Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
‘The things that should be changed’

‘The things that should be changed’

Last updated on: April 10, 2025 at 4:36 pm by Fred Clark

0 Comments

‘The things that should be changed’ 2025-04-10T16:36:00-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

(Fundraising Week continues: Thank you to everyone who has generously contributed! Paypal link is here. Venmo is @George-Clark-61.)

I’m a sucker for Niebuhr-blogging, so this RNS piece by Scott Paeth reeled me in: “You’ve likely heard the Serenity Prayer − but not its backstory.”

The Serenity Prayer, was first written and, I suppose, first prayed, by theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. (He never sought credit or copyright for composing it because he thought copyrighting a prayer was both immoral and kind of silly.)

As Paeth notes, the popular version of the prayer made famous by 12-step programs, includes a few subtle changes to the original.

Here’s the version you’ve probably heard:

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.

And here’s the original:

God, give us the grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, the courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

The more famous version is shorter and snappier — “wisdom to know the difference” is less clunky than “to distinguish the one from the other.” But it also changes a corporate prayer — “give us the grace …” — to an individual one. And, significantly, it changes “should” to “can” — reducing obligation to possibility.

Niebuhr believed that justice was an obligation whether or not it was a possibility.

Paeth has a good discussion of how this prayer can serve as a distillation of Niebuhr’s theology:

Today, Reinhold Niebuhr is probably best known … [for] an approach to ethics grounded in the insight that human beings are called to strive toward their highest moral ideals, while recognizing our inability to fully achieve them.

Reinhold Niebuhr, looking like one of his students at Union Seminary didn’t do the reading.

This idea is captured by the title of one of his best-known books, Moral Man and Immoral Society. There Niebuhr argued that, while individuals are sometimes capable of acting purely from love for others, groups are not. When human beings form collectives, those collectives are ultimately capable of acting only from self-interest.

Therefore, the most that can be expected from any society is not love but justice – which approximates, but never fulfills, the demands of love.

… The Serenity Prayer in all of its forms rests on Niebuhr’s hard-won sense of history’s tragic dimension, borne of his experience of two world wars and a global depression. He recognized that even the most courageous actions are not guaranteed to succeed.

But Niebuhr was no fatalist and did not believe uncertainty was a reason not to act. On the contrary, he believed that as human beings we are obligated to enter the fray of social conflict – not with an arrogant sense of our own superiority, but with a humble recognition of our limits.

As he wrote elsewhere: “Nothing worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love.”

The core of Niebuhr’s theology is essentially Reformed — almost Calvinist in its pessimistic, dismal view of human nature. We humans, he believed, are fallible, finite, fearful, and inclined to selfishness and sin. Where he differs from most Calvinists is that he doesn’t then turn around and project this dismal, pessimistic view onto God.*

His sense of human nature is captured in another of his famous statements, regarding democracy: “Humanity’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but humanity’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”

We sinful humans are capable of justice. But we are inclined to injustice. When we humans do not do what justice demands — when we do not change the things that should be changed — it is because our courage has failed, not because God’s limited grace has failed.

I’ve written here about Niebuhr’s conversations with James Baldwin (see here and here). Niebuhr’s view of human sinfulness made him receptive to Baldwin’s indictment of America’s pervasive injustice and systemic racism. Ah, he thought, that is exactly the sort of inclination toward injustice that our Pauline/Augustinian view of human sinfulness teaches we should expect. Such injustice was something that both can and should be changed.

One big project in Niebuhr’s theology was writing the postmortem for post-millennialism — explaining why utopian Christian millennialism failed and will always fail. Our human sinfulness and fallibility, he insisted, meant that utopian schemes were not just doomed, but dangerous, because human benevolence was never going to be a sufficient check on political power. This is why his theology is often described as “Christian realism.”

That phrase has become misleading, causing all sorts of other folks who regard their ideology as “realism” to conscript Niebuhr as a mascot. He thus gets invoked all too often by cynical “realists” who enlist his critique of millennial utopianism to dismiss any and every attempt to make anything more just than it was.

The Serenity Prayer is a good reminder that Niebuhr himself didn’t play that game. Such “realists,” he believed, lacked the courage and the wisdom to change the things they should.

• If there’s one thing I love more than Niebuhr-blogging, it’s Flushing Remonstrance-blogging. Here’s another RNS piece that seems like clickbait tailored just for me: “Flushing Remonstrance on display for first time in 7 years at New York Public Library.”

I’ve written about the Flushing Remonstrance here quite a bit, see, for example:

The story is from 1657, when Peter Stuyvesant was governor of the Dutch — and explicitly sectarian Dutch Reformed — colony of New Netherland. There was not yet any United States Constitution because there was not yet any United States. New York City was not yet New York City — although it was about to become that.

Stuyvesant was putting his foot down (singular) on what he called “the sin of religious tolerance,” decreeing a crackdown on the presence in the colony of various infidels such as Jews, Quakers, and Lutherans. He announced a day of mourning and repentance from this alleged sin and a series of new penalties and punishments for anyone who strayed from his extremely narrow sectarian official religion.

The RNS piece has a good summary:

The Flushing Remonstrance was sent by residents of that community (now the Queens borough of New York) to Peter Stuyvesant, the administrator of New Netherland, and condemned his ban of Quaker worship in the Dutch colony.

In 17th-century Colonial America, Flushing stood out in the New World for its tolerance toward religious minorities. In 1645, the Flushing Charter, an agreement between the first English settlers and the Dutch West India Co., granted “liberty of conscience” according to the “custom and manner of Holland” to the new residents of Flushing. The religious openness attracted European immigrants fleeing persecution, including French Huguenots, Swedish Lutherans and Portuguese Jews.

A 1656 ordinance issued by Stuyvesant banned all religious practices outside of the Dutch Reformed Church. Stuyvesant’s ordinance targeted Quaker worship, promising fines and evictions for anyone hosting a Quaker meetinghouse.

As a result, dissent grew in the colony, and a group of 30 Flushing residents, eight of whom were among the 18 English settlers who founded the town, wrote a letter strongly condemning Stuyvesant’s decision. Their Christian beliefs, read the letter, compelled them to stand up against the ordinance.

“We cannot condemn them (Quakers) in this case, neither can we stretch out our hands against them, for out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God,” state the settlers.

The document lauds the colony’s religious freedom standards as a great Dutch legacy that should be continued.

“The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks and Egyptians, as they are considered sonnes of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland,” reads the letter.

Again, the colonists who signed this “remonstrance” didn’t have any legal right to object to a decree from their governor. But they did anyway. They told him to get bent, because this is New York and everybody is welcome here.

That was in 1657. A few years later, when one signatory of the letter, John Bowne, allowed Quakers to hold their meetings in his house, Stuyvesant had him arrested and deported.

A couple of years after that, when English ships arrived in the harbor, Stuyvesant called on his people to fight for him to defend New Netherland. They again said No and Stuyvesant was done and old New Amsterdam became New York.

In 1657, Stuyvesant’s authoritarian intolerance was the law of the land and this did not appear to be something that could be changed. But it was something that should be changed. And it was something that was changed by people who found the courage to change it.

God give us the courage to change the things that should be changed.

* That gives Niebuhr a — yes, the word fits — serenity about the sufficiency of God’s grace that eludes TULIP Calvinists. It also makes him more gracious to us dirty, rotten, untrustworthy humans.

If you believe that God is tainted by a totally depraved “holiness” that limits God’s love, God’s mercy, God’s kindness, or God’s justice then you tend to emulate this cruel, stunted-and-stunting “holiness” in your own dealings with sinners. But if you believe that God is actually good, loving, gracious, and just — and that “holy” is not some limit or contradiction of that — then you tend to emulate that attitude toward your fellow sinners.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 9, 2025

Smart people saying smart things (4.9.25)

Next Post

April 11, 2025 LBCF: The visitation pastor

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"this is genuinely terrible and you should feel bad about it, but not as bad ..."

SmogMonster

Some obscure footnotes of white evangelical ..."

"There are two wolves inside you. I'm glad that the polyamorous furry lifestyle is working ..."

Ross

Some obscure footnotes of white evangelical ..."

"https://uploads.disquscdn.c..."

Matri

Some obscure footnotes of white evangelical ..."

"https://uploads.disquscdn.c..."

Ross

Some obscure footnotes of white evangelical ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many plagues did God send upon Egypt?

Select your answer to see how you score.

10 7 12 5