How Churches (and Focus on the Family) Treat Divorcees—And How the Smalleys Treated Their Daughter
What Greg Smalley’s Article Reveals About Divorce, Compassion, and Double Standards When It’s Your Own Child
Dr. Greg Smalley is Vice President of Marriage and Family Formation at Focus on the Family. He and wife Erin Smalley are not peripheral voices there. They helped shape Focus on the Family’s public marriage message as the general editors of Ready to Wed: 12 Ways to Start a Marriage You’ll Love, a 2015 Focus on the Family book on premarital preparation and lifelong commitment that condemns divorce multiple times, suggesting it is always spiritually catastrophic.
That is why Greg Smalley’s later article, “Dealing with Your Child’s Divorce,” about his daughter’s divorce a few years later is so revealing.
In the article, he models compassion, loyalty, and clarity.
When Greg Smalley publicly wrote about his own daughter’s divorce on Focus on the Family’s website what did he show? Compassion. Respect. Tenderness. A willingness to acknowledge harm. A willingness to support healing after divorce.
Which raises the obvious question: why is that tone missing in his books and in Focus on the Family content he authors?
That is the issue. Not that he loved his daughter well. He should have. The issue is that after helping shape a strong institutional message about marriage permanence, he discovered in his own family what countless ordinary Christians already know: sometimes divorce is not rebellion. Sometimes it follows after years of real harm. Sometimes the loving response is not pressure to preserve the marriage at all costs, but compassion for the one who had to leave.
First, Focus on the Family and other marriage-at-any-cost organizations publish certainty and easy answers. Behind the scenes, when divorce hits home, the certainty softens into compassion. And ordinary Christians are left to wonder why mercy becomes easier to find only when the suffering belongs to a leader’s own child.
The Smalleys learned from painful personal experience that real life is more complicated than the messaging.
And once you see that, the double standard is hard to unsee.
He acknowledges serious harm, respects his daughter’s agency, and affirms that healing and growth are possible after divorce. Many readers quietly noticed something unsettling—not in how he treated his daughter, but in how different that treatment is from the way divorce is typically discussed in some churches and in Focus on the Family’s public messaging.
I want to be clear about something. I wrote my response to Greg Smalley’s public article years ago and chose not to publish it. I didn’t want to embarrass their daughter or turn a painful family situation into a public spectacle. This post isn’t about personalities and family history. It’s about patterns. When leaders model compassion privately but institutions withhold it publicly, that gap matters—for the people attending our churches right now.
A Quiet Double Standard
When divorce affects their own child, the posture is kind and grounded in reality. Responsibility is clearly placed on the marriage-destroying sin. Harm is named. Relief is appropriate. Hope is allowed.
Yet in Focus on the Family teaching, divorce is still often framed as the primary threat—something feared for its ripple effects, its influence, its ability to “spread.” Even in Greg’s otherwise tender article, concern surfaces about how divorce might shape his other children’s views of marriage, reinforcing the familiar idea that divorce itself is more of a danger than the harmful behaviors of one of the spouses.
What remains largely unexamined is a harder question: not how divorce influences families, but how unsafe marriages are formed—and how serious character issues can remain unseen by everyone, minimized, or spiritualized during courtship and early marriage, especially in faith communities that emphasize optimism, forgiveness, and perseverance.
A Note on “The Blessing”
“The Blessing” is a phrase popularized by Gary Smalley (Greg Smalley’s father) and John Trent in their book The Blessing, where it refers to love, approval, and acceptance that are meant to strengthen a person’s life and relationships.
Greg Smalley puts significant weight on having given his future son-in-law “the blessing,” presenting it as a meaningful spiritual safeguard. But however sincere a blessing may be, it is not a substitute for character. It does not prevent deception, entitlement, or harm.
Well-meaning parents, pastors, and mentors can miss serious problems, especially in environments that prize marriage, optimism, spiritual language, and the appearance of commitment over sustained patterns of behavior. The danger is not in offering a blessing. The danger is in treating it as assurance, when what a marriage really needs is discernment, accountability, and the courage to name red flags before vows are exchanged.
In many Christian settings, even when concerns are noticed, they are quietly set aside. Red flags are reframed as opportunities for grace, patience, or spiritual growth. Warnings are softened by hope. Discernment is discouraged by fear of seeming judgmental. Perseverance is elevated over caution. This is not usually indifference. It is the predictable result of teaching that prioritizes ideals over warning signs.
If even careful parents and seasoned leaders can miss serious issues before marriage, another question naturally follows.
What Even Experts Cannot Control
One of the most striking aspects of Greg Smalley’s story is not failure — it is powerlessness. Even with advanced degrees, decades of marriage leadership, and access to the best Christian counseling programs available, he could not make another adult choose faithfulness.
That reality stands in quiet tension with a common message within marriage ministries: that with the right tools, enough conviction, and sufficient intervention, most marriages can be saved.
The truth his story reveals is simpler and more sobering:
No program can restore a marriage when one spouse is unwilling.
If that insight were fully acknowledged, it would reshape how churches counsel struggling spouses — especially those facing chronic betrayal or abuse.
What That Difference Looks Like in Practice
Below is a side-by-side comparison showing the contrast between Focus on the Family’s institutional messaging and the way the Smalleys treated their daughter.
How Focus on the Family Treats Divorcees vs. How the Smalleys Treated Their Daughter
| Dimension | Focus on the Family – Institutional Pattern | Smalley Family’s Treatment of Their Daughter |
|---|---|---|
| Reconciliation view | Reconciliation treated as the preferred outcome whenever “there is any chance,” even before fully examining harm1 | Reconciliation not pressured; safety and well-being prioritized |
| Framing of divorce | Divorce framed primarily as moral/spiritual failure, with strong emphasis on permanence2 | Serious harm acknowledged; unwillingness to change named |
| Responsibility | Responsibility often blurred or deprioritized in favor of forgiveness and moving forward3 | Responsibility clearly placed on the spouse who broke trust |
| Blame & forgiveness | Blame discouraged as unhelpful; forgiveness emphasized early3 | Harm named before forgiveness; emotional truth not rushed |
| Abuse | Described clearly in some content, yet divorce consistently withheld as an appropriate response4 | Abuse named plainly; divorce affirmed as legitimate relief |
| Emotional posture | Distance, caution, stigma commonly reported | Close presence, tears, reassurance |
| Use of parental influence | Support framed as something that may be withheld to discourage divorce, not helping financially or letting them move back home1,5 | Support offered without leverage or pressure |
| Faith impact | Divorce often framed as spiritual failure2 | Faith affirmed and respected |
| Future after divorce | Improvement after divorce rarely affirmed publicly8 | Growth and healing openly recognized |
| Anger | Spiritualized as bitterness | Normalized as appropriate |
| Loyalty | Pressure to remain neutral | Loyalty to daughter prioritized |
| Agency | Agency affirmed in principle but constrained through guidance and moral framing6 | Daughter’s judgment trusted |
| Remarriage | Treated cautiously or avoided8 | Hope for future happiness expressed |
| Shame | Implicit and pervasive | Explicitly rejected |
| Discernment | Emphasis on programs, principles, and prescribed responses | Listening and discernment emphasized |
| Emotional center of gravity | Focus on managing parental emotions to model stability7 | Attention remains on daughter’s recovery |
| Priority | Marriage permanence emphasized even amid serious harm2 | Safety and truth prioritized |
| Practical support | Framed as conditional and potentially withheld to influence reconciliation5 | Ongoing, unconditional support |
| Public vs. private | Public messaging more restrictive than private practice9 | Compassion modeled publicly |
| Church impact focus | FOTF and associated research emphasize how divorce affects church participation, reputation, leadership, and mission10 | Smalley’s article centers daughter’s well-being and recovery, not institutional outcomes |
Why This Matters
When divorce touches their own family, the Smalleys practice what many divorce survivors say they needed all along: belief, dignity, clear responsibility, and freedom from stigma.
That contrast doesn’t condemn parental love.
It exposes an institutional double standard.
And it raises a necessary question for the church:
If this is the right way to treat your own child after divorce,
why isn’t it the standard for everyone else?
A Necessary Caution
It’s also important to say what this Greg Smalley’s article is—and what it is not.
Greg Smalley’s response to his daughter’s divorce is more compassionate than some churches’ advice and much of Focus on the Family’s public guidance. It reflects presence, care, and a willingness to acknowledge harm. That matters.
At the same time, the article repeatedly comes back to Greg’s own personal pain, fear, betrayal, and sense of loss—his grief as a parent, his frustration as a marriage counselor who could not fix this, his anxiety about how divorce might affect him or his other children, and his struggle to reconcile the experience with his stated beliefs about lifelong marriage and the expectation that, with the right Christian counseling and sufficient effort, reconciliation is usually possible. Those reactions are understandable. But the cumulative effect subtly shifts the focus away from his daughter, the person who was harmed, and toward the distress of those adjacent to the harm—an irony in a piece meant to guide readers toward compassionate support.
For that reason, this article should not be held up as a template for how parents, pastors, or churches should respond when someone divorces. The goal in those moments is not to process our discomfort, preserve our theology, or manage our fears about influence and contagion. It is to support the person whose life has been upended.
Greg’s article is a loving and healthy step away from institutional harshness—but it still stops short of fully wrapping the survivor with care. And that distinction matters if we’re serious about caring well for people in crisis.
Endnotes
-
Focus on the Family, “When Your Kids Divorce” (2002): Encourages counseling, reconciliation, or postponing divorce “if there is any chance,” and asks whether divorce might be avoided if parents say “no” to support.
-
Jim Daly, Focus on the Family broadcasts and writings: Repeated framing of divorce by saying “God hates divorce in every case,” suggesting it is always a sin and spiritually damaging, even when necessary.
-
Focus on the Family, “When Your Kids Divorce” (2002): “Blame doesn’t really matter or help… forgive and forget.”
-
Pattern across Focus on the Family abuse-related content: Abuse may be described clearly, but divorce is rarely affirmed as an appropriate or protective response.
-
Focus on the Family, “When Your Kids Divorce” (2002): Discussion of “Vacancy or No Vacancy,” financial limits, and whether withholding support might influence reconciliation.
-
Focus on the Family, “When Your Kids Divorce” (2002): Advises giving advice only when asked, followed by extensive guidance on steering outcomes.
-
Focus on the Family, “When Your Kids Divorce” (2002): Emphasis on parents managing their emotions to model stability.
-
General Focus on the Family divorce and remarriage resources: Limited affirmation that life or well-being may improve after divorce; remarriage treated cautiously.
-
Comparison between Greg Smalley’s personal article and Focus on the Family’s institutional divorce guidance.
-
CT2015 — Christianity Today (Oct 29, 2015): Greg Smalley quoted on how divorce “thwart[s] future health” of church ministry and hurts participation, giving, and stability.
:
:
Buy PDF