“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
So reads what is known universally as “The Serenity Prayer” as it is used in 12-step groups all over the world. So wrote Reinhold Niebuhr, or so the story sometimes goes, on an envelope, or the back of the bulletin, or some other random piece of paper, during the morning service one Sunday in 1942, or thereabouts. It was only the opening stanza of a longer prayer he would deliver in that service, after a sermon on Practical Christianity, never dreaming it would have a life that extended far beyond his own.
Although in later interviews, after “the prayer” had become famous, Dr. Niebuhr did take credit for the prayer, he also admitted that the ideas in it may well have been “floating around for centuries”; research has shown he was correct in that statement, although he never revealed whether he recalled the source from which he had borrowed the ideas. Whatever its true origins, within a few short decades the prayer had taken on a life of its own, and a title: “The Serenity Prayer.”
I’ve always had a problem with the Serenity Prayer. In fact, I’ve rejected it much more often than I’ve prayed it, a fact that almost everyone I meet finds close to heresy. Rejecting the Serenity Prayer has become the unforgiveable sin against modern civil religion, against “common knowledge,” tantamount to blasphemy against the public manifestation of all that is holy. To question the Serenity Prayer is seen as speaking against the very fabric of the self-help movement itself. The reaction of people ranges from shocked disbelief to outright pity, so I don’t mention my heretical thinking often.
Far be it from me to suggest that the word “serenity” is only one of three petitions lifted up in the prayer, and not the one in the ultimate position, syntactically. I am well aware that if anyone “Googles” the phrase, “Serenity Prayer,” there is not a single doubt that this is the only prayer to which thousands of links will direct their browser. Thousands of websites present the Serenity Prayer, probably tens of thousands, if not millions, in every language imaginable, in words I can’t pronounce and scripts I do not know.
Google took just 0.14 seconds to tell me that there are “about 721,000 results,” for “serenity prayer,” but I think that may just be the ones in English. If some are in some other language, I know Google translator can translate them for me, but I don’t need it to. No matter the language, I know what it says and what it means to whoever posted it on the page. Googling “courage prayer” or “wisdom prayer” will also return thousands of results, but they will point to all manner of prayers posted for all manner of reasons. No one can quote “THE” Wisdom Prayer or “THE” Courage Prayer, even if many of us might have our own nomination for each of those designations.
“Serenity: the quality of being serene.”
That’s what the dictionary says “serenity” means, which only begs the question.
In all the times I’ve heard the prayer said, it has seemed to be almost forbidden to ask what “serenity” actually means. I’ve always felt as though I’m just supposed to intuitively know, yet if there is one thing I do know it is how very NOT intuitive I am. Ask a recovering alcoholic about serenity, and you’ll probably hear the word “sanity” in his definition. Ask a recovering battered wife at an Al-Anon meeting, and you might well hear “survival.” Ask a group of adult children of alcoholic parents, and you would probably hear something about coming to terms with their childhoods as they were, instead of wishing childhood had been the way they wished it had been.
Going a bit further with the dictionary search uncovers this as the meaning of “serene”:
1. a: clear and free of storms or unpleasant change “serene skies” b: shining bright and steady, “the moon, serene in glory” (Alexander Pope)
2: august — used as part of a title, “his Serene Highness”
3: marked by or suggestive of utter calm and unruffled repose or quietude, “a serene smile”
I don’t think the “august” title is relevant, but both of the other meanings intrigue me.
I can hardly imagine a life clear and free of storms. Not in this world, anyway. And unpleasant changes are hard to avoid. So how can one even imagine the state of being serene as a human quality? “Unruffled repose or quietude”? How very boring that would be, other than for periods of deliberate meditation and prayer.
The Serenity Prayer actually petitions for more than serenity: it also requests courage and wisdom. Courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference between what I can change and what I cannot. Serenity is prayed for in a particular type of situation, when there are things “I cannot change.” If I can change it, then I ask for courage, or at least I do in the Serenity Prayer. Sometimes I feel like those lines are simply being quoted by rote. Like “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Who really wants to only be forgiven to the extent she is willing to forgive others? Not me! What I should be praying desperately is to be forgiven in much greater measure than I have been able to forgive others! But who is thinking that in the Sunday service, half asleep, when responding by habit to the intro, “Our Father…”?
Back to the Serenity Prayer: ultimately, if I pray that prayer, I am asking for wisdom. Specifically, “wisdom to know the difference.”
Ah, that is the rub. Knowing the difference. Wisdom is much harder for me than courage. I can do courage. But how do I know when to call on it? How do I know the difference between serenity and mere resignation? By wisdom. And isn’t wisdom much harder to gain than serenity? Might not it be that what some people call “serenity,” others would call “giving up integrity”?
All the years before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus in Montgomery, had it been wise for black people in Alabama, and elsewhere, to take their appointed seats at the back of the bus, serenely accepting what they could not change? Should Rosa Parks have continued accepting Jim Crow laws as something she could not change? Had it previously been wise to accept, or had the people simply lacked the courage to change the things they could? Was it that Mrs. Parks was wiser than others, or was she simply crazy? Believe me, I ask that question with absolutely no disrespect. Is the wisdom to know the difference the product of rational analysis? Or is it the stuff of daydreams? Or, rather, might it be the craziness of patience stretched beyond endurance? Is wisdom the knowledge of the right time, or is it eternal truth, outside of time and space?
Most times that I recall having demonstrated what others called “courage” in my life, I thought I was simply doing that which I could not not do. At the time, courage did not enter into it. I didn’t decide to organize women to get rid of “women’s hours” at Vanderbilt University. I simply did what I had to do not to lose my sanity, as well as my patience. Later my friends would tell me that they only went along with my outrageous ideas because I was acting so bizarrely they were afraid if they refused, I might just jump out the window. I don’t remember it already being “after hours,” so I think I could have still walked out the door, but maybe that wasn’t really what they meant.
It struck me as very funny when they told me later how I had looked to them that day. I don’t remember it that way at all. I remember being very rational in devising a strategy and carrying it out: petitions, floor meetings, picketing, finally a rally. I remember endless discussions of what would be most effective and what we needed to do to get enough women to join us, so as not to become marginalized. I also remember being positively evangelical about it, and I remember consciously knowing I was using many techniques of leadership that I’d learned in Training Union as I was growing up at Gaston Avenue Baptist Church. I don’t remember anyone at my church ever telling me that women were supposed to be silent in church, that’s for sure! The Daves and the Withers and the other leaders taught us to stand up for what we believed and never mind the cost.
That first afternoon of what we would come to call “the campaign,” when I received a letter from my friend Judy Johnson who went to a small Lutheran college in Iowa, telling me they had just successfully gotten rid of hours for women at their school, I do remember storming into my friend Mary’s room waving the letter, and I probably was shouting. I still remember what I said, more or less anyway. “They’ve managed to abolish women’s hours at some little Lutheran school in the middle of nowhere. If they can do it there, we can do it at Vanderbilt.”
I am almost certain I know what the answer would have been that afternoon if anyone had telephoned the chancellor, or the members of the Board of Trustees, or certainly the parents of many women students, and asked if there were any possibility that before the year was out women at Vanderbilt would have successfully petitioned the Trustees to abolish the long-held tradition of women’s being required to sign in and out whenever leaving their dorm at night, much less successfully challenge the idea that the university was entitled to, even perhaps responsible to, set the hour by which “co-eds” must be safely stowed away in their dorms. I am very doubtful that anyone, except possibly Chancellor Heard, who seemed almost prescient at times, would have said it was remotely possible. Now truth be told, I think our Dean of Women was quite delighted with the events as they unfolded. I already admired Dean Cunningham for having been one of those rare women who had the chance to earn a Ph.D. in the roaring twenties, never imagining how long-lasting would be their echo. I’ve often wondered if she and her cohort of feminists had any idea how long it would be before another decade would roar as loudly for women as the twenties did.
Was what I did courageous? I hardly thought of it that way. It was exhilarating. It was remarkable. Perhaps it was brilliant. I know it was fun. But courageous? Not that I recall.
And was I wise? If that means, “Did I act because I was wise enough to know that rules could be changed?” the answer is certainly “no.” But I believed they could be changed, if we did it right. It was 1968, after all. The summer of love had faded to the summer of rage, and change was in the very air we students breathed that fall when we returned to our campuses. I hadn’t been at the Atlanta Women’s Conference, but I knew it had been important.
I hadn’t been to Chicago, to the Democratic Convention, but I had touched Bobby Kennedy’s hand as he came down the aisle when he spoke on campus the previous spring, and I’d cried when I woke up one morning that summer to hear my clock radio telling me he was dead. But I had also looked out my dorm window in the spring of 1967 and seen the National Guard tanks process by as they headed to take up their positions in Centennial Park for the night on which Martin Luther King, Jr., and Stokely Carmichael were speaking from the same stage on the Vanderbilt campus, anticipating unrest that never occurred.
Last November we elected Barak Obama, voting for “change we can believe in.” But before we could believe in it, we had to imagine it. And before we could work for it, we had to have the wisdom to recognize what could be changed. To tell the difference in what could be changed and what should be serenely accepted. Is wisdom knowledge? Or is wisdom dreaming big dreams even when those around you scoff?
I’m glad Rosa Parks did not serenely take her seat at the back of the bus that day in Montgomery. I’m glad I did not serenely keep following the rules laid out for women at Vanderbilt in 1968. And I’m glad the American people did not serenely accept the common wisdom that our country was not ready for a black president “yet” in 2008.
They say Neihbuhr prayed the “Serenity Prayer” at the end of his sermon on Practical Christianity. I’d be interested in reading that sermon. I may see if I can find it anywhere.
Who ever heard of such a thing as “practical Christianity”? How can belief in the impossible being possible be practical? How can belief that life can overcome death be “practical”? The very idea strikes me as absurd. Maybe Neihbuhr explored how one can live Christianity, as a practical matter. Maybe the sermon was really about the practice of Christianity?
Refusing to move to the back of the bus was hardly “practical” in Montgomery, Alabama, in the era of Jim Crow. “Practical” was serenely riding to work, any way you could get there, and being glad you had a job in the first place. “Practical” is “going along to get along.” Challenge to the way things are is seldom practical. It may be courageous. It may even be wise. And it may be the only way for some people to ever achieve serenity.
The wisdom to know the difference. That is the prayer I think the world needs. Otherwise we run the risk of calling something “serenity” when it should be labeled as what it truly is: giving up.