Transcript here - Tim Clinton

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
Internal Working Models



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)
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
Measuring Attachment Beliefs
Positive View
Low Avoidance
Negative View
High Avoidance
OTHER
Positive View
Low Anxiety
SELF
Negative View
High Anxiety
SECURE
PREOCCUPIED
Comfortable with intimacy
and autonomy
Preoccupied with
relationships and
abandonment
DISMISSING
FEARFUL
Downplays intimacy, overly
self-reliant
Fearful of intimacy, socially
avoidant
Figure 1.Bartholomew’s model of self and other
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
Increased Avoidance
A reluctance to communicate
Preoccupation and worry
Avoidance of emotionality
Angry protest
Obsessive self-reliance
Increased jealousy
Resentment
Concerns that they are
lovable
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
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”
Breaking Free
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.
Attachment-based therapy






Safety
Education
Containment
Understanding
Restructuring
Engaging