Journal of Psychology and Christianity 2012, Vol. 31, No. 2, 157-166 Copyright 2012 Christian Association for Psychological Studies ISSN 0733-4273 157 psychological scientists. In this article, we fol- low the lead of Shiota and Kalat (2011), view- ing love as akin to an attitude with cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. Using a broad cognitive-behavioral schema, we will use the acronym SCOPES to characterize six multi- dimensional aspects of love as an aspect of human functioning, which expands the tripartite attitudinal rubric. The six dimensions repre- sented in the acronym are Spiritual, Cognitive, Observable behavior, Physical (biological), Emotional (affective), and Social space. Because we are intentionally reviewing a Pente- costal perspective on the spiritual dimension of love in the next section, we will discuss attach- ment theory, a promising contribution to the spiri- tual dimension from research in the psychology of religion. We are intentionally sidestepping the problem of defining religion and spirituality by accepting the operational definitions of researchers who refer to religion or spirituality or use a broad rubric that includes beliefs and prac- tices prescribed by or associated with a religion as spiritual in the view of the adherents. The study of spirituality as an active dimension of love is perhaps easier when studying those, such as Pen- tecostals, Charismatics, and others associated with contemporary Evangelical Christianity, who speak of loving God, walking with Jesus, and trusting God as a parent who loves his children than when studying those from traditions where God has a less relational character. Attachment researchers (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1990) in the tradition of Bowlby and Ainsworth (e.g., Bowlby, 1969; Bretherton, 1992) found similarities in adult relationships to the anxious and avoidant styles evident in parent-child relationships. A Loving God and Loving Others: Learning About Love From Psychological Science and Pentecostal Perspectives Geoffrey W. Sutton Martin W. Mittelstadt Evangel University “God is Spirit” (John 4:24, New Inter- national Version) “God is love” (I John 4:8, 16) Love is such a fuzzy concept within Western cultures that to construct a psychology of love will require some delimiting. Because people speak of love in so many ways, a linguistic analy- sis, though intriguing, could easily lead us far afield. Evangelical preachers often speak about nuances in different Greek words for love (e.g., phileo, agape). In common language, people use love to express positive feelings as in loving ice cream, weather, cats, art, and countries. Regard- less of what similarities might exist between the forgoing expressions of love, we will not consid- er those potential commonalities. People also speak of interpersonal love in various ways such as being in love and having a loving feeling; how- ever, from psychological and theological perspec- tives, love is more than a feeling and not transient like an emotional state. In this article, we explored empirical and experiential bases for several dimensions of interpersonal love. We included a spiritual dimension to address ways that Christians express love. Finally, we consid- ered specific ways Pentecostals have contextual- ized the expression of love. Love and Psychological Science Not long ago, Tjeltveit (2006a) noted the lim- ited research on love, especially by Christian Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Geoffrey W. Sutton, Department of Behavioral Science, Evangel University, Springfield, MO 65802. E-mail: suttong@evangel.edu In this article, we explored an empirical basis for several dimensions of interpersonal love. From a psy- chological perspective, we considered multidimensional components of love using a holistic rubric that includes spiritual, cognitive, behavioral, affective, biological, and social space dimensions. From a theologi- cal perspective, we considered the traditional basis for understanding love of God and love of others in Christian communities with a special focus on early and contemporary Pentecostal beliefs and practices. Finally, we suggest ideas for further research and clinical practice.