|
Wild at Heart: Essential Reading
or 'Junk Food of the Soul'?
by Brynn Camery-Hoggatt and
Nealson Munn
It seems a discussion of masculinity can
scarcely commence at Gordon College without mention of John
Eldredge’s Wild at Heart, a book enthusiastically
endorsed by Christians nationwide. Many would agree with
writer Charles Swindoll, who calls Wild at Heart “the
best, most insightful book I have read in at least the last
five years.” Eldredge’s immense popularity, however, must not
be allowed to disguise the fact that his suggestions are often
incongruent with the teachings of Jesus. Although the author’s
premise is valid (men are bored with contemporary church life;
change must be made in an effort to address this problem), his
corollary ideas are both untrue and harmful. Thus, Wild at
Heart an essentially unhelpful contribution to the thought
life of both Gordon College and the church as a whole.
The thesis of Wild at Heart is two-fold. First, God has
placed within the heart of every man an overpowering desire
for three things—“a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and
a beauty to rescue.” Second, the church is not fulfilling
these desires because it fails to discern the true nature of
masculinity and defines the ideal Christian man as merely “a
Nice Guy.” As a result, men are alienated from church life and
dismissive of their wives’ religiosity. “The church wags its
head and wonders why it can’t get more men to sign up for its
programs,” observes Eldredge. “The answer is simply this: We
have not invited a man to know and live from his deep heart.”
The author presents his book as such an invitation.
We would be remiss to ignore the many young Christians whom
Wild at Heart has inspired to abandon an anemic faith in
favor of an adventurous relationship with Jesus. Eldredge
urges passion and courage instead of complacency—a message
that men in today’s church desperately need to hear. Numerous
readers testify that Eldredge has challenged them to “fan the
flame” of the natural masculinity God intended with the
creation of Adam.
But while Eldredge is right to decry the alienation of men
from contemporary church life, his solution to this problem is
flawed. Indeed, Wild at Heart is a book that the
integrated Christian ought to object to, for its vision of
Godly manhood and womanhood is a specious one at best.
Eldredge’s gender stereotypes present masculinity and
femininity in a way that is incomplete, culturally dictated,
and old-fashioned. He exalts clichéd Hollywood portrayals of
masculinity. He categorically insists that male Christians
should be pursuers while failing to mention that men are
themselves the object of Christ’s pursuit, that they too are
“the Bride of Christ.” Gordon College Junior Brian Heiss found
Wild at Heart difficult to read because of Eldredge’s
narrow characterization of men: “He writes that men should fit
a certain manly image and puts them in a box. He can’t say
‘man is this’ or ‘man should be this.’ All men are different.
All people are different. These emotionally charged
stereotypes don’t reflect the unique diversity of humankind.”
Additionally, Eldredge’s limited view of manhood ignores the
tender aspects of the male psyche modeled by every member of
the Trinity (e.g., Father: Isaiah 6:13, 42:13-14, 49:14-15;
Son: Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34; Holy Spirit: Genesis 1:2,
Deuteronomy 32:11).
Eldredge mistakenly claims that the feckless male ego was
God’s original design, and that “the core of a man’s heart is
undomesticated and that is good.” He writes, “The whole crisis
in masculinity today has come because we no longer live in a
warrior culture, a place for men to learn to fight like men.”
It is a wonder, then, that God didn’t choose musclebound
Goliath to rule Israel instead of the psalmist David.
According to Eldredge’s logic, Jesus himself would have
struggled with masculinity. He didn’t “fight like a man” when
the Roman soldiers were attacking him—instead, he tells us “if
someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also” (Matthew 5:38). Eldredge, meanwhile, suggests children
retaliate against bullies, because “you cannot teach a boy to
use his strength by stripping him of it.” Such instructions
flagrantly contradict Christ’s commands—e.g., “Love your
enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).
What, according to John Eldredge, does a fulfilled man of God
look like? Consider part one of the writer’s triumvirate of
masculine core desires: every man needs “a battle to fight.”
Furthermore, we are told, “Every man wants to play the hero.
Every man needs to know that he is powerful.” This latter
notion effectively divorces Eldredge’s thinking from the
Christian tradition and places him in the company of Friedrich
Nietzsche, who proclaimed, “A living thing seeks above all to
discharge its strength—life itself is Will to Power.”
(Jesus commanded—in place of power—such virtues as humility,
meekness, mercy, and peacemaking.) To understand Eldredge’s
defective prototype of masculinity, one need look no further
than the pop culture icons he mines for inspiration—e.g.,
singers such as George Thorogood (“I Drink Alone”), and a host
of blockbuster films, including Top Gun, Braveheart, Saving
Private Ryan, and Gladiator. After pointing out
that predominantly male audiences make these violent movies
successful, Eldredge trenchantly observes, “Like it or not,
there is something fierce in the heart of every man.”
Perhaps—but is it wise or correct to equate that something
with Russell Crowe’s unceremonious disembowelment of a
helpless adversary?
There are, of course, stories in which Jesus uses force to
prove a point. John 2:12-25, for instance, has Christ fashion
a whip in order to drive thieves and merchants from the temple
courts. However, it is critical to differentiate between
defending a cause and seeking retribution. And while scripture
does assure Christians that God grants a “spirit of power” and
not a “spirit of timidity,” we must be mindful that this comes
through the Holy Ghost rather than from the self. Spiritual
power is to be moderated by “love and of self-discipline” (2
Timothy 1:7). Hence, “wildness” is conspicuously absent from
Paul’s list of fruits of the Spirit, while self-control and
gentleness are included (Galatians 5:21-22). Eldredge has
minimized the cost of discipleship by inviting men to embrace
their instincts.
The second of Eldredge’s essential masculine needs, “an
adventure to live,” is perhaps the most useful of the three.
The author argues for a lifestyle characterized by
risk-taking: “I want to love with much more abandon and stop
waiting for others to love me first,” he writes. “I want to
hurl myself into a creative work worthy of God.” While
Eldredge goes awry in confining his exhortations to an
exclusively male audience (Cannot women be “wild at heart”
too? Or is their lot in life merely to be “wild at home”?), he
succeeds in issuing a genuinely inspiring call for a
rediscovery of adventure within the church. Unhappily,
however, the author’s credibility is once again marred by poor
role model selection. Although he gamely quotes Augustine,
Oswald Chambers, C.S. Lewis, and Dallas Willard (among
others), it is apparent that Eldredge is most enthused by
violent fictional characters such as Indiana Jones—“a
swashbuckling hero who can handle ancient history, beautiful
women, and a forty-five with ease.”
The final component of the author’s troika—every man desires
“a beauty to rescue”—is both false and degrading. True to his
own ideals, Eldredge writes with boldness: the first chapter
of Wild at Heart seeks to explain in just four
paragraphs the subtle mysteries of “The Feminine Heart.” Such
passages lend verisimilitude to Bertrand Russell’s assertion
that women have been the subject of more “intellectual
rubbish” than any other topic; it is here, also, that the
moral vision of Wild at Heart is most grievously
skewed. Eldredge’s characterization of true femininity appears
to be influenced more by Middle English heroic sagas than by
the teachings of the New Testament. Of womankind the author
proclaims, “Her childhood dreams of a knight in shining armor
coming to rescue her are not girlish fantasies; they are the
core of the feminine heart and the life she knows she was made
for.” Moreover, “Every woman…wants an adventure to share. A
woman doesn’t want to be the adventure; she wants to be caught
up into something greater than herself.”
Eldredge used similarly broad strokes to paint his image of
manhood (every man wants this; this is every man’s desire).
When applied to womanhood, however, such generalizations seem
patently fallacious. This may result from the fact that
Eldredge is not a woman and (presumably) never has been, or it
may be due to the disempowerment implied in the stereotypes
themselves. “A beauty to rescue”: Eldredge’s term for the kind
of woman every man supposedly desires. This woman’s only
qualifications, it seems, are her good looks and her
helplessness—athleticism, artistic ability, erudition, and
moral virtue are not taken into consideration. “I don’t think
that women feel they need to be rescued,” suggests Gordon
sophomore Laura Fyfe. “Maybe ‘rescued’ is just the wrong word.
The word ‘rescue’ has the connotation that the girl is
passive.”
In fact, this passivity could be exactly what Eldredge has in
mind when he declares “The world kills a woman’s heart when it
tells her to be tough, efficient, and independent.” The only
area of endeavor in which the model Wild at Heart woman
is granted proactivity, apparently, is sex; even Christ-like
Servanthood is deemed unfit for a lady. “I’m telling you that
the church has really crippled women when it tells them that
their beauty is vain and they are at their feminine best when
they are ‘serving others,’” writes Eldredge. “A woman is at
her best when she is being a woman.” Never mind that the
notions of beauty being vain and service being preeminent are
entirely scriptural (see Proverbs 31:30 and Mark 10:44-45,
respectively)—beyond this, the author’s conception of “being a
woman” is almost criminally unjust. Whereas the Wild at
Heart man is encouraged to pursue private adventures (his
erstwhile damsel-in-distress, now a conjugal prop, is only
along for the ride), a woman’s capabilities are evaluated
strictly according to their affect upon her mate. What can a
Christian female do? “She can arouse, inspire, energize…seduce
him,” suggests John Eldredge.
What paucity of imagination! —To define God’s vision for
male-female relationships so starkly and archetypically, in
roles as simplified as “rescuer” and “seducer.” Should not
Christian marriages be modeled on Christ’s marriage to the
church? And did Christ not empower his bride to do even
greater things than he? Eldredge’s prescription is so faulty
as to be immoral. In the Wild at Heart ethic, personal
fulfillment takes precedence over humility and self-sacrifice:
“Remember,” he advises, “don’t ask yourself what the world
needs…” Is this the same Gospel as that taught by Jesus
Christ? And have we, in our yearning for “a battle to fight,”
forgotten whom we fight for?
Scripture commands the disciple: “put to death, therefore,
whatever belongs to your earthly nature . . . as God’s chosen
people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with
compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience”
(Colossians 3:5, 9-12). While Eldredge implores men to return
to the barbarism of their wild human hearts, the Bible has
higher expectations. Yes, some men would rather be Nordic
invaders than familial role models. Yes, there is a spiritual
battle to fight. Yes, Jesus celebrates victory and invites
every man and woman to partake of it. However, in the
Christian view personal dignity and strength are not
innate—and certainly are not offered solely to men. They come
only in communion with Christ, through his holiness, and only
when his disciples deny and humble themselves in order to
follow him.
|
