African American Clergy Involvement in Marriage Preparation

Abstract

Marital stability has been linked to multiple social and economic advantages, particularly for African Americans. Clergy provide the majority of marriage preparation in the United States, but historically African American denominations have not been sampled systematically. To address this issue, we conducted an exploratory survey investigating African American clergy members’ behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions about providing marriage preparation. Data were collected from 141 members of the seven primarily African American denominations and compared with 793 clergy from the 15 largest, predominantly White, congregations. African American clergy were significantly more likely than clergy in the comparison group to say they addressed premarital content effectively, say they utilized a skills-based approach to teaching communication, require a longer waiting period, more sessions, more homework assignments, and consider marriage preparation a valuable part of their ministry and to believe that couples had benefited from marriage preparation.

Keywords

marital satisfaction marriage preparation religion African Americans

Although premarital education is associated with improved marital quality and stability in the general population (Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Markman, 2006), little is known about the availability or effectiveness of premarital education among African Americans and other minorities (Ooms, 2007). Furthermore, clergy provide the vast majority of marriage preparation in the United States (Glenn, 2005), but the attitudes and behaviors of African American clergy related to marriage preparation have not been studied (Wilmoth & Smyser, 2012). This exploratory research addresses this gap in the literature. Before describing the current study, we discuss marriage in the African American community, how religion is related to marriage and well-being for members of this group, and the potential role of marriage preparation.

Marriage and Divorce Among African Americans

Overall, researchers consistently have found that married people—particularly those in high-quality relationships—report higher mental and physical health than unmarried individuals. Blackman, Clayton, Glenn, Malone-Colon, and Roberts (2005) summarized the literature by asserting,

The largest gap in the well-being of American adults is between those who are in high quality marriages and everyone else—this gap is greater than the one between rich and poor, the one between those in good health and those in poor health, and the one between Blacks and White. (p. 7)

An analysis of General Social Survey data, 1973 to 2002, found that marriage was associated with advantages in financial rank, satisfaction with finances, high satisfaction from health and family life, and overall happiness (Blackman et al., 2005). For instance, regarding economic benefits, African American men who marry witness larger increases in income than White men, and married African Americans are more likely to see an increase in household equity (Krivo & Kaufman, 2004; Nock, 2003). Married African American women earn more, receive higher Social Security benefits, and are less likely to live below or near the poverty level (Mincy & Pouncy, 2003).

Divorce, on the other hand, has been found to have deleterious psychological, social, behavioral, and economic consequences for individuals, families, and communities (Amato, 2000; Wilcox et al., 2011). For example, the financial cost of relationship dissolution for the local, state, and federal governments has been estimated to range from $33 to $112 billion per year (Scafidi, 2008; Schramm, 2006). Stanley, Markman, St. Peters, and Leber (1995) noted that other costs of divorce include a negative impact on physical health, higher rates of depression, and lower productivity at work among adults. Analysis of Fragile Families and Child Well-being data indicates that fathers who dissolve marital or cohabiting unions experience greater increases in anxious and depressive symptoms (Kamp-Dush & Adkins, 2009).

Even though Edin and Reed (2005) reported that African Americans believe marriage is desirable and an indicator of success, African Americans consistently have had a lower rate of marriage and a higher rate of divorce than White Americans (Dixon, 2009). According to 2010 data (American Community Survey, 2012), 29.3% of African Americans are married compared with 52.1% of White Americans. One factor in this marriage disparity is the increased disruption of African American couples by divorce (Dixon, 2009). As of 2009, 27.8% of African American women age 70 and older had ever been divorced, compared with 21.9% for Whites, 11.3% for Asians, and 24.2% for Hispanics (Kreider & Ellis, 2011). African American marriages also are more likely to be characterized by low levels of relationship satisfaction and higher levels of conflict (Blackman et al., 2005; Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010).

Religion, Spirituality, and Marital Quality

In light of the historical centrality of religion in the African American community, recent scholarship has explored the relationship of spirituality and religion to marital quality in African American marriages (e.g., Brown, Orbuch, & Bauermeister, 2008; Ellison et al., 2010; Fincham, Ajayi, & Beach, 2011). Numerous studies have demonstrated that religion generally has a positive influence on marital quality and stability (Mahoney, 2010). Wolfinger and Wilcox (2008) suggested both direct and indirect effects: Direct influences include promotion of relationship-related values, norms, and social support that in turn promote greater investment in the marriage and discourage behaviors that harm marriage (Wolfinger & Wilcox, 2008). Religious beliefs and practices indirectly influence marriages by promoting psychological well-being and trust-generating behaviors such as sexual fidelity and temperance (Fincham et al., 2011; Wolfinger & Wilcox, 2008).

Three-fourths of African Americans say that religion is very important in their lives (Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2008), and more African Americans report attending church on a regular basis than do Whites (Newport, 2010). Large-scale quantitative studies consistently have found that married African Americans are more likely to attend religious services and be involved in other religious activities (Blackman et al., 2005; Chatters, Taylor, & Lincoln, 1999). Additionally, Brody, Stoneman, Flor, and McCrary (1994) found that religiosity was related to better quality marital interaction and lower levels of marital conflict. Similarly, studies of African Americans in long-lasting marriages have identified religion as a major resource for the couples (Carolan & Allen, 1999; Marks et al., 2008), and 93% of husbands and 94% of wives reported that their faith was a “very important” factor in their marital longevity (Phillips, Wilmoth, & Marks, 2012). Brown et al. (2008) also found that religiosity predicted marital stability over time, but only when assessed by service attendance and only for wives.

Several explanations have been suggested for the enigma that African American marriages simultaneously have a high divorce rate and high salience of religion (Brown et al., 2008; Fincham et al., 2011). Individual differences between partners account for some of the higher risk for marital dissolution: African American wives and husbands statistically are more dissimilar from each other than other groups on measures of “religious attendance, desired number of children, support for maternal employment, sexual attitudes, and beliefs regarding appropriate levels of independence in marriage” (Clarkwest, 2007, pp. 645-646). Qualitative research on strong African American marriages affirms the salience of wife–husband consensus around certain core issues (Marks et al., 2008, 2010), including several of the topics identified by Clarkwest (2007), increasing the probability of later marital dissatisfaction and/or instability. Additionally, African American couples experience more spousal dissimilarity at the beginning of the marriage, which explains about a fifth of the marital dissolution gap between African Americans and other groups (Clarkwest, 2007). Recent analysis of the National Survey of Religion and Family Life found that that relationship quality among African American couples was much lower than among non-Hispanic Whites but that “racial and ethnic differences in relationship quality would be even greater than they are if not for the higher average levels of religiousness among African American and Hispanic couples” (Ellison et al., 2010, p. 971).

Clarkwest (2007) also found that African Americans have significantly more accepting attitudes toward extramarital sexual activity. Similarly, Broman (2005) has shown that “Blacks feel less loved and feel that their spouse wastes money, hits or pushes, and has affairs” (p. 439). Broman concluded that race difference in marital quality reported in previous research can be explained completely by spouse behavior. It is likely that these issues also are associated with a higher risk of divorce.

Social and economic obstacles may be particularly pronounced for African American marriages. Consistent with other research, Clarkwest (2007) found that family formation and socioeconomic characteristics helped explain the higher disruption risk among African American unions. Pinderhughes (2002) also argued that contextual factors such as “the restriction of economic opportunities, the discrediting of African American identities, and the use of social practices and policies that have legitimized inequality” (p. 270) are responsible for problems threatening marital occurrence, quality, and stability among African Americans. Chapman (2007) observes that broader societal pressures exacerbate these obstacles to marital stability among African American couples.

Recent research has distinguished between the effects of religion and spirituality. For example, Fincham et al. (2011), using the Actor Partner Interdependence Model (Kenny et al., 2006) for analysis, were able to estimate the potential impact of spirituality on each person’s own marital quality as well as the impact of each spouse’s spirituality on the partner’s marital quality. Their analysis found that the husband’s level of spirituality is inversely related to his perception of negative marital quality, even when controlling for other measures of marital quality, suggesting that spirituality may be particularly important for the husband’s evaluation of marital quality.

Marriage Preparation

Marriage preparation has been found to improve marital satisfaction, increase one’s commitment to his or her spouse, and be associated with a 31% decrease in the divorce rate (Stanley et al., 2006). Only 37% of U.S. couples report receiving any kind of premarital counseling, although 86.1% said they agreed or strongly agreed that all couples “should be encouraged to get premarital counseling before they marry,” and 46.7% agreed or strongly agreed that all couples “should be required by law to have premarital counseling before they marry” (Glenn, 2005, p. 30). Information is not available specifically regarding attitudes of African Americans toward marriage preparation.

Relationship education programs traditionally have been designed for—and offered to—White, middle-class, highly educated couples (Halford, Markman, & Stanley, 2008). Therefore, it is possible that these programs might not have the same efficacy among groups with social disadvantages that are highly correlated with the risk of divorce (Ooms & Wilson, 2004), including African Americans. In recent years, government and faith-based programs, including the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative (Administration for Children and Families, 2012), have begun to provide marriage-strengthening programs targeted to African Americans. Ooms (2007) identified several recently developed programs with relevant Afrocentric themes; however, evaluations of these programs and initiatives have shown little or no effect (e.g., Wood, Moore, & Clarkwest, 2011).

Relationship educators, including therapists and clergy, incorporate a variety of components in the marriage preparation they provide for couples whose weddings they perform (Wilmoth, 2005). For example, Silliman and Schumm (2000) recommended the following components: carefully targeted and integrated assessments, training conducted 6 to 12 months before marriage with additional postmarital sessions, intensive training on targeted interactive skills, and 12 to 24 total hours of service. In addition, social support networks (e.g., marriage mentors) should be provided. Premarital programs with comparable criteria have been implemented in approximately 200 communities in 43 states through Community Marriage Policy programs (http://www.marriagesavers.org/sitems/index.htm), and an evaluation of these programs found that divorce rates in these communities fell by an average of 17.5% (Birch, Weed, & Olson, 2004). While premarital education seems to help improve marital outcomes, there also is some evidence, primarily anecdotal, that some couples choose not to get married as a result of things they learn. For example, approximately 15% to 20% of individuals who have taken the PREPARE inventory or complete premarital education identify incompatibilities, particularly financial issues, that lead to premarital break-ups (D. G. Fournier, co-author and developer of PREPARE-Enrich Inventories, personal communication, July 30, 2013). Considering their average lower marital quality and higher divorce rates, it would seem that marriage preparation would be particularly helpful among African American couples. No systematic study has investigated what requirements African American clergy set and how those requirements are linked to effective premarital education.

Clergy Involvement in Marriage Preparation

Historically, clergy have provided the majority of premarital education in the United States (Stanley et al., 2001), and more than 90% of couples who receive any kind of marriage preparation do so from churches or other religious organizations (Glenn, 2005). Researchers have found that, within a religious setting, the quality of premarital counseling predicts short- and long-term helpfulness of premarital counseling (Schumm et al., 2010). Furthermore, Stanley et al. (2001) demonstrated that clergy and lay religious leaders are capable of providing meaningful premarital education, finding that they were as effective as university staff in presenting a research-based curriculum designed to prevent marital distress and divorce (PREP; Markman, Floyd, Stanley, & Storaasli, 1988). Although clergy have been shown to have both the opportunity and capability to provide marriage preparation, questions remain about the availability or effectiveness of clergy-provided programs, especially among African American clergy (Wilmoth & Smyser, 2012). Also, there is little to no information regarding effectiveness of clergy in providing marriage preparation without receiving intensive training in presenting a program like PREP (Stanley et al., 2001).

In the African American community, clergy and religious organizations occupy a central position (Taylor, Ellison, Chatters, Levin, & Lincoln, 2000) and provide services such as substance abuse programs, health screenings, education, and other physical and mental health services (Blank, Mahmood, Fox, & Guterbock, 2002). In addition, Young, Griffith, and Williams (2003) reported that African American clergy are more involved in counseling work than clergy in general, reporting an average of over 6 hours a week in these activities. However, according to Wilcox, Chaves, and Franz (2004), only 3% of African American churches have formal marriage ministries, compared with 18% of other churches.

Specific Aims of the Study

Clergy have been surveyed regarding their involvement in marriage preparation, including the requirements they set, the topics they address, their attitudes toward marriage preparation, and their perception of effectiveness (Wilmoth & Smyser, 2012). However, historically African American denominations have not been sampled systematically. To fill this gap in the research, we conducted an exploratory survey of clergy from seven African American denominations. To contextualize the data, responses to each of these questions were compared with responses from a control group consisting of clergy in a previous survey of the 15 largest Christian denominations (which did not include historically African American denominations).

Method

Participants

Stratified random sampling was used to obtain a national sample of 1,000 African American clergy. In order to make statistically meaningful comparisons among denominations, the sampling frame was limited to clergy from seven African American denominations identified by Lincoln and Mamiya (1990) as comprising “the Black Church”: the African Methodist Episcopal Church; the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church; the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church; the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc; the National Baptist Convention of America, Unincorporated; the Progressive National Baptist Convention; and the Church of God in Christ.¹ Because comprehensive lists of clergy were not available from denominations, we purchased a commercial list of randomly selected clergy. While the accuracy of the sampling could not be verified independently, no better alternative could be located.

The procedures were informed by Dillman’s (2000) research regarding mail and Internet surveys. After the sample was selected, initial contact was attempted with participants through a postcard introducing the study’s purpose and notifying the clergy that the questionnaire would arrive in 1 week. Subsequently, participants were mailed the questionnaire with a cover letter explaining the importance of the study and providing appropriate information for informed consent. The letter also provided the clergy with a website address and password for the questionnaire to be completed online if the clergy chose to do so. A follow-up postcard was sent to remind the clergy to return the questionnaire if they had not already done so. A reminder email also was sent to anyone whose email address was available.

We received 142 responses (14.2%) to the survey, 141 of which were usable for analysis. The low response rate will be discussed later. Clergy who responded tended to be male (93.6%), married (88.7%), African American (99.3%), and a senior pastor (95.0%). The mean age was 54.8 years (SD = 11.5), the mean years in ministry was 27.6 (SD = 12.0), and the mean tenure in the clergy’s current position was 15.1 years (SD = 11.8). Clergy who responded typically had a master’s (47.5%) or doctoral degree (36.9%) with 3.3 (SD = 4.9) college or seminary courses and 3.4 (SD = 4.1) continuing education opportunities related to marriage preparation. Although the mean number of active congregational members was 586.2 (SD = 1061.1), the median was only 285. On average, clergy performed 4.5 weddings annually (SD = 4.0). The respondents also reported that a mean of 12.2 couples (SD = 32.7) needed premarital education in the previous year, compared with 4.5 (SD = 3.6) that received the services. A large majority (78.4%) of the respondents reported that they were affiliated with a church in an urban setting, compared with 17.3% suburban and 4.3% rural.

For the comparison group, we used data from a study conducted approximately 3 years earlier. The sampling frame for this survey was based on the 2000 Religious Congregations and Membership Survey in the Association of Religious Data Archives (2002), which provided information on 149 religious groups, including the number of congregations and adherents for each. Particularly relevant is the fact that no historically African American denominations participated in the 2000 Religious Congregations and Membership Survey. The comparison group was limited to clergy from the three largest religious groups in the United States, based on the number of adherents in each: Roman Catholic, evangelical Protestant, and mainline Protestant. For purposes of analysis, the sampling frame was further limited to clergy from the 15 Christian denominations with the largest number of congregations. We used official denominational directories to conduct stratified random sampling, selecting 2,000 congregations whose clergy were contacted to participate. Therefore, 46.5% of this study’s sample was composed of clergy from evangelical Protestant congregations (n = 930), 42% mainline Protestants (n = 840), and 11.5% Roman Catholic (n = 230).

Of the 820 returned responses (41% response rate), 793 were usable for data analysis. Clergy who responded tended to be male (91.2%), married (84.0%), White (90.3%), and a senior pastor (93.0%). The mean age was 53.1 years (SD = 10.9), the mean years in ministry was 23.1 (SD = 13.0), and the mean tenure in the clergy’s current position was 8.32 years (SD = 8.10). Clergy who responded typically had a master’s degree (53.0%) with 2.01 (SD = 2.38) college or seminary courses and 2.48 (SD = 3.53) continuing education opportunities related to marriage preparation. Although the mean number of active congregational members was 429.1, the median was only 150. On average, clergy performed 4.91 weddings annually (SD = 6.19). Of clergy who responded, 49.7% were evangelical Protestant, 38.3% were mainline Protestant, and 9.3% were Roman Catholic.

Instrument

The instrument was adapted from the 4-page, 126-item, self-report questionnaire “Anonymous Opinion Survey of Clergy Involvement in Marriage Preparation” (Wilmoth & Smyser, 2010). The questionnaire includes seven sections: demographics, requirements set by clergy for marriage preparation, content, resources, value and effectiveness, hindrances, and Community Marriage Initiatives.

Analysis of Data

Data were analyzed by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Because of the exploratory nature of the study, analysis of data focused on descriptive statistics. To provide context, independent samples t tests and chi-square tests were used to determine whether responses of African American clergy differed significantly from responses of predominantly White clergy from the 15 largest U.S. denominations.

To discover what structural requirements clergy set for marriage preparation, participants were asked to indicate on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (Never require) to 4 (Always require), how often they require each of the following structural components: waiting period before the wedding, premarital couple inventory, sessions with pastor, group premarital class, mentor couples, homework, church membership, premarital sexual abstinence, and sessions after the wedding. Chi-square values were calculated to determine whether responses were different from the comparison group.

In addition, if clergy required a waiting period before the wedding, they were asked the length of the waiting period in months. If clergy required completion of a premarital couple inventory, the participants were asked to identify which one they required. If clergy required sessions with the pastor, respondents were asked the number of sessions required as well as the length of time in minutes per session. If clergy required homework, the participants were asked to indicate the number of assignments given. Finally, if sessions after the wedding were required, the clergy were asked to list the number of sessions required and how many months after the wedding the sessions took place. T tests were calculated to determine whether responses were different from the comparison group.

To discover how effectively clergy covered 18 selected content areas, participants were asked to indicate how effectively they deal with each topic using a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all effectively) to 5 (Very effectively). If participants did not cover a content area, they were instructed to respond with 0 (Not covered). The content areas were based on literature review and Wilmoth’s previous studies (Wilmoth, 2005; Wilmoth & Smyser, 2012). T tests were calculated to determine whether responses were different from the comparison group.

To determine the format clergy use in marriage preparation, participants were asked to check which of the following best describes their approach to marriage preparation: (a) information-based, which focused on helping someone understand a concept, and (b) skills-based, which also provides the opportunity to practice learned skills. Chi-square values were calculated to determine whether responses were different from the comparison group.

We also explored how likely African American clergy were to refer couples to other programs or organizations in their communities. Participants were asked to indicate on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (Never use) to 4 (Always use), how often they use each of the following community resources: workshops offered by the religious community, workshops offered by community organizations, workshops offered by government agencies, or professionals available for counseling/therapy for issues beyond their training. We also asked whether they were aware of a Community Marriage Initiative in their community, if they were involved, and if they had signed a Community Marriage Policy. For both sets of questions, chi-square values were calculated to determine whether responses were different from the comparison group.

We used a single item to determine how valuable marriage preparation was to the clergy: “Marriage preparation is a valuable aspect of my ministry.” Also, we used a single item to measure perceived effectiveness: “I think couples have benefited from marriage preparation I have provided.” For both measures we asked participants to indicate on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree). We calculated t tests to determine whether there was a difference between African American clergy and our comparison group.

To determine what factors African American clergy believe hinder them from providing effective marriage preparation, we asked participants to respond to each of 23 statements describing potential hindrances, using a Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree). Sample statements included “My denomination does not provide adequate training” and “Engaged couples do not think marriage preparation is valuable.”

Results

To determine which components of marriage preparation African American clergy require, frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated. The most frequently required component was sessions with the pastor (M = 3.81, SD = 0.50), and the least required component was mentor couples (M = 1.01, SD = 1.37). African American clergy were significantly more likely than clergy in the comparison group (p ≤ .001 in every comparison) to require all of the components. Table 1 indicates the likelihood of requiring each component for both groups. The table shows that sessions with the pastor, homework, premarital couple inventory, and waiting period before the wedding are the most frequently required components of premarital education. Sessions after the wedding and mentor couples are the least required.

Table 1.

Requirements for Marriage Preparation: Differences Between African American Clergy and Comparison Group.

	Sig.	A-A M	A-A %	Comp. M	Comp. %
Waiting period	<.001*		79%		67%
Length of time (months)	<.001*	3.26		1.60
Number of sessions	<.001*	4.98		3.99
Group class	.001*		46%		28%
Mentor/sponsor couple	<.001*		41%		25%
Homework	<.001*		84%		72%
Number of assignments	<.001*	4.57		3.29
Premarital sexual abstinence	<.001*		70%		58%
Postwedding sessions	<.001*		45%		27%

Note. A-A = African American; Comp. = comparison group.

Statistically significant at .05.

When a waiting period before the wedding was required, the average length of time was 5.46 months (SD = 3.49). When sessions with the pastor were required, the average number required was 4.98 sessions (SD = 3.05). The average time per session required was 71.3 minutes (SD = 23.76). When clergy required homework, the average number of assignments required was 4.57 (SD = 4.71). When sessions after the wedding were required, the average was 1.98 sessions (SD = 2.12), which took place an average of 5.01 months after the wedding (SD = 2.83). African American clergy required a longer waiting period, more sessions, and more homework assignments than clergy in the comparison group (p < .001 for all analyses). See Table 1.

To determine which content areas were covered and how satisfied clergy were with how thoroughly they dealt with each content area, frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated. Overall, clergy believe they adequately address most of the topics associated with premarital education. For 14 of the 18 topics measured, the mean was at least 4 on a scale of 1 (Not at all effectively) to 5 (Very effectively). The content areas that clergy believed they had covered most effectively were the relationship to God (M = 4.71, SD = 0.66), communication (M = 4.69, SD = 0.58), and spiritual dimensions of marriage (M = 4.62, SD = 0.64); the topics they thought were covered least effectively were legal issues (M = 3.11, SD = 1.66) and family of origin (M = 3.43; SD = 1.50). Legal issues was also the content area that was least likely to be addressed at all (n = 18, 13.1%). In all 18 content areas, African American pastors were more likely than the comparison group to say they addressed the content effectively, and in all but three areas the difference was statistically significant.

To determine whether African American clergy use an information-based or skills-based approach to marriage preparation, frequencies were calculated. The information-based format to premarital education was the more frequent approach cited (n = 56, 39.7%) compared with the skills-based format (n = 51, 36.2%). More than 24% of clergy did not respond to this question; it is possible that those not offering skills-based instruction would be less likely to respond. African American clergy were significantly more likely (χ² = .018) than clergy in the comparison group to use a skills-based approach.

We used t tests to determine whether African American clergy and clergy in our comparison group differed in their perceptions about the value of marriage preparation or in their perceptions of whether couples had benefited from the marriage preparation they had provided. African American clergy were significantly more likely to consider marriage preparation a valuable part of their ministry (t = 7.11; p < .001) and to believe that couples had benefited from marriage preparation (t = 7.35; p < .001).

To determine what hindrances made it more difficult to provide effective marriage preparation, we calculated means and standard deviations for responses to 23 statements describing possible hindrances (see Table 2). The two factors African American clergy most likely agreed are hindrances to providing effective marriage preparation were “My denomination does not provide adequate training” (M = 1.96, SD = 1.47) and “My denomination does not provide adequate resources” (M = 1.92, SD = 1.43). The two factors the clergy were least likely to agree are hindrances were “My own marriage has too many problems” (M = 0.48, SD = 0.99) and “I do not think I am a suitable role model” (M = 0.58, SD = 1.12). With few exceptions, African American clergy were no more likely than those in the comparison group to view factors as hindrances to marriage preparation. Those exceptions were “My denomination does not provide adequate training” (p = .018), “My denomination does not provide adequate resources” (p = .023), and “My denomination does not encourage marriage preparation” (p < .001).

Table 2.

Hindrances: Differences Between African American Clergy and Comparison Group in Likelihood of Agreeing That the Factor Is a Hindrance to Providing Effective Marriage Preparation.

Range: 0-4	t	Sig.	A-A M	SD (A-A)	Comp. M
My denomination does not provide training	3.74	.018*	1.96	1.47	1.51
My denomination lacks resources	5.62	.023*	1.92	1.43	1.26
Not received enough training	−2.98	ns	1.75	1.27	2.08
Community lacks resources	−1.02	ns	1.75	1.35	1.87
Couples disagree about need for marriage prep	−0.97	<.001*	1.70	1.29	1.80
Couples still have problems after marriage prep	−3.15	.001*	1.64	1.28	1.98
Couples’ parents do not encourage marriage prep	−1.93	.24*	1.55	1.25	1.76
Couples are too focused on the wedding	−4.41	.035*	1.51	1.38	2.04
Couples do not value marriage prep	−3.61	.011*	1.45	1.29	1.84
Church finances are inadequate	0.41	ns	1.36	1.40	1.31
Other clergy do not value marriage prep	−0.74	.026*	1.36	1.21	1.38
People in community do not value marriage prep	−3.14	ns	1.28	1.26	1.64
Congregation does not value marriage prep	−1.45	ns	1.17	1.14	1.34
I do not know what resources are available	−2.26	ns	1.10	1.37	1.37
Denomination does not encourage	2.97	<.001*	1.05	1.21	0.76
I have too many responsibilities	−4.66	.031*	0.92	1.20	1.47
Couples’ parents interfere	−1.77	.007	0.86	1.13	1.04
Couples are more difficult to work with	−2.66	ns	0.82	1.07	1.09
Not enough time	−6.10	.002*	0.75	1.13	1.47
I am not competent to provide marriage prep	−2.19	.029*	0.73	1.17	0.95
I am not comfortable with “counseling”	−2.22	ns	0.71	0.94	1.20
I am not a suitable role model	−0.74	ns	0.58	1.12	0.65
My own marriage has problems	0.26	ns	0.48	0.99	0.99

Note. A-A = African American; Comp. = comparison group.

Statistically significant at .05.

Discussion

This study provides the first systematic exploration of African American clergy and their behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions about providing marriage preparation to couples in their congregations. In light of efforts by agencies such as the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative to use relationship education as one tool for reducing relationship distress and dissolution, these findings provide a glimpse into what a subgroup of African American churches currently provide. Second, when compared with clergy from mostly White congregations, it becomes clear that a significant number of African American clergy have made marriage preparation a meaningful focus in their ministries and believe they are being effective in what they provide to premarital couples. Third, it seems clear that the major African American denominations have the opportunity to equip their clergy by providing more resources and training for effective marriage preparation ministries.

The results of this study are subject to the limitations of self-report mailed and Internet surveys. Additionally, the 14.2% response rate makes it impossible to generalize the findings to all African American clergy. The low response rate is not surprising in light of general trends and the unique population being studied. Americans seem to be increasingly reluctant to respond to surveys (Dey, 1997). In addition, clergy seem particularly prone to low response rates. A search of past clergy surveys found seven studies with response rates ranging from 9.0% to 43.0% (M = 30.31%; Wilmoth, Smyser, Staier, & Phillips, 2010). For example, attempts to reach 2,867 churches targeted in one survey resulted in only 269 completed interviews (Blank et al., 2002). Furthermore, African Americans tend to mistrust researchers and be less likely to complete surveys (Corbie-Smith, Thomas, & St. George, 2002; Fuqua et al., 2005). The length of the instrument was an additional deterrent for individuals already feel pressured by time constraints.

Clergy in our survey were overwhelmingly confident in their ability to provide effective marriage preparation. What ultimately matters about marriage preparation is whether or not it produces positive outcomes. However, we could not measure their effectiveness directly, relying on self-report measures of perceived effectiveness. Although our measure is incomplete, Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy suggests that beliefs about efficacy affect performance, and studies have found a positive association between perceptions of competence and performance with regard to counseling skills, such as those needed for premarital education (e.g., Munson, Stadulis, & Munson, 1986). Although information about clergy perceptions of effectiveness is useful (Wilmoth, Phillips, & Smyser, 2010), future research using experimental and longitudinal designs should be conducted that includes both the clergy and the couples they work with. In addition, a qualitative approach to the topic could provide a greater richness in understanding the processes related to marriage preparation in African American churches.

Clearly, our participants are not representative of all African American clergy. For example, the respondents appear to be more highly educated and more likely to pastor a large church in an urban setting compared with the general population. Indeed, their higher level of education likely made our respondents more comfortable participating in the research process. It is noteworthy that such a small percentage (4%) of our respondents represented rural churches, particularly since rural African Americans are much more likely to be affiliated with a church than those in other settings (Nelsen & Kanagy, 1993). Other researchers have found it difficult to receive completed interviews from rural African American churches (Blank et al., 2002). Certainly, it would be helpful to know about marriage preparation in these underrepresented churches, and future research should target these clergy.

Generalization is further limited by restricting our sampling frame to seven denominations historically recognized to be the “Black Church,” thus excluding clergy from independent congregations and other denominations. Although limiting our sample made it more feasible to make meaningful statistical comparisons among denominations, we were not able to explore marriage preparation practices in the excluded categories of congregations.

We believe it is reasonable to assume that factors affecting the nonresponse bias in our African American sample would have been similar in our predominantly White comparison sample. Thus, while the study may not be generalizable to the whole population of African American clergy, it is possible to make inferences regarding comparisons between these respondents and the clergy in our comparison group. Although clergy are influential in the African American community (Taylor et al., 2000) and, on average, are more involved in counseling than clergy in White congregations (Young et al., 2003), a very small number of African American churches have formal marriage ministries (Wilcox et al., 2004). However, a large percentage of the clergy in our sample, compared with the clergy in the average White church, make a substantial investment in preparing couples for marriage. Although these data cannot be generalized to all African American churches, they suggest that a meaningful, and perhaps growing, group of African American clergy believe in the value of marriage preparation, actively engage in the process, and believe they are competent at what they do. For example, compared with the predominantly White sample, they are more likely to set rigorous requirements for marriage education, to believe they are effective in addressing content issues, to use appropriate premarital questionnaires (Wilmoth & Smyser, 2010), to refer couples to community resources, to consider marriage preparation a valuable aspect of their ministry, to believe couples have benefited from the marriage preparation they provide, and to be involved in Community Marriage Initiatives. While almost all of these individual comparisons are statistically significant, the individual differences are less important than the overall trend that overwhelmingly depicts a substantial group of African American clergy who take marriage preparation seriously.

Fincham et al. (2011), who measured both positive and negative aspects of marital quality in a sample of African American marriages, found that the husband’s level of spirituality may be particularly important in reducing the negative dimension of marital quality. Our respondents indicated they were particularly effective in dealing with topics such as the spiritual dimensions of marriage and the individuals’ relationship with God. These clergy can be encouraged that focusing on such topics not only represents a distinctive area of expertise (Institute for American Values, 2000) but also has the potential to directly influence marital quality. In line with the suggestion of Fincham et al. (2011), future research can help these clergy refine their marriage preparation by identifying specific behaviors that contribute to spirituality and are associated with higher relationship quality; these scholars suggest that examples of such behaviors supported by research include prayer and forgiveness.

Perhaps the most meaningful finding, especially from a policy perspective, is the lack of denominational resources, including training, that are available to assist African American clergy in providing effective marriage preparation. Of 23 possible hindrances listed in the questionnaire, these denominational factors were the two most clearly identified as hindrances. In addition, the three factors associated with denominational resources and support were the only factors that African American clergy were significantly more likely to identify as hindrances than the comparison group. Agencies such as the federally sponsored African American Healthy Marriage Initiative (2013) have an opportunity to partner with these denominations to provide training and other resources for their clergy.

In addition, it is imperative for policymakers to understand the contexts in which marriage education can be implemented into community settings effectively. Even with its limitations, this study provides the first systematic glimpse into the marriage preparation provided by African American clergy.

Certainly, many questions remain unanswered: What kinds of marriage preparation are provided—or not provided—in the churches represented by the clergy who did not respond to the survey? How effective are the efforts currently in place, and how could they be improved? Is the association found in previous research between marriage preparation and marital quality also characteristic of African American couples? Do African American couples need an approach to marriage preparation that is substantially different from what has been recommended based on research with mostly White, middle-class populations? How can African American denominations more effectively promote marriage preparation that is provided by their clergy?

Clergy occupy a strategic position in providing premarital education and also have a perspective that potentially provides advantages over other professional counseling or education (Institute for American Values, 2000). In light of the centrality of religion and the influence of clergy in the African American community, these observations may be even more relevant for the group in our study. Perhaps this study can stimulate additional efforts in scholarship and policymaking that can improve marital quality and stability for African Americans.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Research materials related to this article can be accessed through the first author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this research was provided by the Jack Shand Small Grant Program, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Notes

References

Administration for Children and Families. (2012). What is the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative (AAHMI)? Retrieved from http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/aa_hmi/AAHMI.html

African American Healthy Marriage Initiative. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.aahmi.net

Amato

P. R.

(2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269-1287. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x

American Community Survey. (2012). Marital status: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates (S1201). Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_S1201&prodType=table

Association of Religious Data Archives. (2002). Religious congregations and membership in the United States, 2000. Retrieved from http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Birch

P. J.

Weed

S. E.

Olsen

(2004). Assessing the impact of community marriage policies on county divorce rates. Family Relations, 53, 495-503.

Blackman

Clayton

Glenn

Malone-Colon

Roberts

(2005). The consequences of marriage for African Americans: A comprehensive literature review. New York, NY: Institute for American Values. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/consequences_of_marriage.pdf

Blank

M. B.

Mahmood

Fox

J. C.

Guterbock

(2002). Alternative mental health services: The role of the Black Church in the South. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1668-1672. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.10.1668

10.

Brody

G. H.

Stoneman

Flor

McCrary

(1994). Religion’s role in organizing family relationships: Family process in rural, two-parent African American families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 878-888.

11.

Broman

C. L.

(2005). Marital quality in black and white marriages. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 431-441.

12.

Brown

Orbuch

T. L.

Bauermeister

J. A.

(2008). Religiosity and marital stability among Black American and White American couples. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 57, 186-197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00493.x

13.

Carolan

M. T.

Allen

K. R.

(1999). Commitments and constraints to intimacy for African American couples at midlife. Journal of Family Issues, 20(1). doi: 10.1177/019251399020001001

14.

Chapman

(2007). In search of love and commitment: Dealing with the challenging odds of finding romance. In McAdoo

H. P.

(Ed.), Black families (4th ed., pp. 285-296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Chatters

L. M.

Taylor

R. J.

Lincoln

K. D.

(1999). African American religious participation: A multi-sample comparison. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 132-145.

16.

Clarkwest

(2007). Spousal dissimilarity, race, and marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 639-653. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00397.x

17.

Corbie-Smith

Thomas

S. B.

St. George

D. M. M.

(2002). Distrust, race, and research. Arch Intern Med., 162, 2458-2463.

18.

Dey

E. L.

(1997). Working with low survey response rates: The efficacy of weighting adjustments. Research in Higher Education, 38, 215-227.

19.

Dillman

(2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.

20.

Dixon

(2009). Marriage among African Americans: What does the research reveal? Journal of African American Studies, 13(1), 29-46. doi:10.1007/s12111-008-9062-5

21.

Edin

Reed

J. M.

(2005). Why don’t they just get married? Barriers to marriage among the disadvantaged. Future of Children, 15(2), 117-137. doi:10.1353/foc.2005.0017

22.

Ellison

C. G.

Burdette

A. M.

Wilcox

(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. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00742.x

23.

Fincham

F. D.

Ajayi

Beach

S. R.

(2011). Spirituality and marital satisfaction in African American couples. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3, 259-268. doi:10.1037/a0023909

24.

Fuqua

Wyatt

S. B.

Andrew

M. E.

Sarpong

D. F.

Henderson

F. R.

Cunningham

M. F.

Taylor

H. A.

(2005). Recruiting African-American research participation in the Jackson Heart Study: Methods, response rates, and sample description. Ethnicity and Disease, 15, 6-18.

25.

Glenn

N. D.

(2005). With this ring: A national survey on marriage in America. Washington, DC: National Fatherhood Initiative.

26.

Halford

W. K.

Markman

H. J.

Stanley

S. M.

(2008). Strengthening couples’ relationships with education: Social policy and public health perspectives. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 497-505. doi:10.1037/a0012789

27.

Institute for American Values. (2000). The marriage movement: A statement of principles. New York, NY: Author.

28.

Kamp-Dush

C. M.

Adkins

K. S.

(2009). The mental health of mothers and fathers before and after cohabitation and marital dissolution (Working Paper No. 1134). Princeton, NJ: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University. Retrieved from http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP09-03-FF.pdf

29.

Kenney

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30.

Kreider

R. M.

Ellis

(2011). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2009. Washington, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf

31.

Krivo

L. J.

Kaufman

R. L.

(2004). Housing and wealth inequality: Racial-ethnic differences in home equity in the United States. Demography, 41, 585-605.

32.

Lincoln

C. E.

Mamiya

L. H.

(1990). The Black Church in the African American experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

33.

Mahoney

(2010). Religion in families, 1999-2009: A relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 805-827. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00732.x

34.

Markman

H. J.

Floyd

F. J.

Stanley

S. M.

Storaasli

R. D.

(1988). Prevention of marital distress: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 210-217.

35.

Marks

L. D.

Dollahite

D. C.

Baumgartner

(2010). “In God we trust”: Perspectives on finances, family relationships, and faith. ^Family Relations, 59, 439-452. DOI:10.1l1l/j.l74l-3729.2010.00614.X

36.

Marks

L. D.

Hopkins

Chaney

Monroe

P. A.

Nesteruk

Sasser

D. D.

(2008). “Together, we are strong”: A qualitative study of happy, enduring African American marriages. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 57, 172-185. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00492.x

37.

Mincy

R. B.

Pouncy

(2003). The marriage mystery: Marriage, assets, and the expectations of African American families. In Clayton

Mincy

R. B.

Blankenhorn

(Eds.), Black fathers in contemporary society: Strengths, weaknesses, and strategies for change (pp. 45-70). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

38.

Munson

W. W.

Stadulis

R. E.

Munson

D. G.

(1986). Enhancing competence and self-efficacy of potential therapeutic recreators in decision-making counseling. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 20, 84-93.

39.

Nelsen

H. M.

Kanagy

C. L.

(1993). Churched and unchurched Black Americans. In Roozen

D. A.

Kirk Hadaway

(Eds.), Church and denominational growth (pp. 311-323). Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

40.

Newport

(2010). American’s church attendance inches up in 2010. Gallup, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/141044/americans-church-attendance-inches-2010.aspx

41.

Nock

S. L.

(2003). Marriage and fatherhood in the lives of African American men. In Clayton

Mincy

R. B.

Blankenhorn

(Eds.), Black fathers in contemporary society: Strengths, weaknesses, and strategies for change (pp. 30-42). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

42.

Ooms

(2007). Adapting healthy marriage programs for disadvantaged and culturally diverse populations: What are the issues? Center for Law and Social Policy: Policy Brief, 10, 1-11.

43.

Ooms

Wilson

(2004). The challenges of offering relationship and marriage education to low-income populations. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 53, 440-447.

44.

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (2008). U.S. religious landscape survey: Religious affiliation: Diverse and Dynamic. Retrieved from http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf

45.

Phillips

Wilmoth

Marks

(2012). Challenges and conflicts . . . strengths and supports: A study of enduring African American marriages. Journal of Black Studies, 43, 936-952. doi:10.1177/0021934712463237

46.

Pinderhughes

E. B.

(2002). African American marriage in the 20th century. Family Process, 41, 269-282.

47.

Scafidi

(2008). The taxpayer costs of divorce and unwed childbearing: First-ever estimates for the nation and all fifty states. New York, NY: Georgia Family Council and Institute for American Values.

48.

Schramm

D. G.

(2006). Individual and social costs of divorce in Utah. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27, 133-151.

49.

Schumm

W. R.

Walker

A. B.

Nazarinia

R. R.

West

D. A.

Atwell

Bartko

Kriley

(2010). Predicting the short- and long-term helpfulness of premarital counseling: The critical role of counseling quality. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions, 9(1). DOI: 10.1080/15332690903473044

50.

Silliman

Schumm

W. R.

(2000). Marriage preparation programs: A literature review. Family Journal, 8, 133-142.

51.

Stanley

S. M.

Amato

P. R.

Johnson

C. A.

Markman

H. J.

(2006). Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 117-126. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.117

52.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

Prado

L. M.

Olmos-Gallo

P. A.

Tonelli

St. Peters

. . . Whitton

S. W.

(2001). Community-based premarital prevention: Clergy and lay leaders on the front lines. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 50, 67-76.

53.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

St. Peters

Leber

B. D.

(1995). Strengthening marriages and preventing divorce: New directions in prevention research. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 44, 392-401.

54.

Taylor

R. J.

Ellison

C. G.

Chatters

L. M.

Levin

J. S.

Lincoln

K. D.

(2000). Mental health services in faith communities: The role of clergy in Black church. Social Work, 45(1), 73-87.

55.

Wilcox

W. B.

Anderson

J. R.

Doherty

Eggebeen

Ellison

C. G.

Galston

Wallerstein

(2011). Why marriage matters: Thirty conclusions from the social sciences. New York, NY: Institute for American Values.

56.

Wilcox

W. B.

Chaves

Franz

(2004). Focused on the family? Religious traditions, family discourse, and pastoral practice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, 491-504.

57.

Wilmoth

J. D.

(2005). Involvement of Oklahoma clergy in providing marriage preparation (PhD dissertation). Department of Human Development and Family Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

58.

Wilmoth

J. D.

Phillips

T. M.

Smyser

(2010). Effects of education and training on clergy self-efficacy beliefs in providing marriage preparation. Pastoral Counseling, 45, 52-63.

59.

Wilmoth

J. D.

Smyser

(2010). Use of premarital assessment questionnaires by clergy in marriage preparation. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 9, 252-267.

60.

Wilmoth

J. D.

Smyser

(2012). A national survey of marriage preparation provided by clergy. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 11, 69-85. doi:10.1080/15332691.2012.639705

61.

Wilmoth

J. D.

Smyser

Staier

Phillips

T. M.

(2010). Influence of a statewide marriage initiative on clergy involvement in marriage preparation. Marriage and Family Review, 46, 278-299.

62.

Wolfinger

Wilcox

(2008). Happily ever after? Religion, marital status, gender and relationship quality in urban families. Social Forces, 86, 1311-1337.

63.

Wood

R. G.

Moore

Clarkwest

(2011). BSF’s effects on couples who attended group relationship skills sessions: A special analysis of 15-month data (OPRE Report No. 2011-17). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

64.

Young

J. L.

Griffith

Williams

D. R.

(2003). The integral role of pastoral counseling by African-American clergy in community mental health. Psychiatric Services, 54, 688-692. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.54.5.688