Attachment to God, Part 3: Attachment Styles and God

From our last post it appears that relationship with God may be fruitfully explored using attachment theory. However, to do so, we need to explore the literature on what are known as attachment styles.

The attachment bond does not simply vary in intensity, going from a strong attachment to a weak attachment. Rather, one of the discoveries of attachment theory is that attachment is a multidimensional construct, a mix of features which combine to create a unique attachment experience, the attachment style.

Attachment styles were initially investigated in the laboratory of Mary Ainsworth. By observing children in the Strange Situation (a laboratory protocol that scripted separation and reunion events between a child and caregiver mixed in with the presence of a stranger) Ainsworth was able to observe the intensity of the two attachment anxieties, stranger anxiety and separation anxiety. What Ainsworth noted was that children displayed different levels of attachment anxiety. Some children showed excessive anxiety (both stranger and separation) and were labeled Anxiously attached. Some children showed almost a complete absence of anxiety (and this is not a good thing, a child who doesn't care if they are separated from parents or who doesn't display some wariness with strangers is worrisome) were labeled Avoidantly attached. Finally, children who showed appropriate but not excessive levels of anxiety were labeled Securely attached. Later on, a fourth style was added, Disorganized attachment, for children who displayed inconsistent manifestations of anxiety making them difficult to classify. What we take away from all this is that although we have our attachments--parents, lovers, friends, God--we don't experience these attachments in the same way. Some of us are needy, dependent, jealous, fearful, and anxious. Others of us are dismissive of relationships, self-reliant, disinterested in intimacy, and hesitant to make commitments.

Is there any way to make these sense of these differences? Early on in the attachment literature an attempt was made to appeal to "internal working models" to explain the different attachment styles.
These models were cognitive and emotional representations of Self and Other. First, you could have either a Positive or Negative view of your Self. Second, you could have a Positive or Negative view of your Attachment Figure. The mix of these models was believed to create the four attachment styles observed both in childhood and adulthood. This can be seen in the figure here. (Note that there is some terminology change from Ainsworth's early terms. The Key is: Anxious = Preoccupied, Avoidant = Dismissive, Secure remains Secure, Disorganized = Fearful. The former terms tend to be used by childhood researchers and the latter terms by adulthood researchers. I know, it's confusing. I even had to clarify this for a reviewer of a recent article of mine. Ph.D.s even have trouble keeping the labels straight.)

If you think through the attachment styles and their associated working models the mapping makes good sense:

You're Securely attached if you have a healthy view of both yourself and your attachment figure.

You're Preoccupied in your attachment if you think you are a piece of trash while your attachment figure is wonderful and amazing (e.g., "I don't deserve her. She's too good for me.").

You're Dismissive in your attachment if you think you are wonderful and amazing while your attachment figure is a piece of trash (e.g., "I can do better than this. She's not good enough for me.")

You're Fearful in your attachment if you think everyone is trashy. You are unworthy of love and people are untrustworthy. Thus, all relationships are filled with anxiety and negativity.

Later on in the attachment literature the "internal working model" scheme gradually gave way to a model that focused more upon the emotional experience of the attachment than upon the cognitive representations of Self or Other.


What are the main emotional experiences involved in attachment styles? Two dimensions appear to capture these experiences. The first dimension is Anxiety about Abandonment: The anxiety that you will be abandoned, left, or discarded by the Attachment Figure. The other dimension is Avoidance of Intimacy: The need to avoid relational commitment, dependency, or intimacy. People can be either High or Low on these two dimensions creating the familiar four-fold attachment typology. The figure here shows this new scheme.

What does any of this have to do with God?

Well, if relationship with God can be understood as an attachment bond then attachment styles should tend to manifest themselves in the God-relationship. That is, people should manifest an attachment style with God. What would these look like? Well, following the schemes above, the expectation would be that people would tend to have one of four main experiences of God:

The Secure Attachments:
These believers would have a healthy view of themselves. They would also have a healthy view of God. That is, they would have little fear or concern that God would abandon them. God is experienced as trustworthy and dependable. A keeper of His promises. Thus, intimacy with God is sought and longed for.

The Preoccupied Attachments:
These believers have a positive view of God but a negative view of Self. Thus, they feel "not good enough." That is, they will feel guilty, shamed, and "bad." This "badness" leads to worries that God will reject or abandon them due to their sinfulness. They crave intimacy with God but this intimacy is tinged with a need to "perform" for God to secure His favor and continued presence.

The Dismissive Attachments:
These believers have a positive view of themselves and a negative view of God. Thus, these believers will be more self-reliant and less willing to rely or depend upon God as God is deemed to be "unpredictable," "unreliable," or "untrustworthy."

The Fearful Attachments:
These believers have a negative view of themselves and God. That is, they are chronically caught in an approach-avoidance conflict with God. They fear abandonment by God but reject intimacy with God at the same time. Either way--pulling away or drawing close--they are afraid.

Clearly, attachment theory cannot explain ALL of the God experience. But look at the list above. Have you seen these types in your church? Is not this theory capturing a part of the God-experience? If so, might not pastors, ministers, and church leaders need to be aware of the relational dynamics at play in their churches?

This is what I think attachment theory is teaching us: Loving God is complicated. In ways we might might not have fully realized. And I think church leaders need to be aware of these complications. There is no "generic" relationship with God. And, thus, no one way to get people to be "closer" to God. In my view this has been a chronic mistake in our churches, the assumption that people simply vary in on how "close" they are to God. That is, some are "close" to God while others are "far" from God. That is too simplistic. Some people have issues with God that affect how closely they will approach Him. Others have issues with their own intrinsic lovability. Despite assurances to the contrary, these believer suspect that God doesn't love them. Still others are simply confused by the whole God-relationship. Some are worried. Some are apathetic.

In short, it's complicated. Like love, God is a roller-coaster ride.

Which means you need to know where people are coming from before you try to help them.