Are there any particular things to amend or change in the process for sponsoring someone through a step 4 when they’ve had quite serious harms done to them, things that really shouldn’t have happened?
I take others through the process I myself underwent.
Everyone's had things that shouldn't have happened and everyone's done things they shouldn't have done. The question is only one of degree.
Page 66:
"The first thing apparent was that this world and its people were often quite wrong. To conclude that others were wrong was as far as most of us ever got. The usual outcome was that people continued to wrong us and we stayed sore."
Page 66 to page 67:
"We began to see that the world and its people really dominated us. In that state, the wrongdoing of others, fancied or real, had power to actually kill. How could we escape? We saw that these resentments must be mastered, but how? We could not wish them away any more than alcohol.
This was our course: We realized that the people who wronged us were perhaps spiritually sick. Though we did not like their symptoms and the way these disturbed us, they, like ourselves, were sick too. We asked God to help us show them the same tolerance, pity, and patience that we would cheerfully grant a sick friend. When a person offended we said to ourselves, “This is a sick man. How can I be helpful to him? God save me from being angry. Thy will be done.”
And then a review of my beliefs, thinking, and behaviour through these questions:
"Putting out of our minds the wrongs others had done, we resolutely looked for our own mistakes. Where had we been selfish, dishonest, self-seeking and frightened? Though a situation had not been entirely our fault, we tried to disregard the other person involved entirely. Where were we to blame? The inventory was ours, not the other man’s. When we saw our faults we listed them. We placed them before us in black and white. We admitted our wrongs honestly and were willing to set these matters straight."
There are situations where, in the moment, one did nothing wrong and one's response was reasonable.
Often, I had unwittingly set myself up:
Page 62:
"Sometimes they hurt us, seemingly without provocation, but we invariably find that at some time in the past we have made decisions based on self which later placed us in a position to be hurt."
On the rare occasions where I did not contribute in any way to the situation arising and responded well in the situation itself, there's usually the tail of response over the months and years that followed where the beliefs, thinking, and behaviour need some examination.
12 x 12:
"It is a spiritual axiom that every time we are disturbed, no matter what the cause, there is something wrong with us. If somebody hurts us and we are sore, we are in the wrong also. But are there no exceptions to this rule? What about ‘justifiable’ anger? If somebody cheats us, aren’t we entitled to be mad? Can’t we be properly angry with self-righteous folk? For us of AA these are dangerous exceptions. We have found that justified anger ought to be left to those better qualified to handle it.
Few people have been more victimized by resentments than have we alcoholics. It mattered little whether our resentments were justified or not. A burst of temper could spoil a day, and a well-nursed grudge could make us miserably ineffective. Nor were we ever skilful in separating justified from unjustified anger. As we saw it, our wrath was always justified. Anger, that occasional luxury of more balanced people, could keep us on an emotional jag indefinitely. These emotional ‘dry benders’ often led straight to the bottle. Other kinds of disturbances—jealousy, envy, self-pity, or hurt pride—did the same thing."
I had to let go of being special and different because of my past. It wasn't doing me any favours.
Plus, the events in question were over. They were no longer happening. That's also of note. Whenever I'm preoccupied with the past I'm rejecting the present.
Comments
Post a Comment