Comment on this article
Read comments
You Can Quote Them
July/August 2010
by Fred R. Shapiro
Yale law librarian Fred R. Shapiro is editor of
the Yale Book of Quotations.
Readers of this column know that I have been studying
the “Serenity Prayer”—the most famous and beloved of all modern prayers—for
some time. In this magazine, I’ve written primarily on its authorship (most
recently in January/February, concerning new evidence that the theologian
Reinhold Niebuhr ’14BDiv, ’15MA, was indeed the likely originator). But
questions have also been raised about its wording. Specifically: did Alcoholics
Anonymous “dumb down” the Serenity Prayer?
Much of the prayer’s worldwide popularity is due to
AA. In the mid-twentieth century, AA adopted the prayer as a part of its
culture of recovery, and it remains a mainstay today. AA’s version runs as
follows: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the
courage to change the things that I can; and the wisdom to know the
difference.”
Reinhold Niebuhr’s family, however, prefers a
different text: “God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that
cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the
wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.”
His daughter Elisabeth Sifton, in her book The
Serenity Prayer (2003), presents this “grace” text as her father’s preferred version. In the
book, she roundly criticizes AA for modifying the prayer. “Their version frames
the prayer in the first-person singular,” she notes. It also “omits the
spiritually correct but difficult idea” of praying for grace. And furthermore,
“courage to change what should be changed becomes, in the AA rendering, simply courage to
change what can be changed.” She adds:
Goodness me, just because something can be changed
doesn’t mean that it must be! More important, … there are circumstances
that should be changed yet may seem beyond our powers to alter, and these are the
circumstances under which the prayer is most needed. The shift in the text
reduces a difficult, strong idea to a banal, weak one, and I suspect that this
dumbing down of the prayer has contributed to its enormous popularity.
Niebuhr did use the family’s preferred “grace”
version in a 1984 article, published posthumously with a note that it dated
from 1967. And “grace” may have had a long pre-1967 history in his unpublished
use.
Yet there is strong evidence that Niebuhr also used a
version much like AA’s. Family accounts agree that he delivered the prayer in a
church service in Heath, Massachusetts, in 1943, and afterward gave a copy to a
neighbor. Sifton assumes in her book that the 1943 prayer was the family’s
preferred version. However, the neighbor, Howard Chandler Robbins ’99BD, had
asked permission to include Niebuhr’s prayer in his Book of Prayers and
Services for the Armed Forces. The text he printed reads: “Give me the serenity to
accept what cannot be changed, / Give me the courage to change what can be
changed— / The wisdom to know one from the other.”
This prayer uses first-person singular; it omits
“grace”; and it asks for courage to change “what can be changed.” Clearly,
these elements cannot be credited to or blamed on AA.
But there is a still earlier formulation, printed in
1937 in a religious periodical and attributed to Niebuhr. It reads, “Father,
give us courage to change what must be altered, serenity to accept what cannot
be helped, and the insight to know the one from the other.” This version lacks
the idea of “grace,” but otherwise has the elements Sifton and her family
prefer. And it asks for courage before serenity, which seems fitting for a
theologian whose life embodied great courage on many levels. 
Readers respond
What should be changed
Would Reinhold Niebuhr approve of his daughter’s suggestion that Alcoholics Anonymous “dumbed down” his Serenity Prayer? Could it be that through experience, AA found their modified version more effective in aiding the recovery of alcoholics? Maybe Elizabeth Sifton heard the great Christian theologian express such a pejorative thought. If so, I am surprised. If not, I suggest that her father would not applaud her choice of words to describe the application of his graceful prayer in the treatment of those unfortunate souls who suffer from that destructive disease. Perhaps Fred Shapiro can clarify this point.
John D. W. Guice ’52
Laurel, MS

|