“Ours was the first Christian body in America to set forth the new philosophy of Christianity, which conceives of the soul as set in this world, not to be tested by a fixed law, but to find its destiny in a true freedom; which begins and ends in the idea of the sovereignty of love; which sees in the moral creation not a scheme merely to give every may his deserts, but a system whose aim is to help every man to realize his true destiny. Such is the theology for which this church has stood, in which it has been faithfully taught from the beginning. And I would that as we study it and realize its essential harmony with itself, with the unfolded teachings of science, and with the trend and spirit of the Bible, we might raise a fervent prayer of gratitude to God for the light which shone in the hearts of the fathers and gave them power to see and to say the things which are giving such peace and satisfaction to the human soul.”

–Rev. John Coleman Adams, The Story of Universalism in Hartford, 1906.

“Though there be that are called Gods whether in heaven or in earth as there be gods many and lords many, yet to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him. That God is love, good unto all, and his tender mercies are all over his works, that he is a just God and a Savior who will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, that he worketh all things after the council of his own will and that all his attributes harmonize. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ. . . that God hath given all things into his hand even power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as the Father hath given him. That all that the Father giveth him shall so come to him as not to be cast out. . . that the ransomed universe shall at last unite in the song of Moses and the Lamb in ascribing blessing and honor and glory and power unto God and the Lamb forever and ever. This is the doctrine I believe and glory in, it is worthy of its divine author and by promulgating this you say that I am preaching the devils doctrine and preventing the salvation of souls. Now I beseech you never to think so again or acknowledge while holding the doctrine of Election that man can prevent the salvation of souls for it is wholly inconsistent with a belief that doctrine according to my view of the subject. Now if this doctrine of the Election of a part of mankind be the truth of God how can you call him impartial or just or good or merciful in giving being to those that are lost. Do think of these things solemnly seriously and constantly for if the doctrine of eternal misery be true I beseech you as a father never to give your consent that either of your dear children should marry, nay farther than this you should separate those what are married and do all in your power to prevent so great an evil from falling upon any of your posterity.”

–Rebecca Porter, Letter to the clerk of the Baptised Church of Christ in Hartford, 1827.

“The gospel is the dynamite of God. And some people don’t like dynamite. They think that a sermon aimed at correcting the evils and social injustices of our common life, and any social action by the Church to right the wrongs of today, is taking religion out of its proper sphere, and is not truly Christian. It should be concerned with individual salvation.”

–Rev. Stanley Manning, ca. 1940

“[Universalism is] a faith springing out of the moral and spiritual instincts of the human soul, and declaring itself in statements that may be changed and that should be changed as the reason of men follows the ever unfolding truth of God and Christianized conscience grows freshly sensitive to ever nobler ideals of religious living. . . I believe, for example, that evolution, whether in the world of nature or of man, is the method of God. But that is not an article of my religious belief. I believe that the book of Isaiah had at least two authors and that Genesis is a compilation, much of it legend and tradition recreated by the spirit of man as touched by the spirit of God. But that is not an article of my religious belief. . .

The heretic, to the Universalist, is not the man who denies the accuracy of a method of creation portrayed in the book of Genesis; he is the one who distrusts the deathless love of God. . . for the child whom He has somehow created. He is not the one who denies the metaphysics of the doctrine of the Trinity, but the one who denies at heart Christ’s ethical oneness with God by willfully ignoring his teachings and life. . . It is the depth and earnestness of the religion, and not the correctness of the scholarship, that is of primary concern.

–Rev. Frederic Williams Perkins, “Why I am a Universalist.” Boston: Universalist Publishing House, 1900.

This blog is on hiatus for the weekend as its author goes on retreat–with no internet access.  Therefore comments that WordPress catches as potential spam will not be moderated for a least the next couple of days.  Just FYI.

Reinhold Neibuhr has long been attributed as the author of the famous Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference.

Neibuhr was one of the most important liberal theologians of the 20th century (his stream of theology was actually called Neo-Orthodoxy, but he was nonetheless very much a liberal, as Gary Dorrien demonstrates).  And his Serenity Prayer is one of the most widely recognized prayers in modern Christianity.  Thus it is significant news when evidence appears to dispute Neibuhr’s authorship.

The New York Times today has an article that summarizes the dispute.  A researcher has turned up very close approximations of the used by women prayer going back as much as a decade earlier than when Neibuhr was supposed to have written it.

There are a number of possibilities here.  One is that Neibuhr heard the prayer from one of these women, slightly adapted it for his own uses, and took credit for it–and was given credit for it by the public.  This sort of thing has happened many times in the past, when a woman wrote or otherwise created something that she did not receive personal credit for, only to have a man later on receive credit and fame/fortune from patriarchal society.  This can happen through actual malice on the part of the man, stealing a woman’s ideas with the confidence that people will believe him over her should dispute arise; it can also happen because women were encouraged to be humble and keep themselves out of the public eye, and thus tended to hide their light even when allowing something they’d created to creep out on to the public scene.  Both are results of sexism endemic in a society.

This may be what happened here.  There is also reason to take other interpretations: Neibuhr was by many accounts a deeply humble man, uninterested in taking credit or profiting from the Serenity Prayer, and likely to give a woman credit if he knew her to be the actual author.  Also, while he said that he genuinely believed that he wrote the Serenity Prayer, he didn’t insist on it, and did not seem bothered by alternate explanations that arose even in his own lifetime.  Ultimately, the decision to accept or reject the nastiest interpretation rests on one’s level of generosity toward Neibuhr as a person.

Another possibility is that Neibuhr, who traveled and spoke widely more than a decade before he officially composed the Serenity Prayer, was already saying words similar to it in his prayers and lectures before audiences, and that some of those audience members then used his words in their own works.  This is plausible–preachers may work on prayers for years before they get produced in some final, official form–but is undermined by the failure of any of the early writers to attribute the prayer Neibuhr or associate it with him in some way.  For historians of such things, that’s a definite red flag, especially given Neibuhr’s prominence.

The most likely explanation–at this point–is something that combines elements of all of the above, and while too messy to pin down definitively from a historian’s standpoint, is true to real life.  A sort of proto-Serenity Prayer was probably already present in pre-1940s American Protestant culture, circulating under the radar as a sentiment rather than a fully-formed prayer with static wording.  Given the humility and self-effacing nature of the prayer, it was probably circulated most often among women, and may have had its genesis with a single, unknown woman author.  Men’s prayers were still often very much in the “muscular Christianity” mode during this period, whereas women’s experiences of Protestant Christianity were often distinctively less assertive.

In his many travels, Neibuhr was probably exposed to this proto-Serenity Prayer, and, without being particularly conscious of it, absorbed its meaning and some of its phrasing.  Neibuhr was a man, but a very particular man, whose “Christian realism” was much closer in some important ways to the perspectives of women than men (as a class) of his day.  Words close to the Serenity Prayer would have resonated with him, whether or not he produced or merely encountered them.  He then may have begun to use something similar to them on occasion in his speaking, and thus a few of the pre-Serenity Prayer writings by other people may be the result of hearing him preach.  Then, at a yet later date, Neibuhr felt compelled to sit down and compose a fully conscious, intentional Serenity Prayer to express his feelings.  This Serenity Prayer was preached before others and an Episcopalian priest (perhaps significantly, a man) then publicized the prayer widely.  Thus Neibuhr became known as its author.

This interpretation takes into account the facts of the case, an important gender critique, and the apparent genuineness of Neibuhr’s sentiments and piety–something that historians are not well equipped to judge, yet must not dismiss out of hand, as it too is a historical datum.  A woman/women in a sexist religious culture produced prayers of moving humility, which they shared without taking personal credit for; a man of deep thought and sensitivity encountered them and was affected, perhaps subconsciously; this man, allowed to be a public figure, spread the germ of the prayer further and eventually solidified it into an official form; male theologians took up their fellow male theologian’s composition and publicized it widely, resulting in his attribution as its originator.

Neibuhr therefore may not be the originator of the prayer’s sentiment, nor even many of its words, but could justly be called the author of the Serenity Prayer ™, and/or credited as the popularizer of the prayer, with Anonymous as its root author.

“In the afternoon I preached [on] the uses of the communion. . . The administration of the Lord’s supper followed, which was a deeply interesting time. These seasons of communion are the most happy of my life; nothing penetrates more deeply towards the centre of my moral being, or carries me so far out of myself and into the blessed realities of true spiritual life.”

–Rev. Henry Soule, ca. 1847

“If, therefore, the world is to end in 1843, or any subsequent period, we have no evidence for believing that any one has been ‘let into the secret’ as to the precise time; neither is it at all certain that the scriptures used by Mr. Miller and others, to support their visionary theory, have any sort of reference to the subjects to which they apply them.

The better way is, for people to attend to the concerns of today, of the present; ‘do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly;’ ‘lead a quiet and peaceful life, in all godliness and honesty;’ give heed to the internal coming and kingdom of Christ, and not be in a worry about the ‘end of the world,’ or about the day or manner of our death.”

–Rev. John Moore, 1843

“As the telling of those we love the faults we discover in them is a painful as well as an unthankful duty, we must be excused, for the present, after we have named one more fault, the correction of which would do them great honor. Among those commendable things which were named, in approbation of our Unitarian brethren, the hearer will recollect their liberality towards those Christians who differ from them in opinions. They have been laboring with all their Christian meekness, for years, to persuade their Orthodox opposers to extend to them the right hand of Christian fellowship, and to consent to reciprocate ministerial exchanges. We have read their learned and forcible arguments in favor of this brotherly practice; and we have also read what their Orthodox opposers have urged against it; and we are fully satisfied that our Unitarian brethren have, in reality, the best of the argument. Now, if the profession of liberality, without the practice, could make these brethren rich in the righteousness of God, the angels of heaven might envy their attainments! Will they exchange desks with Universalists? By no means. What is the reason? Because in some points of doctrine we do not come exactly to their views. As to doctrine generally, they will allow that we are much nearer them than are their Orthodox brethren, whom they are constantly inviting to exchange! Now, if they, like the Orthodox, were conscientious in refusing to exchange desks with those who hold doctrines opposed to their own, then would they act according to their profession, and would be consistent with themselves. But how are they to be justified in making those pretensions to liberality, while in fact it is not real? Is this Christianity? Is this genuine honesty?

–Rev. Hosea Ballou, “Commendation and Reproof to Unitarians,” November 29, 1829.

“Ye that are and dare to be Universalists–ye that would be Universalists, but dare not–ye that are Universalists at heart, but outwardly, ye go another way, to be seen of men, (a class innumerable)–ye that are willing to be a Universalist is ye can see the why and the wherefore (a noble class)–come–come–take the ‘Inquirer’–and we will show you the reason for the Faith that is in us. THE BOOK IS NOW OPENED, come let us search it together, that we may see and know the wonderful things that are truly given to us of God. . . Here we are, single-handed, and alone, not only in the City, but in the state, trammeled by no human systems, but devoted to the great cause of liberal principles and free enquiry. Whilst, right around us, are no less than three Orthodox papers, all fighting for their ‘Almighty Devil’ and ‘eternal Hell’. . .

But few now believe in INNATE TOTAL DEPRAVITY. The Calvinists give that up, if we may rely upon their latest bulletins; and scarcely a soul now credits the damnation of infants–when but a few years ago Hell was said to be paved with their skulls. . . And many good Orthodox people have gone so far as to doubt the existence of a real material devil. . . Thus we see that the hydra of error and ecclesiastical delusion is fast losing his heads. . .

–Rev. Menzies Rayner, The Religious Inquirer, 1828