| Title | : | Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Mans Soul |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | - |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Kindle Edition |
| Number of Pages | : | 236 |
| Publication | : | First published April 1, 2001 |
| Awards | : | ECPA Christian Book Award Inspirational (2002) |
Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Mans Soul Reviews
-
I have a handful of friends who are strong believers in the message delivered in this book by John Eldredge. Its ideas are, in a sense, very appealing to (Christian, American) male sensibilities. Eldredge makes the case that much of the reason why men are discontent, bored, uninspired, un-alive, and lukewarm (particularly as Christians) is because they are out of touch with the wild, adventurous, and manly instincts instilled in them by the creator. Modern society and the expectations of work and family have domesticated the Man and made him a weak, docile, bored shell of what God intends him to be. In order to be fully alive and to renew his passion for God, he must transform his attitude about life and seek, in Eldredge's memorable phrase, "adventure, battle, and a beauty" in accordance with God's plan for his leading creation.
The message is particularly appealing to certain types of men. It appeals to younger high-school and college aged guys who are in the process of discovering themselves, forging their own faiths, and establishing their own identities. It appeals to middle-aged men who are either bored of domestic routines or approaching their midlife crises. Perhaps a few feel after reading this book that their faith harmonizes for the first time with their instincts and natural passions instead of existing as an abstract thing done out of guilt or obligation on Sunday mornings. In all cases, it is probably fair to say that Wild at Heart appeals because here, in a simple prescriptive book aimed at advancing the Kingdom of God, is a new way to worship the Creator. No longer does "passion" for Christ have to mean singing dry hymns or waving your hands in the air during church. Eldredge seems to offer a way -- and a justification -- for worshipping God in the Cathedral of Nature, unhindered by "religion" and rather animated by Saint Irenaeus's famous dictum: "The glory of God is man fully alive."
I have so far made the message sound fairly good in a summary that I hope is representative of the book. The problem is that Eldredge's few good insights are twisted into a simplistic, blinkered prescription that carries with it a lot of intellectual baggage and theological misapprehensions of which Eldredge seems to be unaware.
His chief error is to conflate the act of being "fully alive" with a narrow, misguided, and unbiblical view of what it means to be a man. For Eldredge and his narrow interpretation of masculinity, a man can only be fully alive if he is "wild at heart," living in the way he was created. This is both unbiblical and illogical, as I explain in more detail later on. But there is an additional unbiblical twist that derives clearly from a middle-class 21st century life: Eldredge thinks that being "wild" means, in effect, going out into the wilds and doing outdoorsy things. The few concessionary statements he makes to gloss over the idea that a passionate faith and a passionate life can derive from other pursuits are buried under a morass of William Wallace metaphors, stories about camping, and tales of adventurous hardihood that would please the most vocal proponent of the Boy Scouts. Indeed, the take-aways people have gleaned from his book and the many camps it has spawned have almost made the Wild-At-Heart enthusiast into a parody -- beard-growing, flannel shirts, rock climbing, backpacking, backwoods exploration, camping, hunting, mountaineering, working with one's hands (eminently more "manly" than office work as a professional), and any other "dangerous" or "wild" pursuit by which men can show themselves -- and above all their approving comrades -- just how "wild" and "alive" they have become.
I'm not trying to insult any of these things. They're all good for their own sake, and most participants of adventure sports aren't trying to be inauthentic when they hike a fourteener, or go careening down a trail at Mach-5-with-their-hair-on-fire on their brand new Trek bike. I do most of these things myself and I enjoy them very much. Rather, what I question is the idea, put forward in Wild At Heart, that doing such manly, wild, adventurous things are necessary in order to imitate the character of God -- a proposition that runs like a golden thread through the entirety of Eldredge's book.
Eldredge arrives at this perspective by a peculiar twist of logic. In order to be spiritually alive, a man must be emotionally alive. In order to be emotionally alive, a man must do wild and adventurous things -- the kind of things that appeal to machismo outdoorsy types -- in order to fire his primitive instincts and fulfill his true created purpose as a "warrior" made in the image of God. Never mind, of course, that not all men are made "alive" by doing masculine things, much less outdoorsy things, which the Coloradoan Eldredge sees as a litmus test for all things masculine.
Eldredge's message, in short, has been taken way too far. Somewhere on the internet I read an interview with Eldredge in which he responded, when questioned, that promoting such ideas is valid and worthwhile if it is bringing more young men to Christ. On the contrary, it is highly questionable that this book is bringing many to Christ; and for those who already believe (indeed everybody who subscribes to the book's message), it is promoting a set of debilitating and almost dangerous ideas about how a Christian man ought to act and live. That is to say, Eldredge's message is giving Christian men a false idea of what it means to be passionate and "on fire" for God. It is misleading men by encouraging them to model themselves after a "warrior God" whose "wild" character is unsupported, even contradicted, by scripture. By criticizing the modern, domesticated, settled life, Eldredge is helping to create more unsettled, maladjusted, restless men who see it as their manly right to seek an adrenaline rush when they get bored by work or family life. The book legitimizes old-fashioned, un-Christian, and oppressive ways of viewing a man's role and purpose in life. And it is doing it all of these things in the name of a "god" whose alleged character as a "warrior" is completely unsupported by the canon of Christian scripture. If Eldredge thinks the Old Testament accounts of God leading the Israelites to victory over their enemies is evidence of a "warrior" God, then he clearly never paid attention when learning the theology of the New Covenant and its departure from the Old Covenant, a pillar upon which the Christian faith is based.
Even worse, in his attempt to persuade men that their chief calling is to be "wild at heart," he depicts women, not as created believers in their own right, but as passive companions in a journey that is really all about the man. Tales are told and examples are given of women who stymie their man's "wild" nature, to the detriment of both, with the message clearly being that women ought to be passive supporters of whatever makes their men feel happy and alive. In Eldredge's interpretation, gender is defined in simple, discrete, definable categories. Men are *this* way, Eldredge suggests (invariably masculine in the William Wallace way). Women are *that* way (invariably passive and subservient, like a mythological princess). On the basis of his simple-minded and reductionist understanding of gender characteristics, he then proceeds to prescribe how exactly men and women can become fully alive as Christians, which obviously only works for people who already fit his mold for how men and women ought to be. His insistence that being "wild at heart" entails pursuing a beauty makes no concession to men who feel called to become a priest or otherwise to lead a life of singleness. By suggesting linking the two and by insisting that they are essential to man's created nature and therefore his spiritual vitality, he is essentially delegitimizing or at least denigrating the faith journeys of anyone who remains single, whether by choice or not. These are issues that must enter the mind of every insecure teenage guy who reads Eldredge's book, and yet Eldredge writes as if *everyone* should look and act like a William Wallace in their conquest of some unsuspecting beauty. His wife's book, Captivated, is little more than supporting documentation of the idea that women will get everything they need, all their deepest yearnings, if only they are "captivated" by their warrior man and give his "wild" yearnings free reign. This may work for their marriage and some others, but it is a despicably small-minded view that perverts the scriptures and simplifies the complexity of gender relations.
Moreover, what does this say about the Beauty herself? Does she have no purpose in life but to sit around waiting for her Prince Charming? What if she happens to have aspirations of her own and she doesn't want to be *just* her husband's plaything for those times between his many adventures? Is God's creation of Woman really supposed to be submissive and elusive, passively awaiting her suitor to rescue her from singleness? Is her role in life merely to be an outlet for, and object of, her husband's masculine exploits? This sounds like a script for a Disney fairytale, but not for a serious Christian treatise.
When Eldredge combines his outdated ideas of gender with his overemphasis on "manly" outdoor adventurism, he ends up promoting ideas that carry a lot of moral and intellectual baggage. Most readers of Wild At Heart might be a little surprised to discover that the broad outlines of Eldredge's ideas were stated long ago. Eldredge's view that men should be "warriors" in the image of God draws heavily upon the doctrine of "muscular Christianity," the idea that proper manhood involved physical as well as moral vitality. The idea has a few innocuous expressions in the YMCA and other sports-related pursuits, but it appealed primarily because it granted a moral and theological license to the use of violence to spread Christianity to the "savage" peoples of the world. One writer praised the Englishman in 1901, at the height of the British Empire, for "going through the world with rifle in one hand and Bible in the other," adding that "if asked what our muscular Christianity has done, we point to the British Empire." Muscular Christianity, and the masculine ideals it promoted, were upheld as the surest means of conquering and evangelizing the world (which were often seen as one and the same thing!). Only in hindsight can we see clearly that Empire was a source, not of Christianization and civilization, but of brutality and exploitation that violated the scriptures and tarnished the gospel message everywhere. Muscular Christianity actually finds its most enduring legacy in the Boy Scout Movement, which was the brainchild of Robert Baden-Powell, a committed imperialist and arch racist who wanted to make British boys more adapted to the conditions they might encounter while conquering new African colonies. The United States showed equivalent moral platitudes about "muscular Christianity" when it sought to raise up soldiers and settlers who could first conquer and subdue the "savage" Native American tribes in the West, and then settle the land and make it a fount of American civilization.
The theology of "muscular Christianity" was itself highly dubious from a scriptural point of view, but it fit the prejudices of the age, when people (including Christians) sincerely thought that Europeans were racially superior, and that masculine toughness was a reflection of superiority and the source of future national (or imperial) greatness. These social and political ideas of the imperial age were combined with theology by those who believed that Christianity is best spread and defended by masculine "warriors" equipped to prevail in a Darwinian struggle against competitors on the world stage, particularly in a military struggle, which has always been regarded as the ultimate expression of masculine virility. (It is no coincidence that Eldredge's chosen heroes, repeatedly analogized through Wild At Heart, are violent Hollywood warriors like Braveheart and Gladiator.) A set of beliefs and theological principles created to legitimize and rationalize empire-building (and all the cruelties that attended to it) is not exactly a good foundation for a book aimed at hapless readers in the 21st century.
These ideas might be dismissed or overlooked easily enough as the product of a bygone age were it not for Eldredge's insistence that they represent the very character of God himself. Eldredge has apparently cherry-picked the Old Testament for passages that support his view of a Warrior God, who since he created man in his image must have wanted a bunch of Warrior Followers as well. But didn't Christ admonish Christians to turn the other cheek? That love, hope, and peace are the greatest commandments? That only him with no sin can throw the first stone? That the laws of the Old Testament were fulfilled and made new? And that henceforth the Kingdom of God does not have to *physically* fight battles against Egyptians and Hittites and enemy tribes because it is, on account of Christ, open to anyone who believes in Him? Ironically Eldredge's best example of a "violent" and "wild" Christ is when He overturned the Pharisees' tables for defiling the temple. Judged by that standard, Christ might be inclined to torch the pages of Wild at Heart.
Another prominent theme in the book is the notion that the conditions of the modern world have sapped the life from people and cut them off from the invigorating beauty and pleasures of God's natural creation. In Eldredge's story, such ideas are used in his criticism of the tedious, mundane, unexciting lives that the majority of men on the planet must endure, the unfortunate routines that cause men to lose their spark of life. By being "wild" and "fully alive," he suggests, we can overcome these impediments to our spiritual and emotional vitality. The idea is good so far as it goes. But it is important to remember that Eldredge's notion of how to overcome the pitfalls of modern life derive from modern ideas and modern solutions, particularly from the Romantic Movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, which emerged as a reaction against the ideas of the Enlightenment and the scientific rationalization of nature that occurred during the Industrial Revolution.
Why does this criticism matter? What does it really mean? It means that Eldredge's objections to the mundane, domestic, un-alive realities of modern life -- such a big part of why his story appeals -- have nothing to do with the character of God or the message of Christ. The boring and uninspiring life that most men lead are the result of modern problems and modern socio-economic conditions. Their solutions, discussed since the Romantic Movement, are likewise the product of a particular time and place, and have nothing to do with scriptural admonitions of how Christians ought to live. In other words, it is shaky logic indeed to use 19th-century ideas as an answer to 21st century problems and then to ascribe them to a body of scripture that was written 1,900 years beforehand in a completely different historical context. The point is not that Christian scripture is irrelevant in the 21st century, but rather that Eldgrede is *suggesting* that scripture is irrelevant by seeking answers from an intellectual source *outside* the scripture -- and then describing these modern-day answers as fundamental to the "character of God."
A similar objection can be made to the kinds of activities he prescribes for "wild" living. Why all the talk of outdoorsy, Colorado-esque, machismo, lumberjack type stuff? If the whole point is to make men fully alive in order to renew their passion for Christ, then why not cast the net wider to embrace the millions of Christian men who come "alive" in different ways? Eldredge's myopic view of masculinity gives him a narrow view of what makes men come alive. And because of his narrow view of what makes men come alive, his book is extremely disingenuous to any young man whose personality and disposition lead him to prefer, say, books over campfires, piano keys over pocket knives, and painting over hiking. Eldredge is basically suggesting that such "soft" young men can never be fully alive, can never even imitate the character of God, unless they act like a Maximus or Braveheart, or cut a figure like Paul Bunyan. That is absurd and un-Christian.
To sum up my objections with Wild at Heart, Eldredge puts entirely too much stock in an out-dated, theologically naive, almost dangerous idea of a Warrior God, who is supposed to be the model to which all men aspire. So why is this book so popular? Why are people so attracted to the image of the Wild Man? While do people feel compelled to defend Eldredge's message as somehow more "Christian" than the reservations I have registered here? It is probably not very much of a stretch to say that this book is "successful" because it is telling Christians what they want to hear. It appeals, in the first place, to individuals who happen to fit the rather narrow gender or personality roles that Eldredge's prescribes for all Christians. The message gives license to fathers who tired of their work, bored with their home life, and regretful about the opportunities they missed as young men -- to men, in short, who are approaching their mid-life crisis. It gives license to sons to bend (or break) the rules, or to do the dangerous things their parents forbid, all in the name of a "spiritual" treatise that claims such behavior is necessary to be "wild at heart" and to live in the image of God. The book provides (however dubiously) a theological rationale for reasserting the manly prerogative. It reasserts the old ideals of what it means to be male or female. It depicts women as a submissive and passive creature whose greatest purpose in life is to fulfill Eldredge's 19th-century conception of how gender roles should work. Above all, it glorifies the image of Man as a dominant, aggressive, wild, untamed hero-like figure -- a William Wallace or a Gladiator, but nothing like our Christ.
"Wild man." "Warrior." These are terms that now, because of this book, make me cringe. -
This book was recommended to me by an old friend of my sister's who lived in New Brunswick, back around 2011. He recommended it and I ordered it.
He is something of a wild man himself. Towards the end of our friendship I grew leery if his acerbic and biting emails, and I suspended contact with him.
It was just as well. Burnt out and browned off by aggressive Gnostics of his ilk, I got to know his type.
Gnostics purport, often secretively, to be in possession of a superior form of knowledge. You may know a few of them yourself. Their ego is six inches thick. Affable and quick of tongue, their friends readily affirm their selfhood knowing their action will be reciprocal. An easy sorta acquaintance.
We are not part of their clan.
They will readily confirm that fact tacitly, being always on the move toward greener pastures. The "greener" the better, and jaundiced oldtimers who keep their salt shakers handy need not apply.
***
Gnostics seek Eldorado. Sorta like Whitman in Leaves of Grass - the Grand Old Vision of Superabundant Life.
Relax, folks! That’s only a shimmering mirage in the desert of modernity. And anyway, Superabundant Life in now verboten by our modern, belt-tightening standards.
That’s a good thing, too, because Eldridge’s hyperbolic view of life is nowadays a Bridge too Far - more perceptive people than I once was have erected a roadblock on our modern highway to it - and that’s only sensible.
If the human race is to survive it must use its head.
That bridge too far has been washed away by our demagogues’ chaotic floodwaters. It’s time to wake up.
So, hotheads take heed:
Touting passion over reason, as you do, will only get us all a Darwin Award. -
Edited January 2023.
Ok, the below review that I wrote when I was an intellectual child still married to my first husband keeps getting likes, so I clearly need to either update it or delete it. Those of you who see this, please understand, I was obliged to find good in this thing that my then husband loved so much. I wanted to love what excited him. But you should also know: I divorced him 6 years later. And most of the reasons can be found in this book.
The primary problem with this narrative, that I somehow didn't remember reading the first time I reviewed this, was what ultimately led to 6 years of misery for me, and an eventual divorce. That is the premise that men need to have adventures, and women need to go along with men having adventures. My marriage was driven only by what my husband wanted to do, and what his life goals were. He was clearly on his own adventure, and expected me to just be along for the ride. My own desires, goals, ambitions, were not taken into account. It was symbolized strongly by the name I gave up, quickly followed by my individual identity that was eclipsed.
Now, years later, 20 years of life experience, one divorce, and two degrees later, I am a bit more solid on my own two feet, and also in an actual healthy marriage, with a man who thinks this book is bullshit. We are very happy.
So why, I have asked myself, did this book resonate so much at the time? And I have to say, that the audience it is aimed at, fundamentalist Christians, could still benefit from a part of this message. I think the permission to be adventurous, joyful, wild, to live life fully, is something that ALL of us need, not just men. I think the fact that companion books written for women were so unsuccessful, and their messages were so downright depressing, demonstrates the need we all have for this wild and soulful kind of living. It needn't, and I would argued shouldn't, be gendered. It is tragic that the Eldredge's built an economic empire on insisting that it IS gendered. It destroyed my 20s, and messed up the lives of many others that I know of.
What I'm grateful for is that that isn't the end of the story. There is life after John Eldredge. I hear that my ex now considers himself a feminist, hyphenated his name, and lives happily with his wife. I have an equitable and super fun marriage with my dream person, who grew up Buddhist. He never once even thought of asking me to change my name.
My prayer is that gender roles someday die, so that each person can be fully themselves, as wild or calm, as unbound or homebody as that may be.
Original review (book was read in 2004):
I know that this book is surrounded by vehement controversy. After my husband read it, it was as though he came alive for the first time. Curious, I picked up the book myself. Though there are sections that I would drastically edit (and so would my husband), I found the heart of Eldredge's message incredibly moving, necessary, and paradigm-altering. I was truly astonished that this "man's man" would have such a perfect grasp of women and their needs and desires. I have consulted with other women who have read this book cover to cover, and they, too, feel that Eldredge truly understands a woman's heart. I do not suggest that we take all his advice literally, nor do I think he meant it that way, but this idea of setting men free to be men is something I can definitely get behind. One note: only read this book if you are starting with the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different. He does not address the philosophy that men and women are the same except for nurturing practices. -
I can honestly say that I find this book trite, over-espoused, and drastically overadored by a great many men and women that I generally like and enjoy spending time with. This doesn't make them dumb, bad, or idiots. It just makes them different than me. This doesn't make me smarter, good, or a non-idiot. It just makes me not a person who fits comfortably into any of the suggested roles that John Eldridge tells us that men secretly long for.
I don't want and never wanted to be a knight, saving fair damsels from horseback and fighting off all the monsters and dragons the dark corners of the world could come up with. I always wanted to be more of a poet, a minstrel, or something equally as corny (in the eyes of Eldridge - from what I can gather according to this smarmy book, anyway). Loving what I do and wanting what I want doesn't make me feminized or effectively spiritually castrated, as John would have me think.
I'm actually really okay being who I am and longing for what I do. It's what our Abba has sewn into me, and I am thankful for it.
The dangers inherent in overgeneralizing the Christian walk and the inner life with Christ can be found in many forms within these pages. I know that it's served as deeply encouraging to many, and challenging to others. I'm not dissing those experiences, and I'm thankful that they've happened for other folks. They just didn't happen in any way at all for me while reading this.
Nada. Nothing.
Nothing except annoyance and frustration, that is, and I'm enough of a philosopher and self-questioner to do plenty of self-examining as to why that was: was I uncomfortable because he was pushing some buttons I'd denied existed? Was he right on about things I was unhappy to admit were real? Etcetera, etcetera?
Nope.
I just didn't like this at all.
The end. -
Where in the Bible does it really suggest that men should be "Wild at Heart?" living constantly on the edge and taking all kinds of risks and engaging in dangerous activities. Of course this idea will appeal to younger men and new Christians but it is completely the opposite of the Biblical model of denying self and taking up the cross to follow Jesus. There's nothing weak or unmanly about that!
-
So I'm about eleven years late in getting to the party here. I remember "Wild at Heart" being really big among guys (and some gals) 16-22 when it came out and I can see why. I'm also really glad I didn't read this at such an impressionable age. There are a few good things here: Eldredge recognizes that there is something of a male identity crisis in many parts of the Church. In other words, there is confusion about what biblical manhood and womanhood look like. He also accurately pinpoints some of these problems as stemming from the absence of a father or having a poor father. Eldredge clearly has a heart to minister to men in the 21st century Church and for that he should be commended.
Unfortunately, there are some significant problems in his method and his message that make this an unhelpful and perhaps even a dangerous book. First, most of Eldredge's points come from films ("Braveheart" is a particular favorite of his it would seem), books, conversations with friends, Eldredge's own life experience, and moments of God speaking to him privately. Now, of course God can use movies and books and friends to communicate with us and that's fine. But God's primary way of speaking to his people is by His Spirit, through His Word. Unfortunately, most of the book's main points come from the former list of things and not the Bible. Eldredge then pulls Bible passages out of context, twisting and distorting them to fit his purposes.
One glaring example of this that is crucial to the book's central argument is that because Adam was created in the wilderness and *then* put into the Garden of Eden and Eve was created *in* Eden that this somehow accounts for why men crave adventure and the wilderness while women desire to be safe and sound in a domesticated place. This is an example of trying to pull WAY too much meaning out of an incidental detail. When taking the whole Bible into account, one quickly sees how misguided Eldredge's point here is. First of all, the wilderness is almost always seen as a bad place to be in the Bible (consider what happens immediately after the Fall: Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden and sent into the wilderness, in Moses' day the scapegoat is sent out into the wilderness according to OT sacrificial laws, in the New Testament Jesus' temptation takes place in the wilderness, and so on).
Furthermore, Eden is meant to point to the New Heavens and the New Earth. It's no mistake that John's description of Heaven at the end of Revelation bears more than a passing similarity with Eden. Another example of Eldredge reading his own ideas into the text comes with his treatment of the book of Ruth. According to Eldredge, Ruth teaches us that biblical womanhood involves a woman being a seductress and using her feminine charms to get what she wants (contrary to Proverbs 31 and every other biblical passage on womanhood. He goes on to say that this Ruth as seductress thing is a biblical example for "all women" to follow (191). These are just two examples of Eldredge's misuse and abuse of the biblical text.
Then there's the actual content of the book which is troubling on a number of levels. Eldredge's view of biblical manhood is that we should be wild and untamed. The problem with men, he argues, is that their mothers, wives, and the Church has tried to tame them and make them "nice boys," instead of the wild adventurers that their hearts crave to be. Again he tries to insert this idea into various places in the Bible. His primary argument for why men are this way is because men are made in God's image and He is wild, passionate, and untamed, too. Putting aside that this isn't how anyone in the history of the Church has ever interpreted what it means to be made in God's image, is Eldredge somehow implying that men are more in God's image than women? I'm sure he wouldn't state it in those terms but it sort of felt that way in this book and that's just one example of how the book often seemed kind of sexist to me. Eldredge continually emphasizes that men are supposed to be adventurers and women are supposed to be the beauties waiting to be rescued (or seductresses, according to his exegesis of Ruth). The problem is I know lots of godly men who aren't naturally adventurous and lots of godly women who are. Which leads to another big problem with Eldredge's argument.
Eldredge seems to have taken a particular type of man (outdoorsy adventurer who likes to take risks) and made that the definition of masculinity. That idea is not rooted in the Bible and it isn't true according to our experience either. Is the guy out hiking a mountain somehow more manly than the guy working 9-5 in the office to put food on the table for his family? What about the man who leads with quiet strength? There are different types of personalities and it seems very unhelpful to tell all men that they need to be like this one type of man and go take some risks in order to be a true man.
According to Eldredge's definition, manhood looks and sounds a lot like boyhood. Be wild, let your desires lead you, don't worry about making a mess or being a nice boy (at one point, Eldredge shares the story of his first grade son getting picked on at school and Eldredge then encourages his son to hit the bully as hard as he can the next time he is picked on, he then defends this advice by saying that his son's "soul was hanging in the balance" because he might have been emasculated by the bully and he goes on to say that Christians today have misinterpreted Jesus' instructions about turning the other cheek but he offers no counter-interpretation).
But manhood is not about letting your desires lead you into the wilderness or being a risk-taker. In fact, that's the exact opposite of biblical manhood, which has historically been viewed as having mastery over your desires and impulses. Little boys and young men are lead to and fro by their desires and whims, men should have self-control and mastery over these things. (Maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Eldredge clarifies more than once that men shouldn't leave their wives perhaps realizing his advice might give some men justification for doing so.)
I could go on noting other theological and exegetical problems but I've said more than enough about a ten+ year old book that has received tons of praise and criticism as it is. Ultimately, this book is contradictory, confusing, and only muddies the already murky waters of biblical manhood in the American church today.
It is also one of the most popular Christian books of the last decade. -
I hate this book so much.
-
What a sad excuse for a book's premise. I paged through this, after reading some of the ridiculous reviews, and came away as disgusted as I thought I would be. As soon as men stop attempting to ascribe to outdated theistic (and frankly trite) models of masculinity, the world will be a much safer, better place. I pity women who read this and think they may have come away with a greater understanding of men, as it's a false understanding of throwback, primitive males who have no place in a world culture that can no longer support the aggression and chromosomal ennui predicated upon concepts that fall somewhere between moronic piety and some suppressed lizard brain urge that results in antisocial behavior. Evolve, for "god's" sake.
-
A friend of mine once made a good point by saying that many modern churches are trying to turn men into sweater wearing old women. Nowadays only the uniform has changed: untucked shirt, trendy blue jeans and a Starbucks cup. Eldredge provides an illustrative alternative to the mega church status quo.
I read this at a time in my life when I was searching spiritually, looking for a place to fit. I'm not saying that Eldredge's book provided an epiphany, but he helped to place in context the first century, subversive and radical message with the sometimes watered down, drained of color and suburban sermons shared today.
-
Eldredge took Robert Bly's splendid, groundbreaking, ennobling book Iron John: A Book About Men as his inspired point of departure & produced, in Wild at Heart, a Christian treatise on masculinity that is, ultimately, as dangerous & misguided a book as I've ever read. Where Bly understands the need to prevent the masculine longing for wildness (a longing that is vital, life-giving, necessary) from proliferating as aggression, Eldredge subscribes to the view that wildness & aggression are (& must be) inextricably bound together, that the Bible sanctions the latter as the ultimate manifestation of the former. For every sensitive, perceptive observation about manhood & faith Eldredge makes (and there are a few, I grant him that), there seem to be three (one of which would be Eldredge's pointed, dismissive attitude re: Christ's imploring us to turn the other cheek, instead encouraging his son to exchange blows with the bully giving him grief at school) that reveal Eldredge's frightening inclination to twist & snarl Biblical narratives into endorsements of violence. I'd bought the book & had been looking forward to finding it an inspiring fusion of Bly's masculine sensibilities with Christian wisdom, but found, instead, a book that was chilling where I'd expected it to be enlightened; I returned it for a refund after mulling over whether or not to burn it.
-
Which girl wouldn't grab a book with the title 'Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul'?. Men say they don't understand women,well, we don't understand you too! So, out of curiosity, I grabbed this book when I was a young twenty something year old. I don't know what prompted me to read it, or may I do and I just don't want to tell you.
I read it alongside 'Bringing up boys' and as an aunt to several boys, these two books taught me to just let boys be boys. When they decide to fight, I just watch them and I will only intervene when there is need. It taught me to reduce the number of 'NOs' I use on boys because as John Eldredge says, 'God designed men to be dangerous.' they are just wild and as a woman, you need to relax and let them be.
John Says, "Adventure, with all its requisite danger and wildness, is a deeply spiritual longing written into the soul of man. The masculine heart needs a place where nothing is prefabricated, modular, nonfat, zip lock, franchised, on-line, microwavable. Where there are no deadlines, cell phones, or committee meetings. Where there is room for the soul."
Here are some few points I noted while reading this book that try to explain how man is created in Gods image. Of course you have to read it to understand where all this is coming from.
1. There is something fierce in the heart of every man.
2. There is something wild in the heart of every man.
3. There is something passionate in the heart of every man.
Okay, I will have to read it again now that I am grown to come up with more points.
Have you ever seen a boy try to climb a wall and wondered what's wrong with him? Well, there is nothing. :D -
Words cannot describe the loathing I have for this book. Instead of going on a complete rant and diatribe that nobody would read, but might make me feel better, I will highlight some of my problems with this book.
1. Shoddy theology--as I read this book, I was wondering...has the author read the Bible? Are you familiar with your supposed source material? Some of the major problems include Eldredge's complaint that by placing Adam in the Garden, God already tried to 'tame' Adam. Eldredge also at one point compares Jesus to William Wallace of Braveheart and Mother Theresa. Eldredge then suggests that Jesus was more like Wallace (a fictional character....yes to my atheist friends, the irony is not lost on me).
2. Lack of source citing. If you are going to write a book on men...please do some research other than watching movies. Movies may be good examples...but when you write stuff like, "I think me are like....(fill in adjective) because Gladiator makes me feel good..." you have a problem. First and foremost...movies AREN'T real...you are basing your theological observations on FICTION. (Yes atheist friends....the irony is not lost)
3. The view of women. According to Eldredge, women are passive helpless beings waiting for men to rescue them. They seem to have no other purpose then to be beautiful for men.
Books like this do more harm to the Christian message then good. Unfortunately, they become popular and people outside the church think this is what Christianity is about.
I think Christianity has a great deal to say about men and men's role in the world. Unfortunately, this book has very little in it to recommend it. -
To live for an adventure, to rescue a beauty and to fight a battle. Sounds like a story...like a tale of dragons, ladies in distress and war for the homeland against the dreaded enemy...like all movies...great books...great tales...stories tell of woes, foes and overcoming great obstacles. These are all great truths, but are they any truer than your own life? But, does your life seem like you are just sliding through, getting by one-day-at-a-time? That's how most of us live, to survive for the next weekend, to get that job done...all struggle, little reward, and we get to get up the next morning and do it all again. But, there is more to our lives than duty, obligation and being the nice guy. But are we as men equipped to go on adventures, strong enough to rescue the lady in distress and brave enough to fight the foes for those we love? Most are not.
If you think, want and hope and desire for more to life...READ THIS BOOK. There is more, plenty more, and, you have everything needed to live life with freedom, excitement and purpose. What keeps us from the real life we would like to have? A lot, this book is a key to help unlock men from their hearts of quiet desparation and how to be a vibrant, valiant man. There is a cost (personal efforting) but what of true value doesn't require commitment and dedication.
For yourself, your significant other, for your children and all of those in your sphere of influence...READ THIS BOOK...there are people just waiting for you to come alive...and so are you. -
Let me start by saying, bless John Eldredge's heart. Bless it. But this book is more scary than anything. I think the author has seen something distasteful to him in the men he has counseled, or possibly in the media, or in church, and while trying to encourage, has thrown the pendulum in entirely the wrong direction.
Maybe it's my bias against the regular use of The Message translation of the Bible, but he plays fast and loose with his Scripture references. Some are not as offensive, like concluding that God was disappointed with Bathsheba since she is referred to as "Uriah's wife," as opposed to Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew. Whatever. But then the story about telling his son to hit the bully back, instead of turning his cheek, turned my stomach. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? HELLO! This isn't even about turning the other cheek anymore, this is about teaching your kid that retaliation is ok. That the rules of behavior are relative to if someone did it to you first.
Most disturbing is his insistence that God is a risk taker. It's just not true. When God created us and this world, He knew exactly what would happen. And he even had a plan (1 Peter 1:20).
There are some good points, and the guy isn't a cult leader or anything, but in general, I think the book gives men permission to blame other people for their problems, and misguides them on their journey to true manliness.
(But don't ask me what true manliness is. That's the beauty of giving a book review on the internet.) -
We keep this book in the bathroom so that if we ever run out of toilet paper we have something to wipe our asses with.
If you like books that foster gender biases by speaking to, and encouraging humanities' lowest common denominator, this books for you.
If you can make it through the first 3/4's of sexist sludge, Eldredge does manage to say some intelligent things about brokenness.
That said, those specks of light are far-and-few between, and aren't enough to redeem the amount of damage this book caused (and causes) the Christian community.
Much of this disconnect is simply a difference in opinion. If you'e into traditional gender roles you'll probably love this book. If not, than skip it - unless you're looking for a toilet-paper substitute.
P.S. I wasn't lying about the bathroom thing. -
UHG! no no no! This book is bad news. John teaches a man to live according to the wild nature of his flesh, rather than according to the grace and love of the Spirit of God. As if a man can be spiritually free if He's emotionally free and wild? This is not the message of Christ, nor His gospel.
Christ didn't come with an attitude of macho-ism. He came in meekness gentleness and love. He is an all powerful God, and He is not a containable God, but that doesn't make Him wild like the nature of the flesh! This book is down right blasphemous!
I'm kicking myself at this point for not burning the book while I had the chance. Instead I just threw it out.
Do yourself a favor, and do the same. -
I hover between 2 and 3 stars here. I remember enjoying it with some skepticism, for it seemed to me to be a product of insightful navel-gazing, aspirational imagination, stylized writing, and a rather severe lack of research. And yet, for better or worse, it hasn't stuck with me at all. I remember almost none of it. I do, however, retain the impression that Eldredge's definition of manhood was quite narrow, and a little obliviously self-referential.
Wild at Heart was, in certain Christian circles, all the rage for several years in the mid- to late- 00's. I suspect, like many "inspirational" books, that it lacked the substance required for staying power. But I'd have to reread it before placing that bet. -
I want to like this book. Eldredge makes a compelling case for what makes men “manly”, and I personally resonate with a lot of it. But, I cannot faithfully recommend this to all of the men I disciple; it is narrow-minded and lacks credibility. Simply, I do not believe there is enough evidence from Scripture given to back up his claims.
-
كتاب عن سيكولوجية الرجل قلبا وعقلا
هي اول مره لي مع كتاب لفهم الرجال وتفكيرهم فغالبا اجد هذه الكتب عن النساء
الكتاب به بعض الأفكار الصحيحة لكن المشكله الكبري في التحوير
أعتقد أنه يدور في دائرة مفرغة ليصل لنفس النقطة -
It's crap. Granted I can agree that most people should step away from the computer screen, their smartphones, tablets, and ordinary lives and enjoy the nature of God's natural world. Other than that it's pretty damn sexist and contradictory to the Jesus' teachings of loving one another and aiding those in need of help.
-
A very disturbing book that pays no heed to particularity or Biblical interpretation. John is neither a theologian nor a psychologist but occupies the bland middle ground of knowing just enough to be damaging but not enough to recognize how much damage his views cause.
-
Perskaitęs knygą supratau, kad esu naminis širdyje. Manęs netraukia nei žiaurumas, nei panašūs dalykai.
-
This book is well-intentioned. I imagine it being given by well-intentioned parents to their come-of-age son as he heads out from under their wings to college. I imagine a well-intentioned group of men (and possibly curiously concerned wives) sitting down to include this in their Bible study. John Eldredge himself strikes me as a well-intentioned man. I've heard a lot of buzz in the last couple years about this book, mainly from peers in college, so I decided to finally take the dive. What I found was that well-intentioned though it is, this book falls short in several concerning ways.
First, I want to make it clear that I don't believe this book is without its beneficial qualities. There were many topics touched on by Eldredge in these pages that I find important to face. I can't help but notice it was published in 2001, I assume before 9/11, riding the last waves of the comfortable, popular, and formulaic trend of pew-warming faith that took Christianity in America by the throat in the '90s, mirroring the general comfort and safety felt in society during that decade. I see this book as a reaction to that comfortable faith lifestyle, aimed particularly at men, calling them to be who they were meant to be in Christ--not a pew-warmer.
Eldredge is calling on men to be what he believes we were created to be: "wild at heart," and while this looks different for each person, it generally comes across in his words as looking unfortunately similar. What I like about this book is the call for authenticity it inspires in each man's journey of faith. I appreciate Eldredge's acknowledgement that each person has a "wound" inflicted at some point in their lives which manifests itself in many ugly ways throughout. One of these manifestations is what he calls our "False Self"--the persona we try to live up to, what we want everyone to see us as, ultimately a damaging wall built in order to avoid the truth of our frailty. Lastly, I am grateful Eldredge ultimately believes it is Christ, and he alone, that can validate men, and that all other searches for true self-actualization are in vain short of knowing his love.
This brings me to the parts of the novel that concerned me. Eldredge has a tendency to paint highly-exaggerated pictures of what true masculinity looks like in a man's life, and these delusions of grandeur are often depicted in the over-clichéd images of stallions, cliff-jumping, cattle-roping, grizzly wrestling, mountain moving (in the literal sense), and battles. In fact, his fixation on battle imagery is concerning to me, though we are involved in one. Despite the acknowledgement that our battle is a spiritual one, Eldredge seems too easily caught up in the idolization of physical warfare (there are ample references to Gladiator, Braveheart, and Saving Private Ryan, among other go-to "guy" films). Frankly, the idolization of masculinity in and of itself bothers me, not, as one might suppose, because I don't find myself masculine, but because there is much more to it than Scottish claymores and rock climbing. Self-sacrifice seems to take a back seat in determining what is "manly" and what isn't.
To prove his point about what men are and are not meant to do, Eldredge alludes often to overly-simplified conversations he has had with counterparts dubbed with good ol' pseudonyms such as "Reggie, Bob, Janet, and Dave." It's as if he writes a sentence or two articulating what he believes about a deep issue (made too simple to fit his writing style), and then decides to attribute them as dialogue to affirm his presuppositions.
Another disturbing trend of Elredge's is to frequently (as in every other page) pull lines from a plethora of great works of literature, popular songs, films, quotes of influential figures, and--worst of all--scriptures, out of context to fit his argument and support what he already believes. From Robert Frost's often misused line "I took the road less traveled by; And that has made all the difference" to Christ overturning tables in the Temple courts, Eldredge slaps his ideas on all of them to enforce his unbalanced visage of masculinity, and scarily, the persona of God.
This masculinity, which Eldredge belabors throughout the book, is one that champions the "tough-guy" attitude, even if not meant to be, and shirks altogether the idea of nonviolence as a feasible or strong option. In fact, about backing down, Eldredge says this exact thing to his son, who was upset from being hit by a bully at recess that day (from page 94): "I want you to get up...and I want you to hit him...as hard as you possibly can. . .Yes I know that Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. But we have really misused that verse. You cannot teach a boy to use his strength by stripping him of it. Jesus was able to retaliate, believe me. But he chose not to. And yet we suggest that a boy who is mocked, shamed before his fellows, stripped of all power and dignity should stay in that beaten place because Jesus wants him there? You will emasculate him for life. From that point on all will be passive and fearful. He will grow up never knowing how to stand his ground, never knowing if he is a man indeed. Oh yes, he will be courteous, sweet even, deferential, minding all his manners. It may look moral, it may look like turning the other cheek, but it is merely weakness. You cannot turn a cheek you do not have. Our churches are full of such men."
This would seem to have standing for anyone of the world, but wasn't Christ "mocked, shamed before his fellows, stripped of all power and dignity"? Jesus was able to retaliate...yet didn't. Eldredge seems to neglect the idea that sometimes suffering is the right (or "masculine") thing to do. His habit of bemoaning the ideals of politeness, gentleness, courteousness, and at times even kindness, becomes overwrought throughout the book. It calls to mind the idea that Christ turned our usual sense of strength on its head--becoming a servant, championing those who were not "on their game," or "strong" in the traditional sense. Where is that in this book?
And then there's Eldredge's idea of women. In several chapters of the book he calls men to be the leaders of men, stating that "femininity cannot bestow masculinity." In some way that may be true, but it is overstated in the book. His view of women is simplistic, while claiming them to be profound, captivating, and mysterious at the same time. They are written to play the part of the "princess in a tower," ones in need of saving, by who else, the knight in shining armor (that's you, gents). It's as if he thinks their role is to be a beautiful gem, locked away, protected, and pursued. While yes, women may enjoy being fought for (in a non-literal sense), men can also feel that longing, I think. Eldredge makes it clear that men can only find validation in God, yet it appears through how he frames his argument that women must be validated by men and their attention. He generalizes about how it is a father's job to lead a son out from under his mother's influence to avoid becoming a "momma's boy" leading to issues later on in life. Again, while this may be partly true (boys need their father's guidance), it undervalues the role mothers can (and should) have in their sons' lives.
On top of all this categorizing and sweeping generalities made of women, Eldredge also makes an overly-simplistic--in a way damaging--claim that men are the ones in charge of "saving" the world: "That strength so essential to men is also what makes them heroes. If a neighborhood is safe, it's because of the strength of men. Slavery was stopped by the strength of men, at a terrible price to them and their families. The Nazis were stopped by men. Apartheid wasn't defeated by women. Who gave their seats up on the lifeboats leaving the Titanic, so that women and children would be saved?" (99-100). In discussing this with a (female) friend, the point was rightly made that men (the saviors and true heroes of the world) were the ones who began Slavery, Apartheid, the Nazi Party, and the very ones who ran the Titanic into an iceberg in the first place. Eldredge tends to vastly understate the importance of women while overstating the importance of men--all while neglecting the fact that all humans (of both genders) are broken, fit different molds and ideals of masculinity and femininity, and are equally responsible for the participation in good and bad in the world that Christ saves us from.
Lastly, there is the Eldredge's complete neglect of single people. Given his idea that men and women were made to save/fight for/be pursued by/complete one another, if an individual is single (something the Bible supports as being just as, if not more, valid in a relationship with Christ), are they...broken? In need of fixing? Has something gone wrong? Are they less valuable? It's hard to tell what he'd say of them as he doesn't address it at all.
As I've said, Wild at Heart is well-intentioned, yet it falls short of delivering proper justice to an important topic. In wrapping up this lengthy review, the longest I've yet written, I leave you with a powerful quote from a friend I discussed this book at length with:
"I just think God is so much bigger than we imagine, so taking him out of a traditional box and putting him in a new one from REI isn't super helpful. It's great for people who do fit that mold that they can say, 'I'm made in God's image and he can use this part of me for good,' but that's true for everyone in different ways. We're all made in God's image - the ones who jump off waterfalls, the ones who read books, the ones who sculpt vases, the ones who play football. God is in all of them. Same God. Different facets of the image." -
While this had many great aspects, it's overall impact is negative and damaging. I stand against a book that many like, so I will provide far more detail than I do in most reviews. I often take notes when reading a book and did so here. I'm using those to provide details as to why I COULD have loved this book, but ended up recoiling from it. YOU can then decide whether my basis has validity for you.
I read Christian books and atheist books alike. It's all good. What bothers me (which he does) is:
1. Treating Bible precepts as if they are consistent, clear and are the only valid set of Biblical interpretations. In reality, even among Christian scholars, there are WIDELY varied interpretations.
2. Treating precepts as a weapon in support of bigotry. Some categorize precepts as "applying" or "no longer applying" without consistent criteria. Their select set is used to vilify people who are NOT in their cultural group, never bothering to understand the reasoning others have.
This author, as an example, speaks very kindly and complimentary about women, loving them, etc. Yet, demonstrates surprisingly strong male bias, even going so far as to define aspects of women IN TERMS of aspects of men. EXAMPLE: He said of Men: Their heart is missing… of Women: no access to a man’s heart. (So... women need men more than men need women? If not, we need an explanation!) In the end, because of the cultural impact this attitude tends to have, THIS IS CLEAR misogyny, EVEN though unintended. (I honestly believe Eldredge means well, but does grave harm.)
Many would defend the author against misogyny because they think of misogyny as obvious and overt hate, while Eldredge is overtly gentle and loving toward women. But misogyny (and all forms of bigotry) can be covert, even hidden to the offender. This author's narrow expectations of women contribute to cultural restrictions for women NOT to be adventurous, exploratory, or thrill seeking, etc. This discourages the exact SAME freedoms in women that the author (correctly) pines as having been discouraged in men! It hurts women, and thus is misogyny, EVEN THOUGH UNINTENDED. This powers the stereotype that women are dependent on men. THEY ARE NOT! He also said of exploring: "My gender wants this naturally"... well, true! ...and so do women. THAT is how this author's bigotry and offense against women is often revealed (but sometimes more overtly - see below about Bathsheba).
LET ME BE CLEAR: Men have NO monopoly on a desire for exploring, adventure, thrill seeking and danger. There are so many examples, but I'll pick a childhood hero of mine: Shirley Muldowney beat Don Garlits (another childhood hero) in the 1975 Top Fuel NHRA US Nationals in her dragster. She won the 1982 Top Fuel U.S. Nationals title. This was more danger seeking and exploring than most "real men" will ever have. She also had to overcome prejudicial attitudes like the author's JUST TO BE ALLOWED to race. In 1984, she had a fiery crashed AT 250 MPH, AND once healed, she CONTINUED RACING! NOW SHE was a real DANGEROUS PERSON. She was a ROCKET and DOMINATED in the face of more adversity than most of us will ever face (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEccf...).
I WANTED to like this author because I value his shattering the expectations that Christians must eliminate all danger, and tow-the-line, etc. The author rightly embraces some danger, adventure, and what I'd call HUMAN desire for those things. But the author caused me to recoil, as he LIMITED those traits to men. He overturned all in his message that I loved by disassociating women from these freedoms, freedoms that belong to ALL humans.
The author refers to computer screens, company financials and other activities (many might call highly cerebral activities) as the opposite of thrilling and adventuresome. What a NARROW VIEW. Outdoor activities are important, but DAMN, he misses a LOT. Many men and women LIVE for that kind of adventure. EXAMPLE: A computer scientist designs and writes the perfect algorithm for a performance problem, then she watches it eliminate what had been a thorn in the company's flesh... accomplishing in minutes what used to take many hours. What a feeling of power and knowledge! This author absolutely misses that adventure and anything but traditional macho type activities (tractors, farming, hunting, motorcycles, etc). His loved activities are all legitimate interests (love my motorcycles) but not matching those of all men. What a loss of the broad areas that provide life-enhancing adventure to many men (and women!).
The parts I liked are the embracing of fierce pursuit of goals and embracing being adventuresome, avoiding stereotypical meekness. That's FANTASTIC, and I TOTALLY SUPPORT breaking out of the mold that some stodgy people try to force on all. SADLY, he ONLY applies these freedoms (danger seeking adventure, etc.), to men, as if women are born to a supporting role. Yeah, like straight from the 1800's. He must have missed Harriet Tubman, Emilia Earhart, and so many more fierce women that embraced danger FAR MORE than anything in most men's lives. REMEMBER, BOTH of those women WILLINGLY did these amazing and image shattering heroics. When women do brave things, they must have bravery for the act, AND to overcome prejudices like those taught by this author.
There are SO many statements that are limiting for classes of anything other than Christian, straight, males, that I'll skip most of them. But I'm driven to mention this unchristlike statement. He said “The sluggard who quits his job and makes his wife go to work... , is worse than an unbeliever.” FIRST: this is a huge cut to an unbeliever because he's using an unbeliever as the standard for how bad you can be (i.e. the sluggard is so bad he's worse than this low level). SECOND: He seems to have a narrow view of unbelievers. There are MANY paths to being an unbeliever, some are admirable. Not believing out of anger is a horrible reason. Simply admitting how things currently seem to you, even in the face of high cultural penalties, is admirable.
John Eldredge clearly devalues me (or is not sufficiently careful with his words - I can't tell which is true). Either way, this hostile attitude is a NEEDLESS division between Christians and non-Christians. Sadly, many Christians may not even notice it, but it SCREAMED at me. It revealed how little John Eldredge values me and anyone else who lacks his specific set of beliefs.
If I'm to think from a Christian perspective, I have grave concerns about Eldredge's devil blaming. I'm not saying devil doesn't tempt and trip you up. I'm saying that focusing on that is a convenient excuse for bad behavior. He'd do better to assume that humans can and must control themselves (asking God for help... fine) and if the devil adds temptation, you just have more to resist. That's part of life, so deal with it WITHOUT blaming the devil. When your wife feels insulted, it's far better to assume that YOU DID imply something (even when unintended) than to refer to the devil as causing her to receive a bad message. Blaming the devil is... well... maybe a tactic from the devil? Humans are good at doing things without even knowing it. I do that crap all on my own, whether the devil is there or not. When I hurt my wife, it's ME and I WILL NOT blame the devil for it (even if the devil contributed).
Here's what appears to be surprisingly misogynistic too... Eldredge referred to a passage (Matthew 1:1-17 I believe) that references Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah. I was aghast reading Eldredge's words “that Bathsheba goes unnamed tells you of God’s disappointment with her.” WHOA! It seems FAR MORE LIKELY that God was disappointed in DAVID, yeah, remember? ...The one who raped Bathsheba and murdered her husband! (I hope Eldredge is not pretending that Bathsheba had a choice.) Many (including me) believe the Bible was honoring Uriah, and highlighting DAVID'S sin (NOT devaluing Bathsheba at all). Until Eldredge clarifies further, his words seem to flagrantly blame the victim (even in the face of David's murder and rape). This is misogyny.
In the end, John Eldredge has some fantastic points, then poisons them with a narrow and super-traditional perspective on rigid gender lines. He emotionally lifts up women, and "glorifies" them in a sense, while stripping away her right to be just as humanly adventuresome, dangerous, and exploratory. Even for men, the author disparages many activities that are exciting to others and seems to hold his beloved concepts as the ideal for all men. -
What I liked: 1. This book was an easy read. I like to alternate between something light and something challenging. 2. It is written from a Christian perspective. 3. If you are not completely a frozen popsicle inside, then the book tries to inspire you to be more fully alive - seeking out your dreams, the very nature of your existence - dare to explore, take risks, and find a true calling.
What I did not like: 1. The author repeatedly makes reference to fighting, like men are made to fight, physically, like David, Joshua, et. al. Just because a man can fight does not necessarily make that a central purpose for him. As a caveat, it is fair to say the author also delves into the idea of fighting for things that are right, which I fundamentally agree with. However, some of the scripture used to support said hypothesis somehow did not ring completely true.
Overall: I liked it because I can really relate to the need to go out and do manly things, like woodwork, paintball, and heavy lifting, and using heavy machinery. I think many men are wired for just such activities.
Spoiler: I agree with Eldredge's final statements that we should seek out the things that make us feel alive. I also think the theme of giving up control to God is literally the only way that we can have a true relationship with Him. Therefore, as we cede control we gain everything vs. losing our soul by trying to control everything, which effectively leaves no room for God in our lives. The last part of this review represents certain fundamental themes to the Christian lifestyle and summarizes (in a way) why we (Christians) often describe our journey as a walk with God, because sometimes we are walking with God and other times we forget and stray and reject God. -
I usually like Christian devotional books, but I couldn't disagree more with the author's thoughts. I have a totally different perspective on what it means to be a Christian man, which doesn't involve mountain climbing or joining the military. I had high hopes for this one, but it was a dud.
