Tolstoy’s famous opening line from Anna Karenina—"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."—suggests a philosophical observation about the nature of happiness and dysfunction in family life.
Tolstoy’s opening line is a profound insight into human relationships, emphasising that while happiness is built on a set of shared foundational qualities, unhappiness is unpredictable, individualised, and infinitely varied.
Our perception of other people's relationships:
A corollary to Tolstoy's observation is that our perception of other people's relationships is shaped by the patterns we recognise from our own family experiences and relationships. For instance:
Projection of Familiar Dynamics Just as happy families share common traits, we tend to assume that successful relationships—romantic, familial, or professional—must follow the same patterns we know from our own experiences. If we come from a supportive, communicative family, we may expect all healthy relationships to operate in a similar way.
Difficulty Understanding Unhappiness in Others Since unhappy families are unhappy in unique ways, it can be hard for outsiders to fully grasp the internal struggles of another family. People who grew up in stable households may struggle to comprehend toxic relationships, while those from dysfunctional backgrounds might see conflict as inevitable.
Bias in Relationship Expectations Our experiences create biases that influence how we judge or interpret other people’s relationships. For example, someone raised in a family where conflicts were resolved through open discussion might struggle to understand families that avoid confrontation.
Misinterpretation of Relationship Success and Failure If happiness has a clear formula but unhappiness comes in many forms, we may incorrectly assume that a relationship is failing because it doesn’t fit the mould we recognise as "successful." Conversely, we may overlook subtle signs of dysfunction in relationships that outwardly resemble what we consider "happy." Frankly, we suffer the discomfit of observing a phenomena of families in our community where the reality of dysfunction has been privately disclosed but a façade of "happy" smiles and conservative values is studiously (and perhaps coercively) maintained.
Similarly, whilst not a corollary, when we have seen the failure of one, or even a number of marriages we can think we understand or can generalise about all marriage failure.
Reflecting on Failed Marriages
Perhaps then, there are a few important things that should inform our thinking about abuse in families:
It is the nature of power and control or coercively controlling abuse that it happens behind closed doors. It is generally not exposed to people.
It is the nature of the abuse that it depends on the barriers to disclosure by the people suffering the abuse, and the intense shame that likely associates with disclosing as a survivor of the abuse, the victim-blaming that is common, the guilt associated with the failure of the marriage and the consequences of post-separation abuse (which again is not evident to bystanders).
Some victims do not really even understand the nature of the abuse inflicted on them, and have been blaming themselves or considering themselves bad mothers and wives, for instance. They have been focused on protecting their spouse from disclosure to others, protecting their children from the abuser, or from the perceived impact of their children being without their father (say). This protection and loyalty is misplaced and the assumption that children are better with the father who grooms and manipulates them to perpetuate the abuse of their mother (say), or who is indulgent or permissive rather than genuinely providing for their spiritual and material needs.
Further, it is the nature of power and control relationships that it is subtle and imbalanced. From the outside, it is the manipulative abuser who appears to be constructive, repentant, observant, loving and caring. In reality, they are always right, their victim has no autonomy and walks on egg-shells. The victim reads body language the rest of us don’t see, and anticipates the capricious and vindictive consequences of displaying any autonomy.
Marriage failure is often framed as a simple matter of effort or willingness to reconcile, but in reality, it is far more complex. While some relationships falter due to mutual shortcomings or drifting apart, others collapse under the weight of coercive control, emotional abuse, and sustained power imbalances that make true reconciliation impossible.
It is tempting to believe that all marriages can be salvaged with enough effort, communication, and shared faith. However, for many who endure coercive control, the dynamic is not one of simple conflict or misunderstanding, but of oppression—where one partner systematically undermines the other's autonomy, dignity, and well-being. In such cases, the abused spouse is often conditioned to doubt their own perceptions, to shoulder blame that is not theirs, and to endure for the sake of a misguided sense of duty.
The notion that “those who make it have a heart to reconcile” assumes that both parties have the freedom and safety to engage in genuine reconciliation. But in many failing marriages, one partner is trapped in a cycle of appeasement, fear, and silent suffering, while the other maintains control through manipulation, isolation, or outright intimidation. For these individuals, "fixing what is broken" is not an option because the fundamental issue is not a lack of effort, but the presence of coercion.
Likewise, while it is true that adultery is not the most common reason for divorce, reducing marriage failure to a slow accumulation of grievances fails to acknowledge the devastating impact of coercive relationships. Often, the “small misalignment” at the root of a deteriorating marriage is not merely a difference in personalities or goals—it is an imbalance of power that leaves one person diminished and dehumanised. Abuse rarely begins with physical violence; it starts with control, entitlement, and disregard for the other's well-being, escalating over time.
A healthy marriage is not simply one where both people "stick it out"—it is one where both people have the freedom to grow, express themselves, and feel safe. Some marriages fail because they should. I know that is challenging to hear. But a marriage that is a sham, or a marriage where one party has no part of "heirs together" or developing "a godly seed" has no place in the divine economy - it is not at all fulfilling the purpose of God. Recognising this does not diminish the value of commitment, but rather affirms that love, respect, and mutual care are the true foundations of a godly marriage—not endurance for endurance’s sake. Understanding this allows us to approach struggling marriages with greater wisdom and compassion, supporting those who seek to repair what is broken while also standing with those who need to walk away for their own safety and dignity.
In Conclusion
Psalm 34:18 says "The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit."
This verse powerfully affirms that God stands with those who are suffering, including those trapped in coercive and oppressive marriages. It reinforces the idea that marriage should be a place of safety and love, not a source of crushing harm, and that God’s desire is to rescue and restore those who are broken by abuse. We can't always see what is the reason for marriage failure, but should contemplate that when not otherwise directly evident, abuse may well be an underlying cause and we should withhold judgement until the one who can see the heart arrives to judge the hidden things of darkness.
Comments