Two—For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
From Wikipedia:
A member who accepts a service position or an organizing role is a “trusted servant” with terms rotating and limited, typically lasting three months to two years and determined by group vote. Each group is a self-governing entity with AA World Services acting only in an advisory capacity. AA is served entirely by alcoholics, except for seven “nonalcoholic friends of the fellowship” out of twenty-one members of the AA Board of Trustees.
The idea here is a somewhat decentralized outlook, with the “head” of the organization, in actuality, doing very little to interfere with the meeting to meeting workings of the local groups. This enables the groups to better serve their communities, and greatly increases the effectiveness of the local groups.
Placing this notion within the realm of the church, we find that a few churches do operate outside the purview of a larger organizations. This, as with the local AA group, allows the church to decide how to be of the most benefit to the community.
This would be the most obvious effect of Tradition Two, however, if we look a little deeper we can see one more striking effect that this tradition should have on the “Trusted Servants.”
The reinforcement of the idea that they (Trusted Servants) are not to govern, that is not their task. They are there to insure flow and create “Dialogue” (for lack of a better word, actual response to statements made by attendees from other attendees is discouraged- something that would be beneficial in an ecclesiastical setting).
I think this approach would be of great benefit to the church today. Realize that pastors are but trusted servants, and should not govern.
And this is not part of the traditon per se, but, open the floor up for dialogue. (I think I’ll take a look at this idea after we finish with the AA posts).
email2friend
