GOD ATTACHMENT
Dr. Tim Clinton & Dr. Joshua Straub
MADE FOR RELATIONSHIPS


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
Attachments vs.
Close Relationships
The Big Five
 Seeks closeness in times of trouble
 Safe Haven
 Exploration
 Separation  Anxiety/Anger
 Loss  Grief
Core Beliefs
Relationship Rules
Self
•Am I worthy?
•Am I capable?
•Am I willing?
Other
•Are you trustworthy?
•Are accessible?
•Are you capable?
•Are you willing?
Relationship Rules
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
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
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)
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
Attachment and Feelings
Secure Attachment
Full range
Good control
Self-soothes
Shares feelings
OK with others’ feelings
Avoidant Attachment
Restricted affect
Focus is on control
Uses things to self soothe
Keeps feelings buried
Doesn’t share feelings
Ambivalent Attachment
Full range
Poor control
Can’t self soothe
Shares feelings too much
Overwhelmed by others’ 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
Attachment and Intimacy
Secure Attachment
Comfortable with closeness
Shares feelings and dreams
Willing to commit
Balances closeness and distance
Participates in non-sexual touch
Ambivalent Attachment
Desires closeness, but never seems
to have enough
Wants to merge with other
Preoccupied with abandonment
Clings and criticizes
Avoidant Attachment
Not comfortable with closeness
Withholds feelings and dreams
Difficulty with commitment
Distances
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
Attachments vs.
Close Relationships
The Big Five as it relates to God
 Seeks closeness in times of trouble
 Safe Haven
 Exploration
 Separation  Anxiety/Anger
 Loss  Grief
God Attachment



-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
God Attachment



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)
Assessing Attachment with a
Loving God
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
God Attachment Results
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
Attachment and Spirituality
13

Attachment style impacts how God is viewed
Secure: He is there, I can count on Him. He will accepts me, in
spite of my flaws
 Avoidant: He isn’t there for me when I need Him. I will have
to go at life alone. I don’t really need Him.
 Ambivalent: I’m too flawed; God is sure to reject me. I
probably committed the unpardonable sin
 Disorganized: I’m flawed, beyond repair. God will strike me
down if I turn toward Him. He will surely reject or punish me.

Christian Attachment Therapy
Assessing Attachment with God
Compensation Hypotheses
-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).
Thoughts on Hypotheses
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).
Thoughts on Hypotheses
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
Three Kinds of Religious Doubt

Factual

Emotional

Volitional
Qualities of Sensitive, Growth Promoting
Relationships







Warmth and security—responsiveness and attunement
Regulation so child is not overwhelmed
Relatedness and engagement
Back and forth emotional signaling and gesturing
Problem solving
Using ideas in meaningful and functional way
Thinking and reasoning
Breaking Free
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.