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
User login
Upcoming Community Events
- 3-Day Eugene Intro and Skill Building with Kelly Wilson(Event)(4 days)
- Lancaster, PA--ACT: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Powerful Life Change(Event)(9 days)
- King of Prussia, PA--ACT: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Powerful Life Change(Event)(10 days)
- Cycle de Formation ACT Lyon, France Nov 2008-Mars 2009(Event)(10 days)
- Cherry Hill, NJ--ACT: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Powerful Life Change(Event)(11 days)
- ACT: Using Mindfulness and Values to Make Powerful Life Change - Robyn Walser -Bel Air/West LA, California(Event)(12 days)
- ACT Interest Group, Sheffield, UK(Event)(18 days)
- Cycle de Formation ACT Lyon, France Nov 2008-Mars 2009(Event)(24 days)
- Vervolgcursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in Blooming, Bergen (NH)(Event)(25 days)
- ACT Training at the Albert Ellis Institute, NYC with DJ Moran(Event)(26 days)
- "Acceptance and Mindfulness in Clinical Practice" Steven C Hayes, Århus, Denmark 3.-4. of february 2009(Event)(29 days)
- Cycle de Formation ACT Lyon, France Nov 2008-Mars 2009(Event)(52 days)
- Introductiecursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - Bergen, Holland(Event)(53 days)
- La nouvelle génération de thérapie cognitive et comportementale : la théorie et la pratique - Frédérick Dionne, Ph.D.- Montreal (Event)(53 days)
- Workshop-Atelier ACT - Paris (2 jours)(Event)(60 days)
- Erfahrungsorientierter Einführungsworkshop in Lenzburg, Schweiz, mit Jan Martz und Rainer Sonntag(Event)(60 days)
- Evidence-Based Treatment Conference - Las Vegas, NV(Event)(63 days)
- Cycle de Formation ACT Lyon, France Nov 2008-Mars 2009(Event)(66 days)
- Dover, New Hampshire -- Making Bold Moves: Enhancing Your Practice with Acceptance & Commitment Therapy(Event)(75 days)
- Introductiecursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - Bergen, Holland(Event)(81 days)
- Awakening to Mindfulness Conference - San Diego, CA(Event)(87 days)
- 3-Day in Sydney: Skill Building and Case Conceptualization with Kelly Wilson(Event)(99 days)
- 3-Day in Brisbane: Skill Building and Case Conceptualization with Kelly Wilson(Event)(103 days)
- 3-Day in Melbourne: Skill Building and Case Conceptualization with Kelly Wilson(Event)(107 days)
- La nouvelle génération de thérapie cognitive et comportementale : la théorie et la pratique, par Frédérick Dionne, Ph.D. (Event)(142 days)
- ACT introductiecursus Utrecht - Netherlands(Event)(144 days)
- Mindfulness, Acceptance and Commitment - Steve Hayes - Greater Hartford, CT(Event)(151 days)
- Kelly Wilson: Acceptance & Commitment Therapy - Combined Introduction and Skill Building Addictions Workshop(Event)(169 days)
- Pre-Conference Experiential Workshops (Enschede, The Netherlands)(Event)(175 days)
- ACBS World Conference III - Enschede, The Netherlands(Event)(176 days)
- Using ACT to Help your Clients Get Out of Their Minds and into Their Life - Steve Hayes - Eastham, Massachusetts(Event)(217 days)
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?
God is a verb
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?