Andrew Meredith’s Reviews > White Knights and Reviling Wives > Status Update
Andrew Meredith
is on page 235 of 320
There are a host of problems with the way the vast majority of Christian marriage counselors counsel.
Edgington then names names: "From what I have seen in my experience counseling hundreds of men and their wives, Leslie Vernick, Darby Strickland, and Sheila Gregoire have indirectly destroyed more marriages than any other Christian counselors - by far."
— Feb 17, 2026 03:27AM
Edgington then names names: "From what I have seen in my experience counseling hundreds of men and their wives, Leslie Vernick, Darby Strickland, and Sheila Gregoire have indirectly destroyed more marriages than any other Christian counselors - by far."
Like flag
Andrew’s Previous Updates
Andrew Meredith
is on page 268 of 320
Steps for a husband with a reviling wife and steps for a shepherd in pastoring a reviling wife.
— Feb 18, 2026 12:06PM
Andrew Meredith
is on page 176 of 320
A woman who is trying to control her husband (authority usurpation) will sometimes seek to use pastoral counseling to leverage the spiritual authorities in his life in order to pressure him into doing her will. Pastors must be trained to recognize and combat this tendency lest they be used as pawns in her manipulative power games.
— Feb 16, 2026 02:45AM
Andrew Meredith
is on page 88 of 320
Five questions to ask your current pastors or when you are looking to join a new church:
1.) Do women sin?
2.) Do women sin against men?
3.) What are some specific sins women especially struggle with as women?
4.) Do you hold women accountable for their sin?
5.) Can you give me a few concrete examples of when and how you did?
— Feb 15, 2026 08:33AM
1.) Do women sin?
2.) Do women sin against men?
3.) What are some specific sins women especially struggle with as women?
4.) Do you hold women accountable for their sin?
5.) Can you give me a few concrete examples of when and how you did?
1.) There is rarely if ever a call for the woman to follow her husband's lead in the marriage. Even in supposedly complementarian circles, the call is for a women to "submit to her husband" unless they happen to actually disagree on something, and then it is the husband's responsibility to lovingly "lay down his life" for his wife by giving her what she wants. If the husband refuses (especially in big decisions), he is considered self-centered and domineering. If he does it while quoting the Bible, this is borderline "spiritual abuse."
2.) No direction is provided to prevent the woman's emotions from becoming sovereign. What actually happened in any given situation (the truth) is secondary to how it made her feel. And if she "feels" abused, unheard, oppressed, taken for granted, etc., she is. Furthermore, "emotionally destructive" is loosely defined and then equated directly with spiritual/emotional abuse. If a husband says something or does something that hurts the wife's feelings, then that is, by definition, abuse.
3.) Despite claims to the contrary, they assume from the outset that the husband is the abuser in the relationship. It's only a matter of finding out what type of abuser he is (e.g., spiritual, emotional, verbal, physical). There are no measures put in place to counter the very real possibility that it is the wife who is sinfully manipulating her husband, the counselors themselves, the whole situation, in order to gain total control of the marriage, punish her husband, and/or achieve some other end.
4.) There is always underlying CGT (Critical Gender Theory) going on beneath the surface (see their ubiquitous use of "The Duluth Model" and "The Power and Control Wheel"). All that really needs to be proved is that the husband is exercising or has exercised unwanted authority over his wife, and the neo-marxist oppressor/oppressed categories are cemented. Once identified as guilty in this rigged trial, the tyrant oppressor can do nothing but repent, while the oppressed victim's unrepentant sins are minimized, excused, or ignored.
5.) When a wife withholds sex from the husband, there is always a call for the man to learn to provide for his wife emotionally, and his frequent inability to precisely do so is then utilized to excuse her for sinning against him sexually. (Husbands must look to be sanctified when they are rejected, but wives need not concern themselves with sanctification when they are tempted to reject their husbands.) But how do you describe "emotional needs"? You can't. It's a vague, ever moving goal with little-to-no biblical basis. Conversely, how do you describe "sexual needs"? Easily and biblically. Thus a straightforward biblical command (1 Cor 7:4-5) is sidestepped for want of a vague desire.