by Scott Korb
Listen to Scott, contributing editor to The Revealer, talk about the National Day of Prayer on BBC4′s “Sunday.”
As defenders of the National Day of Prayer will tell you, George Washington called for our first day of prayer in 1789: “That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war.” These same people will also point out that Abraham Lincoln proclaimed three such days during the Civil War, most famously on April 30, 1863, to mark what he called a necessary “Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer,” because “we have forgotten God.” Victories in Gettysburg and Vicksburg the following summer occasioned the 1864 proclamation; 1865’s National Day of Prayer was held June 1, in Lincoln’s memory.
When such days were proclaimed by presidents over the next century – at least until the start of the Cold War – they seemed marked with an equally grand scope and national significance: following the assassination of President James Garfield in 1881, for instance, or in 1914, with President Wilson’s first national prayer for peace in foreign lands.
By 1918, Washington’s first day of national thanksgiving had become very much the holiday we know today, marked by turkey and football and shows, as The Stars and Stripes reported from Paris, under the headline “DAY OF PRAYER ALSO ASKED FOR UNDER PRESIDENT LINCOLN’S ORIGINAL PROCLAMATION.” No matter that Lincoln’s proclamation, and of course Washington’s for that matter, had an entirely different meaning.

Even so, our national day of prayer at the end of WWI still seemed focused on humility (if not fasting) and God’s “kind care and protection,” or in Lincoln’s words, a national need to “humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for … forgiveness.” Such sentiments persisted through the Great Depression, when national days of prayer were focused on the prosperity of the least among us, and the end of WWII, when Roosevelt prayed with the nation over the radio on D-Day.
The Cold War changed things: in 1948 the Catholic organization known as the Christophers urged Truman to declare a day of prayer “for Russia and others in Soviet-dominated lands.” By the time the National Day of Prayer became the law of the land in 1952, the nation was using prayer against Communist infiltration of our education and, in 1954, as a weapon that could work, as Eisenhower hoped, even behind the Iron Curtain. (It is no coincidence that “under God” found its way into the “Pledge of Allegiance” around this same time. Americans were godly; the Communists were not.) In 1965, President Johnson faced stern opposition from San Francisco ministers who claimed that his national prayer for anti-Communist forces ignored the Gospel message of praying for our enemies.
Since then national prayer has occasionally been invoked in the humble spirit of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt – consider Kennedy in 1964, using the day to call for the end of discrimination in our land, or Nixon, in 1969, who sought divine help for our nation’s POWs in North Vietnam. Even Nixon’s 1970 prayer for the astronauts of Apollo 13 seemed in keeping with the tradition’s remarkable history.
Despite these examples, the day has come to feel very small – much smaller, indeed, than in the days before it was law: In the days when it marked the humble founding of a nation, its endurance during civil war, and the fall of presidents. When it acknowledged national sin and asked forgiveness. When it urged us to pray for the poorest of the poor.
And the day never seemed smaller than when, in 1982, President Reagan used the National Day of Prayer to announce a constitutional amendment allowing voluntary prayer in public school. The president was praying to pray. He was praying not for our sakes, not for the sake of peace or humility or even prosperity, but for the sake of politics. Reagan was praying for prayer’s sake. And Reagan’s vision of national prayer – a vision that shaped the 1988 law mandating we all pray together on a specific day, the first Thursday of May – is the one we’re left with today. A vision that puts us before God and, by its politicization, pits us against one another.
Scott Korb is co-author, with Peter Bebergal, of The Faith Between Us and associate editor of The Harriet Jacobs Family Papers, winner of the American Historical Association’s 2009 J. Franklin Jameson Prize. His latest book is Life In Year One: What the World Was Like in First-Century Palestine (Riverhead, 2010). He currently teaches religion and food writing at the New School and New York University. Read his tumblr at lifeinyearone.tumblr.com.
For more on the National Day of Prayer, read Elizabeth Drescher at Religion Dispatches.

9 comments
Prayer for Prayer’s Sake « SpeakEasy says:
May 5, 2010
[...] from The Revealer, a daily review of religion and media, published by New York [...]
Cheryl Schaefer says:
May 6, 2010
Give thanks, worship and praise for the goodness and mercy you have been shown, acknowledge the blessings and forgiveness we received and shared with others.***Many prayed this year for forgiveness for those who wanted to end individual and organized prayer***Yes! Prayer for prayer’s sake …. Be silent…what is your prayer (request) in your own words…to receive your reply…return to the top of the message. love united
Bob Cornwall says:
May 6, 2010
Scott, thank you for this thoughtful essay. I’ve been blogging about this the past 2 days, and this gives helpful reminders about the way the nation has prayed. I would say that President Obama’s proclamation is very much in the spirit of earlier understandings — and for that he is condemned. Go figure!
Praying For Prayer’s Sake On the National Day of Prayer « The Revealer - JacobMcDonald.net v6.0 says:
May 6, 2010
[...] Praying For Prayer’s SakeOn the National Day of Prayer « The Revealer. Posted by zaphod Comments RSS [...]
John Watson says:
May 7, 2010
This essay does not contain any appropriate citations, thus rendering it nothing more than an opinion piece. The author may have his facts straight, but without legitimate citations (i.e., footnotes, parenthetical citations, etc.) he is simply just talking with no credibility. Perhaps this website should begin requiring writers to cite their sources or else refuse to publish their work like all other credible organizations.
ann says:
May 7, 2010
Editor’s Note to John Watson: We’re not quite certain what the definition of a “credible publication” is and suspect that your argument may stem from something other than missing citations, but we’ll entertain your criticism of Scott Korb’s use of the historical record with the following selected citations. Unfortunately, we are not able to reprint them without permission, but you are free to purchase them if you wish. As well, should you desire to put forth a more cogent argument regarding the piece, we welcome that. Thank you.
“When the Nation Prayed,” New York Times, October 1914
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9904E0D9153FE233A25757C0A9669D946596D6CF
“National Day of Prayer For Prosperity Urged,” New York Times, July 1, 1934
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB091EF6395D167A93C3A9178CD85F408385F9
“May 1 To Be Day Of Prayer For Those In Soviet Lands,” New York Times, May 22, 1948
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D11FB3E5F167B93C0AB1788D85F4C8485F9
“Day of Prayer is Sought,” New York Times, June 21, 1963
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D1FF93B5D117B93C3AB178DD85F478685F9
“Reagan’s Remarks on Prayer,” New York Times, May 7, 1982
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/07/us/reagan-s-remarks-on-prayer.html
“President Reported Set To Endorse Prayer in School,” New York Times, May 4, 1982
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/04/us/president-reported-set-to-endorse-amendment-on-prayer-in-schools.html
John Watson says:
May 11, 2010
Thank you for the citations. That is all I was asking for, as readers of your site deserve to know where your writers get their information from. I am not sure why you deem it necessary to reply to my post in such a condescending manner, but thank you nonetheless for posting citations that should have been included in the first place.
I am also unsure as to why you suspect my “argument may stem from something other than missing citations” and then proceed to tell me that my argument is not cogent. I should clarify my above statement. My prior post appeared to attack the piece written by Mr. Korb, and to him I sincerely apologize as that was not my intention. I was simply noting that the editorial staff somehow forgot to include citations which, for all I know, Mr. Korb may have included in his original submission. If your organization is to truly be “polypartisan — interested in all sides,” then perhaps you could exhibit a bit more benignity to commentators in the future.
Scott Korb says:
May 11, 2010
John, I’m happy to have provided the sources — and there are many more where those came from — but I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to “other credible organizations” that provide citations after opinion essays. An argument like the one I wrote depends a good deal on a look back through history, to be sure, but so do many opinion (and other) essays published in major newspapers, news magazines, etc., where you almost never find citations (e.g., *New York Times*, *Washington Post*, *Harper’s*, *The Atlantic*, *Commonweal*, *The Nation*, etc., etc.). What’s more, to seem to disparage a piece such as this (or those historically published in our dailies) as “nothing more than an opinion piece” mistakes the genre itself. Now this is only to say that opinion essays take materials from today’s reporting, scholarly research, and the historical record, and make something of those materials. That something is reasonably called an opinion — albeit, one hopes, a reasonable one. If what I’ve presented as the facts on the ground can lead you (with my help) to the conclusion I draw, then I’ve done my job. Of course, I’d invite anyone to argue with my interpretation of the facts; I don’t, however, expect people to presume I’ve twisted the facts to suit some particular (or partisan) purpose. (And I appreciate knowing by way of your follow-up that you were not, in fact, attacking the piece itself. I hope that means you found it somehow engaging.)
I operate on the assumption that these kinds of opinion essays — and so, our very opinions — can only be as strong as the evidence they are based on. With that said, I can understand your desire to see that evidence. But one thing I rely on here at *The Revealer* is a spirit of good faith and journalistic integrity, from both the editorial staff (of which I’m a part) and the readership. And I do what I can in both my writing here and elsewhere to uphold my end of the bargain. Please don’t mistake any lack of citations for a lack of fact-checking or solid work on our parts. Instead, please try to see the essays here as a piece of the larger conversation going on in various places both on-line and in print. Where you find we get something wrong — or short of our getting something wrong, where you disagree with an interpretation — please let us know.
John Watson says:
May 12, 2010
Mr. Korb,
Thank you for your kind response to my comments. I want to once again sincerely apologize if I sounded like I was attacking your piece, I truly did not intend to do that. You write very well, and being myself a writer, I appreciate your hard work. I do not usually read through websites such as this, and that may be why I am used to seeing myriad citations – even after opinion pieces.