I’ve heard of Stephen Seamands, but I’ve never read his books – typically popular books found in most Christian Bookshops, but recently Canadian friend Len Hjalmarson drew my attention to one of his more recent books – Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service.
In the section “Our Need for Relational Wholeness” (Chapter), he quotes Stephen Stratton from his excellent (albeit brief) article titled: Trinity, Attachment, and Love (well worth a read!). Stratton writes:
“…Love is revealed in a dance of self-giving and self-limiting movement. It grows out of a dynamic balance of relational boundaries where self can be asserted for the sake of another and self can be denied for the sake of another…
…The fall came as a self-protective denial of purpose …and a self-centered rejection of love. Because of Adam and Eve’s choice, love was abandoned as the heart of the created order, and fear became the pervading theme. The kingdom of love, where another is a source of life, was cast off. The usurping kingdom of fear, where another is a threat, was accepted. We, like them, are still formed in relationships, but now as a result, we develop oppositionally, not collaboratively. Before the fall, we were shaped as we created the conditions for love to thrive for one another. There is no better definition of stewardship. Since the fall, however, we tend to be shaped by the necessity of protection. We seem driven to create the space for our own invulnerability and security. Living in the dynamic tension of love seems to us no longer tenable. In every relational situation, we are faced with this Garden temptation: create space for love or create space for self-protection [and/or self-gratification]…
… Contemporary Trinitarian theology’s understanding of personhood with attachment theory; the psychological and neurobiological study of human relating. Similar to the Trinitarian concept of being-in-relationship, attachment theory considers the dynamic balance of selves-in-relationship, without overemphasizing self or relations. Like the persons of the Trinity, human selves in proper relationships, rooted in love and characterized by dynamic interdependence, are never separate from one another nor subsumed by one another.
However, because we typically operate out of fear and self-protection rather than love, attachment theory sees us falling into two unhealthy relational styles. The first finds its security in an overemphasis on relationships. Those who use this strategy [even unaware] often cling to sources of security and demand responsiveness, especially in times of distress. The second finds its security in separation from others. Those who adhere to this strategy are often counter-relational and may over invest themselves in what must be done around them, particularly in difficult times. Instead of living in a place of secure attachment, our self-protective efforts rooted in fear drive us toward preoccupation with attachment or avoidance of attachment. In Miroslav Volf’s words, we tend toward either unhealthy “embrace” or unhealthy “exclusion”…”
You can find Stephen Stratton’s thought-provoking article online here. I was particularly struck by the places the section I’ve underlined takes you. At one level it suggests that everything works against, for example “marriage” – the underlying or default setting is “self”, independence and “opposition”; rather than collaboration, the other first, and interdependence.
Comments