As I have been preparing for an upcoming Men’s Conference called, “Godly Manhood: Reclaiming Masculinity”, I ran into some really insightful (deeply troubling) analysis of John Eldridge’s book, “Wild at Heart.”
The following excerpt is taken from the excellent book, “The Masculine Mandate” by Richard D. Phillips.
At this point, I have the unpleasant duty of correcting some erroneous teaching that has gained prominence in recent years. Since its publication in 2001, the top Christian book on manhood has been John Eldridge’s Wild at Heart. This book has become practically a cottage industry, complete with supporting videos, workbooks, and even a “Field Manual.” In my opinion, Wild at Heart gained traction with Christian men in large part because it calls us to stop being sissies, to cease trying to get in touch with our “feminine side” (mine is named Sharon), and instead to embark on an exciting quest to discover our male identity. I can add my hearty “Amen!” to the idea that Christian men should reject a feminized idea of manhood. The problem is that the basic approach to masculinity presented in Wild at Heart is almost precisely opposite from what is really taught in the Bible. For this reason, this book has, in my opinion, sown much confusion among men seeking a truly biblical sense of masculinity.
We encounter major errors in Wild at Heart right at the beginning, where Eldridge discusses Genesis 2:8: “Eve was created within the lush beauty of Eden’s garden. But Adam, if you’ll remember, was created outside the garden, in the wilderness.” Eldridge reasons here that if God “put the man” into the garden, he must have been made outside the garden. While the Bible does not say this, it’s plausible. But even assuming it’s true, what are we to make of it? Eldridge makes an unnecessary and most unhelpful leap of logic, concluding that “the core of a man’s heart is undomesticated,” and because we are “wild at heart”, our souls must belong in the wilderness and not in the cultivated garden. That is, Eldridge assumes and then teaches as a point of doctrine a view of manhood that Scripture simply does not support.
It’s easy to understand how this teaching has appealed to men who labor in office buildings or feel imprisoned by the obligations of marriage, parenthood, and civilized society. But there is one thing Eldridge does not notice. God put the man in the garden. The point of Wild at Heart is that a man finds his identity outside the garden in wilderness quests. In contrast, the point of Genesis 2:8 is that God has put the man into the garden, into the world of covenantal relationships and duties, in order to gain and act out his God-given identity there. If God intends men to be wild at heart, how strange that he placed man in a garden, where his life would be shaped not by self-centered identity quests but by covenantal bonds and blessings.
Here are a few links that go into greater detail regarding the biblical problems with Wild at Heart:
To read a much more biblically accurate book on what it means to be a man of God I would recommend “The Masculine Mandate” by Richard D. Phillips.
MichaelWallenmeyer.com 