It’s been said that husbands and wives disconnect when their beliefs differ. Maybe they were in trouble from the start, never having fully appreciated just how far apart their core values were on the day they met.

If this strikes you as some flash of brilliance now, or, better still, as common sense, then shouldn’t “the answer” be little more than finding some well-researched book with a checklist of questions one could pose to a prospective mate? Or an advice column about relationships on the Internet — maybe even on AnnArbor.com?

If that was the case, I’d be out of a job.

As a high school student in the 1970s, I first heard the word “scotoma” from my mother, who had, herself, learned this at an executive training seminar presented by consultant Louis Tice of The Pacific Institute. In writing about this as it relates to divorce for my Blog in early 2005, I provided a real-world example from one of my support groups where three people listened to the exact same radio commercial.

Each heard a different message. That’s how scotomas work.

This concept goes to the heart of how we process information. In other words, what gets in and is reinforced, versus that which is rejected before it ever gets through the door to consideration in our thinking. We see what we expect to see; and we don’t what we won’t.

We’re not just talking about every day judgment calls by the person on the street here, either. In 2006, Journal of Child Custody featured an article titled “Strategies to Address Clinical Bias in the Child Custody Evaluation Process,” which I highlighted in my Blog last year. “Even for standardized instruments such as the MMPI-2 or the MCMI III there is debate about their use and validity in forensic fields….” Translated into plain language, this says that these paper-and-pencil tests upon which experts often rely in making recommendations to divorce courts on parenting-time allocations (Mom’s house versus Dad’s house) are subject to error by even “the most experienced” professionals.

Ten years ago, I was working with a client who expressed shock to me about her marriage therapist’s under-disclosed approach to working with this woman and her husband. As she related the story, one afternoon following a particularly challenging meeting that included both spouses and the man they were seeing ostensibly to help them navigate the rocky waters in which the couple then found themselves, the two of them made a phone call to him for clarification.

“It seems like the way in which you’re encouraging our discussion is aiming us in different directions.”

“That’s possible.”

“What?” they said at once, in amazement, each from a different extension in the home.

“Well, my commitment must be to the individual, not the relationship. If it looks to me like one or both of you would be happier apart than together, it’s my duty to go that way.”

It had never occurred to this couple to ask as part of interviewing marriage therapist candidates if they might feel conflicted about advocating marriage.

Harvard Business Review promoted its October 2009 issue as having a “Spotlight on Risk.” In an article quite applicable to what we’re examining here, the authors address what they call “Black Swan events,” which are defined as “Low probability, high-impact events that are almost impossible to forecast.” Sound like how most people you know would describe the likelihood they feel that their marriage will get into trouble? Or the surprise one or both felt when they hit divorce court?

In one reported experiment, this question was posed in two ways, to different groups. First: “You are on vacation in a foreign country and are considering flying a local airline to see a special island. Safety statistics show that, on average, there has been one crash every 1,000 years on this airline. It is unlikely you’ll visit this part of the world again. Would you take the flight?”

Everyone answering this question as phrased above said, “yes.”

Second, the aforementioned presentation only differed by one sentence: “Safety statistics show that, on average, one in 1,000 flights on this airline has crashed.” Under this construct, only 70% responding said they’d take the risk. As this Harvard Business Review article put it, the way in which information is presented can have a significant impact on what people are inclined to believe.

Just over a week ago, Pastor Brad Powell of NorthRidge Church - Saline spoke on the topic of “Skepticism” as part of his series titled, “Belief Beyond.” By way of opening, then, he posited that “faith” is anything you believe based on something outside of your direct observation or control. “Anything you are not touching, seeing, experiencing — demands faith.” His cornucopia of examples includes history, politics, philosophy, as well as any decision to get married, to be in a relationship, to let your children go out on their own. Sounds like something that virtually cuts through all of life.

Disagree with one or more of his examples? Fine. But before I’d ask where you, in particular, would draw the line, I’d rather ask how you’d draw it. That basis will be a blend of your values, trust, and need (in context) for certainty. From what I see, we argue most passionately about those things in which we feel the greatest investment, things we regard as having greater value. A high level of trust goes into building the foundation and ongoing reliance in our beliefs regarding those things.

Now try to move Pastor Powell’s line, dropping this example or that. It’s tough, isn’t it? Faith is invariably a requirement for what you believe.

The bigger the issue, the more we want to be sure. “Choosing to marry you is an important decision to me, a commitment to you that I regard very seriously. I trust you to be my loyal and caring spouse. I want to know this is forever.”

Yet here is what must also be accepted. “When it comes to matters of faith,” Brad Powell reminds us, “no matter how strongly we believe something, there is always room for some doubt.” Rather a refreshing bit of relief for those of us who are imperfect Christians, wondering if our doubt somehow makes us less than good followers of Christ (God, of course, has taken even this into account, making Jesus both “the author and perfecter of our faith,” Hebrews 12:2).

Even atheists and agnostics, then, inevitably must spackle-over some gap of uncertainty with faith: A belief in what cannot absolutely be known. What is non-belief if not a belief that one should not believe?

That brings us back to my opening question regarding marriage and divorce. Writing for The Christian Post last week, guest columnist R. Albert Mohler, Jr., laid out what he sees as a tragic shift in presumptions regarding marriage. Citing W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and senior fellow at the Institute for American Values, he argues that “the availability of no-fault divorce ‘gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband to wife….’”

Moreover, this could not have happened in a vacuum. Rather, its acceptance traces to three key value-shifts. First, “the sexual revolution, [which] elevated sex as, in effect, the only motivation for a relationship.” Second, a diminished relationship with and role of church in family dynamics (I’ve also written about this, in my September 28 Blog). And, third, “the psychological revolution undermined marriage with its ‘focus on individual fulfillment and personal growth.’ Of these three factors, the last was most central.”

“The Divorce Divide - A National Embarrassment” is how Dr. Mohler titled his piece for The Christian Post. That’s a bit unfortunate for those of us with any sort of scotoma related to divorce: Are “we” the embarrassment? Not to Jesus. We can readily read in Luke 15:2 where he is characterized as one who “welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

Neither does R. Albert Mohler, Jr., label those who are divorced or in the process of divorce as an embarrassment. The point of his article is that those who shape opinion in our society, who enjoy influence or authority, must be examined closely in terms of the underlying beliefs that instruct the way in which marriages and divorces are regarded today.

How critically are you looking at your own beliefs regarding questions in marriage and divorce? Are you aware of biases inherent in all sources of input on those beliefs?

Fundamentally, it’s all about faith.

Dell Deaton is a divorce pastoral counselor, independently practicing since 1983. He can be reached through www.divorcepastor.wordpress.com or on (734) 668-2001 in Saline. Also check out /divorcepastor to Follow me on Twitter.