Tagged with Books
Aug 7th, 2006 by admin
Archshrk just tagged me for the latest Meme. To be honest, I don’t know what a Meme is, but oh well. So here is my list:
One book that changed your life:
Desiring God
Author: John Piper
One book that you’ve read more than once:
Trusting God
Author: Jerry Bridges
One book you’d want on a desert island:
Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Burgundy)
Author: edited by R.C. Sproul, J. I. Packer, James Boice, Roger Nicole and Wayne Grudem
One book that made you laugh:
The Openness of God by Clark Pinnock
The book made me cry too.
One book that made you cry:
The Bible
Author: The Holy Spirit
One book that you wish you had written:
Calvin’s Commentaries (hehe)
One book that you wish had never been written:
I have two: Wild at Heart by John Eldridge and The Openness of God by Clark Pinnock
One book you’re currently reading:
Here are two:
The Deliberate Church
Author: Mark Dever and Paul Alexander
The Mortification of Sin
Author: John Owen
One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Above All Earthly Powers
Author: David Wells
- By Popular Demand - Part 3
- The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World by Stephen Nichols
- Reading the NT (1/month) and OT (2/year)
- A Culture Free of Grace?
- McCheyne and Sermon Preparation
You wish “Wild At Heart” had never been written? Wow,that’s pretty harsh. While I can tell by your other selections that it falls far below the theological bar you set, I can find a lot more books that I wish had not been written, say “Christ and Krishna”, the Koran, Book of Mormon, The New World Translation of the Bible, etc. I think Wild At Heart is a book that has some merit to it and beyond its Western bias, I think it’s done a great deal of good for men who wrestle with the numbing blandness of many churches. At least it speaks to the temptations of men and a narrative of what perhaps men are capable of in light of who God is. At worst, it can be misused, I grant that, but I still believe it’s a far cry from declaring that it never should have been written.
However, I do think Wild at Heart has some major issues which makes it a book I would never recommend for a man to read thinking this is what God wants a man to be. Here’s a review I wrote for my church on the book along with someone else’s review. Hopefully, this makes sense to you.
—
I have to admit something to you. I have not read this book from cover to cover. I simply couldn’t get myself to do it. I read a good portion of the book and was so disturbed by Eldredge’s message and his distortion of the biblical texts that I just had to stop, like the time I walked out of the theatre to watch the Dom Deluise movie Fatso. There are just some things that are not worth finishing. I believe this is one of those things.
The sad part of all of this is that there are so many Christian men who have taken up Eldredge’s perspective on manhood. But beware, Eldredge’s view smacks of humanism. If you don’t believe me, you can do what I did. First, read Daryl Wingerd’s review of Wild at Heart with your copy in hand. Look through his biblical arguments, and then read Eldregde’s work in context and you’ll find what I found: blatant misuse of the Bible and terrible theology (strong hints of open theism as one example). Here’s a sample of Wingerd’s review (which I might say is quite an in-depth analysis of the book):
In his introduction, Eldredge says, “Most messages for men ultimately fail.” “The reason is simple,” he writes. “They ignore what is deep and true to a man’s heart, his real passions, and simply try to shape him up through various forms of pressure.”
Needless to say, I wondered what new message he was offering men. Within the first few pages it became abundantly clear. Chapter one opens with the following quotation from Proverbs 20 verse 5: “The heart of a man is like deep water . . .”
As I read the first chapter I discovered that what men need, in Eldredge’s estimation, is to find their hearts. On page 3 he writes, “I am searching for an even more elusive prey . . . something that can only be found through the help of wilderness. I am looking for my heart.” On page 6‗If a man is ever to find out who he is and what he is here for, he has got to take that journey for himself. He has got to get his heart back.” And then on page 8‗The church wags its head and wonders why it can’t get more men to sign up for its programs. The answer is simply this: We have not invited a man to know and live from his own deep heart.”
I now understood the relevance of Proverbs 20:5 (according to Eldredge). Since the heart of man is deep and elusive, men need help understanding their hearts better. They need to learn to live according to the true desires and motivations of that heart if they are to find true fulfillmentâ€â€if they are to be all God intended them to be. It would be difficult to argue that this is not the central theme of the book.
And this is where I noticed the first major problemâ€â€Eldredge’s consistent mishandling of Scripture. I am not speaking here of his interpretations of Scripture. I take issue with the manner in which he handles certain biblical texts. To say the least, he takes Scripture out of context. But even worse, he actually edits Scripture to make it suit his purpose and affirm his teachings.
Proverbs 20:5 does not say what Eldredge claims it says. Now I know you’re expecting me to pull out some deeper understanding of the original Hebrew and call Eldredge’s scholarship into question, but I didn’t need to go to that much trouble. All I had to do was open my Bibleâ€â€my NKJV Bibleâ€â€the version from which Eldredge said he had quoted.
His quote reads like this: “The heart of a man is like deep water . . .” The meaning of the sentence, as quoted by Eldredge, is that the subject “heart” is described and explained by the adjective phrase, “like deep water.” The heart is like deep water, Eldredge claims. But the NKJ text actually reads like this: “Counsel in the heart of a man is like deep water.” In the biblical text, the subject of the sentence is not “heart,” but rather, “Counsel.” The simile, “like deep water,” refers to the subject, “Counsel,” not to the object of the prepositional phrase, “in the heart of a man.” So the Bible teaches us that counsel is like deep water.
To conclude and teach, as John Eldredge does, that “The heart of a man is like deep water,” especially when his quotation of the verse capitalizes the first word as if it were actually the beginning of the sentence, is not to merely misinterpret the meaning of the text; it is to change and misrepresent the meaning of the text. This would not all be quite so serious if he had not built the entire theme of chapter one (and really, the whole book) on the meaning of his edited version of Proverbs 20:5.
Another passage of Scripture with which John Eldredge takes unjustified liberty is the beginning of Genesis. On pages 213-214, in describing Adam’s relationship with God, Eldredge includes this commentary on the creation account. “Before the moment of Adam’s greatest trial God provided no step-by-step plan, gave no formula for how he was to handle the whole mess. That was not abandonment; that was the way God honored Adam. You are a man; you don’t need Me to hold you by the hand through this. You have what it takes. ”
Such a statement not only reveals Eldredge’s highly imaginative interpretation of the beginning of Genesis, it also reeks of humanism (man-centered thinking) and is even suggestive of Pelagianism (a centuries-old, but still popular heresy which tells mankind basically what Eldredge portrays God saying here to Adam “you have what it takes” to deal with the consequences of your sin).
I was also fascinated when I learned what Eldredge says went wrong in the first placeâ€â€how man’s (deep) heart got lost, and why men feel the need to find it. I was disturbed to find that it didn’t seem to have anything to do with sin. His understanding of the problem could be summarized like this: Eve (woman) is perfectly happy being domesticated because she was created inside the Garden of Eden. Adam (man) on the other hand, has always felt restless. He has always had this inner need for adventure, exploration, danger, etc.
Why does man have this need? Eldredge explains on pages 3 and 4: “Man was born in the outback, from the untamed part of creation. Only afterward is he brought to Eden. And ever since then boys have never been at home indoors, and men have had an insatiable longing to explore . . . The core of a man’s heart is undomesticated and that is good. ”
Do you hear what he is saying? Adam was better offâ€â€more suited to his environment before God brought him to (or confined him in) the Garden of Eden. If Eldredge is right, then in a way it seems that God cursed Adam before he sinned. He took him out of the environment in which he would have been fulfilled, and placed him in an environment that would repress his deepest inner longings. And when Adam sinnedâ€â€when he was kicked out of the gardenâ€â€he actually got what he wanted. What the Bible portrays as a curse was really a blessing to Adam.
One more example worth mentioning, though not directly related to the central theme of the book, is Eldredge’s treatment of Luke 8:26-33â€â€Luke’s account of Jesus’ encounter with the demoniac of the Gerasenes tombs. In using this passage of Scripture to illustrate the need for vigorous resistance to spiritual oppression, Eldredge writes, ” . . . when [Jesus] encounters the guy who lives out in the Gerasenes tombs, tormented by a legion of spirits, the first rebuke by Jesus doesn’t work. He had to get more information, really take them on . . . ”
This explanation of the encounter, found on page 166, certainly affirms Eldredge’s point, but once you read the biblical text for yourself, you should understand just how ridiculous (if not blasphemous) it really is. Even a cursory reading of Luke 8:26-33 will convince you that these demons never resisted, or even questioned Jesus’ first (and only) rebuke. In fact, the whole dialogue between Jesus and the demons took place precisely because they knew exactly who He was, and they knew they had no choice but to obey His command.
For those who think the liberties Eldredge takes with these biblical texts is acceptable, I remind you of Peter’s words regarding the holy Scriptures ” which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction . . . ” (2 Peter 3:16). Peter was referring directly to the distortion of some of the difficult portions of Paul’s epistles, but he concludes that sentence by saying, ” . . . as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (including Genesis, Proverbs, and Luke).
For those of you who want more evidence, read the rest of the review, and I am also reprinting Randy Stinson’s review of the book. Stinson is the Executive Director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. He may be contacted via email at stinson@cbmw.org.
Is God Wild at Heart? A Review of John Eldredge’s, Wild at Heart
July 3, 2003
by Randy Stinson
Whenever a book written for men (notoriously known for their lack of interest in reading) sells 500,000 copies, you can be sure that it has made a clear connection. There is a lot right with John Eldrege’s Wild at Heart, and with his compelling style of writing it is no surprise that thousands of men all over the country have been drawn to it. Eldredge has called attention to some problems with which most men seem to intuitively resonate:
1. Our culture (and even our churches) has adopted a strategy that facilitates the feminization of men.
2. Masculinity, with its predilection to adventure, rowdiness, and risk has become a condition to be cured.
3. Consequently, boys are in big trouble. School systems and churches have not taken the unique features of masculinity into consideration when designing curriculum or programs.
4. Our culture, intent on emasculating its boys, has produced a huge sense of withdrawal and boredom from its men.
5. As disconcerting as it may be to mothers everywhere, masculinity can only be imparted by masculinity. In other words, a young boy is never really sure he’s become a man until another man, or group of men, tells him so.
6. Sadly, many, if not most, men have abdicated this responsibility.
7. Every man needs a battle for which he can live and die.
Eldredge clearly knows how to write to men and by the testimonies of many, he has achieved one of his objectives which is to give men permission to be men. With all of the good insights Eldredge offers in this book, it is actually a little painful to mention two of what should be considered very significant problems which undermine the entire book.
Problem One: An Unbiblical View of God
The first problem is that Eldredge appeals to a wrong view of God as his foundation for masculinity. Part of the thesis of Eldredge’s book is that men have a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to fight for. The problem occurs when he tries to project these activities onto the life of God. In the words of the title for chapter two, God is “the wild one in whose image we are made.� Eldrege’s description of God and His “adventure� leave the reader with a confusing and unbiblical picture of God. For him, men are risk-takers and adventure-seekers at heart because God is a risk-taker and adventure-seeker. He claims,
“In an attempt to secure the sovereignty of God, theologians have overstated their case and left us with a chess-player God playing both sides of the board, making all his moves and all ours too. But clearly, this is not so. God is a person who takes immense risks. No doubt the biggest risk of all was when he gave angels and men free will, including the freedom to reject himâ€â€not just once but every single day . . . there is something much more risky here than we are often willing to admit.â€?
He goes on to say,
“[God] did not make Adam and Eve obey him. He took a risk. A staggering risk, with staggering consequences. He let others into his story, and he lets their choices shape it profoundly.�
“It’s not the nature of God to limit his risks and cover his bases.�
“God’s relationship with us and with our world is just that: a relationship. As with every relationship, there’s a certain amount of unpredictability, and the ever-present likelihood that you’ll get hurt . . . God’s willingness to risk is just astoundingâ€â€far beyond what any of us would do were we in his position.â€?
While one can appreciate Eldredge’s desire to root his understanding of men in the character and nature of God, these statements do not portray God in the same way that the Bible portrays Him which leaves Eldredge’s understanding of manhood fundamentally flawed. The Bible depicts God as knowing the beginning from the end. He is aware of our thoughts before we say them. He knew all about us before we were formed in secret in our mother’s womb. He removes kings and establishes kings. He holds the heart of the king in His hand. He is the potter and we are the clay.
In fact, the view of God that Eldredge proposes does not inspire my risk-taking, adventuresome inclinations, but quite frankly, demotivates me. I am willing to take risks, not because God takes them too but because I am confident that he knows no uncertainty. I engage in spite of my lack of knowledge, not because God shares my plight, but because he knows everything. I press on in spite of my powerlessness, not because God has limited himself, but because his power is unlimited. If God takes risks (which requires He is uncertain of the outcome) then I am left with a sense of hopelessness. If He doesn’t know then who does?
For those familiar with the current debate over what is sometimes called open theism, Eldredge explicitly states that he is not advocating this position. But this is even more problematic. If he is familiar with the debate, and he is not an open theist, then why would he use language that is so closely tied to that position?
Based on the language that Eldredge uses, there are several problems. First, the sovereignty of God is placed in subjection to man’s freedom. It is a man-centered model that develops a picture of God based on a particular understanding of human relationships. The best approach would be to begin with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. Second, if God is taking risks, there are no assurances that God’s purposes will actually be accomplished. If God is uncertain about how his creatures will repsond, then how can we really be guaranteed that He will be ultimately victorious over evil in the end. Third, if Eldredge is correct, there is a diminishment of the power of God since there is no certainty regarding the outcome of his “risky� decision to create. God’s power would seem to be limited to His creation’s willingness to cooperate. The biblical view of God’s omnipotence, His ability to bring about His will, shows that God is not subject to or dependant upon His creatures (Is. 14:24-27; Matt. 19:26; Eph. 1:11; Luke 1:37).
A biblical view of manhood should be connected to the roles and responsibilities assigned in Scripture. Why not just argue that while God has made men and women in His image, He has also given them particular roles and functions that correspond to their gender? This can be easily seen in the warp and woof of Scripture where men are consistently called upon to lead and protect. They are called upon to fight and defend. In the contexts of homes and the community of faith, they are given the responsibility of headship and oversight. In cases where men like Moses or Abraham faltered in their courage or faith, they hear from the God of the universe that He will bring about His plan. He is in control. This is where they place their confidence. This is the point from which they draw their strength.
Problem Two: An Unbiblical View of the Believer
The second problem is that Eldredge, in his effort to encourage men to follow their heart in these matters of masculinity, has given a false view of the condition of the heart of a believer. His line of thinking can be seen in what follows:
“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. Read the rest of the book. In Jeremiah 31:33, God announces the cure for all that.: ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ I will give you a new heart. That’s why Paul says in Romans 2:29, ‘No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit.’ Sin is not the deepest thing about you. You have a new heart. Did you hear me? Your heart is good.� (Italics his)
Later in the book, he takes this topic up again. He says,
“To put it bluntly, your flesh is a weasel, a poser, and a selfish pig. And your flesh is not you. (Italics his) Did you know that? Your flesh is not the real you. When Paul gives us his famous passage on what it’s like to struggle with sin (Rom. 7), he tells a story we are all too familiar with . . .
After quoting part of Romans 7 from The Message, he picks up the discussion once again.
“Okay, we’ve all been there many times. But what Paul concludes is just astounding: ‘I am not really the one doing it; the sin within me is doing it’ (Rom 7:20 NLT). Did you notice the distinction he makes? Paul says, ‘Hey, I know I struggle with sin. But I also know that my sin is not me (italics his)â€â€this is not my true heart.’ You are not your sin; sin is no longer the truest thing about the man who has come into union with Jesus. Your heart is good. ‘I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you . . .’(Ezek. 36:26). The Big Lie in the church today is that you are nothing more than ‘a sinner saved by grace.â€? You are a lot more than that. You are a new creation in Christ. The New Testament calls you a saint, a holy one, a son of God. In the core of your being you are a good man. Yes, there is a war within us, but it is a civil war. The battle is not between us and God; no, there is a traitor within who wars against the true heart fighting alongside the Spirit of God in us . .â€?
These descriptions of the life and heart of the believer drastically misconstrue or overstate the principles behind the doctrines of justification and sanctification. First, to say that the heart of the believer is “good� is not even biblical language. Eldredge makes a jump from the Bible’s use of terms like “saint� and “child of God� to the conclusion that the heart must, in its converted state, be good. The Bible never uses language like this to describe the heart of the believer. Eldrege has confused the biblical concept of newness with complete goodness.
Descriptions in the Bible such as the old passing away to make way for the new, being born again, being a new creature, and receiving a new heart are certainly helpful and instructive when trying to understand the life of the believer. There is definitely something new and the beginning of something good. But our confidence is not in the idea of goodness, but in God who started the good work. This is why Paul said to the Philipians, “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.� (Phil. 1:6) However, glaringly absent from scripture is the kind of goodness to which Eldredge seems to allude. The Bible describes the act of justification as a declaration of righteousness upon a heart that is not righteous. In fact, this is at the heart of the Christian message. The righteousness of the believer, is not his own, but is the righteousness of Christ. So contrary to Eldredge, here is The Big Truth in church today: We are merely sinners saved by grace!
Not only does Eldredge confuse the doctrine of justification, but he also misrepresents the doctrine of sanctification. Once we are justified by faith in Christ, the indwelling Holy Spirit begins to conform us into the image of the One through whom we were justified. Eldredge’s explanation that “my sin is not me� only adds to the confusion he began. If it is not you, then who is it? In fact, the Bible, when describing the battle regarding the flesh, typically uses the word “flesh� to describe the unified actions of the physical body along with the emotions, mind, and will. The problem here is not one of passivity (it is not the real me) but one of activity (it really is me), emphasizing our own complicity in the sin that we committed. Only now, through the Holy Spirit, I am able to overcome these sinful inclinations of my flesh. This is not about whether or not my heart is good but about whether or not I will yield to the Holy Spirit (made possible by the new life in Christ) in these various battles with the flesh.
The distortion of these crucial categories has produced an unbiblical and confusing approach to the Christian life. Men do not need to sense confusion over their identity in Christ and how their sin impacts their decisions and inclinations. The overtones of this book to follow your new and good heart only help to create the “false self� that Eldredge is so intent on destroying. What men need is a clear picture of who God is and the truth about their own sinful tendencies as they attempt to follow Him. What they need to know is that their regenerated heart still has an inclination to sin, but they can overcome their inclinations to sin by the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells them. They do not need to place confidence in their “good� heart but in the God of the Bible who is not taking risks, wringing his hands, or waiting to see how all of this turns out.
Eldredge has some good things to say to men today, but coupling these good things with an unbiblical view of God and the believer in Christ, deals a blow to the entire book from which it cannot recover.
Sam,
Thank you for the thorough response. I enjoyed reading the reviews and certainly I get your point about the deficiencies in the book. I know that the book is flawed, but I suppose as a believer, I understand that a great deal of Christian preaching and discipling is not coming from a position of completed, perfect people. Much like people who get saved watching televangelists, I think whatever Eldredge is speaking to is effective to a good measure, obviously not complete. My own experience was very different from yours. I read the entire book in 23 hours. I simply could not put it down. I didn’t look at the book for its theological inadequacies, I simply saw that I was seeking masculinity in the wrong places. It helped me diagnose some of the things that were missing from my relationship with my father. It also helped me understand and extract some of the things my father has said and how those things have emasculated me for a season of life.
Actually, through the book, I was able to form my own “band of brothers” and was able to really walk through some of these issues in a biblical way, praying through it and being able to dig deeper in a masculine Christian walk and protecting our relationships, our bodies and standing up for others. Two of my friends and I even went to the Wild At Heart Boot Camp that Eldredge holds in Colorado and really enjoyed it. And while I understand the book will never convey all of what Eldredge believes and stands up for, I can say that Eldredge was emphatic in exhorting us to “walk with God”, and that none of his material was original, that we can seek out the heart of the Father in the Word of God.
In any case, all that to say, I see where you’re coming from, but I do think God uses even incomplete books, people, art, etc. to draw us closer to him. Not everyone has the discipline to read the Institutes or delve through Piper, but I believe that books like these continue to humble me in that people come to faith and sometimes a wonderful walk with God in no small part to fallible books like these. I know it’s strange to say, but I like that. I like that God does that. I know it’s not great theology, but it reaffirms my belief that He is just and does not reward only the intellectual and academically discerning.
Thanks again for your thoughtful response. I guess I still have this question, “How does the book cause you to be the man that God wants you to be?” I had a number of guys in our church who were reading his previous book, Sacred Romance. They were so moved by the book, its emphasis on finding the emotional response to a relationship with God. Now I don’t think that that is wrong by any means. I believe that worship should be emotional since God created us to be that way.
I also think men must see that what frees a man to be the man he is is the Gospel of Christ which saves. There is nothing more emotional and more freeing to be a man than to know that ours sins have been placed on Christ and we are freed from them. This means that I am a man not because I have any machismo or need to prove something to the world by my physique or looks. I am not even a man because of my resume or reputation. I am not a man because I am more or less in touch with my feelings, to be Wild at Heart. I am a man because in Christ by His grace I am counted righteous and no one can take that away from me.
David, this might sound theological, but to me, the theology is never a mere academic abstraction. You said, “…it reaffirms my belief that He is just and does not reward only the intellectual and academically discerning.” I hope this is not all I have in my understanding of my faith is mere intellect and academics. I stand at the pulpit each Sunday and usually I give one story of a way in which I have failed morally, in my anger, in my impatience, in my hard-heartedness, in my pride. I usually share it very practically and personally. And I would have never been able to do that in the past because to do so what have been, well, humiliating and possibly emasculating.
But in the Gospel of Christ, because I do believe it is His power, I have never been more freed and empowered to be the man that the Lord wants me to be. In John Eldridge’s system, a man’s freedom short circuits the Gospel. Again listen to his own words here:
The big lie in the church is that we are NOTHING MORE THAN a sinner saved by grace? I don’t think he understands just how powerful it is to be a sinner saved by grace. It means that my terrible sins, and trust me, I have so many of them, are not counted against me. It means that BECAUSE of this wondrous truth, I am now free and yes, a new creation, an adopted son, empowered to be the son that I was supposed to be before I was a sinner saved by grace.
I have been teaching and exhorting (and hopefully living) these words to my church. I hope it isn’t just ‘theology,’ an academic pursuit for the sake of sounding intelligent. If that were it, then it would be mere foolishness and something that puffs up the mind alone. Instead, I hope that it is truly the power of God.
David, thanks so much for your words. They keep me humbled, thinking, and meditating on the Gospel. But I still think Wild at Heart is a red herring and keeps men distracted from the ultimate freedom, what it means to be saved by grace or as Paul himself writes (and not the big lie of the church) in Ephesians 2:8-9:
[...] I preached this sermon this past Sunday on God’s anger and His grace. As I have been responding to David Park on the book Wild at Heart (you can read our conversation HERE), it has stirred my heart again to think of my own sinfulness. But in thinking about sin, I am confounded by God’s amazing grace. And that is so precious to me, more than words can describe. So here is the message from Romans 1:16-25: [...]
Sam,
Man, I wish we could meet in person. I’d love to have a cup of coffee with you and talk about this stuff all day.
Thanks so much for even responding, I do appreciate this dialogue.
A short response to your question “How does the book cause me to be the man that God wants me to be?” - Well, I think the issues that I mentioned before about seeking out to reconcile my masculinity as a Godly property were key to the book. The properties of wanting adventure, of pursuing my bride and protecting her, of fighting the good fight, learning to persevere I think were put into a good context and narrative that I could relate to. Are there other books that could’ve done that? Probably. And I’ll readily admit that Wild At Heart was a gateway book for me to dig in deeper. But as I said, the presentation of that type of narrative and Eldredge’s ability to speak to real dysfunction, real wounds, and harmful sublimation of masculinity leading to indecisive, or reluctant, or self-destructive behavior was helpful in realizing that God’s plans for a masculine heart can be healthy and necessary for the body as a whole.
While I agree with your comment that makes me a man is not machismo, but rather that I am saved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe that what Eldredge is specifically noting that for the male in particular, there is a different wiring, a different chemistry, and a particular composition that differentiates us from females, even in terms of how we approach our understanding of how the Christian life is walked out. Whereas your definition is not specific to men, but to the human race, I believe that Eldredge is saying that the masculine heart will not be satisfied with potlucks or small group discussions, that something peculiar abou the male half of the race invented hockey, forged samurai swords, and required the development and continuing development of the helmet.
As for the passage that you refer to, in previous pages, while I see your problem with it, I think we’re reading it in different lights. Mind you, Eldredge is no family friend of mine, nor do I have a tattoo to bare “Wild At Heart” on my chest, but I think it is helpful to know that prior to this passage Eldredge points to the fact that the church beats men into submission about their sin and that forgiveness is the endpoint. But in light of that, by saying that “you are more”, he is not calling men to say you were a sinner, now made saint, but rather, now you are on the right side of the battle. From the beginning of the book, Wild at Heart was a call to arms, a call to action, because for the church to say this is an internal fight for you to control your nature, it is not enough. Eldredge’s point is that as men, we are to fight FOR others, to fight AGAINST the enemy, but that message rarely comes across in churches, and precisely the reason that many men do not know how to respond. I sin, I wrestle, I repent, I pray…
Eldredge is making the statement by connecting back to the body by saying you were saved by grace, but not just to be saved, but to fight the enemy, to fight for the souls of others, so that the previous statements become I wrestle for others, I repent so that I can come back for others, and I pray for others…
I consider this to be inspiring as a man. I understand that my wife may find this equally as inspiring, but I think in very simplistic terms (maybe that’s my level) that this makes sense. Me being saved is not enough. I want to find others and fight for them, let them know that there is truly a war of the worlds taking place.
In any case, I don’t write all this to convince you that Wild At Heart is brilliant by any means, just that with a slightly different tonation and an allowance of Eldredge’s rather romantic tone, it can be read well and understood as a very real and accessible challenge.
As for any insinuation that you are a big brain and not trying to live out theology, please disregard that as merely the inadequacy of words on a web page. I know that your heart has the best intentions and that God is working on all of us to refine our hearts and minds and words to glorify him. My statement was only made to convey that there is an audience that perhaps is not as intellectually gifted nor as well-read as you are, but perhaps for them, books like Wild at Heart impact their faith in significant and positive ways. So even though now, I myself view the book as flawed and passe, I’m always amazed that God will still use it. Sure I hope it’s not the last book people read, but I don’t mind if it’s the first.
Great conversation. Enjoying it~
I know you weren’t insinuating that at all. But I think there are many who think someone like John Piper is all about being “theological” and heady and I just do not think that that is true. So in many ways that was to answer those who think Wild at Heart is an answer to the ultra-intellectual, not that you were saying that per se.
David, if John Eldredge wrote what you wrote, I would have less of a problem with him. However, the problem is that you are taking the words that he wrote and make them more acceptable and faithful to the Bible, to a right understanding of salvation, grace, sin. The problem is that he says what he says and I know that you got much out of it because your grid keeps you in line with the Gospel. But to the common layperson who fails to see Eldridge in that light, they see John Eldredge’s, the open theistic tendencies, the writer who oddly enough downplays “saved by grace,� and they think he is right on.
As you said, you have friends who go to his boot camp. I find it highly unlikely that those who attend such camps would leave with much skepticism about anything he says, especially about his views on such critical issues as God’s character, salvation, sin, and atonement.
Again, as for the passage, here are the words again, and I fail to see how this can be read any other way than it is:
The BIG LIE (emphasis mine) in the church today is that you are nothing more than ‘a sinner saved by grace.� You are a lot more than that.
A lie is an untruth, breaking one of the commandments of the Bible. So the BIG lie in the church is that you are NOTHING more than a sinner saved by grace. I just wonder what church he has been attending. That statement is so broad-sweeping, so all-inclusive that it is hard to back pedal from that.
I also think what unnerved me so much is what I wrote about initially in the review. He quotes Proverbs, well actually misquotes it, and then he uses that MISQUOTE as the basis of his thesis. That is no small error. It’s one thing to misquote the Bible, but it’s another thing to use that misquote to argue your point.
Again listen to this part:
That disturbs me David and it means that if he did this to this text and got his premises through this text, then how can anyone depend on his wisdom when it flows from faulty uses of the Bible. Shouldn’t that at the very least cause one to stop and say, “Hey, something is amiss here.� At this point, Eldredge might as well be a secular writer speaking about manhood, then a Christian writer expositing and reflecting on the Bible faithfully. At least with the secular writer, I know what I’m getting.
Any way, all of this to say that this is why I put Eldredge’s book on that section. Whether you agree with my analysis or not, I hope you can see why it is there for me. Sure there are more terrible books (like the ones you listed), but for some reason Eldredge came to mind at the time.
Oh, and if you’re in the SF Bay Area, let me know and I’ll treat you to dinner! ï?Å
Boy, you guys (Sam and David) write a lot!!!! I have only read about half the stuff, but I am glad that you two are discussing this. I have much appreciation for the both of you as I easedrop into your conversation.
Sam, you’re amazing!! You might catch up to Spurgeon, Luther and others, at least in sheer volume!!! Good stuff. I guess I can shut down my website and just direct people to yours.
Thanks also for letting us share in your family/church tradegy with Brian. ‘Behind a frowning providence lies a hidden smile.”
Your old friend, Billy
I share Sam’s assessment on Eldredge and David’s assessment on Sam’s prolific writing output. At this rate Sam will blog the equivalent word count of Calvin’s commentaries.
Bad books that I have read? Dave Hunt’s _What Love Is This?_ and Brian McLaren’s _Another Kind of Christian_. For theological confusion I’d add Geisler’s _Chosen but Free_. Oops, this is Sam’s blog …
Tim, please post your book recommendations any time. McLaren’s book is a good choice.
Yes, TimK, please do post your book recommendations…I wanted to tag you but didn’t know where to send it! (So I will leave a message on Sam’s blog, hoping one day you’ll read it and post your Book Tags…)
I was just kidding about shutting down my website. I am inspired by you, my old SaltShaker and FKCNJ buddy. I will keep it going. I hope we can work together again in some capacity.
I’ll be back within a few days.
Wow, I didn’t know that anybody would be eavesdropping.
Sam, I agree with you again that Eldredge plays fast and loose. I guess that’s where I’m very Calvinist in my nature, in terms of the fact that God will use imperfect mediums to relay a perfect message. That is one of the wonders of God’s sovereignty and calling. I remember one pastor who once confessed that he got saved watching “Jesus Christ Superstar”. I don’t know how in the world that happened, but obviously it didn’t remain there and God continued to draw him. And here again, I think Eldredge’s audience is toward the very margins of church anyway, which would explain why the book is such a hit. I think it is for the home church pastor to rein this book in and establish “the grid” for it as you say. I’m not saying that I enjoyed the book for its adherence to the grid, I’m saying that it has an appeal for a reason and while it’s more milk than meat, hopefully you can see my point of view as well that it is a book that deserves to have been written and read, as opposed to never having been written at all.
As for the “BIG LIE” passage, I can see your problem with it, but I think that you have to take into account the greater context, the point that he is trying to point out that the fact that many churches STOP at the part, that we are sinners saved by grace, and that we are nothing more. Eldredge’s point is that churches do not continue to tell us that we have access to new life, a new heart, the title of friend, and son, etc. etc. So his point, and you still may have a problem with it, is that if you say that you are sinner saved by grace, but do not tell them that salvation puts them on the path being a new creation, a saint, a royal priesthood…then it is a lie, in that it is a partial truth and not a whole one, which is why his words, “nothing more” are important.
Now, the funny thing is, I don’t even care THIS much to keep the apology of Wild At Heart up. I mean, I believe it’s evident that the book has borne good fruit in my life and in the lives of at least half-a-dozen others. But I don’t consider this book foundational in my faith. I mean, I don’t consider the first girlfriend I had in 8th grade to be foundational in my current marriage either, but I’m sure it made a difference and it taught me something along the way. All that to say, I perhaps feel so willing to offer some sort of advocacy for the book, is that sure, the book might have buck teeth and braces, big glasses and nappy hair, but for one season in my life, she was beautiful and I really, really liked her.
By the way, thanks for the invite and should I be in the SF area, I will definitely drop you a line. Please do the same if you’re ever in Atlanta. It looks like Billy and I would be eager to greet you.
[...] You may want to read this comment-driven conversation before, just to get a larger framework for this post (Warning: Sam and I both very verbose!) [...]
David, someone in my church told me he had read our whole conversation. And he said that as we spoke, we were making our points without listening to one another’s points. So I thought I would try to answer AND listen to your points. Hehe. You know what? I don’t know if it’s possible. But here it goes any way:
I think the BIG LIE point for me, David, was just indicative of how JEld views Scripture. I know you’re saying look at the context. But the thing is he uses such strong words to make his point, a point that is what I believe terribly wrong (there, I used a strong word as well). I just feel as though for JEld, this is a very problematic pattern he has.
Sam,
Boy, you’d figure we could wrap this up somewhere, don’t you think?! (Just kidding).
I’m sure with thousands of words we’ve written back and forth, we’ve perhaps past each other a couple times on the points we were trying to make.
In regards to the now-infamous “BIG LIE” passage, I can see your problem. I really do. Really. I get it. No, really. I got it. However (huge breath), I think if you ever met John Eldredge and had coffee with him, I think you would be fine with him (you might even like him!) and could move on to the guy that wrote that “The Open-ness of God” CRAP.
Here’s the thing, I’m sure you can understand why I don’t find it easy to criticize Eldredge — This book has meant something to me, I’ve spent 4 days listening to him speak, I’ve read a few of his books, and I receive his newsletter, yada yada yada…in other words, I’ve gotten a glimpse of his heart. So I feel like I understand where he’s coming from. So perhaps that’s why it doesn’t bother me as much. I understand that he’s NOT a theologian, not writing for a peer-reviewed journal, and he doesn’t teach for a seminary. He used those words to a general male audience that is precariously sitting on the fence of what it means to be Christian, and really “get it”. Sure, its romanticized…sure, he creates tension, whatever. His point was to drive me to see that I should get off my duff and get into the game, why? Because maybe what the church is telling me isn’t compelling enough? OK, maybe it’s POSSIBLE that whatever churches (not your church, Sam!) are saying isn’t enough to reinvigorate men into manning their positions and wrestling with what Christ is asking of them.
Of course the language is supposed to be offensive! He’s calling the church out about not kicking men into gear. Isn’t that a real issue? I mean, aren’t most men more passionate about football than God? Aren’t men more fascinated with boobs than bibles? What do you expect him to say to spark this conversation? Churches are doing everything right but you still won’t listen!? You don’t have good doctrine!? You are a sinner saved by grace! Don’t you know how frickin’ awesome that is!?
Sarcasm aside, I think it’s a very natural assertion for John Eldredge to make here that maybe what you’ve heard in church, you’ve misinterpreted, not heard quite right, or something. I know he’s doing some theological hotwiring to get there, and there’s a lot of face-painting and encouraging to get “wild” and whatever… but I think Eldredge is a good writer who pulls it off quite well trying to bring back the reader to seeking God out. A writer, I must emphasize, a writer…
I dont know if Eldredge blogs at all, but I bet he would agree with your review actually, I’m sure he knows by now 5 years later, he’s got more than his share of “haters”, I guess the only problem is that he can’t take back the however many hundreds of thousands he’s already sold. So perhaps we’ll see if he beefs up for his next book or perhaps finds an editor that is going to tee him up on inflammatory statements like that BIG LIE he told.
The simple fact of the matter is I don’t find his book dangerous or harmful. If a fellow believer told me that he read it, I would ask him what he thought and suggest more books for him to read, then I would move on. Now if someone told me they read Elaine Pagels or something, I would really sit down and get to the bottom of the deal right there if I could.
Now Sam, if you want the last word on this, that’s fine by me…I think I don’t have much more gas in my John Eldredge tank!
I am thankful for this conversation. It does make me see that there is much to learn, to grow, and to be humble about even when assessing others and the things they write. I bet if I met JEld, there would be much I would consider good thinking. But I still do believe that his book leaves me still wanting. You said:
BUt that’s just it. For me theology is meaningless if if does not teach the church about the power and weight of the Gospel. But when it does do those things, then theology is exactly what the layperson needs to hear and understand. So maybe the issue for me is that I do not see a dichotomy between RIGHT theology and the application it has to life. Whereas your perspective from this quote and previous points of discussion is that JEld is not a theologian. I know he isn’t one, per se. But when he talks about salvation, he’s talking about the Bible. He is explaining and expositing Scripture. And so in a sense, he is a theologian. He just happens to be one that espouses something that leaves me thirsting for so much more.
I know your JEld tank is empty. So is mine. Phew!!!! David, thanks for your conversation. Boy, you definitely made me think and that is a very good thing. Thanks for your honesty and humility and earnestness in our discussion. I and I hope others are blessed by it.
Sam,
Thank YOU for the conversation. Ah, this is a true benefit of blogging and interactive web apps. This has definitely made me re-evaluate Eldredge and although I’ve seen good fruit in my life and I witnessed him and his staff model confession and brokenness, I do believe you make excellent points for his misuse of Scripture and questionable view of God. I see now more clearly where he ventures toward open theism and where his language is offensive to the church those of us who serve it. In terms of him not being a theologian, I think is significant in that the targeted audience are in most likelihood not theologians either. So, perhaps in my case, as in the case of many others, the dangerous language was nullified by a simple case of ignorance of what open theism means and entails. And that is perhaps where the blissful part of ignorance is. Here again, I believe that those who learn a great deal from the book do so in light of this, and I believe it is by the grace of God that every imperfect medium can still somehow shed light to his perfect message of salvation in Christ alone, not by our wildness or works that any wild man should boast…
I have recently published the authorized biography of Roger Nicole, entitled Speaking the Truth in Love: The Life and Legacy of Roger Nicole. It is available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or the publisher, Solid Ground Christian Books.