The Serenity Prayer and Stoicism

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. It is one of the most quoted sentences in the English language, printed on sobriety chips, hospital walls and kitchen tiles. Almost nobody who reads it knows that its structure is eighteen centuries older than its words.

Who wrote it

Reinhold Niebuhr, an American theologian at Union Theological Seminary in New York, is now generally accepted as the author. That was not always settled. In 2008 the Yale researcher Fred Shapiro made the front page of the New York Times arguing that Niebuhr probably did not write it, since versions were circulating in the early nineteen thirties without his name attached. A year later the Duke librarian Stephen Goranson found the prayer in a 1937 Christian student newsletter, described there as attributed to Niebuhr. Shapiro publicly reversed his position and said he would list it under Niebuhr's name.

Niebuhr himself was casual about it. Asked whether the prayer was original, he said he thought so, but allowed that it might have been drifting about for years, perhaps centuries. His wife dated it to the early forties; his daughter to a 1943 sermon in Heath, Massachusetts. The likeliest reading is that he composed it in the early thirties, used it in sermons for a decade, and never thought of it as a publication.

How three lines reached the world

In June 1941 the prayer appeared in an obituary in the New York Herald Tribune. A member of the young Alcoholics Anonymous fellowship saw it there and brought it to the office. It was printed on cards, and within AA it was simply the AA prayer for years before it acquired the name it has now. In 1944 it went into a Federal Council of Churches booklet for army chaplains and servicemen, and from there into the war. Niebuhr did not publish it under his own name until 1951, by which time millions of people were already saying it.

The Stoic core

Read the three lines as a map and the structure appears. The serenity to accept what you cannot change points at the box that is not yours. The courage to change what you can points at the box that is. And the wisdom to know the difference is the sorting itself, which is the whole art.

Epictetus opened his handbook with exactly this division, around the year 125. Some things are up to us, he begins, and some are not. Up to us are our judgments, our impulses, our desires and aversions, in short our own doing. Not up to us are our body, our property, our reputation, our position, in short everything that is not our own doing. He was born a slave, was lamed, and was banished from Rome, and he taught that a person who sorts correctly is free under any circumstance.

Line by line

Serenity to accept. Acceptance in the Stoic sense is not approval and not resignation. It is the recognition that a thing has already happened, and that arguing with a fact costs energy you will need for your response to it. The Stoics called the events outside your control indifferents, which does not mean they do not matter, only that they cannot make you a better or worse person.

Courage to change. Notice that the prayer asks for courage here, not for power. What lies inside your control is rarely difficult because it is hard to do; it is difficult because it is uncomfortable to do. The conversation you have been avoiding, the apology, the resignation letter, the request. Nothing prevents you but yourself, which is precisely what makes it frightening.

Wisdom to know the difference. The first two lines ask for attitudes. The third asks for a skill, and skills are not granted, they are trained.

Why the third line is the hard one

Acceptance and courage are useless if aimed at the wrong box. Courage spent on what you cannot change becomes exhaustion. Acceptance applied to what you could have changed becomes resignation dressed up as philosophy. Nearly all misspent effort comes from a sorting error rather than from a lack of will.

And the sorting is genuinely hard, because most real situations fall into both boxes at once. Your child's choices are not yours; how you speak to your child is. The outcome of the interview is not yours; your preparation is. The illness is not yours; what you do with the day is. A situation almost never lands cleanly in one box. It has to be cut in two first, and it is that cut, made under pressure, that the third line is asking for.

Where the prayer and the Stoa part ways

Honesty demands one distinction. The prayer asks God to grant these things. The Stoics held that the capacity is already yours and has never been anywhere else, which is exactly why nobody can take it from you. That is not a small difference. It is the difference between a gift and a faculty.

What survives the difference is the structure. You do not have to share Niebuhr's theology, or Epictetus's, to use the division. Modern cognitive behavioural therapy runs on the same distinction, and Albert Ellis, one of its founders, said plainly that he had taken it from the Stoics.

Three misreadings

That the prayer counsels passivity. It does not; two of its three lines are about acting. That acceptance means feeling nothing. It does not; it means not being governed by the feeling. That the difference is obvious once you know the rule. It is not, and that is the entire point of the third line.

Practising the difference

Wisdom of this kind is not acquired by reading, any more than an ear for music is. It is acquired by repetition, on small things, before the large ones arrive. That is what this site is for: short exercises where you sort a situation and immediately see the reasoning behind the answer, and cases from history where the difference had to be found under real pressure.

Questions people ask