Two Sides of the Same Coin: The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)

Abstract

Evaluative knowledge is a ubiquitous—and seemingly indispensable—human phenomenon. Yet, writers from multiple disciplines (e.g., psychology, theology) have proposed that evaluating, categorizing, and judging—made possible by both verbal and nonverbal language—can directly contribute to human suffering. For example, Dietrich Bonhoeffer—the 20th century German theologian—argued that knowledge of good and evil produces disunion with God and death, rather than union with God and life. Likewise, Steven Hayes—a prominent theorist of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)—explained that particular applications of evaluative knowledge increase human suffering. Thus, the purpose of this article is threefold: (a) to elucidate Dietrich Bonhoeffer's exegesis of the Genesis story involving the tree of knowledge of good and evil; (b) to introduce basic tenets of ACT; and (c) to explore how similarities between these theological and psychological perspectives offer ripe potential for an integrative approach for pastoral counselors working with Christians.

keywords:

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer
• acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)
• evaluative knowledge
• moral judgment

Special thanks to David Brokaw, Ph.D., ABPP, and Adrienne Knabb, M.A., for their helpful comments.

Notes

1. See Boyd (2004) for a more detailed explication of Bonhoeffer's writings on love and judgment.

2. The therapist can educate the client on how control creates suffering with the following statement: “In the outside world, our mind's fascination with prediction and control works great. Figure out how to get rid of something, give your mind the job, and watch it go! But when it comes to private events like unpleasant thoughts, feelings, memories, or bodily sensations, the solution isn't deliberate control, the problem is deliberate control. If you try to avoid or eliminate your own thoughts or feelings, you are in an unworkable position. Unfortunately, our minds think control is the answer for everything. If you don't like a memory or the prospect of feeling bad, just eliminate the cause and you don't have to feel it” (Hayes et al., 1999, p. 122, italics added).

3. With the “chocolate cake” exercise, the therapist asks the client to not think about chocolate cake. Specifically, the therapist begins to describe the smell and taste of chocolate cake, all the while making statements such as “Don't think of it!” The point, of course, is that the more the client tries to avoid thinking about chocolate cake, the more he or she will think about it (Hayes et al., 1999).

4. Elucidating the limits of language can be accomplished with the “finding a place to sit” metaphor. Within this exercise, the therapist says the following: “Let's say you need a place to sit, and so you begin describing a chair. Let's say you gave a really detailed description of a chair. It's a grey chair, and it has a metal frame, and it's covered in fabric, and it's a very sturdy chair. Now, can you sit in that description?” (Hayes et al., 1999, p. 153).

5. Defusing language can be accomplished with the “milk, milk, milk” exercise. Simply put, the therapist asks the client to describe what comes to mind when he or she says the word milk. The therapist then asks the client to say the word milk over and over again for roughly two minutes. Finally, the therapist asks, “Where's the milk?” Ultimately, after about a minute of saying milk over and over again, the psychological aspects of it disappear. What is left is simply a sound (Hayes et al., 1999).

6. The therapist asks the client to close his or her eyes and think positive and negative thoughts that are described by the therapist. The therapist first starts with positive thoughts (e.g., “I'm a valid person”) and continuously increases how extreme they are until they become unrealistic (e.g., “I'm perfect”). This same process then takes place with negative thoughts. The client then reports his or her thoughts to the therapist. The goal is to show that each extreme level, both positive and negative, pulls for the opposite; that is, extremely positive thoughts create extremely negative ones and vice versa (Hayes et al., 1999).

7. The therapist describes a chessboard to the client whereby the black and white pieces represent the client's thoughts and feelings. The way to win the game, apparently, is to knock off the pieces, which are represented by thoughts and feelings. However, the therapist asks the client to see him- or herself as the chessboard, rather than the chess pieces. With this paradigm shift, the client sees that if he or she is the chessboard, he or she can watch the chess pieces, or the thoughts and emotions, go to war with one another as an observer, rather than try to rid him- or herself of the thoughts and emotions (Hayes et al., 1999).

8. The therapist first places several pieces of paper in a box with each piece of paper having a different identity written on it. The client then reaches into the box and pulls out an identity and attempts to become that identity. Once the therapist is satisfied that the client has genuinely “tried on the identity,” he or she asks the client to describe what the identity thinks and feels in various situations (Hayes et al., 1999).

9. The therapist directs the client to write a short eulogy on an imaginary tombstone. This exercise helps the client to see the discrepancy between his or her values (what he or she wants the tombstone to say) and current actions (Hayes et al., 1999).

10. The therapist says the following: “Suppose you go skiing. You take a lift to the top of a hill, and you are just about to ski down the hill when a man comes along and asks where you are going. ‘I'm going to the lodge at the bottom,’ you reply. He says, ‘I can help you with that,’ and promptly grabs you, throws you into a helicopter, flies you to the lodge, and then disappears” (Hayes et al., 1999, p. 220).

11. The client is to describe his or her values in the following specific areas of life: (a) marriage or intimate relations, (b) family relations, (c) friendships, (d) career, (e) personal growth or employment, (f) leisure, (g) spirituality, (h) citizenship, and (i) physical well-being and health (Hayes et al., 1999).

12. This form lists (a) the valued directions, (b) the goals to get there, (c) the concrete actions necessary to achieve the values, and (d) barriers to taking the actions and working towards the goals (Hayes et al., 1999).