The impact of religious differences on couples has received attention among some scholars. Religious differences have often been operationalized as couples belonging to different denominations (interchurch couples) or different religions (interfaith couples). Several studies have found that interchurch and interfaith marriages were more likely than same-church and same-faith marriages to end in divorce or have lower marital satisfaction (e.g., Call & Heaton, 1997; David & Stafford, 2015; Schramm, Marshall, Harris, & Lee, 2011). However, differences in religious beliefs or practices that are associated with different religious affiliations may be more important determinants of marital quality than religious affiliation (Mahoney et al., 1999). Therefore, some studies have focused on differences in beliefs or practices rather than religious affiliation. These studies have also found that religious differences are linked to poorer marital quality (e.g., Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010; Myers, 2006; Olson, Marshall, Goddard, & Schramm, 2015; Vaaler, Ellison, & Powers, 2009), adding to the evidence that religious differences have the potential to negatively impact marital quality for couples.

The above research primarily focuses on couples where both believe in God. However, not everyone believes in God. According to the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (Pew Research Center, 2015), 22.8% of Americans report no religious affiliation, with 31% specifically identifying as atheist and 4% identifying as agnostic. Furthermore, the Pew Survey found that 44% of married people with no religious affiliation had a spouse with religious affiliation. Therefore, it appears that a major religious difference for some couples will be a different belief as to whether or not God exists.

Christians have traditionally been discouraged from marrying nonbelievers based on the New Testament scripture, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14, King James Version)." For example, Catholics must obtain special permission or a dispensation to marry someone who has not been baptized as a Christian (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1635, 2000), creating a "marriage with disparity of cult." Although the Catholic Church does not prohibit such unions, it nonetheless urges Catholics to consider the possible challenges they may face. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 1634, 2000) states, "Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise."

Unfortunately, there is very little empirical research to inform our perspective on couples where one believes in God and the other does not (e.g., atheist or agnostic). Bahr (1981) studied religious intermarriage among couples in Utah, and found that Mormons, Catholics, and Protestants married to those in the "Other" category had a higher divorce rate than those in same-faith marriages. The "other" category was primarily composed of those having no religious preference. Lehrer and Chiswick (1993) also found that Protestants and Catholics married to individuals who reported "no religion" were at greater risk for divorce compared to those in religiously homogamous marriages. Consistent with the above studies, Petts and Knoester (2007) discovered that marital conflict was higher among couples where one partner reported religious affiliation and the other did not when compared to couples where both reported religious affiliation. Although limited, the above studies are consistent with the research on interchurch and interfaith couples in suggesting that religious differences can be problematic for marriages.

A challenge in interpreting the above findings is the ambiguity around what having no religious affiliation means. This category likely includes individuals who are atheists and agnostics, as well as those who believe in God but do not belong to or believe in religion. However, one study (Ecklund & Lee, 2011) focused specifically on atheist or agnostic scientists, looking at how they navigated religious participation as parents. They found that having a religious mate was the main reason that atheist or agnostic scientists participated in a religious community with their children. The limited research regarding how couples negotiate different beliefs about God's existence may be related to the fact that atheism is an understudied topic within the social sciences (Brewster, Robinson, Sandil, Esposito, & Geiger, 2014; Streib & Klein, 2013; Zuckerman, Galen, & Pasquale, 2016).

The research on interfaith and interchurch couples may offer some insights into the potential challenges that couples with different beliefs regarding God's existence may encounter. Tensions around different religious beliefs, as well as differences in values, may impact marital quality (Chinitz & Brown, 2001; Vaaler, et al., 2009). Religiously heterogamous couples may also be less likely to worship or do other religious activities together, which research suggests can be a protective factor in marriages (e.g., Call & Heaton, 1997; Mahoney et al., 1999; Vaaler, et al., 2009). Decisions around the religious upbringing of children and lack of support from families are other potential challenges religious heterogamous couples may encounter (Walsh, 2010; Williams & Lawler, 2000).

However, couples might also experience benefits in navigating their differences. For example, some interchurch couples reported spiritual growth and greater acceptance of other faiths (Williams & Lawler, 2000). Some interfaith Jewish couples experienced greater intimacy from the process of negotiating their differences (Heller & Wood, 2000).

As noted above, research on couples where one believes in God and the other does not (e.g., atheist, agnostic) is sparse. Although research suggests that these couples may be at risk for poorer marital outcomes, no research exists that examines how couples attempt to manage this important religious difference. For example, do they use similar or different strategies compared to interchurch or interfaith couples? This qualitative study begins to fill the gap by interviewing couples where one person believes in God (a Catholic in this particular study) and the other does not (e.g., agnostic, atheist), with a focus on how they navigated having different beliefs about God's existence in their relationship. Using a grounded theory approach, a conceptual model was developed that describes how these couples addressed this important religious difference.

Methods

Recruitment and Description of the Sample

All participant couples were recruited through Pre Cana, a Catholic marriage preparation program for engaged couples. The first author briefly introduced the study during his one-hour talk on building a successful marriage. Interested couples were referred to a recruitment flyer, which stated that the study was "seeking couples where one partner is actively religious and the other is not (e.g., atheist, agnostic)." Prior to conducting the interview, it was confirmed that the non-Catholic partner either did not believe in God's existence or questioned whether God existed (as opposed to individuals who were simply not religious, but believed in God). Couples were offered a $25 gift certificate to one of several local restaurants in exchange for their participation in a 60-90 minute interview. After recruiting couples for 14 months, six couples agreed to participate in the study.

Participants completed a brief demographic form prior to the interview to supply additional information about themselves and their relationship. Five of the six couples were engaged. The sixth couple was recently married civilly, but was going through marriage preparation for a church wedding. The length of the couples' relationships ranged from 5 months to 35 years. All six individuals who endorsed believing in God were Catholic. Among the nonbelievers, four men marked "I am unsure God exists" to represent their beliefs about God both at the time of the interview and at the beginning of the relationship. Another man marked "I don't believe God exists" for the beginning of the relationship, but marked "I am unsure God exists" to describe his beliefs at the time of the interview. A sixth nonbeliever (female) marked both "I am unsure God exists" and "I don't believe God exists" to represent her beliefs of God both at the time of the interview and at the beginning of the relationship. In the interview, the woman explained that she did not believe God existed, but acknowledged that there was no way one could know for sure. The ages of the participants ranged from 30 to 43, with an average age of 34.5. Half (n = 6) reported being White, while the remainder reported being Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 2), Hispanic (n = 3), or Middle Eastern (n = 1). None of the couples had children at the time of the interview.

Data Collection and Analysis

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the couples using open-ended questions, with additional probes to elicit more information where necessary. For example, couples were asked how their views of God and/or religion had changed since the beginning of the relationship, how religious differences impacted their relationship (including potential benefits), how they planned to raise their children in light of their religious differences, and how others viewed the couple's relationship in light of their religious differences.

The first author conducted all of the interviews, which lasted on average about an hour (M = 57.5 minutes). Prior to the interview, participants signed an informed consent form that described the study, including steps to protect confidentiality (e.g., use of pseudonyms). All of the interviews were recorded so they could be transcribed for data analysis.

Open coding was used to analyze the transcribed data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Using this method, the first author went through each interview line-by-line to identify the key ideas or concepts embedded within the text. For example, the statement "I don't look down on her or discourage her or anything like that" was coded as acceptance. As part of the analysis, the coded data was sorted into categories and subcategories. For example, acceptance was placed in a category that described strategies couples used to manage religious differences. A subcategory was created to include factors that helped to create acceptance. Using the constant-comparative method, each coded text was compared with existing codes to see how it was similar or different from previously coded data. This process helped determine if the coded data should be placed in an existing category or subcategory, or if a new category or subcategory should be created. Categories or subcategories were sometimes modified as new insights emerged through subsequent coding of new data. This process allowed the categories and subcategories to emerge from the data inductively. Theoretical memos and diagramming were also used to examine possible linkages between the categories and subcategories (i.e., axial coding). Through reflecting on the data, a core category ("Can we work it out?") was eventually chosen (i.e., selective coding) that appeared to provide a coherent way to organize the key findings. The transcripts and coded data were reexamined in light of this core category to determine if new insights would emerge that might confirm or challenge the conceptual model.

Consistent with qualitative research norms, collection and data analysis were done concurrently. Data collection stopped after 14 months because of the difficulty of obtaining new participants. Therefore, the results are based on only six couples (12 individuals), which raises the question of whether saturation was reached. The content from the sixth interview was very consistent with the material from the earlier five interviews, suggesting that additional interviews with similar couples may not have uncovered much in terms of new findings. The challenge of recruiting couples also meant that it was not possible to do theoretical sampling by selectively finding new couples to test the emerging framework. However, as new insights emerged from interpretation of the data, the researcher went back to earlier transcripts to see if there was additional evidence to confirm or disconfirm the emerging framework (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The recruitment of couples through a Catholic pre Cana program also has implications for the transferability of the findings, which is discussed further in the discussion section.

Positionality

It is important to consider the researcher's background because of its potential to influence how the study is conducted, including interpretation of the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The first author (male) conducted the data analysis, and is a faculty member at a private Catholic university, teaching in a marital and family therapy program. The first author has done both clinical work and scholarship in the areas of couple therapy and marriage preparation. He also has conducted research focused on Christian couples from different denominations and has been in an interchurch marriage (Catholic-Lutheran). The researcher's background allowed the researcher to quickly develop sensitivity in analyzing the data, however, he was continually mindful of how his personal and professional experiences might shape his understanding of the data.

Trustworthiness

Several steps were taken to improve the trustworthiness of the study (Shenton, 2004). Couples were interviewed to obtain both partners' views of the relationship. Rather than relying on just one person's perspective of the relationship, the data were triangulated through interviewing the couple. The second author, who received training in qualitative research after the initial analysis had been completed, reviewed all of the transcripts, coded data, and theoretical memos to look for any potential bias in the first author's coding and interpretations. Couples in the study also were given the opportunity to review the model generated from the data and provide feedback. In the results presented below, quotes are used to demonstrate that the themes are appropriately grounded in the data. Finally, results from the study were compared with existing research in an effort to further ensure the results presented below appear to be compatible with what is already known about related phenomena.

Results

Figure 1 presents a model that summarizes the key findings from the study. The core concept centers on the primary question that these couples had to face--Can we build a successful relationship despite our different beliefs about God's existence? In the diagram, this is abbreviated to "Can we work this out?" Couples faced potential challenges in a number of different areas. A problem in any one of the areas had the potential to be a deal breaker, challenging the viability of the relationship.

The couples' evaluation of their relationship was embedded within their love for one another and desire to be together (commitment). Couples appeared motivated to work out their differences because of their love and commitment to one another. For example, Ahmed stated, "We care so much about each other that even this difference cannot keep you apart." Randall shared that rather than run from the problems or differences in the relationship, his love and desire to be with his partner made him willing to confront the challenges and grow from them.

Couples engaged in two important processes to determine if their relationships were viable. The first process centered on couples exploring their religious differences. Multiple factors could facilitate or inhibit this process. In the second process, couples had to find strategies to address problems that arose from their different beliefs about God. Each element of the model is described in more detail below.

Can We Work It Out?

All of the couples directly or indirectly indicated that they had to confront issues that could potentially threaten the relationship moving forward. Some couples referred to these issues as potential "deal breakers." Multiple issues had the potential to be a deal breaker. However, what constituted a potential deal breaker varied from couple to couple.

Being faithful to one's values. Conflicting values tied to religious beliefs had the potential to create an impasse for couples. For example, Jennifer and Randall struggled with different values around premarital sex. Catholic teaching prohibits sex before marriage (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2000, no. 2353). After Jennifer confessed to her priest that the couple had begun to have sex, he admonished her by saying, "Either you get on the right track or dump your boyfriend if that is causing you to sin." After confession, Jennifer said, "I told him if we have sex, I can never see you again basically." Randall did not see having premarital sex as a problem, but was willing to abstain from sex because of his love for Jennifer. The couple also described how they had to reconcile different beliefs around abortion.

For the Catholic partner, getting married in the Church was important to them. In fact, Jennifer insisted that if Randall had been unwilling to get married in the Catholic Church, she would not be getting married to him.

Individuals had to feel like they were being genuine or faithful to who they were when considering solutions or compromises. John said, "My biggest concern with knowing that you wanted a Catholic wedding was that I didn't want to have to misrepresent myself to a church in order to be accepted."

Mutual respect. The necessity of mutual respect was emphasized in all the interviews. According to John, "It's one of those things where we just have to say, even if I don't agree with it, even if I don't see it, if it's valid to her, that means that I have to respect it. And similarly, I have certain opinions on things that she offers me that same respect."

Children. The religious socialization of children was another issue couples needed to negotiate. Having the children raised within the faith was important to the Catholic participants, especially when children were in their "formative" years. Their position is consistent with Catholic teachings, which requires that a Catholic "promises to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church" (Code of Canon Law, 2003, canon 1125). All six couples agreed that any children would be raised in the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, some of the nonbelievers insisted that they wanted their children exposed to their beliefs as well. Ahmed stated, "We both get to share our worldviews, if or when we have kids. Yes, they can go to Catholic school ... But then, I think i reserve the right to also tell them about other worldviews."

Extended family. While some couples reported that their families were accepting of their relationships, others did not. Lack of family acceptance could be a potential deal breaker. Rebecca's father expressed his strong disappointment that Derek was not a practicing Catholic. Derek and Rebecca experienced significant stress over the lack of acceptance from her family, even to the point of rethinking if they should get married.

Spiritual connection. Being unable to worship together as a couple (and eventually a family) could be a potential deal breaker for some couples. Andrea insisted that sharing a spiritual connection was necessary before she and Malcolm could move forward in their relationship. Although Malcolm was still unsure about God's existence, he was developing more faith in God's existence. He and Andrea also engaged in several religious activities together, like attending daily Mass, praying before meals, and talking about the Scriptures.

Exploring Religious Differences

Exploring their religious differences was a necessary step for couples to evaluate their relationship. Randall advised, "Have the conversation and understand where you are both coming from. That will open up everything, and then you'll know if that's something you can do or you can't do." Couples sometimes referred to the importance of being able to "communicate" when discussing religion. The study uncovered factors that might facilitate or impede the couple's ability to communicate about or explore their differences.

Catalysts. Some couples mentioned things that pushed them to talk about their religious differences. One couple shared that they did not talk much about their religious differences early in the relationship, but discussed them in greater depth as they contemplated marriage. Derek said, "Talking about engagement, marriage, and children is really what sparked a lot of these deeper conversations, and I think they're kind of eye opening." The Pre Cana marriage preparation was also a catalyst for talking in a more meaningful way about their religious differences. Rebecca noted that Pre Cana encouraged the couple to go deeper into talking about religion, whereas before they "lightly touched the surface."

Being open to sharing. Being open with one's partner was also mentioned as important to communication regarding religion. When asked what advice she would give other couples, Rebecca offered, "I think it would be to just be open and honest with your feelings. That would be the main thing." However, this was not easy for everyone. Thomas confessed that he was a private person, leading him to keep conversations about religion with his fiancee more "academic" rather than personal. He also admitted that he felt self-conscious talking about religion because he feared some elements of religion would not make sense or seem silly to someone from a scientific or rational perspective.

Seek understanding. Some individuals emphasized the need for both parties to make an effort to understand the other person when communicating. This could be done through careful listening and asking questions. For example, Melanie said, "Listen before you speak. Just try to understand, because sometimes what's said is packed full of a lot more information that just really needs to be fleshed out."

Fear of conflict. The fear of conflict may inhibit some couples from talking about their religious differences. Rebecca acknowledged that one reason she and Derek avoided talking about their differences in the beginning was because it was an uncomfortable topic. Derek agreed, "Yeah, you have a natural tendency to want to avoid difficult talks, especially when you can go and do something else that is going to be pleasant for the both of you."

Avoid judgments. Making critical or negative comments also has the potential to impact exploring differences. Participants often commented on how important it was that their partner refrained from making negative comments about their beliefs. Jennifer stated, "He's the first person that was not religious that i felt comfortable talking to because of his responses, and because of his not being judgmental and just saying, 'Okay, that's cool that you feel that way,' and being sincere about it. So, that helps me verbalize the things that are important to me."

Interest in religion. Many of the nonbelievers also demonstrated an interest in religion, which appeared to facilitate being open to exploring religious topics. For example, John liked listening to the Gospel stories during Mass, and even bought a Bible so he could read some of the stories on his own. He had also taken classes on the Bible, although the emphasis was more on the Bible as literature rather than as a religious text. Thomas and carol would regularly visit churches or mosques when traveling. Even Ahmed, who described himself as "irreligious," said he had studied religion in the past and enjoyed philosophical discussions about religion.

Managing Religious Differences

Couples in the study illustrated six different approaches to managing their religious differences. These approaches were not necessarily used in isolation, but could be used in combination with one another.

Acceptance. A consistent theme throughout the interviews was the need to accept one's partner when discussing religion, including not trying to change the partner or force one's beliefs upon the other. John echoed the sentiments of many when he said, "I don't have to prove to her why what she believes is wrong. She's going to respect that I can have a difference in opinion. I have to respect hers. And there's no reason for me to force my beliefs or my questions onto anyone else either." Although some study participants use the words acceptance and respect interchangeably, they could be viewed as separate but related concepts. Acceptance can be viewed as an action or decision on the part of the individual, whereas respect is the outcome of that action or decision.

Individuals offered various insights on what helped to cultivate acceptance. John felt that focusing on the love they shared helped them resist the temptation to prove the other was wrong. Some observed that they accepted the partner's religious differences because it was part of who they were. Randall reflected, "Her religion is part of her, which I love." Others recognized that trying to change the other person was unlikely to be successful. According to Ahmed, "It's very unlikely that you're going to change someone, and even if you change someone, probably down the road they or their family is going to resent you for changing or cornering them. So you really need to determine if you can accept them, that person, the way they are." Believing that individuals were entitled to their own beliefs also seemed to facilitate acceptance.

Common values. Another strategy couples used was to search for commonalities. John advised, "Don't fight about the differences; focus on the similarities." For example, couples often felt they shared similar values despite their religious differences. Thomas observed, "I think regardless of the reason why we feel the way we do about things, we feel similarly most of the time. So it may come from a religious set of values for me, and it may just come from how she looks at it . . . You got there a different way, but it's alright, we met at the right spot."

Character versus faith. Some individuals focused on their partner's virtues rather than if they professed a belief in God. Rebecca said, "I've always told him ultimately it's how he lives his life and how he treats me rather than just calling himself catholic or believing in God; because there's a lot of people who say they're religious or Catholic who don't live the best of lives."

Compromise. Some couples also mentioned the need for compromise. John stated, "So, it should really just be about expressing, 'This is what's important to me and it's based on these religious beliefs,' and the person who may not be religious says, 'Well, these are what's important to me,' and find a middle ground between those two. It doesn't have to be something that is a deal breaker."

Compartmentalize. Another couple seemed to manage their religious differences by separating them from other areas of the relationship. Ahmed shared, "I think it's their private business to believe, as it's mine not to believe. So, I think that's part of why we get along fine." This same couple admitted that they infrequently talked about religion because it was difficult to find "common ground." Therefore, it is possible that couples may be more likely to compartmentalize religion where there is less likely to be common ground. Not all individuals may be willing to use this strategy. Andrea stated, "There was no way i was going to move forward with anybody if I had to compartmentalize."

Conversion. While some of the nonbeliever's views of God remained unchanged, others acknowledged that their partner's beliefs made them more open to the possibility that God existed, although this happened to varying degrees. Malcolm stated that in the past he would be "switching back and forth" in terms of believing in God, but now found himself staying more on the side of believing in God. In addition to his increasing faith in God, Malcolm was actively participating in religious activities (attending daily Mass, praying together) with his fiancee. Malcolm appeared to be moving in the direction of being a believer. Thus, conversion may be one way that some couples eventually reconcile religious differences.

Discussion

Couples in this study were trying to address an important religious difference, namely their divergent beliefs as to whether God existed. using a grounded theory approach, a model (see Figure 1) emerged from the couples' experiences that described how they navigated having different beliefs about God's existence. Couples in the study shared various challenges they faced, which had the potential to be deal breakers. All of the study couples had some success in navigating their religious differences as evidenced by the fact that five of the couples were preparing for marriage and one had recently married. However, it is possible that not all couples will be able to find acceptable solutions, leading them to conclude that their religious differences are irreconcilable.

To determine if the relationship was viable ("Can we work it out?"), couples needed to explore their religious differences, as well as determine if they could find acceptable solutions for problems that arose from their differences. The relationship between these three key elements of the model is likely dynamic and multi-directional. For example, an issue may arise that becomes a catalyst for the couple to explore more deeply their religious beliefs. As differences emerge through this exploration, the couple may begin to discuss options for managing or bridging those differences in order to resolve the issue. However, the process of seeking a solution (e.g., compromise) might trigger additional exploration of the differences, especially if the proposed solutions make individuals question if they are being faithful to their values.

Love and commitment to one another appeared to motivate couples to find solutions so their relationship could move forward. However, it is also possible that exploring and navigating their religious differences could further cement the love and commitment the partners have for one another. For example, exploring each person's religious beliefs might encourage intimate disclosures, which could enhance the couple's bond or connection (Heller & Wood, 2000). Furthermore, being responsive to a partner's needs (e.g., through compromise) could also strengthen the couple's relationship.

Some of the concepts in the model are consistent with those found in the literature on interfaith and interchurch marriages. Many of the issues that were identified as potential deal breakers in this study are also mentioned in the literature as challenges for interchurch and interfaith couples, include having different values, the religious socialization of children, developing a spiritual bond, and finding acceptance among extended family.

In addition, some of the concepts related to exploring and managing religious differences mentioned by couples in this study are consistent with those found in the interfaith and interchurch literature. These include learning about each other's faith, maintaining open communication around religion, accepting and respecting one's partner, searching for commonalities, and negotiating compromises (David & Stafford, 2015; Williams & Lawler, 2000). The strategy of conversion appears similar to what is observed in some interchurch or interfaith marriages, where one individual changes to the partner's religious affiliation. Given the above parallels, it is possible that this model might serve as a useful guide for couples in general who face religious differences in their relationship.

However, there may be some differences between how two people who believe in God (interfaith, interchurch) navigate differences compared to those who have different beliefs about whether God exists. For example, two individuals from monotheist religions can both agree on the existence of God and may even agree that they worship the same God despite their other differences. However, for couples in this study, they needed to look deeper to uncover what they shared in common, focusing on shared values rather than shared beliefs about God. There may also be differences in how frequently the various strategies are used among the various groups. For example, will those with different beliefs in God's existence be more likely to compartmentalize religion in their relationship compared to couples where both believe in God because they have greater difficulty finding common religious ground? These may be fruitful areas for future research to explore.

Limitations and Future Research

Because all of the couples were recruited through Pre Cana, a Catholic marriage preparation program, there are implications on how transferrable the findings may be to other couples. First, all of the believers were Catholic. it is possible that dynamics might be different if the believers were from other faith backgrounds. However, given how many of the results parallel those found in the literature for interchurch and interfaith couples, one might anticipate that the findings will be fairly robust and not specific to just Catholics. Nonetheless, studying believers from other denominations or faiths would be needed to confirm this.

Second, all of the couples were engaged or newly married. These couples were successful enough in navigating their different beliefs about God to decide to pursue marriage. Future research might seek out couples that ended their relationship before committing to marriage due to their religious differences. Future research might also examine couples in longer-term relationships to see if different findings emerge, particularly as they go through different life cycle stages (Walsh, 2010). For example, none of the couples had children yet, so it would be helpful to see how couples navigated their differences once children arrived. Also, religious beliefs appeared to be shifting for some of those who doubted or questioned God's existence. It would be informative to examine the long-term impact of these shifts. Do these individuals continue to become more open to the possibility of God's existence, eventually becoming believers? Conversely, do some who believe in God eventually question or become indifferent to their faith by living with an atheist or agnostic mate?

Finally, it should be noted that the Catholics in this study were active in their faith, which included a desire to get married in the Catholic Church. In addition, it is possible that the nonbelieving partners in this study were more open to religion by virtue of their willingness to participate in a faith-based marriage preparation program. It is conceivable that different dynamics might have emerged in couples where the Catholic was less devout and or the nonbeliever was less open to religion.

Despite these limitations, it is important to note that marriage preparation is a time in which couples commonly have more contact with practitioners (e.g., therapists, pastoral counselors, clergy). In addition, marriage preparation is most often offered through faith communities. Therefore, the couples in this study may be similar in many regards to couples that practitioners will have the opportunity with which to work. Some couples at this stage still appear to be figuring out how to navigate their religious differences, and could potentially benefit from intervention. Indeed, some of the couples noted that their marriage preparation experience was a catalyst for them to explore their religious beliefs and differences more deeply. Therefore, the model may help professionals offer couples guidance on how to navigate their different beliefs about God at an important point in their relationship.

Clinical Implications

Couples need to explore and share their beliefs about God with one another in order to understand where each person may be coming from, and how these beliefs may impact the relationship. Therefore, practitioners will ideally assess the extent to which couples are having these conversations. For couples that are avoiding these conversations, the practitioner may want to explore the underlying reasons for this avoidance. Some couples might avoid discussing their religious differences to protect the relationship from conflict. Thus, couples may benefit from being taught communication skills so they can safely talk about their religious beliefs. For example, active listening skills may be particularly helpful in encouraging the partner to understand their partner's perspective, an important element of the model. The practitioner may also want to explore if other factors (e.g., negative judgments, feeling self-conscious in sharing one's beliefs) are inhibiting the conversations.

Contact with a helping professional could be an important catalyst for the couple to explore their religious differences. However, it is possible that some practitioners may be reluctant to talk about religious topics with couples, especially if they have had little training in addressing religious or spiritual issues (e.g., Hage, 2006; Vieten et al., 2013). Thus, a practitioner's reluctance to tackle religious topics could reinforce the couple's avoidance.

If the couple is having conflict over their differences, then the practitioner may want to encourage them to use one or more of the strategies described in this study. For example, helping the couple uncover what they share in common around values may be helpful. Where common ground is difficult to find, the couple may need to compartmentalize their religious differences, and appreciate the other positive qualities the partner offers. The practitioner may also need to help the couple brainstorm possible compromises to the issues they are confronting (e.g., raising children, planning weddings). When seeking solutions or compromises, it is essential that both individuals feel that they are being faithful to their core values or beliefs.

In some cases, one partner may adopt the religious beliefs of the other, reducing religious differences and conflict. In the current study, one or more of the individuals who questioned God's existence appeared to be moving in the direction of becoming a believer. Adopting a partner's beliefs is also seen in interchurch and interfaith relationships, where one partner changes religious affiliation. If the individual who changes finds the alternative set of religious beliefs to be attractive, then the process is likely to go well for both the individual and the relationship. However, if the individual feels pressured to adopt the other person's religious beliefs, then resentment or anger may create conflict in the relationship. Therefore, the practitioner may want to assess if anyone is feeling pressured to change in ways that could create problems for the relationship in the future.

For many couples, having divergent beliefs about whether God exists is not likely to change. This difference could be viewed as a perpetual problem (Gottman & Gottman, 2015). Couples in the study seemed to recognize the importance of accepting their partner, an important element of managing a perpetual problem. Practitioners may need to help some couples cultivate greater acceptance to avoid "gridlock" in the relationship through escalating conflict.

For one couple, conflict with extended family was nearly a deal breaker. Therefore, practitioners will ideally be prepared to help couples address this challenge if it arises. One helpful strategy is to address the underlying fear or concern that may be driving the family's lack of acceptance (Williams & Lawler, 1998). For example, Rebecca tried to reassure her disapproving father that Derek was open to learning more about the Catholic faith. Rebecca also used another strategy (character versus faith) described in this study, which was to point out to her father the other positive qualities that Derek possessed.

Conclusion

This qualitative study examined couples that had differing beliefs about whether or not God exists. Although these couples experienced a number of challenges related to their different beliefs, they were all able to navigate these differences and commit to marriage. The couples described important factors that impacted exploring their religious differences, as well as strategies they used to address their religious differences. Some individuals also noted the role that love and commitment had in helping them work through the challenges they encountered. A model describing these essential elements was derived from the couple interviews using a grounded theory approach. The authors hope that the model will help practitioners be better equipped to understand and work with couples.

References

Bahr, H. M. (1981). Religious intermarriage and divorce in Utah and the Mountain States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 20, 251-261.

Brewster, M. E., Robinson, M. A., Sandil, R., Esposito, J., & Geiger, E. (2014). Arrantly absent: Atheism in psychological science from 2001 to 2012. The Counseling Psychologist, 42, 628-663. doi:10.1177/0011000014528051

Call, V. R. A., & Heaton, T. B. (1997). Religious influence on marital stability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382-392.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd ed.). (2000). Washington, DC: Libreria Editrice Vaticana-United States Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved September 28, 2018 from http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/files/assets/basic-html/page-i.html

Code of Canon Law: Latin English Edition. (2003). Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America. Retrieved September 28, 2018 from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P41.HTM

Chinitz, J. G., & Brown, R. A. (2001). Religious homogamy, marital conflict, and stability in same-faith and interfaith Jewish marriages. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 723-733.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

David, P., & Stafford, L. (2015). A relational approach to religion and spirituality in marriage: The role of couples' religious communication in marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 232-249. doi:10.1177/0192513X13485922

Ellison, C. G., & Burdette, A. M., & Wilcox, W. B. (2010). The couple that prays together: Race and ethnicity, religion, and relationship quality among working-age adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 963-975.

Ecklund, E. H., & Lee, K. S. (2011). Atheists and agnostics negotiate religion and family. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50, 728-743.

Gottman, J. M., & Gottman, J. S. (2015). Gottman couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman, J. L. Lebow, & D. K. Synder (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (5th ed., pp. 129-157). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hage, S. M. (2006). A closer look at the role of spirituality in psychology training programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 303-310.

Heller, P. E., & Wood, B. (2000). The influence of religious and ethnic differences on marital intimacy: Intermarriage versus intramarriage. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 241-252.

Lehrer, E. L., & Chiswick, C. (1993). Religion as a determinant of marital stability. Demography, 30, 385-404.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E., & Rye, M. (1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321-338.

Myers, S. M. (2006). Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and generational patterns, 1980-1997. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 292-304.

Olson, J. R., Marshall, J. P., Goddard, H. W., & Schramm, D. G. (2015). Shared religious beliefs, prayer, and forgiveness as predictors of marital satisfaction. Family Relations, 64, 519-533. doi:10.1111/fare.12129

Petts, R. J., & Knoester, C. (2007). Parent's religious heterogamy and children's well-being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 373-389.

Pew Research Center. (2015, May 12). America's changing religious landscape. Washington, DC: Author.

Schramm, D. G., Marshall, J. P., Harris, V. W., & Lee, T. R. (2011). Religiosity, homogamy, and marital adjustment: An examination of newlyweds in first marriages and remarriages. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 246-268. doi:10.1177/0192513X11420370

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.

Streib, H., & Klein, C. (2013). Atheists, agnostics, and apostates. In K. I. Pargament (Series Ed.), J. J. Exline, & J. W. Jones (Vol. Eds.), APA Handbook ofPsychology, Religion, and Spirituality: Vol. 1. Context, Theory, and Research (pp. 713-728). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Vaaler, M. L., Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (2009). Religious influences on the risk of marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 917-934.

Vieten, C., Scammel, S., Pilato, R., Ammondson, I., Pargament, K. I., & Lukoff, D. (2013). Spiritual and religious competencies for psychologists. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 129144. doi:10.1037/a0032699

Walsh, F. (2010). Spiritual diversity: Multifaith perspectives in family therapy. Family Process, 49, 330-348.

Williams, L. M., & Lawler, M. G. (1998). Interchurch couples: The issue of acceptance. Pastoral Psychology, 47, 33-47.

Williams, L. M., & Lawler, M. G. (2000). The challenges and rewards of interchurch marriages: A qualitative study. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19, 205-218.

Zuckerman, P., Galen, L. W., & Pasquale, F. L. (2016). The Nonreligious: Understanding secular people and societies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lee M. Williams

Yang Jiang

Erin Rector

University of San Diego

Address correspondence to: Lee M. Williams, Ph.D., Professor, University of San Diego, School of Leadership and Education Sciences, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110-2492, [email protected]

Lee Williams, PhD, is a Professor in the Marital and Family Therapy program at the University of San Diego. His clinical specialty is working with couples. His publications primarily focus on couples, marriage preparation, religious differences within couples, and family therapy training, including being co-author of three books on family therapy training.

Yang Jiang obtained her MA in Marital and Family Therapy from the University of San Diego, and is currently a doctoral student in Leadership Studies at the University of San Diego.

Erin Rector obtained her MA in Marital and Family Therapy from the University of San Diego, and is currently a mental health advocacy writer and consultant for therapy and coaching professionals in the Southern California area.

Caption: Figure 1. A model for Couples with Differing Beliefs about God's Existence.