SAM’S PARTNER HIT them. Sam knows the partner is at fault, but can’t shake the feeling that getting a “no-fault” divorce would be a lie. “I really don’t know what to say,” admitted a colleague and friend. My friend was a new pastor with a church member in an abusive marriage; we’ll call that church member Sam. My friend walked with Sam as they made the decision to get a lawyer, but they were both overwhelmed with the specifics of the divorce proceedings. “I had no idea there were this many layers to the process,” my friend said. “And frankly, I’m still reeling at the fact that my work as a pastor would include helping someone see the importance of pursuing a divorce, but I just don’t think Sam will survive in this marriage.”
Christian tradition holds marriage to be a public, sacred covenant made by two people before God, intended to be a lifelong commitment. Yet as Christians know as well as anyone — divorce rates among Christians are comparable to the general population — marriages end in divorce for a variety of reasons ranging from poor communication to domestic violence or abuse. Some Christians are against divorce in nearly any circumstance; other Christians are more open to divorce as an acceptable choice, but do not know the different legal options, what these options afford the individuals seeking a divorce, and how those options may or may not align with their faith. And regardless of a church’s views on divorce, I’ve observed that few churches talk openly or well about it.
My journey with this topic began in 2015 with my own divorce. Unlike Sam, I was not a victim of domestic violence. But like Sam, I didn’t want a divorce — and I really didn’t want a no-fault divorce. In the U.S., couples typically choose between an often-lengthy fault-based divorce, where blame is assigned (e.g., abuse, adultery), and no-fault divorce based on irreconcilable differences, which keeps a couple’s opinions about where fault lies separate from the legal process — and is usually quicker. Choosing “no-fault” felt dishonest to what I’d experienced. I couldn’t square it with my faith; it felt too quick, too easy. I wanted to feel the vindication that I thought assigning fault might bring. These feelings were fueled by a lingering sense of self-righteousness rooted in my religious convictions.
For years, I harbored contempt for the no-fault system — until my training as a pastor exposed me to the realities of domestic violence. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, more than 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner. Since people often turn to pastors when they’re feeling broken and desperate, I witnessed how no-fault divorce served as a lifeline for people like Sam, a crucial escape route for those trapped in abuse. This convinced me that the church needs to learn how to talk about divorce and be ready to offer critical care — especially as political conversations about abolishing no-fault divorce become louder. Yet I also witnessed that pastors and laypeople alike lacked resources.
So in the spring of 2024, with assistance from the Louisville Institute, I surveyed individuals who at some point in their life identified as Christian and who have gone through divorce. The goal of this survey was to do three things: to learn how Christian religious affiliation shapes the experience of divorce, to learn how the experience of divorce shapes Christian religious affiliation and/or spiritual formation, and to uncover the ways that the lived experience of divorce might reshape church practice and Christian theology. To help gather the data, I partnered with Stacy Keogh, associate professor of sociology at Whitworth College. Together we estimated there would be 100 respondents to this survey. We had 820. People of faith who have been through divorce are eager to speak up.
WHILE SOME INDIVIDUALS are willing to talk about divorce, churches and church leaders often struggle — not everyone has a pastor like my friend. One respondent to the survey explained, “During my divorce, I realized that the topic of divorce was taboo. ... When seeking guidance from senior pastors, they asked me not to tell anyone.” This respondent was just one of many who explained that their church and church leaders were reticent to talk about divorce for reasons of decorum, hoping to protect the reputation of the church or of the individuals involved.
Other churches and traditions are fully supportive of divorce as a valid way marriages will sometimes end, but reticent to talk about it because they are unsure how to handle the complex psychological, social, spiritual, and legal concerns. One respondent wrote “[Churches] can be loving, supportive and understanding,” but then added that “the mainline church is generally unaware of how shockingly unjust the family court system can be ... and few church leaders are talking about it.”
In still other church traditions, beliefs that marriage is sacred and indissoluble lead church leaders to condemn divorce — often silencing any related conversations in the process. A respondent explained, “Marriage is held in a higher regard than the sanctity of lives at stake.” Multiple survey respondents echoed this participant who said, “Faith communities have often idolized the institution of marriage over the safety and well-being of the individuals in the marriage.”
Disregard for the well-being of the individuals in the marriage means that the condemnation of divorce can silence even those who try to speak about instances of abuse. One respondent described this, saying, “Even when bruised and abused ... you will not have support, just judgment.” While some church leaders are afraid to admit the prevalence of domestic violence and abuse in their pews, 299 respondents out of the 820 we surveyed listed domestic violence as a reason they chose to pursue divorce.
In large part, this Christian tendency to hold marriage in “higher regard than the sanctity of the lives at stake” comes from an attachment to the way the Bible employs the metaphor of marriage to describe God’s love and commitment to the church. At multiple points, scripture describes God’s people as a bride and God as a bridegroom. Theologians and church leaders alike latch on to this extended metaphor; some of the Christian tradition’s most beautiful devotional reflections are reinterpretations of this concept.
But metaphors can be misused. Some scripture portrays God as a long-suffering spouse, willing to put up with — even die for — a partner despite a multitude of abuses. When God as the long-suffering spouse is then posited as the moral exemplar for Christians, victims of abuse find themselves encouraged to remain in dangerous marriages. Christianity’s longstanding love affair with the marriage metaphor and Bible verses like Malachi 2:16 (“For I hate divorce, says the Lord”) makes many churches antagonistic toward divorce of any kind — or, if not antagonistic, unwilling or confused about how to deal with the complexity.
A way out of danger
AS MY FRIEND discovered while walking alongside Sam, divorce proceedings can be complicated. Here’s a quick primer: In the U.S., all states employ two foundational types of divorce, uncontested and contested. Uncontested means that both parties agree on all aspects of their divorce. These typically include the reasons for the divorce and how to divide shared assets and responsibilities such as custody and child support. The court’s role is to sign off on the legal proceedings. A contested divorce is one where the parties can’t agree on the division of assets, the division of responsibilities, or on the “reason” for divorce.
When it comes to the “reasons” for a divorce, there are, as mentioned earlier, a no-fault divorce and a fault divorce. In a fault divorce, blame or guilt is assigned to a particular party, and the petitioner cites a reason; examples include abuse, adultery, incarceration, abandonment, or addiction. A no-fault divorce is one where the parties choose not to find legal fault with one another, opting instead for the generic term “irreconcilable differences.” A legal assertion of who is at “fault” is not made. Filing for an uncontested, no-fault divorce is the most efficient way to legally end a marriage. Practically speaking, all parties spend less time and money and limit the heartache and trauma of invasive and lengthy legal battles.
No-fault divorce began as an effort to reform the judicial system. Before 1969, divorce proceedings required that the courts identify which partner broke the marriage vows. Only certain infractions — specifically abuse, adultery, and prolonged abandonment — were deemed acceptable reasons for divorce. In some circumstances, it was difficult, if not impossible, for a woman to prove her husband guilty of these prescribed “faults.” In other circumstances, fault was not clear or a key factor in the application for divorce. Estranged spouses don’t always want to ascribe fault. What if both parties wanted to leave an arranged marriage or a marriage that took place when one or both parties were very young? Unsurprisingly, perjury became pervasive. Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, signed the Family Law Act of 1969, establishing the first no-fault divorce law. Now, a little over 50 years later, all states have some version of no-fault divorce.
No-fault divorce is credited with helping address domestic violence and abuse, since dissolution of a marriage now does not require the consent of both parties. A study done by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that no-fault divorce was linked to declines in domestic violence (against and by both genders), female suicide (around 20%), and women murdered by intimate partners. While not ideal, being able to say, “If you treat me badly, I’ll leave,” is one way to hold someone responsible for their actions. And, for victims of domestic violence and abuse this provides an important expedited (although sometimes still lengthy) opportunity to disentangle themselves from their abuser.
The very ease that frustrated me in my own divorce is exactly what saves the lives of others. The no-fault system is not perfect, but it is effective. And it has important social implications, including protecting lives. This is what I saw as a pastor. This is what my friend wanted for Sam.
WHILE CHURCHES STRUGGLE to talk about it, the topic of divorce has entered our political dialogue. After the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a friend sent me an Instagram reel with this tagline: “Election results are in: Now’s the time to leave your husband.” Not moments later, I noticed that a colleague in a closed clergy Facebook group encouraged us to reach out to those in our congregations navigating instances of domestic violence and contemplating divorce. Some were afraid that the change in administrations would lead to sweeping changes in divorce law, specifically no-fault divorce.
Two prominent politicians, Vice President JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson have vocally opposed no-fault divorce. Vance trivialized no-fault divorce, comparing the ease of the process to the ease of changing one’s underwear. And in a sermon, Johnson decried no-fault divorce as an invention to undermine the foundations of religion and morality.
Historically, states regulate divorce, not the federal government. This means federal action from leaders like Vance or Johnson seems unlikely in the near term, but political landscapes are shifting. The Heritage Foundation, which has a leading role in shaping current administration policy, has long argued for restricting or eliminating no-fault divorce. Similarly, while change at the state level is not pervasive, it is a part of the political conversation. For example, the Texas Republican Party platform calls for the Texas Legislature to “rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws.” In Nebraska, similar platform language exists. In Oklahoma and South Dakota, there is active legislation aimed to restrict or abolish no-fault divorce.
Notably, divorce rights have been understood as protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, but it’s not a straightforward “right” in the same way as, say, freedom of speech. Which is to say, divorce is not a specifically protected right in the Constitution. The path to divorce that can be so important to victims of domestic violence and abuse has been called into question by politicians like Vance and Johnson, who cloak their comments in Christian rhetoric.
What will we say?
WHEN I DUG deeper into the current political conversation on the topic of no-fault divorce, I noticed similarities between my early approach to divorce and that of our current politicians. Similarly to Vance, I was frustrated by the ease of my no-fault divorce. And, like Johnson, I had questions about the integrity of the no-fault system, and I wrapped my questions in my religious convictions.
But when people suffering domestic violence sought pastoral care from me, my questions shifted: Instead of asking “Who is at fault?” I started asking if assigning “fault” is worth the harm a drawn-out divorce process could inflict. Truth-telling is an important part of healing, but doing that work is not contingent on a public stamp of approval from the U.S. legal system. I watched the way that ascribing fault can trap people in physically dangerous situations, to say nothing of emotionally or spiritually dangerous situations.
This work also taught me something about theology. One survey respondent shared this: “Throughout my experience in domestic violence I let go of my old concepts of God. The God I now know is a life-sustaining force.” My own divorce and the responses to the survey remind me what we learn in John 10:10 — that Jesus came so that we may have life and have it abundantly. Another respondent explained it this way: “Letting a marriage die so something new can emerge has been … a beautiful insight to the pain and promise of death and resurrection.”
Ultimately Sam opted for a no-fault divorce. Together my friend and Sam struggled through the practical and spiritual questions. It wasn’t easy. Divorce is never actually easy. But in the wake of a broken relationship, another relationship rose to the surface — Sam’s relationship with God. As another survey respondent said, “While the church has a tendency to put the institution of marriage before the individual, God doesn’t. God is close to you. Even when you don’t think so. God cares deeply for you.”
Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
Melissa A. Martin lives in Honolulu, Hawaii, where she helps religious organizations think critically about the just use of property and how to partner with local nonprofits.
As The Witness' flagship podcast, ‘Pass the Mic,’ nears its last episode, Tisby reflects on racial reconciliation and finding community in the wilderness.
