Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with G-d as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
Desire
Of all the Steps, the Eleventh speaks most explicitly about our relationship with G-d and how that connection is maintained. But aside from telling us how to seek G-d, does this Step tell us more about who G-d is? The answer is a definitive yes. At first reading, it may be easy to miss, but with careful consideration, we can see that the Eleventh Step makes what is perhaps the important statement about G-d to be found in all of The Steps.
Step Eleven reads: “Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with G-d as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.”
G-d has a will. With this one word, Step Eleven communicates the most essential component of our concept of G-d.
Step Three, which speaks of G-d’s caring as well as Steps Five, Six and Seven which describe His desire for a relationship with us, both indicate that G-d has a will. But here, in Step Eleven, G-d’s will is explicitly mentioned for the first time. And not only does G-d have a will, but He has a specific “will for us.” G-d wants something from each of His creations.
Need vs. Want
Many philosophical and religious systems view the idea of G-d wanting something to be problematic. How can an infinite and perfect being want for anything? Does this not imply lacking?
Judaism is not troubled by this concept. Indeed, it is the very foundation of Judaism as a covenantal religion. G-d promises to uphold His end of the deal, but He also wants certain things in return. As G-d told Abraham, father of the Jewish people, “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant… As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come.” (Gen. 17:7-9) Again, just prior to the Revelation at Sinai, G-d tells Moses, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession….” (Ex. 19:5) Clearly, G-d wants something.
Indeed, the exact nature of His will – what He wants and does not want – is the very basis of Torah law. The commandments (mitzvot) are not arbitrary orders but an expression of G-d’s desires. Indeed, as the kabbalists describe it, G-d makes Himself vulnerable, so-to-speak, by articulating His likes and dislikes and allowing his creations free choice as to whether or not they will abide by these wishes. As such, Judaism does not view adherence to G-d’s commandments so much as a matter of obedience as a matter of sensitivity to what G-d wants from us. That is not to say that without our compliance G-d is somehow incomplete (perish the thought.) G-d certainly requires nothing. He has no needs. But He does have a will; and this will is no less than the driving force behind all of creation.
Because G-d needs nothing, He also did not need to create. Had He chosen not to be a Creator, He would still be G-d. Yet G-d wants to create. And He wants to create because He wants something from His creations. In the words of the Midrash, G-d made the world because “He yearned to have a dwelling place in the lower realms.” The Chasidic masters explain this to mean that G-d created the world because of a passionate desire to be “at home” in a realm inhabited by sentient beings with free will and ego-consciousness. Why G-d wants this, we cannot know. Indeed, the difference between a need and a desire is that a need can be rationally defended but a desire has no practical reason. As Rabbi Schneur Zalman, founder of the Chabad school of Chasidism, used to say when discussing the nature of G-d’s will for creation, “Of a desire, one may ask no questions.”
Understanding this concept is crucial for the spirituality of the recovering addict. It is not enough that the addict believe in a G-d who has all of the qualities to which the other Steps allude – power, goodness and forbearance. The addict’s recovery is based upon a relationship with a G-d who has a specific will for him or her, a G-d who asks for things and allows Himself to be served. A G-d who wants nothing, who has no opinion or preferences, cannot be served. And without the opportunity to serve, one cannot transcend the self.
Thy Will (Not Mine)
As noted above in reference to Step Two, the problem of the addict is primarily an obsession with control. This is why it is so important to see G-d as a “power greater than ourselves.” But in order to fully address the issue, it must be recognized that the addict’s desire for control is just that – a desire. In other words, the addict has a will. Accordingly, recovery means to realize that G-d also has a will and to place that will before one’s own.
The Big Book says: “We usually conclude the period of meditation with a prayer that we be shown all through the day what our next step is to be… We ask especially for freedom from self-will….” (p. 87) This remarkably parallels the Jewish prayer contained in liturgy for the early morning: “May it be Your will, L-rd my G-d and G-d of our fathers, to accustom us to following Your instructions and to adhere to the fulfillment of Your commandments… Let not our evil inclination have mastery over us… [rather] force our inclination to be subservient to You.”
One often hears those in recovery say, “I had to stop doing things my way because my way doesn’t work.” This begs the question, “Which way does work?” Some may be inclined to give a vague answer like, “The Steps” or “the program” but The Steps and the program clearly tell us that the way that works is G-d’s. First and foremost, the addict seeks to align his or her own will to the will of G-d.
To wit, the phrase “Thy will be done” is found three times in the Big Book of AA. The wording is obviously a direct reference to The Lord’s Prayer from Christian liturgy. But an interesting edition is made to these words on p. 85 where it states, in relation to the Eleventh Step, “Every day is a day when we must carry the vision of G-d’s will into all of our activities. ‘How can I best serve Thee – Thy will (not mine) be done.’” The context of the phrase and the notable insertion of the words in parentheses – “not mine” – put a quite a new spin on these words not to be found in the original. Here, “Thy will be done” is used as a request to G-d that in all areas of life, His will should overrule our own. In other words, the program is describing a G-d who has an opinion about “all of our activities.” Whether we eat, sleep, do business or pray, there is a way to do it that conforms to G-d’s will. As King Solomon said (Proverbs 3:6), “In all your ways you should know Him and He will make your paths straight,” or, in the words of the Mishnah (Pirkei Avot 2:12), “All your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven.”
Knowledge of His Will for Us
There are those who concede that G-d may have a will but think it arrogant to assume that we can ever hope to know what it is. Of course, Judaism is based on the idea that G-d has explicitly revealed His will and told His people exactly what He wants. That is precisely what occurred at the Revelation at Sinai more than three millennia and three centuries ago. Some may still argue that this constitutes only a general will, but that G-d does not communicate a specific will for the individual.
In answer:
First of all, the commandments are a specific will for the individual. One cannot perform all of the commandments in every place and at every time. We fulfill the commandments wherever and whenever they are applicable to the situation. Thus, by leading the individual to a particular situation where a specific commandment may be observed, G-d is certainly indicating His will for that person.
I once dealt with a young Jewish man who was suffering from mental illness. It was time for a group meeting and he was nowhere to be found so I went to the dormitory to fetch him. I found him collapsed in his bed. I asked him if he was able to get up. He replied that he was able but that he did not want to. I asked him why not. He told me that he did not want to move until G-d told him to do so. I went to the library and brought back a copy of the Concise Code of Jewish Law from which I then read to him: “When one awakens in the morning, one must immediately recognize and appreciate the kindness G-d has done with him… One should say [the prayer] ‘I give thanks]… and by doing so, he will realize that G-d is in his midst and will immediately get out of bed and prepare himself for the service of G-d.” The young man thought about these words and got out of bed.
Secondly, if we are to believe in G-d’s meticulous providence for every detail in His creation, then we also believe that G-d will show us the right path in every aspect of life. This does not have to come in the form of prophecy or a booming voice from the clouds. G-d’s will can be revealed to us in a number of ways that are perfectly natural and normal. As the Baal Shem Tov taught, “Everything a person sees or hears can be taken as a lesson in serving the Creator.” In the words of the Big Book (p. 164), “God will constantly disclose more to you and to us… The answers will come, if your own house is in order.”
“And the Power to Carry that Out”
By deferring his or her own personal will, the addict is promised a new way of life that is infinitely more fulfilling than a life of active addiction. But there are many who are uncomfortable with the notion of such complete surrender. They think it to be a prescription for passivity.
The Jewish view, however, is that submission to G-d’s will is the key to effective living. As the Sages taught (Pirkei Avot 2:4), “Make His will your will so that He may fulfill your will as though it were His will. Set aside your will because of His will so that He may set aside the will of others before your will.” From here it would seem that deferring to G-d’s will is not just necessary for the addict wishing to achieve sobriety but a useful suggestion for all people. With self-will, one is limited in his or her ability and wherewithal. One may confront an obstacle or an impasse that cannot be negotiated or overcome. What this teaching relates to us is that by doing things “G-d’s way” rather than our own, we channel the force of the Creator. And nothing can stop the force of the Creator in His creation.
Thus, we return to our first concept of G-d that we gleaned from The Steps – that He is Power. Giving up on self-will in order to do G-d’s will is not passivity. It does not mean that one has no will. It means that one’s will now comes from a higher place than his or her own needs and wants. Judaism sees this as the ultimate level of human existence. Indeed, the patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – are lauded as being “chariots” for the Divine Will for they lived their entire lives in a state of complete surrender to G-d. Rabbi Schneur Zalman writes in Tanya that the average person also becomes such a vehicle for G-d’s Presence whenever he or she fulfills any of the commandments.
In this light, submission to G-d’s will means to become a medium that channels the Divine. “The power to carry that out” is this inherent to the act of surrender. In other words, G-d does not just tell us what He wants us to do; He tells us how to become a conduit for His will and His power by doing what He wants.
--
Shais Taub
New content added all the time at chasidicthought.com
3.23.2009
3.19.2009
Steps 5,6,7: Forbearance
Admitted to G-d, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
Were entirely ready to have G-d remove all these defects of character.
Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
G-d’s “Secret”
So, G-d is powerful and G-d is kind. G-d can be trusted and relied upon to carry us through whatever ups and downs life brings. But all of this assumes that our relationship with Him is in proper order. What if we have severed or damaged our connection to G-d? Can it be repaired? Is G-d willing to give us a second chance?
In Steps Five, Six and Seven, the recovering addict is guided through a process of removing the blockages that impede his or her connection to G-d. The very fact that this process is prescribed implies that G-d, for His part, is willing to restore a damaged relationship. Thus, in these Steps, we are given to understand that G-d is tolerant and forgiving. As the prophet Ezekiel exhorted the people, “[G-d] takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live….” (Ez. 33:11)
The fact that G-d is willing to have a relationship with imperfect beings is not an idea that should be taken for granted. To wit, it was only after Moses beseeched G-d to forgive the people for the seemingly unforgivable sin of the Golden Calf that G-d revealed to Moses the “Secret of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy.” G-d told Moses that whenever the people were in need of compassion, they could invoke His Attributes of Mercy by enumerating them as follows: “G-d, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in kindness and truth; preserver of kindness for thousands of generations, forgiver of iniquity, willful sin and error and Who cleanses…” (Exodus 34:6-7) The Talmud says, “Were this not an explicit verse, we could never have said such a thing on our own.” In other words, if G-d Himself had not divulged this secret to Moses, we would have no reason to just assume that G-d is willing to bear our imperfections.
In addition to these verses in Exodus, the Zohar points to another passage in Scripture that also contains Thirteen Attributes of Mercy. The “Superior Thirteen Attributes,” as they are called, are found in the writings of the prophet, Micha (7:18-20): "Who is a G-d like You who bears transgression and pardons the wrongdoing of the remnant of His inheritance? [He] does not sustain His anger forever, for He desires loving kindness. He will once more have compassion on us [and] forget our transgressions, and [He] will hurl all our sins into the depths of the ocean. Grant truth to Jacob and loving kindness to Abraham as You vowed to our forefathers long ago."
The 16th century kabbalist, Moses Cordovero, elucidates the meaning of each of these attributes as follows:
1. “Who is a G-d like You” – G-d enlivens us even when we choose to misappropriate this energy.
2. “Who bears transgression” – G-d protects us from being consumed by the negativity we have unleashed, thus giving us the opportunity to return to Him.
3. “And pardons the wrongdoing” – When we return to Him, G-d cleanses us.
4. “Of the remnant of His heritage” – G-d empathizes with our pain, for we are His “inheritance.”
5. “[He] does not sustain His anger forever” – G-d allows Himself to be appeased.
6. “For He desires loving kindness” – G-d lovingly emphasizes our merits, not our deficiencies.
7. “He will once more have compassion on us” – G-d grants a fresh start to those who return to Him.
8. “[And] forget our transgressions” – G-d chooses to “forget” our past misdeeds so that they do not interfere with our present relationship with Him.
9. “And [He] will hurl all our sins into the depths of the ocean” – G-d views our mistakes as expendable.
10. “Grant truth to Jacob” – G-d is kind even to those who only uphold the basic letter of the law which is personified by Jacob.
11. “And loving kindness to Abraham” – G-d displays generosity, as did our forefather, Abraham.
12. “As You vowed to our forefathers” – G-d conveys merit upon us that is not our own but that of our ancestors.
13. “Long ago” – When not even the merit of our ancestors is sufficient, G-d remembers His original love for His people.
Open and Approachable
It is clear from the wording of Steps 5, 6 and 7 that their aim is not to win forgiveness or expiation of guilt but rather to fully restore one’s relationship with G-d. Judaism calls this process kaparah which means cleansing or atonement and is very different than forgiveness. As soon as a person mends his or her ways (and makes restitution where necessary) G-d immediately forgives. But that does not mean that the damage to the relationship has been repaired. For instance, if a man’s teenage son takes the car out without permission and gets into a fender bender, the father may not punish the boy if he is sufficiently contrite, but that does not mean that the father’s full trust for the son has been reinstated. Forgiveness means the waving of punishment. Atonement is reconciliation. Indeed, the origin of the word atonement is “at-one-ment” – the state of being “at one” with G-d.
Steps 5, 6 and 7 indicate that G-d makes Himself available for reconciliation. Just as we want to be “at one” with Him, He wants to be “at one” with us and is ready to accept us. This is unmistakably the sentiment that underlies the 7th Step Prayer:
“My Creator, I am now willing that you should have all of me, good and bad. I pray that You now remove from me every single defect of character which stands in the way of my usefulness to you and my fellows. Grant me strength, as I go out from here, to do your bidding. Amen.” (Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 76)
Clearly, this prayer is offered to a G-d who can be counted upon to accept all those who seek Him sincerely. In the words of King David, “…a broken and a contrite heart, You G-d, will not despise.” (Psalms 51:19).
A Dynamic Relationship
On the other hand, the prayer also makes clear that although G-d is open to our advances if we should turn to Him, He does not force us to choose a relationship with Him. He waits for us to be ready and willing. This brings us to appreciate another aspect of our concept of G-d – His humility.
G-d makes the process of reunion and reconciliation conditional on our approaching Him. He waits for us to be ready. That means that rather than dominating us, G-d allows us to have an active and defining role in our relationship with Him. In the case of Steps 5,6 and 7: We have to be truthful with Him about our faults (Step 5); we have to be ready to change (Step 6); we have to ask for His help (Step 7). In short, just as G-d grants us the freedom to stray from Him, He gives us the freedom to seek means of returning.
We might say that G-d has chosen to enter into a dynamic partnership with His creations. There is a Chasidic interpretation of the verse (Gen. 1:26) “And G-d said, ‘Let us make man…” as G-d’s call to each of us. G-d invites the individual to join Him in the process of his own development as a human being. We can now add another quality to our conception of G-d. He is the Infinite who makes room for and grants freewill to those who are finite.
--
Shais Taub
New content added all the time at chasidicthought.com
Were entirely ready to have G-d remove all these defects of character.
Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
G-d’s “Secret”
So, G-d is powerful and G-d is kind. G-d can be trusted and relied upon to carry us through whatever ups and downs life brings. But all of this assumes that our relationship with Him is in proper order. What if we have severed or damaged our connection to G-d? Can it be repaired? Is G-d willing to give us a second chance?
In Steps Five, Six and Seven, the recovering addict is guided through a process of removing the blockages that impede his or her connection to G-d. The very fact that this process is prescribed implies that G-d, for His part, is willing to restore a damaged relationship. Thus, in these Steps, we are given to understand that G-d is tolerant and forgiving. As the prophet Ezekiel exhorted the people, “[G-d] takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live….” (Ez. 33:11)
The fact that G-d is willing to have a relationship with imperfect beings is not an idea that should be taken for granted. To wit, it was only after Moses beseeched G-d to forgive the people for the seemingly unforgivable sin of the Golden Calf that G-d revealed to Moses the “Secret of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy.” G-d told Moses that whenever the people were in need of compassion, they could invoke His Attributes of Mercy by enumerating them as follows: “G-d, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in kindness and truth; preserver of kindness for thousands of generations, forgiver of iniquity, willful sin and error and Who cleanses…” (Exodus 34:6-7) The Talmud says, “Were this not an explicit verse, we could never have said such a thing on our own.” In other words, if G-d Himself had not divulged this secret to Moses, we would have no reason to just assume that G-d is willing to bear our imperfections.
In addition to these verses in Exodus, the Zohar points to another passage in Scripture that also contains Thirteen Attributes of Mercy. The “Superior Thirteen Attributes,” as they are called, are found in the writings of the prophet, Micha (7:18-20): "Who is a G-d like You who bears transgression and pardons the wrongdoing of the remnant of His inheritance? [He] does not sustain His anger forever, for He desires loving kindness. He will once more have compassion on us [and] forget our transgressions, and [He] will hurl all our sins into the depths of the ocean. Grant truth to Jacob and loving kindness to Abraham as You vowed to our forefathers long ago."
The 16th century kabbalist, Moses Cordovero, elucidates the meaning of each of these attributes as follows:
1. “Who is a G-d like You” – G-d enlivens us even when we choose to misappropriate this energy.
2. “Who bears transgression” – G-d protects us from being consumed by the negativity we have unleashed, thus giving us the opportunity to return to Him.
3. “And pardons the wrongdoing” – When we return to Him, G-d cleanses us.
4. “Of the remnant of His heritage” – G-d empathizes with our pain, for we are His “inheritance.”
5. “[He] does not sustain His anger forever” – G-d allows Himself to be appeased.
6. “For He desires loving kindness” – G-d lovingly emphasizes our merits, not our deficiencies.
7. “He will once more have compassion on us” – G-d grants a fresh start to those who return to Him.
8. “[And] forget our transgressions” – G-d chooses to “forget” our past misdeeds so that they do not interfere with our present relationship with Him.
9. “And [He] will hurl all our sins into the depths of the ocean” – G-d views our mistakes as expendable.
10. “Grant truth to Jacob” – G-d is kind even to those who only uphold the basic letter of the law which is personified by Jacob.
11. “And loving kindness to Abraham” – G-d displays generosity, as did our forefather, Abraham.
12. “As You vowed to our forefathers” – G-d conveys merit upon us that is not our own but that of our ancestors.
13. “Long ago” – When not even the merit of our ancestors is sufficient, G-d remembers His original love for His people.
Open and Approachable
It is clear from the wording of Steps 5, 6 and 7 that their aim is not to win forgiveness or expiation of guilt but rather to fully restore one’s relationship with G-d. Judaism calls this process kaparah which means cleansing or atonement and is very different than forgiveness. As soon as a person mends his or her ways (and makes restitution where necessary) G-d immediately forgives. But that does not mean that the damage to the relationship has been repaired. For instance, if a man’s teenage son takes the car out without permission and gets into a fender bender, the father may not punish the boy if he is sufficiently contrite, but that does not mean that the father’s full trust for the son has been reinstated. Forgiveness means the waving of punishment. Atonement is reconciliation. Indeed, the origin of the word atonement is “at-one-ment” – the state of being “at one” with G-d.
Steps 5, 6 and 7 indicate that G-d makes Himself available for reconciliation. Just as we want to be “at one” with Him, He wants to be “at one” with us and is ready to accept us. This is unmistakably the sentiment that underlies the 7th Step Prayer:
“My Creator, I am now willing that you should have all of me, good and bad. I pray that You now remove from me every single defect of character which stands in the way of my usefulness to you and my fellows. Grant me strength, as I go out from here, to do your bidding. Amen.” (Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 76)
Clearly, this prayer is offered to a G-d who can be counted upon to accept all those who seek Him sincerely. In the words of King David, “…a broken and a contrite heart, You G-d, will not despise.” (Psalms 51:19).
A Dynamic Relationship
On the other hand, the prayer also makes clear that although G-d is open to our advances if we should turn to Him, He does not force us to choose a relationship with Him. He waits for us to be ready and willing. This brings us to appreciate another aspect of our concept of G-d – His humility.
G-d makes the process of reunion and reconciliation conditional on our approaching Him. He waits for us to be ready. That means that rather than dominating us, G-d allows us to have an active and defining role in our relationship with Him. In the case of Steps 5,6 and 7: We have to be truthful with Him about our faults (Step 5); we have to be ready to change (Step 6); we have to ask for His help (Step 7). In short, just as G-d grants us the freedom to stray from Him, He gives us the freedom to seek means of returning.
We might say that G-d has chosen to enter into a dynamic partnership with His creations. There is a Chasidic interpretation of the verse (Gen. 1:26) “And G-d said, ‘Let us make man…” as G-d’s call to each of us. G-d invites the individual to join Him in the process of his own development as a human being. We can now add another quality to our conception of G-d. He is the Infinite who makes room for and grants freewill to those who are finite.
--
Shais Taub
New content added all the time at chasidicthought.com
3.11.2009
Step 3: Goodness
Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of G-d as we understood Him.
G-d's Care
We have established that the G-d spoken of in The Steps is first and foremost a G-d of Power. But power does not necessarily denote beneficence. G-d may be strong, but is He good? In the 3rd Step, where we find the first use of the actual word G-d, we also find the answer to this question. G-d is not just the epitome of power; He is the essence of goodness as well.
The Third Step enjoins us to “turn our will and our lives over to the care of G-d….” The word "care" is significant. Step 3 is a surrender step – in recovery parlance what is called "turning it over” or “letting go and letting G-d.” In theory, one could just as well be enjoined to surrender to the power of G-d or the authority of G-d. If G-d were only all-powerful and not also good, that would still provide amply sufficient cause to submit to Him. Yet, The Third Step adds a vital dimension to the recovering addict’s concept of G-d. We “turn it over” to G-d not just because He’s stronger than we are, but because He will take better care of us than we can.
Jewish tradition discusses the idea that, at least in theory, G-d could have chosen to relate to us only as a Power. In reality, however, He chooses to relate to His creation from a position of kindness as well. The Midrash says, "At first, G-d had thought to create the world solely with the attribute of stern judgment. He foresaw, however, that the world would not endure that way and thus coupled with it the attribute of compassionate mercy." In other words, if G-d were to have created a world in which He were present only as a Higher Power but not as a source of Caring, that world would not be able to last. In other words, a world in which G-d is all-powerful but not kind is an entirely hypothetical construct; it cannot actually exist. The reality of the continued existence of the world is in and of itself testimony to G-d's kindness.
Knowing and Nurturing
The word "care" has two important meanings. One is attentiveness. To "care about" something means to pay it mind, to be concerned. It is the opposite of indifference. Another meaning of care is nurturing. To "care for" something means to look after it.
When we speak of G-d's attentiveness, we are referring to his omniscience. "Does He that made the ear not hear? Does He that fashioned the eye not see?" (Psalms 94:9) If G-d is aware of anything, then He is aware of everything. For the Infinite, there is no such thing as having His attention divided or being preoccupied, overwhelmed or distracted. G-d who knows His creation knows every detail therein with intimate knowledge.
Maimonides goes as far as to consider this matter a tenet of faith: "G-d knows the actions of people and does not ignore them. It is not like those who say (Ezekiel 8:12), 'G-d has abandoned the earth.'" Those aware of the historical context of Maimonides' writings know that this declaration of G-d's omniscience was a direct refutation of the popular thinking of the time that held that G-d was unconcerned with the affairs of man. This view of a lofty and aloof G-d was carried down from the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle whose ideas still dominate Western attitudes of today. They believed that G-d's eternal unchangingness necessitates that He be unconscious of a temporal world which is continually in a state of change. The Jewish view, in contrast, dismisses this argument offhand. G-d being Infinite and One does not exist apart from creation, rather creation exists within Him. As such, G-d, in knowing Himself, knows His creation. In the words of Maimonides, “All existences besides the Creator – from the highest [spiritual] form to a tiny gnat in the belly of the earth – exist by virtue of His reality. In knowing His own reality, He thus knows everything.”
Recovering addicts are asked to do no less than step aside from the role of playing G-d in their own lives and place themselves unreservedly in G-d's care. Program literature voices this sentiment in no uncertain terms. “Abandon yourself to G-d as you understand G-d.” (Alcoholic Anonymous, p. 164) How can a person – particularly one who is used to trying to control every aspect of life – possibly find peace by surrendering to a G-d who is indifferent or unknowing? The G-d who keeps the recovering addict sober, sane and alive is a G-d who can be counted upon to care. And this care is not relegated to only certain aspects of life. If one were to believe that G-d has limited or selective knowledge of His creation, then one could only release to G-d those things that G-d deems relevant or interesting. (And who can know a thing like that?) But the addict’s recovery is based upon his or her freedom to release everything to G-d and to be able to do so without reservation. Surrender that is conditional, incomplete or reneged on is deemed “taking back one’s will” – a sort of “anti-Third Step” or “Third Step in reverse,” as it were.
This brings us to the second meaning of the word "care." Caring also means nurturing. The idea of G-d as Caregiver is just as central in Judaism as that of G-d as Creator or King. Indeed, as noted above, a world without G-d’s compassion and kindness could not exist. Furthermore, G-d’s goodness is not just a necessary component of the creation but the underlying impetus for its existence. As 16th century mystic, Isaac Luria, explained, G-d created “in order to bestow goodness upon His creations, for it is the nature of the Good to do good.”
It is interesting that Judaism, particularly the Kabalah, uses blatantly feminine terminology in describing G-d’s role as Nurturer, evoking images of G-d as a loving mother. G-d’s Immanent Presence, “Shechinah,” is a feminine name for G-d. It is this name that is used in describing how The Divine Presence accompanies Her children wherever they go, even into the darkness of exile, as in the Talmud's statement: "See how beloved are Israel before G-d, for in every place where they were sent away, the Shechinah went with them."
When viewed in this light, the act of giving oneself over to “the care of G-d” is one that brings on strong feelings of comfort, peace and security – feelings that are pleasant for all people but essential for the person in recovery. It is said that addicts have little tolerance for discomfort, hence, the intensely felt reflex to self-medicate which can be triggered by the slightest feeling of uneasiness (or even by none at all.) The remarkable efficacy of spiritual consciousness as a means of recovery may in large part be explained by the serenity it offers which is so direly needed by the addict.
Everything is Always Good
By combining what we have learned about G-d in Steps Two and Three, we have begun to recognize a “G-d of our understanding” who is – in theological parlance – omnipotent (Power), omniscient (cares about) and omnibenevolent (cares for). But now we are faced with a problem. If G-d is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, then why is there suffering in the world? In other words, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” This is hardly a novel question. Throughout the ages, much ink has been spilled in attempts at resolving this conundrum. Thankfully, we will not rehash any of those arguments here.
Anyone who knows a good deal of people with quality, long-term sobriety has certainly noticed a remarkable characteristic that all such people seem to share – an almost uncanny equanimity to life’s ups and downs. All the more astounding is how opposite this is from the addict’s nature which, as we have mentioned, is abnormally irascible, moody and hypersensitive. It seems that the recovering addict no longer searches for an answer to the “Why do bad things happen?” question. Indeed, he or she may have long ago come to regard it as quite a non-question. The real question is, “Do any bad things happen at all?”
There is a common epiphany – no doubt part of the “spiritual awakening” described in Step 12 – in which the recovering person comes to question whether or not anything that happens in his or her life can truly be deemed bad. The recovering addict seems to have overcome the infantile notion that if I don’t like something, then it can’t be good and if it’s good, then I am sure to like it. In other words, “Who am I to second guess G-d?” In the Talmud, this sentiment is eloquently expressed by the adage of Rabbi Akiva who used to say, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good.”
A story is told where this attitude of his was once put to the test.
Rabbi Akiva was traveling and came to a walled city where he sought shelter but the people of the city refused to let him in. Rabbi Akivah said, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good,” and went to sleep a field outside the city walls. Rabbi Akivah had been travelling with three items – a donkey, a rooster and a lamp. Soon, a lion came and devoured his donkey. Rabbi Akivah said, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good.” A cat came and ate his rooster. Rabbi Akivah said, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good.” A wind came and blew out his lamp. Rabbi Akivah said, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good.” In the morning, he discovered that during the night, a band of marauders had come and attacked the city. Had he been allowed to sleep there, he would have met the same dismal fate as the others. Had the marauders heard his donkey bray or his rooster crow, he would have been spotted; certainly, if they would have seen his lamp, they would have found him right away. Thus, all of the seemingly unfortunate events that happened that night saved Rabbi Akiva’s life. Indeed, everything that happened was all for the good.
The moral of the story is that man, with his limited vision, cannot possibly see the true significance of earthly events. He must therefore withhold his subjective evaluation of things and instead accept the events of his life with the faith that G-d knows all, can do all and is the very essence of good.
The Baal Shem Tov, father of the Chasidic movement, taught that nothing happens in this world by chance. Rather, G-d carefully orchestrates every detail of His creation by means of “hashgachah peratis” – literally “individualized supervision” but more loosely translated as Divine Providence. “Even when the wind carries a fallen leaf from one place to another,” said the Baal Shem Tov, “That, too, is hashgachah peratis.”
I once heard an alcoholic speak emphatically about letting his “H.P.” run his life. I couldn’t figure out how he knew about the concept of hashgachah peratis let alone the Hebrew term for it. Later, it dawned on me that “H.P.” meant “Higher Power.” Then even later it dawned on me that isn’t any difference.
--
Shais Taub
New content added all the time at chasidicthought.com
G-d's Care
We have established that the G-d spoken of in The Steps is first and foremost a G-d of Power. But power does not necessarily denote beneficence. G-d may be strong, but is He good? In the 3rd Step, where we find the first use of the actual word G-d, we also find the answer to this question. G-d is not just the epitome of power; He is the essence of goodness as well.
The Third Step enjoins us to “turn our will and our lives over to the care of G-d….” The word "care" is significant. Step 3 is a surrender step – in recovery parlance what is called "turning it over” or “letting go and letting G-d.” In theory, one could just as well be enjoined to surrender to the power of G-d or the authority of G-d. If G-d were only all-powerful and not also good, that would still provide amply sufficient cause to submit to Him. Yet, The Third Step adds a vital dimension to the recovering addict’s concept of G-d. We “turn it over” to G-d not just because He’s stronger than we are, but because He will take better care of us than we can.
Jewish tradition discusses the idea that, at least in theory, G-d could have chosen to relate to us only as a Power. In reality, however, He chooses to relate to His creation from a position of kindness as well. The Midrash says, "At first, G-d had thought to create the world solely with the attribute of stern judgment. He foresaw, however, that the world would not endure that way and thus coupled with it the attribute of compassionate mercy." In other words, if G-d were to have created a world in which He were present only as a Higher Power but not as a source of Caring, that world would not be able to last. In other words, a world in which G-d is all-powerful but not kind is an entirely hypothetical construct; it cannot actually exist. The reality of the continued existence of the world is in and of itself testimony to G-d's kindness.
Knowing and Nurturing
The word "care" has two important meanings. One is attentiveness. To "care about" something means to pay it mind, to be concerned. It is the opposite of indifference. Another meaning of care is nurturing. To "care for" something means to look after it.
When we speak of G-d's attentiveness, we are referring to his omniscience. "Does He that made the ear not hear? Does He that fashioned the eye not see?" (Psalms 94:9) If G-d is aware of anything, then He is aware of everything. For the Infinite, there is no such thing as having His attention divided or being preoccupied, overwhelmed or distracted. G-d who knows His creation knows every detail therein with intimate knowledge.
Maimonides goes as far as to consider this matter a tenet of faith: "G-d knows the actions of people and does not ignore them. It is not like those who say (Ezekiel 8:12), 'G-d has abandoned the earth.'" Those aware of the historical context of Maimonides' writings know that this declaration of G-d's omniscience was a direct refutation of the popular thinking of the time that held that G-d was unconcerned with the affairs of man. This view of a lofty and aloof G-d was carried down from the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle whose ideas still dominate Western attitudes of today. They believed that G-d's eternal unchangingness necessitates that He be unconscious of a temporal world which is continually in a state of change. The Jewish view, in contrast, dismisses this argument offhand. G-d being Infinite and One does not exist apart from creation, rather creation exists within Him. As such, G-d, in knowing Himself, knows His creation. In the words of Maimonides, “All existences besides the Creator – from the highest [spiritual] form to a tiny gnat in the belly of the earth – exist by virtue of His reality. In knowing His own reality, He thus knows everything.”
Recovering addicts are asked to do no less than step aside from the role of playing G-d in their own lives and place themselves unreservedly in G-d's care. Program literature voices this sentiment in no uncertain terms. “Abandon yourself to G-d as you understand G-d.” (Alcoholic Anonymous, p. 164) How can a person – particularly one who is used to trying to control every aspect of life – possibly find peace by surrendering to a G-d who is indifferent or unknowing? The G-d who keeps the recovering addict sober, sane and alive is a G-d who can be counted upon to care. And this care is not relegated to only certain aspects of life. If one were to believe that G-d has limited or selective knowledge of His creation, then one could only release to G-d those things that G-d deems relevant or interesting. (And who can know a thing like that?) But the addict’s recovery is based upon his or her freedom to release everything to G-d and to be able to do so without reservation. Surrender that is conditional, incomplete or reneged on is deemed “taking back one’s will” – a sort of “anti-Third Step” or “Third Step in reverse,” as it were.
This brings us to the second meaning of the word "care." Caring also means nurturing. The idea of G-d as Caregiver is just as central in Judaism as that of G-d as Creator or King. Indeed, as noted above, a world without G-d’s compassion and kindness could not exist. Furthermore, G-d’s goodness is not just a necessary component of the creation but the underlying impetus for its existence. As 16th century mystic, Isaac Luria, explained, G-d created “in order to bestow goodness upon His creations, for it is the nature of the Good to do good.”
It is interesting that Judaism, particularly the Kabalah, uses blatantly feminine terminology in describing G-d’s role as Nurturer, evoking images of G-d as a loving mother. G-d’s Immanent Presence, “Shechinah,” is a feminine name for G-d. It is this name that is used in describing how The Divine Presence accompanies Her children wherever they go, even into the darkness of exile, as in the Talmud's statement: "See how beloved are Israel before G-d, for in every place where they were sent away, the Shechinah went with them."
When viewed in this light, the act of giving oneself over to “the care of G-d” is one that brings on strong feelings of comfort, peace and security – feelings that are pleasant for all people but essential for the person in recovery. It is said that addicts have little tolerance for discomfort, hence, the intensely felt reflex to self-medicate which can be triggered by the slightest feeling of uneasiness (or even by none at all.) The remarkable efficacy of spiritual consciousness as a means of recovery may in large part be explained by the serenity it offers which is so direly needed by the addict.
Everything is Always Good
By combining what we have learned about G-d in Steps Two and Three, we have begun to recognize a “G-d of our understanding” who is – in theological parlance – omnipotent (Power), omniscient (cares about) and omnibenevolent (cares for). But now we are faced with a problem. If G-d is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, then why is there suffering in the world? In other words, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” This is hardly a novel question. Throughout the ages, much ink has been spilled in attempts at resolving this conundrum. Thankfully, we will not rehash any of those arguments here.
Anyone who knows a good deal of people with quality, long-term sobriety has certainly noticed a remarkable characteristic that all such people seem to share – an almost uncanny equanimity to life’s ups and downs. All the more astounding is how opposite this is from the addict’s nature which, as we have mentioned, is abnormally irascible, moody and hypersensitive. It seems that the recovering addict no longer searches for an answer to the “Why do bad things happen?” question. Indeed, he or she may have long ago come to regard it as quite a non-question. The real question is, “Do any bad things happen at all?”
There is a common epiphany – no doubt part of the “spiritual awakening” described in Step 12 – in which the recovering person comes to question whether or not anything that happens in his or her life can truly be deemed bad. The recovering addict seems to have overcome the infantile notion that if I don’t like something, then it can’t be good and if it’s good, then I am sure to like it. In other words, “Who am I to second guess G-d?” In the Talmud, this sentiment is eloquently expressed by the adage of Rabbi Akiva who used to say, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good.”
A story is told where this attitude of his was once put to the test.
Rabbi Akiva was traveling and came to a walled city where he sought shelter but the people of the city refused to let him in. Rabbi Akivah said, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good,” and went to sleep a field outside the city walls. Rabbi Akivah had been travelling with three items – a donkey, a rooster and a lamp. Soon, a lion came and devoured his donkey. Rabbi Akivah said, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good.” A cat came and ate his rooster. Rabbi Akivah said, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good.” A wind came and blew out his lamp. Rabbi Akivah said, “All that the Merciful does, He does for the good.” In the morning, he discovered that during the night, a band of marauders had come and attacked the city. Had he been allowed to sleep there, he would have met the same dismal fate as the others. Had the marauders heard his donkey bray or his rooster crow, he would have been spotted; certainly, if they would have seen his lamp, they would have found him right away. Thus, all of the seemingly unfortunate events that happened that night saved Rabbi Akiva’s life. Indeed, everything that happened was all for the good.
The moral of the story is that man, with his limited vision, cannot possibly see the true significance of earthly events. He must therefore withhold his subjective evaluation of things and instead accept the events of his life with the faith that G-d knows all, can do all and is the very essence of good.
The Baal Shem Tov, father of the Chasidic movement, taught that nothing happens in this world by chance. Rather, G-d carefully orchestrates every detail of His creation by means of “hashgachah peratis” – literally “individualized supervision” but more loosely translated as Divine Providence. “Even when the wind carries a fallen leaf from one place to another,” said the Baal Shem Tov, “That, too, is hashgachah peratis.”
I once heard an alcoholic speak emphatically about letting his “H.P.” run his life. I couldn’t figure out how he knew about the concept of hashgachah peratis let alone the Hebrew term for it. Later, it dawned on me that “H.P.” meant “Higher Power.” Then even later it dawned on me that isn’t any difference.
--
Shais Taub
New content added all the time at chasidicthought.com
3.08.2009
Step Two: Power
“Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.”
Capital “P”
The first allusion to G-d in The Steps is found in Step Two where He is referred to as “a Power greater than ourselves.” Note the capitalization. It is evident that we are not just talking about any power which happens to be stronger than we are. If that were so, then the recovering person might believe that gravity or electromagnetism could restore his or her sanity. Those are powers that are greater than we are. We certainly cannot defy their effects. But we also have no reason to believe that they can do anything for us other than blindly impose their influences as dictated by the laws of nature. When we speak about Power, that is, the proper (capitalized) rather than common (uncapitalized) noun, we are talking about a force that transcends all of the other various powers in the universe.
The Zohar, the canon text of Kabbalah, says of G-d, “Master of the Worlds, You are the Highest of the High, the Causer of Causes.” Maimonides, the 12th century Jewish legalist and theologian, expresses much the same idea in his Principles of Faith, albeit in a more philosophical tone, where he writes, “[G-d] is the cause of all that exists… and there is no possibility that He does not exist because without Him, all existence would cease. [Whereas] if we could imagine the absence of all existence other than His, the existence of God would not cease or diminish, for He is self-sufficient and His existence requires nothing other than Himself.”
In other words, while the phrase “a Power greater than ourselves” may lend itself to being interpreted out of context as any power whose effects are unavoidable, nevertheless, if read in the context of the rest of The Steps, it is obvious that the Power mentioned in Step 2 is not the sun or the ocean tides but the same G-d who is explicitly mentioned throughout the following Steps – the G-d who restores sanity (Step 2), who cares for the individual (Step 3), who removes character defects (5,6 and 7), who lets His will be known and grants power to the individual to adhere to that will (Step 11).
Higher or Highest
One still might ask, if this “Power” is indeed singular and unique, if it is none other than the Power behind all other powers, then why is it referred to only as “a Power” and not “the Power”? Perhaps the following story will prove helpful in finding an answer to this question.
A popular AA speaker, Clancy I., talks about his early experiences grappling with belief. He relates how he told his sponsor that he could not believe in G-d. His sponsor asked him if he could believe in G-d and just not use the word “G-d.” Clancy said that he could not. The sponsor asked him if he could believe in the power of the AA group. Clancy said that he could not do that either. Finally, the sponsor asked him, “Can you admit that I am doing better than you?” Clancy said that he could. “Congratulations, kid,” said the sponsor, “You’ve just met your new Higher Power.”
Yet, more telling than the story itself is its epilogue. Years later, Clancy’s sponsor stopped working the program, got drunk and died. What was Clancy to do now, what with his Higher Power being dead and all? Would he lose his direction, his faith? Not at all. As Clancy explains it, by the time he lost his sponsor, Clancy already believed in G-d. It was his belief in his sponsor as a power greater than himself that was the necessary first move away from total self-reliance. Once he was able to accept his dependence upon something outside of his own ego, he had already begun his journey toward finding G-d.
In other words, it is most probably safe to say that a person can get sober and work an effective 2nd Step just by believing in any power greater than himself. Indeed, it is often the case that belief in a higher power – any higher power! – is that which marks the nascent beginnings of a process toward discovering the Highest Power. It is this Highest Power that is referred to explicitly in the following Steps which come right out and unambiguously invoke the word “G-d.” So, while Step 2 does not tell us that we need to believe in “G-d” per se, it most certainly begins to lead us in that direction.
This method of finding G-d through a process of deduction is exemplified by the spiritual quest of the world’s first champion of monotheism, Abraham. As Maimonides describes:
"[Abraham] was but a small child when his mind began to seek and wonder, ‘How do the heavenly bodies orbit without a moving force? Who moves them? They cannot move themselves!’ …His heart sought and then came to know that there is but one G-d... who created all and that in all existence there is none other than Him.”
G-d in the First Step
In a very important way, the process of finding G-d as Highest Power was quietly begun in The First Step where the addict admitted his or her own powerlessness.
It might be useful to note that chasidus (the mystical teachings of Chasidism) teaches that the opposite of serving G-d is not idolatry but self-obsession. At least idolaters turn to an entity outside of themselves while egomaniacs – and addicts, almost by definition, fit the bill – cannot peacefully defer to anyone or anything aside for their own ego. Thus, the mental shift which is most critical and urgent is for the addict to adhere to that simple piece of advice oft-heard in the rooms: “Get out of your own head.”
The Talmud relates that G-d says of an arrogant person, “It is impossible for he and Me to dwell in the same place.” Although G-d is omnipresent and thus to be found everywhere, His Presence cannot be felt where there is haughtiness and pride. In order to allow the Power of G-d into one’s life, one must first acquiesce to the fact of his or her own lack of power. The story is told that when the Rabbi of Kotzk (1787-1859) was but a small child, he was asked, “Where is G-d?” To which the young rabbi-to-be replied, “Wherever you let Him in.” This same idea is expressed by the Midrashic saying, “You cannot pour into a cup that is already full.”
In other words, G-d will always fill whatever spaces that we make for Him but He will not intrude where He is clearly unwelcome. In order to experience G-d’s Power in Step 2, one first makes a “power vacuum” in Step 1. This recognition of the limits of personal power sets the scene for entering into a relationship with that which is Unlimited Power.
Power
In Step 1, one becomes ready to meet G-d. In Step 2, one actually meets Him and it is there that G-d is first introduced, not as “G-d” but as Power. Why this description of G-d rather than any other? Why does the first reference to G-d in The Steps allude to Him specifically as “a Power”?
One might answer that since “G-d” is a word fraught with so many connotations and which evokes so many prejudices, that it just works better to “ease into it” and not to use the word “G-d” right away. This is certainly a valid point, as we find in the old Jewish tale of the rabbi who tells the atheist, “My son, don’t worry. The same G-d that you don’t believe in, I don’t believe in either.”
But this still does not answer our question. Why allude to G-d specifically as a Power and not with any other word besides G-d?
The concept of power is one that is central to recovery from addiction. The disease – regardless of drug of choice – is essentially an obsession with control and power. The addict wants control and finds it in the altering of his or her state of being through indulgence in the addictive behavior. In order to recover, the addict must surrender this desire for control. But surrender it to what? To G-d? The prospects of this surrender being effective depend entirely on one’s concept of G-d. Simply put, the idea that G-d can heal the addict only seems true if one’s conception of G-d is one that is worthy of being surrendered to. G-d may be many things to many people, but for the recovering addict, G-d must first and foremost be Power.
Indeed, this may be the reason why the practice of religion by itself is almost always far from adequate in treating addiction. One can believe in G-d and even practice some form of devotion to Him, but if one does not see G-d as a Power, then there is nothing to which the addict can surrender control. While there may be many religions or belief systems that view G-d as the archetype of many such abstractions as Love, Wisdom, Peace and the like, in recovery G-d is the quintessence of Power and is introduced as such even before He is introduced as G-d.
The medieval Jewish philosopher, Judah HaLevi, explains in The Kuzari why the first commandment in The Decalogue states, “I am the L-rd your G-d who took you out of Egypt.” Why did G-d not introduce Himself as “The Lord your G-d who created the heaven and the earth”? Surely that is a far more impressive credential than engineering the Exodus. HaLevi answers that G-d chose to introduce Himself in the way that was most relevant to those to whom He was addressing. The concept of creation seems too abstract, dare we say, too impersonal, to serve as a basis for a truly intimate relationship with G-d. The Exodus, on the other hand, demonstrates G-d’s direct involvement in the affairs of man – that G-d did not just make the world but that He is actively involved in the world and that He is all-powerful to act within it as He wishes. Thus, the Jewish relationship with G-d is not predicated upon His role as Creator but as Power.
I once spoke to a young man who had been in recovery for about a year and had not managed to put together any significant amount of time. He called me up because he said that he needed to believe in a Higher Power but that he lacked the background to be able to figure out who or what that was. I asked him to describe for me the G-d of his understanding. He told me that, as he understood it, G-d was compassionate, just and wise. I told him that according to our tradition all of those descriptions are true, but that he left out the most important one. He grappled, without luck, to find the word that I was waiting for. I told him, “You told me that you came to me because you wanted to find your ‘Higher Power.’ If your Higher Power is G-d, then why didn’t you mention that G-d was powerful?”
We began to discuss various mystical concepts which describe G-d’s absolute control over the universe. Chasidus is replete with analogies and examples which illustrate how G-d did not just create the world but that He continues to exert absolute control over every detail of reality. I told him about the concept of “on-going creation,” that even now, G-d is bringing the universe into existence out of absolute void and nothing. As G-d continually creates something out of nothing, He places everything exactly where He wants it at this very second. Without this constant imposition, all of creation would revert to nothingness. There is no automatic pilot; G-d is always in control. In the lingo of recovery, “Nothing absolutely nothing happens in G-d’s world by mistake.” (Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 417)
Although he found our discussion to be intellectually stimulating, the young man stated that “in his heart,” he could not bring himself to believe in this kind of absolute omnipotence. I asked him, “What good is a G-d who is compassionate, just and wise if He is unable to exercise His compassion, justice and wisdom whenever and however He likes? How can such a weakling restore you to your sanity, let alone be deemed worthy of having you give your life and will over to him?”
G-d cannot be an abstraction. He must be an active force in our lives. My personal spiritual master, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory, delivered most of his public addresses in Yiddish. But whenever he would speak in English, he would always refer to G-d with the somewhat unusual phrase, “G-d Almighty,” although this was not a direct translation of the term for G-d that he most often used in his first language. There is something telling about that. When we speak of G-d – particularly in a secular language whose terminology for Divinity is lacking – we must underscore that G-d is Power, that He is not just “G-d” – whatever that means to each of us – but that He is “G-d Almighty.”
--
Shais Taub
New content added all the time at chasidicthought.com
Capital “P”
The first allusion to G-d in The Steps is found in Step Two where He is referred to as “a Power greater than ourselves.” Note the capitalization. It is evident that we are not just talking about any power which happens to be stronger than we are. If that were so, then the recovering person might believe that gravity or electromagnetism could restore his or her sanity. Those are powers that are greater than we are. We certainly cannot defy their effects. But we also have no reason to believe that they can do anything for us other than blindly impose their influences as dictated by the laws of nature. When we speak about Power, that is, the proper (capitalized) rather than common (uncapitalized) noun, we are talking about a force that transcends all of the other various powers in the universe.
The Zohar, the canon text of Kabbalah, says of G-d, “Master of the Worlds, You are the Highest of the High, the Causer of Causes.” Maimonides, the 12th century Jewish legalist and theologian, expresses much the same idea in his Principles of Faith, albeit in a more philosophical tone, where he writes, “[G-d] is the cause of all that exists… and there is no possibility that He does not exist because without Him, all existence would cease. [Whereas] if we could imagine the absence of all existence other than His, the existence of God would not cease or diminish, for He is self-sufficient and His existence requires nothing other than Himself.”
In other words, while the phrase “a Power greater than ourselves” may lend itself to being interpreted out of context as any power whose effects are unavoidable, nevertheless, if read in the context of the rest of The Steps, it is obvious that the Power mentioned in Step 2 is not the sun or the ocean tides but the same G-d who is explicitly mentioned throughout the following Steps – the G-d who restores sanity (Step 2), who cares for the individual (Step 3), who removes character defects (5,6 and 7), who lets His will be known and grants power to the individual to adhere to that will (Step 11).
Higher or Highest
One still might ask, if this “Power” is indeed singular and unique, if it is none other than the Power behind all other powers, then why is it referred to only as “a Power” and not “the Power”? Perhaps the following story will prove helpful in finding an answer to this question.
A popular AA speaker, Clancy I., talks about his early experiences grappling with belief. He relates how he told his sponsor that he could not believe in G-d. His sponsor asked him if he could believe in G-d and just not use the word “G-d.” Clancy said that he could not. The sponsor asked him if he could believe in the power of the AA group. Clancy said that he could not do that either. Finally, the sponsor asked him, “Can you admit that I am doing better than you?” Clancy said that he could. “Congratulations, kid,” said the sponsor, “You’ve just met your new Higher Power.”
Yet, more telling than the story itself is its epilogue. Years later, Clancy’s sponsor stopped working the program, got drunk and died. What was Clancy to do now, what with his Higher Power being dead and all? Would he lose his direction, his faith? Not at all. As Clancy explains it, by the time he lost his sponsor, Clancy already believed in G-d. It was his belief in his sponsor as a power greater than himself that was the necessary first move away from total self-reliance. Once he was able to accept his dependence upon something outside of his own ego, he had already begun his journey toward finding G-d.
In other words, it is most probably safe to say that a person can get sober and work an effective 2nd Step just by believing in any power greater than himself. Indeed, it is often the case that belief in a higher power – any higher power! – is that which marks the nascent beginnings of a process toward discovering the Highest Power. It is this Highest Power that is referred to explicitly in the following Steps which come right out and unambiguously invoke the word “G-d.” So, while Step 2 does not tell us that we need to believe in “G-d” per se, it most certainly begins to lead us in that direction.
This method of finding G-d through a process of deduction is exemplified by the spiritual quest of the world’s first champion of monotheism, Abraham. As Maimonides describes:
"[Abraham] was but a small child when his mind began to seek and wonder, ‘How do the heavenly bodies orbit without a moving force? Who moves them? They cannot move themselves!’ …His heart sought and then came to know that there is but one G-d... who created all and that in all existence there is none other than Him.”
G-d in the First Step
In a very important way, the process of finding G-d as Highest Power was quietly begun in The First Step where the addict admitted his or her own powerlessness.
It might be useful to note that chasidus (the mystical teachings of Chasidism) teaches that the opposite of serving G-d is not idolatry but self-obsession. At least idolaters turn to an entity outside of themselves while egomaniacs – and addicts, almost by definition, fit the bill – cannot peacefully defer to anyone or anything aside for their own ego. Thus, the mental shift which is most critical and urgent is for the addict to adhere to that simple piece of advice oft-heard in the rooms: “Get out of your own head.”
The Talmud relates that G-d says of an arrogant person, “It is impossible for he and Me to dwell in the same place.” Although G-d is omnipresent and thus to be found everywhere, His Presence cannot be felt where there is haughtiness and pride. In order to allow the Power of G-d into one’s life, one must first acquiesce to the fact of his or her own lack of power. The story is told that when the Rabbi of Kotzk (1787-1859) was but a small child, he was asked, “Where is G-d?” To which the young rabbi-to-be replied, “Wherever you let Him in.” This same idea is expressed by the Midrashic saying, “You cannot pour into a cup that is already full.”
In other words, G-d will always fill whatever spaces that we make for Him but He will not intrude where He is clearly unwelcome. In order to experience G-d’s Power in Step 2, one first makes a “power vacuum” in Step 1. This recognition of the limits of personal power sets the scene for entering into a relationship with that which is Unlimited Power.
Power
In Step 1, one becomes ready to meet G-d. In Step 2, one actually meets Him and it is there that G-d is first introduced, not as “G-d” but as Power. Why this description of G-d rather than any other? Why does the first reference to G-d in The Steps allude to Him specifically as “a Power”?
One might answer that since “G-d” is a word fraught with so many connotations and which evokes so many prejudices, that it just works better to “ease into it” and not to use the word “G-d” right away. This is certainly a valid point, as we find in the old Jewish tale of the rabbi who tells the atheist, “My son, don’t worry. The same G-d that you don’t believe in, I don’t believe in either.”
But this still does not answer our question. Why allude to G-d specifically as a Power and not with any other word besides G-d?
The concept of power is one that is central to recovery from addiction. The disease – regardless of drug of choice – is essentially an obsession with control and power. The addict wants control and finds it in the altering of his or her state of being through indulgence in the addictive behavior. In order to recover, the addict must surrender this desire for control. But surrender it to what? To G-d? The prospects of this surrender being effective depend entirely on one’s concept of G-d. Simply put, the idea that G-d can heal the addict only seems true if one’s conception of G-d is one that is worthy of being surrendered to. G-d may be many things to many people, but for the recovering addict, G-d must first and foremost be Power.
Indeed, this may be the reason why the practice of religion by itself is almost always far from adequate in treating addiction. One can believe in G-d and even practice some form of devotion to Him, but if one does not see G-d as a Power, then there is nothing to which the addict can surrender control. While there may be many religions or belief systems that view G-d as the archetype of many such abstractions as Love, Wisdom, Peace and the like, in recovery G-d is the quintessence of Power and is introduced as such even before He is introduced as G-d.
The medieval Jewish philosopher, Judah HaLevi, explains in The Kuzari why the first commandment in The Decalogue states, “I am the L-rd your G-d who took you out of Egypt.” Why did G-d not introduce Himself as “The Lord your G-d who created the heaven and the earth”? Surely that is a far more impressive credential than engineering the Exodus. HaLevi answers that G-d chose to introduce Himself in the way that was most relevant to those to whom He was addressing. The concept of creation seems too abstract, dare we say, too impersonal, to serve as a basis for a truly intimate relationship with G-d. The Exodus, on the other hand, demonstrates G-d’s direct involvement in the affairs of man – that G-d did not just make the world but that He is actively involved in the world and that He is all-powerful to act within it as He wishes. Thus, the Jewish relationship with G-d is not predicated upon His role as Creator but as Power.
I once spoke to a young man who had been in recovery for about a year and had not managed to put together any significant amount of time. He called me up because he said that he needed to believe in a Higher Power but that he lacked the background to be able to figure out who or what that was. I asked him to describe for me the G-d of his understanding. He told me that, as he understood it, G-d was compassionate, just and wise. I told him that according to our tradition all of those descriptions are true, but that he left out the most important one. He grappled, without luck, to find the word that I was waiting for. I told him, “You told me that you came to me because you wanted to find your ‘Higher Power.’ If your Higher Power is G-d, then why didn’t you mention that G-d was powerful?”
We began to discuss various mystical concepts which describe G-d’s absolute control over the universe. Chasidus is replete with analogies and examples which illustrate how G-d did not just create the world but that He continues to exert absolute control over every detail of reality. I told him about the concept of “on-going creation,” that even now, G-d is bringing the universe into existence out of absolute void and nothing. As G-d continually creates something out of nothing, He places everything exactly where He wants it at this very second. Without this constant imposition, all of creation would revert to nothingness. There is no automatic pilot; G-d is always in control. In the lingo of recovery, “Nothing absolutely nothing happens in G-d’s world by mistake.” (Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 417)
Although he found our discussion to be intellectually stimulating, the young man stated that “in his heart,” he could not bring himself to believe in this kind of absolute omnipotence. I asked him, “What good is a G-d who is compassionate, just and wise if He is unable to exercise His compassion, justice and wisdom whenever and however He likes? How can such a weakling restore you to your sanity, let alone be deemed worthy of having you give your life and will over to him?”
G-d cannot be an abstraction. He must be an active force in our lives. My personal spiritual master, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory, delivered most of his public addresses in Yiddish. But whenever he would speak in English, he would always refer to G-d with the somewhat unusual phrase, “G-d Almighty,” although this was not a direct translation of the term for G-d that he most often used in his first language. There is something telling about that. When we speak of G-d – particularly in a secular language whose terminology for Divinity is lacking – we must underscore that G-d is Power, that He is not just “G-d” – whatever that means to each of us – but that He is “G-d Almighty.”
--
Shais Taub
New content added all the time at chasidicthought.com
3.04.2009
A Rabbi’s Perspective
As a rabbi, I have been asked time and again if there is anything about The Twelve Steps that is “objectionable” from a Jewish theological perspective. The easy answer would be to say that The Twelve Steps espouse no particular theological beliefs and are, as such, compatible with all spiritual paths. But that’s not the answer I give. The Steps, although replete with the qualifier, “G-d of our understanding,” do make, or at least imply certain ideas about G-d.
Therefore, the answer that I give when asked about the compatibility of Jewish belief and The Twelve Steps is that not only is there nothing in The Twelve Steps that is problematic from a Jewish perspective but that The Steps can help Jews better understand their own G-d. The Steps, in their clear and simple language, marvelously communicate certain truths in which we as Jews are already enjoined to believe.
Twelve Steps Theology
At the risk of making a sweeping generalization, allow me to say that addicts are always looking for an excuse not to recover. It’s just part of the disease. Every addict – irrespective of his or her drug of choice – possesses a sense of “terminal uniqueness." Sooner or later, they will always tell you, “But my case is different.”
This presents a special dilemma. The most basic premise of The Twelve Steps is that living according to spiritual principles brings on a reprieve from active addiction. Spirituality is the solution. But if The Twelve Steps were recognizably aligned with any known ideology or set of beliefs, addicts would find an easy excuse for feeling driven away from the program. Thus we see that while Twelve Step groups are, as a rule, staunchly committed to spiritual principles, they are equally as renowned for their absolute inclusiveness and flexibility on all matters pertaining to the particular beliefs of their members.
In recovery circles, one often hears this dichotomy described as the distinction between “spirituality” and “religion.” Religion denotes dogma and articles of faith. Spirituality is a softer, more supple word that leaves itself open for all kinds of interpretation. To wit, there is the often told, though perhaps apocryphal tale of the avowed atheist who upon coming to AA acceded to choose the doorknob as his Higher Power.
It’s understandable why AA and the Twelve Step groups that came along after it must hold a staunchly non-sectarian position on matters of belief. At the same time, however, it would be dishonest to claim that The Steps are devoid of any particular theology. While there is nothing like a list of theological principles where articles of faith are enumerated, a thoughtful reading of The Steps will, however, lead one to conclude that they are indeed based on a distinct theological position.
G-d in the Steps
Following are the Twelve Steps as originally published in the book, Alcoholics Anonymous.
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of G-d as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to G-d, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have G-d remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with G-d, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Of the Twelve Steps, only the first mentions alcohol. Four of them (Steps 3,5,6 and 11) explicitly mention G-d and two more of them refer to G-d either as “a Power greater than ourselves” (in Step 2) or with the pronoun “Him” (in Step 7).
Being that six of the Twelve Steps mention G-d, it’s difficult to imagine that they offer absolutely no notion as to who or what this G-d is. And although, as mentioned earlier, it often serves a convenient purpose to pretend that the program takes no distinct theological position, to persist in this assertion is to simply discount the facts.
The Steps don’t just refer to G-d, they tell us about Him. First, they let us know that He is a Power and that this Power is greater than ourselves. G-d is not an idea or an abstraction. He is a force and He is active and this force is mightier than we are. Further, we are told that this Power can actually do something for us – something quite big. (It can restore us to our sanity.) These are all theological statements and these are all contained just in Step 2. In other words, right away in the Second Step, we have already been told quite a lot about G-d – not just that He exists but about how He manifests in our lives.
The next Step, in which we are told to turn our will and our lives over to His care, tells us even more about G-d – that He cares. That’s another distinct theological position. One can believe in G-d and not believe that He cares, but this Step tell us, at least implicitly, that He does indeed care. In Step 5 we are told that we can talk to Him; we can speak to Him openly and honestly. In Steps 6 and 7 we are told that G-d can change us and that we can ask Him to do so. In Step 11 we are told that we can consciously engage Him and that we can ask Him for knowledge of His will and the power to carry out His will. This, incidentally, also sets forth another very big idea – that He actually has a will. That’s a strong theological statement. G-d has a will. And not only does He have a will, but He has a will for us, things that he specifically desires from the individual.
Far from existing in a theological vacuum or free-for-all, The Steps are actually based on several key premises about G-d. These are not ideas to be taken for granted. They are by no means universal. Not all belief systems hold these views, but the program, does. He is a Power; He can affect our lives; He is caring; He has a will.
In the coming weeks, we will endeavor – with G-d’s help – to examine all of these and other distinct theological positions of The Steps in greater depth.
--
Shais Taub
New content added all the time at chasidicthought.com
Therefore, the answer that I give when asked about the compatibility of Jewish belief and The Twelve Steps is that not only is there nothing in The Twelve Steps that is problematic from a Jewish perspective but that The Steps can help Jews better understand their own G-d. The Steps, in their clear and simple language, marvelously communicate certain truths in which we as Jews are already enjoined to believe.
Twelve Steps Theology
At the risk of making a sweeping generalization, allow me to say that addicts are always looking for an excuse not to recover. It’s just part of the disease. Every addict – irrespective of his or her drug of choice – possesses a sense of “terminal uniqueness." Sooner or later, they will always tell you, “But my case is different.”
This presents a special dilemma. The most basic premise of The Twelve Steps is that living according to spiritual principles brings on a reprieve from active addiction. Spirituality is the solution. But if The Twelve Steps were recognizably aligned with any known ideology or set of beliefs, addicts would find an easy excuse for feeling driven away from the program. Thus we see that while Twelve Step groups are, as a rule, staunchly committed to spiritual principles, they are equally as renowned for their absolute inclusiveness and flexibility on all matters pertaining to the particular beliefs of their members.
In recovery circles, one often hears this dichotomy described as the distinction between “spirituality” and “religion.” Religion denotes dogma and articles of faith. Spirituality is a softer, more supple word that leaves itself open for all kinds of interpretation. To wit, there is the often told, though perhaps apocryphal tale of the avowed atheist who upon coming to AA acceded to choose the doorknob as his Higher Power.
It’s understandable why AA and the Twelve Step groups that came along after it must hold a staunchly non-sectarian position on matters of belief. At the same time, however, it would be dishonest to claim that The Steps are devoid of any particular theology. While there is nothing like a list of theological principles where articles of faith are enumerated, a thoughtful reading of The Steps will, however, lead one to conclude that they are indeed based on a distinct theological position.
G-d in the Steps
Following are the Twelve Steps as originally published in the book, Alcoholics Anonymous.
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of G-d as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to G-d, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have G-d remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with G-d, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Of the Twelve Steps, only the first mentions alcohol. Four of them (Steps 3,5,6 and 11) explicitly mention G-d and two more of them refer to G-d either as “a Power greater than ourselves” (in Step 2) or with the pronoun “Him” (in Step 7).
Being that six of the Twelve Steps mention G-d, it’s difficult to imagine that they offer absolutely no notion as to who or what this G-d is. And although, as mentioned earlier, it often serves a convenient purpose to pretend that the program takes no distinct theological position, to persist in this assertion is to simply discount the facts.
The Steps don’t just refer to G-d, they tell us about Him. First, they let us know that He is a Power and that this Power is greater than ourselves. G-d is not an idea or an abstraction. He is a force and He is active and this force is mightier than we are. Further, we are told that this Power can actually do something for us – something quite big. (It can restore us to our sanity.) These are all theological statements and these are all contained just in Step 2. In other words, right away in the Second Step, we have already been told quite a lot about G-d – not just that He exists but about how He manifests in our lives.
The next Step, in which we are told to turn our will and our lives over to His care, tells us even more about G-d – that He cares. That’s another distinct theological position. One can believe in G-d and not believe that He cares, but this Step tell us, at least implicitly, that He does indeed care. In Step 5 we are told that we can talk to Him; we can speak to Him openly and honestly. In Steps 6 and 7 we are told that G-d can change us and that we can ask Him to do so. In Step 11 we are told that we can consciously engage Him and that we can ask Him for knowledge of His will and the power to carry out His will. This, incidentally, also sets forth another very big idea – that He actually has a will. That’s a strong theological statement. G-d has a will. And not only does He have a will, but He has a will for us, things that he specifically desires from the individual.
Far from existing in a theological vacuum or free-for-all, The Steps are actually based on several key premises about G-d. These are not ideas to be taken for granted. They are by no means universal. Not all belief systems hold these views, but the program, does. He is a Power; He can affect our lives; He is caring; He has a will.
In the coming weeks, we will endeavor – with G-d’s help – to examine all of these and other distinct theological positions of The Steps in greater depth.
--
Shais Taub
New content added all the time at chasidicthought.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)