Why do people want the Big Book to be rewritten? Firstly, some people find the references to a 'male' God inappropriate or disagreeable. Secondly, some people find the representation of 1930s mores (particularly with regard to gender roles) offensive. Arguably, this presents obstacles to some newcomers to AA (and others) to access the content of the book. There are also a clutch of archaisms, but these tend not to provoke heated objection. Now, I'm not going to get into the arguments for why the former problem is a red herring (standard Christian teaching is not that God has a particular sex or gender, although many Christians themselves are unaware of this) or for why the latter is, too (the book is actually relatively progressive given when and where it was written and itself recognises that the male–female gender role will have to be reversed for some readers). Save to say, although most people are capable of reading a historical book, looking past trivial differences stemming from the temporal and geographical gap to the underlying substance, some people will be offended. So what is to be done?
We could rewrite the Book completely. Would this improve matters?
Since the Big Book was written, AA has published other books, which have acted as a counterpoint to the Big Book and gone a long way to offset the erroneous image the book might create in certain people's minds. 'Came to believe ...' and 'Living Sober' address the narrowness of the religious language and the anachronism of the Big Book, are highly accessible, and successfully present AA as a non-religious, broad 'church' of belief. The material is already there. One often hears people object to the Big Book in meetings or in one-to-one discussions outside meetings. It is exceptionally rare to hear such people go on to reference either of these books as sources of alternative good materials. I am sceptical that, if a new version were written, people would simmer down, read the Big Book, or indeed any other AA literature, and do precisely what it says. The plethora of existing alternative material is largely overlooked. More alternative material will not solve the problem. It has not solved it to date. Why repeat a measure that has not worked?
Is there an alternative? I believe there is.
There are three issues: (a) references to God using the male pronoun (b) anachronistic references to gender roles (c) archaisms. All three could be dealt with using footnotes. A footnoted edition could easily resolve these and make the book entirely accessible. This would deal with the relatively trivial substantive issues for the vast majority of members.
I doubt, however, even this would actually solve the problem of the vocal opposition. I don't believe the people who are offended would cease to be offended. There is simply a body of people who are intolerant of religion, of religious ideas, or other cultures, of other times, who do not like to be exposed to ideas not their own, and are not happy until everyone espouses and embodies their values and any differing voices and views are silenced. This is a simple case of intolerance, which, in turn stems from fear. The fear comes from within, not from the book. It is rare to see atheists vilified in AA. It's very common for religion, religious beliefs, the notion of God, etc., to be vilified in AA, however. The intolerance is largely unidirectional.
Alcoholics tend to be offended, full stop. If it's not one thing, it's another. AA members will continue to find an excuse for not joining or leaving AA or not doing the programme. AA, as a fellowship, frankly bends over backwards to accommodate people with different views, ideologies, and life experiences. And yet people remain suspicious, belligerent, and reluctant to buckle down.
As with everything else, it is alcohol that is the great persuader. It will do the work we cannot.