As I read through the history of SA and of AA, one thing becomes very obvious. We are not helpless when problems arise at the meetings. We are not helpless precisely because we have the strength of the Higher Power to lead us, if we but seek His way and His will, and if we have the fellowship of one or two like-minded members.

The meetings in our area, five in all, had many problems. Since the birth of the groups, there had been no national definition of sexual sobriety, no way to handle long-winded newcomers, no way to address the problem of slipping, or the formation of a group within a group, etc.

The meetings were called SA and worked very well for some members. For a few seriously committed persons, long-term sobriety occurred within the groups. The groups functioned a number of years this way. Why change? Many did not want any change in the group setup because, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Others told me of their dissatisfaction but felt helpless to do anything about it. I became increasingly dissatisfied with the situation but did not want to be the “crusader.” The first thing I did was pray for some light about what to do. No doubt, that was the most important thing I did.

Then I prayed for fellowship, others to work with me. I believe I was led to ask two like-minded, respected and committed members to meet with me. We began by proposing clear resolutions to the Wednesday meeting, a group of 15 to 20 members, for the members to accept or reject.

I also called an oldtimer who had “been through the wars” to discuss the group’s problems, my own fears and hopes and doubts. He taped the conversation; I then made the tape available to my little discussion group and to all the members of the Wednesday group. The talk was very helpful and, after the call, I felt fortified.

To compress much activity into a nutshell conclusion, the Wednesday meeting, after a number of full and sometimes overheated business meetings, adopted the national definition of sobriety and many streamlining changes. All this occurred because the committee, not I as an individual, recommended and defended the proposals. The Higher Power powered us.

Having that in place, and with one of the two original Wednesday discussion group members at the Monday noon meeting, I found the Higher Power led me to a new role. I became the “gadfly,” the one who would bother the others by requesting the inclusion of the national definition for the Monday noon meeting. I requested a business meeting and made a motion to that effect. Someone seconded the motion, opening a red hot discussion which lasted seven weeks.

I prayed, resolved not to push for a premature vote, and therefore would live with as many weeks of business meetings as it would take. I needed a thorough discussion of the honesty, or lack of honesty, with our current setup. I was at peace with that. I also resolved not to back off until a vote was taken, one way or the other.

To be truthful, I was not very popular for requesting a business meeting every week to continue to discuss the motion. Every week after a 15-minute discussion we tabled the motion for the next meeting. I had the distinct feeling that some members wanted the issue, or perhaps my insistence, to disappear. At the end of the regular meeting, most of the members were intent on getting back to work. There was resistance and some resentment over having to stay and discuss such a thorny and divisive issue. The issue was so hot and so important that most members felt compelled to stay for the discussion. Throughout the seven weeks, the apparent majority clearly wanted to remain SA without using the national definition of sobriety.

I had resolved, as “gadfly,” not to push for a vote, but to push for consciousness raising of the honesty involved in our present format. Finally, someone said, “Enough. Let’s announce a vote date and vote.”

The next Monday we voted. Everything that could be said had been said, pro and con. I had no idea how the vote would go. Too close to call. All I knew was I felt scared. I closed my eyes when the vote was taken.

From my perspective, a miracle occurred. One member unexpectedly voted for the national definition, carrying the day by a vote of 4 to 3. Again, I became aware of the influence of a Power far beyond me, and us.

If the group had voted against the national definition, I knew, sadly, that I could not continue as a member of that group. My bottom line of honesty wouldn’t allow that. I love the members of the group. I had suggested we look into another affiliation, and continue to meet. The group seemed to want SA without a definition of sobriety. Period.

I had decided that if the group voted against the definition, I would not attend the meetings but, rather, spend the same hour in my office reading the White Book and journaling. I would have a “loner” SA meeting. Perhaps others would follow.

I also saw the royal mess that might follow. There would be two Monday noon SA meetings within five miles of each other. Confusion, division, and probably misunderstanding/animosity would grow. If I gave it half a chance, that thought would paralyze me.

However, I was surprisingly at peace with all this because I had a deep awareness that I wouldn’t be the “cause” of these destructive consequences. I have enough awareness of the dark forces of lust to know that the battle is Spiritual. I am simply one man, speaking one man’s view with as much clarity and sincerity as possible. The consequences were out of my hands. I had to let go of the potentially harmful consequences and let God and the intergroup handle that, if necessary.

Again, because of a miraculous and squeaky 4 to 3 vote, the Monday noon group has the national definition of sexual sobriety. Now, three months after the initial discussion meeting, all five groups adhere to the national definition, affecting perhaps an average of 30 to 40 members a week.

I’m a happy camper about all this. I’d like to think I’d be reasonably peaceful if the Monday noon group had become a temporary royal mess. One thing certain, that would have been vastly different, and a very stressful situation to live through.

Clearly, we are not helpless about problems within the group, no matter how insurmountable they seem. Problems such as a group within a group, non-SA influences emerging during meetings, etc., can all be faced and worked through, with the power of the Higher Power.

I learned that we must pray together, and really trust anew in the direction of the Higher Power. My own dissatisfaction and frustration proved to be a signal for prayer and action. At times during the process, it did seem as if we were blindly re-inventing the wheel. I also learned that, at least in the beginning, if I am to be an agent of change, I can be greatly helped by finding one or two like-minded, committed members to pray with me, discuss with me, and go to the larger group conscience with a clear, concise motion for the group to discuss and, ultimately, accept or reject.

As I look back upon my role in all this, I am, for lack of a better word, grateful to my Higher Power. I know I am not a crusader. I know that I am exceedingly weak in a group setting. Once again, I am reminded that because I am weak, therefore I am strong. My addiction is my strength when I lead with my weakness.

Our task is to move on, putting one foot in front of the other, as the Higher Power directs. Perhaps we are called to simply be a “gadfly,” continuing to try to bring ourselves back to basics. Perhaps we are called, after all else fails, to break off and form a new group with one or two members. One thing I know for sure as a recovering addict, I need SA and will fight vigorously to establish and maintain a group of people, faithful to the authentic traditions of SA, for my own salvation and sanity. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.