"Finally I¹ started to write. I set out to draft more than six steps; how
many more I did not know. I relaxed and asked for guidance. With a speed
that was astonishing, considering my jangling emotions, I completed the
first draft. It took perhaps half an hour. The words kept right on coming.
When I reached a stopping point, I numbered the new steps. They added up to
twelve. Somehow this number seemed significant. Without any special rhyme or
reason, I connected them with the twelve apostles. Feeling greatly relieved
now, I commenced to reread the draft.

At this moment a couple of late callers arrived. One of them was my boon
companion of those days, Howard A. With him was a newcomer, dry barely three
months. I was greatly pleased with what I had written, and I read them the
new version of the program, now the "Twelve Steps." Howard and his friend
reacted violently. "_Why twelve steps?_" they demanded. And then, "You've
got too much God in these steps; you will scare people away." And, "What do
you mean by getting those drunks down 'on their knees' when they ask to have
all their shortcomings removed?" And, "Who wants all their shortcomings
removed, anyhow?" As he saw my uneasiness, Howard added, "Well, some of this
stuff does sound pretty good after all. But, Bill, you've got to tone it
down. It's too stiff. The average alcoholic just won't buy it the way it
stands."

I sprang to the defense of the new creation, every single word of it. A
terrific discussion developed which cooled only when Lois turned up a
couple of hours later. "Why don't you forget about it for a while," she
said, "and have a cup of coffee." This we did.

Akronites like Paul and Dick S. liked the new steps very much. As the
remainder of the book text developed, based on the Twelve Steps, they
continued to report their approval. But in New York the hot debate about the
Twelve Steps and the book's contents was doubled and redoubled. There were
conservative, liberal, and radical viewpoints. Fitz M., the Episcopal
minister's son from Maryland and the second man to recover at Towns
Hospital, made constant journeys to New York in order to reinforce the
conservative position. Fitz thought that the book ought to be Christian in
the doctrinal sense of the word and that it should say so. He was in favor
of using Biblical terms and expressions to make this clear. Another early
New York A.A., Paul K., was even more emphatic about this.

The liberals were the largest contingent and they had no objections to the
use of the word "God" throughout the book, but they were dead set against
any other theological proposition. They would have nothing to do with
doctrinal issues. Spirituality, yes. But religion, no _-positively_ no. Most
of our members, they pointed out, believed in some sort of deity. But when
it came to theology we could not possibly agree among ourselves, so how
could we write a book that contained any such matter? There was no such
thing as group opinion in these areas and there never could be. Alcoholics
who had tried the missions were forever complaining about this very thing.
The alcoholics unreasoning rebellion against the specifically religious
approach had severely handicapped the missions. The liberals said they did
not intend to be critical; they only wanted us to remember the hard facts.
These contentions could not be denied. It was true that we could not agree
on a religious basis for our fellowship and that the straight religious
approach had worked in relatively few cases.

Thus the spiritual pitch and tone of our book was greatly influenced by the
liberals. But the atheists and agnostics, our radical left wing, were still
to make a tremendously important contribution. Led by my friend Henry and
obstinately backed by Jim B., a recently arrived salesman, this contingent
proceeded to have its innings. At first they wanted the word "God" deleted
from the book entirely. Henry had come to believe in some sort of "universal
power," but Jimmy still flabbergasted us by denouncing God at our meetings.
Some members had been so angered that they wanted to throw him out of the
group. But most of us thought it would be better to let him talk on,
believing that eventually he would change his mind, which he later did. What
Henry, Jimmy, and company wanted was a _psychological_ book which would
lure the alcoholic in. Once in, the prospect could take God or leave Him
alone as he wished. To the rest of us this was a shocking proposal, but
happily we listened and eventually learned something of great value.
Actually our group conscience was at work to construct the most acceptable
and effective book possible. Every voice in it was playing its appointed
part to create an outcome that was nothing less than providential.

As the one who had to do all the writing, I was caught squarely in the
middle of all this arguing. The liberals were the larger group, but they
barely outnumbered the combined conservatives and radicals. For a while it
looked as if we would bog down into permanent disagreement. Despairing of
satisfying everyone, I finally asked that I might be the final judge of what
the book said. Seeing that we would get nowhere without such a point of
decision, most of the group agreed. We began to carry on again."

From "Alcoholics Anonymous Comes Of Age - A Brief History Of AA"
¹Bill Wilson.

Copyright © 1957,1985 by Alcoholics Anonymous Publishing. Inc.