Sobriety Versus Recovery: A Parallel to Reformation/Restoration in the Church

As my research into the recovery movement (i.e., 12-steps) deepens, I am amazed by the similarities between the recovery principles of 12-step groups and the principles of discipleship in the Christian Tradition.

One such similarity is that between the recovery movement’s distinction between recovery and sobriety and the Christian Tradition’s distinction between reformed and reforming.

Sobriety vs. Recovery
The recovery movement teaches its members that sobriety is simply the absence of intoxication. Recovery is more than the absence of intoxication. According to AA’s Big Book, “A.A. does not teach us how to handle our drinking. It teaches us how to handle sobriety.” That’s what recovery is, coping with life in the absence of intoxication. Or, to put it positively, recovery is thriving in life by learning new and healthy ways of living.

A person may be sober, but not in recovery. That’s what A.A. groups call a “dry drunk.” Being in recovery involves all the activities that a person does to “handle sobriety,” or what they do to stay in recovery (i.e., going to support group meetings, reading books and resources for recovery, working the steps, connecting with a sponsor, etc.).

So, sobriety is simply the absence of intoxication. Recovery is the ongoing growth process that helps a person stay sober and thrive in life.

Reformed/Restored vs. Reforming/Restoring
In churches, a similar distinction may be made between those who feel the church is reformed/restored and those who believe the church is always reforming/restoring itself. The great Protestant Reformers had a motto: reformatta et semper et reformanda (reformed and always reforming). The purpose of the first reformers (i.e., Martin Luther, etc.) did not include the start of another church tradition separate from the Roman church, but a reform of the Roman church. Of course, when it became clear that reform in the Roman church was not going to happen, Luther and the other magisterial reformers were forced to do church apart from Rome.

Ironically, the same Protestant churches that left Rome under persecution for seeking reform based on their understanding of Scripture became the persecutors of others who sought reform of the Protestant churches based on their understanding of Scripture (i.e., Anabaptists, etc.). The “always reforming” part of the Protestant motto was lost in the second and third generations of descendants to the Protestant Reformation. A “hardening of principles” left the descendants of the first reformers with the impression that they had completely reformed the church. The only thing left to do was to defend the status quo.

It goes without saying that the Restoration movement experienced the same problem of a “hardening of principles” in the second and third generations of the movement. If you asked members of the Restoration movement in the 1940s what they were doing to restore New Testament Christianity, I suppose you would have heard something like this: “We are holding the line and defending the truth.” The focus of restoration was and is often an outward focus, calling other believers to leave their “denominations” and “denominational” beliefs and practices and be Christians only. We may have assumed the work of restoration was done by prior generations and the only thing left to do was promote and defend the truth.

Today, a generation of reformers and restorers are calling the church to a renewal of reformation and restoration principles. The focus is shifting inward. The shift is taking shape in re-examinations of those hardened principles and in personal renewals of faith to Jesus, the gospel and the Bible as primary to the traditions of men (including traditional interpretations of Scripture). As the first reformers and restorers were ready to question everything, this generation has become uncomfortable with the assumed validity and sacredness of what has been handed down to them by earlier generations. So, they are going back. Back to the Bible. And, back to the experience and wisdom of the generations of believers who lived long before the Restoration movement and the Reformation movement. Those who maintain the status quo see this renewal of reform and restoration as the work of a rebellious spirit and a sign of disrespect for the generations that have gone before them. But, wasn't that the same response to the early Reformers and Restorers?


Let us pray that our efforts to reform and restore the faith are more than mere attempts at propping up the status quo. May we see that a church that believes it has everything figured out and is beyond the need for constant reformation and restoration—that its beliefs and practices are beyond question—is really no different from a “dry drunk” whose sobriety rests precariously on the denial of his/her need for recovery.