:: Monday, August 18, 2003 ::

Wild at Heart: Discovering The Secret of a Man's Soul. By John Eldredge
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001, 220 pp., $16.99 hardcover.

I originally wrote a brief review of million-seller Wild at Heart in July, mentioning some of the flaws and hints at open theism. Soon after, it was enthusiastically promoted for my church's small groups via bulletin inserts and a plug from the platform. I contacted the church and raised my concerns about the book. Subsequently, I was asked by church leadership to prepare a more extensive review reflecting my perspective. I then re-read the entire book. This review goes through the book sequentially (although not exhaustively), commenting on key points of Eldredge's philosophy and theology, and is heavily based on my church report.

Wild at Heart has garnered a great deal of enthusiastic attention from diverse supporters over the past couple of years. Chuck Swindoll has endorsed it, and it was the first book mentioned when I recently interviewed Relient K (a popular Christian pop punk band) and asked them what they were reading.

I will deal primarily with areas of concern, of which there are many. One gets the impression that Eldredge has read a great deal of New Age-flavored men's movement material such as Robert Bly's Iron John, but his theological studies have been lacking. Wild at Heart is a classic example of modern evangelicalism's infatuation with man-centered self-love psychology, baptizing it with a dose of Bible verses (typically torn out of context) and pronouncing it good. That mentality is why Promise Keepers ran into trouble by promoting Robert Hicks' The Masculine Journey. Self-love sells better than Biblical self-denial.

Eldredge's carelessness with Scripture is evident from the title page for the first chapter, where we read this misquote: "The heart of a man is like deep water." Proverbs 20:5 NKJV. As Daryl Wingerd has pointed out, the NKJV verse actually says, "Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water." Eldredge changed the subject of the verse from "counsel" to "heart" to suit the theme of his first chapter, without giving any clue to readers that the verse has been modified in such a way as to completely alter the meaning. There is no excuse for twisting Scripture in this way, and his cavalier approach to God's Word is seen later on page 166 where he claims that Jesus failed in his first attempt to rebuke an evil spirit and had to get more information (Luke 8:26-33). This is a subtle link to open theism, denying the omniscience of God. Jesus never "had to get more information" so that he could succeed after first failing in his plans.

Eldredge makes a few good points on pages 6 through 15 about what manliness is all about. I don't think all churches have emasculated men to the extent he suspects, but there are some concepts to agree with in the first chapter. As a hockey player and coach, I enjoyed Eldredge's line about boys need for competition, even violent play:

Hockey, for example, was not a feminine creation. (p. 10)

As much as I enjoyed that insight, it wasn't too long before I ran into a serious concern:

God is a person who takes immense risks. (p. 30)

Eldredge supports his claim with Galatians 2:17, "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!" However, this is overly simplistic. Just because God does not promote sin does not mean that God therefore takes immense risks. Apparently Eldredge has no understanding of compatibilism, the view that while God is sovereignly in control, man has responsibility as well. Where is the risk in Ephesians 1:11, where we read, "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will"? That is not the description of a risk-taking God. Rather, it reminds us of the sovereign God seen in Proverbs 16:9, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps."

I'm troubled by the statement about God on page 31:

Now he lives, almost cheerfully, certainly heroically, in a dynamic relationship with us and with our world.

That reduces God to more of a glorified human than the transcendent Creator of the universe. Eldredge writes on page 32,

Trying to reconcile God's sovereignty and man's free will has stumped the church for ages.

This statement presupposes that man's will is free, in contrast to the view of fathers of the faith such as Martin Luther, who wrote The Bondage of the Will to address this issue. As Romans 8:6-7 teaches, we are either controlled by the Spirit or by sin: "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." Perhaps free will has been over-rated. Man has a will and is responsible for his choices (compatibilism), but is not truly free, or God is not truly sovereign because his free will is trumped by man's, making man sovereign instead of God. If people can always freely choose to do other than they do (libertarian free will), how can Proverbs 21:1 claim, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases"?

Eldredge continues,

I am not advocating open theism.

Really? Then why use the terminology of open theism and the concepts of open theism without any refutation? Perhaps Eldredge simply has not thought cogently on this topic, but that renders him unqualified to address the issue, and shows a recklessness that is not commendable.

The humanizing of God continues on page 36:

It is amazing to me how humble, how vulnerable God is on this point.

The term vulnerable means susceptible to injury, attack, or criticism, or being liable to succumb to temptation. Based on the context, I assume Eldredge means that God is open to the pain of rejection. While that may be true in a limited sense, God is not caught off guard and unexpectedly hurt by human reactions. Isaiah 42:8-9 says, "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you." Jesus offers foreknowledge as evidence of his deity in John 13:19, saying, "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He." The God of the Bible does not get caught off guard by our actions.

Chapter 4 is called The Wound, and deals with the hurt caused by fathers. On page 60, Eldredge claims that every male

takes an arrow in the center of his heart, in the place of his strength…the wound is nearly always given by his father.

I believe that is somewhat exaggerated. While many fathers are flawed, are the vast majority so bad that they administer such severely hurtful wounds to their sons? That may well reflect Eldredge's personal experience, but I think he over-generalizes here, resounding the themes of his men's movement heroes like Robert Bly.

It's unusual for Christian books to discuss "pecker size" (p. 65), but at least Eldredge did not attribute this discussion to personal prompting from God.

Wild at Heart addresses the difficult topic of how to respond to bullying on page 78. Christian families will vary greatly in how they choose to train their boys. Eldredge has only one solution:

hit him . . . as hard as you possibly can.

Some might question the wisdom of this in a world where guns all too often come into play. Escalating the violence may be a fatal miscalculation. When the Bible speaks of turning the other cheek, is it not possible that walking away from a confrontation shows greater strength than punching a tormentor? Eldredge insists that only emasculation can result, and seems unwilling to consider the Biblical injunctionof Romans 12:21, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Chapter 7, Healing the Wound, promotes unhealthy theology. On page 134 we find Eldredge weeping with desire to be like Maximus in the movie Gladiator, a Roman polytheist warrior who seeks vengeance through violence. God then supposedly begins chatting with Eldredge. We read God's Word by way of Eldredge:

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. (ellipses in original)

This is presented as a quote from God; if we accept Eldredge's claim, it must be construed as equal with Scripture, since it is divine revelation. The problems with that should be obvious. On page 136, Eldredge's friend gets some modern touchy-feely counseling straight from God:

God spoke exactly what he needed to hear-masculinity is spiritual. Then he heard, "True spirituality is good." And then, "You are a man. You are a man. You are a man."

God is willing to waste time stating inane truisms like "True spirituality is good"? Excuse my cynicism at all of these personal revelations. Eldredge is not done yet. On page 137 we read,

…sitting in my office one day, God began to speak to me about the painting and my role in it.

The grammar of Eldredge's sentence asserts that God was sitting in Eldredge's office when the Creator struck up a conversation, but I assume that Eldredge actually meant to refer to himself as the one who was sitting there, rather than God. Nonetheless, this typifies his delusions of having regular casual conversations with God.

Page 148 approvingly introduces us to a pastor who guides someone into revisiting a dream in his office. He tells the person how to behave during the dream, and when a lion approaches, he tells the dreamer what to ask the lion (all while this person is supposedly still dreaming). The lion then responds in surprising fashion. I'm baffled that any coherent person could take this seriously. Simultaneous conversations with a real pastor and a dream lion? Eldredge is impressed with the "remarkable story," but I guess if you're used to chatting with God in your office, a talking dream lion isn't that far-fetched.

Eldredge's friend Brent offers some unique "life-changing advice" on page 149:

Let people feel the weight of who you are," he said, "and let them deal with it.

I fail to see the Biblical support for that seemingly arrogant concept of manhood. Of course, no Biblical justification is offered in the book. The viewpoint is simply assumed to be valid.

There's bound to be some controversy over Eldredge's approach to the story of Ruth. On page 191 he writes,

This is seduction pure and simple--and God holds it up for all women to follow.

I envision leaders of church singles groups panicking as they learn that a single woman is at her best when she can arouse a man (page 192). On page 202, God shows up to visit with Eldredge again:

On the second day God began to speak.

Thankfully, Eldredge admits, "He was right." This casual approach to God and his supposed revelation is troubling. Not surprisingly, the book ends with another God-John chat. Unfortunately, this Blackaby-inspired Experiencing God mentality has infected evangelicalism to a remarkable degree. For an antidote, see Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason as he deals with Experiencing God on his website.

Overall, Wild at Heart offers a few useful insights into manhood, but is fatally flawed by egregious errors including a fondness for man-centered psychology, a tendency towards open theism, a weak approach to sin, an unacceptable view of justification, and an unhealthy reliance on personal revelation.

Positive aspects of Wild at Heart include the advice that modern parents (or is it post-modern parents?) need to realize that little boys who are always nice, always clean and never bloody are robbed of their masculinity. When discussing the book with my brother, he volunteered that his wife had noticed this fear of adventure in an upper-class neighborhood where she had been involved in childcare. Some parents would even go down slides holding their children, fearful that their precious baby would be hurt if allowed to venture down on their own. Of course, that approach ensures that the children will remain "precious babies" for far too long, probably getting beat up in elementary school as a direct result of being over-protected through their pre-school years.

I don't have a problem with a church small group studying Wild at Heart if--and only if--the flaws are clearly examined and dealt with. That would be a useful apologetic exercise in developing critical thinking skills, something that is sadly lacking in Christian men to a far greater extent than Eldredge's "wound."

Update: August 27, 2003
See The Thinklings reference to this review at Yet Another Wild At Heart Review

Update: November 11, 2003
Read Battle Cry, the Christianity Today review. I am very much in agreement with the Wild at Heart comments. I haven't read the follow-up book yet.

Update: January 14, 2004
Also see Wild at Heart: A Critique by David Rea and Carlton Wynne.

Update: September 28, 2004
Also see Wild at Heart Review by Dr. Tom Griner.

:: Randy Brandt :: Comments :: ::