AA, the courts, and religion
By Andy F.
An eye-opening encounter
Anyone who is familiar with my blogs will know that they are all about my experiences as an agnostic alcoholic in AA. Whenever I publish an article on my website, I also share it across various AA Facebook groups I belong to. Some people appreciate them, others don’t. That’s okay; if you put content in the public domain, you have to be prepared to get criticism, both good and bad.
Recently, however, I had an encounter with a member of an AA Facebook group. It raised some issues and questions that deserve further consideration. On reading my blog on some AA-related topic concerning my agnosticism, I was accosted by a woman who could only be described as a religious fundamentalist.
I was told that I was doing AA considerable harm by publishing any material about AA that gave people the impression that alcoholics could get sober without God. It didn’t make any difference when I reminded her of AA’s third tradition, that “The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking.”
A fundamentalist perception
Against my better judgment, I engaged this member in a heated dialogue. A part of me knew that getting into an argument with a religious fundamentalist was a waste of time. Past experience has shown me what a futile exercise it is trying to argue with a religious fundamentalist, but my ego got the better of me, and I couldn’t resist.
She was quick and very proud to point out that the US courts had ruled that AA was a religious activity. She sent me the following link, which proved the fact:
“In the 1990s and 2000s, several high-profile cases (notably Griffin v. Coughlin in 1996 and Inouye v. Kemna in 2007) established that the state cannot mandate AA attendance for prisoners or parolees. The courts reached this conclusion by applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, thus ruling AA a religious entity.”
(Gemini AI)
With this as her trump card, she embarked on a further tirade. “It is only a matter of time,” she said, “before AA as a fellowship is assimilated into the church.” It will go back to its roots in the Oxford group and become part of an Evangelical Christian church. It struck me that I was not only dealing with a religious fundamentalist but a dangerous one. What will happen to the fellowship if this type of thinking becomes more established within it?
Bill Wilson – a sinner, womanizer, and a drug addict
I reminded her that Bill Wilson, the co-founder of AA, always intended the fellowship to be welcoming to every alcoholic regardless of their personal beliefs. No alcoholic who had a desire to stop drinking could be turned away.
Responsibility Is Our Theme
Newcomers are approaching AA at the rate of tens of thousands yearly. They represent almost every belief and attitude imaginable. We have atheists and agnostics. We have people of nearly every race, culture and religion. In AA we are supposed to be bound together in the kinship of a common suffering. Consequently, the full individual liberty to practice any creed or principle or therapy whatever should be a first consideration for us all. Let us not, therefore, pressure anyone with our individual or even our collective views. Let us instead accord each other the respect and love that is due to every human being as he tries to make his way toward the light. Let us always try to be inclusive rather than exclusive; let us remember that each alcoholic among us is a member of AA, so long as he or she so declares.
Bill W.
Copyright © AA Grapevine, Inc. (July 1965)
At this suggestion, she lost her temper and said that Bill Wilson’s reputation and credibility as the co-founder of AA had long since been discredited. He was nothing more than a womanizer and a low-life drug addict. As a sinner, he had no business being associated with AA, which was God’s program. The supposed drug addiction of which she spoke was Bill’s short-term therapy with LSD, which he used to treat his depression.
I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. To discredit a man who had given so much to AA, making it all inclusive to all sufferers regardless of race, colour, or creed, is that the sin here? I thought Christians advocated love, care, and forgiveness, not a character assassination. Sadly, I know that this woman isn’t alone in this type of warped fundamentalist thinking.
Part of me regretted ever engaging with her. Another part found it necessary to make other AA members aware of the dangerous undercurrents undermining our legacy of unity, which has been the glue that has held AA together since its inception.
Has fundamentalism in AA influenced the US courts?
AA was founded in 1935. The US courts ruled AA a religious activity in 1996. This means that for 61 years, the courts were free to send alcoholics for treatment because AA was viewed as a secular health program. Not anymore. Because AA is now viewed as a religious activity by the courts in the US, alcoholics must now be either fined or go to prison. Moreover
“the state cannot mandate AA attendance for prisoners or parolees. The courts reached this conclusion by applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”
(Gemini AI)
How did this happen if for 61 years, AA enjoyed the freedom to operate in the United States as a secular health care program? Could the problem have come from within AA itself? Let’s see what Gemini AI has to offer us on this question.
“The Role of “Fundamentalism” Within AA
While the courts focused on the foundational documents, there is an internal movement often called “Big Book Fundamentalism” (or groups like “Back to Basics”). These groups advocate for a strict, literal interpretation of the original 1939 text, often rejecting more secular or “cafeteria-style” interpretations.
The rise of this fundamentalism influenced the courts indirectly by:
* Increasing Conflict: As these groups insisted on the literal “God talk,” more atheist and agnostic members felt excluded. This led to more lawsuits from individuals who felt their secular beliefs were being violated by court-ordered attendance.
* Evidence of Inflexibility: When courts evaluated if AA could be considered “secular,” the refusal of many groups to remove prayers or change the “God” language—often driven by traditionalist or fundamentalist members—made it impossible for judges to categorize AA as a purely secular health program.
The courts didn’t rule against AA because of a small group of fundamentalists; they ruled that AA’s DNA is religious. However, the “fundamentalist” push within the fellowship to keep the program exactly as it was written in 1939 has ensured that the religious elements remain front-and-center, making it an easy target for First Amendment challenges.”
Conclusion
The other day, I went to a meeting, and I’m sure it wasn’t a coincidence: the topic was Tradition One: “Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends on AA unity.”
This had always been my gripe with the fundamentalists. That they were undermining the unity of AA by aggressively imposing their ideas on other AA members. As the reading about Tradition One neared its end, suddenly a powerful thought struck me. “Are you not violating Tradition One yourself by criticizing another AA member’s interpretation of the program”? It doesn’t matter who started it. As AA members, the religious fundamentalists are entitled to their point of view. If their particular brand of AA keeps them sober, then who am I to tell them that they shouldn’t be sharing it in AA
In the same way that “The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking” (Tradition Three) applies to atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers, it cannot be denied that Tradition Three is also there to protect the religious fundamentalists, no matter how extreme their ideas.
What are your thoughts?
Andy F. went to his first meeting on May 15th, 1984. Having had negative experiences with religion and religious people in childhood, he found it impossible to embrace the twelve steps. Frequent references to God and a higher power put him off completely. He decided to pursue his recovery through therapy. Unfortunately, it didn’t keep him sober. He became a serial relapser and, several times, came close to losing his life. Eventually, he was lucky to find an experienced oldtimer happy to work with an agnostic. Andy was able to stay sober and recreate his life. It’s now been twenty-seven years since his last relapse. He is committed to sponsorship and has become an avid blogger. Andy’s blogs are about his experiences in recovery as an agnostic alcoholic.
For more information about Andy and the books that he has written and published, click here: https://aaforagnostics.com/. And, for a PDF of this article, click here: AA, the courts, and religion.
Chapter 2 goes through this explaining this subject.
Once beaten down bad enough (the person will come to believe in something greater than their self) if not dying from this disease. Ego will prolong this as it has for me. When my life was on the line the God idea sounded pretty good.
Hi Timothy, Thanks for your comments, I have always believed that we must use whatever helps us stay sober. Good luck on your sober journey!
I agree that there should be room for everyone who needs AA, somewhere in the rooms of AA. There have long been separate and *very* anonymous meetings for judges, pilots, doctors and so on. Until recently, gay folks had to hide out in their own pretty secret meetings. As society as a whole as become more secular the secular AA movement has broken out and spectacularly opened many hundreds of meetings in the past decade.
So let the fundies fund in their meetings; we can go to our own meetings. It’s not a race nor a contest, it is each individual finding sobriety as best they can. I find no point in engaging in philosophical arguments; I just want a meeting that speaks to my own sobriety.
A few years ago as secular Zoom meetings took off during the pandemic, we spent a lot of meeting time talking about our beliefs, our separation from the religious folks, and that sort of philosophical stuff. I have noticed that at least in the meetings I go to, that has died out. Now the discussion is good old fashioned “how to get and stay sober” with very little concern about the religion question. As it should be. OUR “back to basics” is back to the wider addiction problem, not back to religion.
I think that more than the religion thing, the canonisation of the big book and the lack of recognition of scientific progress in addiction causes and treatment in “traditional” AA is the big split between them and Secular AA. At the extreme, their meetings are frozen in time and content, just like a church service.
In the meetings I attend, any addiction is OK to talk about, and anything that affects one’s addiction is NOT an “outside issue”. New science discoveries or studies are welcome topics. Any relevant reading material is welcome, “conference approved” is ignored. The occasional visitor from traditional AA finds this terrible and unbearable–sacrilegious, if you will.
It’s great we have Tradition Three! Thanks Chris
It’s over . You can do what you want now. AA is for woke leftists. You don’t need to fight anymore. Everyone else has moved on
I stay well away from woke leftists both in and out of AA
Thanks Andy, I enjoyed your essay! Personally, I don’t think quoting Bill Wilson as an authority helps us in the long run. It implicitly recognizes him *as* an authority, which I don’t. He is beside the point. And I agree that “the religious fundamentalists are entitled to their point of view” — just as I am entitled to express my criticism of it, and to put forward an opposing view. They’re the ones who shut people up, in my opinion. I don’t. That would be crazily futile. Let them speak, of course. Then I get my turn. That’s all I ever asked.
Here’s something I’ve been mulling over, though: In a country (and I realize many readers are not in the US, but that is what I’m referring to here) that is “Christian Nationalist” or trying to become so, advocating a Christian takeover of AA is a political agenda, isn’t it? And to them, being secular is also a political position. That “outside issue” is now decidedly inside, isn’t it? They not only want to shut me up, they think get to shoot me if I don’t.
Anyway, thanks. If you reply I’m not sure I’ll see it, so don’t think I’m ignoring you 🙂
Thanks Kurt, I do hope Christian Nationalism that has become a political force in the US doesn’t corrupt AA
Very good piece, Andy. I learned a lot and enjoyed it!
I, too, have struggled with “AA Fundamentalists. My biggest beef is that it seems they go beyond defining their higher power for themselves. They’re defining it for everyone else. Bill had this tendency as well. AA Agnostica had a good piece a while back which discussed an article Bill wrote that was published in the April 1961 Grapevine (The Dilemma of No Faith – https://aaagnostica.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-Dilemma-of-No-Faith.pdf) in which he acknowledged that his writing and other actions had pushed some people out of AA, and kept other from even considering it as an option because of the way he had been pushing an interpretation of God (a Christian interpretation).
The main issue I have with anyone pushing a particular interpretation of “God” has to do with how I see sobriety. To me, change is inevitable. As an alcoholic, my approach to change was only to consider change that I wanted. Anything else would be summarily rejected. In other words, it was all about me. I was playing God. Sobriety, though, involves me accepting the changes that are a part of life. As Dr. Paul said, “Acceptance Was the Answer.” For me, acceptance includes understanding that I don’t know everything. So I have to always exhibit the characteristics Bill calls out in the Big Book appendix on Spiritual Awakening: Honesty, Willingness, and Open-Mindedness. For me, that means I always have to challenge what I think, what I believe, and how I believe. If I think I know everything and don’t have to challenge things, I stop learning. I stop growing. It’s like I’m saying: “I got it.” And for me, when I think “I’ve got it” is when I know I really don’t because I’ll be closed to new information, new ways of thinking, and I stop considering others. I just want them to consider me.
So my concept of my Higher Power(s) is constantly changing. Does God change? I have no idea. I’m an agnostic. I don’t think we can have knowledge of God or know if God even exists. Someone told me recently that the opposite of faith was certainty. That makes a lot of sense to me. If we’re honest, willing, and open-minded, the whole concept of God or Higher Power is going to be full of mystery. I cannot fathom how honesty, willingness, and open-mindedness can be exhibited in the context of certainty. To bring this back home – Fundamentalists seem, to me anyway, to be quite certain in their beliefs.
Thanks Michael, I really enjoyed reading your feedback. Yes, certainty is the opposite of faith and that is one of the reasons I have always had a problem with the fundies
I’ve been sober for 2 1/2 years now. My meeting attendance has slowed. For this very reason. I believe that I am keeping myself from drinking. Not any super natural entity or a perceived power greater than myself. With in my short tenure of sobriety so far, I have witnessed those who have thoroughly fallowed the path fail. And it has not been rarely. Every week I look forward to reading these articles. It helps me to understand a balance needed to maintain my own serenity. AA has given me a foundation for maintaining a sober lifestyle. Thank you aaagnostica for helping me continue on this path and how I perceive my sobriety is not wrong.
Thanks for your comments Michael. As an agnostic in AA, my life was saved by an agnostic-friendly sponsor who taught me that you don’t need to believe in God to recover from Alcoholism
I sobered up in AA in 1966 and I’ve never taken a drink since I didn’t like the word God cuz I too was beat up with religion not God religion when I was a kid but I wanted to quit drinking more than anything else so I stayed I could look at God anyway I want you can’t tell me how nobody can or AA it’s help millions of people why do we want to break it up so bad because we have an idea and our ego won’t let us go without getting on the internet and expounding sorry I love AA just the way it is it worked for me and it’ll work for millions just the way it is
I took love AA but I don’t like being told that I can’t be a real alcoholic if I don’t believe in God. Thanks for your comments Darrell.
I read somewhere where Bill W stated the one of the 3 foundational elements of AA is religion. He may have changed his mind later on but at least early on he viewed AA as religious, just not as evangelistic as the Oxford Group where he originally got sober.
I wouldn’t know about that Ron, but Bill did always try and make AA inclusive so that everyone was welcome. The believers as well as the non-believers
Live and Let Live.
G.O.D.= Good Orderly Direction, Gift of Desperation, Group of Drunks, Get Outta Dodge.
“Practical experience shows that nothing will so much insure immunity from drinking as intensive work with other alcoholics. It works when other activities fail.”
That would include appealing to a supernatural power. Ultimately it’s one drunk working with another. That is the foundational insight. This all started when Bill realized he needed to talk to another alcoholic or he was going to drink. Not when Bill had his white light experience while detoxing at Towns.
Inserting “…as we understood God” (at the behest of a few atheists in the group of a hundred or so at the time) is very likely the key to AA’s proliferation throughout the world and its success in helping millions get sober.
AA does not require that you believe anything.
Thanks so much for these articles, and the comments. Always good food for thought.
Thank you WR. Exactly! AA does not require that you believe in anything. GSO told me in an email that the AA program is open to personal interpretation 👍
Interesting that in the first three paragraphs you make it clear that you have some manner of axe to grind because you find it necessary to advertise or proselytize your agnostic beliefs across several social platforms. This is apparently done in such a manner that you are deliberately provoking conflict. So, in some manner, you are doing some emotional harm when you provoke defensiveness and conflict by making others uncomfortable when there is no call for it. I wonder how you have managed to rationalize for yourself your role as the defender of agnostics. In the fourth paragraph you admit ‘against your better judgement that… ‘getting into an argument with a religious fundamentalist was a waste of time.’ I agree, you have not learned from your past experience that this is futile. Then you defend this irresponsibility with ‘…my ego got the better of me and I couldn’t resist,’ then you write another dozen paragraphs proving to yourself that you were justified in being close minded and insensitive. There is no one to convert, no one to advertise to, nothing to defend, and no conflict necessary in the arena of theist-agnostic-atheist. There is only the conflict or chaos we inflict on ourselves and others when we create unnecessary divisiveness.
Thank you for your comments Richard. Perhaps I am being too divisive on the issue of religious fundamentalism in AA. Let me tell you why. When I was a vulnerable newcomer I was drawn into a fundamentalist splinter group. I know of two instances were vulnerable newcomers committed suicide at the hands of fundamentalist sponsors. They told them to stop talking their medication and then tried to ram God down their throats. I feel as if I have a responsibility to newcomers to make them aware of the dangers of religious fundamentalism in AA. So much so that I wrote a short book which is available as a free PDF download on my website. The newcomer, is after all, the most important person in the fellowship.
Thank you for this well argued and balanced article.
Thanks for your comments Robert 🙏
I’m glad you’re sober. AA is not a religious program, but it is a God centered one, and it takes just the most cursory familiarity with Christianity to recognize its influence.
This is the AA program. You’re free to take and leave whatever you wish, but please do not seek to change or diminish AA itself to conform to your beliefs of what it should be.
All I have done Howard is illustrated how religious fundamentalism has influenced the courts in the US and ruled AA a religious activity, which it was never intended to be.
AA is and always has been, a spiritual, not religious program
No court has held that referral to AA is illegal or unconstitutional. All those cases have been about accommodation. Violators must initiate requests for accommodation, whether the requested accommodation is dietary, medical or religious. Government officials have no duty to poll violators, to see if they want bifocals, kosher food, a copy of the Koran, or a secular meeting. It’s arguably the clearest Constitutional holding of the last 50 years. Request a secular meeting, and you get a secular meeting. Request a back brace, you get a back brace. Request kosher food, you get kosher food. The law is well settled and understood by everyone except AA people and AA critics. There hasn’t been a new appellate decision on the issue in over a decade. In dicta only, several courts have noted AA’s “religious component.” No court has said AA is a religion. Dicta is not the holding of a case. Facts are not the holding of a case. AA wasn’t a party to any of the accommodation cases. No court has said AA did anything wrong or had to change anything.
Lee, The courts in the US has ruled that AA is a religious activity. This means, that a court can no longer mandate an alcoholic to attend AA or send them to treatment as the result of an alcohol related offence. Now, they must either pay a fine, or go to prison.
No U.S. court has held what you’re claiming. Court referral to AA is legal and constitutional. The only time it’s impermissible is when the violator requests, and is denied, the accommodation of a secular meeting. That almost never happens. If a secular meeting is unavailable, no punitive action, coercion, or retaliation can be taken against the violator who requested accommodation. Requests for medical, dietary and religious accommodation are routinely granted by govt actors. The law is well settled and understood by everyone except AA people and AA critics. Request a secular meeting and you get a secular meeting. The violator requesting accommodation cannot be fined or sent to prison for making the request. There’s no legal dispute on the issue. The court decisions are uniform. There hasn’t been a new appellate case on the issue in over a decade.
I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before:
I left AA in February 2023.
After a meeting, a friend of mine came to me and told me to keep my opinions to myself.
As an agnostic atheist nonbeliever, she said if a newcomer heard what I said and agreed with me and then left AA. I could be responsible for that person drinking himself to death.
Her belief was if one is an alcoholic only one can be healed through God.
And I thought I don’t think I need to be here anymore.
Hi Brien, I am an old-timer in AA. Not that long ago, a religious fundamentalist told me that “I couldn’t be a real alcoholic if I didn’t believe in God.” I wondered how a newcomer might have felt if they had been told the same thing. I got so concerned about newcomers being told this type of nonsense, that I wrote a short book which I called “You can’t be a real alcoholic if you don’t believe in God.” I have made it available as a free PDF download on my website. These kinds of remarks can kill. Thanks for your remarks
AA is like Buddhism in that it is both a religion and a philosophy. However more philosophical than religious. It is pragmatic Spirituality. The overriding truth being the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking.
I totally agree Doug. Love and service to others is a totally pragmatic spirituality. Thanks for your comments
I find it strange that agnostics always talk about religion and never talk about Clarence Snyder, who started AA under the pretext of escaping evangelicals because he and some of the Cleveland members were Catholic, but in reality he was escaping the greed (or money-making skills) of Bill W. Have you researched how many former founding members distanced themselves from AA because of royalties?
Thank you for your comments Poloni. I know very little about Clarence Snyder and his part in the history of AA. I have been directly affected by religious fundamentalism in my own recovery as an agnostic so I wrote a blog about about that. All I know about royalties is that small amount that Bill received for writing the Big Book. I hope these royalties were enough to sustain him and Louise.
We don’t have to worry about GOD, we have to look at the teachings that Dr. Bob left and see if they were put into practice. It’s more than proven that all kinds of mutual aid groups work.
Have you read what Mrs. Sue Windows, daughter of Dr. Bob, wrote and had notarized regarding the way the brotherhood was being run?
Andy, a very interesting article and thank you for posting it. I’m not sure why you are receiving push back to the extent I have read in other comments. Your post was very honest about your own interactions with the lady who took issue with your facebook post.
The most important thing for me in what you explained was that the lady was upset that you suggested sobriety could be achieved without a belief in God. As an atheist and a sober member of over 30 years I can say she is clearly wrong. Her assertion deserves challenging at every opportunity. This attitude has and will cost lives and I’m not being dramatic in stating it. It’s wrong at best but catastrophic in the worst sense.
I’m convinced if Bill W knew where AA would be today (I know, how could he?) he would have made efforts to avoid it and we might well have a parallel Big book without any mention of God or similar. God in 1938 was the God of the Bible and despite the line “…….as we understood God” is of little help unless directed to what Jung described in his idea of god as an archetype. However, some religious members of AA and elsewhere like to pretend Jung only ever meant the God of the Bible.
I’m sober and want to stay sober, many fine people in AA both believers and non believers have helped me get there. They have all contributed with their experiences and not their beliefs or non beliefs.
I do hope however that the agnostic and atheist movement within AA can grow to help ensure tradition 3 is properly adhered to.
I attend AA in the UK and I recently heard at an AA meeting that a newcomer was informed by a telephone volunteer that the AA program was one of abstinence and a belief in God was necessary. How sad is that? I’m hopeful it is not the majority but a loose cannon failing to say what is correct and helpful.
Thanks again Andy and keep on keeping on.
Thank you for your comments Brendan. I took am from the UK. I believe that religious fundamentalism in AA poses a real threat to the unity of AA from within. This is why I write blogs on this subject. To raise awareness that the idea that an alcoholic can’t get sober without God is utter nonsense. Newcomers get scared away with that kind of rhetoric!
My name is Loulou and I am an alcoholic. I have been sober for over 15,000 days, as revealed by the day calculator on the La Vigne website. And the most surprising thing is that I have made it this far without relying on a Higher Power. I am a staunch atheist, and while many people in the fellowship do not accept my orientation, paradoxically, they are my Higher Power.
I was very interested to learn about the existence and formation in Québec of Alcoholics Anonymous groups set up specifically for atheist alcoholics like me who have no religious affiliation. But I recently had an encounter with one of these groups and even had to fight against the other one. Sometimes the battle takes place within our agnostic groups.
What did I observe within these groups of alcoholics? Three main trends: ignoring the Steps and Traditions, skimping on sponsorship, and/or willfully ignoring AA structures.
In one of these groups, I have never heard the importance of lifestyle mentioned. Of course, the Steps were read in their beautifully adapted version for atheists and agnostics, but the members’ discourse, essentially that of the founding members, does not bother with the very basis of our recovery program. I noted three main trends: skipping the Steps and Traditions, economizing on sponsorship, and/or deliberately ignoring AA structures.
I do not recognize this as an AA group. I admit that effective group therapy is practiced there, but this could very well take place in settings other than Alcoholics Anonymous.
Finally, I recently gave up serving as an GSR in one of these therapy groups, as members refused to review the guidelines, considering it a waste of time and nitpicking. They had absolutely no interest in the AA structure.
What a disappointment!
Thank you for your comments Louise. Although an agnostic for over 40 years in AA, I am also an AA traditionalist. I have found sponsors who have offered me an agnostic interpretation of the steps without changing a single word. That has worked for me. My higher power has always been Group Of Drunks as well as Good Orderly Direction. I have been sponsored to keep it as simple as that. Thanks again Louise 🙏
Fascinating, your article and all the responses. So my frame of reference is daily reprieve 16013. I stumbled into the rooms (Lexinton KY) because of the gift of desperation, which clearly identified that drinking was a HUGE problem repeated over and over and over. I stay because my core problem is the way I THINK. Fortunately, and from virtually the first meetings, the old timers said ‘none of this works well until you change the way you see things’. I was willing enough to listen to their answer, the steps, the fellowship, and service. And they said don’t get hung up on the god thing, as it will work itself out. And it has. Not from the narrow-mindedness of religion but from the expansiveness of a power greater than myself (to this day still choke on the Higher Power thing) and the process of how to change. Learned meditation in prison while in the 1st year and have practiced ever since. For me, made the pivot point.
Sadly, I see AA fading into the Washingtonians as its rigid traditions keep it broke and less and less relevant to 21st century evolution.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks for your comments Jon. One of my favourite one liners in AA has always been, “I came for my drinking, and stayed for my thinking.” Boy, can I relate to that. It was the thinking that finally gave me the Gift Of Desperation, which for this agnostic, was a helpful acronym for God. Like you said, you don’t need to get hung up on the God thing, I just needed to stay away from the AA God squad! All the best Jon 🙏