I’ve got two case studies of wholly unqualified people giving advice for you today!
I’d like to tell you 2 different stories about 2 different influencer duos, 2 decades apart, and then show you how these stories relate to the harm being done in evangelical circles with regards to marriage and sex advice.
Whoa. That was a mouthful. Ready? Let’s jump in!
A few weeks ago several different followers sent me the same Instagram reel to critique.
It was of quite popular Instagram account by Terry and Katie McCabe, and in it, Katie was arguing that women don’t need to feel connected to have sex.
There’s lots wrong with that advice, so I decided to do a few stitches of it, which you can see here and here.
This couple has several different accounts across multiple platforms, with over 1,000,000 followers. And I wanted to see—what exactly are they trying to build with all of their marriage reels? Are they selling courses?
So I took a look at their bio—and saw something very concerning.
They said they were “Gottman Certified Marriage Coaches.”
Now, for those who don’t know, The Gottman Institute is the world’s premier research institute on marriage. It’s a big deal. And I thought to myself— there is just no way that the Gottmans certify marriage coaches. So I decided to look on Gottman’s website, and I was correct: They do offer certification, but:
- Only to licensed therapists
- with postgraduate degrees
- who have completed 3 levels of their training
- and who have worked with a personal supervisor and submitted videos and much more
It’s is a very rigorous process. While they do offer training courses, some of which give you a “certificate of completion”, you are simply not allowed to say that you are certified if you are not, indeed, certified.
So I contacted the Gottman institute, sent them a screenshot of this account, and asked if the couple were certified. Within 15 minutes I had a response, and here’s one of the emails in that email chain:
We are now left with two possibilities:
- This couple is deliberately lying
- They don’t realize that they aren’t certified, because they don’t understand what being certified entails
Both options are abhorrent. Even if they’re not deliberately deceptive, the fact that they are totally ignorant of how qualifications work means that they should not, in any stretch of the imagination, be counseling (or “coaching”) anyone.
Yet they have built a huge platform, and sell courses and coaching to people, with virtually no training.
Here’s what concerns me about their approach:
- Couples counseling is contraindicated when abuse is present; and
- Most abused women don’t realize they’re being abused before they start counseling
Many people seeking marriage help, then, are in abusive dynamics, and it’s vitally important that a counselor be able to spot this so that they can stop counseling a couple if needed and work instead with an individual to create a safety plan.
This is something you need training for, and this couple doesn’t have that training. Without training, you can do a lot of damage.
This is why counseling is at least a two-year graduate degree program, with supervision required afterwards.
I don’t offer counseling—because I’m not qualified.
I want to be clear about something: counseling one-on-one is a unique skillset that involves specialized training. I do not have that training, and though I’m asked on a daily basis to counsel (or coach) couples, I always say no. I am qualified to write books, to synthesize research studies, conduct our own research studies, submit those studies to peer review, and look at trends. Yet understanding the science of relationships and trends does not translate into properly being able to diagnose and help an individual couple. You need schooling for that—real schooling and real qualifications.
Yet today so many “coaches” are charging for services they simply aren’t qualified to give. While some coaches are certified in things and help with very specific areas of marriage, this couple appears to have very little training or qualifications at all.
Yet social media platforms are filled with savvy influencers who are wholly unqualified to give advice, who are creating courses and offering coaching.
It’s scary out there, and we need to be more discerning.
But there’s another side to it, and this is where our second story comes in:
Evangelicalism’s best-selling marriage and sex books were also written by wholly unqualified people.
Back in 2000 an evangelical phenomenon hit the bookshelves: Every Man’s Battle, telling the story of men’s perpetual battle with lust and how to defeat it.
The book opens with an anecdote of one of the two authors getting into a car accident because he’s staring at a female jogger, whom he describes as a “banquet of glistening flesh.”
The authors go on to claim that men lust naturally, “simply by being male.” They claim in another book in the series that “men just don’t naturally have that Christian view of sex.” They describe a 15-year-old girl seducing an adult male youth volunteer, who is now petrified because he may actually go to jail for statutory rape. No concern is shown for the girl whom he sexually abused; instead he is painted as the victim of his own “lust”, and her sexual maturity.
And the solution to the lust problem? Men should transfer their sexual energy solely onto their wife, who can become “like a merciful vial of methadone.” Instead of lusting after all women, he gets to lust after just one, going to her for “up to 10 bowls of sexual gratification a week.” And then, when it comes to other women, men should “bounce their eyes” away. On their website, they call female joggers and female co-workers “enemies.” They warn men that if they walk into an office, they should immediately bounce their eyes to a wall, because offices have receptionists who tend to be female and who bend over a lot.
So you either lust, or you ignore all women around you.
But Jesus never refused to look at women. Jesus chose to truly look at women.
This book is an abomination, and you can download our one-page with all the problems with it here.
But what’s most interesting about it, and why I bring it up, is that the two authors, Steve Arterburn and Fred Stoeker, had absolutely no credentials for writing this book other than the fact that they were self-proclaimed “former” sex addicts (and given the way they speak of women in the book, it does not seem like they have left objectification and dehumanization behind.) They have absolutely no citations to any scientific studies in their book either.
These two men, whose only qualification to write a book on lust was that they had each treated women abhorrently, were considered qualified to tell a generation of men how to stop lusting.
And no one batted an eye.
Evangelicalism has a problem with de-valuing qualifications.
As I’ve said before, to give advice in this area, we need two things:
-
People who have relevant educational qualifications (social work, psychology, sociology, epidemiology, medicine, counseling) AND/OR
-
People who write and give advice based on up-to-date peer reviewed research
Yet when we look at the marriage and sex books that have shaped evangelicalism since the 1980s, we’ll see that very, very few of them pass this simple test.
Authors Who Wrote Marriage and Sex Books with No Relevant Qualifications
Jimmy Evans, Marriage on the Rock: No qualifications, except his marriage almost fell apart because of his abusive behaviour
Steve Arterburn and Fred Stoeker, Every Man’s Battle: No qualifications except they were both self-proclaimed (former) sex addicts
Gary Chapman, The Five Love Languages: Postgraduate degree in anthropology and religious education. Concept debunked by peer reviewed research.
Gary Thomas, Sacred Marriage: No qualifications.
Tim Keller, The Meaning of Marriage: No qualifications.
Shaunti Feldhahn, For Women Only: No qualifications. Business degree. Original research not done to academic standards.
Tim LaHaye, The Act of Marriage: No qualifications.
Stormie Omartian, Power of a Praying Wife: No qualifications
The Kendrick Brothers, The Love Dare. No qualifications.
Even those with qualifications are problematic:
Authors with Relevant Qualifications Who Are Still Problematic
Kevin Leman, Sheet Music: Psychologist, but cites Redbook magazine rather than peer reviewed articles, and gives advice not in line with best practices.
Willard Harley, His Needs, Her Needs: Psychologist, but doesn’t use peer reviewed research.
John and Stasi Eldredge, Wild at Heart and Captivating. John Eldredge has a Counseling degree, but doesn’t use peer reviewed resources.
Emerson Eggerichs, Love & Respect: Ph.D. in Child & Family Ecology, but doesn’t use peer reviewed research, and cites out-of-date books from 50 years ago to defend gender differences. Confuses basic statistical concepts. Main thesis debunked by our research (and others’).
Relevant peer reviewed citations are conspicuously absent from virtually all of these books.
Yet on the secular side?
Secular Best-Selling Marriage and Sex Authors Are Qualified
John Gottman, 7 Principles for Making Marriage Work: Multiple qualifications, runs a research institute on marriage
Emily Nagoski, Come As You Are, Ph.D. in Health Behaviour and Human Sexuality; Almost 200 peer reviewed citations in her book
Sue Johnson, Hold Me Tight. Clinical psychologist and professor
Secular marriage and sex best-sellers are overwhelmingly written by highly qualified people; evangelical best-sellers are overwhelmingly written by wholly unqualified people.
Then today’s unqualified influencers parrot back what they learned from unqualified authors.
And all of the same messages get recycled again, but this time by people who are selling courses and coaching, and even marriage intensives and retreats, that can do even more harm. And then pastors like Josh Howerton or Josh McPherson or Mark Driscoll get in on it too!
Download Our Marriage Survey
Join 40,00 others and let's change the evangelical conversation about sex
What harmful messages are being shared?
We’ve identified several very harmful messages in our surveys of over 40,000 people, and we talk about their implications in our books The Great Sex Rescue, She Deserves Better, and The Marriage You Want. Most evangelical authors I’ve listed here teach almost all of these:
The Harmful Messages That Are Prevalent in Evangelical Advice
-
A woman is obligated to give her husband sex when he wants it
-
A woman should have frequent sex with her husband to keep him from watching porn
-
Boys will push girls’ sexual boundaries, so girls have to be the gatekeepers
-
All men struggle with lust; it’s every man’s battle
-
A girl should watch what she wears to be careful she’s not a stumbling block to the boys around her
What happens when these things are taught? Here’s what we found:
The Results of These Harmful Messages
-
Women’s orgasm rates fall (which is why evangelical couples have a 47 point orgasm gap between men and women, which appears to be larger than married couples in the general population)
-
Women’s rates of sexual pain increase (which is why 23% of evangelical women suffer from sexual pain disorders, a rate roughly twice as high as the general population)
-
Women’s libido falls (which is why evangelical women seem to have lower libidos than women in the general population)
-
Women’s and men’s marital satisfaction falls
-
Men become more selfish lovers, doing less foreplay and caring less about their wife’s pleasure
-
Men tend to watch porn more
-
Men have a harder time quitting porn
-
Teenage girls who attend churches that teach these messages are more likely to be victims of sexual assault.
-
Young women who are taught these messages are more likely to marry abusers.
When unqualified people teach without using peer reviewed resources, the advice harms people.
And today’s evangelical couples are paying the price.
It all started because our best-sellers were written with no regard to what research actually says, and with no knowledge of psychology or counseling.
And now these same messages are being spread like wildfire by unqualified social media influencers who want to become “marriage coaches” or sell courses.
It’s time to start expecting actual qualifications and the use of peer reviewed research.
This won’t stop until we all stop buying books written by people with no relevant qualifications in the field.
It won’t stop until we start muting and blocking social media accounts that are grifting people.
It won’t stop until we, as a church, say that it isn’t okay to give advice on something as important as marriage or sex when you quite frankly don’t know what you’re talking about.
And we deserve better.














I think many believe unqualified people are “holy spirit-taught and led” which makes it sound more “of God” even if it isn’t. Many of these people are the same ones who say things to those with depression such as, “If you truly believed, you wouldn’t need medicine,” and nearly led to a friend almost taking her own life years ago.
I wonder if, when people feel desperate, they think only God can save their marriage so they more readily buy into a “spirit-led” recovered person than a professional. (Just an incomplete pondering on my part.)
Yep, Nessie, I think you’re on to something. I was thinking the whole “Spirit-led” misunderstanding, too.
Also, in some Christian traditions, “pastor” is viewed as the equivalent of “professor,” except the pastor also gets the Holy Spirit, so the pastor is perceived as knowing more than a qualified professional. In my experience, no one ever stops to think that the professor/professional might also be a Christian led by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it’s usually assumed that they aren’t a Christian simply by virtue of them being a professor/professional in a secular job.
The problem is compounded by the troubling belief that if it doesn’t come from a pastor or a Christian X, it’s not God’s truth, and if it’s not God’s truth, then it’s not true.
I think that’s likely very true. And in evangelicalism we have such an emphasis on God personally talking to us, that if someone says God told them something, it trumps actual research anyway. I honestly don’t know how we square that one.
Is this situation the inevitable result of over-analogizing (1) Christ’s relationship to the church and (2) the description of marriage in Ephesians 5?
That is, since men are analogized to Christ and women to the church, do men inevitably start to think they *are* or *become* Christ, sharing, for example, His omniscience and sinlessness? Over-analogizing also gives men free rein to focus on the sinfulness of women in general and their wives in particular, which subsequently allows men to give their sinless, omniscient selves a complete free pass.
Dunno. But it seems like the case for at least some men, based simply on observation.
I definitely think so. Remember that article a few years ago that basically said that men save their wives?
The message of Every Man’s Battle will make addiction worse. I should know because I have lived it. You want to know why that book still sells? Because if you realize you have a problem you seek out help and these guys are unfortunately some of the most popular and easily accessible resources out there, but you know what is ironic? The EasyPeasy Method is a free ebook based on the works of Alan Carr and more recent developments and it actually has helped me as has stuff here and with those books like Arousal and Maelstrom and such. Please keep doing what you do.
Thanks, Codec!
As always, a great post, Sheila.
Going in a slightly different direction with this: a lot of advanced training (doctoral level) teaches you what you don’t know. It also teaches you boundaries. Being the person with a doctorate doesn’t give you the right to make decisions for competent adults. (Lawyers get this drilled through their heads in law school, or at least they should.) Doing an end-run around your client can get your bar license suspended.
That lack of training makes these books so problematic. The authors don’t know what they don’t know. They don’t understand that having an opinion and a publishing contract doesn’t give them the right to run other people’s lives. They don’t understand letting people (inside or outside of marriage) make their own decisions.
They also aren’t taught about when things are applicable and when they aren’t applicable. Advice that works for a couple in a healthy marriage is often disastrous when applied to a couple in an unhealthy marriage. They aren’t taught that these lines exist, let alone where they are.
They haven’t learned that expertise, prayer, and goodwill aren’t enough. The top oncologists in the world watch patients die of cancer, even when those patients eat right, exercise, and do what they can to fight cancer. Lawyers say that they lose cases they should win and win cases they should lose.
(Of course, people in other professions and people who have high school diplomas often understand this! My point is that doctoral-level training teaches you this, and these dudes obviously never learned it.)
The worst psychological advice I have ever gotten is from people who zero training in psychology who have been to therapy. The hottest legal takes I’ve ever heard are from people who have been involved in the legal system (divorces, business lawsuits) and lack any sort of legal training.
All this said with me knowing nothing about the McCabes other than awareness that they exist and give advice I hope no one follows.
There is another possibility with the McCabe’s Instagram bio. It’s possible that when they created the account, they were limited by character count and put “certified” thinking “we have a certification of completion; what’s shorthand for that?”. That doesn’t excuse a lack of clarification in other places or remove the problem of not recognizing the difference between “certified” and “certification of completion,” but I think it’s worth considering in a context where we are trying to infer someone’s motives/thought process. How they respond to being told to remove the signifier will say a lot about them.
Yes, exactly Jill–as I said, it was either deliberate OR they were ignorant. In both cases they’re disqualified, because if they’re so ignorant they don’t even know what proper qualifications are, then they definitely can’t be trusted.