Extended Family
KEY IDEAS
→ Most family issues arise from religious extended family.
→ No family is ever a monolith of identical beliefs and attitudes. The diversity can help defuse tension and open communication.
→ Preserving the faith and practice of the religious partner and of eventual children are the most common concerns of extended family.
→ If tension is relatively mild, concerns can often be alleviated as religious extended family get beyond stereotypes of nonbelief by getting to know the nonreligious partner.
→ If tension is moderate or worse and ongoing, it should be addressed directly with an eye not to “victory” but détente—reducing tension and building mutual confidence.
No couple is an island. No matter what strengths two people bring to a relationship, there’s still the larger context of their extended families and their community. A supportive context gives a huge advantage to nontraditional couples of all kinds, from same-sex to interracial to interbelief.
On the other hand, a couple trying to make a nontraditional partnership work in a family or community that’s hostile to the idea has an uphill battle, even if their relationship is solid. Add the stress of family or community disapproval to a marriage that already has its own problems, and sometimes it’s too much for the relationship to take.
It’s not news that relationships suffer when they take place in the harsh light of family or social disapproval. Romeo and Juliet managed about four days. And according to multiple studies, even real-world relationships tend to be less happy and less stable when they lack a supportive context.1
A recent Harvard University study went even further, suggesting that being in a relationship that others disapprove of can have direct negative impacts not just on the relationship but on the emotional and physical health of the people involved. “The more people felt like their family and friends and society didn’t approve of and support their relationship, the worse their health was,” said Justin Lehmiller, lead researcher of the study. “Specifically, these participants reported lower self-esteem, as well as more health symptoms like headaches, nausea, and loss of sexual interest.”2
Fortunately, social acceptance of mixed marriages of all kinds is growing and attitudes are relaxing. As noted in Chapter 1, public opposition to interracial marriage dropped from over 90% to 15% in just two generations, and opposition to same-sex marriage has fallen from 68% to 47% since 1996. Though there are no long-term data on public opinion regarding interfaith marriage, the numbers tell the story: Since 1950, interfaith marriages have risen from 20% of new marriages to 45%.3
One of the more surprising results of the McGowan-Sikes survey is that only 10% of respondents identified pressure or concerns over religious issues by extended family as a source of tension or conflict in their marriage. For most, it’s a minor issue or none at all. But for those still living with the disapproval of their extended family or community, the challenges are as serious and painful as ever. This chapter is for them.
Meet the Parents
→ 48% of those in secular/religious mixed marriages said the difference of belief was a “complete nonissue” for their parents at the time of their wedding.4
→ 16% said parental concern was “mild to moderate.”
→ Only 4% reported significant parental concern.
→ 13% said parents did not (or do not) know about the difference.
→ 19% can’t recall.5
Getting on the Same Page
When mixed couples experience pressure or tension from extended family over religious identity or practice, step one is always the same: Get on the same page. If a couple is unable to reach agreement on the issue, there’s very little chance of coming to a productive agreement with extended family. Use the dyadic consensus superpower of mixed-belief couples (see Chapter 17) to define your negotiables and nonnegotiables, compromising as necessary to reach agreement on issues such as churchgoing and parenting so extended family pressure can be met effectively.
Where the Family Pressure Is
When it comes to the extended families of secular/religious couples, there is an occasional story of atheist in-laws being disrespectful or aggressive toward a religious son- or daughter-in-law, but the overwhelming majority of serious conflict, pressure, and tension from extended family originates on the religious side of the equation. That there are fewer atheists in that generation is one likely reason, but the absence of specific doctrines and traditions to defend against unorthodoxy is most likely the greater cause.
It’s not always the religious partner’s family that creates these tensions. Because most nonreligious partners have families of origin who are religious, general tensions over the partner leaving the family faith will often spill over into the marriage relationship, even resulting in alliances between the partner’s religious parents and his or her religious spouse to bring the lost sheep back into the fold.
Drawing Out Family Religious Diversity
Even nonreligious people who recognize diversity among the religious fail to recognize it in their own extended families. To an atheist, everyone else can seem to have exactly the same beliefs and attitudes. It can certainly feel that way when the family gathers around the table at Thanksgiving or Christmas and all heads bow. But even in the most orthodox religious communities, complete conformity of belief is an illusion. A spectrum of belief and a range of intensity in every group and every family exists, no matter how it appears on the surface.
Recognizing this diversity is a huge step toward a healthy relationship with extended family for secular/religious couples. The two of you may embody the greatest diversity of belief in the family, but it’s not the only diversity.
In a typical American religious extended family, everyone might go to church every week and show other signs of having exactly the same beliefs. The extended family might include traditionally religious grandparents and some aunts, uncles, and cousins on the same level of belief and intensity. But in every family, some are likely to have moderated views, whether or not they’ve expressed them out loud.
Rachel’s husband, Don, is a deacon at the Southern Baptist church but wasn’t especially religious until they were married. Uncle Jerry hasn’t ever really thought about it, but he goes to church and bows his head at the table, so he looks as religiously orthodox as anyone. Uncle Bill learned about Buddhism in college and finds it intriguing but figures it wouldn’t go over well in the family, so he’s never pursued it. Cousin Lynn considers herself a devoted Baptist, but one of her best friends is Jewish and another is Mormon, and she just can’t believe God would send them to hell. Cousin Kelly has read atheist author Sam Harris and thinks he’s on to something. And Aunt Susan wears a T-shirt saying, “May the God of Your Choice Bless You”—not exactly a Southern Baptist sentiment.
Despite this healthy diversity of belief and intensity, it’s natural when the family comes together for all members to take on the religious intensity and color of the most devout. As a result, it seems like everyone is on exactly the same page. Drawing out the true spectrum through natural conversation is one of the healthiest things any family can do to make the full spectrum feel welcome—including your mixed marriage.
Three Key Issues
Conflict and pressure from religious extended family take many forms, but three issues rise to the top:
1. Concerns that a marriage to a nonbeliever is spiritually invalid (e.g., 2 Cor 6:14), or in some denominations (e.g., Mormons) that eternal marriage is not possible
2. Concerns that the faith or practice of the believing partner will be threatened
3. Concerns about the religious identity and practice of the couple’s children
Because the first issue is grounded in theological rather than practical concerns, it’s the most difficult to address. If progress is made, it usually occurs over time through the “re-fencing” process described in Chapter 1. If someone dislikes or distrusts a certain group, then learns that someone they know and love is part of that group, they build a small “bump” in the mental fence separating them from the reviled group to put the loved one on their side as an exception. You might recall that the Faith Matters team named this the Aunt Susan Principle: “We all have an Aunt Susan in our lives, the sort of person who epitomizes what it means to be a saint, but whose religious background is different from our own. … But whatever her religious background (or lack thereof), you know that Aunt Susan is destined for heaven.”6
Becoming the “Aunt Susan” exception to a negative stereotype is the first step, and often the most powerful one, a nonreligious person can take to reduce tension from religious extended family. It usually happens by patiently contradicting the negative stereotype over time, and actions will tend to make more of an impression than words, and watching it happen is a gratifying experience.
Occasionally it happens in small, surprising bursts. My own most vivid Aunt Susan transformation was not with a family member but an elderly neighbor who’d known and liked me for 10 years before learning I was a nonbeliever. “So you’re … an atheist?” she said. I said, “Yes, I am.” “But you’re such a kindhearted person!” she replied with a stunned smile. These are powerful moments in the deconstruction of stereotypes, and when they happen, they can do wonders for reducing tension in a secular/religious mix.
The second issue (threat to the faith or practice of the believing partner) should rest as completely as possible in the hands of the believing partner. Freedom of religion is a principle so central to our culture that it’s enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,7 and for good reason. No nonreligious partner should interfere with the belief or practice of a partner unless that belief or practice is demonstrably harmful or abusive.8
That leaves concern for the kids—an issue tackled later in the chapter.
Where Do You Come From?
Backstory makes all the difference in a secular/religious mix. The religion in which someone grew up, and the intensity of that identity, is a strong predictor of whether tension and conflict will be a significant part of a secular/religious marriage.
Catholicism is front and center once again in the secular/religious mix. It’s the most common identity for the religious partners and the most common denominational upbringing for both partners (22%)—followed by several Protestant denominations (see the sidebar).
Whether or not they themselves are religious now, those who come from Mainline Protestant, Reform Jewish, or Buddhist backgrounds, for example, report less tension in their marriages over religious issues than those who were raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox Jews, or Mormons. For others, including those raised Catholic, it’s the intensity of their family’s religious practice that often determines how smoothly their mixed marriage is going today. This applies just as much to the nonreligious partner, and sometimes even more so. How smoothly did the separation go when he or she left the family faith? What was the denomination, and what intensity?
When asked about the general religious identity of their families of origin:
→ 30% of survey respondents said they were raised in “very religious” families.
→ 45% said their families were “somewhat religious.”
→ 12% said their families were “somewhat nonreligious.”
→ 7% said their families were “very nonreligious.”
→ 6% said their families were a “secular/religious mix.”
So whether they themselves are now religious or not, three of four were raised in families that were religious to some degree—and most of those in the survey who were raised in nonreligious homes were outside of the United States.
When asked for the specific religious identity of their family of origin, if any:
→ 22% said Catholic.
→ 10% said Baptist.
→ 4–6% each said Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, or Presbyterian.
→ 5% said agnosticism.
→ 5% said “spiritual but not religious.”
→ 4% said Mormon/LDS.
→ 4% said atheism.
→ 3% said Pentecostalism.
→ 3% said Judaism.
→ About 1% each said Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarian Universalist, Hinduism, Humanism, or United Church of Christ.
→ Less than 1% each said Islam, Christian Orthodox, or one of several other worldviews.
One slightly surprising exception to the pattern is Lutheranism. Most with Mainline Protestant backgrounds end up managing the mix with little tension, but more than half of those raised Lutheran reported high levels of tension from extended family over religious issues. This probably speaks to the wide diversity in Lutheranism, from the fairly liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church of America to the conservative confessional Lutheranism of the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods. Though the survey did not break down responses to that subdenominational level, the results indicating high tension likely represent those more conservative traditions.
Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they were raised by two religious parents, and 11% were raised by two nonreligious parents. Fully 24% of those currently in a secular/religious mix grew up with one parent who was religious and another who was nonreligious at least part of the time.
So how did all of these parents feel about their children marrying outside of their family’s religious identity? Nearly half (48%) of respondents reported that their marriage to someone of a different religious perspective was a complete nonissue for their parent(s). Sixteen percent reported mild or moderate parental concern, and only 4% reported significant parental concern. About one in eight (13%) said their parents did not (or do not) know about the difference in beliefs, and nearly a fifth (19%) said they couldn’t remember whether their parents were concerned—which is probably a good indication that they were not.
These are some of the most interesting results of all. The garmentrending Tevye who disowns the child who marries outside of the flock is by no means gone from the landscape, but he’s a lot less common today than in the past, and certainly less common than most of us assume.
Seeking Détente
An atheist dad once approached me at a convention, thanked me for my books on nonreligious parenting, then proceeded to show that he hadn’t read them very carefully.
“My mother-in-law is hyperreligious,” he said, “and she’s always complaining because we don’t take our kids to church, give them religious toys, and teach them to sing ‘Jesus Loves Me.’ I finally sat her down and said, ‘Okay, look. Let’s get some things straight. I am not going to apologize to you or anyone else about raising my kids without religious brainwashing. I don’t know why you are so obsessed with this. It’s no big deal that we don’t go to church. In fact, if we can get the kids to the age of 18 without seeing the inside of a church, I’ll consider it a great success. I don’t want to hear any ‘Jesus this’ or ‘Jesus that’ around the kids. If we can agree on that, you can spend time with them.”
Just a few words in, she would have lost the ability to hear him as the blood began pounding defensively in her ears. No one can really hear and think under this kind of assault. And the veiled threat at the end is a particularly nasty touch.
Now I don’t know his situation. Maybe this woman had put him through 10 kinds of hell. Maybe there was no hope of achieving anything beyond that verbal flipping of the bird. But even if the former is true, the latter almost never is. There is almost always something more to be gained. But with this aggressive approach, he had slammed the door on that possibility.
He looked at me for affirmation.
“Oh … okay,” I said hesitantly. “So … how’s it going?”
“Well, we haven’t spoken since then,” he said. “But I won.”
It was all I could do to keep from screaming, Nooo! By framing the issue in win-lose terms, he had misunderstood both the problem and the solution. What did he win—the right to raise his children as he wished? Assuming he and his partner had already reached agreement—always the first step—he was already parenting the way he wanted to. So the problem isn’t that Grandma is actively preventing them from parenting the way they want to—it’s the tension and dissonance that’s created by her disapproval. And he had made that, the real problem, much worse with his monologue. Reduce the tension and you most often reduce the symptoms of the tension as well.
And the best way to do that is by seeking not victory but détente.
Anyone who lived in the United States during the Nixon years tends to hear that French word in the German accent of Henry Kissinger. Tension was high between the United States and the Soviet Union. Détente is a process that seeks not victory but “a relaxation of tensions and building of mutual confidence.” It is not a ceasefire nor a compromise, but something designed to make an actual exchange of warheads less likely. In the Cold War, détente meant (among many other things) exchanging ballet companies, art exhibits, speakers and such to show each other our human sides. In family relationships, it’s about exchanging other kinds of humanizing messages.
My parents and I have a détente of sorts. We love and accept each other. We know we don’t share religious beliefs, so we talk about other things. Do they still pray for us to come back to the church? No doubt! But I don’t mind. It’s just one of the ways they show love. —Beth, former Catholic, now agnostic atheist
Many couples in similar situations don’t even try to have this conversation. “There’s no point,” they say. “My mom is never going to change her mind.” But a change of mind isn’t the goal. Reducing tension is.
I do think it’s best to sit down and address tensions about your mixedbelief parenting with any religious family member who is especially distressed by it. The key is to aim for a reduction in tension, not a “win.” You’re the parent. You’ve already “won” the right to do your thing. What you want is to scale back the tension and discomfort resulting from those choices so your kids can grow up in the best possible family situation. And you can do it without giving up anything. That’s détente.
Couples who have decided to protect their children’s ability to think freely and come to their own conclusions about religion should be proud and confident in that approach. But they must be careful to do so in the most effective way possible. Angry threats or insulting accusations are likely to make matters worse, not better.
It’s important to reiterate that there is usually no problem at all. Many religious grandparents are entirely respectful of their children’s rights to approach religion any way they wish with their own kids. Others offer nothing more challenging than the occasional grumble or plea. If you have relatives like these, be grateful. But when a grandparent or other relative threatens, harasses, or pressures you, or actively interferes with your right to raise your kids as you think best where religion is concerned, it’s best to confront the issue directly by having a conversation with the relative in question.
The approach I recommend is based on a technique called Nonviolent Communication, a powerful and effective concept developed by Marshall Rosenberg9 and others. It starts with empathy—making an effort to grasp and feel what the other person feels, to hear things as he or she hears them, and to frame what you have to say accordingly. It can leave people feeling heard, understood, and honored—even if they continue to disagree. It can lead to amazing breakthroughs by helping them to recognize that win and lose are not the only meaningful terms in dialogue.
Building a Breakthrough Conversation
Once you’ve decided to talk with family members to relieve tension around religious issues, keep three things in mind:
1. Relieving tension is the goal, not “winning.” I can’t stress this enough.
2. The couple should come to full agreement; then the partner whose family is involved should do the talking. This is true even if the nonreligious partner is the one whose family is putting on the pressure. The worst possible scenario is the guy who approached me at the convention—the atheist partner lecturing his religious mother-in-law. His partner should have been the one talking to her own mother.
3. Family members usually have the best of intentions. Pressure about your parenting choice almost always comes from a good place—a wish for the children to have the best possible upbringing. Even if you strongly disagree about what’s best, recognize that their hearts are usually in the right place.
For the best result, there are four important elements to the actual conversation:
1. Honor the person. You can continue to think whatever you wish about the person’s beliefs. But people deserve respect as people. Refuse to grant that and you have no basis for discourse. If nothing else, honor their intentions, which are usually good.
2. Empathize. Make a real effort to see things as the other person sees them.
3. Reassure. Some of his or her concerns can’t be helped. Some can. Reduce the concerns by addressing those you can.
4. Include. This is huge. A clear gesture of inclusion can repair an immense amount of damage and bring down walls. Most people will respond to that generous gesture with a desire to not abuse it. For the rest, some reasonable limits can be placed.
Here’s what the conversation might sound like:
( Honor) “I wanted to sit down and talk this over with you because you are important to us. I know you want what’s best for the kids, and I appreciate that.”
( Empathize) “I know your religious faith is a big part of your life. If I were in your position, I think I’d feel just the way you do—worried that this big part of who I am wouldn’t be shared with my grandchildren.”
( Reassure) “I want you to know that it will be shared. It’s important to us that the kids learn about faith so they can make a choice for themselves. I’m confident that they will make a good one.”
( Include) “We want you to help us teach the kids by telling them what you believe. Let’s set up a time for you and me and Amanda to have a cup of hot chocolate so you can talk to her about your faith. How does that sound?”
The religious partner can reinforce the message further by showing his or her own comfort with allowing the children to explore ideas freely.
Some parents will insist that the conversation can’t work because it doesn’t address the real concern Grandma has expressed: that the kids will not be saved. But if the reports of scores of couples are any indication, this isn’t the real concern—even if Grandma swears it is and honestly thinks it is. The real concern often has more to do with her connection to her grandkids.
Most deeply religious people have their religious faith woven into their personal identity. It’s not just Grandma’s explanatory system or moral code; it’s often who she is. She’s likely even to see it as the best of who she is. When her first grandchild was born, her visions of herself as a grandmother often centered on sharing the deepest and most meaningful part of her life with her grandchildren. The news that they would not be specifically raised in that faith would strike her first and foremost as the end of that vision. Worse still, she would often feel personally dishonored and shut out.
The last step in that conversation has proven uniquely powerful for many who have tried it. Doing away with the fear that a wall would separate them from their grandchildren and inviting them to share their faith has a greater ability to provide a breakthrough than anything else I’ve found. Details still have to be hammered out—no scaring the kids with hell, for example—but once the conversation has happened, they will be infinitely more receptive to a few simple ground rules.
Sometimes it won’t work. But I’ve heard from so many people that this was the approach that finally achieved something positive—including many who had sworn in advance that “it’ll never work with my dad”—that I recommend it with real confidence. And it’s because it has worked for so many that I’m convinced this feeling of exclusion is more important than concerns about salvation.
Best of all, once the tension is relieved, an extended family with a spectrum of beliefs and attitudes can really be your kids’ best resource for religious literacy.
The Bottom Line
Most mixed-belief couples today experience little conflict with extended family over their religious differences. But for those who do, it can be intense and upsetting, even leading to conflict in their own relationship.
Couples dealing with such conflict must start by getting on the same page as a couple using the skills described in Chapter 17. Serious tension should be addressed directly, ideally by the partner whose family is creating the tension. The approach should be empathetic and constructive, honoring the individuals and their intentions.