Wild At Heart?

Here's something we wrote a while ago on Wild at Heart as well as Captivating by John Eldredge.

INTRODUCTION


On page 219 of John Eldredge’s book entitled Wild at Heart the author invites his readers to write the last chapter of his book, namely chapter 12. We are more than willing to oblige and would like to thank him for the great fun we’ve had in doing so…We slightly exceeded the word limit on this assignment!


You will be happy to know that Jenny finally got round to reading Wild at Heart during the Christmas break of 2009 (and Philip read ten chapters and skim read the last two). Jenny even managed to digest Captivating, which was a bridge too far for Phil…So, you see, we did grapple with Eldredge after all… 


Unsurprisingly, it has taken a further seven months to discuss, dissect, digest and research the topic in order to deliver our promised response! We acknowledge that there are many other people who have done this elsewhere (and much better).


In a nutshell, in Wild at Heart Eldredge asserts that he does not want to contribute to the plethora of books telling a man what “he ought to be”. However this is exactly what the book does…


1. SOME KIND WORDS ABOUT WILD AT HEART 


Whilst we must confess we did not particularly enjoy reading Wild at Heart, we felt chapter 7 on “healing the wound” stood out as being half decent. When Elredge states that Jesus is the answer to all our wounds, he gets an amen from us!


There are other aspects of the book which deserve positive attention:


Firstly, you have to feel for the guy. Throughout the book there are autobiographical details which make you realise that Eldredge must have suffered quite some pain in his life. He had an absent father (pp.71-72) and his marriage nearly broke down (p.73). In the healing process it would seem that he benefited greatly from his grandfather’s role as a surrogate Dad (p.20) and good male friends and role models (p.128). Eldredge clearly feels that he has learned some valuable lessons he wishes to share with the world (and particularly emasculated men).


Secondly, we think it would be foolish to argue with Eldredge when he suggests that all humans are on a quest for meaning and identity (p.89). As has been remarked by many a sociologist, postmodern people struggle to find meaning due to the absence of generally accepted meta-narratives. However, once again, we are not so sure that Eldredge’s essentialist-reductionist view of human nature gets us much further in this search for meaning and identity. Where on earth does he get his tripartite formula from? We don’t see the Bible highlighting quests for adventure, vulnerable beauties and battles as being quintessentially male priorities in life! The whole framework is dubious to say the least. Unfortunately, Eldredge does not take the time to expound this sufficiently for our liking. He seems to take it as a given – arguably on the basis of his own experiences, widespread macho stereotypes and his reading of contemporary culture (especially films) which time and again seem to usher in decisive moments of revelation for him (notably on p.126 when his answer- yet again- “came through several movies” and p.135 in relation to God speaking to him through Henry V’s historical example).


Thirdly, Eldredge is responding to what many regard as a “crisis of masculinity”. The old models of masculinity have been rejected but the new are yet to be defined. And in the meantime, many men have started to boycott the Church. Eldredge puts this down to absent or non-affirming fathers, the passive Church and emasculating forces within society (p.87). Personally we would not dispute that there is a crisis of masculinity if this is understood as the absence of agreed notions of masculine identity. However, generally speaking, we do not share Eldredge’s analysis of the problem, nor his solutions. At the end of the day men (just like women) need to become more like Jesus. That is how we all overcome our identity crises.


Fourthly, Eldredge appears to be rejecting stuffy, stale, moralistic (p.101) and cerebral approaches to Christianity. “Don’t give me a Bible study, let me come alive” (p.9), we hear him say! Again, we have some sympathy with his frustrations but do believe that we need to hear Jesus’ words (= theory) before we can put them into practice (= praxis). If either theory or praxis are missing, you end up with an impoverished version of Christianity.


Fifthly, Eldredge clearly has romantic longings understood as an idealised and sentimental view of reality. Along with Weber and others, he seems to be revolting against the “disenchantment of the world”. Science and modern technology have separated us from nature and from ourselves. Let us roam the hills and conquer the seas again…is what we discern as Eldredge encourages men to be wild at heart. This is not all bad. Living in twenty-first century London I (Philip) do enjoy a good day out in nature but I am not sure that this has much to do with my masculinity. Don’t all humans enjoy God’s creation?! And I (Jenny), following Eldredge’s construct, would be left feeling less feminine due to my urges to climb mountains, jump into rivers and sleep under the stars.




2. GENERAL POINTS


2.1 BECOMING LIKE JESUS


The central problem with Eldredge’s book is that it does not focus sufficiently on the person of Jesus. To our way of thinking God created all human beings in his image. Male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27 & 5:2). This image was marred but has been restored through the person and ministry of Jesus Christ. Now Christians, both men and women, are called to conform to the image of the Son of God (Rom. 8:29). That is where we find true masculinity and true femininity. In the face of Jesus! He is the perfect human. If we try to live up to any other identity or image, we will not just fail but fail abysmally. All fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) but lets keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2).


To put it crudely, if you have a willy, you’re male. If you’ve got a vagina, you’re female. Do you need to prove your masculinity or your femininity? No. You are what you are. That is wonderfully liberating to our way of thinking. We don’t have to prove anything to anyone.


True, many are called but few live up to their calling (Mt. 20:16), as Jesus says according to one translation. But that is a universal challenge. Both men and women need to be all that they can possibly be in Jesus. Whether you’re a plumber, florist, mother or father, do all to the glory of God! That’s the constant challenge independent of the gender debate.
By suggesting that Christian men need to have an adventure, conquer a beauty and fight multifarious battles Eldredge is creating a phantom which is matched by a female phantom in Captivating. Why should we chase shadows when we have the real thing in the person of Jesus Christ?!


On page 24 Eldrege asks is Jesus more like Mother Teresa or William Wallace? Leaving aside his understanding of Mother Teresa’s life as being deficient in adventure and risk (maybe he can’t see it because there is no man involved, since she is not caught up in a man’s adventure she can’t be in one), the question surely is who is more like Jesus. Anyway we know what Eldredge thinks since page 22 tells us he’d rather be like William Wallace!


2.2 ELDREDGE’S USE OF SCRIPTURE


To be fair, Eldredge does quote numerous Bible passages in his book. However, we have serious reservations in this respect, both in relation to his interpretative framework (i.e. men’s tripartite priority in life) as well as to his exegesis of specific passages. Taking some of the passages in turn, here is a list of some of our concerns:


(1) Without further explanation, Eldredge assumes that our divine image bearing qualities cannot be related to our physicality but must be linked to the properties of the human soul (p.8). (Surely the fact that Jesus, the Son of God, Christ himself, took on human flesh and became one of us, should be enough to put paid to this argument!) Again without any detailed information, Eldredge then forges a link between the human soul, on the one hand, and “the male heart” as well as “the female heart”, on the other. We are not entirely sure I follow his reasoning. Why do we need to subdivide the soul into two halves? Presumably because men and women were both made in the image of God…But what if the human-divine soul-image is indivisible? How can we distinguish the male embodiment of the soul from the female personification of the human soul? These questions remain unanswered. In many works today, not just in those published by the Eldreges, there is the often stated assertion that the phrase “in the image of God he created them, male and female, he created them” implies a division of God’s image into two halves. We personally do not think that either Genesis or the rest of the Bible explains this verse in this way and that this is an interpretation that has been read into the text, becoming true by its repetition. The simplest way of reading this is that both men and women bear the image of God both jointly and individually, the emphasis being that neither sex bears God’s total image.


(2) Much of the Eldredges’ theology of women hinges on the assertion that Eve is the pinnacle of creation. They do not substantiate this with biblical evidence and given that it is not a widely held understanding they really need to. Eve as the pinnacle of creation is, in our opinion, as divisive as suggesting man’s higher authority based on his being created first. It is simply not how Genesis or the rest of Scripture interpret the story. Is this possibly driven by the princess myth (see our comments under “sexism”)?


(3) Eldregdge quotes the book of Nehemia (p.15) as proof of the fact that Nehemiah was a romantic at heart who was motivated to fight for his wife. Really? The passage quite clearly refers to entire family units. If anything, you could say that Nehemia was protective of his people and next-of-kin. We don’t agree that there is a love story to be unearthed at this point.


(4) We are not sure how anyone could link Psalm 62:11-12 to gender specific qualities within the Godhead (p.38) but Eldredge manages this somehow! Is it fair to relate God’s power (v.11) to men and his lovingkindness (v.12) to women? Women like Jael can be formidable and men such as Boaz are kind. We think this is another harmful over-simplification on Eldredge’s part and a complete fabrication when it comes to the passage concerned.


(5) Was Adam alone called to have dominion over the earth as Eldredge suggests (p.48)? No! God explicitly gave Adam and Eve the charge to fill the earth and to subdue it (Gen. 1:28). This is just one verse after that all-important clarification that God created both men and women in the image of God (v.27). The first few chapters of Genesis are notoriously difficult to interpret because of the ambiguity of Adam’s name. It is both a personal name and a descriptor of humanity. When exactly the shift in meaning occurs in the biblical text is a matter of keen debate amongst scholars. In any event, few will agree with Eldredge that Adam alone was given dominion over the earth…


(6) Thankfully Eldredge is humble enough to admit that Eden was possibly a “wilderness” (“so far as we know”) (p.49). Much of the book seems to be based on the idea that Adam was created in the rugged wastelands of Eden whereas Eve was made in the tranquil garden to the East of Eden (Gen. 2:8). This apparently explains why men are wild and women are fair and gentle. Again, this argument is not made out. There are many scholars who suggest that the word “Eden” could signify a fertile area of land, in which case one of Eldredge’s main pillars collapses.


(7) It is almost disgraceful to suggest that Jacob has to intervene in order to set the record straight when Benjamin’s mother calls him “son of my sorrow” before she dies at his birth (p.63). According to Eldredge’s reconstruction, father Jacob comes along and renames the boy to heal the wound his mother has inflicted upon him. In contrast we would like to argue that aspersions à la Eldredge are unlikely to have entered Jacob’s mind at the time. We would submit that grief-struck Jacob had pity on his son and gave him a more positive name without necessarily asserting his authority over his former wife.


(8) Possibly the worst use of Scripture occurs when Eldredge refers to Jesus’ injunction to turn the other cheek (p.79). He claims this passage has been overused and then proceeds to demonstrate that Jesus actually meant the opposite of what he said. Supposedly acting in accordance with our Saviour’s instructions, Eldredge then relates how he has brought his sons up to hit back. What a dreadful piece of interpretation! As far as we are concerned, Jesus said what he meant. Whatever subtleties are intended in Christ’s words, they surely do not provide us with a mandate to use physical force against our enemies!


(9) Matthew 11:12 (p.177) is another contentious passage. Some say it positively legitimates the use of spiritual force. Others (such as Greg Boyd) would argue that it is simply a recognition that the Kingdom of God suffers violence inasmuch as violent men oppose the Church and make Christians (like John the Baptist who is referred to in the immediate context) suffer. Eldredge certainly cannot simply take this to justify masculine aggression in the Church.


(10) “The oaks of righteousness” in Isaiah 61 are almost certainly a general reference to righteous individuals. Nothing in this crucial Messianic passage (cf. Luke 4) would suggest that the oaks somehow symbolize “man’s strength” (p.187). Yet referring to these oaks of righteousness Eldredge takes the liberty of saying that “[there], under the shadow of a man’s strength, a woman finds rest”. This seems utterly absurd. What gives him the right to use gendered language in this instance? Surely a woman should find her rest in the righteousness of God (evidenced in the lives of both men and women).


(11) It is generally acknowledged that Matthew’s reference to four women in Christ’s genealogy must have been rather shocking to its erstwhile readers. Women were second class citizens and to make matters worse, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (Uriah’s wife) had dubious credentials. Yet they are included in the lineage of the King! However, missing the point entirely, Eldredge brazenly writes the following: “That Bathsheba goes unnamed tells you of God’s disappointment with her, and of his delight in [the three other women] whom he takes a notable exception to name in an otherwise all-male cast” (p.190). How ridiculous! If anything, the allusion to Uriah draws attention to his murder and heightens the scandal, we would say.


All in all, Eldredge’s use of Scripture is often quite suspect and his interpretations are frequently way off target. For somebody who clearly does not attach great significance to rigorous biblical analysis (as he makes plain repeatedly in the book), one might have hoped for greater humility when he formulates some of his far-reaching conclusions.


2.3 SEXISMS


As we have discussed above in our section on the Eldreges’ use of Scripture we are unconvinced by their premise that Eve was the pinnacle of creation. Worse still, this theology doesn’t seem to be borne out by the way that they actually see and describe women!


There are two types of sexism: (1) “aggressive sexism” which manifests itself in violence and abuse and (2) what is known as “benevolent sexism” which is subtler and which judges and constrains both men and women by instituting practices that defer to women’s perceived frailty and man’s strength. While the Eldreges (yes we do mean that in the plural) are possibly not aggressively sexist, they display an enormous amount of benevolent sexism.


Chapter ten of Wild at Heart, and much of Captivating, lean on the princess myth. Page 180 of wild at heart states this: “Eventually the sorcerer is defeated; the dragon falls, the giant is slain. The maiden is his” Um his? Excuse us she doesn’t even know his name yet and she certainly doesn’t seem to have been involved or consulted in any way…


Why are we referring to both of them as sexist? Well, because from all we can see they hold the same views. It is our understanding that a large proportion of women have internalized their oppressor (see Paulo Fiere in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed). They are as sexist and self loathing as men are sexist and self adoring. Neither state is healthy and both are damaging. Just as we all need to recognize racism and classism within us- whether latent or blatant- so we all need to recognize sexism within us.


The princess myth takes away the autonomy, initiative, individuality, heroism, and possible achievements of women, qualities we see so evidently displayed by biblical characters such as Abigale, Esther, Deborah, Jael, both women in Proverbs 31, the woman at the well, the women who sponsored Jesus’ ministry and Junia etc.


But the Eldreges’ books also border on aggressive sexism. Though they assert that both men and women need to look to God for affirmation, they also imply that on an earthly level both boys and girls need to hear this affirmation from their father. The mother’s role for both is seen to be purely nurturing and they imply that mothers often block the transition into adulthood for both genders. This is not a very high view of womanhood or motherhood. While men are allowed to define what women should be, women may not define men (pages 47, 63, 64).


They also suggest that church, schools, and much of society seem to have become matriarchal. They see any kind of social structure to be held in the controlling grip of ever- present, power hungry women. America is a far cry from being a matriarchy. In fact, we would bet that the majority of positions of authority in the church are still occupied by men. Anything that the Eldreges see as negative in the world around them, they seem to attribute to the stifling influence of women by not letting men go on an adventure.


For me (Jenny) one of the most disturbing bits in Captivating is where Stasi describes her own rape. I do not have the text before me or I would quote it but I seem to remember her saying “yes I know what your thinking…how stupid” (to be doing whatever it was she was doing- I think walking back to her hotel room – which she had every right to do)… This is categorically not what I was thinking, nor would I ever think such a thing if someone told me they had been raped. It is not the woman’s fault. Let us be very clear that the person responsible for a crime is the person who commits it. It’s like those adverts with the screaming woman that say “no, no please stop, please stop taking unlicensed mini-cabs”- to which I want to reply, please stop blaming the victim and please stop raping people.


There is also the issue of the treatment of Bathsheba who apparently was not directly named in Mathew’s genealogy because God was dissatisfied with her (190). Let us remind ourselves that Bathsheba was raped by the king of the land and then widowed by him. You may read the story differently but really how free was Bathsheba to consent? If the king says come, you obey don’t you?


This brings us on to their portrayal of women as vulnerable even to point of depicting this as a good thing. They even suggest that it is reflective of God’s own vulnerability. God is not vulnerable, well not in the way the Eldreges portray vulnerability…Christ made himself nothing, but that is a very different thing to people being in an unchosen and uncontrollable situation of perpetual danger. Vulnerability as portrayed by the Eldreges (the need for protection and defence by a man) cannot be God’s good and original plan for humanity. To have one group of people (and adults at that) constantly living in the potential to be hurt, is that God’s perfect plan? Would it not be better to have a society where there are no people who rape than every woman having a man beside her 24/7 to protect her?


Lastly there are many unsaid things in the books that imply much but without any certainty. In Captivating it is asserted that Stasi has long since left her involvement with the women’s movement. Why? There is no explanation as to how or in what way her views have changed, whether they see the women’s movement as incompatible with their now Christian values and if so in what way. These underlying assumptions would illuminate a lot and make what they are saying a lot clearer. It is a shame they are not more direct.


Anyway I (Jenny) can console myself with the fact that I am safe from this rescue attempt since they are only looking for “golden haired women” (pages 91, 150). Is this latent racism?


While I’m on it, I also think the book is classist. You need a lot of time, resources and money to assert your masculinity in accordance with Eldrege’s recipe.


2.4 THE ROLE OF WOMEN


Another area that the Eldreges are not explicit on is their views on authority and headship. We can gather hints in that they refer to the debate and state that they aren’t going to go into it because it is not the place for it. Suffice it to say, they think design should precede and dictate function. In addition, in Captivating they discus a conference for women they where running which John was unable to attend and so some other man went with Stasi – which somehow made it okay because the other man was able to provide spiritual protection?! It would seem that they take a hirarchical-complementarian view of the role of women. It would help to understand the context of the rest of their arguments if they made this explicit.


2.5 SINGLENESS?


Where does Eldredge’s thesis leave single people? If you’re a single male, you’ve failed in one of your life’s missions, namely to conquer a beauty. Are single men truly masculine? We would say “yes, without question”. From what we’ve read, Eldredge would probably argue that that man’s singleness is due to an open, emotional wound which has stunted his masculinity and driven a wedge between him and members of the opposite sex.


If you are a single female you will probably be okay because your father could act as protector/ rescuer (tone: sarcasm).


2.6 HIS UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY


Now neither of us are historians but we would like to question Eldrege’s assertion that slavery, Apartheid and the Nazi regime where stopped “by the strength of men” (p.83). We can’t say much about Apartheid in South Africa but think Rosa Parks is argument enough for the equal rights’ movement in America not being an entirely male affair. The partnership of women in defeating the Nazis needs to be acknowledged. 11% of the French resistance where women and Wikipedia offers a good explanation of why this figure is not higher. But what is totally unfounded – certainly from a British perspective is their take on slavery. Women, particularly Quaker women, were pivotal in initiating and then continuing the struggle against slavery. Indeed, this struggle bore the seeds of the subsequent struggle for the emancipation of women (see Elaine Storkey’s What’s Right with Feminism?).


2.7 HIS UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE


Eldredge argues that Eve is the pinnacle of creation. She is truly majestic. Just as a horse is more magnificent than a grasshopper, Eve towers above the rest of creation. In response Jenny would just like to ask in what way a horse (whose digestive system seems substantially wanting) is more magnificent than a salmon which not only accomplishes the feat of swimming up-river, but manages to exist in salt water and fresh water and is able to maintain its osmotic balance? In addition, as an amateur entomologist I take exception to his views on grasshoppers, which where created on the same day as horses. If you follow the theology of those-who-come-later-are-more-impressive, then it doesn’t hold that horses are more magnificent than grasshoppers as both where created on day six.




3. A BETTER FAIRY TALE


Once upon a time there was a man and a woman. They met, discovered they had much in common became great friends, decided to love each other, became greater than the sum of their parts, loved God much, loved people much, continued on the great adventure they had both been on before they met- the adventure to discover more fully the nature and character of God- eventually reclined into His peaceful arms, saw his face, heard the “well done” and lived happily ever after. With no end.