What Focus on the Family’s 2025 Marriage Report Gets Wrong About Divorce, Faith, and Abuse
An abuse-informed review of the State of the Family: Marriage Health in America report
Short audio summary in multiple languages
Focus on the Family’s newly released Marriage Health in America report is already being downloaded and shared widely. On the surface, it looks reassuring: most marriages are “healthy,” faith “helps,” and Christians who pray and attend church report less marital “crisis.”
But when you read the fine print—especially through the eyes of Christian abuse and infidelity survivors—something disturbing emerges. This report does not simply miss the realities of abuse, coercive control, deception, addiction, porn, and betrayal. It systematically erases them.
For readers who are new to this site, I use the phrase “life-saving divorce” for divorces involving serious, marriage-destroying problems such as abuse, infidelity, abandonment, addiction, sexual immorality, or chronic neglect. That distinction matters here, because a report that treats all divorce as relational disappointment cannot responsibly speak to the realities many Christians are actually facing.
What is a Life-Saving Divorce? What Are the Reasons for Divorce?.
1. Abuse is not named—at all
Across 31 pages, the report never analyzes abuse as a factor in marital breakdown. They define “Crisis in marriage” relationally (loneliness, lack of intimacy, communication problems), not in terms of safety, fear, integrity, malice, or marriage-destroying sin against another person. It’s hard to imagine a report that doesn’t mention “abuse” even once when pro-family researchers have found that about 1 in 4 highly religious couples have experienced intimate partner violence in their current relationship. When asked for their questionnaire, Focus on the Family refused, even though the American Association of Christian Counselors requires them to share their data.
That matters. When harm is unnamed, responsibility quietly shifts away from the one doing harm and toward the one enduring it.
For example, a spouse who leaves because their partner was controlling, deceptive, or sexually coercive is not described as escaping harm, but as part of a marriage with “communication problems” or “lack of intimacy.” The abuser’s destructive behavior disappears from view, while the person who finally identifies it carries the weight of the failure.
See 130 Examples of Abuse.
And for many survivors, the abuse was not obvious at first. It was not always a black eye or a police report. It was a pattern of control, fear, intimidation, neglect, spiritual pressure, financial restriction, sexual coercion, or a growing sense that the marriage was no longer safe.
2. The Report Highlights Christian Divorce Rates—But Refuses to Ask Why
The report’s own data reveals an uncomfortable fact: self-identified born-again Christians show the highest divorce rates in the dataset.
By the report’s faith categories, those who are currently divorced include
8% Convictional Christians,
9% Non-Christians,
10% Nominal Christians—and
15% Born-Again Christians.
The ever-divorced figures follow the same pattern: 20% Convictional, 22% Non-Christian, 23% Nominal, and 25% Born-Again.
Rather than investigating why this group fares worse, the report quickly reframes the issue around “conviction,” implying that increased prayer, church attendance, and Bible reading somehow insulate marriages from divorce. The implication is clear: more religious practice equals more marital protection.
But the data itself undermines that claim.
How the Report Explains the Problem Away
Faced with these numbers, the report offers a convenient caveat: faith identity is measured now, not at the time of divorce. A person may identify as born-again today, the authors note, but may have divorced earlier—possibly before becoming a practicing Christian as the study defines it.
This maneuver allows the researchers to avoid the obvious follow-up questions. Either these individuals “weren’t really Christians” when they divorced, or their divorces happened in a faith-free vacuum. In both cases, the role of churches, theology, and religious counsel is quietly erased.
What the report never does is examine whether faith communities themselves influenced marital outcomes—positively or negatively.
The Questions the Report Refused to Ask
If the goal were genuine understanding rather than reputation management, the researchers would have asked questions like these:
- Did you seek help from a pastor, church leader, or Christian counselor before divorcing? What guidance were you given?
- Were you encouraged to stay despite fear, intimidation, addiction, infidelity, or ongoing harm?
- Did concerns about sin, God’s will, church discipline, or reputation delay your decision to leave?
- Were you told divorce was “not biblical” in your situation?
- Did church advice increase your safety—or reduce it?
- Did theology make it harder to name abuse or betrayal? Were you criticized for doing so?
These are not speculative or ideological questions. Survivors answer them every day.
Ironically, Focus on the Family previously commissioned LifeWay Research to study 1,000 divorced churchgoers; and that survey found that most Christian divorcees remained active in their faith after divorce. Many continued attending church, serving, giving financially, and 70% said they grew spiritually. The assumption that divorce inevitably leads people away from God or the church was not supported by the findings. (See #9 below for more on the church-divorce gap.)
What those studies did not examine, however, is equally important: how church teaching, pastoral counsel, and divorce stigma may have affected the timing, safety, or inevitability of those divorces in the first place.
By declining to ask these harder questions in the 2025 report, the research does not remain neutral. It chooses not to examine how spiritual pressure, stigma, misapplied theology, and institutional concerns can trap people in destructive marriages—often longer than they would otherwise stay.
Until research is willing to confront that reality, claims about “conviction” protecting marriage amount to little more than wishful thinking dressed up as data.
This is why church data matters. If Christian leaders only ask whether divorce happened, but never ask what counsel was given, what harm was present, or whether safety improved, they end up studying divorce while ignoring the very conditions that made divorce necessary.
1,000 Pastors and 1,000 Christian Divorcees: What LifeWay’s Surveys Reveal About the Church Divorce Gap.
3. “Convictional Christians” who still divorced are erased entirely
Perhaps the most insulting omission in this report is what it does to people like those in my 6,000-member private online Christian divorce recovery group: deeply devout Christians who already fit the report’s own definition of “Convictional.”
Many of these are men and women who prayed daily, read Scripture daily, attended church faithfully, served in ministry, sought counseling, and took their vows seriously. Many were married to pastors, elders, worship leaders, missionaries, or respected lay leaders. Some were those leaders.
This is not anecdotal. Research from the Institute for Family Studies found that nearly 1 in 4 highly religious couples report experiencing abuse in their current relationship, undermining the claim that shared or practiced faith reliably protects against harm.
And yet their marriages still ended—not because they lacked conviction, but because they remained faithful in marriages where the other spouse chose deception, betrayal, addiction, or abuse. This is also evident in a study Focus on the Family hired LifeWay Research to conduct several years ago.
Lower divorce rates do not necessarily prove healthier marriages; in communities where divorce is stigmatized and single mothers are under-supported, they may also reveal the heavy cost women face when they try to leave destructive husbands.
This report has no category for them.
By presenting “Convictional Christians” as uniquely protected from crisis and divorce, the study quietly implies that those who did divorce must not have practiced their faith deeply enough. That is not only false—it is spiritually cruel.
It makes survivors invisible instead of listening to them as witnesses.
When a study’s framework cannot account for faithful people who still experienced betrayal and harm, the problem is not those people. The problem is the framework.
If you are reading this and thinking, “That was me—I did all of the right things, and my marriage still imploded,” please hear this clearly: you are not invisible to God, even if you are invisible to Focus on the Family’s report. Your prayers were real. Your faith was real. Your obedience was real. What failed was not your conviction—it was a system that refused to hold sin accountable and preferred tidy narratives over costly truth. Scripture never teaches that spiritual disciplines can override another person’s free will to lie, betray, or abuse. You did not fall through a spiritual crack. You were pushed there by theology that could not name evil when it appeared inside marriage.
That invisibility is one reason so many divorced Christians feel spiritually accused before anyone has even heard their story. They were faithful. They prayed. They sought help. They tried. And sometimes divorce was not evidence of weak faith, but evidence that they finally told the truth.
Does A Divorce Mean My Faith Is Weak? No, It Might Mean the Opposite.
4. Infidelity disappears into “sexual issues/lack of sexual intimacy”
Infidelity is the top reason for divorce, according to major studies. But adultery, betrayal, secret double lives, serial affairs, and porn escalation are not named in the new FOTF report, they disappear into a neutral category, “sexual issues/lack of sexual intimacy”, as if this were about mismatched sexual desire instead of broken trust.
This framing equates the pain of being sexually denied with the trauma of being sexually betrayed. One is disappointment; the other is violation. Treating them as the same obscures responsibility and protects offenders.
When betrayal is folded into a bland category like “sexual issues,” the moral injury of adultery disappears. But for many spouses, the devastation was not merely sexual incompatibility. It was the discovery that the life they thought they were living was built on secrecy and deceit.
Help! I’m Married to a Cheater! To Stay or to Go?.
5. Deception is reframed as “things I wish I had known” before marriage
One of the most troubling sections lists what divorced people “wish they had known” before marriage: addictions, infidelity, control issues, lying.
They are never asked about their “final straw,” their reason for the divorce, or given the option to report marriage-endangering sins, other than “Infidelity/affairs.”
By talking about these serious issues as “things individuals wished they had known,” they subtly blame the victim for “choosing poorly,” rather than naming the truth: many of these behaviors were hidden, denied, lied about, or emerged after the wedding. Abuse beginning on the honeymoon is tragically common.
Scripture is clear that deceit matters. In 1 Corinthians 5:11, Paul instructs believers not to remain bound in close fellowship with someone who claims to be a brother yet persists in sexual immorality, drunkenness, greed, or swindling. Fraud and exploitation are covenant violations—not minor flaws.
This is also why premarital counseling and Christian dating advice must name red flags plainly and encourage people to cancel the wedding if troubling behavior persists. If Christian materials assume every churchgoing fiancé is acting in good faith, they can accidentally train young adults to overlook the very behaviors that later destroy marriages.
Book Review: Before You Say “I Do” Christian Premarital Workbook—Does it tell people when to seek help or postpone the wedding? No!
6. Porn and betrayal are minimized
This report misleads readers by describing a well-documented driver of marital betrayal (pornography) as a minor, temporary inconvenience—rather than naming it as a pattern of deception that often destroys trust and safety.
Pornography is minimized in a footnote and said to affect “just 2.7%” of marriages overall—despite acknowledging a “wide body of research” showing its devastating effects. Even when the number nearly triples (7.9%) in years 6–10 of marriage, the report brushes it off as a “seven-year itch.”
Porn is not an itch. It is often accompanied by secrecy, entitlement, escalation, sexual coercion, and deep betrayal. Minimizing it does not protect marriages; it protects offenders. Many gray divorces after 20, 30, or 40 years occur due to the devastation and entitlement of pornography use.
Minimizing pornography also minimizes the spouse who is living with secrecy, coercion, escalation, or repeated broken promises. In many marriages, porn is not a private weakness; it is part of a larger pattern of sexual betrayal and relational harm.
Adultery, Abuse, Abandonment are Biblical Grounds for Divorce.
Pornography use in long marriages: See
Gray Divorce article: Role of Pornography.
7. “Marital Crisis” is never described as a pattern of sin in the marriage.
“Marital crisis” in the report is framed as stress, busyness, lack of intimacy, or poor communication. There is no category for fear, intimidation, exploitation, deception, or danger.
This makes abusive marriages statistically invisible. It also rewards silence. In many Christian communities, devout couples are less likely to label their marriage a crisis—even when it is—because naming it feels disloyal or faithless. Endurance is mistaken for health.
As explained in The Life-Saving Divorce, spiritual practices do not prevent abuse. They are often used to hide it (see https://lifesavingdivorce.com/runfromabusers/.
8. Seeking help is framed as good—even when that help may be unsafe
The report notes that “convictional” Christians are more likely to seek help through prayer, the Bible, or church leaders, and less likely to seek professional counseling. What it never asks is whether that help was safe, informed about abuse, or effective.
Many survivors were told to pray harder, submit more, forgive faster, or endure longer—guidance that didn’t stop abuse, but escalated it. Groups like Focus on the Family may say “leave” or “get to safety,” but only temporarily. Divorce is ruled out from the start, and separation is treated as a tool for reconciliation, not protection. There are no real safety protocols for determining whether reconciliation is safe now—or ever.
A system that discourages outside help, minimizes abuse, and prioritizes preserving marriage over protecting lives is not neutral. It is dangerous.
This is where the distinction between marriage-first counseling and safety-first counseling becomes urgent. If the counselor’s first loyalty is to preserving the marriage, the harmed spouse may be pressured back into danger. If the first priority is safety, truth, and accountability, the counsel looks very different.
Safety-First vs. Marriage-First Counseling and
Marriage Counseling in Abusive Situations is Unethical.
9. Even Focus on the Family’s Own Research Tells a Different Story
Focus on the Family commissioned a LifeWay Research study to survey 1,000 churchgoers who divorced. That study found something rarely acknowledged in current messaging: most divorced believers did not abandon their faith communities. A majority reported donating the same or more money after divorce. Many continued serving. Some switched churches—but they did not leave Christianity.
Yet in current marriage-ministry materials, divorce is described primarily in terms of institutional loss—declines in tithing, leadership gaps, and increased church costs. The concern is not first safety or justice, but stability and resources.
Those two emphases are not the same.
When divorce is framed as weakening the church, rather than as a response to serious harm, the center of gravity shifts. The institution becomes the injured party. The abused or betrayed spouse becomes the destabilizer.
But the earlier data shows something else: many divorced believers remain faithful, committed Christians. They are not rebels. They are not spiritual dropouts. They are often deeply devout people whose marriages ended despite effort.
That distinction matters.
- 61% gave the same or even more that they did when married.
-
Most continued serving and attending, even if they switched churches.
-
Divorce did not equal abandoning faith.
-
Yet current FOTF marriage-ministry materials describe divorce primarily in terms of institutional loss (empty pews, reduced tithing, leadership gaps).
When divorce is framed primarily as a threat to church vitality rather than as a response to harm, the center of gravity shifts. The institution becomes the injured party. The abused spouse disappears.
That is also why church stigma matters. Many divorced Christians are not leaving because they stopped loving God. They are leaving because they were not safe, not believed, or not supported when they told the truth about what was happening at home.
Do Evangelicals Shoot Their Own Wounded Divorcees? and
Excommunication for Getting Divorced?.
The bottom line
This report presents itself as pro-marriage. But a marriage study that cannot name abuse, deception, or exploitation is sticking its head in the sand. It’s not protecting marriage. It is protecting an institution at the expense of the vulnerable.
Focus on the Family isn’t ignorant of abuse in devout Christian homes. They state that they get 50,000 letters a year from women in great pain due to abuse, suicidality, or being married to child molestors. Their social media replies are filled with conservative Christians who are being mistreated or betrayed by their spouses. God does not ask His children to preserve appearances by tolerating harm. He calls us to truth. And truth begins by naming what actually breaks marriages—not blaming the people who finally had the courage to leave.
For further biblical and pastoral clarity, see https://lifesavingdivorce.com/abuse-in-bible/ and https://lifesavingdivorce.com/runfromabusers/.
Research Transparency and Ethical Standards
In January and February 2026, I formally requested from Ipsos and Focus on the Family the full survey instrument, questionnaire, toplines, and supporting methodological documentation for the Marriage Health in America study. IPSOS indicated that funder approval was required. Both IPSOS and I subsequently contacted Focus on the Family directly. As of this writing, I have not received the requested materials.
The American Association of Christian Counselors Code of Ethics (1-890-h, 1-890-j) states that researchers must report results fully and accurately, disclose outcomes that go against prevailing theories, fully discuss design limitations. Also, upon formal request, they are to provide sufficient original data to qualified others who wish to replicate the study.
Because this report is being used to shape pastoral counsel and public understanding of marriage, access to the underlying questionnaire and detailed data is essential for responsible evaluation.
Transparency strengthens trust. Without it, independent review is limited.
And there is one more problem: transparency. When an organization uses a polished report to influence pastors, counselors, churches, and families, the underlying data should be available for serious review.
For more on Focus on the Family’s history of using research—sometimes carefully and truthfully, and sometimes not:
Over the years, Focus on the Family has commissioned, cited, or promoted research on marriage, divorce, pastors, children, and marriage intensives. Some of that research is useful. Some of it is presented in ways that are incomplete, misleading, or unsafe for people in destructive marriages. These articles walk through the studies and claims in more detail.
LifeWay Studies Commissioned by Focus on the Family
- Pastors: Think Twice Before Using Focus on the Family’s Marriage Ministry Materials
A closer look at why pastors and church leaders should be cautious before relying on Focus on the Family marriage materials in cases involving abuse, betrayal, coercive control, or serious marital harm. This includes a chart comparing their own research findings with the messages in their marriage ministry material. - What the LifeWay Divorce Study Reveals — And Why Focus on the Family Isn’t Talking About It
Focus on the Family commissioned LifeWay to study 1,000 divorcees. This article covers 6 important takeaways that Focus on the Family seems to ignore in their articles, marriage curriculum, and social media. - Pastors and Christian Divorcees: What LifeWay’s Surveys Reveal About the Church Divorce Gap
Focus on the Family commissioned three studies on marriage, divorce, and pastors. Together, they reveal a major gap between what churches say they offer during marital crisis and whether hurting people actually receive helpful support.
Focus on the Family Articles
- Major Problems in Focus on the Family’s “15 Questions Couples Should Ask Before Divorce”
This critique identified unethical recommendations, tampered wording, and false claims in this Focus on the Family’s divorce-prevention article, resulting in advice that endangers abuse victims. - 12 Half-Truths in Focus on the Family’s “How Could Divorce Affect My Kids?”
A fact-check of twelve FOTF false claims about children and divorce, including what the research does—and does not—show. - Focus on the Family’s “PEDOPHILIA IN MARRIAGE” Article—10 Pros and 10 Cons UPDATED
A detailed review of how Focus on the Family handled one of the most serious marriage-destroying issues imaginable.
Hope Restored Marriage Intensives and Restoring Hope Marriage Therapy Materials
- The Truth About Focus on the Family’s “Hope Restored” Study: What the 2011 Research Really Says
Are Hope Restored’s success claims scientifically backed? This article examines the 2011 study and explains why the public claims deserve careful scrutiny. - Focus on the Family Teaches Abusers How to Get Away With It
A critique of Focus on the Family advice that can unintentionally coach destructive spouses while leaving victims with fewer safe options.
:
:
Buy PDF