested in what they had to offer, for if he was not, they had to seek out others, because it was only by carrying their message to other alcoholics that they themselves could remain sober. Bill D. later recorded his thought on hearing that:

All the other people that had talked to me wanted to help me, and my pride prevented me from listening to them, and caused only resentment on my part, but I felt as if I would be a real stinker if I did not listen to a couple of fellows for a short time, if that would cure them.

([9], p. 185, italics in the original)

The Twelfth Step of Alcoholics Anonymous is often misunderstood by those outside the fellowship: “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics…”

“But,” somebody asks, “what if that drunk you seek out doesn’t want to stop drinking? What do you do about a ‘failed’ 12th Step call?”

“Well, a ‘failed 12th Step call’ is one on which you drink. Itʼs your 12th Step call, you are ‘carrying the message’, and so if you stay sober, the call is a success.”

We may reach up; we must reach out. The topic here is spirituality, remember—that essentially ineffable reality that is at the core of our human be-ing. The wisdom of the human race—our art, music, literature—all attest to our bonds with each other. Indeed, they bond—bind—us with each other. To look beyond is to look and to seek outside of self—up and around. To look between is to look “around” and to discover that we are bonded to/with each other. Transcendence must be horizontal as well as vertical: to look only “up”, to reach only “up”, is to feel one’s aloneness, and standing alone can be dizzying. To realize our full humanity we must also reach out, and when we do look around, between, we discover our connections—the between-nesses that link us with others [128,129,130].

Genuine spirituality reminds us of our between-nesses as well as our beyond-ing.

No, it does more than “remind” us: spirituality consists in that reach, those links. We are beyonding and betweening beings. That is why we are here. One is tempted to say that “Alone, we are nothing.” But only tempted, and even that only at very unusual moments. For in the most real sense, it is impossible to be “alone”—a lone. Connection is always present. The question is, do we recognize it, live it, honor it? We may say, with John Donne, that “No one is an island”; but how well are we living our prepositions [131]?

A.A.ʼs 12-Step spirituality does not end here. Beyond and between are the foundation, the skeleton: the actual living and experiencing of spirituality comprises certain phenomena, experiences. In our years of listening to and reading 12-Step stories, six different experiences have emerged with some consistency [132,133,134]. This does not mean that all of them are heard in every story. It does mean that just about every story delineates and describes at least one, and usually two or three of these experiences. To name them: Release, Gratitude, Humility, Tolerance, Forgiveness, and Being-at-home.5

7. The Contents of Recovery Spirituality

Release: especially in early recovery, but also at later critical junctures of the recovering life, the individual experiences a profound sense of being freed: for one who has been addicted, there is no better term to describe the removal of that obsession-compulsion. This is sometimes described as the feeling that a great weight has been lifted, or as if chains in which one has been bound have fallen away. In each case, the sense is not of freeing oneself but of discovering that one has been unbound, liberated, set free. This sense of “being released”, interestingly, seems to come only to those who have released, who have let go—most obviously in this setting of alcohol or some other drug of choice: it seems, then, that one becomes able to experience release only after one has oneself performed an act of releasing, of letting go.

Gratitude: the experience of thankfulness, the recognition that one has been gift-ed, has received gifts [79,135,136,137]. Sometimes expressed as a corollary of Release, the recovering person describes an appreciation for what is recognized as a freely bestowed gift. Within Alcoholics Anonymous, this is often posited as gratitude for “the gift of sobriety”, for most recovered alcoholics remember how they had been unable to attain recovery on their own, despite their most genuine and valiant efforts. But beyond this, immersion in and internalization of the 12-Step program begets a special kind of vision that enables recognizing new realities, realities previously ignored or taken for granted or simply not seen, realities that one now can recognize. Gratitude anchors sobriety. Members who express difficulty with living some aspect of the 12-Step program are often encouraged to “write out a ‘gratitude list’—the things you have to be grateful for”. Trite and even cruel as such an admonition may sound to some outsider, experience attests that those who have been through it know that “it works” [138].

Humility: the recognition and acceptance that one is neither all nor nothing. In an era that worships celebrity, humility does not enjoy a good press. Some might wish to be thought humble, but no one wants the real thing or what is commonly mistaken to be the real thing, a sycophantic creepiness. But real humility is simply the acceptance that one is of some value, but not of infinite value: one is “not God”. To be human is to be middling. More vividly, in the memorable phrasing of anthropologist Ernest Becker: “Man is a god who shits” ([139], p. 58). On the one hand, we are capable of love and altruism and generosity and many wonderful things, but it is also true that periodically, we have to squat down and be reminded that we are also made of decay and will one day return to stinking decay. Humility is simply what keeps both of those realities in appropriately close awareness [140].

Tolerance, of course, flows from “all of the above”. It is difficult to be self-righteously judgmental when one is aware of one’s middling status as a receiver of the gift of a fundamental freeing. Having “hit bottom”, one learns to look up and around rather than down. Recognizing, really experiencing the realities laid bare by humility, aware of the gifts one has received, it does not necessarily become easier to put up with the inanities of others, but if we see those in the context of what we are learning about ourselves we may become able to smile a bit at our own upset. There are many wisdom stories in which the self-righteous person asks the god for what she/he “deserves”; and then is crushed by the discovery of what that will in fact entail. The recovering alcoholic knows better. Aware of that wisdom, one hesitates to judge. In fact, one is likely to be terrified at the very possibility.

Forgiveness: “Resentment is the number one offender”, the A.A. “Big Book” cautions, going on to declare that “It destroys more alcoholics than anything else. From it stem all forms of spiritual disease.” ([9], p. 64). Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche were the great explorers of ressentiment, but active alcoholics may be its pre-eminent practitioners [141,142,143,144,145]. The opposite of resentment is forgiveness, and research on forgiveness verifies its spiritual nature in that it is one of those realities that cannot be “willed” [146,147]. Forgiveness in fact becomes more impossible the harder one tries to will it. As is true of all spiritual realities, forgiveness becomes possible only when will is replaced by willingness: it results not from effort but from openness. Research also suggests how that openness comes about: what makes forgiveness possible is the experience of being forgiven. How one attains that is one role of A.A.ʼs Ninth Step, making direct amends to those one has injured. Apologies are not amends. Some effort to re-even the scales of justice is required, and sometimes—certainly not always—the individual who has been wronged expresses forgiveness. Experiencing this is to discover that being forgiven is a genuinely spiritual experience, one that one wants to pass on to others [148,149,150,151].

Being-at-Home: Everyone needs a sense of “community”—the deep experience of being in some way at one with some others. Unlike other communities that one may join, “home” is a place where we belong because it is where our very weaknesses and flaws fit in and are in fact the way we “fit in”. Once upon a time, in infancy and early childhood, many if not most people experienced that. It was called “family”. Our need for it does not cease as we age. And so we seek such places. Also once upon a time, this was the function of churches, which began as the place where those conscious of being sinners gathered together. Interestingly, this is to some extent replicated for some new to Alcoholics Anonymous, who park their cars blocks away from the meeting-place lest someone see them attending. But even after one becomes willing to park close-in, the key thing about such places is that one fits into them not because of strong points, competencies, but through mutually acknowledged flaws, weaknesses, inabilities...something one can’t do: “drink alcohol like ‘normal’ people”. To find and dwell in such a place, the whole history of spirituality attests, is an essential facet of spirituality.

Secular Spirituality and the Future of A.A.

In the United States, the percentage of religious “nones”—the non-affiliated—had risen to close to 20% in 2012, and 46% of the overall population “seldom or never attend religious services” [152,153,154,155,156,157]. Across the pond, the 2009 British Attitudes Survey for the first time recorded more “No Religion” (50.9%) than “Christian” (43.1%) respondents; and according to a 2011 YouGov poll, only 34% of UK citizens claimed they believed in a God or gods. A February 2012 YouGov survey found 43% of respondents claiming to belong to a religion and 76% claiming they were not very religious or not religious at all [158,159,160,161]. Matters seem not much different in the rest of Europe [162,163,164,165,166].

Still, it seems, few “nones” in any nation label themselves atheist or agnostic. Most are younger, and listening to them and to their music, the term “secular spirituality” may be a good fit: surely their beyonding and betweening are evident and real, although so is a focus on “self”. What might those changes and this reality portend for the Alcoholics Anonymous that presents itself as “a spiritual program”? In our view, the two opposite responses noted earlier within A.A. will probably continue to be operative into the foreseeable future. Remember, however, that these are “opposites” and so deal with extremes. The great majority of A.A. members will more than likely continue to settle somewhere comfortably in-between, generally tolerating the extremes but probably more often than not seeking out groups that better fit their middling inclinations.

Still, especially if—or as—the animus of “post-secularity” spreads and is internalized by a population increasingly aware of Islamic reality, the “Big Book Fundamentalists” may grow stronger and more numerous. It is unclear whether they will abandon their misconstrual of a 1990 General Service Office report on membership, claiming that it portrays A.A.’s “success rate” as 5% or less, which they allege demonstrates the necessity of their own more stringent approach. Carefully rigorous studies refute that 5% claim [167,168], but those with this mindset do not demonstrate much openness to the findings of research.

Although the variety among A.A. groups has long embraced a spectrum from more “conservative” to more “liberal” approaches to living the Twelve Steps, the end of the twentieth century found Alcoholics Anonymous unsurprisingly enmeshed in the post-modern rebirth of fundamentalisms [169]. Standing at one far end of that spectrum, both the “Primary Purpose” (1988) and “Back to Basics” (1995) movements seek to bring about within A.A. a return to a largely imagined pristine purity. Two observations may be made about these programs: (1) they have helped some, especially among the more religiously inclined, who had been unable to “get the program” in more ordinary A.A.; and (2) they have estranged at least an equal number who are alienated by their heavy emphasis on a very explicit “old time religion”. Although this site is less than fully accepting of these groups, a useful and generally balanced perspective on both groups, and on A.A. “Big Book Fundamentalists” in general, is available [170].

On the opposite side stand the “Modernizing Secularizers” in Alcoholics Anonymous, some of whom not only reject the heavy religious emphasis of the “Back to Basics” enthusiasts but also are antagonized by even the bare mentions of “God” in the Twelve Steps. Although far from all “Modernizing Secularizers” identify as atheists or agnostics, such are the most avid objectors to the sometimes-practice of closing A.A. meetings with the Lord’s Prayer and favor finding substitutes for the “God” noun and pronouns in the Steps themselves. And although atheist and agnostic A.A. groups are recognized by the Fellowshipʼs General Service Office, some religiously inclined A.A. members refuse to acknowledge them.

The developing significance of the “Modernizing Secularizers” was underlined in November 2014, when WAAFT—We Agnostics, Atheists, and Free Thinkers—held its first national gathering in Santa Monica, California. The convention was attended by some 300, including visitors from Australia, Turkey, France, and Spain, and was addressed by the current manager of the Alcoholics Anonymous General Service Office and by a former non-alcoholic (and Episcopal minister) Head Trustee of the fellowship, both of whom warmly praised the group for what they offer the A.A. fellowship as a whole. The “Modernizing Secularizer” perspective is best set forth in the books referenced earlier [83,84,85,86,87,88,89] and at the AA Agnostica website [171], the archives of which contain descriptions of the WAAFT convention.

The secular approach and the growing reality of atheist and agnostic meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous may become of increasing importance especially in the United States of America. In at least two of that nation’s nine judicial districts, A.A. has been deemed sufficiently “religious” that prisoners and parolees cannot be required to attend its meetings as a condition of their rehabilitation. In its 1996 Griffin v. Coughlin decision, the 2nd Circuit’s appellate court ruled that “Adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization” [172]. Just over a decade later, the Ninth United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the constitutional dividing line between church and state is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts [173]. Two useful summaries, each with links to specific legal sources, may be found at [174,175].

Faithful to the A.A. Tradition of avoiding public controversy and having no opinion on outside issues, the New York General Service Office of Alcoholics Anonymous declines to comment on those decisions or on the sometimes distorted reporting of them that has appeared in the public press or in private commentaries. Some members and students of A.A. have however suggested that the existence and current increase of atheist and agnostic A.A. groups rebut such claims, demonstrating their falsity. It will probably require another appellate court decision to test that claim. Until such time, it is not true that “American courts have found that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion”; but it is accurate to observe that those who supervise United States penology practices need to keep in mind the nation’s constitutional separation of church and state.

8. Conclusions

Within the “Recovery Spirituality” that no one doubts can embrace a religiously oriented spirituality, there also exists room for a “secular spirituality” that can include even “an atheist spirituality”. Its core content is summarized in the two prepositions, beyond and between. How those prepositions are specified varies among A.A. groups, the main difference in the United States being geographic. In the American South, lower mid-West, and southwest, many meeting participants tend to offer an explicitly Christian witness, often mentioning “Jesus Christ” as well as some relationship with “God”. On the coasts, in the northeast, and upper mid-West, such effusions are rare, and it is more common for the Serenity Prayer instead of the Lord’s Prayer to close meetings that sometimes began with a reading from the also Conference-approved Living Sober [176] rather than the God-heavy “How It Works”. Some may mention their “Higher Power” or “God”, but rarely as central to their stories.

But even within those parameters, in the vast majority of A.A. groups, the topic of “spirituality” is rarely raised.6 Most speakers talk about, and most discussions revolve around, more quotidian areas where members are endeavoring to live the 12-Step program: a lack of patience with oneʼs spouse, inappropriate concern over one’s childrenʼs activities, anxiety over a coming medical diagnosis, worry about an employment situation, and the list goes on. When a newcomer is present, members usually tell how they first came to A.A. What comes out in those talks and “shares” usually are hints and reminders of the six “spirituality facets” noted above: Release, Gratitude, Humility, Tolerance, Forgiveness, and a sense of Being-at-home. There are no labels, denominational or otherwise, for this spirituality. It simply is. And on the basis of available evidence, it will continue to be.

Author Contributions

Ernest Kurtz and William White each contributed to the research upon which the paper is based. Kurtz prepared the original draft, and both authors revised, read, and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. John F. Kelly, and Claire M. Greene. “Toward an Enhanced Understanding of the Psychological Mechanisms by which Spirituality Aids Recovery in Alcoholics Anonymous.” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 32 (2014): 299–318. [Google Scholar]
  2. Keith Humphreys, Janet C. Blodgett, and Todd H. Wagner. “Estimating the Efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous without Self-Selection Bias: An Instrumental Variables Re-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 38 (2014): 2688–94. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lee Ann Kaskutas. “Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science.” Journal of Addictive Diseases 28 (2009): 145–57. [Google Scholar]
  4. Shulamith Lala Ashenberg Straussner, and Helga Byrne. “Alcoholics Anonymous: Key Research Findings from 2002–2007.” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 27 (2009): 349–67. [Google Scholar]
  5. Agent Orange [pseud]. The Orange Papers: One Man’s Analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous and Substance Misuse Recovery Programs, and Real Recovery. An Online Book. 24 November 2014. Available online: http://www.orange-papers.org/ (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  6. Agent Green [pseud]. The Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. 5 December 2013. Available online: http://www.green-papers.org/ (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  7. Ernest Kurtz, and Katherine Ketcham. The Spirituality of Imperfection. New York: Bantam, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ernest Kurtz, and Katherine Ketcham. Experiencing Spirituality: Finding Meaning through Storytelling. New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  9. Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcoholics Anonymous, 4th ed. New York: A.A. World Services, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  10. Leslie Farber. Iʼm Sorry, Dear. In Lying, Despair, Jealousy, Envy, Sex, Suicide, Drugs and the Good Life. New York: Basic Books, 1976, pp. 123–45. [Google Scholar]
  11. Peg O’Connor. “Who Gets to Be an Expert on Their Own Experiences? ” Psychology Today, 10 September 2014. Available online: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/philosophy-stirred-not-shaken/201409/who-gets-be-expert-their-own-experiences (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  12. Maria Gabrielle Swora. “Narrating Community: The Creation of Social Structure in Alcoholics Anonymous Through the Performance of Autobiography.” Narrative Inquiry 11 (2001): 363–84. [Google Scholar]
  13. Judith Grant. “Rural Women’s Stories of Recovery from Addiction.” Addiction Research and Theory 15 (2007): 521–41. [Google Scholar]
  14. Robert Walker, Theodore M. Godlaski, and Michele Staton-Tindall. “Spirituality, Drugs, and Alcohol: A Philosophical Analysis.” Substance Use & Misuse 48 (2013): 1233–45. [Google Scholar]
  15. William L. White. “Addiction Recovery Mutual Aid Groups: An Enduring International Phenomenon.” Addiction 99 (2004): 532–38. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ernest Kurtz, and William L. White. Alcoholics Anonymous. In Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History: An International Encyclopedia. Edited by Jack S. Blocker, David M. Fahey, and Ian R. Tyrell. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003, pp. 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  17. Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., 1957. [Google Scholar]
  18. Alcoholics Anonymous. Dr. Bob and the Good Oldtimers: A Biography, with Recollections of Early A.A. in the Midwest. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., 1980. [Google Scholar]
  19. Alcoholics Anonymous. “Pass It On”: The Story of Bill Wilson and How the A.A. Message Reached the World. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., 1984. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ernest Kurtz. Not. God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous. Center City: Hazelden, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  21. William L. White, and Ernest Kurtz. Twelve Defining Moments in the History of Alcoholics Anonymous. In Recent Developments in Alcoholism. Edited by Marc Galanter, and Lee Ann Kaskutas. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation, 2008, vol. 18, pp. 37–57. [Google Scholar]
  22. William G. Borchert. The Lois Wilson Story: When Love Is Not Enough. Center City: Hazelden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sally Brown, and David R. Brown. Mrs. Marty Mann: The First Lady of Alcoholics Anonymous. Center City: Hazelden, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  24. Susan Cheever. My Name Is Bill: Bill Wilson—His Life and the Creation of Alcoholics Anonymous. New York: Washington Square Press, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mary Darrah. Sister Ignatia: Angel of Alcoholics Anonymous. Center City: Hazelden, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  26. Francis Hartigan. Bill W.: A Biography of Alcoholics Anonymous Cofounder Bill Wilson. New York: St. Martinʼs Griffin, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mitchell K. How It Worked: The Story of Clarence H. Snyder. Washingtonville: Self-Published, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dale Mitchel [pseud.]. Silkworth: The Little Doctor Who Loved Drunks, the Biography of William Duncan Silkworth, M.D. Center City: Hazelden, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  29. Matthew J. Raphael [pseud.]. Bill W. and Mr. Wilson: The Legend and Life of A.A.’s Cofounder. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bill Wilson. Bill W.: My First 40 Years. Center City: Hazelden, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jeff Sandoz. “Finding God through the Spirituality of 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.” Religions 5 (2014): 948–60. [Google Scholar]
  32. Brian J. Zinnbauer, Kenneth I. Pargament, Brenda Cole, Mark S. Rye, Eric M. Butter, Timothy G. Belavich, Kathleen M. Hipp, Allie B. Scott, and Jill L. Kadar. “Religion and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (1997): 549–64. [Google Scholar]
  33. Alcoholics Anonymous. Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., 1989. [Google Scholar]
  34. Charlie Bishop, and Bill Pittman. To Be Continued...The Alcoholics Anonymous World Bibliography, 1935–1994. Wheeling: The Bishop of Books, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  35. Monica J. Horstmann, and Scott J. Tonigan. “Faith Development in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 18 (2000): 75–84. [Google Scholar]
  36. Henry A. Montgomery, William R. Miller, and Scott J. Tonigan. “Differences among AA Groups: Implications for Research.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 54 (1993): 502–04. [Google Scholar]
  37. Scott J. Tonigan, Francesca Ashcroft, and William R. Miller. “AA Group Dynamics and 12-Step activity.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 56 (1995): 616–21. [Google Scholar]
  38. Robin Room. Alcoholics Anonymous as a Social Movement. In Research on Alcoholics Anonymous: Opportunities and Alternatives. Edited by Barbara S. McCrady, and William R. Miller. New Brunswick: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, 1993, pp. 167–87. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jean Kirkpatrick. Goodbye Hangovers, Hello Life. New York: Ballantine Books, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jim Christopher. Unhooked: Staying Sober and Drug Free. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jack Trimpey. The Small Book. New York: Delacorte Press, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  42. Audrey Kishline. Moderate Drinking. Tucson: See Sharp Press, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  43. AA Agnostica. Worldwide Agnostic A.A. Meetings. Available online: http://www.agnosticaanyc.org/worldwide.html (accessed 3 December 2014).
  44. William White, and Ernest Kurtz. “The Varieties of Recovery Experience.” International Journal of Self Help and Self Care 3 (2006): 21–61. [Google Scholar]
  45. Michael T. Flaherty, Ernest Kurtz, William L. White, and Ariel Larson. “An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis of Secular, Spiritual, and Religious Pathways of Long-term Addiction Recovery.” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 32 (2014): 337–56. [Google Scholar]
  46. William L. White. Slaying the Dragon: The History of Addiction Treatment and Recovery in America, 2nd ed. Bloomington: Chestnut Health Systems, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  47. William L. White. Pioneer Interviews. November 2014. Available online: http://www.williamwhitepapers.com/papers/topics/pioneer_interviews/ (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  48. Faces and Voices of Recovery. Guide to Mutual Aid Resources. November 2014. Available online: http://www.facesandvoicesofrecovery.org/guide/support/ (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  49. Robert Thomsen. Bill W. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  50. Will Herberg. Protestant, Catholic, Jew. New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1959. [Google Scholar]
  51. Stephen J. Whitfield. The Culture of the Cold War, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  52. Linda A. Mercadante. Belief without Borders: Inside the Minds of the Spiritual but Not. Religious. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  53. Robert C. Fuller. Spiritual, But Not. Religious: Understanding Unchurched America. New York: Oxford, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  54. Nancy T. Ammerman. “Spiritual but not Religious? Beyond Binary Choices in the Study of Religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52 (2013): 258–78. [Google Scholar]
  55. Barbar Newman. “On Being Spiritual But Not (yet? ever?) Religious.” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 10 (2010): 282–87. [Google Scholar]
  56. Roger C. A History of Agnostic Groups in AA. 20 August 2012. Available online: http://aaagnostica.org/a-history-of-agnostic-groups-in-aa/ (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  57. Jürgen Habermas. “Religion in the Public Sphere.” European Journal of Philosophy 14 (2006): 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  58. Jürgen Habermas. “Notes on Post-Secular Society.” New Perspectives Quarterly 25 (2008): 17–29. [Google Scholar]
  59. Jürgen Habermas, ed. An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010 [2008 German].
  60. Jürgen Habermas. A Postsecular World Society? On the Philosophical Significance of Postsecular Consciousness and the Multicultural World Society: An interview with Jürgen Habermas by Eduardo Mendieta. 2012. Available online: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/A-Postsecular-World-Society-TIF.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  61. Rodney Stark. “Secularization, R.I.P.” Sociology of Religion 60 (1999): 249–73. [Google Scholar]
  62. Stathis Gourgouris. “Why I Am Not a Postsecularist.” Boundary 2 40 (2013): 41–54. [Google Scholar]
  63. Bruce Robbins. “Why I Am Not a Postsecularist.” Boundary 2 40 (2013): 55–76. [Google Scholar]
  64. Austin Harrington. “Habermas and the ‘Post-Secular Society.” European Journal of Social Theory 10 (2007): 543–60. [Google Scholar]
  65. Stephen Bullivant, and Lois Lee. “Interdisciplinary Studies of Non-Religion and Secularity: The State of the Union.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 27 (2012): 19–27. [Google Scholar]
  66. Aakash Singh. “Is Who Postsecular? A Post-Postcolonial Response.” Telos 167 (2014): 27–48. [Google Scholar]
  67. Charles Taylor. A Secular Age. Cambridge: Harvard-Belknap, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  68. Peter Watson. The Age of Atheists: How We Have Sought to Live Since the Death of God. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  69. Alister McGrath. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. New York: Doubleday, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  70. Paul Heelas. “Challenging Secularization Theory: The Growth of ‘New Age’ Spiritualities of Life.” Hedgehog Review 8 (2006): 46–58. [Google Scholar]
  71. Wally P. Back To Basics—The Alcoholics Anonymous Beginners Meetings, rev. ed. Tucson: Faith with Works Publishing Co., 2003. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ernest Kurtz, and William L. White. AAAgnostica and the Varieties of AA Experience. 1 August 2014. Available online: http://www.williamwhitepapers.com/blog/2014/08/aaagnostica-and-the-varieties-of-aa-experience-ernie-kurtz-and-william-white.html (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  73. R.L. Wild. “Only with Godʼs Help? ” The New Humanist, January 1975. Available online: http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/WILD.HTM (accessed on 21 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  74. J. Scott Tonigan, William R. Miller, and Carol Schermer. “Atheists, Agnostics and Alcoholics Anonymous.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63 (2002): 534–41. [Google Scholar]
  75. Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins. “Faith as an Option.” The Immanent Frame, 6 November 2014. Available online: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2014/11/06/faith-as-an-option/ (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  76. Scott J. Tonigan, Kristina N. Rynes, and Barbara S. McCrady. “Spirituality as a Change Mechanism in 12-step Programs: A Replication, Extension, and Refinement.” Substance Use & Misuse 48 (2013): 1161–73. [Google Scholar]
  77. Alison D. Spalding, and Gary J. Metz. “Spirituality and Quality of Life in Alcoholics Anonymous.” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 15 (1997): 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  78. Reza Aslan. “Sam Harris and ‘New Atheists’ aren’t new, aren’t even atheists.” Salon, 21 November 2014. Available online: http://www.salon.com/2014/11/21/reza_aslan_sam_harris_and_new_atheists_arent_new_arent_even_atheists/ (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  79. Robert C. Solomon. Spirituality for the Skeptic: The Thoughtful Love of Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  80. André Comte-Sponville. The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality. New York: Viking-Penguin, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  81. Ronald Dworkin. Religion without God. Cambridge: Harvard, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  82. Sam Harris. Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  83. Marya Hornbacher. Waiting: A Non-Believerʼs Higher Power. Center City: Hazelden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  84. Vince Hawkins. An. Atheists [sic] Unofficial Guide to Alcoholics Anonymous, rev. ed. CreateSpace Independent Publishing, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  85. Roger C. The Little Book: A Collection of Alternative 12 Steps. Toronto: AAAgnostica, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  86. Archer Voxx. The Five Keys: 12 Step Recovery without a God. Colorado Springs: Maze Publishing, 2013, Kindle edition. [Google Scholar]
  87. John Lauritsen. A Freethinker in Alcoholics Anonymous. Dorchester: Pagan Press, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  88. N. Adam. Common Sense Recovery: An. Atheist’s Guide to Alcoholics Anonymous. Toronto: AAAgnostica, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  89. Joe C. Beyond Belief: Agnostic Musings for 12 Step Life: finally, a Daily Reflection Book for Nonbelievers, Freethinkers and Everyone. Toronto: Rebellion Dogs Publishing, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  90. Tatjana Schnell, and William J.F. Keenan. “Meaning-Making in an Atheist World.” Archive for the Psychology of Religion 33 (2011): 55–78. [Google Scholar]
  91. Heinz Streib, and Constantin Klein. Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates. In Handbook of Psychology, Religion and Spirituality. Edited by Kenneth I. Pargament. New York: APA, forthcoming.
  92. Veit Bader. “Religion and the Myths of Secularization and Separation.” RELIGARE Working Paper 8 (2011): 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  93. Anesa Miller-Pogacar. “Varieties of Post-Atheist Spirituality in Mikhail Epsteinʼs Approach to Culturology.” Slavic and East. European Journal 39 (1995): 344–56. [Google Scholar]
  94. Jerome A. Stone. “Spirituality for Naturalists.” Zygon. 47 (2012): 481–500. [Google Scholar]
  95. Jeffrey K. Hadden. “Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory.” Social Forces 65 (1987): 587–611. [Google Scholar]
  96. Saba Mahmood. “Secular Imperatives? ” Public Culture 20 (2008): 461–65. [Google Scholar]
  97. Christopher F. Silver. A Word by Any Other Name: The Emergent Field of Non-religion and the Implications for Social Meaning. 8 October 2012. Available online: http://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/2012/10/10/a-word-by-any-other-name-the-emergent-field-of-non-religion-and-the-implications-for-social-meaning-by-christopher-f-silver/ (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  98. Harald Walach. Secular, Non-dogmatic Spirituality. In Secular Spirituality: The Next Step Towards Enlightenment. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015, (Original German Drachen Verlag, 2011, pp. 93–172.). [Google Scholar]
  99. Harald Walach. Getting on with Enlightenment: The Necessity of a Secular Non-dogmatic Spirituality. In Secular Spirituality: The Next Step Towards Enlightenment. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015, (Original German Drachen Verlag, 2011, pp. 187–207.). [Google Scholar]
  100. Graham Ward. “The Myth of Secularism.” Telos 167 (2014): 162–79. [Google Scholar]
  101. Yuri Contreras-Vejar. “The Still Born God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West. By Mark Lilla.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 21 (2008): 81–85. [Google Scholar]
  102. Sandra Marie Schneiders. “Religion vs. Spirituality: A Contemporary Conundrum.” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 3 (2003): 163–85. [Google Scholar]
  103. Celia Kourie. “‘The Turn’ to Spirituality.” Acta Theologica Supplementum 8 (2006): 19–38. [Google Scholar]
  104. Cornel W. du Toit. “Secular Spirituality Versus Secular Dualism: Towards Postsecular Holism as Model for a Natural Theology.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 62 (2006): 1251–68. [Google Scholar]
  105. Jessica MacLaren. “A Kaleidoscope of Understandings: Spiritual Nursing in a Multi-faith Society.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 45 (2004): 457–64. [Google Scholar]
  106. Edward Bailey. “Implicit Religion.” Religion 40 (2010): 271–78. [Google Scholar]
  107. Teemu Taira. Atheist Spirituality: A Follow on from New Atheism. In Media Portrayals of Religion and the Secular Sacred: Representation and Change. Edited by Kim Knott, Elizabeth Poole, and Teemu Taira. Farnam: Ashgate, 2013, pp. 388–404. [Google Scholar]
  108. Allaman Allamani, Stan-Shlomo Einstein, and Theodore M. Godlaski. “A Review of the Many Meanings of an Unseizable Concept.” Substance Use & Misuse 48 (2013): 1081–84. [Google Scholar]
  109. David N. Elkins, James L. Hedstrom, Lori L. Hughes, Andrew J. Leaf, and Cheryl Saunders. “Toward a Humanistic-Phenomenological Spirituality: Definition, Description, and Measurement.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 28 (1988): 5–18. [Google Scholar]
  110. Christopher C.H. Cook. “Addiction and spirituality.” Addiction 99 (2004): 539–51. [Google Scholar]
  111. Harold G. Koenig. “Concerns about Measuring ‘Spirituality’ in Research.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases 196 (2008): 349–55. [Google Scholar]
  112. Simon Dein, Christopher C.H. Cook, and Harold Koenig. “Religion, Spirituality, and Mental Health: Current Controversies and Future Directions.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 200 (2012): 852–55. [Google Scholar]
  113. George Vaillant. Spiritual Evolution. New York: Broadway, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  114. Roger C. Donʼt Tell: Stories and Essays by Agnostics and Atheists in A.A. Toronto: AA Agnostica, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  115. Anonymous. Selected Stories and Letters from the AA Grapevine Written by Agnostics, Atheists, Freethinkers and Believers with an Open Mind, Unpublished manuscript. 2014. compiled by the AA Agnostica site for private use because of copyright restrictions; a list of these stories may be obtained from AA Agnostica, which will allow locating them on the AAGV online site (requires subscription).
  116. Lesley L. Green, Mindy Thompson Fullilove, and Robert E. Fullilove. “Stories of Spiritual Awakening: The Nature of Spirituality in Recovery.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 15 (1998): 325–31. [Google Scholar]
  117. Richard M. Coe. “Defining Rhetoric—and Us.” Journal of Advanced Composition 10 (1990): 39–52. [Google Scholar]
  118. Christopher C.H. Cook. Transcendence, Immanence and Mental Health. In Spirituality, Theology and Mental Health: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Christopher Cook. London: SCM Press, 2013, pp. 141–59. [Google Scholar]
  119. Richard Bernstein. “The Uneasy Tensions of Immanence and Transcendence.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 21 (2008): 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  120. Chuck C. A New Pair of Glasses. Newport Beach: New Look Publishing, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  121. Thomas J. Coleman III, Christopher F. Silver, and Jenny Holcombe. “Focusing on Horizontal Transcendence: Much More than a ‘Non-Belief’.” Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 21 (2013): 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  122. Cornel W. duToit. “Towards a New Natural Theology Based on Horizontal Transcendence.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 65 article 186. (2009). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Michael Daniels. “On Transcendence in Transpersonal Psychology.” Transpersonal Psychology Review 5 (2001): 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ursula Goodenough. “Vertical and Horizontal Transcendence.” Zygon 36 (2001): 21–31. [Google Scholar]
  125. Rabbi Jonatha Sacks. The Love that Brings New Life into the World. 17 October 2014. Available online: http://www.rabbisacks.org/love-brings-new-life-world-rabbi-sacks-institution-marriage/ (Accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  126. Frank Riessman. “The ‘Helper’ Therapy Principle.” Social Work 10 (1965): 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  127. Randolph G. Atkins Jr., and James E. Hawdon. “Religiosity and Participation in Mutual-aid Support Groups for Addiction.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 33 (2007): 321–31. [Google Scholar]
  128. Paul DiLorenzo, Raymond Johnson, and Marian Bussey. “The Role of Spirituality in the Recovery Process.” Child. Welfare 80 (2001): 257–73. [Google Scholar]
  129. Stephen G. Post. “The Ontological Generality: Recovery in Triadic Community with a Higher Power, Neighbor, and Self.” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 32 (2014): 120–40. [Google Scholar]
  130. Charles A. Walker. “Spirituality, Connectedness & Ultimate Concern.” The Journal of Theory Construction & Testing, 2006, 10. Available online: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/23465577/spirituality-connectedness-ultimate-concern (accessed on 23 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  131. Arthur A. Callaham. “It’s Not Easy Being Purple: Franz Bibfeldt and the Quest for a Religious Middle.” The Criterion—Publication of the University of Chicago Divinity School 44 (2005): 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  132. Elizabeth A.R. Robinson, Kirk J. Brower, and Ernest Kurtz. “Life-Changing Experiences, Spirituality and Religiousness of Persons Entering Treatment for Alcohol Problems.” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 21 (2003): 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  133. Elizabeth A.R. Robinson, James A. Cranford, Jon R. Webb, and Kirk J. Brower. “Six-Month Changes in Spirituality, Religiousness, and Heavy Drinking in a Treatment-Seeking Sample.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68 (2007): 282–90. [Google Scholar]
  134. Elizabeth A.R. Robinson, Amy R. Krentzman, Jon R. Webb, and Kirk J. Brower. “Six-Month Changes in Spirituality and Religiousness in Alcoholics Predict Drinking Outcomes at Nine Months.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 72 (2011): 660–68. [Google Scholar]
  135. Robert A. Emmons, and Cheryl A. Crumpler. “Gratitude as a human strength: Appraising the evidence.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19 (2000): 56–69. [Google Scholar]
  136. Robert A. Emmons, and Michael E. McCullough. “Counting Blessings Versus Burdens: An Experimental Investigation of Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being in Daily Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (2003): 377–89. [Google Scholar]
  137. Michael E. McCullough, Robert A. Emmons, and Jo-An Tsang. “The Grateful Disposition: A Conceptual and Empirical Topography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (2002): 112–27. [Google Scholar]
  138. John Bishop. “Secular Spirituality and the Logic of Giving Thanks.” Sophia 49 (2012): 523–34. [Google Scholar]
  139. Ernest Becker. The Denial of Death. New York: Macmillan, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  140. June Price Tangney. “Humility: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Findings and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19 (2000): 70–82. [Google Scholar]
  141. Alina Wyman. “The Specter of Freedom: ‘Ressentiment’ and Dostoevskiʼs ‘Notes from Underground’.” Studies in East. European Thought 59 (2007): 119–40. [Google Scholar]
  142. Joshua Hren. “The Genealogy of resentment and the Achilles’ Heel of Humanitarianism: Thinking with Dostoevsky, Scheler, and Manent on ‘Love of Mankind’.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 17 (2014): 17–43. [Google Scholar]
  143. Bernard N. Meltzer, and Gil Richard Musolf. “Resentment and Ressentiment.” Sociological Inquiry 72 (2002): 240–55. [Google Scholar]
  144. Robert C. Solomon. Living with Nietzsche: What the Great “Immoralist” Has to Teach Us. New York: Oxford, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  145. Jay R. Wallace. Ressentiment, Value, and Self-Vindication: Making Sense of Nietzsche’s Slave Revolt. In Nietzsche and Morality. Edited by Brian Leiter, and Neil Sinhababu. Oxford: Clarendon, 2007, pp. 110–37. [Google Scholar]
  146. Lin Bauer, Jack Duffy, Elizabeth Fountain, Steen Halling, Maria Holzer, Elaine Jones, Michael Leifer, and Jan O. Rowe. “Exploring Self-Forgiveness.” Journal of Religion and Health 31 (1992): 149–60. [Google Scholar]
  147. Steen Halling. “Embracing Human Fallibility: On Forgiving Oneself and Forgiving Others.” Journal of Religion and Health 33 (1994): 107–13. [Google Scholar]
  148. Richard S. Downie. “Forgiveness.” The Philosophical Quarterly 15 (1965): 128–34. [Google Scholar]
  149. Dorothea M. Dolling. “This Word Forgiveness.” Parabola 12 (1987): 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  150. Jon R. Webb, and Richard P. Trautman. “Forgiveness and Alcohol Use: Applying a Specific Spiritual Principle to Substance Abuse Problems.” Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment 9 (2010): 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  151. Michael E. McCullough. “Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, and links to well-being.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19 (2000): 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  152. Robert D. Putnam, and David E. Campbell. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  153. Pau Taylor, and Pew Research Center. The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown. New York: Public Affairs (Perseus), 2014. [Google Scholar]
  154. Penny Long Marler, and C. Kirk Hadaway. “‘Being Religious’ or ‘Being Spiritual’ in America: A Zero-Sum Proposition? ” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41 (2002): 289–300. [Google Scholar]
  155. Michael Hout, and Claude S. Fischer. “Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession, 1987–2012.” Sociological Science 1 (2014): 423–47. [Google Scholar]
  156. Greg Melleuish. “Living in an Age of Comfort: Understanding Religion in the Twenty-first Century.” Telos 166 (2014): 9–24. [Google Scholar]
  157. Robert Wuthnow. After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty- and Thirty.-Somethings. Are Shaping the Future of American Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  158. Grace Davie. “Believing without Belonging: Is This the Future of Religion in Britain? ” Social Compass 37 (1990): 455–69. [Google Scholar]
  159. David Voas, and Alasdair Crockett. “Religion in Britain: Neither Believing nor Belonging.” Sociology 39 (2005): 11–28. [Google Scholar]
  160. Wikipedia. Religion in the United Kingdom. 23 November 2014. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  161. Tony Glendinning, and Steve Bruce. “New Ways of Believing or Belonging: Is Religion Giving Way to Spirituality.” The British Journal of Sociology 57 (2006): 399–414. [Google Scholar]
  162. Dick Houtman, and Stef Aupers. “The Spiritual Turn and the Decline of Tradition: The Spread of Post-Christian Spirituality in 14 Western Countries, 1981–2000.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46 (2007): 305–20. [Google Scholar]
  163. Kocku von Stuckrad. “Secular Religion: A Discourse–Historical Approach to Religion in Contemporary Western Europe.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 28 (2013): 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  164. Joantine Berghuijs, Jos Pieper, and Cok Bakker. “Being ‘Spiritual’ and Being ‘Religious’ in Europe: Diverging Life Orientations.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 28 (2013): 15–32. [Google Scholar]
  165. Paul Heelas. “The Spiritual Revolution of Northern Europe: Personal Beliefs.” Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 19 (2007): 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  166. Heinz Streib, and Ralph W. Hood. “Modeling the Religious Field: Religion, Spirituality, Mysticism, and Related World Views.” Implicit Religion 16 (2013): 137–55. [Google Scholar]
  167. Arthur S., Tom E., and Glenn C. Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Recovery Outcome Rates: Contemporary Myth and Misinterpretation. 1 January 2008. Available online: http://hindsfoot.org/archives.html (accessed on 7 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  168. Don McIntire. “How Well Does A.A. Work? ” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 18 (2000): 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  169. Karen Armstrong. The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism. New York: Random House, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  170. Back to Basics. An Enquiry into Primary Purpose and Back to Basics AA Groups. Available online: https://drive.google.com/a/umich.edu/file/d/0B0cW38yqky8uOW1BTnZaRjEtNnc/view (accessed on 7 January 2015).
  171. AA Agnostica. AA Agnostica. Available online: http://AAagnostica.org/ (accessed on 7 January 2015).
  172. James Barron. “Saying A.A. is Religious, Court Lets Inmate Skip It.” The New York Times, 12 June 1996. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/12/nyregion/saying-aa-is-religious-court-lets-inmate-skip-it.html (accessed on 21 January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  173. Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007). Available online: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1008140.html (accessed on 7 January 2015).
  174. Thomas A. Horvath. Court Ordered 12-Step Attendance is Illegal. Available online: http://www.practicalrecovery.com/non-12-step/court-ordered-12-step-attendance-is-illegal/ (accessed on 7 January 2015).
  175. National Drug Court Resource Center. Constitutional and Other Legal Issues in Drug Court: A Webliography. Available online: http://www.ndcrc.org/content/constitutional-and-other-legal-issues-drug-court (accessed on 21 January 2015).
  176. Alcoholics Anonymous. Living Sober. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  • 1In the minds of some, at least, there seems to be a subtle but real distinction between “spiritual rather than religious” and “spiritual but not religious”; see, relatedly, Zinnbauer et al. [32].
  • 2This article will use the URL address-shortener bit.ly. A listing of worldwide agnostic meetings may be found at http://www.agnosticAAnyc.org/worldwide.html, http://v.gd/jShmlk, http://bit.ly/1A6dtqp [43].
  • 3On “post-secular”, see first Stark [61]; then, since we are treating of “Secular Spirituality”, see also Gourgouris [62], Robbins [63], Harrington [64], Bullivant and Lee [65], and Singh [66]. For a sense of the full context of what is going on here, see Taylor [67], Watson [68], McGrath [69], and Heelas [70].
  • 4In choosing to use the term “spirituality” even in reference to atheist and agnostic groups, we follow the example of, among others, Sam Harris, who “address[es] the animosity that many readers feel toward the term spiritual” in his book, Waking Up [82]. Noting that “many nonbelievers now consider all things ‘spiritual’ to be contaminated by medieval superstition”, Harris argues that “there is no other term with which to discuss the efforts people make to fully bring their minds into the present or to induce non-ordinary states of consciousness. And no other word links this spectrum of experience to our ethical lives” ([82], pp. 6–7).
  • 5These experiences are discussed in greater detail in The Spirituality of Imperfection [7].
  • 6A standard bit of experience-based A.A. humor runs that someone stopped attending a “We Agnostics” group “because there was too much talk about God”.
Religions EISSN 2077-1444 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert Logo copyright Steve Bridenbaugh/UUA
Back to Top