🧩 Introduction
In 2011, Focus on the Family’s Hope Restored marriage intensive—then known as the National Institute of Marriage (NIM)—published a paper it claimed proved the program’s success. More than a decade later, those same numbers are still being used in their books, websites, and conferences as “scientific evidence” that Hope Restored can save marriages in a single week.
But as the authors themselves admitted, that “study” was never scientific research at all.
📖 The “Study” That Wasn’t a Study
“This article is primarily descriptive and theoretical in nature and is not intended to present empirical research data. Formal outcome research, which is currently in progress, will be submitted for scholarly review at a later date.”
— Paul, R. S., Burbee, R. K., Smalley, G. L., & Thurman, C. K. (2011). Integrative marital intensive therapy: A strategy for marriages in crisis. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 30(3), 213.
Published in the Journal of Psychology and Christianity (2011), the article described the counseling model used by the National Institute of Marriage but offered no independently verified or peer-reviewed outcomes. It summarized internal, self-reported results from follow-up surveys—not from controlled research or independent evaluation.
According to the full text, those surveys captured data from only a small portion of participants:
“The survey respondents accounted for 34.4 percent of the population of couples who completed intensive programs at NIM during the three-year time period,” representing 20.4 percent of individual attendees.
— Paul et al., 2011, p. 212
In other words, roughly two-thirds of all couples who attended never replied—and about four out of five individual participants went uncounted. Those missing voices—likely including many whose marriages did not survive—were excluded from the results.
The authors themselves cautioned that their findings were “preliminary” and that actual outcome research would need to come later:
“Preliminary data appear encouraging, but future research will be required to determine the long-term effectiveness of this model.”
— Paul et al., 2011, p. 213
Fourteen years later, no such peer-reviewed study has ever been published.
🔁 Recycling the Same Unverified Numbers in Restoring Hope (2023)
“In their 2011 article, Burbee et al. reported significant changes in marital satisfaction following FMT, and 84.5 percent of couples were still married two years post FMT.”
— Restoring Hope, Paul, Burbee, & Arnzen, 2023, Focus on the Family Publishing, p. 334
In Restoring Hope (2023), the same authors reused these very same internal figures—originally based on 71 couples who responded to 24-month surveys out of more than 1,000 who attended—as if they were new research evidence:
The book describes these outcomes as “surprisingly consistent and unusually effective,” yet admits they come from “ministry follow-ups,” not from independent research. What’s missing is peer review, transparency, and disclosure of failure rates.
Fourteen years later, Hope Restored still cites the same internal survey as proof of “miraculous” results—without a single peer-reviewed study to support them.
⚖️ Ethical Implications: When Marketing Masquerades as Science
Presenting internally gathered, unverifiable data as “proof” misleads the very couples most in need of help. In a faith-based context—where questioning such claims can feel like doubting God—this becomes not only a research gap but an ethical breach.
The American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) Code of Ethics § 1-820 warns against “making sensational, misleading, or scientifically unverifiable claims.” By promoting its unverified “84 percent success rate” as evidence of divine intervention, Hope Restored violates both scientific and Christian counseling standards.
When faith becomes a marketing tool, hope turns into sales copy.
A $3,000–$6,000 “miracle” program that has never submitted its results to independent review doesn’t restore trust—it erodes it.
🌱 A Call for Truth and Accountability
Marriage restoration is a noble goal. But genuine hope rests on transparency, honesty, and data that can withstand scrutiny.
If Focus on the Family truly believes Hope Restored changes lives, it should:
- Fund independent, peer-reviewed outcome research.
- Disclose full survey data—including non-respondents and long-term results.
- Stop presenting ministry marketing as scientific proof.
Faith and evidence can coexist. But when ministries hide behind unverifiable claims, they confuse belief with fact—and couples in crisis pay the price.
Couples don’t need miracle marketing—they need truth, safety, and the dignity of informed choice.
📚 References
APA 7th Edition
Paul, R. S., Burbee, R. K., Smalley, G. L., & Thurman, C. K. (2011). Integrative marital intensive therapy: A strategy for marriages in crisis. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 30(3), 210–214.
Paul, R. S., Burbee, R. K., & Arnzen, C. A. (2023). Restoring Hope: Healing from the Heart of Your Marriage. Focus on the Family Publishing.
Taylor, J. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of Christian Marital Intensive Programs. Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University.
Editor’s Note
The freely available version of “Integrative Marital Intensive Therapy: A Strategy for Marriages in Crisis” hosted on TheFreeLibrary.com omits several key portions of the original Journal of Psychology and Christianity text (Vol. 30, No. 3). Missing sections include:
- the survey response-rate paragraph (34.4 % of couples / 20.4 % of individuals),
- the explanation that data were collected through self-reported email surveys, and
- the closing statement that the article was “primarily descriptive and theoretical … not intended to present empirical research data.”
These omissions make the online version appear more like a formal study than the descriptive overview it actually was.
(All quotations verified from the full 2011 publication and Restoring Hope [2023].)
🔗 Links
-
“My independent survey of Hope Restored participants showing more than 7 in 10 are divorced or separated and 8 in 10 would not recommend the program to others” → https://lifesavingdivorce.com/will-a-marriage-intensive-fix-your-marriage/
- “AACC Code of Ethics 1-820” → AACC Code of Ethics
-
Hope Restored official site →
Hope Restored Marriage Intensive (official site)
-
⚠️ False Marketing Claims by Hope Restored Marriage Intensives
- “Hope Restored’s ‘Miraculous’ Claims — Inaccurate and Unethical
Includes testimonies from three former participants. (Independent surveys show that about 7 in 10 former attendees are now separated or divorced.)
🔗 Watch critique | Follow-up video - Will Focus on the Family’s Hope Restored Marriage Intensive Fix My Desperate Marriage?
🔗 lifesavingdivorce.com/hoperestoredfix-2 - Will a Hope Restored Marriage Intensive Fix My Marriage?
🔗 lifesavingdivorce.com/hoperestoredfix - Twelve Problems with Hope Restored’s “Success Rate” Claims
🔗 lifesavingdivorce.com/hoperestoredfail
💭 Hope Restored Marriage Intensives Don’t Meet Expectations
- When Hope Restored Stops the Process: Why You Can’t Choose Divorce While Attending the Intensive
Therapists are instructed to terminate counseling if one spouse decides to divorce—effectively punishing honesty and autonomy.
🔗 lifesavingdivorce.com/hoperestoreddivorce - Hope Restored of False Hope: Inside the Unverified Science of Focus on the Family’s Marriage Intensive
Only ~20% of past attendees responded to the program’s own survey, and there wasn’t enough long-term data at 12 or 24 months to analyze change. 🔗 https://lifesavingdivorce.com/hoperestoredrealstory/
- When “Restoring Hope” Meant Losing Safety: Patricia’s Story and the Hidden Cost of Christian Marriage Therapy. Real stories from a dozen past participants. https://lifesavingdivorce.com/hoperestoredpatricia/
-
Hope Restored Marriage Intensive: Real Results From 44 Former Attendees. I compared the claims on the Hope Restored website with the responses from44 past participants. https://lifesavingdivorce.com/hoperestoredattendees/
- “Hope Restored’s ‘Miraculous’ Claims — Inaccurate and Unethical
:
:
Buy PDF