December 26 in A.A. History

In 1902, Clarence S. [near right] was born at 1280 E. 89th St., Cleveland, Ohio, to Charles [center right] and Jenny Patterson S. [far right]. It was a cold, gray winter morning, with snow and a brisk wind in the forecast. He was the youngest of three boys [left: S. family, c. 1907].
    On 11 February 1938, he would sober up in Akron, Ohio, and would have a falling out with his sponsor, Dr. Bob S., over efforts to enable Catholics to attend A.A. meetings. Catholic priests forbade parishioners from associating with the Oxford Group, with which Akron A.A. was deeply involved. When Dr. Bob refused to take action, Clarence started a new group in Cleveland on 11 May 1939, naming it the Alcoholics Anonymous Group after the newly published book. He sought publicity for A.A., resulting in rapid growth; invented the concept of sponsorship as we know it; distanced himself from the Oxford Group; focused on spirituality while avoiding religion; emphasized the use of the Big Book, Alcoholics Anonymous; and helped create the Cleveland Central Committee, which introduced the concept of rotation.
    However, Clarence’s youthful broadmindedness appeared to diminish over the years, leading him to become more rigid as he got older.

In 1940, The St. Louis Star–Times published a favorable article about A.A. with the headline, “Alcoholics Anonymous, Fraternity that Streamlined the Waterwagon, Has Formed a Group in St. Louis” [left].

In 2001, The Boston Globe published David Mehegan’s article “AA’s growing pains evident in revision of its Big Book” [right]. It noted that

    Until now, the Big Book had been revised only twice: in 1955 and 1976. Now the fourth edition is just off the press, and its painstaking revision is a window into the delicacy of tinkering with a book that many people revere as inspired scripture.…
    While there may be unanimity on the first 164 pages, there is none about the stories.…
    …in the [revision] committee, there was no consensus on the stories, which constitute 80 per-cent of the book. 
    So the committee decided to research [Bill] W――’s writings to find out his attitude toward the book—much as constitutional scholars dig into what James Madison or John Adams meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
    They found, says Richard [the committee chair], that “Bill always saw the book as organic and dynamic, never locked in. The book was not for those of us who were already here. That was cold water for many. People who had been in AA for 30 years said, ‘But you can’t take out that story – it’s my favorite.’ But we had to say, ‘We don’t care. You’re sober now. We need to change it for the new people.’”