By Steve K

One of the strengths of Alcoholics Anonymous (Both the Fellowship and Big Book) is that it is honest about its human origins. The Big Book was not intended to be a timeless, infallible spiritual text. The historical evidence clearly suggests that Bill Wilson intended the Big Book to be a living document, continuously shaped by culture, theological interpretation, new scientific insights, personal experiences, and refined over time by the lived experience of millions of AA members. The 12 Concepts for World Service allow for change even at a fundamental level affecting the AA program, if endorsed by a ‘substantial majority’ decision.

Most of the time, that humanity (therefore, fallibility) is a strength. Occasionally, however, it also shows up as language that deserves careful and compassionate reflection.
A good example is found in the third paragraph of page 93 in the 4th edition of Alcoholics Anonymous, where Bill Wilson discusses how to approach the still suffering alcoholic who already belongs to a religious denomination and has a strong religious education and faith. The passage includes this key idea:

“He may be an example of the truth that faith alone is insufficient. To be vital, faith must be accompanied by self-sacrifice and unselfish, constructive action… however deep his faith and knowledge, he could not have applied it or he would not drink.”

At first glance, this sounds like a straightforward AA principle: action is required for recovery. And in that sense, Bill is on very solid ground.
AA’s collective experience overwhelmingly supports the idea that belief alone — however sincere — is usually not enough to arrest alcoholism. What actually helps people recover includes:

Bill’s emphasis on action reflects the lived wisdom of the AA Fellowship. Recovery is not just something we think or believe — it is something we do.
Where this paragraph becomes more difficult is not in its call to action, but in how that call is framed.

When Recovery Language Becomes Theological Judgment

Bill goes beyond saying that action is necessary and moves into suggesting that a religious alcoholic must not have been properly practicing the precepts of their faith — otherwise, they would not be drinking.
This is where the passage becomes tricky.
For many people, especially those who come to AA with deeply religious backgrounds, this can sound:

Judgmental,
Presumptuous,
Shaming,
Theologically simplistic.

It implies — even if unintentionally — that continued drinking is evidence of spiritual failure or improper faith practice.

But many deeply sincere, prayerful, morally serious people are alcoholics. Addiction is not simply a failure of belief, devotion, or spiritual discipline. From a modern clinical understanding and a more nuanced spiritual perspective, it is more coherent to say:

“You can have genuine faith and still be powerless over alcohol.”

To suggest otherwise risks turning alcoholism into a kind of spiritual or moral inadequacy — something AA, at its best, has always tried to move away from.

Historically, this wording reflects Bill Wilson’s spiritual roots in the Oxford Group and in Protestant “faith plus works” theology. In that framework, it made sense to interpret continued drinking as evidence that spiritual principles were not being fully applied.
It also reflects Bill’s deep personal conviction that a radical spiritual transformation was necessary for recovery.

At the same time, Bill was also strongly influenced by Dr. William Silkworth, who advised him not to preach or moralise, but instead to:

• Emphasise the alcoholic’s powerlessness
• Share personal experience to help identification
• Stress helping other alcoholics

Much of AA’s success has flowed from that approach. In practice, what has worked best is not evaluating the quality of someone’s faith but helping them fully accept powerlessness and to engage in the specific actions described in the 12 Steps.

The paragraph on page 93 represents Bill’s personal theology rather than AA’s collective, experience-based wisdom.

A More Recovery-Centred Way to Say It

Many in AA today might express the same core truth in a way that is inclusive and sensitive towards the individual:

“While your faith may be sincere and real. Alcoholism usually requires a specific kind of surrender, identification, and action in relation to other alcoholics. Faith alone, however genuine, is often not sufficient.”

This perspective respects their faith while pointing to what AA uniquely offers. It says:

You’re not wrong or defective in your beliefs — but this program asks for a kind of action and surrender that goes beyond belief alone.

Why This Matters

For religious alcoholics in particular, Bill’s presumption on page 93 often reinforces shame— “My relapse means my spiritual practice is defective.”

That type of belief is often harmful and can actually get in the way of recovery.

AA’s greatest gift is not theological judgement or correction. It is the discovery of powerlessness, identification, shared suffering, shared hope, and practical spiritual action in community.

It is possible and wise in my view to respect Bill Wilson and the Big Book, while also recognising that neither are perfect. AA itself is built on humility, growth, and experience. Thoughtful, compassionate engagement with the text is not disloyal. It is part of how the AA Fellowship stays alive, inclusive, and relevant.

Bill was right about this: recovery requires action.
Where he overreached was in turning that insight into a judgment about the quality of someone’s pre-existing faith.

AA works best when we stay grounded in what unites us:

• Powerlessness
• Shared experience
• Willingness
• Action
• Service
  —not in grading one another’s spirituality or its practice.