Interfaith marriages have become increasingly common in the United States over the last half century. As the proportion of the country that is religiously disaffiliated increases (Pew Research Center, 2015) and the meaning of religious affiliation becomes more internalized (Smith & Adamczyk, 2020), individuals are increasingly likely to interact with and form romantic bonds with those whose religious affiliation differs from their own. The family systems that emerge from such unions often walk a tightrope between competing religio-cultural expectations. Prior research has primarily focused on how interfaith couples navigate their mixed religious convictions, obligations, and traditions (Riley, 2013) or has compared their relationship outcomes to those of same-faith couples (Hwang et al., 2019). However, such approaches, while valuable, do little to illuminate how the religious traditions present in the relationship influence family functioning. As interfaith couples construct and maintain their unique family identity, they are likely to accept and reject religious influence in ways that may be distinct from their shared-faith counterparts. Research exploring these dynamics in shared-faith households (e.g., Essig et al., 2018) has frequently utilized a strengths-based approach to illustrate the pathways through which religiosity may benefit family functioning (a potentiality with a large amount of empirical support; Dollahite et al., 2019). We have pursued a similar approach for the study presented in this manuscript. Specifically, the current study employs a strengths-based, qualitative methodology to explore the reports of happily married, interfaith couples concerning their sources of influence and guidance in marriage and parenting, reasons for rejecting certain influences, and particularly examining the role religion plays, if any, in their marriage and parenting processes.

Literature review

The last 60 years have seen a marked increase in the number of interfaith marriages in the United States—marriages in which the partners either identify with different religious/spiritual traditions or where one partner identifies with a tradition and the other does not (Pew Research Center, 2015; Riley, 2013). Monahan (1971), reporting on data from the 1957 Current Population Study, suggested that intermarriage rates (including those between different denominations of Protestant Christianity) comprised 17.5% of marriages. By contrast, Pew’s (2015) Religious Landscape study reported that 39% of US marriages between 2010 and 2014 were interfaith, and that interfaith marriages accounted for 33% of all US marriages at the time of their study.

Defining interfaith marriage

Examining the prevalence of interfaith marriage begs an important question regarding identification. Some scholars have argued that, insomuch as all couples involve the pairing of individuals with their own religious histories and experiences, every marriage could be considered an interfaith marriage (Miller, 2013). However, such a perspective runs the risk of minimizing real communal and theological distinctions that may exist between faith traditions (Hughes, 2012). In answer to this question, we propose that couples can be plotted along an interfaith continuum, such as the one depicted in Figure 1. At the far left-hand end of the spectrum, and off of the continuum, we identify those couples who attend the same congregation and both identify with the same faith tradition. While such partners may need to navigate differences with regards to particular beliefs and expectations, we consider them to be distinct from interfaith couples in that their faith commitments do not involve separate faith communities. Just to the right of such couples, we have placed couples who identify as part of the same faith tradition but attend different religious congregations. Because connection to a faith community is one mechanism by which religiosity may influence family functioning (Mahoney, 2010), we consider such couples to belong on the interfaith continuum. At the center of the continuum are couples who identify as members of distinct but related traditions. As noted in a later part of this manuscript, some faith traditions recognize a theological affinity with other specific traditions (e.g., Roman Catholics recognize the baptisms, though not the other sacraments of Protestant Christians; Catholic Church, 2000). Such couples may have to navigate significant differences with regards to rituals and theology, in addition to questions regarding the religious community; however, they are also likely to encounter many similarities between their belief systems. Finally, at the far end of the continuum, we have placed couples who belong to distinct (and in some respects, conflicting) religious traditions. Such couples may need to address many, or all, of the issues mentioned previously. However, added to these may be an experience of tension related to incommensurate worldviews and historical or contemporary conflicts. Importantly, we would include within in this category the rapidly growing number of American marriages in which only one partner identifies with a religious tradition. Pew (Pew Research Center 2015) estimates that such unions accounted for 46% of interfaith marriages. In seeking to understand the ways in which interfaith couples are influenced in their family relationships, the current study draws from exemplary couples across the spectrum of interfaith marriage.

Sources of influence on interfaith couples

In order to understand how various sources influence American interfaith families, it is first necessary to note a sociological shift in how Americans generally approach religiosity. The rise in interfaith unions has coincided with, and is likely related to, a general trend of secularism and religious de-institutionalization in the US. The same report from Pew (Pew Research Center 2015) referenced above suggests that religiously unaffiliated individuals comprise nearly a quarter of the population (22.8%, up from 16.1% in 2007). Indeed, the growth in interfaith unions may be in part due to the growing acceptability of religious disaffiliation. However, even for those interfaith couples wherein both partners maintain a religious identity, the shift in how Americans view religion may alter the way religious sources influence their family functioning. As Americans view religiosity in increasingly personal, rather than institutional, terms, individuals likely feel freer to pick and choose which religious teachings and traditions they wish to maintain (Smith & Adamczyk, 2020). For interfaith couples, who often experience some level of real or perceived institutional censure for their religiously heterodox partnership (Riley, 2013), this personalized approach is likely an important part of navigating their potentially competing commitments. Such families, by necessity, are in the process of forging a unique family culture, one which incorporates some aspects of their religious community and rejects others.

Religious institutions’ views of interfaith marriage and families

For the majority of America’s largest religious traditions, marriage marks an important (often central) religious occasion with significant spiritual implications (Marks, 2005). Unsurprisingly, this level of importance also comes within highly specified definitions of what marriage is and for whom it is available. Riley (2013) notes that major religious traditions vary both in their proscription of interfaith marriages and in the degree to which they address the issue institutionally. Roman Catholics, post-Vatican II, may receive the Sacrament of Marriage while marrying outside of the Catholic Church, but only if their partner belongs to a Christian tradition or is Jewish and the couple has received an episcopal dispensation (Paul, 1970). Similarly, Muslim men may marry Jewish or Christian women but not members of other religious traditions (the question regarding Muslim women appears to be more ambiguous; Bangstad, 2004). Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may marry a person of another faith in a civil ceremony but cannot be granted an “eternal marriage” (a prerequisite for entrance into the highest heaven) in such a situation (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011).

In her review of how various religious traditions approach interfaith marriage, Riley (2013) noted that traditions which are less centralized (e.g., Protestant Christianity and Judaism) tend to lack a clear doctrinal position on the matter. Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian leaders, for example, frequently discourage marrying outside the faith, citing the inevitable conflict that will arise from competing beliefs or questions of how to raise the children; however, denominations vary in how explicitly they address the topic. Regardless of their specific religious tradition, interfaith couples must often walk a cultural tightrope—integrating the influences they wish to maintain and yet rejecting those that they believe might undermine their relationship. While some researchers have explored how interfaith couples navigate their religious commitments (Miller, 2013; Riley, 2013; Shoaf et al., 2022), the question of which forces and voices such couples allow to influence their family functioning has yet to be studied.

How faith influences family functioning

Religious traditions and communities often carry explicit and implicit assumptions about what family life will look like. Families may be expected to participate in particular rituals (e.g., marriage, christening, bar/bat mitzvahs) or adopt regular behaviors (e.g., praying five times a day for Muslims [salat; Essig et al., 2018], observing family home evenings for Latter-day Saints [Marks, 2004; Marks et al., 2020]). However, family members may also be expected to relate to one another in particular ways. A great deal of research has linked family religiosity to non-religious family processes (e.g., parenting behaviors, communication patterns, labor distribution; see Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2017; Mahoney, 2010; Mahoney et al., 2001; Petro et al., 2018). In the majority of studies, these associations have been positive, though there are significant exceptions (Dollahite et al., 2019).

Mahoney (2010), in the relational spirituality framework has suggested three mechanisms through which spiritual beliefs and practices influence family functioning: (a) a connection with the Divine, (b) integration into a religious or spiritual community, and (c) the imbuing of relationships with divine significance (a process Mahoney terms relationship sanctification). For interfaith families, synthesizing these influences (particularly where they might disagree) into a functional pattern can be a major part of making their union a success.

One major area of focus for family scientists interested in religion and spirituality has concerned the influence that faith has on the marriage relationship. Researchers have found that marriages between religious partners are more stable (Latifa et al., 2021) and generally have higher relationship satisfaction (Stafford et al., 2014). However, these benefits are significantly diminished for interfaith couples (Hwang et al., 2019). For instance, Lehrer and Chiswick (1993) found that while same-faith Latter-day Saint (LDS) couples had a 13% chance of divorcing by their fifth year of marriage—the lowest rate of any religious tradition—interfaith couples in which one partner is LDS had a 40% chance of divorcing by their fifth year—a three-fold increase. Other researchers have found similar results comparing same-faith and interfaith couples on marital conflict (Curtis & Ellison, 2002) and marital adjustment (Schramm et al., 2012). However, such studies are primarily useful in identifying how interfaith couples differ from same-faith couples, not in identifying the processes and experiences of interfaith couples themselves. These issues require further exploration, particularly as increasing numbers of U.S. adults opt for interfaith unions.

Religion and parent-child relationships

Another major area of research concerns how family religiosity influences the parent-child relationship. As with research on marital functioning, the majority of findings in this domain have been positive. Many religious traditions place a strong emphasis on the parent-child relationship (Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2017). Along similar lines, religious involvement has been shown to encourage paternal responsibility and proactive parenting (Wilcox, 2002) and is associated with increased family cohesion (Brody et al., 1996) and higher levels of physical affection (Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2017).

However, the effects of religious functioning on the parent-child relationship are not always positive. Religion may be a source of, or exacerbate, parent-child conflict (Pearce et al., 2019), particularly where parents are more religiously engaged than their children (Hendricks et al., 2024; Stokes & Regnerus, 2009). Similarly, Brelsford and Mahoney (2009) reported that religious mothers may triangulate with God against their children, resulting in verbal aggression and stonewalling behaviors.

The role of religious disagreement in these studies is significant, particularly for interfaith couples where parents have a decreased chance of their offspring identifying with their religious tradition (Bengtson et al., 2013). Riley (2013) stated, “Deciding how to [religiously] raise children is probably the highest hurdle interfaith parents face” (p. 80). Such findings again beg the question: given the significant strains that religious disagreements can place on family relationships, what sources of guidance do strong interfaith families draw upon to navigate these challenges, which influences do they choose to reject, and what role if any does each partner’s religion play in guiding their marital and family functioning?

Other sources of influence for family functioning

As they balance their differing religious convictions, interfaith couples are also likely balancing other sources of influence, including influence from extended family and the broader community. Prior research has indicated that relationships with individuals outside of the household are particularly salient sources of influence for marital and parent functioning (Cochran & Niego, 2002). When faced with relationship difficulties, individuals are likely to draw on lessons learned from these external sources, this may include explicit advice (e.g., “never go to bed angry at your spouse”) but is also likely to include lessons learned from experience (e.g., “my father always apologized when he made a mistake”). The sources of this influence may be familial (e.g., parents, siblings, grandparents), communal (e.g., friends, community members), or professional (e.g., family counselors, self-help books, relationship education programs). Just as with faith influences, couples are likely to consciously attempt to sift through these different sources, accepting those that align with their values and rejecting those that do not (Cochran & Niego, 2002).

The family of origin plays a critical role in the subsequent relationship behaviors and values of offspring. Bandura (1986) posited that interactions within the family of origin scaffold expectations and behaviors in future relationships. This theory has been supported by empirical research into both positive (Whitton et al., 2008) and negative (Kerr et al., 2009) behavioral patterns. However, such transmissions are not determinative; individuals may consciously reject familial influence (Bandura, 1986). Prior research has found that romantic partners in particular can provide a moderating influence on generational patterns (Conger et al., 2012; Schofield et al., 2017).

Individuals are also likely to pattern their beliefs and behaviors on those in closest proximity to them, regardless of kinship (Bandura, 1986). Research into the influence of social networks on family processes suggests that couples receive significant support in their relationships with one another and their children (Rözer et al., 2016; Stanford et al., 2021). Kwon et al. (2013) found that couples embedded within a supportive community were likely to draw upon those resources to alleviate parenting stress. Importantly, in distinction from family influence, individuals also have a great deal of choice regarding their community sources of influence. McPherson et al. (2001) suggested that individuals are likely to associate with people that share their values and beliefs. For interfaith couples, this may mean maintaining a connection with their religious communities, but it may also mean forging new, explicitly interfaith communities (Miller, 2013).

A final source of influence for American families could be termed expert or professional guides. American households are increasingly turning to these expert sources for relationship help (Stewart et al., 2016). These sources may take the form of professional counselors and therapists, self-help books, podcasts, or parent education programs. It is possible that interfaith couples may lean on these sources for guidance on marriage and parenting processes that are separated from a religious or spiritual influence.

The current study

The current study builds upon previous literature by exploring to whom interfaith couples turn for guidance in their family functioning. Specifically, we analyze interviews conducted with exemplar interfaith couples to determine the sources they draw upon in forming and maintaining their family systems. Because interfaith couples often exist in a liminal space between religious cultures, we were curious to see how long-term, highly satisfied couples navigated these potentially competing sources of guidance and influence. Initially, our research questions were: “From whom did these interfaith couples incorporate guidance regarding family functioning?” (RQ1); and “How did they draw upon their religious commitments to guide them in their relationships, if at all?” (RQ2). While analyzing the data, we aimed to remain attuned to relevant and significant themes regarding these questions. Consequently, we added the following unexpected research question in response to participant interviews: “Under what conditions did they reject influence from external sources?” (RQ3).

Methods

Sample and procedures

Participants for the current study were recruited through purposive sampling (Daly, 2008) and were interviewed, excepting 3 full pilot interviews, between 2018 and 2019. Utilizing a strengths-based approach (see Maton et al., 2004), we sought out couples who reported (a) being part of a happy and stable interfaith marriage, (b) raising or had raised one child or more together, and (c) included at least one partner who was highly religious.¹ Recruitment took place through three successive avenues until we reached our target of 30 couples. For our first wave of recruitment, we used Qualtrics’s professional panel to identify couples who met our criteria and were willing to participate in an interview-based project. However, this approach did not produce the desired number of couples.

To expand our search, we reached out to 143 religious and interfaith groups, leaders, and organizations across the United States through various channels, including Facebook messages and posts, as well as their websites or email when available (see Appendix A for a list of contacted groups). In these communications, we shared details about the study, including the criteria for participation, and requested referrals for happily married interfaith couples who would be willing to participate, encouraging the groups to pass our information along to potential participants, who could then contact us if interested. The majority of our participants were recruited in this manner. Interestingly, although only seven of the 143 contacted groups had any connection to Latter-day Saints, they were unintentionally oversampled. This is likely due to some of the researchers’ affiliation with Brigham Young University, an institution sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which could have made community members more willing to participate. However, there are some strengths to be had in this Latter-day saint oversample, in part because prior research has indicated that Latter-day Saint households exhibit some of the strongest disparities in relationship stability between same-faith and interfaith unions (Lehrer & Chiswick, 1993), and that Latter-day Saint parents may prioritize their children marrying within the faith more than parents from almost any other religion (Riley, 2013). Finally, two couples who met our criteria exceptionally well were recruited through convenience sampling (i.e., through personal association with research team members).

Demographics

Descriptive statistics for the current study can be found in Table 1. The sample was comprised of 31 married, heterosexual, interfaith couples and one recently bereaved partner from an interfaith marriage (N = 63). Participants ranged in age from 31 to “over 75” with an average age of approximately 49. Participants had been married on average approximately 20 years, and the majority of couples (n = 19) reported having been married 15 years or more. Couples reported having raised or currently raising an average of 3 children. The majority of participants were white (75.4%), with the remaining sample identified with various racial and ethnic minorities (i.e., 9% Black or African American, 6% Hispanic, 5% Asian, 2% Filipino, and 2% Middle Eastern). Further, the educational attainment ranged from high school to Ph.D., with the median being a four-year college degree. As noted above, participants were recruited from around the country with the final sample comprising individuals from 14 U.S. states. Importantly, our sample accounted for 7 of the 8 socio-religious regions of the U.S. as identified by Silk and Walsh (2008): Mountain West (n = 7; 21.9%), Southern Crossroads (n = 5; 15.6%), Pacific (n = 6; 18.8%), Mid-Atlantic (n = 6; 18.8%), Midwest (n = 4; 12.5%), South (n = 3; 9.4%), and Northwest (n = 1; 3.1%)—New England was the one region that was not represented. In total, participants identified with 14 distinct religious/spiritual traditions. The most common traditions were LDS (N_individuals = 15; 23.4%), followed by Roman Catholics (N_individuals = 12; 18.8%) and religiously unaffiliated (N_individuals = 10; 15.6%). In total, couples comprised 19 unique faith tradition pairings (see Table 1). Of the 32 interfaith couples, five fit the category of what Hendricks (2023) refers to as "divergent-interfaith," meaning they began as shared-faith marriages but became interfaith over time due to one partner changing or leaving their faith. The remaining 27 couples were continuously interfaith, starting their relationships and marriages with different religious backgrounds from the beginning.

Interview process

Couples participated in web-based, semi-structured interviews with trained interviewers. Where possible couples were interviewed together (the bereaved participant and one other couple, were interviewed individually.) Participants were individually compensated with a $35 e-gift card. The interview schedule was comprised of 25 questions (see Appendix B) designed to explore the couple’s experiences, particularly with regard to union formation, maintenance, and parenting. Questions included such items as, “In trying to be a good spouse and a good parent, from whom or from where do you seek guidance?” and “have your deepest beliefs helped you when your kids have struggled for meaning or for guidance? If so, how?” Of the 25 questions, approximately 15 were adapted from a prior study previously conducted by the primary investigators on highly religious shared-faith marriages (Dollahite et al., 2023). This was done to explore contrasts and commonalities between shared-faith and interfaith couples. The remaining 10 questions were carefully crafted following the guidelines outlined in Marks (2015). This process involved an extensive review of existing literature and the identification of crucial research gaps that needed to be addressed. These included understanding the strengths of being in an interfaith marriage, and how interfaith couples resolved religious differences in their interfaith marriage and addressed issues of religious socialization with their children.

Interviews ranged from 33 to 187 minutes (M = 91 minutes; SD = 35 minutes) and were transcribed verbatim. During the interviews, both the wife and husband had the opportunity to respond to each question. The chance to respond first typically alternated with each question, ensuring that both participants were given equal opportunities to share relevant narratives and experiences. As a result, the 31 interviews where both husbands and wives were interviewed demonstrated a good balance, with husbands contributing an average of 5,229 words per interview and wives contributing an average of 5,678 words per interview.

Analytical procedures

Given the need for an in-depth understanding of the experiences of interfaith couples as they navigate accepting and rejecting sources of influence on their marriage and parenting as well as the exploratory nature of our research (Daly, 2008; Marks, 2015), qualitative research proved to be highly suitable. By employing qualitative methods, we were able to delve deeply into the complexities and nuances of this phenomenon, allowing us to capture rich and meaningful insights from the participants. Qualitative studies are frequently criticized in the social sciences for their subjectivity and lack of scientific rigor (Marks, 2015). While it would be a mistake to assume perfect agreement between the standards of quantitative and qualitative investigation, we believe that qualitative work should be systematic and comprehensive. To this end, our thematic coding analyses were conducted using an iterative, team-based, approach similar to that outlined by Marks (2015). Analysis took place over six phases and followed a repeated process of saturation-based codebook development and codebook-based coding with systematic team-based analysis using NVivo software (Allsop et al., 2022; Bernard et al., 2016).

During the first phase, two research assistants independently conducted open coding of the interviews until theoretical saturation had been reached². Initial higher-level themes were derived through consensus between coders and based on a numeric content analysis of the open coding concepts, assessing the frequency and saliency of codes within and across interviews. Coders met regularly to review and discuss the codes, merging concepts where necessary to address significant overlap in coding or meaning. Out of this process a codebook containing 11 overarching themes was developed. In phase two, all 32 interviews were double-coded (i.e., each interview was analyzed by two coders) using this codebook. Differences between coding partners were resolved by consensus in reference to the codebook. The current study is based on one of those themes: “sources of influence, guidance, and example for interfaith couples,” which encompassed a total of 298 references drawn from all 32 interviews. These 298 references served as the data source for the next two phases of analyses.

In the third phase of analysis, what Allsop et al. (2022) would call the “deep dive method”, the first and second authors independently open-coded the references identified in phase two until theoretical saturation had again been reached. They then met to compare and synthesize the findings and to develop a codebook. We aimed to capture the full range of responses, including situations where couples did not seek or incorporate guidance or where religious commitments played little or no role in their relationships. The resulting codebook identified four mid-range themes, two of which are focused on in the current study: “Accepted/Sought Influence” and “Rejected Influence.” In phase four, the first and second authors coded all of the interviews using this codebook. They met regularly to resolve disagreements via consensus and update the codebook as needed. This process resulted in 110 references regarding “Accepted/Sought Influence” and 69 references discussing “Rejected Influence”. The authors determined that the “Rejected” theme was sufficiently specified based on the numeric content analysis. The 110 references for “Accepted/Sought Influence” served as the data source for the final two phases of analyses.

Finally, the first and second author developed a codebook (phase 5) for subthemes within the “Accepted/Sought Influence” theme, using a similar process to that outlined in phases one and three. This final codebook was then used to code all of the references for each respective subtheme. The subthemes identified within the “Accepted/Sought Influence” theme map directly onto the various influential sources that reportedly shaped the marriage and parenting of these interfaith couples. Because these subthemes concerned the kinds of sources (e.g., friends or spiritual sources) which might influence a couple, and because any particular source might have multiple roles (e.g., one couple reported being influenced by a faith-based [spiritual source] podcast dedicated to providing relationship guidance [professional source]), themes were allowed to overlap where warranted. We conducted a matrix coding query in NVivo software to examine the overlap between codes based on the number of words coded to a set of co-occurring codes. Of the 10 potential co-occurring combinations between any two sets of the five codes, we found that between 16.9%-36.5% of the words coded to any two codes overlapped. Reviewing the data, the majority of overlap was attributed to people mentioning more than one code in the same sentence (e.g., in the same sentence describing how they seek guidance from their parents as well as their friends), and the sentence as a whole being coded to the respective categories, rather than the same source acting in multiple capacities. The authors independently coded the data, conducted a coding comparison query in NVivo, and a weighted Kappa was computed to assess inter-rater agreement. The resulting Kappa score of .82 indicated very strong agreement (McHugh, 2012).

Reflexivity

Statements of reflexivity—the acknowledgement of one’s relation to the subject matter—are an important and established aspect of qualitative research, where the researcher functions as both observer and mechanism of analysis (Daly, 2008). Regarding our relationship to the current study, there are several important points of connection and disconnection. The authors of this paper are all male, all white, and all working in graduate educational settings, each of which may pose a barrier to our understanding of the dynamics reported by our participants. However, there are important points of connection as well. Each of the authors is married and is raising, or has raised, children. Several of the authors either have been or are currently in interfaith marriages. One author was raised by an interfaith couple, and another’s parents became interfaith during the course of this study. Furthermore, as a team, we represent a variety of faith traditions including the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, religiously unaffiliated, and different traditions within Protestant Christianity. Some of our team members are spiritually, but not religiously, active; others are ordained members of the clergy. As we have worked through this project, we have leaned on these differences to broaden our understanding of the processes being described by our participants.

Findings

The results from our analyses are presented in Table 2 and discussed in detail below. Nearly all of the couples (n = 30; 93.8%) discussed accepting or seeking out guidance for their family relationships with the theme appearing an average of nearly four times per interview (n_references = 110; M = 3.7 references per interview). Couples reported seeking guidance and support from others on a wide range of marital and parenting matters. These included, but were not limited to, navigating complex dynamics between religion and family, effectively resolving conflicts, handling financial matters, nurturing commitment to one’s spouse, managing the challenges of remarriage and blending families, fostering strong family bonds, helping struggling or difficult children, fostering positive youth development, and seeking advice on effective child-rearing strategies on a variety of topics ranging from instilling values to addressing basic needs like sleep.

Interestingly, nearly three quarters (n = 23; 71.9%) of the couples also reported rejecting influence. Rejected sources of influence was, therefore, treated as a distinct theme (theme 1). As noted above, the accepted theme was then sub-coded based on the source’s relationship to the participants. Couples reported being influenced by or seeking guidance from one another/themselves (theme 2), family (theme 3), friends (theme 4), media and professionals (theme 5), and spiritual sources (theme 6). Each of the six themes is presented below using verbatim data from participants. In presenting each theme, we strive to stay as close as possible to the participants’ own words and descriptions. We have chosen quotes which we believe outline the contours or varying characteristics of each theme. While these characteristics should not be taken as empirically identified subthemes, they have been selected for their exemplary qualities, whether in echoing sentiments voiced by other interviewees or in providing a unique perspective or approach to the theme.

Theme 1: filtering faith and rejecting influences on family functioning

As we asked couples to describe how key relationships had influenced their marital and parenting processes, our participants frequently responded by telling us about how they had stopped others from influencing them. In total, 23 of the 32 couples we interviewed (72%) reported rejecting influence from external sources—typically particular family or friends—with an average of three rejections per couple. Dianna³, a Catholic, highlighted a common motivation for this rejection—credibility: “I got another good piece of advice from a … mentor, who said, ‘Never take advice from someone more screwed up than you.’… [S]o, if that person is not in a place that you want to be, disregard the advice.”

Another common reason for rejecting influence was related specifically to participants’ parents and their experiences of growing up. For instance, Annabelle, a Latter-day Saint, spoke about the difficulty of not repeating the hostility she witnessed from her parents as a child:

Well, for myself, I am really trying not to repeat the behaviors that my parents exhibited … that’s really my main concern … And it’s really hard because I am an only child, and they’re really my main reference point when it comes to parenting.

We were particularly interested in instances where the rejection of influence concerned the couple’s faith commitment or their interfaith status. Our participants frequently mentioned their faith commitments in relation to rejecting influence (30 of the 69 coded references to rejecting influence mentioned concepts or experiences related to faith). Much of the time, faith commitments, teachings, or communities were mentioned as an alternative to the rejected source of influence (see “Spiritual Sources” theme).

However, there were also instances where it was the influence of faith, or of people of faith, that was being rejected. Post hoc analysis revealed that more than a quarter (27.5%; N_references = 19; N_couples = 9) of the participants’ references to rejecting influence concerned rejecting the influence of an element of faith or religion on their relationship. John, who did not claim a faith tradition but was married to Maddie, a Baptist, reported, “We have these other religious friends … they’re always pushing, they’re always opinionated … they are some of the most religious people I know, and I definitely don’t want to be like them or have the relationship that they have, you know?” This pattern was especially common where the couple felt that the potential source (often parents) objected to the couple’s mixed-faith orientation.

Interestingly, one way our participants resolved this tension was by falling back upon their theological beliefs. In the following quote, Leah, a Latter-day Saint, reported that since her husband, Peter, converted to Buddhism, she has often felt out of step with her faith community’s expectations for family life. However, she resolves this tension by reminding herself of her faith tradition’s teaching that Heavenly Father is a loving parent. She said,

[U]sually the place where I get the angriest [is] on Sundays [at church], because it seems so much like, “into the mold you go.” I don’t believe that the Lord works like that. I don’t believe that His love is like that…. And that [my children hear this] concerns me and it worries me and it angers me, because Heavenly Father [is] a perfect parent, right? He let us come down here and he lets us make mistakes … and He lets us find our way back to him.

As we reviewed our participants’ accounts of the ways in which they had sought to guard their relationships from unwanted, or unhelpful influences, it highlighted to us the intentionality of these successful interfaith families. This concept will be an important part of the discussion below, but first we turn to our other themes which all concern sources from whom our participants did report accepting influence.

Theme 2: internal family influences: guided by myself, my spouse, and our children

The remaining five themes were all related to sources from whom couples did accept influence. Paradoxically, one source mentioned by over half of the couples (n = 18) was themselves. Many participants reported that one of the key shaping forces in their relationship with one another and/or their children was internal to the family—i.e., the participant, their partner, or, less frequently, their children. Like the “rejection” theme, this pattern was surprising to our research team since we expected to hear about external sources. However, many of our participants were adamant that they mainly trust their own internal guidance and listen to one another. When asked where she looked for guidance, Dawn, an unaffiliated wife, responded, “Me. I’m my source.” For some of our participants, this process meant learning to trust their own intuition. Rachel, a Latter-day Saint, put it this way: “I’m not going to look at somebody else for their influence … because everyone is different, you know what I mean? I don’t want to be like Chloe and Charles, because they’re Chloe and Charles, I’m not Chloe [or] Charles.”

For most couples who reported this theme, their spouse was also an important source of guidance. Rachel’s Agnostic husband, Cole, went on to say:

Cole: I don’t read books on parenting or think “what would so and so do in this situation?” … I just talk to Rachel and I go “okay based on what is going on with our kids, what do you think is best for them?” We really just look at what do we feel is best for our kids.

Rachel: … I think in the past we would have looked to our parents. But now … we just look to each other.

[Mark and I] were extremely good at talking about things and looking for answers together. We really supported each other. … [One time] the kids were leaving stuff all over the house and it was driving me crazy and so we started to put things into action that would reduce that tension. … we had family meetings every week and talked about what was working in our family and what wasn’t working in our family—both the kids and the parents—and so that really helped us figure stuff out.

Abdul and Cathleen, a Muslim–Christian couple, recounted a story in which a young boy at their daughter’s school was buying their daughter a present. Abdul said,

So, my parental response was: “He can’t compete with my budget because he’s in kindergarten, so I’ll buy you more.” … and Cathleen is like, “Well, I think the way to approach that is to talk about valuing yourself and who you are as a person” … So, I kind of defer to her logic and her faculties of reason… when mine are thrown out the window because I’m intimidated by a five-year-old boy.

While humorous, this story also illustrates a commonly occurring theme. When asked whom they looked to for guidance in being a good parent or a good marital partner, many of our participants literally or figuratively pointed to one another.

Theme 3: generational and extended family influences on marriage and parenting

A large proportion of the couples (75%; n = 24) reported that one or both partners’ family of origin influenced how they related to one another and their children. Generally, references to family influence were positive (though there were some exceptions, see “Rejected” theme). Participants frequently cited parents as providing an example for how to work together as a couple or raise children. At times, this guidance came in the form of values passed down from generation to generation. Rose, a Methodist, exemplified this sentiment: “I’m close to my family, and my grandparents and parents are all married … I’ve seen that you have to put everything into your marriage and never give up on it.”

At other times, the guidance was more pragmatic. For instance, Jocelyn, a member of a Jewish–Catholic union, reported intentionally mirroring her mother’s example when it came to celebrating Jewish holidays with her children.

Growing up people would ask, “Don’t you feel like you missed out on Santa and Christmas trees and all of that?” And, no, I never really did because my mom just made it, it was … such a big deal in our house and it was so festive and it was so nice … I wanted to continue that with them, and so we do.

Some couples also reported that they drew on family sources in times of need, particularly when parenting responsibilities became overwhelming. Maddie recalled a season where they were struggling to maintain their marriage while raising children, one of whom was living with a medical disability. She said,

His parents have been such a tremendous support to us … his parents … came over every Saturday night. [One child] and grandma would have a date, and grandpa and [the other child] would stay at home. So, we had like four hours where we did get to go out, and we know that if we hadn’t had those regular dates … we know without a doubt that we are the family we are because of his parents.

Extended family was the source of influence and guidance second most commonly referenced by our participants. However, not all of our participants reported positive family ties, and even those who did often relied on other support systems as well. The next theme concerns those extra-familial relationships to which our participants reported turning.

Theme 4: seeking peer guidance and community in navigating marriage and parenting

In addition to family, many of the couples (n = 22; 69%) appeared to seek out and draw from relationships with friends who shared their values and could provide support, particularly in parenting. For many of these couples, friendships brought the couple or the family closer together. For instance, Esther and Matthew, a Catholic–Jewish couple, reported intentionally soliciting guidance from other interfaith couples, particularly at the beginning of their relationship. They explained, “We have a number of friends who are in a similar situation and we’ve [sought] out their advice, you know? How they’re doing it. I guess you can say we did our homework … we didn’t just wing it.” Participants also mentioned explicitly seeking out parenting advice, such as when Ingrid, who is LDS, stated “I meet up with other moms all the time and … mom talk is always like … ‘what do you do when your kid is doing this or that?’ … There’s a huge trading of ideas between moms.”

On the other hand, there were also instances where the influence of friends upon the couple was more ambiguous. A few participants reported that their external relationships influenced the couple by giving them an alternative avenue for pursuing their interests without their spouse, such as Cole, who left the LDS church after marrying Rachel, who said,

You have to have somebody to communicate [with] … [W]henever I would engage Rachel with [my doubts about faith], we would fight … I had to look for other ways of communicating. I got into podcasts and Facebook groups, so that was kind of a good outlet for me … I have communit[y] that way.

The above quote highlights the mixed results our participants sometimes described experiencing from their extra-familial relationships. While Cole’s external connections provided him with an avenue to pursue his questions concerning faith, they also gave him a way to pursue those questions without Rachel, which may or may not have had positive consequences for their couple relationship. The next theme concerns a different type of source, one that is grounded in functionality rather than relationship.

Theme 5: leveraging media and professional sources for better parenting and marriage

We found that half of our participants (n = 16 couples) reported being shaped by what we have loosely identified as media and professional sources, a more distal influence. This theme applied where the credibility of the source was based in its academic or professional background, rather than (or in addition to) its spiritual, familial, or relational connection to the couple. Many turned to this source by reading various books on marriage, particularly on interfaith marriage, as well as books on parenting. For instance, when asked about the belief systems they passed on to their children, Edna and Shawn, a Jewish-Catholic couple, said “We would read books by Wayne Dyer, and Shawn would write great sayings on little post-it notes and stick [them to the children’s] bathroom mirrors … [The beliefs we passed on] came from a lot of different directions.”

Other couples spoke about drawing on professional sources out of a sense of need. For instance, Joanna, a wife in a Jewish–Unaffiliated union, reported being urged by her personal therapist to seek out help for their family. She said,

We went to family counseling starting when [our daughter] was about two and half because … my therapist said, ‘It looks like you’re going off the rails and you need help getting your train back on the rails.’ … [Therapy] taught us how to be parents. … it gave us frameworks for her to figure out how to deal with her own emotions and for us to figure out how to deal with each other and her. … Therapy really helped us.

Some couples mentioned seeking out professional guidance specifically to improve their parenting. Occasionally this guidance came in the form of seeking online media sources such as articles and podcasts, such as Cassandra, an LDS mother who said:

Any type of professional help that I see [is one] that offers free advice (laughs). My husband’s cheap and doesn’t want to pay (laughs)! I guess I’m specifically thinking of … [an] Instagram thing [I watch] where [a parenting coach is] giving little challenges and advice for emotion coaching for your kids. It’s a lot of really good information.

We took a two-day seminar … I think that was hugely impactful at that time in our life, when our oldest child was kind of off the rails, and got us away from pretty simplistic thinking about “how do we fix our child?” to a more holistic approach [to] the family and relationships …. It was really good.

Theme 6: strengthening interfaith family bonds by interweaving spiritual influences

Finally, we come to a central theme of interest, the influence of spiritual sources. This theme appeared in most interviews (n = 24; 75%). Because spiritual roles often co-exist with other relational dynamics (e.g., in many traditions, parents have spiritual as well as parental obligations to their children), we took care to code only those instances where the influence being exerted was of a spiritual nature. Of the 110 quotes coded for “Accepted/Sought Sources of Influence,” nearly half (n = 53; 48%) included references to faith-based influences. The particular source of these influences ranged from the Divine, to religious teachings and leaders, to interactions with the faith community, and often included the faith tradition of their spouse.

One of the most common ways in which couples reported seeking influence from spiritual sources was through direct prayer or petition of the Divine. Parents reported praying for their children, praying for themselves, and praying for their spouse. Naomi, a Latter-day Saint married to James, a Catholic, recalled a time when she sought divine help with a work situation that was inhibiting her relationship with her children. She said,

[T]he more I worked, the more … I started putting other things ahead of the kids … I just went to Heavenly Father and said … “as soon as you help [James] get a raise, I’ll quit.” And then I had a dream… a person was jumping off a cliff and they couldn’t see the bottom and … something out of nowhere kind of caught them and… I learned about faith … I’m like, “Oh I quit, then you make it financially possible. Dang, I don’t like that way.” So, … I quit, and I never worked again after that for 24 years.

Anthony, a Catholic married to an Episcopalian, evoked a similar theme when he spoke about prayer as a core part of his parenting: “You’re kind of there by yourself. So if you turn to God, Jesus, Holy Spirit … or all of them … [it] just relinquishes a lot of pressure … because … spiritually, you are not there alone doing this.” In both of these instances, and the many others which they represent, it was clear that a large number of our participants viewed dependence upon the Divine as a critically important aspect of their parenting.

In addition to prayer, many of our participants reported drawing on the teachings of their religious tradition to inform their relational practices. In line with this idea, referencing Prophet Muhammed’s teaching that “heaven is at the feet of the mother” Navesh, a Muslim married to Ana, a Catholic, said,

[T]here is stuff like the importance of your mom, or your parents, in Islam …. You know, heaven is at the feet of your mother … [Ana’s] importance and her role as a mom are very important, and in my head I put that on a pedestal, right? Because of how that kind of has been hammered home with me.

Some of our participants discussed the influence of religious teachings in more pragmatic ways. For example, Ziva, who was raised Catholic but considered herself agnostic, reported drawing important lessons from both Catholicism and her husband’s Jewish heritage.

It’s very important for us on Friday evenings with Sabbath meal that we’re not in conflict… I think that the teachings of Judaism, about marriage, the teachings of Catholicism about marriage, the social understanding about what makes a good marriage, and what doesn’t make a good marriage, probably inform us more than religious practice per se. It’s a good idea not to go to bed angry. It’s a good idea to get things out and then be done with it, and not continue to get that one little point in that you feel like you have to say.

Another common avenue of spiritual influence on family functioning was through the religious community itself. Participants repeatedly referenced looking to their religious congregations for parenting advice, relationship support, and reinforcement of values. Annabelle, who was quoted earlier and is married to Yousif, a Muslim, spoke about the important role her faith community has played in providing them with alternative role models. She said,

Yousif always remarks how the kids at church are … super well behaved and … really kind and empathetic, and I think part of it is being exposed to that in [religious education classes] and part of it is … that their parents reinforce those values at home. So, we’re always trying to model that behavior.

Similarly, another participant, Ada, reported finding support in both her Latter-day Saint ward (congregation) and her husband’s Catholic parish (congregation) for the social values they were trying to instill in their children:

Both of our congregations … the Catholic parish and the Mormon ward—are really racially [and] economically diverse… [W]hen you go to church on Sundays, the message is very much about how … Jesus came to the Earth to help the poor … and that we are all equal before God and … I know that, for me especially, it is really influential in how I try to raise our kids.

If everybody just did what Jesus Christ said to do, I think the whole world would be an amazing place… Because I love [Dianna], I really got interested in her religion… And now I attend church with her a lot. Would I go if she wasn’t there? No. On the other hand, now that I’ve been there … I’ve learned …

Indeed, this quote highlights a characteristic we noticed in many of our participants—namely, an open, noncompetitive approach to faith. Often, our participants viewed their partner’s faith as an asset to the couple relationship. For instance, when asked what helps them get through challenging times, Hans and Lorrain, a Methodist–LDS couple, responded that they supported one another through prayer and by providing spiritual insights.

Hans: There have been stressful and challenging times lately. [We’ve depended on] prayer and support for each other and sharing perspectives to help each other. What was it? Two days ago? I had a really rough beginning before work and Lorraine wanted to share a scripture with me.

Lorrain: Actually, it was a quote from President Hinckley …

Hans: Okay, that’s right…that was just this week.

We found it interesting both that Lorraine felt it appropriate to share the quote, and that Hans, despite it being from outside his tradition, received it as supportive. While we certainly would not claim that all of our participants manifested this characteristic, this kind of exchange was common. For the most part, our exemplar couples appeared open to one another and willing to share and learn from the traditions and teachings that were important to their spouses.

Discussion

The current study has focused on a qualitative investigation of the sources exemplar interfaith couples consciously allow to influence their marital and parental functioning. Regarding the current study of sources of influence for interfaith marriage, through a systematic and team-based analysis, we have identified six themes which recurred throughout nearly all of our interviews: one concerning the rejection of influence, and five concerning sources couples reported being willing to be influenced by. In this section, we seek to interpret those findings in light of prior research on faith and family functioning.

Accepted sources of influence

Our first research question concerned whom happily married interfaith couples allowed to influence their family functioning. Our participants reported seeking out and/or accepting guidance from four distinct types of sources: themselves, their families, friends, and professionals (spiritual sources will be discussed later on). In many ways, these findings highlight the similarities between our participants and their religiously homogamous counterparts. By identifying themselves and their partners as influential sources, our participants mirrored what other scholars have found looking at more general parenting practices in the United States. Indeed, several authors have argued that the ability to be influenced by one’s partner is a marker of a healthy relationship (Gottman et al., 1998; Peterson & Lucier-Greer, 2021). Even for religious parents, self-reliance appears to be a defining feature. In their national, mixed methods study of religious families, Smith et al. (2020) reported that participant parents felt confident in their ability to teach their children about their faith without explicit guidance from the local congregation. For many of our participants, their partner was their go-to source for guidance and insight about how to make their relationship work.

Participants’ reliance on extra-familial sources was similarly indicative of typical family processes. In keeping with a role theory perspective (Mead, 1934), our participants, like parents in general, reported being strongly influenced in their relationships with one another and their children by what they had witnessed from their parents. They also reported drawing on friends and, when needed, seeking professional help. Prior research has indicated that friendships, particularly couple-level friendships, can have a positive impact on couple and parent-child dynamics (Kwon et al., 2013; Stanford et al., 2021), though importantly there is also a potential for external friendships to have an ambivalent, or even negative, influence (Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2018). We found evidence of both in our sample. In general, when our participants discussed their friendships, it was to report how those relationships had strengthened their marital bonds. However, in a few instances, participants reported that their own or their partner’s external friendships had exacerbated friction between the couple.

The media and professional sources our participants reported seeking out seemed to fulfill a similar function, providing guidance where couples felt overwhelmed or unsure. Dollahite et al. (2019) have argued that the ability to flexibly integrate sacred and secular sources of influence may be a characteristic of strong religious families. We similarly found that our participants generally reported a willingness to actively seek out and incorporate a mixture of sources, including participants who were religiously unaffiliated. Although one unaffiliated husband was adamant in rejecting religion, saying “religion isn’t part of my life by any means, because I’m not going to follow some nonsense somebody else wrote 3000 years ago … based on nothing whatsoever except some ancient superstitions,” his perspective was far from representative. Far more common were sentiments such as, “I don’t disbelieve [guidance] just because of the messenger … I’m open to more sources and willing to accept whatever teaching is going to be good for our family.”

What all of these findings identify is that in many respects these stable, highly satisfied married interfaith couples followed a pattern of family functioning similar to their religiously homogamous counterparts. They relied on one another and their own experiences to guide them, acknowledged being deeply informed by their own families of origin, sought out friends that would support and reinforce their parenting values, and were willing to integrate advice from a wide variety of professional sources. However, there were some important ways in which these couples were distinct from the general population. Our other two research questions highlighted these processes.

Rejected sources of influence

Although we did not directly ask participants about what conditions they would reject sources of influence regarding their marital and parenting relationships, it became a pronounced theme in the majority of our interviews, driving us to explore it further as our third research question. As noted above, and in keeping Bandura’s (1986) emphasis on agency, we found that our participants were discerning when it came to accepting guidance, and, as a consequence, showed themselves willing to reject influence when it failed to align with their values, or when they deemed the source untrustworthy.

Given the focus on interfaith marriages, we were particularly interested in understanding under what conditions these couples would reject religious or spiritual sources of influence, as well as when they might use religious or spiritual justifications for their rejection of various influences. Because prior research has focused on the difficult relationship between interfaith families and their religious communities (Hwang et al., 2019; Petts, 2007), we were curious to see how our participants, for whom a high salience of faith in at least one partner was a selection criterion, would navigate their competing commitments to one another and their faith tradition.

Smith and Adamczyk (2020) have proposed that religious Americans are increasingly likely to approach their faith commitments as an accessory to their personal identity. On this model, aspects of religion which align with their personal values, desires, etc., are endorsed, while those which conflict are rejected. Thus, with regards to the current study, it was conceivable that participants, facing a potential conflict between their marriage and the tenets of their religion, would be willing to reject certain kinds of influence from the latter upon the former; in other words, individuals might view faith as a personal choice with limited implications for their interpersonal relationships. This appeared to be the case for some of the participants, as previously mentioned in the findings, that more than a quarter (27.5%; N_references = 19; N_couples = 9) of the participants’ references to rejecting influence concerned rejecting the influence of an element of faith or religion on their relationship. It was also possible that the participants might accept the theological disapprobation of their union, and yet somehow persist in both. Such embraced dissonance would be in keeping with Weber’s (1948) suggestion that many aspects of human life contain their own, potentially conflictual, inner-logic. We found this to be the case for some of our participants, but most referenced it as a conflict they no longer experienced.

Indeed, we observed that many of our participants found a way to make sense of their union in light of their faith commitments and justified even their rejection of spiritual sources with alternative theological arguments, as can be seen in some participants’ quotes. The accepted influence of spiritual sources is discussed next, but what we wish to highlight here is simply that a number of participants who rejected spiritual influences did so by an appeal to, rather than a rejection of, their faith commitments. Taken together, these findings shed light on the factors influencing when and why interfaith couples reject marital or parenting advice and underscore the significant role that religion continues to play in guiding decision-making within some interfaith marriages.

Spiritual sources of influence

Perhaps the most pressing question in examining the family functioning of interfaith couples is how they navigate the influence of faith on their families. As noted in the literature review, a great deal of research, primarily on same-faith couples, has found significant effects from religion on family functioning. Mahoney as a part of the relational-spirituality framework (2010) identified three main mechanisms by which faith influences families: a connection the divine, engagement with the religious community, and relationship sanctification. Thus, we focus on how our participants accepted or even sought out spiritual influence related to these mechanisms. Overall, we found strong evidence of the first two mechanisms, but limited evidence of the third.

Participants frequently reported turning to the Divine for guidance in their marital and parenting relationships. This was often described in terms of prayer and scripture study, often with one another. Indeed, our participants seemed to see these activities as an important source of relationship strength, in a manner similar to those described by more general research into religious family functioning (e.g., Fincham et al., 2008; Fincham & May, 2017).

Participants also reported frequently drawing on resources provided by their faith-based communities. This was especially true in parenting. Prior research has indicated that religion can have a pronounced impact on parenting practices and outcomes (Marks & Dollahite, 2017). For our participants, the local faith community served as both a reinforcement for their parenting values and a resource for problem solving. Even with regard to the marital relationship, many participants reported that the community had been a source of support, particularly in times of difficulty. Several reported having met with religious leaders and faith-based mentors at key moments in their relationship. We note that their reports align with theological principles present in many Abrahamic traditions (from which most of the participants were sampled), where there is often a strong emphasis on keeping the family intact even when the couple is interfaith (Riley, 2013). Although some participants reported experiencing tension with their faith communities, the majority reported that their local congregations were a welcome source of marital and parenting support and guidance. However, this may not have been the case had our sample consisted of interfaith couples struggling with relational quality or stability.

The final mechanism outlined by Mahoney (2010) concerned relationship sanctification—the act of behaviorally and cognitively imbuing a relationship with sacred or divine qualities. We found repeated evidence of sanctification of the parent-child relationship, and some evidence of sanctification of the marital relationship. Participants frequently reported praying for their children and about parenting practices. Some participants also reported viewing the Divine as a model for their parenting.

We noticed a similar pattern at play in our participants’ discussions of their marital relationship. As noted in the results section, our participants frequently reported praying for one another, attending religious services together, and sharing spiritual insights with one another—what Mahoney (2010) would have identified as behavioral sanctification. However, there appeared to be fewer references to cognitive sanctification—i.e., conceptualizing the relationship as “having divine significance or character” (Mahoney, 2010, p. 820). Of course, it is possible that our participants did cognitively sacralize their relationships and simply did not mention it. It is also true that we did not ask about this mechanism directly (e.g., we did not ask “do you believe your marriage is sacred or sacramental?”). However, we find it noteworthy that in an explicit conversation about faith and family life, very few of our participants referenced what research with same-faith couples has identified as a core mechanism of faith’s influence on marital processes. Given that the religious traditions most prevalent in our study (Catholicism and Latter-day Saints) either strongly discourage or actively prohibit interfaith unions, it is possible that this mechanism may have been less salient for these interfaith couples. We believe that this is an important avenue for future research.

Limitations and future directions

The current study has several strengths, including a systematic and rigorous application of qualitative methods, a geographically diverse and comparatively large sample (n = 63 participants), and the use of dyadic interview data. However, there were also significant limitations. Due to the inherent difficulty in finding and recruiting a sample which matched our criteria, we had to resort to non-probability-based techniques, including convenience sampling. Relatedly, our couples ranged significantly on other demographic factors, particularly age and length of marriage. While such diversity allowed this initial study of influences in interfaith family life to highlight general trends within the population, future research should consider the likely possibility that perception of influence varies according to age and marital stage. Finally, the LDS oversample, while useful in highlighting the experiences of a particularly at-risk interfaith population, may limit transferability of findings to other traditions.

Future research should explore whether the preliminary findings presented here are replicable in more diverse samples. For example, divergent-interfaith couples, who experience a shift in one partner’s faith, may undergo more emotionally charged renegotiation of religious guidance, while continuously interfaith couples are likely to have more stable, ongoing strategies for balancing different religious influences. Future research could explore how these distinct pathways affect couples’ decision-making, rejection of external sources, and reliance on religious commitments in guiding family functioning. Furthermore, because our sample criteria intentionally sought out exemplar couples, it is likely that our participants were more positively disposed toward the influence of faith than the general interfaith population. Social desirability may also have contributed to this effect. It would be worthwhile, therefore, to juxtapose the findings presented here with those from a sample of struggling, or even dissolved, interfaith unions.

We began our exploration of previous literature on interfaith couples by proposing that interfaith marriage is best considered as a continuum (see Figure 1). Although our sample is broadly consistent with the model in Figure 1, with couples from across the interfaith continuum, our limited data collection and sample size did not allow us to explore the impact of each couple’s relative position on the continuum. We believe such a framework could provide a useful heuristic to guide future scholarship by highlighting the diversity of experiences within this population. Employing a continuum-oriented approach to the study of couples in interfaith relationships could allow for more systematic study of couples who face different kinds of situations, challenges, and opportunities.

Implications

While the methodological nature of our study does not allow for prescriptive implications, it has produced themes which may be of use to those who work professionally with interfaith couples—either as clinicians or as faith leaders. For clinicians, Duncan et al. (2004) have pointed to hope as one of the essential components of success in the therapeutic relationship. We therefore note that even an awareness that there are long-term, happy interfaith marriages can be a source of encouragement for clients seeking to navigate their own interfaith union. A clinician may also find it worthwhile to highlight the patterns displayed by our clients as a potential roadmap for relationship success, particularly given that many of the themes presented above correspond to behaviors significantly correlated with relationship strength. For instance, Gottman and Silver (2015) situate the willingness to accept influence from one’s partner as a key principle of marital strength. We also suggest that this may be a domain in which couples need support in learning about one another’s worlds (a process Gottman & Gottman [2017] refer to as “Love Mapping” and which they identify as foundational to marital functioning). Relatedly, interfaith couples that are more distressed may be less likely to exhibit the practice of accepting the influence of their partner or may experience greater tension surrounding the acceptance or rejection of faith as a guiding influence in their marital and parenting decisions, although future research is needed to test these hypotheses. Interfaith couples may benefit from a clinician helping them to identify which aspects of faith they are willing to accept influence from and which they need to separate from their relational functioning.

Given the growing prevalence of interfaith marriages, it is also likely that religious leaders will find value in considering how they might apply the findings described above. Without wishing to gloss over the weighty theological implications from such an issue, we offer some qualified guidance. First, it is worth noting that the majority of our participants reported being open to receiving influence from their own and their partner’s faith communities, particularly when it came to marital and family functioning. This is important because it suggests that even an unaffiliated spouse may view themselves as a part, however tangentially, of the community. Furthermore, many of our participants reported being open to integrating a theological frame into their relationships. For instance, many talked about understanding God as a parent and readily made the connection between this belief and their own parenting behaviors. This may indicate an openness to theological instruction and formation, at least on some issues. Bush (2003) has argued that faith leaders must learn to recognize when individuals are asking for privacy and when they are asking to receive ministry. In light of the findings detailed above, we suggest that ministers be aware that both partners in an interfaith union may be more open to some forms of ministry than may have been supposed.

Conclusion

The current study employed a strengths-based qualitative research design to explore who interfaith couples in strong enduring marriages allowed to influence their marital and parenting relationships, when they rejected potential external influences, and how they utilized religion in guiding their relationships. Notably, our findings underscore the similarities between interfaith couples and their religiously homogamous counterparts in seeking guidance from themselves, their families, friends, and professionals. These findings resonate with broader research on family functioning, emphasizing the significance of partner influence and support networks in shaping relationship dynamics. Moreover, our study delves into the complexities surrounding the rejection and acceptance of religious or spiritual influences within interfaith unions. We hope that the findings and implications presented here will be useful to clinicians and faith leaders as they seek to serve the growing interfaith population, particularly as they seek to navigate the influence of religion in their relationships. While a great deal of research has considered the impact of faith on same-faith couple functioning, this large and growing segment of the population has been largely overlooked. It is our hope that this research will promote future exploration of the experiences and needs of interfaith couples.