Josselson's Relational Schema with Biblical Reflections

(by Bradley T. Morrison , December 14, 1993)

Introduction

The primary purpose of this general study of relatedness is to begin to understand the specific male experience of intimacy so that we men can learn what to do to be intimately related. Further, I want to begin to develop an understanding of male intimacy that is informed by our faith in Jesus Christ. However, before I can address the specifics of male intimacy and the specifics of a theology of male intimacy, I must familiarize myself with the body of literature offering general theories of relatedness. So then, the present study will not directly address gender differences in relatedness as offered by Josselson and other writers.

My purpose here, then, is to begin the review of the literature for my M.Th. thesis by becoming familiar with the clinical language and terms for intimacy. This essay will fit relational theories or statements on intimacy into Josselson's schema in The Space Between Us. I believe that Josselson's schema accommodates most or all statements on relatedness, thus helping us to make sense of multiple and parallel theories.

My second purpose is to begin relating theories of intimacy to the biblical material, since this is a theological thesis where theological integration is expected. I will compare the gospel narratives of Jesus's life, passion, and resurrection to Josselson's schema of relatedness. My hunch is that Josselson's schema offers a refreshing interpretation of what Jesus teaches us about relatedness by clarifying the ways in which Jesus was in relationship with those around him.

My third purpose is to begin to understand how we the church expresses our intimate relatedness to Jesus Christ. I will compare popular hymns from The Hymn Book of the United Church of Canada to Josselson's schema. I have found that Josselson's schema offers a refreshing interpretation of how the church expresses its relatedness to Jesus Christ.

Part I : Theories of Intimacy

Introduction

Josselson's purpose is to develop a much needed language of relatedness. We have a language of self, but not of self-in-relationship. So then, when we speak of "intimacy" we have no handy language to help us speak of the many different experiences of intimacy. Josselson seeks to systematize a language of relatedness:

But even though we are now more sympathetic to the serious study of the interpersonal, we lack both navigational instruments and road maps. This is a different sort of place, this interpersonal sphere. It exists in the realm of the subjective and affective, the symbolic and the transcendent. Much of what really matters here is beyond words (15).

I have found Josselson's road map useful in navigating through the complex experience of relatedness or intimacy.

Josselson begins her discussion of relatedness with the metaphor of space (4). Relatedness is a matter of degrees or experiences of space. We experience physical space between us. And we experience emotional space between us. Our struggle as humans is to overcome this physical and emotional space between us. Whereas Freud worked from the model of the Guilty Man, battling libidinal impulses to create society and Kohut worked from the model of the Tragic Man, continued disappointment and enragement at falling short of the narcissistic ambitions of the self, Josselson offers the model of the Yearning (Wo)man. As humans we long to overcome the space between us, and we struggle to keep this longing out of consciousness. We forever seek increasingly more connectedness in our desperate struggle to escape the pain of aloneness.

Josselson offers eight categories or dimensions of relatedness along with their pathological poles (261).

A reading of these dimensions suggests a comparison to Erikson's eight developmental stages:

Further comparison, beyond the scope of this essay, can be made to Erikson's schemata of Radius of Significant Relations, Core-pathology/Basic Antipathies, Related Principles of Social Order, Binding Ritualizations, and Ritualism (Erikson, 1982:32).

The parallel with Erikson's developmental stages raises the question as to whether or not Josselson considers an epigenetic principle to be operative in her schema. I could find no indication of this in her book. Nonetheless, a consideration of the epigenetic principle can only serve to enrich a theoretical understanding of Josselson's categories. An adult's experience of relatedness is not limited to that of "resonance/mutuality" or "embeddedness." Rather, each of the dimensions of relatedness in Josselson's schema is accessible to the adult. The important point is that, depending on the development of the adult, he or she is faced with a developmental crisis of relatedness as one of the dimensions of relatedness reaches an ascendency in the overall relational development. The successful negotiating of the relational demands of this developmental crisis serve as a foundation for movement through other relational dimensions.

A reading of Josselson's eight categories also suggests an internal pattern therein. The first four and perhaps five of the dimensions seem to be experiences of relatedness where passivity predominates in some degree or the other. The final three or four stages involve a predominantly active relatedness by the person in relationship. This is not to say that even the youngest infant is not active in his or her relationships or that the most mature adult cannot be passive in a relationship. However, the nature of the relational dimension suggests a predominance of either passivity or activity. At the conclusion of this chapter I shall attempt to address this issue of passivity vs. activity by integrating Josselson's schema with family systems theory.

Holding

The first of Josselson's eight categories of relatedness is "holding" or, more appropriately, "being held." Our first interpersonal experience as human beings is that of being held (6). We are held or contained in the arms of our parents, wrapped in blankets, placed in cribs, strapped in car seats. Josselson calls these "holding environments" (33), which become more complex as we grow. We are held by our family, emotional relationships (35), and meaning systems (38). With meaning systems we are "grounded." So then, Tillich can speak about God as the ground of our being. From these external and later internalized or symbolic holding systems, the child develops and the adult sustains what Erikson termed basic trust. Josselson says that being held meets a very basic human need: "In holding , we experience ourselves as contained by another; powerful arms keep us from falling" (6). Being held keeps us from falling.

And just as Erikson's basic trust is foundational to later developmental stages, we can see the significance of the "holding environment" in Josselson's other relational categories. Attachment behaviour (rapprochement) includes what Mahler called a refueling, and Josselson points to being held as that very "fuel" (30). In Josselson's "eye-to-eye validation" or what others may call mirroring or attunement, the child seeks to internalize the holding environment of mother and then more mature idioms (6). We can speak of being held in or caught by the glance of a loved one. When Josselson speaks of "embeddedness" we note the parallel to being held by meaning systems and surrounded by warm human bodies.

In terms of basic adult relatedness or intimacy, Josselson again and again encountered the notion of "thereness" in her interviews with people (31). My wife is "there" for me. My mother and father, who are still alive, are "there" when I phone home. This emphasis on proximity, Josselson argues, is built upon the notion of holding. One needs to be "there" in order to hold us. Even in death we struggle to maintain some sense of proximity to the deceased loved one. An elderly woman in one congregation told me that even years after her husband's death, he still walks through the door at 6:00 p.m., and she knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that her husband is "there" at the supper table with her.

Into Josselson's category or language of holding we can place much of the object relations and developmental theories:

1. Early childhood origins of intimacy

Daniel Stern (1990) argues that intimacy and empathy begin in the cradle (3). In their need and desire to know what their baby is experiencing, which is humanly impossible, parents take their best "guess." And that guess is inevitably informed by their own transgenerational construction of reality. These guesses are necessary and they are prompted by that wonderful human desire to share the internal experience of another person. Stern's observation from parent-child interactions suggests conclusion for adult to adult intimacy. If intimacy and empathy are first learned in the parent's guess of the child's inner experience; and further, if intimacy and empathy construct the infant's reality, then it must follow that the infant's intersubjectivity with the parent shapes the parent's reality. If this mutual shaping of behaviour and reality exists between parent and child, then it must also exist in the adult to adult experience of relatedness. That is to say, my relationship with Sarah shapes her reality, and her's mine.

Stern also suggests that the pre-verbal infancy stage (where much holding takes place) is a necessary developmental stage teaching the child the very complex world of human non-verbal interaction (52). Metacommunication is grounded in the child's pre-verbal demands for holding and containment.

Like Stern, Solomon (1989) suggests that "...marriages are made not in heaven but in the earliest dynamic interactions between parent and child, which are repeatedly reenacted in adult relationships" (126). Though Josselson agrees that being held is a prestage to later developmental tasks and successful adult intimacy, she resists the tendency to reduce adult relatedness to early infant experience (24-5). To do so, she argues, keeps us from expanding our understanding of later adult relatedness. Thus, Josselson's attempt at creating a developmental language of relatedness that allows for cognitive growth over time, growth that leads us to later reinterpretations of early childhood interpersonal experiences. Josselson's argument here should not be taken lightly. She is resisting the temptation to ascribe all adult relational pathology to inaccessible infantile experiences. That we grow and reinterpret relational experiences suggests that we can take responsibility for our relationships in the present.

2. Holding and Containing

Many theorists have expanded the notion of holding beyond tangible, physical holding. Stern (1990) notes that a child of six weeks is predisposed to visual fascination with "frames" (20) such as the frame of the mother's face. Stern adds to this a description of "containment" as an envelope of sound, touch, motion, and new position. In the third part of this essay I will expand on this notion of sound as containment. Here is a more dynamic and vibrant picture of holding when compared to the unidimensional definition of holding as surrounding an infant with physical touch.

As a therapist, I can avail myself to these strategies of "holding" that need not include physical touch. Solomon (1989) speaks of the therapeutic encounter as a containment process where toxic projections may be redirected back to a patient in a manner that does not evoke more anxiety than the couple can endure (155). Lachkar (1992) also speaks of therapy as a containment process. As a container, the therapist can detoxify and return to the patient his or her projected parts modelling that "bad" parts (needs, anxieties, rage, disappointment, fear, etc.) can be incorporated within the self.

Attachment

Josselson's second dimension of relatedness is "attachment." Again, attachment behaviour is readily observable in early childhood activity. Erikson (1980) relates attachment behaviour to the maturation of the muscle system, allowing him or her to move away and explore (68). Josselson compares attachment to holding, but characterizes attachment as a more active experience (45). The child begins to distinguish between mother and other objects, making possible the child's strong attachment to the mother as a specific object among many (6). Whereas previously the child was the one who was held, now the child can hold onto or cling to (6) the mother. However, we may also understand attachment behaviour as the child returning to be held by the mother.

Attachment behaviour continues throughout the life cycle. We seek to attach ourselves to people, structures, and systems throughout life in an attempt to flee the pain of aloneness. Attachment can be understood as the attempt to keep something or someone close by or at the centre of our existence (6). Josselson draws upon the work of Bowlby in her explication of attachment behaviour in childhood. To describe attachment behaviour in later childhood, Josselson draws on the work of Bowlby's colleague Mary Ainsworth. According to Ainsworth, the child learns to approach social relationships according to expectations of responsiveness and availability of others formed in earlier childhood (47). The same principle continues into adulthood: our working model of attachment is rooted in our experiences with our earliest attachment figures, and these expectations impact on how we expect others will treat us in relationships (48).

Josselson argues that attachment needs continue into adulthood, indicating healthy human development (48). When an adult is securely attached to other objects, that adult has an awareness of the "thereness" of others. When we are aware and confident that someone is "there" for us, we can count on that someone to respond to us in our needs, saving us from the pain of aloneness (53).

Theories on attachment behaviour have filled volumes on their own. Below I will highlight some of the main writers and make parallels to Josselson's dimension of attachment.

1. Object Relations

Margaret Mahler (1975) conceived of what Josselson would call attachment behaviour as the stage of separation-individuation. This stage, occurring from about the age of six months to three years, has a series of subphases: differentiation, practicing, rapprochement, and libidinal object constancy. The final task of this stage is for the child to internalize a representation of the mother-object. This inner "picture" of the mother gives the child the security needed to venture out into the world on his or her own toward the development of a sense of self. Using Josselson's language, the child is able to internally maintain the "thereness" of the mother. Bader & Pearson (1988) make an interesting comment on a mother's ability to allow attachment behaviour, saying that "Without it, the toddler will expend a great deal of energy attempting to compel the mother to be more available-energy that would be better utilized in the synthesis of a diversity of ego and self functions" (8).

The object relations school also recognizes the importance of transitional objects in the child's development of a stable internalization of the mother (e.g. Cashdan 1988:41). Lachkar (1992), commenting on the use of transitional objects by adults, suggests two types of transitional objects: diversional and healthy. Diversional transitional objects confuse or obstruct healthy transition (108), whereas the healthy use of a transitional object is to facilitate relational growth. Lachkar suggests that even adult friends may be used as transitional objects in one of two ways: to "enhance communication, intimacy, and understanding, or...to block intimacy with others"(108).

2. Bowlby

In his book, A Secure Base, John Bowlby (1988) offers some parallels between his ethological theory of attachment and systems theory. Bowlby compares the attachment behaviour system to "a physiological system organized homeostatically" set to regulate body functions between acceptable limits (29). Attachment as a behavioral system has a homeostatic function for the relational and psychological human being.

Bowlby is clear that his theory of attachment differs from that offered by the object relations school. Expanding his definition to include adult behaviour, Bowlby points to all behaviour that allows a person to gain or maintain "proximity to some other clearly identified individual who is conceived as better able to cope with the world" (26). Again, attachment behaviour has a homeostatic function, be it to cope emotionally or survive physiologically.

By guaranteeing the proximity or availability of an attachment figure, attachment behaviour gives a feeling of security and encourages people to value and continue relationships (26). Even in adulthood, especially in emergencies, attachment behaviour can be identified. Bowlby argues that attachment behaviour, the tendency to maintain proximity to others, is basic to human nature (27). In her book on intimacy, Harriet Goldhor Lerner makes a similar argument that the propensity to form relationships is a natural behaviour that often inhibits the more difficult and unnatural task of defining one's self; further, when our intimate relationships demand a more clearly defined self, we use distance to reduce our anxiety. Daniel Stern further develops Bowlby's systems approach to attachment behaviour as the tension between the attachment system and the exploratory system (67,93).

Passionate Experience

Josselson's third dimension of relatedness is "Passionate Experience." Whereas holding and attachment take place quietly and inwardly, passionate experiences are "noisy and insistent" (70). Josselson notes the psychoanalytic school's understanding of all human relatedness as based in passionate experience or libidinal drives, giving the example of Freud's discourse on the Oedipus complex. Erikson (1982) offers a thoroughly phallic theory of intimacy or coupling (38-9). Erikson explains the genitive differences between intrusive and inclusive social modalities and offers an explanation for the "dependency" stance of woman in heterosexual relationships. Integrating the psychoanalytic tradition with her own schema, Josselson concludes that these pleasure-seeking drives "drive" us to overcome the space between us through sexual union or simply touch. These passionate experiences "transcend" the space between people (7).

Another theme of passionate experience is relatedness as the reduction of tension. Josselson notes that from infancy we have basic drives that seek gratification (6), and the satisfaction of these drives may be understood as the reduction of tension: hunger and eating, bowel movements, sexual arousal and release. The child's need to suck on the breast, a libidinal drive, shapes the child's experience of interpersonal relations (6). Stern's description of hunger (1990) parallel's Josselson's dimension passionate experience by describing the reduction of tension using the metaphor of rhythm. When an infant is hungry, there is a global storm of rhythm throughout the nervous system, cardiovascular, and breathing and voicing apparatus (32). When an infant is fed, the sucking and flow of milk set up an alternate physiological rhythm (41). Arousal is described as "an internal tension that mounts, a rise in animation or excitation, a growing readiness to act, ether lovingly or hostilely" (64).

Erikson (1982) refers to "play" as a release of pent-up tensions (50). This comment is significant as Erikson refers to his third developmental stage, initiative vs. guilt, as the play stage. In play we find the experience of tension or as Josselson would have it, passionate experience.

It might be that, since passionate experience is a dimension of relatedness that calls on the person to do, this is the reason that men more easily and readily express themselves intimately through sexual behaviour. The connection of sexual behaviour and intimacy has produced a wealth of research on sexuality. Sexuality, when understood as "rhythm" or release of tension, integrates well with Josselson's dimension of relatedness as mutuality or "resonance," the dimension of relatedness that, like sexual behaviour, is most readily identified by society as intimacy. Passionate experience or sexuality may play a significant part in the dance of closeness and distance that comprises the "harmony" of the stage Erikson calls intimacy vs. isolation and Josselson calls mutuality.

Eye-to-Eye Validation

Josselson's fourth stage of relatedness is "eye-to-eye validation." Eye-to-eye validation or relatedness has many parallel terms, including "intersubjectivity" and the "mirroring of internal experience," and "attunement" (Stern 1990:105-6). Josselson even refers to Buber's (1958) notion of the I-Thou relationship in her explication of the healthy eye-to-eye relatedness. Josselson herself understands the eye-to-eye experience as the use of eye contact or eye communication to overcome space (7). It is in the eye's of an intimate other that we find ourselves and can conclude that we are valued, that we exist "in and for someone else" (7).

Just as we focused on Mahler and Bowlby when discussing Josselson's notion of attachment, we could focus on Kohut's self psychology (1977) when discussing Josselson's notion of eye-to-eye validation. Josselson uses Kohut's notion of mirroring to explain that the child learns to know what he or she wants only when there is someone available (thereness) to recognize it with us. Mirroring (empathy, attunement) is a necessary requirement for the development of a healthy self concept (105). Those parts of us that are not adequately mirrored are split off from our personality, leading to narcissism. Elson's (1986) character type of mirror-hungry searches for the perfect mirroring selfobject in a relationship in an effort to overcome feelings of worthlessness.

In early childhood we become aware that our mother or father is a separate person, an "Other." The child then begins to use the Other and his or her reactions as a mirror that can teach the child about his or her own experience. Thus, reflected in the mother's eyes is what will come to be the core of the child's sense of self- a self that will continue to grow in increasingly complex ways as the child and then adult encounters other significant Others. Stern (1990) argues that the reason for the importance of the Other's eyes in the mirroring process seem to be located in the baby's genetically imbued preference for the human face (48) and the eyes as the "geographical center of the face" (49).

Stern suggests that it is in the sharing of glances that the child learns the prerequisites for adult "psychic intimacy" or intersubjectivity (107). It is important, then, how deeply the mother object mirrors the child's inner experiences. In his Diary of a Baby, Stern refers to the important of shared intersubjectivity between the infant Joey and his mother.

But what about sadness, joy, love, desire, pain, boredom?...Will Joey's mother be fully able to share them, or will she be unable, consciously or unconsciously, to let these feelings become full members of the universe Joey can later expect to share with others? (107).

A child who learns that experiences of fear, pain, or sadness will not be mirrored or valued is apt to split these experiences off from his or her personality.

Much has been written recently on the topic of narcissism (Solomon 1989; Lachkar 1992), which relates back to the childhood experiences of eye-to-eye validation. Erikson's definition of successful self-esteem seems grounded in the early childhood experience of eye-to-eye validation and narcissism. Self-esteem, according to Erikson (1980), is a "not too convincing facsimile of his original narcissism and sense of omnipotence" (19). It may be argued from this definition that an adult seeks to couple with another adult who will sustain this original narcissistic stage. Such a view of self-esteem and coupling seems to agree with the relational theories of Solomon and Lachkar.

Idealization and Identification

Josselson's fifth stage is idealization and identification. Josselson points out that as children we grow to recognize that other people, particularly adults, are bigger and stronger than we are. Idealization and identification function to link us to these more powerful people, helping us to become more like them (7). Josselson even makes the comment that idealization or identification is a way to control the other (7). A comparison can be made to Adler's notion that psychological striving is related to the need to overcome or compensate for perceived inadequacies in the person. In recognizing that we are inadequate or powerless, we strive to become more like those more powerful and able. In our need to become more like an other, or even to control that other, we act in ways that overcome the space between us. We seek to climb the ladder to their position, to stand in their shoes or their space.

There has been much recent literature on the mentoring process, which can be very readily related to the relational dimension of identification and idealization. Writers such as Gail Sheehy (1976), Daniel Levinson (1978), Harold Kushner (1986), and Robert Bly (1990) have offered their own theories on the role of men in the idealization/mentoring process.

Stern (1990) locates the earliest signs of idealization in the infant at four and one-half months. Idealization is described by Stern as "physical imitation" and "emotional contagion" (61). The infant will imitate the actions of the mother, and experiences such as emotional upset or laughter are easily shared in the symbiotic relationship of mother and child.

Lillian Rubin (1983) argues that the identification process accounts for why men have a more difficult time at accessing and expressing their feelings. Like Gilligan (1982), Rubin focusses on the need for boys to identify themselves as different or other than their female mother objects. This negative identification away from the mother and positive identification toward the father is necessary for the boy to identify himself as a male self. Rubin argues that this shift in identification from mother to father is a severing of self from the boy's earliest emotional connectedness (71). Coupled with the training that boys receive from their idealized male objects, this severance teaches boys to "camouflage their feelings under cover of an exterior of calm, strength, and rationality" (71).

In adulthood the need for an idealizing other or selfobject is understood by self-psychology as the ideal-hungry character type. Elson (1986) describes this personality as the constant search for someone, perhaps a partner, that can be admired or idealized as powerful, beautiful, intelligent, morally upright, etc. The ideal-hungry personality derives a sense of self-worth so long as he or she can relate to these ideals, so long as the idealized can maintain the semblance of perfection.

Mutuality and Resonance

Josselson's sixth dimension of relatedness is "mutuality and resonance." Mutuality, she says, describes the process, and resonance describes the emotional experience (148). In mutuality the image is of two people walking side-by-side in harmony (7). The language of mutuality is the language of "we," which becomes difficult to communicate in our language which seems to favour language of self. This experience of "we" emerges in the space between people. Josselson takes great care to distinguish the dimension of mutuality/resonance from all the dimensions that precede it in her schema, suggesting that many of the other dimensions of relatedness function as a constellation within the experience of mutuality. For example, unlike eye-to-eye validation where the child expects the Other to confirm or celebrate the child's experience, in mutuality the child and adult invites the Other to share an experience for the simple pleasure that shared experience brings.

Though Josselson claims that it is the dimension of mutuality and resonance that has received the least theoretical attention, I found that most of the material I reviewed could be related to this dimension of relatedness. This may be due to my understanding of these stages developmentally: that is to say, as the sixth stage of Josselson's schema, mutuality and resonance parallel's Erikson's young adulthood stage of intimacy vs. isolation.

When applied to heterosexual relationships, mutuality or resonance can be understood as "fitting together." Much of the literature on heterosexual relatedness explores the nature of this "fit." Erikson (1980) suggested that ego identity (what Ricoeur would call narrative identity) acquires a final strength when coupled with a mate with a complimentary or congruous ego identity--offering no threat to selfsameness (40). Bader & Pearson (1988) comment that well-developed object constancy allows the adult the freedom to be autonomous while maintaining an intimate relationship (8). Here "the perfect is united with the real" (8), a function that escapes the narcissist. Self-psychology refers to the alter-ego personality (Elson 1986) in search of a selfobject or partner that looks, thinks, and believes just as the self, confirming the reality and existence of the self.

Bader & Pearson's categories or stages of relating, I believe, offer sub-stages to Josselson's category of mutuality, where a particular "fit" is described using Mahler's developmental stages as one of the following: Symbiotic-Symbiotic, Symbiotic-Differentiation, Differentiating-Differentiating, Symbiotic-Practicing, Practicing-Practicing, Practicing-Rapproachement. Mature intimacy for Bader & Pearson is the successful completion of "maturational milestones" (59-61): empathy, identification and expression of needs/feelings, capacity to follow through (waiting?), capacity to give while not having needs temporarily met (waiting?), ongoing commitment (waiting?). Further description of healthy and ideal relating is given in chapter 10 under "The Rapprochement-Rapprochement Couple" (202ff.).

Bader and Pearson's model highlights that mutuality is often the "fitting together" of what often understood as "pathological." Cashdan (1988) argues that "...projective identifications are a means of forming relationships, a defense against exposure of the bad self, and a way of righting archaic and painful object relationships" (129). For Solomon (1989), narcissism and intimacy are not mutually exclusive states: "I contend that narcissism is not in itself an illness, but an aspect of relatedness in which the principal focus is on the self and its pressing needs" (43). Couple collusion, for Solomon, can be destructive as well as adaptive (93). Intimacy for Solomon means accepting each other as is and sharing the unresolved residue of the past with each other (154). Josselson's term "resonance" might be understood by Solomon as finding someone who will accept our projective identifications (167)--someone with who our projections resonate.

Even Erikson (1982) raises the question of the positive function of defence mechanisms in successful interrelatedness (83). This is the question directly addressed by Lachkar (1992) in her book on the borderline/narcissistic couple. According to Lachkar, the borderline/narcissist engage in a dance. The narcissist idealizes his partner. Idealized, the borderline evacuates her "bad" self onto the narcissist, giving the narcissist reason to withdraw. The narcissist's withdraw feeds the borderline's personal myth of always being disregarded or abandoned. The narcissist's withdrawal adds to his pattern of disavowing the imperfect and turning to others who will accept idealization. Together, the narcissist is an everything and the borderline is a nothing (61). Here again is a "fit."

Given Lachkar's above description of the borderline/narcissist "fit," one might wonder why a narcissist and a borderline get together and stay together long enough for a relationship--however conflictual--to develop. Bader & Pearson put it simply: the symbiotic stage functions to allow attachment or merger (9). In this period of couple relatedness, few if any demands are made on the relationship or each other, and each partner feels so completely responded to as each so readily seeks to please the other partner. For the narcissist and borderline, there is no need in this period to express or admit needs. Further, the narcissist can experience uninterrupted or unchallenged an idealized partner, and the borderline can enjoy a loss of boundaries and loss of self. Contrary to Bader & Pearson's belief that this period can form the foundation for future couple development, I tend to side with Lachkar who, I believe, would suggest that no symbiotic period could correct the differing intrapsychic needs that will eventually throw the narcissistic/borderline couple into conflict.

Josselson's metaphor or "resonance" also suggests movement--an ongoing movement between closeness and distance. Erikson (1982) suggests the epigenetic relation of the stage of identity formation to intimacy (70). He writes: "the reliability of young adult commitments largely depends on the outcome of the adolescent struggle for identity" (72). Further, basic patterns of identity emerge from a process of affirmation and repudiation of one's childhood identifications (72). He offers a reference to emerging borderline pathology (71). And he once again offers a notion of exclusivity or rejectivity as essential to the development of intimacy (71). I have difficulty with Erikson's formulation of rejectivity as merely harsh rejection of person's one is not intimate with; rather, I prefer to see a more healthy "rejectivity" as part of the closeness-distance dynamic in intimacy.

Lerner (1989) gives attention to the "dance" of closeness and distance in intimacy. for Lerner, intimacy is when we stay in a relationship over time. In "long term relationships we are called upon to navigate that delicate balance between separateness and connectedness and that we confront the challenge of sustaining both--without losing either when the going gets rough" (1-2). Lerner's book focuses on learning to differentiate (in the Bowan sense) without cutting off connectedness with the people one is differentiating from. True intimacy is a relationship that does not operate at the expense of a "strong, assertive, separate, independent, and authentic self" in either partner (4, 201).

Embeddedness

Josselson's seventh dimension of relatedness is "embeddedness." Josselson uses the metaphor of a jigsaw puzzle (7) to explain our quest to belong or fit in. One thinks of adolescence as the time when we are most concerned with having a place in society, a place among our peers. Erikson's adolescent developmental stage of identity vs. identity diffusion includes the adolescent's concern with group identity. Yet this search for belonging is present with younger children and adults. Young children are concerned with having a place in the family, among the siblings. Adults are concerned with having a place in society or the community in general. Josselson makes reference to Buber's (1965) notion of being "bound up" (72), the sense that collective membership itself keeps us from the pain of aloneness. Much of sociology has concerned itself with the "social" experience of embeddedness.

As adults we experience embeddedness as belonging to groups: church, work, family. Men traditionally have been embedded in their work. Women have been embedded in their family or with their children. Each environment suggests the most primary stage of "being held", thus the term "holding environment" applies to the experience of "being embedded." Different environments of embeddedness bring different timetables of change: those embedded in work will retire. Those embedded with the children will find an empty nest.

Further, the individual has in his or her environment of embeddedness an opportunities to "tend to" the needs of others in the group. The experience of embeddedness is a developmental prerequisite to the relational dimension of "tending to" explored below. In the family, those who need our care can be held and mirrored. In the work place, those who need someone to idealize can be tended to through mentoring.

Josselson's seventh relational dimension of embeddedness, if taken developmentally, seems to be at odds with Erikson's seventh stage of generativity. Erikson's descriptions of generativity do not strike me as congruent with Josselson's category of embeddedness. Indeed, Erikson's generativity (7th stage) is focused on the ego quality of "Care" (1982:57), compared to the care and tending that is representative of Josselson's 8th category. However, this incongruity seems to be overcome by Erikson's comment that "Intimacy and generativity are obviously closely related, but intimacy must first provide an affiliative kind of ritualization that cultivates styles of ingroup living held together...." (71). The relationship of intimacy (resonance) to embeddedness is suggested here.

However, generativity seems to fit with embeddedness when viewed from the perspective that embeddedness is an environment for generativity. Embedded in my work, I have ample opportunities to be creative. Embedded in my family and my children, I have ample opportunity to raise the next generation.

Tending (Care)

Josselson's eighth and final dimension of relatedness is "tending to." From childhood and throughout adulthood relationships, the developing person learns that others have needs and that these needs can be tended to, that other people can be cared for (8). We learn that we can overcome the space that is between us by tending to the needs of others, "offering the self to others' needs" (8). Here we come full circle with Josselson's first dimension of relatedness, "being held." By tending to others' needs, we are in effect holding them in our arms. Tending is not limited to the act of parenting or "holding" an infant, though the overwhelming majority of literature falls under this category. The literature that addresses "tending to" or "caring" includes the topics of caring for the bereaved and the elderly.

It is with this dimension of relatedness that Josselson, and for that matter most philosophers, becomes very philosophical in her use of language. Josselson makes reference to Rollo May's Love and Will, where May characterizes care as a combination of love and will. A further reading of May (1969) offers the notion of "Care" as the opposite of apathy (289). Care seems to integrate May's understanding of decision and intentionality with Heidegger's notion of care (Sorge) as the source of will (289). May notes that the root of "intentionality" is "tend," the meaning of care. "Tend means a tendency, an inclination, a throwing of one's weight on a given side, a movement" (292). Eros as intentionality or care leads us to reach out, to let ourselves be grasped, shaping the future (308). We are drawn toward "ideal forms" in reality--in the universe and in the deeper dimensions of human being (308). Josselson's statement that "When we care, we feel ourselves to be fully in relation to an Other" (198) evokes Heidegger's focus on the Bekümmerung of Dasein (being "there") toward Sorge or "care" (Krell 1977:22) and the multitude of existentialist theology and ethics that Heidegger's ontology generated.

Systems theory

The above study of Josselson's dimensions of relatedness demonstrates how well her schema fits with the schools of object relations and self-psychology and with the developmental life cycle. Our study has, to this point, avoided the question of how Josselson's dimensions might be integrated with the emphasis on transgenerational and personal power as addressed by family systems theory. Though an indepth discussion of Josselson's schema in relation to family system's theory is beyond the scope of this essay, a brief discussion may help to clarify certain issues, including that of passivity vs. activity as mentioned briefly above.

Systems theory has preferred to work with transgenerational lifecycle schemata that do not so readily fit into developmental schemata such as those proposed by Erikson or Josselson. Nichols (1988) proposes a marital life cycle with its core tasks and specific tasks. There are four life cycle stages (23-4): 1) mating and marriage, 2) expansion: parental beginnings and subsequent years, 3) contraction: individuation and eventual separation of youth, and 4) postparental. The core tasks include: internal relationship tasks: commitment (do partners value the relationship, intend to maintain and continue it?); Caring (what are the emotional attachments tying partners to each other?); Communication (can they communicate verbally and symbolically, to share meanings?); Conflict/compromise (can they recognize and deal with disagreement/difference?) external relationship tasks: forming and maintaining appropriate relationships with individuals, systems, and family subsystems outside the relationship. The successful completion of these tasks helps the couple to move through the family life cycle. These marital stages do not readily fit into Josselson's relational schema.

Carter & McGoldrick (1989) understand marriage in terms of the more general family life cycle, suggesting six stages with their emotional processes of transition and second-order change requirements for development (15ff.): 1) leaving home: single young adults, 2) the joining of families through marriage: the new couple, 3) families with young children, 4) families with adolescents, 5) launching children and moving on, 6) families in later life. McGoldrick offers a model of horizontal and vertical stressors into which the developmental models of Erikson or Josselson could be integrated as horizontal stressors. It is within the vertical axis of stressors that system levels (social, communal, familial, individual) are placed by McGoldrick. Are we to conclude that Josselson's schema falls us unable to integrate transgenerational systems with developmental theory?

Carter & McGoldrick, in their discussion of Bowan systems theory (213), differentiate between an intimate relationship and using a relationship to complete one's sense of self through fusion. Such a need for fusion, or what object relations would call projective identification, resists the partner's attempts to differentiate or be free to be one's self. Scarff (1987) speaks of projective identifications in terms of a "familiar internal blueprint" inherited transgenerationally from one's family of origin (355). These discussions of fusion and projective identification in terms of systems theory offer an indirect starting point for integrating parts of Josselson with systems theory.

I believe that it is with the issue of power that Josselson's schema of relatedness can be integrated directly with a systems approach to intimacy. Beavers (1985) defines intimacy in terms of equal overt power between partners (52). An inequality of power in a relationship leaves one partner in a superior position, unable to express feelings of vulnerability, and the other partner in a inferior position, unable to express an assertive potent self. Nichol (1988) agrees that intimacy is related to the power relationship between partners (21). It is on this issue of power (and personal responsibility for one's power) that the feminist critique of systems theory has been directed.

When each of Josselson's dimensions of relatedness are interpreted in terms of passivity vs. activity, a continuum of power from powerless to empowerment emerges. Each of Josselson's dimensions may be placed on this continuum to show the developmental experience of power that is encountered by the self in a relationship:

At one end of the continuum, the dimension of "holding" or "being held" paints the picture of a powerless infant dependent on an all powerful mother (though any nerve-shot mother would argue that it is the helpless baby that is all powerful!). The dimensions of attachment through to idealizing and identification suggest the self in search of power. At the stage of resonance and mutuality there is the potential for an equality and sharing of power. It is at this stage that we encounter the most potential for abusive and collusive power, especially given that partners in this category always have recourse to the previous dimensions of relatedness concerned with seeking power. The dimension of embeddedness suggests the sharing of power within a group and opportunities to experiment with empowering the group and its members. Reaching the other end of the continuum, we are engaged in the act of empowering when we relate to others from the category of tending or caring. Again, with pathological embeddedness and tending, there exists the potential for abuses of power.

Conclusion

We have seen that Josselson's schema of relatedness provides a powerful framework or language into which most theories of intimacy can be organized. We have also explored the issue of power within Josselson's dimensions of relatedness as a framework for beginning to integrate her schema to systems theory's concern with power in relationships.

Part II: Gospel Narratives of Intimacy

Introduction

As I read through Josselson's categories of relatedness, I began to recall images of Jesus engaged in particular experiences of relatedness. My hunch was that the Gospel narratives would recount stories of Jesus being held, experiencing his passion, being idealized, surrounded by disciples, and caring for the sick. I was surprised to find that Josselson's dimensions fit so well into the gospel narratives. Not only was Jesus portrayed in each category, but he was not necessarily always engaged "actively" as the one with the power. I was further surprised to find that Josselson's pathological poles of relational dimensions fit so well within the gospel narratives.

Below I will use Josselson's dimensions of relatedness to offer a mini interpretation of the life of Jesus. We will find that the gospels provide pericopes that portray Jesus within each of Josselson's categories. The comparison will provide a fresh perspective on Jesus experiential understanding of relatedness, moving beyond a mere presentation of what Jesus has to teach about relationships. Further, I will use Josselson's pathological poles of relatedness as lenses through which the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus can be read. What Josselson calls an absence of the relational dimension provides an interesting framework for a reading of the passion and death of Jesus Christ. What Josselson calls an excess of the relational dimensions provides an interesting framework for a reading of the post-resurrection gospel narratives.

The Life of Jesus

Being held. The birth narratives provide images of Jesus being held by adults and a manger. In Mt. 2.14 Joseph flees with Jesus and Mary from danger of falling into Herod's hands. In Lk. 2.7 Jesus is wrapped in bands of cloth and laid in a manger--containment environments. In Lk. 2.28 the aging Simeon takes Jesus in his arms and celebrates the arrival of the messiah.

Attachment. The childhood narratives and the wilderness narratives provide images of Jesus engaged in attachment behaviour. In Lk. 2.43,49 the boy Jesus stays behind in Jerusalem without his parents, suggesting the beginnings of individuation or separation. In Mt. 4.1-11 Jesus experiences his temptation in the wilderness for 40 days--perhaps understood as separation anxiety from his heavenly father. This narrative ends with Jesus being tended to by the angels, receiving his refuelling.

Passionate experience. The suffering of Jesus on the cross might be considered as a passionate experience; however, I will address the passion of Jesus below in terms of all the relational dimensions. In Mt. 3.16 Jesus is baptized, the heavens open, and the Spirit of God descends, alighting on Jesus. Being alightened or filled with the spirit suggests a passionate experience. In Mt. 4.1-11 we read the entire story of Jesus being tempted in wilderness. Temptation suggests passionate experience as the resisting of passionate experience. In Mt. 26.6-13 Jesus is anointed by a woman. Jesus makes no apologies for enjoying the luxury of this experience.

Mirroring. In Mt. 3.17 the baptism of Jesus is followed by the voice of God declaring Jesus to be God's beloved son, in whom God is well pleased. God mirrors to Jesus the sonship of Jesus. In the same passage, John the baptist recognizes or mirrors Jesus' messiahship, being the fulfilment of a prophesy. This need for relational mirroring may address the question as to why the great messiah Jesus Christ would be narrated in such a way that gives John the power to baptize Jesus.

Identification. Again, in Mt. 3.14-15 we can read the baptism of Jesus by John the baptist as Jesus seeking to identify with John the baptist. In Mt. 11.7-15 Jesus praises or idealizes John the baptist. We might read Mt. 4.1-11 as Jesus "anti-idealizing" Satan by refusing to succumb to Satan's temptations. Throughout Matthew's gospel we see Jesus portrayed as identifying with the lowly people of the land. In Mt. 21.1-11 Jesus makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, during which he is validated by the people as a prophet.

Resonance. The "lowly" people Jesus befriends in Matthew's gospel share a dimension of mutuality with Jesus. In Mt. 12.46-50 Jesus says the people who do the father's will are the true brother, sister and mother of Jesus. In Mt. 14.13 Jesus withdraws upon news of John baptist's death, resonating within his own danger of persecution and demonstrating the understanding of resonance as a movement between closeness and distance (withdrawal). In Mt. 26.36ff. Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, at one moment seemingly discordant with the will of his heavenly father, and yet the next moment in harmony with that will, creating a tension in the relationship.

Embeddedness. Throughout the gospels, Jesus walks among the people, empowering them, calling them to follow him, serving them. As early in the gospels as Mt. 1.1-17 Jesus is presented as embedded in an extensive genealogy leading back to the house of David and the offspring of Abraham. In Mt. 4.18-22 Jesus calls his disciples to surround him.

Tending to. As the most mature of relational dimension, it is not surprising that it is easiest to find narratives of Jesus engaged in care. In Mt. 4.23-24 Jesus cures the sick throughout the region. In Mt. 14.22 Jesus feeds the 5,000 after mourning the death of John the baptist. In Mt. 18.10-14 Jesus teaches about tending to or caring for the lost. In Mt. 18.15 Jesus teaches about caring for the sinner. In Mt. 18.21 Jesus teaches about tending to one's offenders through forgiveness. In Mt. 19.13-15 Jesus tends to the little children. In Mt. 26.6ff. Jesus accepts being tended to from the woman who anoints him with oil.

We may also ask questions about Jesus' seemingly anti-social or anti-establishment behaviour. In Mt. 21.12-13 Jesus clears the temple. Perhaps we are taught here that it is only from the dimension of "tending to" or "care" that prophetic behaviour (anti-embeddedness, anti-establishment behaviour) can be truly prophetic and not merely "abusive" anger (cf. Jesus' "woe to..." statements in Mt. 23.1ff.). In Mt. 21.18-22 Jesus curses the fig tree--again an action that is not reducible to violence.

The Passion of Jesus

Falling. A turning point in the gospel narratives comes with the arrest and subsequent suffering and death of Jesus. Here we encounter Jesus' experience of the absence of relational dimensions. In Mt. 26.50 Jesus is arrested--he falls into the hands of the authorities.

Aloneness. After being attached to the disciples, In Mt. 26.56b we read that, upon the arrest of Jesus, all the disciples deserted Jesus and fled. In Mt. 26.58 we find Peter following the movement of Jesus at a distance--antithetical attachment behaviour.

Inhibition. The absence of passionate experience is the inhibition to feeling anything. In Mt. 26.65-67 Jesus has his clothes torn, he is spat upon, and he is struck by his arresting soldiers. This abusive treatment leaves Jesus with a pathological experience of passion. Abuse leads to the deadening of affect.

Rejection. When one fails to receive the validation of eye-to-eye communication, the experience is that of rejection. In Mt. 26.69-75 Peter denies or rejects Jesus three times before the cock crows. In Mt. 27.11 Pilate questions Jesus: "are you king of Jews?" Here the status of Jesus is being questioned, not mirrored, even rejected. yet we read in Mt. 27.19 that Pilate's wife has a dream of innocence related to Jesus. In Mt. 27.28-31 Jesus is mocked by soldiers.

Disillusionment. One of the most powerful moments of the story of Jesus suffering is his experience of distance from God while on the cross. He has identified himself with God throughout his ministry, and now on the cross he cannot access his idealized heavenly father. In Mt. 27.43 Jesus is reminded that he called himself God's son, but no God delivers him now from the cross. In Mt. 27.46 Jesus cries out in great anxiety: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Dissonance. On the cross, the needs of Jesus are far from being met. There is not harmony between his needs and the responses of those who torment him. In Mt. 27.47-48 Jesus' cry is misunderstood, and he is given sour wine to drink, discordant to his needs. In Mt. 27.50-53 Jesus breathes last breath and the temple curtain is torn, the earth shakes, and the dead come to life--the natural harmony of reality is interrupted.

Alienation. After his death on the cross, Jesus experiences the dimension of embeddedness met by every human being: being buried alone in the ground. In Mt. 27.60 the dead body of Jesus is laid to rest, embedded in a tomb, and a great stone is rolled to the door alienating him from the world of the living.

Indifference. Josselson characterizes the absence of caring as an indifference to the needs of others. A dead man is indifferent to all needs. In Mt. 27.59-61 Jesus is dead and is tended to by a rich man named Joseph. Joseph wraps Jesus in linen like a baby; Mary Magdalene and the other Mary look on, most likely devastated, and Jesus is unable to respond to their emotional pain.

The Resurrection of Jesus

Suffocation. Another turning point in the gospel narratives comes with the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Here we encounter Jesus' experience of the excess of Josselson's relational dimensions. Moreover, the gospel narratives focus on the experience of the early church in relation to the risen Christ, and that relationship may be characterized as excessive. In Lk. 24.2 we read of Jesus' resurrection from that suffocating tomb (cf. Mt. 28.1ff.).

Fearful clinging. In Lk. 24.9 the eleven disciples and the woman are shut up together in room in fear. In Jn. 20.19 the disciples are locked up in a house for fear of the Jews, and Jesus appears before them to relieve them with peace. In Mk. 16.8b the women flee the tomb in fear saying nothing. In Mt. 28.10 the women are afraid. In Jn. 20.3 the disciples run to the empty tomb like children in search of the mother for refuelling. In Jn. 20.11 Mary Magdalene weeps at tomb. In Jn. 20.17 Jesus tells Mary not to hold onto her yet. In Lk. 24.31 we read that the disciples eyes were opened and they recognized Jesus; and then Jesus vanished from their sight. This disappearing-reappearing occurs three times in total in Mk. 16.9,12,14. In Mt. 28.9,17 Jesus appears to the disciples and women two times. In Mk. 16.20 Jesus is "internalized"--the disciples carry Jesus with them as they spread the gospel: "while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message...."

Obsessive love. An excess of passionate experience is called obsessive love by Josselson. The narratives of Jesus' resurrections portray many dimensions of obsession. The weeping of the women and the disciples is evidence of their deep obsession with their master. That Jesus would overcome death to return to his disciples as promised might be interpreted as obsessive. These excesses need not be interpreted as unhealthy.

In Jn. 20.22 Jesus breathes on the disciples, giving them the holy spirit--a post-resurrection passionate experience. In Acts the description of Pentecost is filled with passionate images. Even in his death, Jesus enjoys the passionate experience of hunger and eating (Jn. 24.41ff.)

Transparency. Josselson notes that excessive eye-to-eye validation leads to transparency. In Lk. 24.16ff. on the road of Emmaus the disciples do not recognize Jesus (cf. mt.16.12-13). In Lk. 24.31 we read, "But then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from his sight." In Jn. 20.14,16 Mary Magdalene does not recognize Jesus on first glance. In Jn. 20.24,28 Thomas has not yet seen the resurrected Jesus and doubts his existence. After placing his fingers in the wounds of Jesus, Thomas cries "my lord, my God." In Jn. 20.29 Jesus calls for belief--validation--without seeing. In Jn. 21.4 the fishing disciples do not recognize Jesus on beach until "the beloved disciple" recognizes Jesus. In Lk. 24.37,40 the disciples think they are seeing a ghost but are then overjoyed upon recognizing Jesus. In Mt. 28.17 we read that "Some worshipped the risen Jesus, and some doubted."

Slavish devotion. It sounds like slavish devotion that the disciples go into all the world proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Jn. 21.6 the disciples are told by the stranger Jesus to cast their net on the right side of boat--a useless attempt. And the disciples do so unquestioningly; yet, their obedience yields a overwhelming catch of fish. In Lk. 24.53 the disciples are said to be continually in the temple blessing God. In Mt. 28.16 the disciples went to mountain as directed by Jesus--again, doing the unreasonable without question.

Merging. When there is an excess of resonance or mutuality, the danger is a merging of partners. Yet the gospels celebrate the merging of Jesus with the disciples and the disciples with other members of the church. In Jn. 21.15-17 Jesus gives his threefold question to Peter, "Do you love me...Feed my sheep," a command to conformity and obedience that suggests compulsive caregiving. In Mt. 28.20b Jesus professes his eternal presence or merger with the disciples: "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Overconformity. An excess of embeddedness leads to overconformity among members of a group. The gospel description of Christ's call to the church uses the language of overconformity. In Mk. 16.15 Jesus commands the disciples to go into all the world. Jesus claims that the baptized believer will be saved and others will be condemned. Baptism is presented as strong conformity. In Mt. 28.20a Jesus teaches the disciples to obey everything that Jesus has commanded them.

Compulsive caregiving. The call of the church to do the work of the church is given in language that suggests caring for the entire world. In Mk. 16.15ff. the world depends on me and you getting out there and spreading the gospel. In Mt. 28.20b Jesus pledges his own eternal presence with and care for the church and its members: "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Conclusion

The purpose of the above study is to point out that Jesus engages in the whole spectrum of human relatedness. As Christians we are called to follow Christ, to become more Christ-like. In our attempt to be (or do) more intimate, we have a model in Jesus Christ. We can reflect on the narratives of Jesus and use the language provided by Josselson in our study of Jesus own experience of relatedness. Here we have an experiential foundation for the development of a theology of intimacy.

Part III : Sacred Hymns & Sacred Intimacy

Introduction

Hymn collections are in many ways "canonical," reflecting a faith community's understanding of its relationship with God. Thus, we could expect that hymn lyrics would reflect Josselson's dimensions of relatedness--or at least predominate with one category or two. My hunch is that a study of church hymns will yield some information useful in teaching congregations through music about the different modes of relatedness to God. I am also understanding hymns as "holding" environments: music surrounds us as no other experience can. My own reflections on my childhood suggest that I have used music as a transitional object, recalling favourite songs when anxious or in need of comforting. Lachkar's (1992) discussion of transitional objects (106) offers some theoretical background to the use I will make of Hymns and Josselson's categories of relatedness in my study of intimacy.

I have chosen to make a study of the United Church of Canada's Hymnary, the hymn book of my own faith community. The study seems timely as the United Church prepares to publish a new hymn book. I also chose to start my study with our Wesleyan hymns, guessing that the methodists might provide more visceral lyrics compared to the Anglican and Presbyterian sources. A selection of Wesleyan stanzas can be found in Appendix B. After the Wesleyan hymns, I surveyed the entire United Church hymn book. A table of United Church hymn numbers related to Josselson's relational schema can be found in Appendix A.

I was surprised that Josselson's relational language was not more pervasive in these hymn lyrics. I expected that the hymn lyrics would make use of the first five of Josselson's categories, since the last three categories (mutuality, embeddedness, care) required a more mature faith development. I found examples for each of Josselson's relational dimension, but believe there is room for more hymns using the language of intimacy with or relatedness to God. There is room for more hymns that express our ongoing journey and exploration of our relationship with God in Jesus Christ, teaching us how to speak about our relationship to God.

Relatedness to God

Being held. (see especially 77.2.7; 77.4.2) The hymnary offered the following images: being covered or sheltered by God (77, 133); being formed by God (13); being upheld by God (139); being held in the hands of God (30, 84, 269).

Attachment. (see especially 77.1.1) The hymnary offered the following images: flying to God's bosom (77); longing for Christ's return (389); straying from God like sheep (13); God seeking wanderers (126); calling us to Jesus (115, 123);

Passionate experience. (see especially 77.3.1) The hymnary offered the following images: desiring Jesus (77, 239); a flame burning in our hearts (239); trembling (239); feasting (115, 131); anointed with oil (131); being tender (126).

Mirroring. (see especially 477.6.3) The hymnary offered the following images: seeing God or looking to Jesus (115, 194, 255, 477); being seen by God or having God see into us (306); internalizing God in our hearts (107, 126); God knowing when we are hungry (269).

Identification. (see especially 477.6.4) The hymnary offered the following images: possessing God's qualities (171); aspiring toward God (194); cataloguing God's greatness (13, 46, 241); being made in God's image (466); being of the same mind (107).

Resonance. (see especially 77.1.1, 477.6.2) The hymnary offered the following images: Walking closely with Jesus (306); being partners with Jesus (477); dancing with Jesus (106); Jesus living in us and us in him (106); bride of Christ, union, mystic sweet communion (146); surrendering to God (294).

Embeddedness. (see especially 185.1.1) The hymnary offered the following images: being one of a thousand or many tongues (13, 48, 107); singing in concert with other believers (185); dwelling in the house of the Lord (131).

Tending to. (see especially 255.2.1; 306.4.1) The hymnary offered the following images: Caring for or helping our neighbours (148, 255); bearing the cross of Jesus (306); being good stewards (296); to comfort, bless and teach others (296); caring for Christ by caring for our neighbours (296).

Appendix A : Table of UCC hymns and Josselson's schema

Example: 139.2.4

139--refers to hymn number 139 in the UCC HB

.2--refers to the second stanza in the hymn

.4--refers to the fourth line of the stanza

Appendix B: Five Wesleyan Hymns reflecting Josselson's relational dimensions

77. Jesus, Lover of My Soul

Jesus, lover of my soul,

let me to thy bosom fly,

while the nearer waters roll,

while the tempest still is high.

Hide me, O my Saviour, hide,

till the storm of life is past;

safe into the haven guide,

O receive my soul at last.

Other refuge have I none;

hangs my helpless soul on thee.

Leave, ah! leave me not alone;

still support and comfort me.

All my trust on thee is stayed,

all my help from thee I bring;

cover my defenceless head

with the shadow of thy wing.

Thou, O Christ,art all I want;

more than all in thee I find!

Raised the fallen, cheer the faint,

heal the sick, and lead the blind.

Just and holy is thy name,

I am all unrighteousness:

false and full of sin I am,

thou art full of truth and grace.

Charles Wesley

477. Hail the Day that Sees Him Rise. stanza 6.

There we shall with thee remain,

partners of thy endless reign;

there thy face unclouded see,

find our heaven in thee.

Charles Wesley

185. Let Saints on Earth in Concert Sing. stanza 1.

Let saints on earth in concert sing

with those to glory gone;

for all the servants of our King

in earth and heaven are one.

Charles Wesley

255. Jesus, United by Thy Grace. stanza 2.

Help us to help eachother, Lord,

eachother's cross to bear

let each his friendly aid afford,

and feel his brother's care.

Charles Wesley

306. Forth in Thy Name, O Lord. stanzas 3,4,5.

Thee may I set at my right hand,

whoe eyes my inmost substance see,

and labour on at thy command

and offer all my works to thee.

Give me to bear thy easy yoke,

and every moment watch and pray,

and still to things eternal look,

and hasten to thy glorious day;

for thee delightfully employ

whate'er thy bounteous grace hath given,

and run my course with even joy,

and closely walk with thee to heaven.

Charles Wesley

Works Cited

Bader, Ellyn & Pearson, Peter T. (1988). In Quest of the Mythical Mate: A Developmental Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment in Couples Therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers.

Beavers, Robert W. (1985). Successful Marriage: A Family Systems Approach to Couples Therapy. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Bly, Robert. (1990). Iron John: A book about men. New York: Vintage Books.

Bowlby, John. (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. New York: Basic Books Publishers, Inc.

Buber, Martin. (1958). I and Thou. Second edition. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Buber, Martin. (1965). The Knowledge of Man. New York: Harper/Collins Publishers.

Carter, Betty & McGoldrick, Monica. (1989). The Changing Family Life Cycle: A Framework for Family Therapy. Second edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cashdan, Sheldon. (1988). Object Relations Therapy: Using the Relationship. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Elson, Miriam. (1986). Self Psychology in Clinical Social Work. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Erikson, Erik. (1982). The Life Cycle Completed: A Review. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Erikson, Erik. (1959, 1980). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Gilligan, Carol. (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Holy Bible. (1989). New Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The Hymn Book. (1971). The Anglican Church of Canada and The United Church of Canada.

Josselson, Ruthellen. (1992). The Space Between Us: Exploring the Dimensions of Human Relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Krell, David Farrell. (1977). "General Introduction" in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Kohut, Heinz. (1977). The Restoration of the Self. New York: International Universities Press.

Kushner, Harold S. (1986). When All You've Ever Wanted Isn't Enough. New York: Summit Books.

Lachkar, Joan. (1992). The Narcissistic/Borderline Couple: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Marital Treatment. New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.

Lerner, Harriet Goldhor. (1989). The Dance of Intimacy. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Levinson, Daniel J. (1978). The Seasons of a Man's Life. New York: Ballantine Books.

Mahler, M., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York: Basic Books.

May, Rollo. (1969). Love and Will. New York: Norton.

Nichols, William C. (1988). Marital Therapy: An Integrative Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Ruban, Lillian B. (1983). Intimate Strangers: Men and Women Together. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Scarf, Maggie. (1987). Intimate Partners: Partners in Love and Marriage. Ballantine Books.

Sheehy, Gail. (1976). Passages: Predictable Crises of Adult Life. New York: Bantam Books.

Solomon, Marion F. (1989). Narcissism and Intimacy: Love and Marriage in an Age of Confusion. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.

Stern, Daniel N. (1990). Diary of a Baby. New York: Basic Books, Inc.