Review: “Combatting the Lies That Can Destroy Your Marriage,” a Focus on the Family Video

Review of “Combatting the Lies That Can Destroy Your Marriage,” a Focus on the Family Video Series

Based on the book 9 Lies That Will Destroy Your Marriage, a Focus on the Family Book

People often wonder if they should give away their personal contact information and sign up for this Focus on the Family 8-part video series. Let me save you the time and energy.

Below I have identified 3 to 4 key teachings and exact quotes in each 3-5 minute video. I’ve ranked them from 1 to 5 on a scale of healthy marriage teaching, 5 being the most healthy.

But here’s the glaring problem: this series tiptoes right past abuse, cheating, addiction, and deception. And that is not some minor oversight. The people most likely to click on a marriage-rescue series are often the very people living in chaos, coercion, betrayal, or danger. Vulnerable spouses should not be left playing, “Is this marriage struggling, or is this person destroying my life?”

Focus on the Family’s own position on marriage and divorce draws the line at sexual immorality or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse—not domestic violence, not family-annihilating addictions, not felony-level criminality—while offering abused spouses the usual safety-and-counseling side door. So yes, this series is more psychologically literate than the old “pray harder, try harder, disappear harder” model. Gold star for clearing a very low bar.

But it still refuses to draw bright lines around abuse, cheating, addictions, or deception directly. And that matters. Even pro-marriage researchers have found that 1 in 4 highly religious U.S. marriages has experienced serious abuse in the current relationship. That does not even begin to count the wreckage of infidelity. So when an organization spends this much time “focusing on the family” while stepping around the elephant in the living room, that is not wisdom. That is negligence.

Color Code Legend:  Red (problematic) = 1/5 or 2/5
Orange (caution) = 3/5 or 4/5
 Green (good advice) = 5/5

Quote: “there seems to be… the divorce rate and people’s disillusionment with marriage… some in the culture saying we need to do away with the nuclear family… I think it’s the beginning of the problems in the culture that we don’t have healthy, intact families” (00:17–00:40)

Rating: 2/5

Pro: It recognizes that marriage breakdown has wider effects and that family instability can be painful and socially consequential.

Con: This frames the issue first as a culture-war crisis rather than a pastoral one. That can create a “save marriage to save America” tone, which pressures pastors and Christians to defend the institution before asking whether this is one of the marriages already being destroyed by adultery, abuse, addiction, coercion, or other covenant-breaking behavior. When divorce is treated mainly as a threat to society, it becomes harder to determine if the abused spouse in front of them needs rescue or should be given another checklist of ways to “fight for their marriage.”

Quote: “God created marriage… Satan hates marriage… committed to destroy marriage” (00:49–01:01)

Rating: 2/5

Pro: Frames marriage as spiritually significant and worth protecting.

Con: In abuse cases, this framing can distract from concrete realities like fear, intimidation, sexual coercion, violence, or chronic degradation—and from the fact that an abusive spouse may be actively, willingly participating in that destruction. In effect, the abuser can end up volunteering to help Satan destroy the marriage, while blame gets displaced onto Satan in a way that softens the spouse’s accountability.

Quote: “He [Satan] wants couples to buy into lies…” (01:31–01:36)

Rating: 2/5

Pro: Recognizes false beliefs can damage relationships.

Con: This can intensify self-doubt in already confused spouses, especially those who have been gaslit, spiritually manipulated, or blamed for the problems in the marriage. In abusive settings, language about “buying into lies” can make victims wonder whether their fear, exhaustion, or perception of danger is itself the lie. It also creates space for leaders or counselors to position themselves as the ones who can identify the hidden lies, which can deepen dependence and weaken a spouse’s confidence in their own judgment. In that sense, the phrase may name a real spiritual danger while still functioning in a way that makes vulnerable people easier to control.

Quote: “These [church marriage advice] strategies cannot work.” (02:35–02:47)

Rating: 3/5

Pro: Admits some church marriage advice is genuinely harmful.

Con: This is an important admission, but it stays frustratingly vague. They do not identify which strategies fail, why they fail, or in what kinds of marriages they become dangerous. Is the bad advice “submit more,” “meet all your spouse’s needs,” “keep trying harder,” “pray more,” “forgive faster,” “don’t rock the boat,” or “stay for the kids”? Without examples, the critique remains abstract and listeners are left to guess. That vagueness can also make it seem as though the real problem is merely poor relationship technique, rather than concrete patterns like domination, fear, coercion, deceit, addiction, or abuse.

“Happiness can’t be the primary goal.” (01:10–01:14)

Rating: 4/5

Pro: Corrects unrealistic expectations about lifelong marital happiness.

Con: This is helpful in ordinary marriages, but it can also be used to minimize legitimate suffering inside destructive ones. A spouse who is afraid, chronically demeaned, repeatedly betrayed, or living under coercion does not need to be reminded that marriage is not mainly about happiness; they need clarity about harm. In those settings, language like this can make serious misery sound spiritually normal, as though the real problem is unrealistic expectations rather than an actually unsafe relationship. It risks teaching people to endure covenant-destroying behavior as part of Christian maturity.

“My goal isn’t to be happy… My goal is… growth.” (01:47–03:00)

Rating: 3/5

Pro: Encourages maturity rather than emotional idealism.

Con: Growth language can become dangerous when it is applied to marriages marked by chronic mistreatment. In a healthy marriage, growth means humility, repentance, and mutual change. But in an abusive or deceitful marriage, it can start to sound like the suffering spouse’s job is to become more patient, more understanding, more collaborative, or more spiritually resilient while the deeper pattern of harm goes unnamed. That shifts the focus from whether the marriage is safe to whether the victim is responding in a sufficiently mature way. It can quietly prioritize teamwork and endurance over truth-telling, boundaries, and protection.

“You want that trend line… improving over the course of your life.” (03:37–03:42)

Rating: 4/5

Pro: Offers a realistic picture of gradual change.

Con: This assumes both spouses are capable of healthy growth and have the internal motivation to make better daily choices. That may be true in many struggling marriages, but not in all. Some spouses are entrenched in entitlement, coercion, addiction, deceit, infidelity, or abuse and are not meaningfully moving toward health. In those cases, “watch the trend line” can keep people waiting for a pattern of improvement that never truly arrives. It may encourage pastors or spouses to overvalue small gestures, apologies, or temporary calm while ignoring the larger reality that one person is unwilling to become safe and trustworthy over time.

“Oneness scripturally is meant to be unity… not the same.” (01:30–01:37)

Rating: 5/5

Pro: Strongly rejects self-erasure and enmeshment.

Con: This is a very strong principle. It would be even stronger if they briefly showed how it applies when one spouse is controlling or coercive, because “unity not sameness” should also protect a spouse from being pressured to disappear.

“There’s me… and there’s us. You add a third journey.” (01:46–01:54)

Rating: 4/5

Pro: Honors individuality alongside shared purpose.

Con: This is thoughtful and helpful, though the application stays vague rather than showing how it works in more dangerous or high-control marriages.

“All three have to matter.” (02:29–02:42)

Rating: 4/5

Pro: Balances spouse, self, and marriage well.

Con: This is a healthy corrective, but it would help to say more about what happens when one spouse consistently acts as though only their needs, preferences, or power matter.

“God is love. We don’t create love.” (01:19–01:28)

Rating: 3/5

Pro: Grounds love in God rather than emotion.

Con: It is spiritually rich, but still quite abstract in practice. The idea would land better with more concrete application to real marital harm and responsibility.

“I don’t feel love anymore… that’s one of the least troubling things…” (01:57–02:19)

Rating: 2/5

Pro: Pushes back on panic over lost feelings.

Con: This may be true in some struggling marriages, but it can be misleading when numbness, withdrawal, or fear is tied to betrayal, abuse, or chronic mistreatment.

“All we have to do is ask the Lord to let us see through His eyes…” (02:25–02:41)

Rating: 2/5

Pro: Encourages prayerful perspective and spiritual humility.

Con: This can become risky if it leads vulnerable spouses to question their own perceptions or stay focused on sacrifice when safety and protection are the more urgent need.

“This is not about you being less than.” (01:40–01:45)

Rating: 5/5

Pro: Excellent correction to self-negating marriage teaching.

Con: Very little to criticize here. The main limitation is simply that the series does not always carry this strong insight through consistently in its other teachings.

“God truly is my source, not Jenny.” (02:48–02:52)

Rating: 5/5

Pro: Establishes healthy limits on marital dependency.

Con: Could be misused to justify emotional withdrawal, neglect, or lack of mutual care. A spouse might twist this truth into, “I don’t owe you comfort, presence, or responsiveness because only God meets your needs,” when marriage still involves love, tenderness, and responsibility. It is healthy to say your spouse is not your ultimate source, but unhealthy to use that idea to avoid showing up faithfully in the relationship.

“Virtually all marriage issues are a result of misplaced responsibilities.” (03:06–03:23)

Rating: 2/5

Pro: Insightful for many ordinary marital conflicts.

Con: This is too sweeping because it treats nearly every marital problem as a matter of confusion about roles, burdens, or boundaries. That may fit many ordinary conflicts, but abuse, coercion, chronic deceit, addiction, intimidation, and violence are not just “misplaced responsibilities.” In those cases, the issue is not merely that one spouse is carrying too much or too little; it is that one person is choosing harmful, destructive behavior that creates fear and damages the other. It can soften accountability and make serious abuse sound like a shared systems problem rather than a pattern of oppression.

“My wife felt so unsafe with me…” (01:37–01:43)

Rating: 5/5

Pro: Honest, concrete, and unusually self-aware.

Con: A rare moment of real specificity.

“How do we create a marriage that feels like one of the safest places on earth?” (02:15–02:23)

Rating: 5/5

Pro: Centers safety instead of performance or pressure.

Con: Doesn’t say what to do if safety never comes, or if one person gives lip-service to safety, but continues to behave as though only they matter.

“When people feel unsafe and insecure, they’re guarded…” (03:00–03:06)

Rating: 4/5

Pro: Describes relational shutdown accurately and helpfully.

Con: This is helpful in many strained relationships, but not all difficulties fall into the same category. A spouse may feel “unsafe” because of ordinary conflict, tension, or misunderstanding—or because there is actual intimidation, sexual coercion, threats, stalking, violence, or chronic degradation. If those very different situations are all described simply as feeling “unsafe and insecure,” listeners may miss the moral seriousness of abuse. The language is psychologically accurate, but without clearer distinctions it can make actual danger sound like ordinary relational discomfort that just needs better connection.

“My job became managing her emotions.” (00:45–00:51)

Rating: 5/5

Pro: Clearly rejects emotional control and overfunctioning.

Con: Strong and pastorally useful.

“What if I just started to care about how she felt?” (02:00–02:04)

Rating: 4/5

Pro: Replaces fixing with empathy and presence.

Con: Empathy is a real improvement over fixing, dismissing, or controlling another person’s emotions. But by itself, “caring how she felt” does not yet address what created the pain in the first place. In destructive marriages, the deeper issue may be not just emotional misunderstanding but concrete wrongdoing—harshness, deceit, intimidation, sexual coercion, contempt, or repeated patterns that make the other spouse feel small or unsafe. Without stronger language about repentance, accountability, and changed behavior, this can suggest that understanding your spouse’s feelings is enough, when in some marriages the real issue is active harm that must stop.

“Feelings are raw data.” (02:55–03:00)

Rating: 4/5

Pro: Helps people value emotions without obeying them blindly.

Con: This is helpful as a basic principle, but it can oversimplify how emotions work in trauma. For many abuse survivors, feelings are not just neutral signals waiting to be interpreted calmly; they may be shaped by fear conditioning, hypervigilance, dissociation, shame, confusion, or years of gaslighting. A survivor’s panic, numbness, or shutdown may reflect real danger or trauma injury, not merely “data” to process in a balanced way. So while the phrase is useful in ordinary relationships, it can sound too neat and clinical in situations where emotions are carrying the weight of terror, survival, and repeated violation.

“Marriage is a team sport.” (01:00–01:08)

Rating: 4/5

Pro: Useful image for ordinary mutual conflict.

Con: This is a strong metaphor for healthy marriages where both people are acting in good faith, sharing power, and seeking each other’s wellbeing. But in an abusive or coercive marriage, the “team” image can become misleading because it assumes good faith and concern about the other’s best interest where it does not exist. One spouse may be intimidating, manipulating, degrading, controlling finances, coercing sexually, or using fear to dominate, while the other is simply trying to survive. In that situation, framing the marriage as a team effort can pressure the harmed spouse to think more collaboratively, communicate better, or work harder with someone who is not acting like a teammate at all. You cannot be a team with someone who is drilling holes in the bottom of the boat.  It risks turning oppression into a joint project and can make resistance, boundaries, or escape sound like betrayal of the team rather than a necessary response to abuse.

“If either feels compromised… we lose as a team.” (02:16–02:25)

Rating: 3/5

Pro: Promotes mutuality over domination.

Con: This sounds wise in healthy, reciprocal marriages, because it pushes against steamrolling and invites both spouses to matter. But in a destructive marriage, it can make a victim’s boundaries sound like selfishness or disunity. A spouse who says no to coercion, refuses mistreatment, protects money, documents abuse, or leaves an unsafe situation may be made to feel that they are “hurting the team.” In that context, the real problem is not that someone feels compromised, but that one spouse is already using pressure, fear, or control to get their way. Without that distinction, the language of teamwork can shame the harmed spouse for resisting what should never have been demanded in the first place.

“He will not leave a couple in disunity…” (03:33–03:40)

Rating: 1/5

Pro: Offers hope for struggling couples.

Con: This offers hope, but it can also create false hope in marriages where one spouse is committed to domination, deceit, addiction, or abuse. It suggests that if a couple keeps yielding to God, unity will eventually come, but God does not force an abuser to behave well if that person does not want to change. The Lord does not override human agency and make a destructive spouse suddenly become safe, honest, humble, or loving. In practice, this kind of message can keep victims waiting, praying, enduring, and trying longer in situations where the real need is not more patience with disunity but recognition that one spouse is refusing the good. That can delay protection, blur accountability, and make getting safe feel like a failure of faith rather than a necessary response to persistent harm.