For some reason, steve, you think I've been arguing with you about the religious history of AA. From your link and other sources, I've concluded that Dr. Bob was very religious--possibly fundamentalist--and that Bill Wilson was less so. In fact, your link indicates that the program was already taking two somewhat different directions:
These special Akron features differed substantially from the Oxford Group approaches and principles with which Bill Wilson had been indoctrinated on the East Coast. They did not involve the Four Absolutes, nor the 5 C’s, nor “Restitution,� nor “Guidance,� nor “sharing for witness,� nor other distinctly Oxford Group ideas with which Bob and Bill were both familiar from their respective Oxford Group connections.
The Akron prayer meetings, Bible studies, discussions from devotional literature, confessions of Christ, encouragement as to church affiliation and Christian outreach were a distinct characteristic of the Akron program. They were not emphasized in New York.
Many on this forum have expressed a different approach to the concept of a higher power than yours. You seem to think that any sobriety which isn't based on a fundamentalist born-again Christian faith is somehow flawed or inadequate.
Would you think that AA would be better or more effective if it operated that way? How many current members do you think would remain with it? And what would you then suggest for non-believers who wished to become sober? That they must convert to truly achieve long-term sobriety?
Nice post, Alice! And best wishes on this most important holiday of your faith, steve.
Don S