Posted on 07/27/2004 2:27:02 PM PDT by Between the Lines
Wild At Heart, by writer and counselor John Eldredge, is a book dedicated to helping men recover a biblically based self identity. Though it contains some helpful insight and commentary, especially on the damage done to gender roles by cultural forces of political correctness, the key principles of this book are sorely lacking in biblical integrity. Eldredge’s desire to help hurting people is obvious and commendable, but his mishandling of Scripture and the consequent misguided advice he gives are too serious to ignore.
Eldredge’s basic thesis is that males are wild at heart because God is wild at heart, and that both men and women need to understand this in order for men to live the kind of daring, adventurous lives for which God has created them. Eldredge’s explication of this thesis reveals his alarmingly unbiblical view of four fundamental aspects of Christianity: 1.) God’s sovereignty and authority 2.) the person and work of Jesus Christ 3.) the purpose and substance of the gospel 4.) the nature and content of God’s direct revelation to man. As will be demonstrated in this critique, many of the views expressed in Wild At Heart are, beyond issues of denominational preference, irreconcilable with biblical Christianity. Those seeking help from Eldredge’s words, if they accept his theology, will be damaged in their understanding of God and thus actually be led away from the only One who can truly help them.
Eldredge knows that any real understanding of masculinity must begin with the creator of masculinity and all things, the Lord God as He is revealed in His Word, and Eldredge attempts to do just that. However, when Eldredge expounds on this point, his guiding philosophies become apparent and he begins to falter. We’ll examine first Eldredge’s view of God, and move more specifically to his view of God’s sovereignty and authority.
In the opening pages of his book, Eldredge portrays God as one who loves wildness. Eldredge argues that the fierceness of certain animals (killer whales, bull mousses, white sharks) and the untamed nature of certain parts of creation (the woods at night, the Great Barrier Reef) reflect the fierceness and untamed nature of God (p.29). Eldredge contends that the wildness of creation is God’s way of: “…letting us know he rather prefers adventure, danger, risk, the element of surprise” (p.30).
Eldredge sees God’s innate wildness especially exemplified in men. The inside jacket of Wild At Heart reads: “Deep in his heart, every man longs for a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue. That is how he bears the image of God.” Considering the complexity of Scripture’s teaching on the imago Dei1, Eldredge gives us an overly simplistic understanding which is geared toward and probably results from his own love for rugged, romantic individualism.2 One wonders how his understanding would be received by Christians in foreign cultures which do not prize the same ideals, and further if men who are shy, quiet and non-violent in temperament would be considered in Eldredge’s model adequate image bearers of God.
Eldredge writes that Adam was created outside the Garden of Eden (“the outback”, as it were) and infers from this that man was meant to be undomesticated, wild and free (p.4) like “the wild one whose image we bear” (title for chapter 2). This thinking, however, ignores several key details about the creation of man and what it reveals about God’s character.
Adam was in a sense created outside the garden. He had to be, because according to Genesis 2, Adam was created before the garden was planted. (Genesis 2:7,8)3. So really, the phrase “outside the garden” does not apply to Adam’s origin. It is more faithful to the text to see that the garden was made for man, as his ideal place of dwelling. Even given the idea that the Garden existed before Adam, Eldredge implies that the placement of man in the garden is less than ideal, and somehow contrary to man’s true nature. “Only afterward is he brought to Eden. And ever since then boys have never been at home indoors, and men have had an insatiable longing to explore.” (p.4) Apparently, even God does not really understand the wildness of man’s heart; He forces man into the garden and quells his God-given desire to explore.
But what of the fierceness of other parts of creation, the tigers and killer whales? Do these not reveal God’s love of wildness? It would seem that much of the ferocity of these creatures is due to their desire to kill and eat flesh, arguably a result of the fall. Even given the idea that the pre-fall world contained the killing of animals for food4, Scripture still gives the distinct impression that the new heaven and earth will be an even more tranquil version of Eden, for the wolf will graze with the lamb (Isaiah 65:25).
It seems that the lack of ferocity and battle in the eternal state would crush the very heart and soul of Eldredge’s ideal man, that something intrinsic to the image of God and therefore true masculinity would be missing in heaven. Though worshipping our God and basking in His presence could perhaps be described as an adventure, there will certainly be no battle to fight or beauty to rescue. The violence and pain of post fall creation will be forever gone. This is clearly God’s understanding of a perfect relationship between Himself and His creation, and it stands in stark contrast to Eldredge’s definition of God’s image and the masculinity that reflects it.
So how “wild” is God’s heart in reality? We must remember that God was wholly satisfied in Himself before He created the universe (John 17:5). There was nothing inherently wild about God because He was all there was! Certainly God does not develop new attributes (Malachi 3:6), so the creation of the world or any part of it cannot be understood as a reflection of a characteristic God does not possess. God created the universe and interacts with it to display His attributes (Psalm 8), to rule over and conform it to His glorious, eternal purposes (Ephesians 1:11). Through creation we see God’s grandeur and glorious imagination, not His need for adventure.
Wild at Heart is clearly a dangerous book being passed off as being Biblically Christian, yet the dissenting voices are few.
This writer is being too tough on John. He's trying to counteract the wimpifying, metrosexualizing of the modern American male.
His ideas are ideas worth considering. People really are afraid of the stallion that God has created, and their first impulse is to geld that wildness.
The bottom line is this: Biblical men were unabashed warriors. Eldredge is attempting to define that. Cut him some slack as he takes initial forays into a subject sorely needing a hearing in our culture.
Or we can all go buy pink and learn disco dancing and how to hold our pinky when we drink tea. Even the Scarlet Pimpernel knew that that was no real man.
Those bull mousses are really what kill my diet, too! And what does this say about the writer's level of education?
But seriously, I've read all John Eldredge's books, and all I see here is a difference of opinion. This writer doesn't imagine the "personality," as it were, of God, in the same way Eldredge does. Fine. God is bigger than any of our understandings of Him.
Yes, Eldredge is trying to address the problem of the wussification of the church and I have no doubt that Eldredge's motives and intentions are sincere. But, the manner in which Eldredge attempts to prove his thesis, however, is founded upon bad theology, an erroneous use of Scripture, an undermining of the biblical notion of vocation, and a distortion of biblical femininity - all of which potentially misguide readers into living unbiblical and unwise lives.
Though Eldredge is correct about the feminisation of the church and modern man, he has no clue as to what the Biblical answer to this problem might be.
My concern is with approach.
Eldredge is attempting to spell out something that hasn't really been dealt with. I'm sure he makes a few stumbles and missteps here and there, but it's not like it's a well-taught field.
The article approaches it like a review of tragic doctrinal error.
I'd like to see a different approach. I'd like to see something like, "My brother Eldredge says X. I was thinking X1 is a better way of looking at things."
I agree with you, xzins. I'm very dubious about writers who strongly imply, "'Biblical Christianity' is what I say it is!"
In the excerpt (I haven't made it to the full article), the author just pointed out the verses that Eldredge uses, and then said, "But they really mean something else (because I say so.)"
I'm not saying John Eldredge is totally on the ball ... I don't believe any human commentator can get everything right. He even says himself, that people shouldn't misunderstand his counsel to mean that they should do anything that feels good. He seems to be aware that he's pushing the envelope, and warning readers that they need to use discernment and not make him a guru.
At least, that's what it meant to *me*. "-)
I have read Elledge's book, Wild at Heart. Read more like Ted Nugent than the Apostle Paul.
We're on the same sheet.
I'm glad that someone's trying to say what Eldredge is saying. It might still have rough edges.....but, what if every pastor had every sermon scrutinized like this every week.
I hear someone shouting "Timmmmmbbberrrrrr!"
I thought it's thesis that men, like God, desire a battle to fight, an adventure to win, and a beauty to woo was interesting and had its merits. But a lot of his arguments were made from popular culture. He quotes Braveheart several times -- a good movie, but not a great source of our theology. Citing a movie is a good illustration, but he seems to use it as prima facie proof of some of his points.
Which of those doesn't interest you? Which didn't interest King David?
:>)
I just didnt think his book was terribly profound. For me, the most revolutionary books I read were Lewis' Mere Christianity, Piper's Desiring God, and Augustine's Confessions. Naybe its just that I'm an oddity.
Actually, I found his observation that America is afraid of masculinity (stallions are more frightening that geldings) to be a great insight.
When they began the assault on the family in the late 60's, they began by attacking the image of the father in the family.
Masculine bad.
Fop good.
"Underwhelmed" is one of my favorites, too :-).
I didn't find all the movie references that compelling, either, but maybe it's because none of the movies did that much for me. (I'm a book person.) However the point, as I understood it, was that Eldredge observed that these films were speaking to many people at a deep level, and that this pointed out a legitimate, unmet spiritual yearning.
What reached me, and literally brought me to tears, was when he observed, "Christian women are TIRED." I have seven young children. I'm homeschooling. I'm married to an engineer. I'm a Girl Scout leader, organize the nursery at church, secretary of the Homeowners' Association, campaign volunteer ... and I still think, "If I have time to sit down and read a book, then I'm obviously not doing enough!" I know of women who have DIED because getting that little lump checked out, or finding out what causes the non-quite-incapacitating pain, just wasn't as important as all the duties to other people. (/whine off)
Anyway, what I understood from John Eldredge was that God does not want us to run away from our responsibilities after "personal fulfilment," but that He wants us to see our lives in the context of the beautiful, dramatic, terrifying, romantic narrative that He has created. That when we're cooking meals for a bereaved family, or leading a Cub Scout troop (to bring men back in :-), we're not just doing busywork, we're contending for souls alongside angels.
St. Paul DOES say this ... that the spiritual war is more real than anything we see. And so does Chrysostom, and Scott Hahn. Mother Teresa said that every poor person is another Christ ... but she didn't make it up, Jesus did. John Eldredge puts it at a more pop-culture level, but then his target audience is probably not composed of Thomas Sowell groupies.
This has been fun, but I have to roust some kids ... we're in the middle of a top-to-bottom housecleaning :-). Y'all have a good day!
Well, after reading the whole article, I'm even less impressed. And the guy actually did say, "Bull mousses!" I thought it was the poster's little joke, given the moose issues on FR.
John Eldredge discusses God and Christian life in terminology that's not what the author thinks is optimal. John Eldredge thinks God can speak to us in terms of our daily experiences, included movies (if that's your thing). Therefore, John Eldredge is attacking the gospel and deeply offending God. Run away, run away!
While I'm sure the author has good intentions, to me, this is an irritating example of the "My way ... or the highway to Hell!" strain of Christian writing, and not at all edifying.
Based on this critique the book sounds rather...
...infantile.
Presuming themselves to be wise, they have become fools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.