Alcoholics Anonymous and the Church

A History Misunderstood

PAUL STARK

The Origin of Alcoholics Anonymous ...... 3

The Nature and Extent of the Alcoholics Anonymous Belief System within the Church Today .. 9

A Comparison of Certain Historical Orthodox Christian Doctrines to Certain Alcoholics Anonymous Doctrines ...... 13

Conclusion ...... 15

Bibliography ...... 17

Introduction

The relationship between the Christian Church and Alcoholics Anonymous has

historically been a close one. Churches of all denominations across the United States

continue to regularly host Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on their properties. Churches

have no doubt opened their doors to this group, or fellowship, as it calls itself,1 as an outreach

of Christian love to the community. However, churches have also been frustrated by their

inability to construct a theology within which to understand addictions and therefore to help

addicted persons from a biblical and Christocentric perspective. Many a pastor and Christian

counselor has become deeply discouraged attempting to help addicted persons through

prayer, encouragement, and counseling. Add to this the uncertainty about the nature of

addictions. Are they medical problems? Psychological problems? Sociological problems?

Theological problems? Which among the popular models should be used in thinking about

addictions, the moral model, the disease model, the scientific model?2 Many pastors have

been all too willing to allow Alcoholics Anonymous to ―minister‖ to their parishioners with

addiction problems due to the absence of an acceptable solution of their own.

This paper will begin by examining the origin of Alcoholics Anonymous with

particular attention paid to its theological roots and relationship to the historic Church. The

personalities involved in its beginnings and their Christian beliefs will be surveyed. Next, an

analysis of the nature and extent of the Alcoholics Anonymous belief system upon the church

and its effects will be considered. What does the relationship between Alcoholics

1 Ernest Kurtz, Not-God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous (Center City: Hazelden Educational Services, 1979), 33.

2 Christopher C. H. Cook, Alcohol, Addiction, and Christian Ethics (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 17.

Anonymous and the church look like today, and is there cause for concern? Finally, a

comparison of certain historical orthodox Christian doctrines to certain Alcoholics

Anonymous doctrines will be undertaken. Are Alcoholics Anonymous dogmas compatible

with or antithetical to these Christian doctrines? If not, what are the implications for the

church, and what form, if any, should the relationship take between the church and

Alcoholics Anonymous?

The Origin of Alcoholics Anonymous

There is not unanimity regarding a certain ―founding moment‖ for Alcoholics

Anonymous (AA).3 Ernest Kurtz puts it in a 1934 Brooklyn, New York ―kitchen experience‖

between AA co-founder Bill Wilson and his alcoholic friend Ebby Thacher, who upon being

offered a drink by Wilson, declined declaring, ―I‘ve got religion‖.4 Kurtz actually cites four

―founding moments‖ in AA‘s history:

Dr. Carl Gustav Jung‘s 1931 conversation with Rowland H.; Ebby T.‘s late November 1934 visit with Bill Wilson; Wilson's ‗spiritual experience‘ and discovery of William James in Towns Hospital in mid-December 1934; and the interaction of Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith through May and June 1935 which climaxes in the final and enshrined ‗founding moment‘. . . .5

Rowland Hazard was a man who had accumulated considerable wealth in finance

and, after becoming alcoholic, was able to consult one of the foremost psychiatrists of the

day in Jung. Hazard traveled to Zurich for extensive treatment by Jung. After informing

Hazard that there was no further medical options that could help him, Jung told this desperate

3 Kurtz, 8.

4 Ibid., 7.

5 Ibid., 33.

man that there might be hope in ―a spiritual or religious experience – in short, a genuine

conversion.‖6 Jung and Wilson were later to correspond on the significance of Hazard‘s

treatment by the doctor. Wilson wrote that ―[T]he conversation between you [and Rowland]

. . . was to become the first link in the chain of events that led to the founding of Alcoholics

Anonymous‖. Wilson‘s own ―spiritual experience‖ is recounted in one of his books:

Suddenly the room lit up with a great white light. I was caught up into an ecstasy which there are no words to describe. It seemed to me, in the mind's eye, that I was on a mountain and that a wind not of air but spirit was blowing. And then it burst upon me that I was a free man. Slowly the ecstasy subsided. I lay on the bed, but now for a time I was in another world, a new world of consciousness. All about me and through me there was a wonderful feeling of Presence, and I thought to myself, ―So this is the God of the preachers!‖ A great peace stole over me and I thought, ―No matter how wrong things seem to be, they are right. Things are all right with God and His world‖.7

William James is the author of The Varieties of Religious Experience,8 the book given to

Wilson by his friend Ebby while in the hospital, ―a book that was to prove significant to the

history of Alcoholics Anonymous‖.9

AA‘s other co-founder, medical doctor Robert Smith, or Dr. Bob as he came to be

known, met Bill Wilson through members of The Oxford Group in Akron, Ohio where Smith

lived. Wilson was in the area on business in May of 1935 when he was overcome with a

desire to drink, the first such desire in months. In desperation, he called the local Oxford

6 Kurtz, 8-9.

7 Bill W., Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age: A Brief History of A.A. (New York: Alcoholics Anonymous Pub., 1957), 63. In an endnote, Kurtz adds, ―Wilson‘s most succinct later understanding of this experience appears in a letter to Marjorie W., 3 April 1958: ‗What I really meant was this: I was catapulted into a spiritual experience, which gave me the capability of feeling the presence of God, His love, and His omnipotence. And, most of all, His personal availability to me.‖ Kurtz, 311.

8 William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (New York: The Modern Library, 1902).

9 Kurtz, 20.

Group office in order to seek help with his desire.10 It was through this contact that he

eventually was introduced to Dr. Bob, also suffering greatly due to habitual heavy drinking,

under the auspices of perhaps being an encouragement to him. In fact, at the end of their

meeting, Wilson thanked Smith by remarking, ―So, thanks a lot for hearing me out. I know

now that I‘m not going to take a drink, and I‘m grateful to you‖.11 On June 10, 1935, Dr. Bob

Smith took his last drink12 and Alcoholics Anonymous officially was founded that very year.

These are the historical roots of the organization.

In order to understand the theological roots of Alcoholics Anonymous it is necessary

to begin with Frank Buchman and The Oxford Group. The Oxford Group ―. . . was a non-

denominational, theologically conservative, evangelically styled attempt to recapture the

impetus and spirit of what its members understood to be primitive Christianity.‖13 It was

founded as The First Century Christian Fellowship in 1908, changed its name to The Oxford

Group in 1928, and finally renamed Moral Re-Armament in 1938. The organization grew for

about thirty years and then virtually disappeared. Although it had noteworthy expansion and

recognition during its time, and has a remnant of adherents today14, it lost momentum quickly

and became a short lived phenomenon in American religious history.15

10 By this time, Wilson had become a member of The Oxford Group in New York, having been introduced to the group by his friend Ebby. Smith was an Oxford Group member in Akron.

11 Kurtz, 29.

12 Bill W., vii.

13 Kurtz, 9n.

14 In 2001, Moral Re-Armament changed its name to Initiative of Change International. For further information on this organization as it exists today, see http://www.iofc.org, accessed 5/23/09.

15 Linda A. Mercadante, Victims and Sinners: Spiritual Roots of Addiction and Recovery (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 51.

The Oxford Group was founded by Frank Buchman. Buchman was an ordained

Lutheran minister who held various ministry positions primarily in the evangelistic sphere.

He had a ―spiritual experience‖ of his own at a Keswick convention in England.16 He then

broke with the Lutheran Church and formed The First Century Christian Fellowship in 1908.

Both Buchman and The Oxford Group were not without their critics. The Group itself

held controversial views. They were decidedly anti-intellectual, even viewing theology as a

―waste of time for a ‗changed‘ person.‖17 This would appear to reflect Buchman‘s simplistic

approach to theology, preferring a few elementary governing concepts to rigorous intellectual

criticism.18 The Group also apparently elevated general revelation over special revelation,

believing that ―God communicates primarily with and through individuals‖.19

Their Christology was likewise heterodox, believing that ―submission of the will is

more important than reliance on the accomplished work of Christ.‖20 Buchman was evidently

willing to avoid direct discussion of Christ‘s atoning work if he believed it would permit the

presentation to be less offensive. This philosophy was carried over to AA by Wilson. There

has never been any place in the AA program for Christ‘s work on the cross.

Following the establishment of The Oxford Group, it seems that Buchman ―did not

attend or officiate in a local church on any kind of regular basis.‖21 There was an underlying

critical view of the institutional church by Buchman. ―The Oxford Group saw the church as

16 Mercadante, 51.

17 Ibid., 61, citing B. E. Gwyer, ―Comments of an Educationalist‖, in Oxford and the Groups, ed. Richard Crossman (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1934).

18 Ibid., 51.

19 Ibid., 65.

20 Ibid., 66.

21 Ibid.

moribund compared with itself. . . .‖, and it was not at all uncommon for Oxford Group

members to express disdain for the church, believing it had never been helpful in any way.22

Buchman‘s contempt for the church was obvious, evidenced by a characteristic ―implicit

hostility‖ toward it.23

It is therefore easy to see how both Wilson and Smith, heavily indoctrinated in The

Oxford Group‘s systems of belief, were to adopt many of its practices and principles into

AA. This must be especially true of Wilson since he is the author or principal author of many

of the key AA publications. Wilson‘s exposure to religion early in life was not remarkable,

and there is not much in the historical record to study. However, it is known that his

grandfather was a transcendentalist and that he was ―the chief influence on the boy‘s

life. . . .‖24 ―It is true that key founder Bill Wilson, never a regular churchgoer, had an

eclectic, even aversive, approach to religion‖, writes Dr. Linda Mercadante.25 A weak

personal religious history as well as his ―I‘ve got religion‖ experience with his friend Ebby

resulted in Wilson‘s ―wariness of ‗religion‘ that was so deeply to infuse the program and the

fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous‖.26 He found a like-minded friend in Smith, who in his

youth ―. . . had deeply resented enforced attendance at church, Sunday School, and Christian

endeavor. He had resolved that when finally free from parental domination, he would never

again darken the doors of a church. It was a promise he had kept for forty years‖.27 In later

22 Mercadante, 66.

23 Ibid., quoting W. H. Clark in The Oxford Group: Its History and Significance (New York: Bookman Associates, 1951), 113-14.

24 Kurtz, 16.

25 Mercadante, 73.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid., 30.

years, Wilson, quoted in preserved personal correspondence, would state that ―good theology

ought to ask every man‘s question: Do I live in a rational universe under a just and loving

God. . . . [T]heology doesn‘t seem to answer this anymore . . . . [I]n all probability, churches

will not supply the answers for a good many of us‖.28 So it is evident that Wilson‘s and

Smith‘s ecclesiology was far from orthodox and in fact, quite undeveloped.

Mercadante points out that AA did not mention Jesus Christ; Wilson apparently ―did

not consider it useful.‖29 Hence, it was an intentional decision to exclude Christ from AA

dogma and literature in favor of an amorphous and vague ―higher power‖, a god of one‘s

own personal understanding, a decision largely influenced by the Oxford Group‘s ―generic

[approach], with no mention of Christ‖.30 Mercadante notes that ―Theological language is

eschewed [in AA] when addressing alcoholics, even though alcoholics are said to have a

spiritual disease‖.31 Of particular significance is the fact that AA ―does not use the words sin

or conversion‖.32

Although AA first operated under the organizational umbrella of The Oxford Group,

it ultimately broke with it. For individuals to leave the group was not uncommon. Samuel

Shoemaker, an Episcopalian priest who had an early association with and influence on

Wilson, himself left the group to start Faith at Work.33 It is interesting to note that Buchman,

after ministering under the authority of the Lutheran church, broke with it and formed what

28 Kurtz, 177.

29 Mercadante, 66.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid., 70.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid., 69.

became known as The Oxford Group. Wilson and Smith began their efforts under the

authority of The Oxford Group, and broke with it to form AA. But when reflecting on

Buchman, Wilson, Smith, AA, and their dubious positions relative to historic Christianity,

perhaps the most notable event was the newspaper quotation of Buchman giving approval to

Adolph Hitler. He was quoted as saying,

I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a front-line defense against the anti-Christ of communism. . . . Of course I don't condone everything the Nazis do. Anti-Semitism? Bad, naturally. I suppose Hitler sees a Karl Marx in every Jew. But think what it would mean to the world if Hitler surrendered to the control of God. Or Mussolini. Or any dictator. Through such a man God could control a nation overnight and solve every last bewildering problem.34

This notorious statement is certainly a black mark on Buchman, but it reflects on the

personalities of Wilson and Smith and therefore ultimately on the AA organization. These are

not the kind of associations that lend themselves to favorable opinion, and they necessarily

find their way into considerations of the relationship between Alcoholics Anonymous and the

church today.

The Nature and Extent of the Alcoholics Anonymous Belief System within the Church

Today

A large, recent survey of treatment providers reported that 93% of the 450 facilities it surveyed utilized the 12-step approach. —Stanton Peele, Charles Bufe, & Archie Brodsky, Resisting 12-Step Coercion

In the realm of addictions, AA controls the discussion, even within the church —Edward T. Welch, Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave

There is, of course, a great deal more that could be noted on the theological origins of

AA, but space does not permit a greater discussion here. Nevertheless, the record reported

34 Reinhold Niebuhr, Christianity and Power Politics (New York: Scribner, 1940), 159-65.

herein should be sufficient to give the Christian pause to reflect on what the origins of this

program mean for the church given its historically close association and cooperation with it.

The discussion will now be extended to an examination of where the relationship has gone

against the backdrop of its history and the theological roots of AA.

In observing that Alcoholics Anonymous and its multiple progenies35 are programs

based upon the disease concept of addiction, medical doctor William Playfair refers to them

as ―the recovery industry, [that] as a whole, is not helping, but actually hurting the people it

is trying to help.‖36 He goes on to state that ―[T]he disease concept . . . has not only taken

popular culture by storm, but has found its way into the church of Jesus Christ as well.‖37

Playfair notes that science has rejected the disease concept of addiction and that it is

inconsistent with Scripture. Nevertheless, Christian ―recovery‖ ministries have adopted this

failed model by the scores.38 In effect, a failed secular model for addictions has been

―baptized‖ into the church so that what addicted Christians experience when seeking help

from Christian church and parachurch ministries are merely Christianized 12-step programs.

As previously noted, AA intentionally excludes Jesus Christ, sin, and conversion from their

recovery model. This necessarily handicaps the efforts of any Christian ministry because it is

limited by these and other inherent flaws of the adapted 12-step program.

The extent to which the church has accepted the disease concept of addiction is

considerable. Even 12-step recovery programs recognize that ―Many of the clergy, too, now

35 For example, Narcotics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Co-dependents Anonymous, etc.

36 William L. Playfair, with George Bryson, The Useful Lie (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991), 22.

37 Ibid., 23.

38 Ibid.

accept alcoholism as a sickness, and not sin‖.39 But this is a troubling fact indeed. It has not

been the practice of seminaries to require a course on addictions for students, and such a

course was never offered as either a requirement for a counseling degree or as an elective.

Today, few seminaries offer addictions courses, and those that do, seem to have largely

adopted the 12-step model or a Christianized version of it.40

A central question in this matter is that of whether addictions are in fact diseases. Dr.

Jeffrey Schaler writes that nosology is the scientific classification of diseases that

pathologists use. The diseases that appear in pathology textbooks are included because they

satisfy the nosological criteria for diseases, such as whether the disease is detectable in a

corpse. Since there is no biological evidence of the disease of addiction in a corpse (as

opposed to its effects), ―Addiction is therefore not listed in standard pathology textbooks.‖41

Dr. Hebert Fingarette takes it a step further. He writes that ―Almost everything the American

public believes to be the scientific truth about alcoholism is false. The facts are an open

secret‖.42 He further states that ―. . . no leading research authorities accept the classic disease

concept‖.43 There is also no evidence that any authoritative researcher is seeking to revive it.

And yet the disease concept has persisted down through the decades. How can this

be? In attempting to answer this question, Schaler quotes Voltaire: ―Those who believe

39 Alcoholics Anonymous Family Group Headquarters, Al-Anon Family Groups (New York: Alcoholics Anonymous Family Group Headquarters, 1986), 8.

40 Based upon the author‘s examination of syllabi from courses offered by several seminaries, including, but not limited to, Dallas Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

41 Jeffrey A. Schaler, Addiction is a Choice (Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing, 2000), 16.

42 Herbert Fingarette, Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988), 1.

43 Ibid., 3.

absurdities will commit atrocities‖.44 It does not appear that the disease myth has simply

perpetuated without critical inquiry by both secular and sacred groups. Rather, it seems that

the scientific facts have not been adequately disseminated to the church or the general public.

This is not due to mere neglect or apathy. It is obvious that the multi-billion dollar ―recovery

industry‖ has a huge interest in preserving the false belief that addictions are diseases.

Yet because of the historical relationship of Alcoholics Anonymous to the church,

especially through its association with the Oxford Group, many have come to believe that

AA is inherently Christian and its principles can therefore be seamlessly adapted by the

church. But this is clearly not the case. What is actually happening in the churches is that ―a

syncretistic set of beliefs that combines AA, pop psychology, pieces of Scripture, and

miscellaneous features of American culture‖45 are turning up in the form of all kinds of

Christian ―ministries‖.46 Dr. Ron Rhodes sees recovery groups like AA replacing the church:

A serious problem I see with some who attend Christian recovery groups is that they come to consider the group a virtual replacement for the church, something that should never happen. An article on recovery in Christianity Today notes that ―the problem comes when recovery from addictions becomes salvation in some final sense, and the therapy group becomes a church substitute‖. Such concerns are all the more urgent when we hear statements like that of psychologist Henry Cloud: ―The recovery movement makes for a much more biblical church than we've seen so far.‖47

Clearly, Alcoholics Anonymous is neither a Christian organization nor a ministry of the Lord

Jesus Christ. Churches and parachurch ministries that have attempted to merge the principles

44 Schaler, xvi.

45 Edward T. Welch, Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave: Finding Hope in the Power of the Gospel (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2001), 6.

46 For an example and examination of the largest such ministry of this kind, see this writer‘s article, Celebrate Recovery: A Review: An evaluation of the Saddleback Church support group curriculum, at http://www.provisionhouse.org/Celebrate_Recovery_Review.pdf [accessed May 27, 2009].

47 Ron Rhodes, ―Recovering from the Recovery Movement,‖ Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries, http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Recovery.html [accessed May 27, 2009].

of AA with biblical orthodoxy have not been successful because the two belief systems are

fundamentally antithetical. An examination of some of the key antithetical beliefs is

appropriate.

A Comparison of Certain Historical Orthodox Christian Doctrines to Certain Alcoholics

Anonymous Doctrines

The evangelical church has a long history of orthodoxy on the doctrines of Theology

Proper, Christology, and Pneumatology. From these doctrines it can be concluded that one

thing is certain: neither Father, Son, nor Holy Spirit is ever reduced to a mere ―higher

power‖. The paramount problem with the use of this term in AA literature and practice is that

it is distinctly not-God. At best, it is ―God as we understood Him‖.48 The Bible is clear about

the identity of the triune God, but AA is not. Who or what is the ―higher power‖? Is it God or

a demon? This is left unanswered in the entire history of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The second significant area of antithetical belief is found in identity. The AA identity

for someone struggling with an addiction is that of an alcoholic or addict. For the Christian,

this is a false, negative failure identity. The AA member goes to AA meetings, and when it is

his turn to speak, he announces, ―Hi my name is George, and I am an alcoholic‖. Day after

day, week after week, month after month, ―I am an alcoholic‖, he announces, without ever

considering what it is that alcoholics do. Alcoholics drink. If he is not drinking, why is he

declaring himself an alcoholic? To do this is to define an individual by their behavior. But

this is ridiculous. People sleep and people eat, and they do so habitually. Should they then

label and identify themselves as ―eaters‖ or ―sleepers‖? Contrast this with the biblical

48 Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions (New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc, 1952), 34. Step Three.

identity of being a new creation, fearfully and wonderfully made–in God‘s image, God‘s

workmanship, and complete in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17, Gen. 1:27, Ps. 139:14, Eph. 2:10, Col.

1:28). Christian behavior cannot be confused with Christian identity. ―It is not what we do

that determines who we are; it is who we are that determines what we do‖.49 Additionally, the

forum in which these meetings take place can be called into question. Steve Gallagher states

that ―Biblical accountability was never meant to be a group of men sitting in a circle

discussing their failures.‖50 In this setting, participants are also said to be sick with a disease.

It has to be questioned as to how one sick person is in a position to help another sick person.

The Bible never exhorts weak Christ followers to help others. It does, however, urge those

who are strong to help those who are weak (Rom. 15:1).

In Alcoholics Anonymous, persons who are addicted are said to be powerless over

their addictions.51 Why should any Christian say they are powerless when the Bible says they

have been given a spirit of power and can do all things through Christ who strengthens them

(2 Tim. 1:7, Phil. 4:13)? ―[T]o tell people they are ‗powerless‘ over their alcohol

consumption is to utter a self-fulfilling prophecy.‖52 People in general, but Christians in

particular, will not always behave in accordance with what they profess, but they will

normally behave in accordance with what they believe.53 To believe something about oneself

49 Neil T Anderson, Julia Quarles, Mike Quarles, and Terry Whalin, Freedom from Addiction: Breaking the Bondage of Addiction and Finding Freedom in Christ (Ventura: Gospel Light Publications, 1996), 131.

50 John W. Kennedy, quoting Steve Gallagher in ―Hope for the Sexually Desperate,‖ Christianity Today Magazine, 2008, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=53974 [accessed May 27, 2009].

51 Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, 21. Step One.

52 Playfair, 40.

53 Anderson, et al, 119.

that is not true must necessarily result in behavior governed by that false belief. In this

regard, the AA failure identity is especially harmful for the Christian.

Conclusion

The historical record demonstrates that Alcoholics Anonymous principles are not

consistent with evangelical doctrine. In fact, they are antithetical. Yet out of ignorance of this

fact, many churches either host AA or other 12-step meetings or have adopted Christianized

models of the 12-step program and declared them to be ministries, presumably of the Lord

Jesus Christ.

Because of the enslaving effects of habitual sin (John 8:34), if addictions are not first

dealt with from a theological standpoint, it is likely that a lack of success in the church

similar to that of the secular Alcoholics Anonymous programs will continue.54 Ultimately,

what AA is attempting to accomplish is redemption (in the sense of liberating from captivity

to an enslaving behavior), conversion (in the sense of effecting a change of behavior), and

sanctification (in the sense of continuing growth in healthy, non-addictive behavior). But

they are attempting to accomplish all this apart from Jesus Christ.

This subject deserves considerably more attention from both an historical perspective

and a theological perspective. While there has been more written on the subject than most

Christians realize, much more could and should be done, including more earnest and

54 ―AA's own statistics provide perhaps the most persuasive evidence that AA's success rate is minuscule. Since 1977, AA has conducted an extensive survey of its members every three years. . . . Following the 1989 survey, AA produced a large monograph, ‗Comments on A.A.'s Triennial Surveys‘. . . . According to the ‗Comments‘ document, the ‗% of those coming to AA within the first year that have remained, the indicated number of months‘ is . . . 5% after 12 months. In other words, AA has a 95% new-member dropout rate during the first year of attendance.‖ Charles Bufe and Stanton Peele. Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? (Tucson: See Sharp Press, 1998), chapter 7, available at http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm [accessed May 27, 2009].

15 effective dissemination of what is known. Seminaries should undertake scholarly research in this area and assume a prominent lead voice in disseminating the truth about addictions and the AA program of recovery. At the same time, they should also be equipping the next generation of pastors to help parishioners find true and lasting freedom from addictions in

Christ, and to do so from an emphatically biblical perspective. The evangelical church will be the better for it.

Bibliography

Alcoholics Anonymous Family Group Headquarters. Al-Anon Family Groups. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous Family Group Headquarters, 1986.

Alcoholics Anonymous Publishing. Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age: A Brief History of A. A. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous Publishing, 1957.

Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc, 1952.

Anderson, Neil T., Julia Quarles, Mike Quarles, and Terry Whalin. Freedom from Addiction: Breaking the Bondage of Addiction and Finding Freedom in Christ. Ventura: Gospel Light Publications, 1996.

Brodsky, Archie, Charles Bufe, and Stanton Peele. Resisting 12-Step Coercion: How to Fight Forced Participation in AA, NA, or 12-Step Treatment. Tucson: See Sharp Press, 2000.

Bufe, Charles, and Stanton Peele. Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?. Tucson: See Sharp Press, 1998.

Cook, Christopher C. H. Alcohol, Addiction and Christian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Fingarette, Herbert. Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988.

James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. New York: Modern Library, 1902.

Kennedy, John W. Hope for the Sexually Desperate. Carol Stream: Christianity Today Magazine, 2008, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=53974 [accessed May 27, 2009].

Kurtz, Ernest. Not God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous. Center City: Hazelden, 1991.

May, M.D., Gerald G. Addiction & Grace: Love and Spirituality in the Healing of Addictions. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Mercadante, Linda A. Victims & Sinners: Spiritual Roots of Addiction and Recovery. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Niebuhr, Reinhold. Christianity and Power Politics. New York: Scribner, 1940.

Playfair, William L., and George Bryson. The Useful Lie. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991.

Schaler, Jeffrey A. Addiction Is a Choice. Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing, 2000.

Welch, Edward T. Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave: Finding Hope in the Power of the Gospel. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2001.