Wednesday, April 6, 2011

My Main Issue with "Wild at Heart"

As I mention in my 4/1/11 post, I read a book called Wild at Heart by John Eldredge. There is a link in the 4/1/11 post to the book on Amazon.

I mentioned that Wild at Heart has been used by men like Mark Driscoll to form a religion giving emense freedom to men while continueing to supress women in a puritianical strangle hold. And I speak of my frustration with such men.

But even knowing that John Eldredge is the author of a book that other men have abused for their own personal gain, I still can't hate Eldredge. As I read his book, I read what came from his heart. He wanted people to be free, men and women. And he understood at least one thing. If men aren't free, they sure as heck aren't going to allow their women to be free. Whatever degree of bondage men are under, they will most likely turn and place their women under worse bondage.

Even so, I disagree with the foundation of sand Eldredge laid for his doctrinal house. He made the claim that since man was made outside the garden, he was fundamentally wild and free. Women, however, were made INSIDE the garden and therefore were fundamentally domesticated.

This is pure speculation and amounts to nothing more than shifting sands and I'd like to address the error with actual scripture.

When God brought Eve to Adam, he wasn't amazed at their differences or in the different places they were created. What he said was, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called Woman Because this one has been taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23)

Adam gloried in their similarities, not their differences. He majored on how much alike and a part of him she was, not in the cute or annoying little things about her that made her different. He didn't jump up and down and start defining and building a box or role for her. God brought him a companion, one like him that he could be with.

The fall completely broke this so that when God confronted him, he turned on this one made like him and betrayed her in front of both God and her. It was as though he betrayed himself. And the drive to push her away and make her different, foreign and less continues to this day.

This is an Old Testament proof against Eldredge's premise. I also have a New Testament proof.

2 comments: said...

My problem with "Wild at Heart" is the title. My dad was wild at heart--a wildness that had him running from God and godliness. When I think of Dad, I think of a man who sang rebel-type songs (See me coming, step aside, alot of men didn't and alot of men died.) I gather from the title that Eldridge is trying to capture these self-centered men and help them spin themselves into calling themselves godly. My dad thought he was godly, and showed it by making sure us women were dressed "right." There is this song "I want my life to tell for Jesus" and I always thought dad's version was "I want my wife to tell for Jesus." We were in a church that required odd--looking clothes and hairstyle for women, but the men could blend in with society. If dad wanted to blend in, he refused to take Mom to town with him. Oh, and he could ogle cleavage and drool as well as the next man. Yup, he was wild at heart. (He died in 1992).

Mara Reid said...

Yeah, the definition for 'wild at heart' can be viewed so many different ways. And too many men have read this book and decided it meant they could follow their baser instincts. That is not what the author meant.

For me, the free and freedom in Biblical terms and circles has lost it's meaning. It's not a strong enough word. There is a freedom that God calls us to that is far and beyond the watered down and tasteless freedom offered by much of the church.

Hence I use the word wild. Yes, it can be a dangerous word when used the way your dad used it. But his form of wild had nothing to do with God and the Spirit.

To my regulars, I'm going to be gone for a few days. I have posts scheduled to come up Fri and Sat but will not be able to approve comments until Sat afternoon/evening.