I have a confession that is going to seriously wound my reputation as a curmudgeon to pop-Christianity. I have a certain liking for John Eldredge, you know, the man who is Wild at Heart, and says you should be too. I say that this will damage my reputation as a curmudgeon because the "Wild at Heart" movement is typical of movements that I have been critical of in the past.
The fact is that I agree with most of the negative reviews of his work, yet there is something about his ministry, and even "Wild at Heart" that I like. One of his intro comments was that the Christian male of today seems to think that the epitome of being a Christian man is to become a kind of Mr. Rogers type character - the meek and mild guy who wouldn't hurt a fly. Eldredge says that the William Wallace type of Braveheart, or the Maximus character in Gladiator is a better role model.
Come on guys, wouldn't you rather be Maximus than Mr. Rogers. In criticizing the meek and mild man he is in line with things that have been said by Leon Podles in his book The Church Impotent, and in this article in Touchstone, as well as some of the things I have said here and here.
Truthfully, a good deal of Eldredge's popularity is due to the fact that he has struck a responsive chord in the lives of many men. As I read the book, over and over again I found myself saying "yeah, that's me!" His thesis that every man needs a battle to fight, an adventure to live and a beauty to rescue is very inspiring to say the least.
But the problem is that he has taken these three points, which have some validity if properly nuanced and carefully qualified, and constructed a whole world and life view around them. Furthermore, he has made these three points the controlling paradigm for the way in which he views God and interprets Scripture.
I thought of these things today when I got the latest issue of Christianity Today and saw his rugged mug on the cover. The feature article in this week's issue is about Eldredge and it's a pretty straightforward story about him and his ministry. Its not a critical analysis, except for a sidebar by Doug LeBlanc, where Doug brings up a few of the criticisms leveled by Rut Etheridge III in his lengthy article God in Man's Image.
I won't go into the criticisms leveled at Eldredge, you can read Etheridge's article above or Tim Challies (aka, The Blogdom of God's Best Book Reviewer), review here. But I would like to make a few comments about the way he has fashioned his worldview around his Wild At Heart theories.
Many years ago I heard someone ask John MacArthur what he thought about the ministry of Bill Gothard. MacArthur said that one of Gothard's main problems is that he generalizes from the particular. If you have ever been to a Gothard seminar or read his big red book you will see that he will often take a particular instance where a king or someone back in the Old Testament did something in a particular situation and make that an all encompassing principle for Christian living. This generalizing from the particular is a symptom of reductionism, where you take something that is very broad and and reduce it to a single principle or a limited number of items. So, for Gothard, it seems that all of life can be understood from an authority/submission paradigm based on a few verses of Scripture. For Eldredge, all of life (at least for men) can pretty well be summed up in the adventure/battle/rescue paradigm.
Eldredge is not the only one who does this - in fact we all do it, and this is the problem. This post is not intended as a broadside against Eldredge, just using him as an illustration of how we all do this. With Eldredge this leads him to making people like William Wallace, John Wayne, Maximus and others his heroes and examples of godly manhood. And, Jesus begins to get re-fashioned in their images. When you are made for adventure/battle/rescue sin is not your greatest problem, it is your woundedness that is your greatest problem. In Eldredge's book he talks much about the wound we all carry. Contra Romans 7, sin is a thing of the past for the Christian, according to Eldredge, the redeemed heart is a good heart. I could go on and on, but the point is that Eldredge has isolated three items and made them the controlling factors in his worldview. Noticed I said that the "adventure, battle, rescue" are "items" not "truths." It is debatable that you can prove from Scripture that these things constitute the essence of manhood. This doesn't mean that we can't profit from these ideas, because they are good counterpoints to the wimpiness that is so prevalent today. I just don't think we should give them the elevated place in Christendom that Eldredge wants to.
As I said, we all do this. I think that if Rick Warren had low-keyed the whole "purpose" thing and offered it as one helpful suggestion among many instead of building an entire ecclesiology around it, some of us who are critical would be less so. I also think of J. Gresham Machen. Although he was the intellectual leader of the fundamentalist movement back in the 1920's and 1930's he never adopted "the fundamentals of the faith" as his own statement of faith. He didn't think that the faith could be comprehended in a few statements. He much preferred the Westminster Confession of Faith.
But even the Westminster Confession of Faith is inadequate as an expression of our faith. I believe it is correct wherein it speaks, but it doesn't speak about all matters. It has thirty three chapters and you can't summarize the bible or the Christian faith in thirty-three points. We lovers of Westminster can be very reductionistic when we view the Confession as the final repository of all truth, and there are those who come perilously close to doing this. I think back to my early days as a "Calvinist." I, and many like me, tend to view all of Scripture and all of life through the lens of the five points. Whereas Spurgeon said that he makes a bee-line to the cross when reading any Scripture, we Calvinists tend to make a bee-line to one of the five points. This may help us prop up our theology but it reduces the beauty and breadth of the Scriptures.
So, I come back to where I started. Eldredge's "Wild at Heart" did minister to me in many ways and there are things he has to say that I can recommend to the one who listens to him with discernment. I for one have always been far too timid and meek and mild, so he helped open my eyes to the responsibility that Christians have to enter into battle for the truth. But it seems like he has allowed his three pronged paradism to run roughshod over his worldview where he should be letting a Christian worldview run roughshod over his paradigm.
I don't know if this runs his worldview...of course, I've not read all of his books.
That said, while he's incorrect about 'woundedness' vs. sin, I think it's a good book, sir. There are very, very, very few men left - reading "Wild at Heart," while you might have been saying "That's me!," I was saying "Why don't I see any men like that?" *giggle*
PS - Maximus vs. Mr. Rogers: Don't tell Clay Aiken.
Posted by: Miss O'Hara | August 12, 2004 at 11:18 PM
For most of my life I tried to emulate the kind of persona that Eldridge seems to enjoy. 10 years ago I was the 6', 240lb., pony tailed, bearded, tatooed, truck driving Christian. I lumbered when I walked and my opinions were known by all. I was the last guy that anyone in my congregation would say came across as a wimp.
With that said, I pray to be Mr. Rogers. To humble myself as a servant with my fellow brothers in Christ. I have to work at curbing a tongue that is more barbed than soothing.
Give me a William Wallace heart in my conviction for Christ but give me Mr. Rogers as the mantle by which others see me.
Posted by: Rong | August 13, 2004 at 08:24 AM
I think you hit the significant point when you said, "Furthermore, he has made these three points the controlling paradigm for the way in which he views God and interprets Scripture."
Besides reasonable linguistic and logical frameworks to approach scripture, I believe most of the problems the Church has faced throughout its history has been related to "controlling paradigms." This goes for Calvinists and Catholics, Baptists and Anglicans, and helps explains detours like Seventh Day Adventists.
One thing I think we all ought to make a daily part of our Christian life is to ask the Holy Spirit to demolish all of the improper controlling paradigms that distort our view of what He has revealed to the Church and the people of God throughout the history of man. We need to see the Word as the Holy Spirit sees it. I think Romans 12:1-3 and Philippians 1:9-11 are good starts in addressing this issue.
Posted by: William Meisheid | August 13, 2004 at 12:02 PM
I had some additional thoughts while out weedwhacking my front walk. (Nothing like work to make the mind work) I believe that the problem develops when we use scripture to create a framework for looking at some specific issue in life. It does a good job of clarifying certain problems and possible solutions. Then we fall into the trap of thereafter adopting that framework as our hermeneutical paradigm for interpreting scripture in general. It happens almost without our realizing it. I think that was, at least for me, the significant insight to be gotten out of your posting.
Just a few thoughts from beyond the rim...
Posted by: William Meisheid | August 13, 2004 at 12:22 PM
Thanks for the comments William - I think you are right. Often the major point someone wants to make is spot on, but its when they start building stuff around it that they run into problems.
For Miss O'hara and Rong - looks like Maximus and Mr. Rogers are tied. For me, I wanna be Tommy Lee Jones from the Fugitive.
Sorry I don't know anything about Clay Aiken except that my mom likes him - how does he fit into this Mr. Rogers vs. Maximus debate?
Posted by: David | August 13, 2004 at 02:37 PM
In response to William Meisheid I ask, a paradigm of no paradigm? How about asking the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth?
Posted by: Terry | August 13, 2004 at 07:37 PM
[Donald Sensing (One Hand Clapping) had stuff on this awhile ago, too.]
I think there's too little use of force, by Jesus in the 4 gospels of the Bible, to adequately support justice in a civilization of sinful humans. The one time Jesus uses force is driving money changers from the temple (because money-changers are theives? because a temple is the wrong place for crass materialism?).
With so much focus on the gov't (too much; the State is wrongly replacing God, implicitly), the usually unspoken moral undercurrent is the force question. Is this gov't program worthy of using force? Should a Christian agree or disagree with it?
Justice justifies violence; but it's easier to agree that a crime has been committed than to know what is a just punishment for the guilty; not to mention the doubts about that guilt. Justice is a grey area.
Mercy, forgiving your enemies, is something one can do peacefully; and it's better for the healing of the victim, but forgiveness isn't always enough for stopping crime.
Posted by: Tom Grey | August 14, 2004 at 09:19 PM
Note to Terry - what I heard William saying was that we sometimes use Scripture to answer a particular question or deal with a specific issue. Then we take something which was specific to that particular question or issue and apply it across the board to any other issue. I didn't hear him saying that we can't use any paradigm at all for anything. I am not sure what he had in mind, but I could see this cropping up in interpreting different genre's of the Bible. Let's say you found an answer to a specific question from your study of the Psalms. The way you studied the Psalms wouldn't be normative for the way you studied a more prosaic or didactic passage of Scripture. That's just a thought and attempt to understand what he is getting at. I could be missing his point totally.
Posted by: David | August 15, 2004 at 12:11 AM
David, I tried to respond on my blog early this morning (see the trackback above). I felt I needed more space than I should use on a comment.
Posted by: William Meisheid | August 16, 2004 at 07:53 AM
I'm not WAH fan, but I do think Eldredge did a good thing in trying to draw out the masculine metaphors for the Christian life. It is an adventure of following God, a battle against sin. The Bible does use militaristic metaphors at times, so they are sometimes appropriate. Presenting the metaphors of fighting a battle or pursuing an adventure is helpful when you're confronting a perception of Christianity as "following a bunch of rules and being nice". In that, I think he did well.
Posted by: Robert Williams | August 16, 2004 at 11:40 AM
Jesus was married and had children, but this has been erased from the Gospels. Why?
Posted by: Mad Raunter | August 24, 2004 at 10:58 PM
If I am only a sinner, then I guess God isn't powerful enough to make me a saint.
great theology.
Posted by: Kin | September 12, 2004 at 10:49 PM
I'm very suprised to see so few comments connected to this thread about the dangerous path to open theism that W@H promotes. Regardless of what JE is trying to do in these books (and I've read most of them), he creates his own God that he feels more comfortable worshipping.
God Bless,
Paul
Posted by: Paul | September 15, 2004 at 02:01 PM
Paul - just curious about your take on this matter. Is Eldredge a self-conscious open theist or is he just sloppy? I'm willing to cut him a bit of slack as I do alot of popular writers who just don't watch their theological p's and q's. However, I am aware that mere sloppiness can lead to heresy, so I'm wondering just how egregious Eldredge is here. Does this openness to open theism come across in other books?
Posted by: David | September 15, 2004 at 03:54 PM
David,
JE makes the claim that he is not an open theist, however he does not present evidence as to why we should believe this is the case. I defer on this matter to --http://www.churchofthegoodshepherd.info/WAHcritique.htm -- which if you haven't read it, is well worth the read. Rut Etheridge III does a fine job of combing through JE's writings and drawing out quotes that are dangerously open theistic. This JE "debate" is a very personal matter for me, as I have witnessed a close friend's view of God be destroied by it. The God he now worships is only the God he (and JE) have created in his own mind. May the power of the Spirit draw him back.
God Bless!
Posted by: Paul | September 15, 2004 at 11:43 PM
Does any one out there know how John Macarthur feels about the book Wild AT Heart by eldredge
Posted by: ron | October 15, 2004 at 08:35 PM
I have just finished reading Wild at Heart and found it very uplifting. I also had the same concern about many of the points you bring up in your review of the work. And I agree that narrowing the Christian experience down to 3 points is not wise, any more than the 5 points of Calvinism.
However, if you take John Eldredge's treatise about manhood and realize that his message is only a part of the picture, the book becomes much more valid. My Christian experience has been one of being taught to keep the desires to fight for what is right buried deep inside me, to not speak up or take a stand because I may blow my witness.
Eldridge is right on the mark (in my humble opinion) when he suggests that men long for adventure, that God is a God of adventure. He hits a bullseye when he reminds us that we are the one God designed to carry out battles and to fight for what is right. We are to be the knight, the one chosen by God to serve and defend.
But like so many books interpreting theology, or dealing with a specific topic in Christianity, Eldredge focuses on the one point of view. This leaves him open to dissection of his view by Scripture as a whole. But instead of shooting holes in what he presents, are we not responsible for searching the Scripture and determining through study and the Holy Spirit the validity of his claims?
In my study of God's word, I have always struggled with reconciling the God of love and grace with the God that would destroy whole civilizations of His creation. I have wondered why, in today's church, men of the world are the ones who are allowed to fight, to turn over the tables of evil doers, while Christian men are expected to turn the other cheek and practice passivity while squelching righteous anger.
I believe the answer lies in a combination of the two. We should be slow to anger, but we also need to be the ones who will step up and face battles willingly, knowing full well that we are not the source of our strength, but the receptors of strength given by the One from whom all strength and faith flows.
John Eldredge makes this clear in his book, and provides a source of inspiration for those of us called to be warriors in the spiritual and physical sense. Where would we be without men like Braveheart? What would have happened if we practiced turning the other cheek and chose not to fight after Pearl Harbor? Being willing to lay one's life down so that others may have life is the greatest gift. It is the greatest outward expression of love that God gives men. We just need to keep it in balance with our desire to be gentle and peaceful.
Posted by: Rick Kincaid | February 17, 2005 at 07:27 AM
Rick,
Thanks for pointing that out. I trying to find out when I am supposed to take my faith, I have found John E. to as helpful as the mentor/elders/pastors of the differnet churches I have been a part of.
To say that John E. is out of line, as others have suggested, is to take his writings too far. Everything in moderation folks.
Posted by: Mike R | February 18, 2005 at 01:45 PM
Hi,
From my look at the reviews scattered about the web, Mr. Rut the III has carved out his 15 minutes on the back of a successful writer...John Eldredge.
Only "christians" spend (or waste) that much time documenting their disagreement with a brother. And the fact that he (Rut) is gaining notariety from it says something overwhelmingly sad about the state of the faith.
The more I read of Rut's attacks, the more I wish for someone to to advise him of Gamaliel's defense in Acts 5. Phariseeism is no more ugly than when it is being unwise.
God is big enough to overcome all misconceptions of His nature and all misunderstandings of what is required of humanity...including those present in Rut's Calvinism or Eldredge's anthocentric views.
"He who is not against you is for you" ...someone important said that. God invites us all on a journey that includes emphasis and at times overemphasis on this thought or that. Eldredge book is one such overemphasis that may draw some men back into the journey with God. God will steer them straight if it is truly Him (God) that they love and come to know.
Dave
Posted by: Dave | May 17, 2005 at 03:51 PM
I don't understand the idea of reducing Christianity to three points. Unless I'm blind or stupid, he's reducing the MASCULINE experience to three points, not the Christian experience.
I do certainly see Eldredge flirting with Open Theism, but I haven't seen him cross the line in any of the books that I've read...
Posted by: Hutch | November 09, 2005 at 06:59 PM
While I agree that on the big picture level sin is the problem vs. woundedness, woundedness is still an issue in a fallen world. I've found as a counselor that generally people aren't willing to look at their sin until I've listened and affirmed their wounds and pain. Often sin and pain are intertwined in a chaotic mass.
Wasn't Mr Rogers a Navy Seal before his TV career or is that urban myth?
I like some of what Eldredge says and don't care for other parts. His form of a passionate life is outdoorsy etc. He does mention and honor the artist and musician too. Regardless of how well he communicates his message I believe his primary call of a man to be more present and alive in his own life, the lives of those he loves and in relationship with God is a good one.
I also think he doesn't prooftext his writing and that creates a problem for some people though I find it refreshing.
Posted by: ben | January 06, 2006 at 05:00 PM
To Rut Etheridge III,
John Eldredge's book (Wild at Heart) saved my life (by allowing me to finally lose it - laying down a destructive thinking pattern by finally understanding why). I was a christian for 27 years and could never understand why I struggled with sexual sin even after conversion. I was born again, attended my church regularly, fellow shipped, and most of all, cried out to the Lord for years about this.
Finally, my sin was exposed, I lost my marriage, career, my children, my life. This is when I read John's book and the break through occurred. I finally understood that, yes indeed, I had received a new heart when I was born again by Christ Jesus, but the destructive thought processes I had about myself sexually we still there. I had been abused as a 5 year old little boy by my mother (and buried it in forgetfulness). That sent me off on a road that just about destroyed me. It was then that God found me, spoke life into me by His Word, and began to undue the thought processes that were so destructive.
It is Wisdom that allows us to use knowledge aright (and Wisdom is the Spirit of Christ). When He gives understanding concerning Himself, then people are set free (being set free by the Son).
I see that you have hijacked a portion of God's field (as you have placed yourself in the position of mediator). You are not the first that has been caught in this trap, but know surely that you will give account of this (with those who join your ranks).
Mike
Posted by: Mike McCracken | November 20, 2007 at 09:52 AM
I was rather offended when I read the book.
First, he speaks of God "taking a chance on Adam" which to me reaks of Postmodern Philosophy and Weak Theology(God is weak, man is strong-therefore God relies upon man to do His will.)
To me, he has no clue about true biblical manhood. God does not want "wild" people. Wildness is a sympton of sin and lack of control. The Holy Spirit is what we are to be submitted to.
He speaks of people in War i.e. Mximus or William Wallace.
To survive in battle you must be disciplined, not "Wild".
A better understanding of being a Godly man is to be aggresive when needed. For example, when a time is needed to stand for the truth, that is a Godly man.
I find it odd, he uses stories instead of scripture. Again, very Postmodernistic.
I would rather find preachers and other Christians who have died for their faith as opposed to movie charachters which really do not exist.
Did not like when he marganalized those who are interested in the bible and bible study as weak or wimpy.
What good do I have to say about this book? It is good to start fires with.
Posted by: David Emme | February 25, 2008 at 12:25 AM
John Eldredge helped save my life and gave me a better understanding of the Christian role of men in our society.
God Bless you, John!
Posted by: Chris | November 03, 2008 at 08:14 AM
EXACTLY! Meekness is so often misinterpreted to mean some wimpy little Christian, but Christ Jesus was described as meek AND cleansed the temple. Zeal for the faith but "with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3) and "but through love serve one another" (Galatians 5:13). A servant's heart folks, a servant's heart.
Posted by: Mike | January 26, 2009 at 05:22 AM