Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract:
This paper attempts to demonstrate that the philosophy of REBT and
the philosophy of Christianity are congruent. Both seek to transform the
individual who is experiencing pain, alienation, self-defeating
behaviors into a person with a radically new and liberating philosophy
of life, or newly uncovered and self-accepted being. Moreover, the key
to this transformation is a change of fundamental beliefs away from
dogmatic demandingness, awfulizing, low frustration tolerance, and
self and other-downing toward an unconditional acceptance of the self,
others, the world, and life.
46 Steve Johnson
Articles Section
Notice that each of these pairs is associated with some unhelpful negative
emotion. For example, the demand plus the awfulizing might consistently be
associated with anger. Similarly, the demand plus the self-downing might help to
generate depression; and the demand plus the low frustration tolerance might be
coupled with anxiety or high frustration.
REBT (Elllis, 1996) holds that since emotions such as anger, depression,
anxiety, and low frustration tolerance (or discomfort anxiety) are likely to
interfere with an individual’s life goals, it is in her/his best interest to change the
core demand and associated derivatives. Clearly, the therapeutic goal of REBT is
to help an individual to change his/her irrational beliefs that in part constitute a
philosophy of life. That way the individual most likely will be better able to
achieve her or his desired goals.
Correlative to each of the irrational beliefs are rational beliefs. The
alternative to demandingness is to create a want, preference, or desire. For
example, instead of demanding that you accept me just as I am, I prefer for you to
so accept me as another fallible human being. Thus, desires, wants, or preferences
accept (not necessarily like) that the world, life, the self, or others are as they
are—with both strengths and weaknesses. A philosophical demand dogmatically
insists that reality be different than it is.
Each of the derivatives also has a rational alternative: Instead of
awfulizing, we accept the badness of a state of affairs without catastrophizing
about it. Instead of having low frustration tolerance, we acknowledge our
displeasure about a state of affairs, but we do not view it as unbearable. Instead of
self-downing, which REBT says entails globally rating the self in roles, we accept
that the transcendent self, or better yet, the “I” is too complex to rate. Thus we
rate our actions and behaviors within roles, rather than the I, of which we are
aware, but do not rate. Similarly, rather than globally rating others, we
acknowledge the badness of their deeds without rating their core I.
As seen in the rational alternatives to self and other downing, REBT
holds to the unconditional acceptance of the self and others. This unconditional
acceptance is extended to the world and life, and so Ellis and others such as
Stephen Stosney have written about USA—unconditional self acceptance,
UOA—unconditional other acceptance, and ULA—unconditional life acceptance.
A mark of mental and emotional health is that reality, including the reality of the
self and others, is accepted as it is. This does not mean that we are to like the
badness of the situation, enjoy the circumstances, prefer the state of affairs, or
passively do nothing in the face of the reality. However, we are better able to
handle the badness of a reality when we acknowledge its badness. We accept that
this is the way it has to be right now because that is the way it is, and then we can
resolve to do what we can to change it if change is possible. If change is not
possible, then accepting that situation as it is rather than demanding that it be
different can help to minimize the emotional investment in the face of the
unwanted situation.
REBT helps us minimize the occurrence of unhelpful negative emotions
and self-sabotaging actions by giving us a method by which we can recognize our
irrational beliefs, demonstrate to ourselves why they are irrational (dispute them),
and then replace them with rational alternatives. In other words, REBT helps
individuals achieve a radically new and more effective “way of seeing” or adopt a
new philosophy of life.
From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view;
even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we
know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a
new creation; everything old has passed away; see, everything has
become new (2 Corinthians 5:16-17).
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off the old
self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the
attitude of your minds, and to put on the new self, created to be like God in
true righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:22-24).
48 Steve Johnson
Articles Section
of a completely new philosophy of life, or new being or self. Being a new self that
acts rightly is linked to having had a right attitude.
If these biblical passages are discussing philosophy of life or ontological
issues, others are more concrete, even going so far as to specify with what content
one should occupy one’s mind. For example, in Paul’s letter to the Philippians 4:8
it reads,
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right,
whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if
anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think abut such things
(Philippians 4:8).
While scripture may emphasize the importance of belief and the goal of
adopting a new philosophy of life or becoming a new being, it does not
necessarily follow that the scripture’s views of what constitute helpful
transformative beliefs and unhelpful beliefs holding one in bondage to “sin” in
any way agree with what REBT holds to be rational and irrational beliefs.
Therefore, let us see what scripture might have to say about demandingness,
awfulizing, low frustration tolerance, self-downing, and other-downing.
Demandingness
Many Christians view scripture claiming that God alone is the creator and
sustainer of the universe. Humans may create and sustain, but not in the global
sense that God does. Consequently, God alone can creatively demand and have
the demand establish reality. Humans do not have that level of ontological control
or creativity as given capacities of their natures. Thus when humans demand, it
does not follow that reality will come into being. The person who demands sets
him or herself up for frustration and emotional disturbance. Therefore, being
demanding proves to be self-defeating and emotionally disturbing for humans
because demands do not create reality in the way theology says God does.
Some Christians may claim that scripture does approve of Christians
being demanding about some issues. For example, some Christians may think that
the Bible demands that we do the good and refrain from doing the bad, such as
feeding the poor and refrain from stealing from them. An important distinction
needs to be made among types of demands. There are metaphysical demands and
moral demands. A metaphysical demand is of the sort, “Reality (X) must be a
particular way,” whereas a moral demand is of the sort, “To be moral one must do
or be Y.” Moral demands can be written as a conditional in a way that
metaphysical demands cannot. Namely, “If one wants to be moral, then one
should (must) do or be Y.” Thus a moral demands for human beings always are
conditional, and thus non-absolute demand. A metaphysical demand, however, is
not conditional; instead, it is an absolute demand.
Let us consider some examples of this distinction among types of
demands. If right now I am typing on my computer, then metaphysically I am in
the act of typing on my computer. I cannot be typing on the computer and not
typing on the computer at the same time and under the same conditions. That
would be a metaphysical impossibility and would violate the law of non-
contradiction; i.e., a thing cannot be and not be at one and the same time under the
same conditions. On the other hand, if I believe that as a Christian I should help
the needy, then what I am saying is that if I want to be a good Christian, then I
should help the needy. Helping the needy is not a metaphysical demand because it
is conceivable that someone does not care to be a good Christian, in which case
there is no necessity for him or her to care for the needy. The moral demand is
only binding if certain conditions are fulfilled: in this case the condition would be
that I have the desire or wish to be a good Christian. However, if certain
conditions have to be fulfilled for the moral demand to be binding, then it is not
an absolute demand. In philosophical ethics the question is asked, “Why be
moral?” There are many reasons offered for being moral, but the mere fact that
reasons are given for why it is preferable to be moral demonstrates that morality
is a choice, and because it is a choice, it is not a metaphysical demand or
necessity.
I am aware that Kant held that moral demands are categorical or absolute.
One statement of his famous categorical imperative is “I must act in such a way
that I can at the same time will that my maxim of action be a universal law.” The
wording of the moral imperative reveals that it cannot be absolute in the
metaphysical sense. If I have to will that my maxim of action be a universal law,
then it is not a metaphysical absolute. Willing is irrelevant to a metaphysical
absolute, and the fact that it is integral to acting morally demonstrates the
contingent nature of the categorical imperative. Of course, as an idealist, Kant
was discussing mental categories and held that we could not know the thing in
itself. Necessarily, his universal was a universal of the mind, not a universal
outside the mind, or a metaphysical universal.
Scripturally, even if God gives commandments (demands), as in the
Decalogue, those are moral demands that are binding only if one wants to be
moral and if one wants to have eternal life. The Decalogue does not consist of
metaphysical demands. In other words, the Decalogue does not create the reality
they command. If they did, humans would have no choice but to honor parents,
refrain from murder, avoid stealing, and refrain from committing adultery since
they would be determined by the laws of nature. The commandment not to
murder is contingent on one wanting to be moral and thus it would be better to
state it in the following form: If I want to be moral, then I must not kill. If “Thou
shalt not kill” were truly a metaphysical must or demand, it would be impossible
for humans to murder. Reading the newspaper or listening to the news makes it
clear that humans have the freedom to murder. Actually, if moral demands were
metaphysical demands, then humans would have no free will and morality would
not make sense. Morality presupposes having the freedom to choose to act and to
choose to refrain from acting. One could argue that the Decalogue are
50 Steve Johnson
Articles Section
metaphysical demands for God, and they have been revealed by him. However,
given that we each have will or the capacity of choice, the Decalogue for us are
not metaphysical demands. Thus morality is absolute but we humans can accept
or reject them in our choices.
REBT only declares as irrational and problematical the absolute
metaphysical demands, not the conditional moral shoulds or oughts. In Christian
terms, if God allows us the freedom to be moral or not to be moral, then humans
cannot legitimately demand that others act as though they had no freedom and be
the way we demand them to be.
Awfulizing
REBT asserts that an event can never be truly awful, which seems
counterintuitive. Surely, there must be some events that are awful. What is being
said is that nothing is ever truly completely bad, as bad as it could possibly be, as
in world shattering. It may be tragic, but not utterly catastrophic in the sense of
negating all meaning, purpose, and possibility of pleasure and happiness. This is
not a mere semantic difference. What is being asserted is that bad events do
occur. If we are rational, we will acknowledge the undesirability of the event, and
perhaps even assert that we never want anyone to undergo such an event, but the
event cannot metaphysically determine the future as utterly catastrophic.
Metaphysically, events simply obtain—they merely take place. Evaluations of
events are mental acts. Evaluating an event is rational if it is an assessment that a
situation is tragic, unfortunate, or undesirable because we are asserting how the
act is related to goals for human beings. Evaluating an event as awful is irrational
because it makes a prediction about an unknown future. It is also irrational
because it involves over-generalizing from a present situation into the future. In
other words, awfulizing actually asserts that because a current situation is very
bad, the future must inevitably be so because it feels so bad right now. This
reasoning is also irrational because it asserts that since the current situation is bad,
that I must feel bad and that I will always feel this way. It magically asserts the
exaggeration that the bad will always be bad and moreover it will be negative for
all time and the possibility of being anything other than utterly bad cannot take
place.
Scripture takes a radically different view, one more consistent with
REBT: that is that nothing is utterly catastrophic or awful. Romans 8:39 says that
nothing can separate us from the love of God, absolutely nothing. If this is true,
then nothing can negate the good within our lives. As bad as things may get, and
at times this can be very bad, in the midst of the bad, we are each loved by God.
tragic, but because we are grounded in God and supported by God’s love, we can
tolerate our lot. (This does not mean that we merely accept our lot without
wanting and trying to change the bad). In his letter to the Philippians, Paul writes,
“For I have learned to find resources in myself whatever my circumstances,” and
“I have strength for anything through Him who gives me power.” We can deal
with the bad without either asserting that we cannot handle it, or without
irrationally declaring the bad to be good. This latter view is the approach of the
philosophy known as “the power of positive thinking.” This approach declares
that bad situations are actually good and that we should be happy. For example, if
I fail a test, then I can see the failing as good because it permits me to see myself
as a fallible human relying on others, and thereby creating community. The only
reason for such an approach is because people have a tendency to make
themselves miserable about bad events, and so we try to wish it away or declare it
away rather than realize that we can through correct thinking realize that we can
endure the situation and work to change it if there is any way it can be corrected.
In fact, enduring a bad situation is held up as an ideal within scripture, “Indeed we
call blessed those who showed endurance. You have heard of the endurance of
Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate
and merciful.” (James 5:11).
52 Steve Johnson
Articles Section
Some Christians hold beliefs that are at odds with REBT and justify their
arguments by appealing to scripture or Christian theology. Two of those issues are
that suffering is at times ordained by God, and Christians should be perfect. A
third belief is that Christians should at times feel guilty.
It is not uncommon for Christians who are undergoing some life crisis to
say, “It is God’s will.” For some people this is an effective coping statement in
the face of an unpleasant event. However, for others, especially those who believe
that an activating event is associated with a consequence, it can support the belief
that their misery is inescapable, awful, and ordained by God. Here the activating
event (A)-belief about the activating event (B)-consequence (C) distinction within
REBT can be helpful. The obvious response is that although God may ordain the
event (A), the free will of humans means that humans can choose their belief
about the event, and consequently are responsible for their own misery. That is to
say, God ordains A, but humans are responsible for B and C. This requires a bit
more explanation. God does ordain A’s, but the Church Fathers often asserted that
the badness of an A is an absence rather than a metaphysical presence. Thus God
ordains the good (presence) but not that which is absent. In other words, God’s
creation is a creation of presence, not absence. Therefore, God in no way ordains
or creates evil.
Of course, one could claim that free will is only psychological, not
ontological, and really is at an ontological level an illusion. This view is
problematic scripturally because there are verses that presuppose free will. For
example, “If today you hear his voice, harden not your heart.” This verse makes
little sense unless there is free will. The reality is that humans choose to accept
the beliefs that cause misery, but they are not bound to so accept them.
Some Christians read Matthew 5:48, “Be ye therefore perfect as your
Father who is in heaven is perfect,” and wrongfully believe that it is a demand for
perfection in all areas of life. Theologically there is none but God who is perfect,
so to assert that humans are to be completely perfect would seem to be idolatry.
Actually, the verse is the last verse of a chapter that discusses loving action
toward those who are difficult to love. The conclusion is that our perfection in a
limited sense is our love of those who are difficult to love. It in no way is
attributing god-like perfection to the person, or even demanding that all our
actions be perfect. It is a command to love and that this is exemplified in
forgiveness. Our perfection is our love and love is a perfection because God is
love.
Many Christians live a considerable portion of their lives suffering from
guilt. Many also believe that they should feel guilty; in fact, some Christians
believe that scripture even seems to recommend and praise guilt. However, an
important distinction needs to be made between remorse or Godly grief and
worldy grief or neurotic guilt.
Remorse, or Godly grief, is the emotion people experience when they
transgress what they take to be a rule of good behavior and wish in retrospect that
they had not done so. Although that feeling is unpleasant, it spurs one to repent
and change one’s ways—to be more Christ-like. An example is King David in
scripture. Although he is guilty of murder and adultery, in Psalm 51 he is not
engaged in self-downing, but rather acknowledges the badness of the acts and
focuses on the loving forgiveness of God and repents for the bad deeds. David,
however, changes his ways and moves on to become one of the greatest rulers of
Israel.
Neurotic guilt, on the other hand, is the emotion people experience when
they believe that they absolutely should not have transgressed a rule of good
behavior and they are no good or worthless as a result. This form of guilt tends
not to spur people to repent and change; rather, it leads to depression, inactivity,
or a vicious cycle of beating themselves up emotionally, feeling guilty, tiring of
the guilt, repeating the transgression, and beating up on themselves, ad nauseum.
Their thinking becomes so beclouded that they do the same thing over and over
again—the very thing about which they made themselves feel guilt in the first
54 Steve Johnson
Articles Section
Conclusion
REFERENCES
56 Steve Johnson