Wild at Heart:
The Warrior Subjected
Ego Trip
My aim is to show that Wild at Heart does not deliver on its offer of the recovery of a man’s soul and to show that Christ alone answers this need. WAH deconstructs scriptures or uses them as a pretext for his own views. Instead of presenting the Bible in context, he cuts and pastes verses onto his secular worldview. WAH emphasizes the fulfillment of the autonomous Self, not the redemption of man through Christ to God's glory. The book ignores the moral framework of the Bible, the depravity and redemption of man through Christ, and the meaning of the Christian life which is to glorify God. Then it attempts a shortcut to an intimate relationship with God: Apparently, one can relate to God through any means, can pray anything and hear intimate personal messages from God, especially the author of this book.
WAH offers a detour from the path of spiritual maturity to the amusement park of ego, where a man will supposedly recover strength and find adventure. Wild at Heart is not the "safari of the heart" it promises in the Introduction. It is a romp through a theme park—its theme, the transformation of man’s shame to greatness. Within this diversion, placards commemorate John Eldredge at every turn, depicting his life and outdoor exploits. (A key to understanding Eldredge’s personality is that he remains the actor/director of his former vocation. He takes the leading role in the script, imagining life to be a play.) While the book describes the psychology of male shame and how to overcome it, its author is shameless in his descriptions of himself. Advertising a trek through life’s wilderness, the meandering trail takes you in a circle. Wild at Heart begins and ends with Self. While purportedly epic in scope, it is simply an ego trip. Ironically, WAH misses the point as it quotes George MacDonald: "I am terrified at the scope of the demands made upon me, at the perfection of the self abandonment required of me, yet outside of such absolute can be no salvation," page 219.
“Every man is haunted by the question am I really a man? Have I got what it takes? Every man carries a wound (male shame) and so wears an elaborate fig leaf and becomes a ‘poser’ instead of a real man,” page 57, 69ff. His solution is initiation into manhood by another man and rites of passage. A man must follow his wild heart and his heart and desires are good. Manliness follows from desires. “Posers,” in contrast, have been separated from their true desires so they are bored and duty-bound.
In Wild at Heart, a man’s great adventure is to become a man’s man. And what is this exactly? According to the book, it looks like any movie hero with whom you identify on a given day. John Eldredge usually identifies with William Wallace of Braveheart and Maximus in Gladiator. A real man is a dangerous warrior and he fights for a beautiful woman. Man is Legend (if only in his own mind). He is the caged lion that must be released into the wild or doomed to domestication. Rock and mountain climbers prove they “have what it takes.” (It helps to live near the Rockies and to have plenty of vacation time and financial resources.)
A man fantasizes about himself and then tests his limits by taking risks. Risk-taking is a good thing because a man needs excitement, danger and opportunities to prove his courage. (Other values such as wisdom and maturity are subordinated to "courage.") We are disparaged for wearing safety belts, practicing birth control and watching cholesterol. Sadly, within the pages of Wild at Heart we read on page 216, that Eldredge lost his partner and mentor to a fatal rock-climbing accident.
Distortions
The Bible, as with most books, is inclusive when using the word “man”: It means male and female unless the context otherwise dictates. Eldredge, though, often takes Bible passages that clearly use the word “man” inclusively to mean man in the exclusive, masculine sense.
Eldredge has a vivid imagination fueled by heroic movies and fairy tales. He imagines a new meaning of man’s Fall, and the natures of man and God, thus changing the meaning of life as described in the Bible. C. S. Lewis understood the true meaning of the Fall: “The act of self-will on the part of the creature, which constitutes an utter falseness to its true creaturely position, is the only sin that can be conceived of as the Fall,” The Problem of Pain. But in Wild at Heart the Fall was not about man’s self-will bringing sin and death into the world (Romans 5:14). Instead it was about man losing face because he chose the woman over God, thus disappointing himself and God. Page 115, "Something shifted at the Fall. Eve took the place of God in a man's life."
Ego Trip
My aim is to show that Wild at Heart does not deliver on its offer of the recovery of a man’s soul and to show that Christ alone answers this need. WAH deconstructs scriptures or uses them as a pretext for his own views. Instead of presenting the Bible in context, he cuts and pastes verses onto his secular worldview. WAH emphasizes the fulfillment of the autonomous Self, not the redemption of man through Christ to God's glory. The book ignores the moral framework of the Bible, the depravity and redemption of man through Christ, and the meaning of the Christian life which is to glorify God. Then it attempts a shortcut to an intimate relationship with God: Apparently, one can relate to God through any means, can pray anything and hear intimate personal messages from God, especially the author of this book.
WAH offers a detour from the path of spiritual maturity to the amusement park of ego, where a man will supposedly recover strength and find adventure. Wild at Heart is not the "safari of the heart" it promises in the Introduction. It is a romp through a theme park—its theme, the transformation of man’s shame to greatness. Within this diversion, placards commemorate John Eldredge at every turn, depicting his life and outdoor exploits. (A key to understanding Eldredge’s personality is that he remains the actor/director of his former vocation. He takes the leading role in the script, imagining life to be a play.) While the book describes the psychology of male shame and how to overcome it, its author is shameless in his descriptions of himself. Advertising a trek through life’s wilderness, the meandering trail takes you in a circle. Wild at Heart begins and ends with Self. While purportedly epic in scope, it is simply an ego trip. Ironically, WAH misses the point as it quotes George MacDonald: "I am terrified at the scope of the demands made upon me, at the perfection of the self abandonment required of me, yet outside of such absolute can be no salvation," page 219.
“Every man is haunted by the question am I really a man? Have I got what it takes? Every man carries a wound (male shame) and so wears an elaborate fig leaf and becomes a ‘poser’ instead of a real man,” page 57, 69ff. His solution is initiation into manhood by another man and rites of passage. A man must follow his wild heart and his heart and desires are good. Manliness follows from desires. “Posers,” in contrast, have been separated from their true desires so they are bored and duty-bound.
In Wild at Heart, a man’s great adventure is to become a man’s man. And what is this exactly? According to the book, it looks like any movie hero with whom you identify on a given day. John Eldredge usually identifies with William Wallace of Braveheart and Maximus in Gladiator. A real man is a dangerous warrior and he fights for a beautiful woman. Man is Legend (if only in his own mind). He is the caged lion that must be released into the wild or doomed to domestication. Rock and mountain climbers prove they “have what it takes.” (It helps to live near the Rockies and to have plenty of vacation time and financial resources.)
A man fantasizes about himself and then tests his limits by taking risks. Risk-taking is a good thing because a man needs excitement, danger and opportunities to prove his courage. (Other values such as wisdom and maturity are subordinated to "courage.") We are disparaged for wearing safety belts, practicing birth control and watching cholesterol. Sadly, within the pages of Wild at Heart we read on page 216, that Eldredge lost his partner and mentor to a fatal rock-climbing accident.
Distortions
The Bible, as with most books, is inclusive when using the word “man”: It means male and female unless the context otherwise dictates. Eldredge, though, often takes Bible passages that clearly use the word “man” inclusively to mean man in the exclusive, masculine sense.
Eldredge has a vivid imagination fueled by heroic movies and fairy tales. He imagines a new meaning of man’s Fall, and the natures of man and God, thus changing the meaning of life as described in the Bible. C. S. Lewis understood the true meaning of the Fall: “The act of self-will on the part of the creature, which constitutes an utter falseness to its true creaturely position, is the only sin that can be conceived of as the Fall,” The Problem of Pain. But in Wild at Heart the Fall was not about man’s self-will bringing sin and death into the world (Romans 5:14). Instead it was about man losing face because he chose the woman over God, thus disappointing himself and God. Page 115, "Something shifted at the Fall. Eve took the place of God in a man's life."
WAH distorts the Fall’s consequences and God’s salvation process. Man died spiritually at the Fall. In Adam all died but in Christ all can be made alive (Romans 5:12-17). Eldredge infers that all men are good—they just don’t realize it. This ignores the necessity of individual faith and commitment to Christ as Lord. Page 133, “Your sin has been dealt with. When God looks at you he does not see your sin. You have a new heart. Too many Christians today are living back in the old covenant. They’ve had Jeremiah 17:9 drilled into them and they walk around believing my heart is deceitfully wicked. Not anymore it’s not…Your heart is good.”
God "dealt with" our sin through Christ’s atonement but man still deals with a sin nature. The Christian battles sin every day and confesses sins (1 John 1:9). God sees our justification in Christ while still observing specific sins that hinder His Spirit. He was not blinded to sin by Christ’s atonement. And Eldredge misunderstands the old covenant. Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-20). Jesus’ creed contains the law “Love the Lord your God…and your neighbor as yourself,” (Matthew 22:37-40) and the motivation to obey it, however imperfectly, and with God's enabling. Paul wrote candidly about his own battle with sin in Romans 7: 15 -25, “Nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature…when I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work…waging war."
In WAH God Himself plays a new role in the Fall: God proved Himself a risk-taker by giving man a choice to see what he would do. In this scenario, God did not give man this choice so that man could truly have a free will, but so that God could be a risk taker, who stood back to see what Adam would do. But in the Biblical worldview, God did know what Adam and Eve would do and provided a moral framework, or boundary, for them: God Himself was the boundary. In the fall, man attempted to be autonomous, like God. Adam did not choose the woman over God, as the book claims. He chose independence and self-will. Desire for the fruit attracted Eve and Adam, but Desire in WAH is always a good thing that can be trusted. At the Fall, man desired the fruit and desired to be like God but eating the fruit brought death. The attractions and distractions of illicit desires have remained temptations ever since.
The invention of a new God in WAH reminds me of someone trying to fit a square peg, God, into a round hole, man. Since all Eldredge has is a mallet (man’s self image) to drive home his points, everything starts to look like a peg. To him, the purpose of life is reduced to overcoming the shame resulting from man’s disappointment with himself and with the image others now have of him. Salvation in Wild at Heart is healing of the wound of male shame and becoming an epic hero. Everything about God in Wild at Heart is more about Man than God. Eldredge puts the cart before the horse: He imagines that “man made in God’s image” means “God made in man’s image.” Therefore, you can look at a man (and sometimes a woman) to see God’s nature. You make God over in your own image. God has an adventure to live (page 30). He is wild-at-heart (page 32). At other times, God is vulnerable and needy like Stasi, Eldredge’s wife (page 36). So God’s image apparently depends on the mood of the person imagining “God” or who that person looks at to see “God.”
"The philosopher and the theologian are spectacle makers," said the preacher and essayist F. W. Boreham. “They are seeking to provide us with clear apertures for seeing God's reality.” But within Wild at Heart, you cannot see the forest or the trees. You see only Man, but not accurately because Eldredge distorts man’s relationship to God and to himself. Eldredge thinks of God primarily as another male friend to talk to along the journey. He does not see himself as but one of God’s creatures; he does not see himself as a man but as a god. But even if he were as brave as Braveheart or as heroic as Maximus in Gladiator, God would not be more pleased with him. God simply wants the fellowship that comes with being in His will. As Boreham said, "The best of men are only men at best."
The invention of a new God in WAH reminds me of someone trying to fit a square peg, God, into a round hole, man. Since all Eldredge has is a mallet (man’s self image) to drive home his points, everything starts to look like a peg. To him, the purpose of life is reduced to overcoming the shame resulting from man’s disappointment with himself and with the image others now have of him. Salvation in Wild at Heart is healing of the wound of male shame and becoming an epic hero. Everything about God in Wild at Heart is more about Man than God. Eldredge puts the cart before the horse: He imagines that “man made in God’s image” means “God made in man’s image.” Therefore, you can look at a man (and sometimes a woman) to see God’s nature. You make God over in your own image. God has an adventure to live (page 30). He is wild-at-heart (page 32). At other times, God is vulnerable and needy like Stasi, Eldredge’s wife (page 36). So God’s image apparently depends on the mood of the person imagining “God” or who that person looks at to see “God.”
"The philosopher and the theologian are spectacle makers," said the preacher and essayist F. W. Boreham. “They are seeking to provide us with clear apertures for seeing God's reality.” But within Wild at Heart, you cannot see the forest or the trees. You see only Man, but not accurately because Eldredge distorts man’s relationship to God and to himself. Eldredge thinks of God primarily as another male friend to talk to along the journey. He does not see himself as but one of God’s creatures; he does not see himself as a man but as a god. But even if he were as brave as Braveheart or as heroic as Maximus in Gladiator, God would not be more pleased with him. God simply wants the fellowship that comes with being in His will. As Boreham said, "The best of men are only men at best."
The man like John Eldredge who keeps one eye on his own self image is blind in the other. This man, narcissistically watching his own performance and judging whether he’s enough like an action hero cannot have his eyes focused on God or on reality. He cannot see the big picture because he can't see past his own nose. The man in love with his own wild heart—his own passionate adventure—is not a man after God’s own heart. He is practicing his swordsmanship with his own shadow in front of a mirror. He is an actor “full of sound and fury” who signifies nothing in God’s battle. In 1 Corinthians 9:26 Paul said, “I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air.”
On page 144 Eldredge states that, “The Big Lie in the church today is that you are nothing more than a sinner saved by grace…The real you is on the side of God against the false self. Your false self—the poser…Shoot the traitor. How? Walk right into those situations you normally run from. If you want to grow in true masculine strength, then you must stop sabotaging yours.” Again, Eldredge’s meaning of a man’s inner battle shears off from theological doctrine to psychological opinion. Apparently, man’s redemption is to rally his strength and assertiveness.
The follower of Wild at Heart will probably not have the patience or discipline to do unglamorous, unheralded heroic deeds. Someone who comes to my mind as a hero is a former professor who cares for his invalid wife day and night. In the Letters of C. S. Lewis we read: “The natural life knows that if the spiritual life gets hold of it, all its self-centeredness and self-will are going to be killed and it is ready to fight tooth and nail to avoid that.” But this mighty battle with self between grace and pride is redefined in Wild at Heart. The Great Battle in WAH is between the cowardly wimp within and the emerging brave-heart man. True courage is more than bravado. It is the conviction of character with commitment. Yet Eldredge believes a man can live to please himself and still have a grand part in the Spiritual Battle.
Epic Man
The false god or idol in Wild at Heart is Epic Man. (Another book by Eldredge is Epic. Epic, supposedly about the big picture, is tiny in its man-centered scope.) Epic Man is the idol in Self’s Cathedral. He is better than Superman because he has unlimited imaginative powers while Superman only has enhanced physical powers. Epic Man’s imaginative powers give him the ability to create truth, using a rich variety of contradictory sources, pagan and Christian, sacred and profane. He is above the law because morality is “old covenant.” Sometimes Epic Man must hold onto the handrail of the law when he gets dangerously close to falling over the edge and cheating on his wife or the like. But most of the time his good heart will keep him from these things. This reminds me of some children. Their Father says, “Don’t play in the street,” so the kids play right on the edge of the highway, getting as close to danger and the whizzing cars as possible (it is fun to take risks).
In Wild at Heart one learns truth from God from whatever and wherever. On page 200, “God speaks through the whole of creation. To Stasi he speaks through movies. To Craig he speaks through Rock and Roll” (page 171). “Time with God is whatever brings me back to my heart and the heart of God. Sometimes I’ll listen to music, journal or run.” Notice how “my heart” and “God’s heart” are inter-changeable. Notice also the meaning of the word creation. In the Biblical worldview, God does reveal himself in a general way through the whole of his creation which reflects his handiwork and glory but his creation does not include man’s creations of Rock and Roll or movies. Why bother with the Bible at all, as a truth source? Well, it does provide a cosmic backdrop for the play of Man and some inspiring warrior heroes for scenes in the play.
Eldredge had his life-changing epiphany when he randomly stumbled across a couple lines in a book: It was like God talking to him from Balaam’s donkey, page 200. (Apparently Eldredge is unaware that Balaam is not a complimentary figure.) “Don’t ask what the world needs,” he read in this message from God. “Ask what makes you come alive. That’s what the world needs.” Eldredge doesn’t tell his readers anything about the author of this pseudo-profundity and why he considers the message authoritative. He indiscriminately quotes from a myriad of secular sources in Wild at Heart.
Not only can anything be a truth source, but God often talks directly to Eldredge in words that sound amazingly like Eldredge’s own words. He recalls this monlogue with God, page 135: "What of me, dear Lord?" And then God answers (verbatim), "You are Henry V after Agincourt...the man in the arena, whose face is covered with blood and sweat and dust...who strove valiantly...a great warrior...yes, even Maximus...You are my friend."
Eldredge must have forgotten that one can easily confuse inner musing with the "voice of God." (And "God" is confused about whether Eldredge is Henry V or Maximus.) Although God did speak to people in the Bible, he was most often quiet. "Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth." Psalm 46:10.
The false god or idol in Wild at Heart is Epic Man. (Another book by Eldredge is Epic. Epic, supposedly about the big picture, is tiny in its man-centered scope.) Epic Man is the idol in Self’s Cathedral. He is better than Superman because he has unlimited imaginative powers while Superman only has enhanced physical powers. Epic Man’s imaginative powers give him the ability to create truth, using a rich variety of contradictory sources, pagan and Christian, sacred and profane. He is above the law because morality is “old covenant.” Sometimes Epic Man must hold onto the handrail of the law when he gets dangerously close to falling over the edge and cheating on his wife or the like. But most of the time his good heart will keep him from these things. This reminds me of some children. Their Father says, “Don’t play in the street,” so the kids play right on the edge of the highway, getting as close to danger and the whizzing cars as possible (it is fun to take risks).
In Wild at Heart one learns truth from God from whatever and wherever. On page 200, “God speaks through the whole of creation. To Stasi he speaks through movies. To Craig he speaks through Rock and Roll” (page 171). “Time with God is whatever brings me back to my heart and the heart of God. Sometimes I’ll listen to music, journal or run.” Notice how “my heart” and “God’s heart” are inter-changeable. Notice also the meaning of the word creation. In the Biblical worldview, God does reveal himself in a general way through the whole of his creation which reflects his handiwork and glory but his creation does not include man’s creations of Rock and Roll or movies. Why bother with the Bible at all, as a truth source? Well, it does provide a cosmic backdrop for the play of Man and some inspiring warrior heroes for scenes in the play.
Eldredge had his life-changing epiphany when he randomly stumbled across a couple lines in a book: It was like God talking to him from Balaam’s donkey, page 200. (Apparently Eldredge is unaware that Balaam is not a complimentary figure.) “Don’t ask what the world needs,” he read in this message from God. “Ask what makes you come alive. That’s what the world needs.” Eldredge doesn’t tell his readers anything about the author of this pseudo-profundity and why he considers the message authoritative. He indiscriminately quotes from a myriad of secular sources in Wild at Heart.
Not only can anything be a truth source, but God often talks directly to Eldredge in words that sound amazingly like Eldredge’s own words. He recalls this monlogue with God, page 135: "What of me, dear Lord?" And then God answers (verbatim), "You are Henry V after Agincourt...the man in the arena, whose face is covered with blood and sweat and dust...who strove valiantly...a great warrior...yes, even Maximus...You are my friend."
Eldredge must have forgotten that one can easily confuse inner musing with the "voice of God." (And "God" is confused about whether Eldredge is Henry V or Maximus.) Although God did speak to people in the Bible, he was most often quiet. "Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth." Psalm 46:10.
Eldredge quotes Frederick Buechner for affirmation that God speaks to man (in WAH's excerpt of his book Walking with God) but he ignores the primary meaning of Buechner's statement: "If God speaks to us at all other than through such official channels as the Bible and the church, then I think that he speaks to us largely through what happens to us," page 229. Buechner himself does not quote God's personal word-for-word messages to him.
Virile Man and Scandalous Woman
One may feel they have stumbled into a high school locker room by mistake with all the talk about the masculine sex organ in WAH. Take page 91, for example, “The question seems hard-wired to his penis. If he can feel like the hero sexually, well, then mister, he’s the hero.” Then there’s the long excerpt from the movie “A Perfect World” in which an escaped convict who has kidnapped a boy saves him from lifelong feelings of emasculation and wimpy-ness by assuring him that his “pecker” is big enough (pages 65-66 and 91).
“A woman who is living out her true design will be scandalous,” Eldredge writes. He imagines Ruth in the Bible to be a grand seductress. On page 190-1, he says, “Ruth is often held up as a model at women’s retreats—but not in the way God holds her up. The book of Ruth is devoted to one question: How does a good woman help her man play the man? The answer: She seduces him. She uses all she has as a woman to arouse him to be a man.” First, it is blatantly presumptuous for Eldredge to revise why God rewards Ruth and to imagine a new story and a new meaning. Ruth’s story is now no longer the beautiful story of her great love for Naomi which led to her embracing the God of the Bible. Rather it is about her seductive manipulation of Boaz to provide for her financial security. According to Eldredge, God rewarded this by making her famous in the Bible, as a distant grandmother of Jesus.
Wild at Heart infers that a real woman is someone who makes her man know he’s a real man. But on page 90, “the deadliest place a man ever takes his search (for validation as a man) is the woman.” (Go figure.) Equally ambiguous but alarming is page 115 where men are warned to “walk away from the woman. At the Fall, Eve took the place of God in a man’s life.” Apparently, to Eldredge, a woman is a beautiful thing in a man’s life, but incidental in his quest for manhood.
Redeemer Man
Which man, with great courage, endured the most suffering of any man? Christ, of course. Christ, the quintessential tough man, is so brave that Mel Gibson (Eldredge’s cherished William Wallace in Braveheart) directed the Passion of the Christ. In The Passion, Gibson shows how Christ endured plenty of torture and for the most noble reason. Gibson emphasized the torture and bravery because of his own worldview which, one would suppose, Eldredge would approve of. Why then is Christ not the manly hero in WAH? Jesus was too different, however heroic, for Eldredge. Christ was not all about his own masculine strength and bravery. People in Christ’s time thought Jesus Christ would be a “man’s man" and overthrow the Romans. But he ordered Peter to sheath his sword and allow his capture before he was crucified. Christ humbled himself and became obedient to death on the cross (Philippians 2:8). He didn’t have anything to prove except to reveal who God is.
Christ said to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16). Wild at Heart, however, claims men must not be harmless but dangerous. On page 17, Eldredge claims a man must choose between “being sweet or being dangerous” (whatever “dangerous” means now). But this is a false dichotomy. There are more choices than these two. “Christianity has done terrible things to men. We hold up, as models of Christian maturity, really nice guys,” page 7. Eldredge does not answer the question “Who is a model of Christian maturity?” Is “Christian maturity” even valued in Wild at Heart? Should men be led by feral instincts?
Eldredge does not address character issues except as they tenuously relate to self-image or to the societal mirror: Apparently, a mature Christian man is one who, initiated into manhood, is a not-nice, not-sweet guy who follows his own wild heart. But a man need not accept this silly definition of masculinity and others like it in Wild at Heart. A real, godly man has nothing to prove. He knows who he is in Christ. He can serve God and others, still having great leadership skills. (He can even risk seeming “nice” or “sweet” without fear of emasculation.) It is a matter of gratifying ego or glorifying God. It is also about the true, hidden character of a man and not a façade.
Whatever else one may say about Wild at Heart, it is certainly inspiring. After all, Eldredge was an actor and he writes with passion and poetry—although often the poetry sounds more like relentless hammering. He could have been a cheerleader with a megaphone (rather than an actor) yelling, “A real man has Attitude. A Man’s Man acts like it. No more Mr. Nice Guy!” (pages 7, 17 and 18). But at the end of this rainbow is no manly pot of gold—only the emptiness of the self-involved ego. Wild at Heart has a point that men could do something more adventurous than watching sports all day. But that has more to do with preferences, and possibly overcoming laziness than with whether or not they are real men. Who is John Eldredge to judge? He watches a fair share of hero movies. And maybe the book has a point that some men could grow a backbone, but the book does not give the right reasons for this, which is godly leadership, rather than ego gratification. A man’s inner strength isn’t about impression management and good posturing, but character.
In Wild at Heart modern males are not “lost,” they are wounded. They have difficulty becoming real men because they have been victimized by society, church, Christianity, women and their own shame. How does “being victimized” fit with the whole macho theme?
Whatever else one may say about Wild at Heart, it is certainly inspiring. After all, Eldredge was an actor and he writes with passion and poetry—although often the poetry sounds more like relentless hammering. He could have been a cheerleader with a megaphone (rather than an actor) yelling, “A real man has Attitude. A Man’s Man acts like it. No more Mr. Nice Guy!” (pages 7, 17 and 18). But at the end of this rainbow is no manly pot of gold—only the emptiness of the self-involved ego. Wild at Heart has a point that men could do something more adventurous than watching sports all day. But that has more to do with preferences, and possibly overcoming laziness than with whether or not they are real men. Who is John Eldredge to judge? He watches a fair share of hero movies. And maybe the book has a point that some men could grow a backbone, but the book does not give the right reasons for this, which is godly leadership, rather than ego gratification. A man’s inner strength isn’t about impression management and good posturing, but character.
In Wild at Heart modern males are not “lost,” they are wounded. They have difficulty becoming real men because they have been victimized by society, church, Christianity, women and their own shame. How does “being victimized” fit with the whole macho theme?
Man’s battle for masculinity is Wild at Heart’s theme to which everything else including the spiritual battle is subordinate. This is obviously distorted but how does man’s masculinity and woman's femininity fit with the spiritual life? It is a good question that WAH does not honestly answer.
In the Biblical view man needs salvation—not salvation from boyhood shame, societal strictures or boredom (the hedonist’s malady), but spiritual salvation from sin and death. Christ offers salvation. He shows what a real man looks like.
In the Biblical view man needs salvation—not salvation from boyhood shame, societal strictures or boredom (the hedonist’s malady), but spiritual salvation from sin and death. Christ offers salvation. He shows what a real man looks like.
Where does “self image” fit into this picture? In the process of becoming like Christ, a healthy self-image develops with integrity and with an understanding of riches in Christ (Ephesians 1:18). Developing a good self image is not, however, the goal. The goal is to become like Jesus Christ. The Christ-centered, Spirit-filled man learns to accept and love himself because God accepts him in Christ and loves him (Ephesians 3:19). This man begins to know his strengths and limitations. When he falls, he does not berate himself because he was not enough of a man. He realizes he is human and God restores him. He doesn’t mythologize himself. Instead, he lives out his mission in Christ. Sometimes the call may not seem attractive. But God has a vital purpose in positioning a person in a certain place. The Grand Weaver by Ravi Zacharias portrays how God works behind the scenes with his grand design to make something wonderful of what may seem ordinary. “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life," 1 Thessalonians 4:11.
Eldredge claims John the Baptist and “John’s cousin Jesus” were on identity missions. But John was the voice preparing the way and Jesus was the Way. John the Baptist and Jesus the Messiah knew who they were better than anyone else born on earth. Eldredge understands that Jesus’ identity was tested in the wilderness temptation but he misses the point: Satan was tempting Jesus to prove himself in a way that would bring Christ instant power and fame. The apostle Paul was another example of a passionate and courageous man. He lived an adventurous life and withstood torture like Braveheart. But, again, being adventurous, proving his identity and taking risks were not the apostle’s goals. These were incidental to his mission of glorifing God by spreading the gospel.
The Big Picture
The real question that concerns every man is “What does God think of me?” The wrong questions are “What do I think of myself?” and “What do others think of me as a man?” See I Corinthians 4:3-5. And although one is not required to judge oneself, an accurate idea of yourself is helpful (Romans 12:3).
Fighting in the Great Battle is as different from being a Wild-at-Heart fantasy warrior as being a world traveler is from visiting Epcot Center in Disney World. If one emerges from the WAH theme park, one can look out into the distance to see the real battle going on in the valley of the shadow of death below. There, people actually suffer. True warriors persevere, “fighting the good fight,” (I Timothy 6:12) and follow orders. But in the Wild at Heart adventure, a man does not fight against “the cosmic powers over this present darkness,” Ephesians 6:12 ESV. In Wild at Heart, how can a man distinguish the light of truth from “this present darkness”? How can a warrior hear the voice of his commander above the din of all the other voices telling him what to do?
The Bible teaches that the Self is not autonomous. Christ redeems the self. He rescues man from the kingdom of darkness. The redeemed man is then subject to righteousness. He is free from the penalty of sin, but not yet free from the present power of sin. A man is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. The redeemed man fights sin until the final redemption of all creation, when evil will no longer be present within or without (Romans 8:22). “We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places,” Ephesians 6:12. The great battle is between spiritual forces and kingdoms. It is not the overcoming of shame to reach greatness. While Eldredge talks about putting on the whole armor of God and fighting the spiritual battle it is all talk. He puts on armor like an actor does a costume.
“Humility comes before honor” (Proverbs 15:33). The great saints never set out to be courageous heroes. But their unfaltering love for God and others enabled them to give their lives figuratively or literally, and to became great in God (Matthew 6:33). Humility, the touchstone of all the great saints and heroes of the faith, is but one of the many forgotten virtues in WAH.
Eldredge claims that the man who lives out of duty is separated from his true heart (page 7). While it may be true that the man has a battle within himself that separates him, Eldredge skims the surface of the issue. The man who thinks of what he does for God and family as “duty” has an attitude issue that God can change. “Duty” connotes drudgery, while actions (no matter how hard) motivated by love bring joy. Jesus’ righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees because it involves the motives of the heart (Matthew 5:20.) The man who is bored at church, and “put upon” by duties will not find freedom in imagining himself to be a hero and doing more of what he wants (as Wild at Heart advocates), because his own heart is the problem. The solution is a transformation of heart. Christ said, “Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. For I am meek and lowly of heart and you will find rest for your souls,” Matthew 11:28. Only when this man knows and loves God with all his heart, soul, strength and mind will he be undivided. Then doing his “duty” will seem the least that he can do for the God, family and church he loves.
"A fool may easily mistake a mosquito in the telescope for a monster on the moon," wrote Boreham. Matthew 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” One must take his eyes off himself to see God. “Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our Faith who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God,” Hebrews 12:2.
Eldredge claims that the man who lives out of duty is separated from his true heart (page 7). While it may be true that the man has a battle within himself that separates him, Eldredge skims the surface of the issue. The man who thinks of what he does for God and family as “duty” has an attitude issue that God can change. “Duty” connotes drudgery, while actions (no matter how hard) motivated by love bring joy. Jesus’ righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees because it involves the motives of the heart (Matthew 5:20.) The man who is bored at church, and “put upon” by duties will not find freedom in imagining himself to be a hero and doing more of what he wants (as Wild at Heart advocates), because his own heart is the problem. The solution is a transformation of heart. Christ said, “Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. For I am meek and lowly of heart and you will find rest for your souls,” Matthew 11:28. Only when this man knows and loves God with all his heart, soul, strength and mind will he be undivided. Then doing his “duty” will seem the least that he can do for the God, family and church he loves.
"A fool may easily mistake a mosquito in the telescope for a monster on the moon," wrote Boreham. Matthew 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” One must take his eyes off himself to see God. “Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our Faith who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God,” Hebrews 12:2.
As God’s beloved children we learn to trust that his wise will is for our best. We let God subdue the base desires of our hearts. This painful, healing process requires faith. Doubting makes one double-minded (James 1:8.) When one is spiritually faithless, one is separated from one’s true heart. (Duty does not separate the man from his own good desires, as WAH says, but doubt.) C. S. Lewis addressed the fear beneath the doubt: “We’re not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be” (Letters, 29 April 1959). “Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point,” (Lewis, Mere Christianity). A-man-after-God's-own-heart David wrote, "Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart," Psalm 37:4.
Diabolical Doctrine?
Diabolical Doctrine?
Eldredge resorts to childish name-calling on page 27: “Does your man scare you with his doctrinal nazism?” Nazism?! Hitler’s passionate propaganda by-passed the mind and went straight to the felt-need of the masses. Does this have any relation to the reasonableness of doctrine? God entreats, “Come let us reason together. Though your sins be as red as scarlet they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). And God’s spokesman for most of the New Testament, the apostle Paul, was all about doctrine. He presented truth systematically and clearly so that it could be understood, remembered and applied. One can outline the book of Romans and easily follow Paul’s logical arguments. So the Nazi’s propaganda approach had nothing to do with the propositional approach of doctrine. Eldredge is actually attacking the doctrinal truths and the people who extol them because they make exclusive claims.
Then Eldredge writes, “If you’re a Pharisee, one of those self-appointed doctrine police…watch out...Jesus picks a fight with those notorious hypocrites,” page 24. Doctrine is a terrible, repressive thing, connected to Nazis and the Pharisees who demanded Christ's crucifixion. Doctrine is Eldredge’s Arch-enemy. Of course it would be. Having a general understanding of doctrine would enable sheep to avoid untruths in Wild at Heart. They would not buy the books, visit the website or attend the seminars. C. S. Lewis wrote “A great many of those who “debunk” traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process” (The Abolition of Man). But Eldredge is "self-appointed." Those who revere doctrine, the truth of sacred Scripture, are not Pharisees and are not necessarily "notorious hypocrites." Ironically, the origin of the Greek word hypocrite was stage actor, one who pretends to be what he is not.
Then Eldredge writes, “If you’re a Pharisee, one of those self-appointed doctrine police…watch out...Jesus picks a fight with those notorious hypocrites,” page 24. Doctrine is a terrible, repressive thing, connected to Nazis and the Pharisees who demanded Christ's crucifixion. Doctrine is Eldredge’s Arch-enemy. Of course it would be. Having a general understanding of doctrine would enable sheep to avoid untruths in Wild at Heart. They would not buy the books, visit the website or attend the seminars. C. S. Lewis wrote “A great many of those who “debunk” traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process” (The Abolition of Man). But Eldredge is "self-appointed." Those who revere doctrine, the truth of sacred Scripture, are not Pharisees and are not necessarily "notorious hypocrites." Ironically, the origin of the Greek word hypocrite was stage actor, one who pretends to be what he is not.
Why would someone hate doctrine? A man who is morally a child and wants to remain so would hate doctrine. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that doctrine helps make a man good, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.” But in Wild World “good” does not mean morally good. It means “good” as in “have a good time.” Eldredge has a negative view of morality, confusing it with moral-ism. Morality is a good thing, a positive thing—not only the set of standards God’s image gives man—morality is all the virtues. However, moralism, being nice, polite, and socially acceptable is man's behavioral rules.
Also, knowledge of doctrine would cause Eldredge to realistically evaluate his relationship with God. "Meaningful relationship with God is dependent on correct knowledge of him. Any theological system that distinguishes between 'rational propositions about God' and 'a personal relationship with God' fails to see this necessary connection between love and knowledge...Good lovers are students of the beloved...Devotion without knowledge is irrational instability. But true knowledge of God includes understanding everything from his perspective," page 2505 ESV Study Bible.
Eldredge loves the word heart. It is conveniently ambiguous. Eldredge’s wide definitions of the word heart do not include brain in his book. It also does not seek spiritual insight from the Holy Spirit. So you don’t need to worry about whether you are doctrinally correct, logical or even realistic. You just have to feel it in your wild heart. In contrast, C. S. Lewis writes, “The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it” (The Abolition of Man).
Other abused words are “spirit” and “soul.” Wild at Heart, page 5, “Adventure is a deeply spiritual longing.” He does not mean “spiritual” in the Biblical sense, but a quality of soul that arouses emotion.
Eldredge cuts and pastes the Biblical worldview onto his own agenda, syncretism, the combination of different forms of belief. In WAH, secular humanism combines with Biblical Christianity to form a non-Biblical amalgam. Yet somehow the book has enjoyed the respectability and endorsement of much of the Christian community even though it is anti-church (pages 7, 55, and 175). For many churches, it is "politically correct" to be anti-established-church. Just as many Americans are now proud of being Americanly unpatriotic, many church members are now proud of being anti-church (and uninterested in doctrine).
Eldredge Meets His Match
Other abused words are “spirit” and “soul.” Wild at Heart, page 5, “Adventure is a deeply spiritual longing.” He does not mean “spiritual” in the Biblical sense, but a quality of soul that arouses emotion.
Eldredge cuts and pastes the Biblical worldview onto his own agenda, syncretism, the combination of different forms of belief. In WAH, secular humanism combines with Biblical Christianity to form a non-Biblical amalgam. Yet somehow the book has enjoyed the respectability and endorsement of much of the Christian community even though it is anti-church (pages 7, 55, and 175). For many churches, it is "politically correct" to be anti-established-church. Just as many Americans are now proud of being Americanly unpatriotic, many church members are now proud of being anti-church (and uninterested in doctrine).
Eldredge Meets His Match
The author John Eldredge is an actor/director with more than a flair for the dramatic. He extols the virtues of fairy tales and apparently does not think one can have too romantic a vision of life. But at the same time, he thinks men should be like the laconic tough cowboys in the Westerns. This is confusing but postmodernism, above all, is a mood, and moods change at whim.
Allow me to indulge and talk about a movie, since Wild at Heart goes on about movies. West World, a movie from the 70's, is about an amusement park for rich vacationers. The park gives people a way to live out their fantasies with human-like robots that provide anything they want. Two of the vacationers choose a wild west adventure.
Allow me to indulge and talk about a movie, since Wild at Heart goes on about movies. West World, a movie from the 70's, is about an amusement park for rich vacationers. The park gives people a way to live out their fantasies with human-like robots that provide anything they want. Two of the vacationers choose a wild west adventure.
Now here is my silly fantasy: John Eldredge enters West World but it is different from the movie now. Characters have turned into real people and live out their lives. (There are no demented, malfunctioning robots, only movie characters turned real.) John Eldredge enters this world as himself. He stays in the background for a few days summoning courage and deciding which movie land he wants to visit, whether Roman World to be with his hero Maximus the gladiator, Medieval World to be a knight in shining armor rescuing a beautiful damsel, or West World to be a gunslinger. He especially enjoys westerns, so he steps into West World. The first person he sees is Clint Eastwood living as Will Munny in Unforgiven. Munny, an aging gunslinger, is the meanest man in the West.
“I like your movies,” says Eldredge. “I too am a wild-at-heart, adventurous, passionate tough guy. But Munny, already tired of the rhetoric, deftly draws a six shooter and points it at Eldredge. “I don’t deserve to die like this,” wails Eldredge at the sight of the gun. “I was writing another book on how to be a man.”
Munny, through bared teeth says, “'Deserves' got nothing to do with it,” and fires.
End of story.
Wilderness
In the Wild at Heart cosmos, men must go into the wilderness to be real men because, unlike Eve, who was created in the orderly garden, Adam was created outside the garden, in the wilderness. This is confusing not only because it is unbiblical but illogical: If God meant for Adam to be out in the wilderness, why did God put him in the garden and tell him to tend it? How do the wilderness and the garden fit in with The Fall? Was there a “wilderness” before the fall or was everything like the garden? And what was the garden anyway? Was it a manicured lawn, replete with trimmed shrubbery, or did it have an element of wildness in it? Why would Adam regret having to leave the garden for the wilderness if the wilderness was the place where he was made and for which he longs?
Wilderness
In the Wild at Heart cosmos, men must go into the wilderness to be real men because, unlike Eve, who was created in the orderly garden, Adam was created outside the garden, in the wilderness. This is confusing not only because it is unbiblical but illogical: If God meant for Adam to be out in the wilderness, why did God put him in the garden and tell him to tend it? How do the wilderness and the garden fit in with The Fall? Was there a “wilderness” before the fall or was everything like the garden? And what was the garden anyway? Was it a manicured lawn, replete with trimmed shrubbery, or did it have an element of wildness in it? Why would Adam regret having to leave the garden for the wilderness if the wilderness was the place where he was made and for which he longs?
Personally, I think the idea of man being “wild” because he was made in the wilderness and so needs to get back to the wilderness is sexist and silly. I am a woman and feel at home in nature. And I like to challenge myself physically by running the occasional marathon. Nature skills and physical challenges are not for men only. I don’t conform to a sexual stereotype and I don’t expect my husband, father or grandsons to conform to one either. According to Wild at Heart, I’m supposed to be primarily “a beauty to be fought for.” But if anyone is fighting for me, I’m fighting alongside them.
The wilderness is more than man’s stomping ground, hunting ground or playground. When I go backpacking, I don’t primarily see “wilderness” but God’s handiwork. Nature may be wild in that it is not man-made and domesticated but it is not wild in the sense of random or out of control. God’s craftsmanship is intricately complex, varied, and beautiful. Nature reflects God’s glory but it also reflects the effects of the Fall, which are ignored in Wild at Heart. (Someday the bears or the killer whales may eat Eldredge after all.) When my husband and I go backpacking we take just enough civilization with us to enjoy the wilderness, including indispensable Ziplocs stuffed with jerky or trail mix, water in plastic bottles, and bug repellant. Ziplocs are on Eldredge’s bad civilization list (page 5). He thinks all civilization inhibits a man’s wild soul. Even Thoreau, whose cabin was actually near town, would have considered this naïve.
According to WAH, a man finds himself and becomes a real man in the wilderness because God made him there. He is like a fish out of water anywhere else. Not only is he in his element out there, but he finds answers to the ultimate questions while finding himself. “The answers to the ultimate questions cannot be answered around the kitchen table” (page 5). But the “ultimate questions” in this book are not the usual universal ones such as “What is the meaning of life?” The questions in this book are related to “ego” in the negative sense of the word. The ultimate question apparently is “Am I a fulfilled, manly man?”
The wilderness is more than man’s stomping ground, hunting ground or playground. When I go backpacking, I don’t primarily see “wilderness” but God’s handiwork. Nature may be wild in that it is not man-made and domesticated but it is not wild in the sense of random or out of control. God’s craftsmanship is intricately complex, varied, and beautiful. Nature reflects God’s glory but it also reflects the effects of the Fall, which are ignored in Wild at Heart. (Someday the bears or the killer whales may eat Eldredge after all.) When my husband and I go backpacking we take just enough civilization with us to enjoy the wilderness, including indispensable Ziplocs stuffed with jerky or trail mix, water in plastic bottles, and bug repellant. Ziplocs are on Eldredge’s bad civilization list (page 5). He thinks all civilization inhibits a man’s wild soul. Even Thoreau, whose cabin was actually near town, would have considered this naïve.
According to WAH, a man finds himself and becomes a real man in the wilderness because God made him there. He is like a fish out of water anywhere else. Not only is he in his element out there, but he finds answers to the ultimate questions while finding himself. “The answers to the ultimate questions cannot be answered around the kitchen table” (page 5). But the “ultimate questions” in this book are not the usual universal ones such as “What is the meaning of life?” The questions in this book are related to “ego” in the negative sense of the word. The ultimate question apparently is “Am I a fulfilled, manly man?”
Red Flags
As I read Wild at Heart, a red flag appeared in my mind each time he began a sentence with “I am not saying” because it was precisely what he was saying. Possibly Eldredge doesn’t have the courage or lucidity or honesty to avoid hedging, but his meanings belie his disclaimers. For example, Eldredge says he isn’t advocating “open theism” when in fact he is. In WAH, God is vulnerable, needy, risk-taking, adventurous and surprised—this is open theism. For another example, Eldredge avers "Now let me make one thing clear: I am not advocating a sort of 'macho man' image," page 26. By now, I hope I have convinced you otherwise. Then, on page 215, “I’m not suggesting that the Christian life is chaotic or that the real man is flagrantly irresponsible.” (Does this mean he can be somewhat irresponsible but not “flagrantly” irresponsible?) What is "the Christian life" if not chaotic in Wild at Heart?
Next, Eldredge denies that he over-blames Satan: “Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not blaming everything on the devil. In almost every situation there are human issues involved…But those issues are the campfire the Enemy throws gasoline all over…All the while we believe that it’s us, we’re to blame, and the Enemy is laughing,” page 163. So does this mean we are not to blame?” In the excerpt of Eldredge’s new book Walking with God (included in Wild at Heart) we read, “We know right off the bat that any other supposed revelation from God that contradicts the Bible is not to be trusted. So I am not minimizing in any way the authority of the Scripture or the fact that God speaks to us through the Bible.” I hope I have proved in this essay that Eldredge isn’t averse to making just about anything a source of supposed revelation from God, especially inspiring movies. Are all these sources non-contradictory? Can they all be true? Doesn't finding revelation in all of God's and man's creations minimize Scripture? (Hmmm.) Besides, Eldredge repeatedly minimizes the authority of Scripture by misinterpreting it.
Conclusion
One wonders if Eldredge even understands the philosophical, psychological and spiritual implications of his own beliefs. After all, his rhetoric is opinion and feelings. Unfortunately for others, though, he has made a cottage industry out of his false teachings.
WAH tapped into its market at the right time: Men want to be men. Males have been thoroughly bashed by the excesses of the women’s movement. They must atone for the sin of having been, historically, patriarchal by learning to cry publically, wash more dishes, and so on. With the acceleration of change in our culture, partly because of the erosion of its Judeo-Christian foundation, the differences between the sexes have been blurred. But Wild at Heart does not answer this problem. It only leads men into a weird fantasyland of male and female stereotypes and movie characters. Is the answer to the modern male’s identity problem really to return to old sexual stereotypes? Must a man conform to a macho caricature to be masculine, or take up rock climbing? If he isn’t outdoorsy, athletic or interested in war movies is he a man? Must a woman be a beautiful princess in a fairy tale to be feminine? People may be tired of androgyny but this is too much.
Wild at Heart has caught on like wildfire, with more than two million copies in print. This proves that many, many Christians cannot differentiate a secular worldview from the Biblical one. The Christian culture is becoming increasingly steeped in its own pluralistic culture—a culture that embraces with absolute conviction that everything is relative to the whims of the individual. God is not dead but He is only in your own head. Truth itself has died. Religious "truths" are relegated to myth. Few people are alarmed that this widely popular “Christian” book combines mythologies and pop psychology with misinterpreted Bible verses. People buy it because they feel a loss of identity, a wound, unfulfilled desire and longing. But man's emptiness is spiritual, satisfied by God alone. C. S. Lewis wrote, "I sometimes wonder whether all pleasures are not a substitute for joy. Joy (has) an unconsolable longing. It is always a desire for something longer ago or further away or still 'about to be.' God cannot give us happiness apart from himself," Surprised by Joy, pages 17, 18, 78 and 170.
An awakening must replace the spiritual apostasy seeping in through the church’s foundation: Christians would present Christ of the Bible to the world as the only One, the One who stands above a sea of counterfeits. The church would be relevant to its culture, but exclusive in its truth claims about Christ and the gospel (John 15:19), unlike the emerging church. "Do not be conformed to this world," Romans 12:2. Instead, nowadays, the culture is winning the battle for truth in many churches. The identities of man and God are malleable, not Biblical. Jesus Christ is an advertising slogan ("Got Christ?" like "Got Milk?"), a superstar, a social reformer and everyone else but the historical Messiah. Or, if Christ is alluded to Biblically, he then becomes the launching off point for private religious experience. "A personal relationship with Jesus Christ" has become subjective and self-centered.
It is an understatement to say that Wild at Heart does not hold up well to Biblical scholarship or even logic. This book of impassioned rhetoric does not make a serious attempt to ask the right questions or to answer the myriad questions it raises. It offers no reasonable arguments or practical guidelines for its abstractions because it is all style and no substance. If you machete through the dense, romantic verbiage of this weedy excursion, you discover the real agenda. I hope I have provided a map to show where this excursion lies within reality. I hope you have the compass of God as your infinite reference point, the Bible alone for special revelation, and the Holy Spirit as Nature Guide to identify the beautiful yet dangerous beast in the wilderness of the heart—namely, the deceptive Self.
The apostle Paul wrote, "In the last days people will be lovers of themselves...lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God...having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life...Continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed...All Scripture is breathed by God and profitable...that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work," 2 Timothy 3:5.
