Reviews for Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul

The average rating for Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2008-01-28 00:00:00 Terence Parker 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.

Review # 2 was written on 2007-05-22 00:00:00 Linda Phifer 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.