Interfaith love and family rupture

A religious tradition is not a doctrine; it is a doctrine bundled with practices, foods, calendars, songs, memorial obligations, and an accumulated emotional infrastructure that attaches all of these to early-childhood memories of safety and belonging. When two people from different traditions form a household, the bundle of one partner's tradition will be encountered by the other partner not as a set of propositions to evaluate but as a set of strange smells, unfamiliar rhythms, and unspoken obligations whose violation produces hurt that is hard to articulate. The interfaith negotiation that focuses only on doctrine will miss most of what is actually at stake.

In the United States, the most concentrated annual stress point for many interfaith households is December, when Christmas saturates the public space and the non-Christian partner watches their children be drawn toward a celebration that feels like the air everyone breathes. Jewish-Christian households have developed elaborate accommodations, the Hanukkah-Christmas hybrid that satisfies neither tradition's purists, the trip to grandparents that allows each celebration to happen separately, the decision to opt out of one or both. Hindu-Christian, Muslim-Christian, and other configurations face analogous concentrations at other points in their calendars. The December problem is not a discrete problem; it is a recurring annual rehearsal of the underlying question of which tradition has standing in this household.

Some interfaith couples resolve the difficulty by having one partner convert before or during the marriage. Conversion can be a deepening, a real entry into the tradition, sometimes more wholehearted than that of the partner who was born into it. It can also be a logistical solution that lets the family of origin attend the wedding without complications and leaves the convert with a tradition they wear lightly. Both outcomes are common. The tradition being converted to often distinguishes between them, with varying levels of skepticism about late conversions made for marital reasons, and varying communal welcome for those who arrive that way.

The most consequential decision interfaith couples make is how to raise the children. Single-tradition households, dual-tradition households, no-tradition households, and let-them-choose households each have advocates and critics. The single-tradition approach often produces clearer religious identity in adulthood but requires one partner to accept a junior position in their own home. The dual approach can produce children with deep dual fluency or children with confused affiliation, depending on how skillfully it is done. The let-them-choose approach often produces, in practice, children who choose neither, because tradition is not actually transmitted by a buffet at age twelve. None of these is the right answer. The couples who do best with any of them tend to be the ones who decided early and held to the decision consistently.

The most intense family pressure in interfaith marriages often comes from the couple's parents, who fear the loss of their tradition in their grandchildren. The pressure can manifest as outright opposition, as the dangled inheritance, as the religious gift at every birthday, as the conversation initiated with the grandchild that bypasses the parents. The couple must decide how to handle each instance. The relationship with the parents often improves when the couple establishes early, clear, and calm boundaries about what the parents may and may not do in the grandchildren's religious lives. Vagueness invites continued intervention. Clarity, even if it produces short-term coldness, tends to produce a more workable long-term arrangement.

In some communities the tradition and the family are practically indistinguishable. To leave the tradition is to lose the family. Orthodox Jewish, traditional Muslim, conservative Catholic, certain evangelical Christian, and some Hindu and Sikh communities can function this way. The interfaith partner from such a community faces a steeper cost than the partner from a more loosely affiliated background, because their disclosure is not only of a marital choice but of a communal exit. The asymmetry of cost between the two partners is rarely acknowledged in the broader interfaith discourse, but it shapes the relationship from the beginning. The partner from the looser tradition often does not fully grasp what their partner has paid.

Interfaith weddings are a logistical and ritual problem. The two officiants who will share the ceremony must be willing to share it, which not all clergy in all traditions will do. The order of service must be negotiated. The texts read, the blessings invoked, the elements of each tradition included, are subject to detailed argument. The wedding is also, often, the first public moment where both extended families meet and where the differences in custom, dress, food, and decorum become visible. Some weddings absorb this gracefully. Some do not. The energy expended on the wedding's logistics is sometimes a useful rehearsal for the longer logistics of the marriage; sometimes it depletes reserves the couple will need later.

Among the questions interfaith couples often defer is the question of what will happen at the end. Burial customs vary sharply across traditions, and the burial of a non-co-religionist spouse in a tradition-specific cemetery is often disallowed. The widow or widower can find themselves at the funeral confronting decisions, who officiates, where the body lies, what is said, that the couple never discussed in life because the conversation seemed morbid. The traditions that have done this work most thoughtfully provide explicit guidance for interfaith families. Many traditions have not. The couples who think ahead about this question spare their survivors a great deal.

A growing number of religious communities have explicitly oriented themselves toward interfaith families. Reform and reconstructionist Jewish congregations, certain liberal Catholic parishes, Unitarian Universalist congregations, some Hindu temples in the West, and various ecumenical or interfaith centers offer membership and ritual life to families with mixed affiliation. These communities are often where interfaith couples find a sustainable home, because the communities have already done the work of accommodating the mixed reality rather than treating it as an exception. The growth of such communities is one of the slow institutional shifts that the rising intermarriage rate is producing.

In many interfaith households, one spouse ends up serving as the cultural translator for the other, explaining customs, anticipating gaffes, decoding family dynamics. The translator role is uneven, often defaults to the partner from the more demanding tradition, and produces a kind of cumulative labor that the other partner does not always see. The marriages that flatten the asymmetry, where both partners learn enough about the other tradition to function on its terms, tend to be more durable. The marriages that leave the translation work permanently on one partner tend to produce slow resentments that surface later in ways that look unrelated to religion.

A frequent variant of the interfaith couple is the secular partner with the religious one. The configuration is sometimes easier than two different traditions, because the secular partner has less specific content to defend, and sometimes harder, because the secular partner often underestimates how much they actually carry of their family-of-origin tradition until a child is on the way. The religious partner may also underestimate the secular partner's resistance to practices they had treated as obviously valuable. The clarification often happens around the question of religious education for the children, and is sharper than either partner predicted.

Family rupture, when it happens, costs the couple a relationship that was meant to be lifelong, costs the children grandparents they might have had, and costs the parents a participation in their child's adult life they had assumed. Sometimes the rupture is repaired, often through grandchildren, sometimes through the death of an older relative whose position was the obstacle. Sometimes it is not. The rupture is the loud version of the cost; the slow version is the relationship that persists in form but is hollowed out in feeling. Both are losses. Neither is the worst possible outcome. The worst possible outcome is the marriage that absorbs the family pressure and converts it into a slow internal damage that neither partner names. Honest naming of the cost, even when it does not eliminate the cost, is what allows the marriage to carry it without being destroyed by it. This is what Law 4 planning, in this domain, actually looks like: not the avoidance of difficulty but the clear-eyed accounting of it.

1. Riley, Naomi Schaefer. 'Til Faith Do Us Part: How Interfaith Marriage Is Transforming America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. 2. Seamon, Erika B. Interfaith Marriage in America: The Transformation of Religion and Christianity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. 3. McGinity, Keren R. Still Jewish: A History of Women and Intermarriage in America. New York: NYU Press, 2009. 4. McGinity, Keren R. Marrying Out: Jewish Men, Intermarriage, and Fatherhood. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014. 5. Mehta, Samira K. Beyond Chrismukkah: The Christian-Jewish Interfaith Family in the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2018. 6. Fishman, Sylvia Barack. Double or Nothing? Jewish Families and Mixed Marriage. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2004. 7. Yang, Fenggang, and Andrew Stuart Abel. "Sociology of Religious Conversion." In The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion, edited by Lewis R. Rambo and Charles E. Farhadian, 140-163. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 8. Hout, Michael, and Claude S. Fischer. "Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations." American Sociological Review 67, no. 2 (2002): 165-190. 9. Pew Research Center. America's Changing Religious Landscape. Washington: Pew Research Center, 2015. 10. Cottrell, Ann Baker. "Cross-National Marriages: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Comparative Family Studies 21, no. 2 (1990): 151-169. 11. Eck, Diana L. A New Religious America: How a 'Christian Country' Has Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. 12. Hartman, Harriet, and Moshe Hartman. Gender and American Jews: Patterns in Work, Education, and Family in Contemporary Life. Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2009.