GOD
Dr. Tim Clinton & Dr. Joshua Straub


The Sacred Romance -“ Lover of our Soul ”

Love and Marriage -- Genesis 2:18-25; SOS;
Matt.19; I Cor. 7; I Cor. 13; Eph.5:21 ff; I
Peter 3:1-10

The Family -- Deut. 6:6-9, Psalm 127; I Tim. 5:8

The Big Five

Seeks closeness in times of trouble

Safe Haven

Exploration

Separation  Anxiety/Anger

Loss  Grief



Self – Am I worthy of love?
Other – Are others reliable? Trustworthy?

A set of conscious and unconscious rules that organize attachment experiences and act as filters through which an individual interprets relational experiences
(Main et al.,
1985)


Self – Anxiety
Others – Avoidance
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)

Secure Attachment
Self Dimension
•I ’ m worthy of love
•I ’ m capable of getting the love I need
Other Dimension
•Others are willing and able to love me
•I can count on you to be there for me
Ambivalent Attachment
Self Dimension
•I am not worthy of love (I feel flawed)
•I ’ m not able to get the love I need without being angry or clingy
Other Dimension
•Capable but unwilling (bc my flaws)
•May abandon me (bc my flaws)
Avoidant Attachment
Self Dimension
•I ’ m worthy of love (false pride)
•I ’ m capable of getting love I want and need (false sense of mastery)
Other Dimension
•Others are incompetent
•Others are untrustworthy
Disorganized Attachment
Self Dimension
•I ’ m not worthy of love
•I ’ m unable to get the love I need
Other Dimension
•Others are unwilling
•Others are unable
•Others are abusive; I deserve it

Secure Attachment
 Full range
 Good control
 Self-soothes
 Shares feelings
 OK with others ’ feelings
Ambivalent Attachment
 Full range
 Poor control
 Can ’ t self soothe
 Shares feelings too much
 Overwhelmed by others ’ feelings
Avoidant Attachment
 Restricted affect
 Focus is on control
 Uses things to self soothe
 Keeps feelings buried
 Doesn ’ t share feelings
Disorganized Attachment
 Full range, but few positive feelings
 Poor control
 Can ’ t self-soothe
 Can ’ t really share with others
 Overwhelmed by others ’ feelings
 Dissociates

Secure Attachment
 Comfortable with closeness
 Shares feelings and dreams
 Willing to commit
 Balances closeness and distance
 Participates in non-sexual touch
Avoidant Attachment
 Not comfortable with closeness
 Withholds feelings and dreams
 Difficulty with commitment
 Distances
Ambivalent Attachment
 Desires closeness, but never seems to have enough
 Wants to merge with other
 Preoccupied with abandonment
 Clings and criticizes
Disorganized Attachment
 Desires closeness, but fears and avoids it
 Wants to merge, then wants to distance
 Terrified of abandonment
 Sabotages closeness
 Attracted to people who victimize

SELF
Positive View
Low Anxiety
Negative View
High Anxiety
SECURE
Comfortable with intimacy and autonomy
PREOCCUPIED
Preoccupied with relationships and abandonment
DISMISSING
Downplays intimacy, overly self-reliant
FEARFUL
Fearful of intimacy, socially avoidant
Figure 1.Bartholomew
’ s model of self and other

The Big Five as it relates to God

Seeks closeness in times of trouble

Safe Haven

Exploration

Separation  Anxiety/Anger

Loss  Grief




-Research shows people seek God for a safe haven and secure base during times of stress.
Most researched area of attachment theory in the context of religion
In times of emotional distress or loss, it has been found that people:
-turn to prayer rather than the church
-grieving persons tend to increase their faith and religious devotion
-soldiers pray more frequently in combat
-times of death and divorce
-fears associated with serious illness
-emotional crises
-relationship problems
-other negative events


As substitute attachment figure
(Kirkpatrick, 1992)

Provides “ felt security ”
(Sroufe, 1977)

More similar to parent-child relationship but moderate and consistent link to romantic attachment
(Kirkpatrick, 1992, 1999; Rowatt & Kirkpatrick,
2002)

Measured on two dimensions: Anxiety and
Avoidance
(Beck & McDonald, 2004)

THE ATTACHMENT TO GOD INVENTORY
(Beck and McDonald, 2004)
The Experiences in Close Relationships scale
(Brennan et al. 1998)
-Avoidance of Intimacy
-Anxiety about Abandonment

Increased anxiety of abandonment
Preoccupation and worry
Angry protest
Increased jealousy
Resentment
Concerns that they are lovable
Increased Avoidance
A reluctance to communicate
Avoidance of emotionality
Obsessive self-reliance

-God may serve as a compensatory attachment figure for individuals displaying insecure attachment patterns
(Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1997, 1998).
--avoidant attachment types had higher incidents of sudden conversions. These results indicate that God may serve the role of a substitute attachment figure
(emotional compensation), compensating for the distant, unresponsive care-giving style they experienced in infancy and childhood. This hypothesis is based upon
Ainsworth ’ s (1985) findings that those with insecure attachment styles seek substitute objects of attachment.

Assessing Attachment with God
Correspondence Hypotheses
proposes that individuals with secure attachment styles are more likely to sustain a future belief and relationship with God because a foundation has been established throughout childhood. This hypothesis is based on Bowlby ’ s (1969) idea that relationship permanence and stability stem from stable working models of attachment
(Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1997, 1998).

According to this hypothesis--the explanation to the root of religiousness in securely attached individuals may be derived “ from without ” , or socialization processes, whereas the religiousness of the insecurely attached individual may be derived “ from within ” , or emotional regulation (Granqvist & Hagekull).

The connection between attachment insecurity and sudden religious conversion may be considered the most robust and corroborated finding from the research on attachment and religion…This interpretation is in line with ambivalents ’ observed tendency to desperately seek care and easily fall in love, and may be a continuation of the inconsistency in parental caregiving that has been shown to be characteristic of parents in ambivalent dyads

Step I: Remember Your Story –
Narrative Recall
Step II: Recognize Your Pain and Need for Healing – “ Can ’ t heal what you don ’ t feel ”

Step III: Reframe the Meaning of Your
Story
Step IV: Repair Your Story –
‘ forgiveness, grace and acceptance ’
Step V: Reconnect – deepening emotional strands of safety, trust and intimacy; able to accept influence from others.







Safety
Education
Containment
Understanding
Restructuring
Engaging