Talk:Frank N. D. Buchman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This information about Buchman's ideas is very revealing. Like many people, I have been exposed to these ideas indirectly in the past as a result of seeking help with a drinking problem from Alcoholics Anonymous, an organisation which has a central aim of spreading Buchmanite beliefs and practices, but is disingenuous and evasive about their true origin and nature. Personally,I left this 'fellowship' in disgust at its dishonesty about its real agenda. I consider Buchman's teachings to be absolutely poisonous and I think it is a tragedy that they continue to have an influence by being disguised as a 'treatment'for alcoholism and sundry other problems. Andymart1yn 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Andymart1yn

The Alcoholics Anonymous program has had the benefit of being studied and analyzed in several times peer-reviewed scientific journals, much of the research has been very positive: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Of course, you can probably find more in the Wikipedia article. -- 128.138.64.147 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish links. Most of those studies seem to show that people who attend alcoholics anonymous drink less (well, of course). That is does not show that alcoholics anonymous is the cause of the decreased drinking. If I, as a none alcoholic, wanted to drink, where would I go? Not AA!! Probably not to a Knitting club, either. So should recovering alcoholics who imerse themselves in knitting be studied? Because, if they are there all of the time, and not at the bar, I guarantee that their relapse outcomes would be improved. One study even implies that AA has a 40%+ success rate. What a total joke!! Even the studies on the AA page do not show that!!! 82.19.66.37 19:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To imply that AA is "disingenuous and evasive" about anything is ridiculous. AA has no common, public stance on anything. Its members all think for themselves and may express their own opinions, whether Buchmanite or not. It amazes me when bitter people bash an organization that has led millions of people to recovery from alcoholism. Sheesh!

AA has been shown through random longitudinal studies (with control group) to have a success rate of 5% of attendees abstinent per year. Google "George Vaillant", and look at his study over many many years. See also AA's own 1989 triennial survey results. This is no better than a random sample of destructive drinkers who receive no treatment at all and go cold turkey. In other words. AA has no success rate to speak of, has saved no-one, offers nothing and is only successful at recruiting members to its religious cult practices. The idea that the 12 steps are a "cure" for deviant behaviour is one of the biggest cons of the 20th century. Saves millions? No. It takes the credit for those finally got a grip and exerted their will-power, whilst dismissing the vast majority who, disgusted, walk out of the door and away from the weirdness. An absolute shocker of an organisation.

AA has helped many and continues to offer a way out to thousands. To suggest it is a religious cult highlights the author’s ignorance. AAs 12 steps come from a variety of sources; step 1 coming from alcohol misuse specialist Dr. Silkworth (= definition of the problem); step 2 came from Prof. Dr. C.G Jung (=the solution); the remaining steps (3-12) were adapted from the Oxford Group's tenets and represent the Action phase. The process is thus analogous to many Problem/Solution/Action programmes used successfully in therapy, business management and education. What makes AA controversial is the so-called "religious slant". If one looks at "The Big Book" (Alcoholics Anonymous), one sees that all that is required for recovery "is a profound psychic change" or a "personality change". Gerard Egan used a similar 3 stage model (adapted from the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola), down played ant spiritual slant, help millions of individuals and organisations. So if you insist on knocking AA at least look beyond your own religious prejudices!

...................................................................................................... While Buckman and AA have a viewpoint of 1st century Cristianity. In and of itself this not perjorative unless one is at heart anti-religous. There seems to be three questions here: 1).Is A.A. underhanded/secretive in its reference to religion? 2).How effective is A.A.? 3).Is Andymart1in using "talk page correctly? Answers: 1). Yes, I feel that A.A. less than forthwright about its attachment to religion. I think this comes from two areas: 1. Members of AA simply do not recognize that A.A. is fundamentally religous in concept. These members feel because it is not attached to a specific dogma then it is not "religous. They see A.A. as spiritual, not religious. 2. However, this not extend to the organization itself as many of these members are well aware of the religious aspect of AA. Why then do they do it? I think the answer is in Andymart1ns response. Andymart1n admits to having a drinking problem. A hallmark of alcoholics is defiance and anger. Andy doesn't merely quits AA, he quits in "disgust". He doesn't disagree with Buckman he thinks Buckmans teaching is "poisionous". A.A. influence is not in questionable, but a "tragedy". Alcoholic defiance and anger may very well be the reason for A.A.'s reticense about seemingly being overtly religious. Handymart1n (the problem drinker) responses certainly seem to be proof of that proposition. A.A.er's are desperatly trying to help themselves and others if they don't academic standards of candidness or they honestly don't see A.A. as religious what is the harm? To be frankly honest,I feel that Andymart1n is making exuses so he can keep drinking. 2.) The question of effacacy of A.A. is difficult. Longitutdinal studies are difficult to design for this type of program. Some assumptions have to be made, at what point should you say that a person has tried A.A.: all that show up even one time, though it is against thier will (court ordered), All those that have been there a year? 6 months?

While it is difficult to prove its effacacy. Enough people believe in it to keep coming year after year and if it works for them and millions of others, what right does anyone to complain. No matter how vociferous Andymart1ns complaint is A.A. will not turn anyone into a mind numbed automaton.

3.)Andymart1n does not use this "Talk Section" properly. It is my understanding this is to be used to correct mistakes in definitions and content. Andymart1n used this section for a diatribe against A.A. because I suspect he doesn't want to go and is justifying his fear in public. I suppose the QUESTION for Andymart1n is: are you still drinking???

[edit] Calculated nebulousness

This article is about Frank Buchman, not Alcoholics Anonymous, but there is a significant and Wikipedia/Buchman-relevant point in the Andymart1yn 14:49, 30 January 2007 diatribe above. A key feature in the history of Frank Buchman, the Oxford Group, AA, Up With People, Moral Re-Armament, Initiatives of Change [9] and other spin-offs is the use of vagueness and undefinability as a disingenuous (or, arguably, sometimes actually deceptive) organizational tool. This was one of Buchman's essential contributions. He spoke of a scheduled "quiet time" as opposed to "prayer." He always insisted that there really was no organization, nor "leader" nor "members," only some people with a shared understanding or approach who happened to meet. Moral Re-Armament official doctrine was (is) that it had no members nor any official doctrine. An ambiguity in the English word "met" has been used by Alcoholics Anonymous from the start, to say that its two founders "met" in a hotel bar. That seems to have the "bumped into each other" meaning of "met," when in it was really a scheduled meeting of two Oxford Group members -- hence, yes, they "met" there. In AA literature, Buchman's coy references to a vague "higher power" are used in preference to the Christian "God" to which he was referring. The bland and uninformative name "The Oxford Group" exemplifies the method, as did the many later hard-to-trace name changes and organizational metamorphoses. The organizations were not called churches. The names "Initiatives of Change" and "Up With People" are similarly calculated to reveal nothing about their specific agenda or affiliations. (Buchman saw himself as masterminding a semi-clandestine war of Christianity against Communism.) Even today, very few AA, Al-Anon/Alateen and Up With People members have any idea that they are in fact following and espousing tenets of Buchmanism. With proper citations, this aspect of Frank Buchman's organizational genius should be documented and included in the article. (Note: The same nebulousness methods were used by "The Finders" group in the Washington, D.C. area, in the 1970s-1990s, but that appears unrelated to Buchman.) MrDroopy 22:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An amusing example of Buchmanian calculated nebulousness is the first sentence of the current Alcoholics Anonymous Wikipedia page: "Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an informal society for recovering alcoholics." What "informal" society? AA is demonstrably a fully formal legal network of organizations around the world owning property, enforcing its trademarks, etc. MrDroopy 00:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

I think this article and discussion lack perspective and insight. Frank Buchman had nothing to do with Alcoholicss Anonymous directly. The Oxford Groups practiced a 6 step word of mouth type program in order to win people to Christ and change lives. He never wrote any AA literature and when Bill W the cofounder brought up the idea Frank's guidance was against it. If you want an accurate reference read the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous the first 164 pages and go through the steps if you want to give it a try. Then read For Sinners Only 'AJ Russel' and maybe check out On The Tail Of A Comet 'Garth Lean'. That might provide more accurate information to transpire to this article. The teachings and tenants of the Oxford group transpired into Alcoholics Anonymous directly, Bill W. himself admitted to that. There are no secrets to Alcoholics Anonymous and they don't own any property (aside from the General Service Office), they rent and are self supporting through their own contributions. They are a true democracy through an upside down pyramid where the collective conscience or group conscience matters the most which is formed by individuals. However I will note that just like any group of people there are many individuals from all walks of life so most definately some people are liars in there, but if you don't like it, you get to change it since it's a democracy. There is no requirement for membership except a desire to stop drinking, you don't have to believe as others believe. I also left this fellowship for my own reasons but by no means is it some conspiracy to get people to believe something for any reason. It's just a group of people who are trying to help themselves and in turn help others, nothing else is involved, people just want to get better. Millions have found their lives, themselves and a relationship with their highest ideals within the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous, there's no need to win people to Christ or change people if they don't want to. There is really no alternative motive to Alcoholics Anonymous, an individual member most likely there is, but as a collective there isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)