ACT and Christianity
I have the book "Acceptance & Commitment Therapy for Anxiety Disorders" of which i worked through many parts. I also read the article in Time Magazine for which i want to thank you for the link.
There is obviously a lot to ACT. I learned from ACT as part of my dealing with agoraphobia. The appeals from ACT to attempt a new approach as previous methodologies did not work, as well as a concern about the workability of my life - were spot on.
I previously took a tour through Buddishm, which turned out to be one of those methodologies that did not work for me. I read the comments from a leader within the broad Buddist movement who indicated that "western thinking" might experience something like a culture shock when confronted with a buddist approach. I know that there are lots of people who adopted successfully, but it is not true for me. Similarly, the "new age" type approach does not do it for me either.
Please relax in that my interest is not on initiating a religious debate around claims of truth or similar arguments. My focus is upon "healing" and to be able to live a meaningfull life based upon values which in my case, is based upon christianity.
I perceive the potential for ACT to be applied from within a christian context and wondered if there exist any work along these lines?
I am sorry if my posting might be perceived to be inappropriate? However, i had the courage to submit this enquiry due to the openess of discussions and due to the fact that i honestly want to know.
Kind regards
Arie Bouwer
My reflections on ACT and Christianity
Sadly, Christianity is an easy target for ridicule within the scientific community. In the United States, many Christian communities are very Aristotelian and rule-governed. Many people have been harmed or completely turned off by versions of Christianity that treat the mind and body as separate, and do not allow for direct contact with environmental contingencies. Often religion in general influences people through tracking and pliance in ways that can be limiting. This is not what Christianity is to me. I have experienced ACT as congruent with my faith. I will explain.
While pragmatism may seem very far from a religion that looks to a book for answers, I see Christ redefining the way that we look at the Bible. Skinner, in Beyond Freedom and Dignity explained that no human is free, we are all governed by contingencies. Freedom as described by many is really freedom from aversive control. Skinner explains that when people are first learning, they need conspicuous reinforcement (tracking). Children need to be punished when they do things that are unacceptable by the verbal community or dangerous to themselves or others. As they get older, they begin to respond to long-range, inconspicuous contingencies like earning respect of the community, developing trusting relationships, etc (pliance, augmentals). In a sense, the Bible is an illustration of Skinner’s concepts of contingency management. In the Old Testament, rules were enforced in very conspicuous ways, through tracking. The people learned that if they did what God said, they would be rewarded. If they did not, they would be punished. It’s like God was parenting them, and they hadn’t learned enough to respond to less direct contingencies. As the story progresses, Jesus comes and he is the “word.” Now, people could respond to less conspicuous contingencies. Following Jesus meant developing a relationship of trust with Jesus (pliance). Long-range contingencies like Heaven—close relationship with God, and hell—separation from God, now controlled people’s behavior (maybe augmentals). Bot Skinner and the authors of the Bible agree that we are controlled by contingencies. For instance, Romans 6:16 says, “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?”
I see Christianity as deeply pragmatic. We can place ourselves under contingencies that ultimately lead to life-giving behaviors—trusting, enjoying others and loving. We can also put ourselves under contingencies that ultimately lead to death—naval gazing, hoarding, fearing, distancing, “shoulding,” etc. Bible is clear that this process of choosing life and death, while shaped by a community, is a personal contextual event.
Since the 1970s Christian Linguists have been articulating principles similar to RFT. Leslie Newbigin pioneered some of this work. Newbigin critiqued a western understanding of Christianity which claimed objectivity. Newbigin challenged ideas of neutrality, and recognized that our language-learning shapes the way we think. Thus, missionaries cannot communicate the Biblical story to other cultures directly. Biblical ideas needed to be communicated through experience of relationship. RFT explains why Christianity the culture has been so harmful. “Saved,” “unsaved,” “sinner,” “saint,” “good,” “bad,” “evil” etc are part relational frames. People can become fused with these terms, and see people as these labels. This causes great suffering. The Bible, as a book of words, is susceptible to all sorts of distortions as people fuse with the language. However, ultimately Jesus, a person, is the “Word.” (see John 1). The final Word isn’t a word at all, but a Person. My own understanding of this is reflected in my prayer behavior. I used to pray with a whole lot of words. Now my prayers are more wordless. I do more “breath prayers” and “bows” to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit
In certain Christian cultures, people are taught experiential avoidance. They are taught that faith means thinking certain thoughts and experiencing certain feelings about God (as well as avoiding other thoughts and feelings). In my studies, a Biblical perspective of faith is action-oriented (See James). Faith is the behaving in a way that is in-line with God’s contingencies, as described by the writers of the Bible. While God’s “long-term program of reinforcement” was written in a way that can appear convoluted and confusing, the basics are easy to understand. Showing others mercy, acting humbly, and fighting for justice bring the consequence of relationship with God. I am not sure what relationship with God is, but I think I have experienced it. It’s living with calmness, quietness, peace and joy; It’s knowing that I am not alone.
Faith is not about private reactions. When I learned that, I stopped fighting so hard. I stopped feeling so much anger towards Christians and God. Like Buddhism or ACT, a Biblically sound understanding of faith, in my opinion, is acting in the direction of God. It allows for any kind of thought, feeling, memory or body sensation. Faith is about our behavior. Faith that is rewarded is not “right thoughts” but right actions. For instance, Jesus said that faith heals. In Mark 9:23-25 a man comes to Jesus for him to heal his son. Jesus says, “Do you believe?” The man said, “I do believe, help me in my unbelief.” The man’s faith was rewarded. The man’s thoughts were simply noticed by both the man and Jesus. I agree with Skinner when he said that faith is “a matter of the strength of behavior resulting from contingencies which have not been analyzed.” It is consistently moving towards what we hope for and cannot see.
First, I want to clarify one thing. Some Christians believe that you becoming a Christian is a thing that happens. Justification is the act of becoming right before God, free of sin. Sanctification is the process of bending one’s will to God’s will. The Christian Evangelical church in America (which is the most vocal and visible wing of the Christian church in America) communicates that Christianity is all about the act of justification. These people believe that there is a punctiliar, “born again” moment in one’s life that one becomes saved. I believe it’s more of a process; a never-ending movement towards God (ACT would describe this as movement towards values. Maybe we are saying the same thing). My view is more in-line with view that believes sanctification and justification are so intertwined that they cannot be separated. The most visible practicing version of this are the Anabaptists.
ACT and Christianity are similar in their methods of teaching. Both ACT and Christian teachings focus on acceptance instead of experiential avoidance, and understanding of a transcendent self. The three major categories of techniques used in ACT are paradox, metaphor and experiential learning. These processes help reduce cognitive fusion. Interestingly, almost all of the “red letter” passages (the stuff that Jesus actually said) are paradox (see Matthew 5), metaphor (all of the parables) and experiential learning (Matthew 15:29-39). In addition, Jesus is constantly confronting experiential avoidance by telling people to “count the cost” of that avoidance. Consider the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-28). Finally, Biblical writers often encouraged contact with a “transcendent self.” Despite our actions, thoughts, and feelings (our structural self) we are children of God, filled with the spirit of God (self-as-perspective).
Interestingly, the stages of ACT line up with stages of Christianity. When encountering God, often a person encounters “creative hopelessness.” One learns that we are not “free” and are, in fact, slaves to harmful contingencies (this idea is expressed as “Slavery to sin.” Sin means missing the mark. This is explained in Romans 1-7). We are unable to choose to act apart from our environment. We can’t just change our thoughts and feelings. We can’t avoid pain, and our struggle to avoid pain is painful. We can however, choose to place ourselves under the contingencies of God. Our behavior is then shaped by long-term rewards of relationship with God and others (even heaven is described in terms of relationship.) This creative hopelessness is articulated well in the first three steps in the 12-step program. “We admit that we are powerless, that our lives are unmanageable, we came to believe that a power greater than us could restore us to sanity, made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood God.” In ACT and in a Christian community, this might be worded differently, but I think it’s essentially the same process. We admit that we are powerless over our inner world (or sin) and we come to believe that pursuing our values (or God) could restore us to sanity. We make a decision to move in the direction of our values (or God).
Both ACT and Christianity as I understand it, view suffering as ubiquitous. In Christianity, suffering is understood as “sin.” Suffering came into the world because of the first sin (Adam and Eve). Suffering continues on a personal and collective level because of the “sins of our fathers” as well as our own personal sins. While Christianity would say the source of suffering is sin, and ACT understands our source of suffering as attachment to language. Sin and attachment to language could be understood as related. Humans “sin” when they believe in loneliness more than mercy. When humans believe that survival depends on screwing someone else, they sin (coveting, lying, cheating, steeling, killing, etc, etc). What the Bible describes as ungratefulness, ACT describes as unwillingness to accept the present moment. What the Bible describes as “dying to self,” and ACT describes as defusion (in fact ACT theorists even say, “kill yourself every day” to describe the process of letting go of the conceptualized self).
Ultimately, in ACT and in Christianity, the point is moving behaviorally in valued directions. Both Jesus and Steve Hayes teach that acceptance, cognitive defusion, and experience of a transcendent self free us to live lives of committed action. Both Steve and Jesus use metaphor, paradox, and experiential processes to accomplish their goals. ACT has so far been in line with my experience of the teachings of Christ.
ACT and Christianity
As a result of discussions such as this one, I have started a listserv for those interested. The details are
Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actandthechristianclient
Group email address: actandthechristianclient@yahoogroups.com
Please feel free to join and add your comments
ACT and Christianity
You have raised a very interesting question. I will try to contribute with some ideas about how western spirituality may fit in ACT.
ACT says that the experience of our self as context provides a sense of transcendence and we feel it with series of characteristics normally ascribed to spirit. For instance, we sense the self as context without limits of space and time and as something that is not an object, but it has neither matter nor limits. In Zen Buddhism, the self as context is experienced through a type of meditation that provokes the experience of this transcendence. It is experienced as the unity with Whole, sensed as inmaterial, it is said, as nothing. This experience is a mystic one.
In western religions the mystic experience arises through the union with a personal God, that vivifies all existing things, and in the Christianity, God is also a Father that loves us and all existing things. In some sense, experiences in Zen and in Christian mystic are similar because God is THE OTHER; and our experience of the self as context is not possible without the experience of THE OTHER.
In the process of acquiring our sense of self, we are taking conscience that we are in function of the difference with others. We are acquiring our experience taking our own perspective, learning that what we see or feel is different from what our brother or our mother feel or see. We are taking conscience of the difference from our here and the other’s here, that for us is there, similarly we are distinguishing what we are feeling from what they feel. My self is in relation with other self: I am if you are. We experiment our sense of self as context jointly with the experience of OTHER as context. This experience seems similar to the unity experience in Buddhist meditation. Through this, we may arrive to the feeling that there is no difference between my self and the whole or the nothing: I am all and nothing at the same time, and I arrive to this experience doing nothing. In western mystic not doing anything is similar to the complete trust in God who will show his love to us.
Therefore, the spirituality and the experience of transcendence associated to the discovering of self as context may be included inside mystics of western religions. It is equivalent to experiment the most intimate relationship with God. If we believe in a personal God that wants to relate with us, and we permit ourselves to be opens to THE OTHER and to private events elicited in the process, the experience may become a mystic union with a God that vivifies everything around us.
I am not talking about a concept of religion as a set of norms or laws to follow and dogmas to believe in; I am talking about a deep concept: religion as a direct contact with the Divinity, it is said, about a deep mystical experience. Living religion in this way transforms us and drives us to carry out the law.
In my opinion, the difference between Buddhism and Christianity might reside in the personal characteristic of God that is not present in Buddhism.
Jose Antonio
Mystic
Kane, no i currently do not have access to the magazines you refered to. I'll appreciate your assistance. Greg, the dialogue with you is very special and clarifying. Thank you for that. I know i own you a response. That response had been taken out of my hands by Jose who did it in a way beyond my current insight. I am able to see why Martin Buber came to the fore - for me, that is.
Is it possible to develop ACT "tools" from this perspective as presented so eloquently by Jose?
Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life
Arie,
I'm thinking this book may provide you a more immediate and acceptable way of working through this therapy:
[[http://www.amazon.com/Get-Your-Mind-Into-Life/dp/1572244259/sr=8-1/qid=1163599806/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8159875-2960022?ie=UTF8&s=books]]
And remember, it is not a religion. It is a therapy. You may certainly use the tools of the therapy from the perspective Jose described if this is helpful to you.
I will be interested to hear if you continue to encounter obstacles, even if they are difficult to articulate.
Due to the hierarchical infrastructure of the field of psychology, therapy models such as this one are often deemed 'functional' or 'non-functional' based on studies that include only self-reported data from small groups of people who may not include folks with views or concerns such as yours.
Discussions like these are vital, I feel, in order to offer an opportunity for the psychologists to listen to a wider range of viewpoints than might normally be provided along the typical route to becoming the next 'gold standard' 'empirically based' treatment model.
Otherwise, we may 'prove' effective a model from which at least 30% of the population may recoil in horror. It is a credit to this particular group that they have made this, and other forums available.
All the best,
Greg
Speaking of self-reports, I
Speaking of self-reports, I couldn't resist sharing these stats from a
CNN article posted today. But remember, the data is based on which people SAID they were happy - so the study could be measuring who lies most often. And of course they don't tell us what questions they asked, how they pulled the sample, or how they scored it. It does look like they talked to a wide range of ages, but either they spoke to no women, or women were not most likely or least likely to say they were happy.
According to a Pew Research Center survey, the happiest age group is men 65 and older; the least happy: men 18 to 29.
The survey also found:
Married people are happier than singles.
College grads are happier than those without a college degree.
People who were religious are happier than those who aren't.
Sunbelt residents are happier than other U.S. residents.
Republicans are happier than Democrats -- but both are happier than independents.
So, get a college degree, get married, join a church, become a Republican, and do your best to become a 65 year old man. Wait a minute, aren't these the people who told us Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?
Perhaps an obvious question, but: Have you checked the journals?
Hi Arie,
I've only just started doing some reading on ACT etc., so sorry if I've missed the point somewhat, but I understand you to be asking whether there is an existing body of academic writing on ACT and Christianity. Is this correct?
Do you have access to and have you searched the electronic journals on psychology?
Kind regards,
Kane Mortlock.
Acceptance, Christianity, Buddhism, and Acceptance
You have not detailed what parts of Buddhism did not work for you, and that is a huge area in itself, as there are many different interpretations of the Buddha's teachings, as well as many religious groups that have been founded on some part of those teachings. I say this, because sometimes what we find most 'unacceptable' ends up being a great place to start.
Since you get to pick your own Values in ACT, I don't see where this aspect would be problematic. Many of the more positive values are fairly universal across many of the major religions, in any case. You pick what is important to you, and use those values as motivation to work through areas that might be difficult for you.
There is some potential for conflict in the area of Acceptance, depending on your understanding of Christianity. There are variants of Christianity that emphasize love, compassion, inclusion and acceptance along the lines of the teachings of Jesus. There are other variants of Christianity that are more concerned with a more rule-governed Purity - a rather legalistic interpretation of certain scriptures in order to determine who's in and who's out, so to speak. This second sort might have some problems with the Acceptance part of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, if they find certain thoughts that they experience unacceptable, for example and are unwilling to consider accepting such thoughts as thoughts in service of furthering their values.
Furthermore, there is a certain aspect of a sort of Puritan type of Christianity that emphasizes the importance of experiencing suffering and pain in our present lives in order to fulfill the hope of a better existence in heaven, presumably after we have passed on. If this were the type of Christianity that one were embracing, this might be seen as somewhat of a conflict with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, or really any form of psychotherapy, where there is generally some goal (perhaps unstated and/or denied)that has to do with feeling better in the present, rather than waiting until some point of final judgement.
All of that being said, there are certainly many different progressive, positive, loving, inclusive understandings of Christianity that would hold none of the aformentioned conflicts.
Knowing exactly what parts of Buddhism don't work for you, and what parts of Christianity do work for you would be of great help in assisting you to move forward in a positive direction through those challenges.
You mention having worked through the Act for Anxiety book. How well is that working, and how have you found that compatible or incompatible with your own understanding of Christianity?
Greg R
Re: ACT and Christianity
You've seen these threads?
[[http://www.contextualpsychology.org/god_is_a_verb_spirituality_sig_thread|God is a verb]]
[[http://www.contextualpsychology.org/spirituality_special_interest_group|Spirituality Special Interest Group]]
Spirituality?
Thank you Greg for your very insightfull reply and Randy for directing me to the other threads that i read with great interest.
Indeed, there are many different schools of thought within the various religious traditions. And possibly, it would be important to verify how a person base his or her behaviour on the moral and ethical principles of the particular school of thought in order to assess the level of conservatism at play. This seems to be not essential to discussion within this thread.
Georg Eifert and John Forsyth coverage of "Eastern Philosophy and World Views" on page 74 of the book refered to earlier, with the subsequent application of excercises that evolved from these philosophies, seems to make ACT biased towards Buddhism? It is my opinion that ACT could just as well be anchored on a type of Christian philosophy with applicable exercises to follow suit.
To be honest, i'll not be surprised if someone, somewhere allready did this.
I'll follow Randy's advice and follow the threads referred to in order to find further enlightenment in this regard.
Kind regards
Arie
Buddhism
There are some mindfulness and awareness exercises that have been identified as coming from folks with the Christian label, in a writing called the Cloud of Unknowing.
Generally, the reason why such exercises are attributed to the teachings of the Buddha is simply because this is an accurate attribution of where they come from. Having come from teachings of this particular person does not make them compatible or incompatible with Christianity.
It is like saying "Why does everybody who talks about electricity always talk about Thomas Edison? Isn't there a Christian version of this?" Well, sure... Christian churches have lights...
The confusion comes from the basic position that I am hearing from you: that you believe that Buddhism and Christianity are separate camps, or competing teams, or that there is something wrong with a Christian learning from something Buddhist - a very dualistic way of thinking.
When you realize that there is no conflict between learning things from someone named Buddha, someone named Socrates, someone named Descartes, someone named Freud, someone named Hayes, and continuing to practice the religion of your choice, I think this will all make more sense to you.
Greg R
Analyze this?
I think we are missing one another here. Pluralism and acceptance of diversity is one of the fruits of the time that we live in which i appreciate as a positive. Such diversity does not imply a loss of own identity for everybody to become the same in order to shy away from being challenged with allegations of dualism and the like. Imagine the loss of beauty if the rainbow contained just one colour!
What i hoped for is not to walk into apologists of Buddishm when i raised the question. It is as if this is what is happening now, or not?
An interesting question for me is: what is important, the message or the medium through which the message came. Many a Buddist text came about without reference to an author. I understand this to strengthen my believe that it is the message that is important. I therefore am (within this context) not realy interested in who seems to be the original author of a philosophy or the like.
My pursuit remains a practical one which will imply an introduction to medidative practices and the context there off from within a Christian perspective rather than from "Eastern Philosophy" on page 74 of the book referred to above. This could broaden the application of ACT to end up serving the need for therapy from so many more people. My gut tells me that this had been done by somebody, somewhere. This is what i am looking for.
Kind regards
Arie Bouwer
Re: Analyze this?
This reminds me that there are now Christians in the U.S. who practice "Christian Yoga," i.e. yoga in the context of their faith. I've heard some outside the Christian community object to this, saying that yogic techniques shouldn't be divorced from their Indian roots - but perhaps they would be less alarmed if they reflected on the diverse nature of faith and the potential for non-judgmental connection with supposed opposites.
Imagine an East Coast liberal in the U.S. who practices yoga in a traditional Indian context, votes Democrat, and professes that she could never understand or sympathize with anyone in a Midwestern state who votes Republican and attends church. Now imagine she meets such a person and discovers he practices yoga too! Isn't there at least a chance this will give them common ground they didn't have before, despite their different faiths? Yes, but only if the yoga traditionalist is willing to let go of "being right" about yoga and open up to the moment and to the opportunity.
Searching for an anchor within Christianity
Yes, is it not amazing if we exhibit tolerance, openess, wisdom and maturity through engagement with people who live their life based upon a belief system that is different and might even be contradictory to our own belief system. But, to enjoy the greatness there-off, we need to move beyond our own defensiveness. Karl Popper formulated it so well: "the wrong view of science betrays itself through its craving to be right."
You know, an author such as Martin Buber (Jewish) might just represent a key towards the link between ACT and Christianity allthough he blamed Christianity for the moral degeneration of the West through something like "cheap grace." Father Anthony De Mello might be another possibility allthough it seems that the Roman Catholic Church officialy distanced themselves from his writings.
The "Old Testament" of the Bible originated from the "Ancient Near East" which should have resulted, due to geographic proximity in some cross furtilisation with philosophical schools of the East?!
Many authors who made contributions within the dialogue around anxiety and fear, such as Edmund Bourne, reflected on the importance of religion as part of healing. I do belief that ACT is the closest towards bridging this gap and - that excites me!
If only it is possible to "come home" to a kind of philosophical, cultural or Christian setting familiar to most in the West. It will be all the more special if this could be attained while sustaining the scientific respectability that ACT achieved.
Unity
I like the theme of unity that you inject, Randy. My point, to use your example, is that it is the unifying fact that both are practicing Yoga that helps, not the intermediate point of "renaming" Yoga to make it acceptable to Christians.
And my sense is that if I rename something to fit myself, rather than accepting it as it is, I am taking a step away from unity, towards splintering and misunderstanding. Tower of Babel if you will.
To an extent, of course, if renaming helps, it is not necessarily harmful, but as the old Chinese saying goes, naming things is helpful up to a point, and then starts to become harmful.
Imagine again, your example, where instead of noting that both of those folks were doing "Yoga" an unfortunate division remained because one was doing 'Christian' Yoga, and the other doing 'Hindu' Yoga.
So I will continue to try to reduce the number of different names for things, and strive to see the underlying unity.
I meditate with a mixture of Christians, Buddhists, & Hindus every week. We call it, "Meditation."
Name calling
My understanding of a Buddist position regarding names, bearing in mind that i am not a practising Buddist nor do i pretend to be extremely knowledgable on the subject matter, is that the magic of pure observation and experience preceeds language. The observation of a bird in flight looses this magic as soon as i categorize the bird as a Sparrow. Seemingly one of the big challenges to Western thinking.
If i am correct, it will imply that the usage of names such as yoga (whether Christian or Hindu), meditation, and even Buddist or Christian are irrelevant to Buddists and will indeed cause a tower of Babel experience if persisted with. This brings to the fore one of the gains that i made through my tour through Buddism, a better understanding of "paradox."
While we live in times where we are often disgusted with a lot of what is happening due to our Western minds such as exploitation, imperialism, consumerism, materialism, empty values, etc. - we will loose out if we do not value what is good about Western thinking, even if it is hard to find. Worse will be to then idealise Eastern thinking without appreciating their own balance of "yin and yang."
If ACT is serious about addressing the challenges of excessive anxiety and fear, it will take seriously the cultural setting of many clients who pursue therapy in the application of the ACT model. A large number of such clients are of a Christian orientation. The perceived bias of ACT towards "Eastern philosophy" creates a hurdle, i think.
You may be right
You may be right that many may perceive any association with an eastern philosophy as a hurdle.
Many people see many things as hurdles, and working through what is 'unacceptable' about things in our environment is rather key to ACT, in my view. Anything you don't like, or can't accept, is good working material.
So, help us out here. Let's have some details to work with. What is it about 'Eastern philosophies' that is a hurdle for you?
My guess is that you are seeing some conflict between some eastern philosophies (other than Christianity, which as you point out, is an eastern philosophy in itself)and Christianity. What are those conflicts for you? I think acceptance is quite compatible with Christianity. (As I don't see any conflicts, I can't be of much help unless you share your thoughts.)
The therapy is not about changing ACT, changing others, changing the world. It is about changing how we react to these things. You see?
Acceptance
"Anything you don't like, or can't accept, is good working material." This reminds me of a published debate between Carl Rogers and Rolo May, who were both a-religious, about Rogers approach "empathy." They got stuck when May asked Rogers about the problem of evil. How do you apply empathy when offering therapy to a woman who had been raped, May asked. He proceeded to challenge Rogers that he misconstrue reality through his therapeutic approach. The broad based statement that i quoted as the first sentence carry - for me, the same risk.
It is my understanding that a match between a solid therapeutic approach such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and a spritual or religious connection had been sought for. This is clearly territory for the brave as both disciplines carry tremendous complexities of its own. I perceive ACT to be this brave, allthough the connection is with Buddishm. This is understandable given Jung's ventures into Eastern Philosophy.
I do not think that it is that difficult to understand what the exercises and value work will consist of if it is anchored within a Christian rather than within a Buddisht tradition. To decipher this does not require to enter into a debate between the two "philosophies."
exercises and value work in christian tradition
A possible way might be the work of Anthony de Mello, a native of India and Jesuit, who made efforts to bring the spiritual treasures of the east to 'the West'. He wrote e.g. 'wellsprings, a book of Spiritual exercises', 'Sadhana, a way to God' etc. He gives many exercises on awareness, exercises like 'the observer' in ACT., 'your funeral' is an exercise like the tombstone etc. Another scholar in this field is Raimundo Panikkar who mastered both Hindu and Christian tradition.
There are beautiful stories, full of metaphors in 'the lives of the Desert fathers', the apophtegmata , The Philokalia or more recent 'the way of the pilgrim' written by an anonymous staretz, and highly popular in the Orthodox World. (I don't have the references near, but that stuff is translated in innumerable editions and languages).
Even from a former Secretary General of the United Nations, one can benefit, to cite from 'Markings' of Dag Hammarskjöld (Faber & Faber, 1966, p.38), his diary:
Towards new Shores ?
At every moment you choose yourself. But do you choose your (italic) self? Body and soul contain a thousand possibilities out of which you can build many I's. But in only one of them is there a congruence of the elector and the elected. Only one- which you will never find until tou have excluded all those superficial and fleeting possibilities of being and doing with which you toy, out of curiosity or wonder or greed, and which hinder you from casting anchor in the experience of the mistery of life, and the consciousness of the talent entrusted to you which is your 'I'. (1945-1949)
No debate
As I've said, I see no conflict, and no need for debate between philosophies.
I have asked for where you see the conflict, and have received no response.
If we agree that there is no conflict, there is no issue.
ACT was developed by Steve Hayes, as a response to his own experience with anxiety. As I understand it, some of his realizations about acceptance of private experiences happen to coincide with buddhist thought.
There is no requirement to "be buddhist" to understand and apply the therapy. I don't know what you object to on page 74 of the anxiety book, but I'm sure it is quite possible to use the therapy without that page.
If you mean to remove the acceptance part (which is essential to buddhism and many eastern philosophies, as well as quite compatible with christianity) you will have gutted the therapy of its essence.
Again, it is difficult to have a discussion if you can not tell me what it is that is your 'hurdle'. Without that input from you, I continue to guess.
Perhaps you can respond in the positive: How would you change the therapy to make it more compatible with Christianity?
Respectfully,
Greg R
Not Buddhism
I just wanted to chip in a little here, as I think this point may have been overlooked slightly. Just to state the obvious, ACT is not Buddhism, nor is it Christian, Islamic, Hindu etc etc. It is a therapy based on a theory of language (RFT) which suggests that certain processes within the ‘language system’ lead to psychological distress. ACT, in my understanding, uses many techniques from many different schools of thought, both philosophical and theoretical. But ACT is not affiliated or bourn out of these traditions. ACT is based on functional contextualism, behaviour analysis, and a basic research programme. ACT merely uses techniques that appear coherent with the theory of language and human behaviour underlying the model, and some of these techniques have been used similarly in other traditions, but it doesn’t follow that ACT is affiliated to any of these traditions.
ACT is about being human, and therefore should be open to all denominations and walks of life. I myself am an atheist, but that does not jar at all with my application or understanding of ACT, as I tend to look at the function of the exercises I undertake (e.g. it may be helpful/interesting/enlightening), rather than the form (or formal properties) they appear to take (e.g. meditation etc.). You can think of meditation as ‘Buddhist’, or you can think of it as a form of ‘mindfulness’, or a process of internal verbal behaviour, or perhaps a form of attentional training, and probably many other things. I would suggest that it doesn’t matter, as long as the process you are engaged in is helpful to you or those you work with, and is coherent with the underlying theoretical base of the therapy. ACT is not ‘owned’ by any other tradition, it has just stolen and reinterpreted some of the techniques people have used and found beneficial for many years!
Take care
David
ACT and Christianity
I'm a philosophical Taoist and have studied Asian thought extensively. The major problem westerner's tend to have with accepting asian thought is it's emphasis on relativistism and attitudes. In general, western thought focuses more on behavior and absolutes (e.g. the ten commandments). For many these differences are simply insurmountable.
Because of their relativism, Buddhism and Zen are extremely flexible and have been adapted to a wide variety of schools of thought. However the opposite is not true, Christianity is not particularly flexible and has not adapted itself to other schools of thought. I don't mean this in any way as a derogatory statement about Christianity, in fact, many Christians see this as a strength of their religion.
If new age schools and Buddhism have not been of any help to you then I feel compelled to ask, "Why are you considering ACT" as a form of therapy?
Wu Li & Openess
Wu Li, i have the same scroling problem and will also appreciate advice on how to deal with text running off my screne.
Your comments and comparisons between Christianity and Buddhism is interesting. Such an exercise could be fruitfull if based upon a thorough understanding and insight within both "traditions." Your statement about the 6000 branches that evolved from Buddhism as an indicator of the openess there-off is interesting and i would not be surprised if you find something similar within Christianity. But, contrary to popular belief and practice as reflected within our values of today where "more and bigger is better," this discussion is obviously not a contest.
Important to ACT is "values work." Most often, we'll base values on the principals of our spiritual belief system. The application of practices or "tools" within ACT that evolved primarily from Buddhist traditions could indicate a certain biasness to this tradition. However, this does not take away one of the strengths of ACT in grounding a sound therapeutic approach within a "spiritual dimension." This is what excite me about ACT. Many people who are from a Christian orientation indicated the value that ACT added to their life. For me a key is "acceptance" that contained within its definition "willingness."
What breached the seemingly unreconcilable "clash" between Christianity and Buddhism for me had been to move away from "either or" thinking towards embracing and "acceptance" of paradox - so well defined by a christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard some centuries ago. And then, a key for me from Buddhism was the complexities and challenges that we bring to our life through all our perceived "attachments" - that adds so many unnecessary struggles.
I am aware that i am starting to repeat myself with matters covered earlier in the conversation. Wu Li, i saw you joined on 19 June. Welcome
Why ACT as a Christian?
Well Wu Li, i hope you read the many posts on this subject. I am a bit surprised at what i perceive to be a rather judgemental attitude that seems to contradict the inhirent "flexibility" of your field of study and of your chosen philosophy. You'll find, amongst these posts, some who were able to sustain this flexibility - whose contribution realy brought some enlightenment to my life.
It is my understanding that a number of ACT practitioners will object to the assumption that new age and buddhism represents pre-conditions to the effectiveness of ACT.
Fundamentalism represents a challenge to be able to apply ACT from a spiritual perspective. Fundamentalism represents a risk that is present or inhirent to all religions, inclusive of those religions perceived to be "more flexible." And maybe, it is your ability to highlight that risk, which represents the most value that you added to this discussion.
Again, we run the risk of entering into a religious debate which is neither relevant nor helpful in pursuit of what this web site is all about. However, your posting prompt the question that started this discussion in the first place. Does an acceptance of either New Age or Buddhism represent a "spiritual" pre-condition for ACT to be helpfull as a therapheutic approach or tool? In other words, should all christians and people who are of a religious orientation other than New Age or Buddhism steer clear from ACT? Could you imagine the repercussions to the application of ACT if the answer to this question is yes?
Hi Arie
I'm delighted to see another post from you! I enjoyed reading this thread a while back.
On the subject of Buddhism "versus" other religions, I understand that the current Dalai Lama has studied Buddhist thought extensively - yet he seems to welcome non-Buddhist points of view as being of equal worth. He suggests that people of different faiths can benefit from sharing ideas, even as they retain the essence of their faiths intact. From his book "Essence of the Heart Sutra":
Of course, when it comes to ACT, this is all a bit besides the point - as has been said countless times, ACT isn't Buddhism & Buddhism isn't ACT!
Wu Li and other comments
Many seem to forget Confucius when they make the comparison of a rigid, fundamentalist West to a flexible, relativist East. In fact, the best stuff from the East is being used in very flexible ways in the West. In the East, many Buddhists are quite fundamentalist, requiring one to be saved by "Lord Buddha" in order to ensure a happy afterlife, etc. None of which has anything to do with ACT, or for that matter, what the Buddha taught (which was more empirical than religious).
So perhaps we can frame this debate, as has been suggested, as fundamentalist (rigid, strict interpretation without openness to new ideas) versus contemplative, non-dualistic, synergistic, etc.
Being a fundamentalist ACT practitioner (or promoter) has its own bag of pitfalls, for example.
Fundamentalism and Flexibility
Yes, I have read all the previous posts. That is why I have responded in the manner I have, I thought I had something different to contribute.
There is a difference between making a judgement and making an assessment. If I say, "The sky is blue" and have no emotional attachment to this, then I am merely making an assessment. The fact that asian thought is more holistic and relativistic than western thought simply makes it more flexible by definition. For example, at one time there were six thousand distinct sects of Taoism alone. This kind of diversity among western religions is unheard of and many would say so much the better!
Again, by definition holistic viewpoints describe more. That is why every major branch of the sciences has adopted their own holistic theories since the advent of quantum mechanics and relativity (two famous holistic theories.) That is not to say that holistic theories are better, simply that they are just as important as reductionist theories.
To this day every major western religion incorporates the reductionism of Aristotlean logic (good is never evil, black is never white, and vice versa) rather than a more relativistic holistic worldview. Thus you could also say they are all fundamentalist by nature.
Rather than splitting semantic hairs and attempting to find a rule of thumb that applies to everyone, I prefer to take each case as it arises. In this case s/he stated quite clearly that s/he is christian and has difficulty with both new age and buddhism. That neither ever seemed to work for her. Hence the only honest response I can give is that ACT may not be what she is looking for.
As Taoists like to say, "Many paths, one mountain." We are all working our way to the top, and perhaps the issue is not so much which path is the right path, but which one is best suited to ourselves.
By-the-way, your posts seem to be moving off to the right of my screen and I don't have a horizontal scroll bar. Any suggestions?
The Middle Path
A little background on me so that everyone knows the context in which I am speaking may be useful here. I was born as raised Episcopalian in the South (Georgia and Tennessee). I joined the US Navy and lived in Japan where I discovered Zen Buddhism which I practiced for a period of eight years. I returned to the Episcopal Church after meeting my current wife in 1996. In 1998, I became a follower of St. Francis of Assisi and eventually joined an order of secular Franciscans known as The Third Order of St. Francis.
There is a lot of emotion when most people speak of religion. This is for many reasons, not the least of which being that our morals and values are often adopted from our spiritual beliefs. It is very easy to begin labelling religions as being "intolerant" or "new age". Such remarks are (in my humble opinion) examples of intellectual laziness on the part of the person saying such a thing. It seems to me that such labelling ignores the individual and lumps them all together in a neat, tidy little catagory. However, the neat, tidy little catagories don't work because not every Christian is "intolerant" and not every Buddhist is "new age".
What all of this means is that if we can get beyond the stereotypes and labels (and perhaps our own assumptions), we can see the ACT therapy is both appropriate and effective regardless of spiritual beliefs because ACT (as I understand it) is about helping people live according to their values which are meaningful to them. If a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist or a Zoroastrian is living a meaningful and fulfilling life according to his or her values, the religious underpinnings of those values are valid - regardless of what our stereotypes or perceptions of the religion are.