While this had many great aspects, it's overall impact is negative and damaging. I stand against a book that many like, so I will provide far more detail than I do in most reviews. I often take notes when reading a book and did so here. I'm using those to provide details as to why I COULD have loved this book, but ended up recoiling from it. YOU can then decide whether my basis has validity for you.

I read Christian books and atheist books alike. It's all good. What bothers me (which he does) is:
1. Treating Bible precepts as if they are consistent, clear and are the only valid set of Biblical interpretations. In reality, even among Christian scholars, there are WIDELY varied interpretations.
2. Treating precepts as a weapon in support of bigotry. Some categorize precepts as "applying" or "no longer applying" without consistent criteria. Their select set is used to vilify people who are NOT in their cultural group, never bothering to understand the reasoning others have.

This author, as an example, speaks very kindly and complimentary about women, loving them, etc. Yet, demonstrates surprisingly strong male bias, even going so far as to define aspects of women IN TERMS of aspects of men. EXAMPLE: He said of Men: Their heart is missing… of Women: no access to a man’s heart. (So... women need men more than men need women? If not, we need an explanation!) In the end, because of the cultural impact this attitude tends to have, THIS IS CLEAR misogyny, EVEN though unintended. (I honestly believe Eldredge means well, but does grave harm.)

Many would defend the author against misogyny because they think of misogyny as obvious and overt hate, while Eldredge is overtly gentle and loving toward women. But misogyny (and all forms of bigotry) can be covert, even hidden to the offender. This author's narrow expectations of women contribute to cultural restrictions for women NOT to be adventurous, exploratory, or thrill seeking, etc. This discourages the exact SAME freedoms in women that the author (correctly) pines as having been discouraged in men! It hurts women, and thus is misogyny, EVEN THOUGH UNINTENDED. This powers the stereotype that women are dependent on men. THEY ARE NOT! He also said of exploring: "My gender wants this naturally"... well, true! ...and so do women. THAT is how this author's bigotry and offense against women is often revealed (but sometimes more overtly - see below about Bathsheba).

LET ME BE CLEAR: Men have NO monopoly on a desire for exploring, adventure, thrill seeking and danger. There are so many examples, but I'll pick a childhood hero of mine: Shirley Muldowney beat Don Garlits (another childhood hero) in the 1975 Top Fuel NHRA US Nationals in her dragster. She won the 1982 Top Fuel U.S. Nationals title. This was more danger seeking and exploring than most "real men" will ever have. She also had to overcome prejudicial attitudes like the author's JUST TO BE ALLOWED to race. In 1984, she had a fiery crashed AT 250 MPH, AND once healed, she CONTINUED RACING! NOW SHE was a real DANGEROUS PERSON. She was a ROCKET and DOMINATED in the face of more adversity than most of us will ever face (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEccf...).

I WANTED to like this author because I value his shattering the expectations that Christians must eliminate all danger, and tow-the-line, etc. The author rightly embraces some danger, adventure, and what I'd call HUMAN desire for those things. But the author caused me to recoil, as he LIMITED those traits to men. He overturned all in his message that I loved by disassociating women from these freedoms, freedoms that belong to ALL humans.

The author refers to computer screens, company financials and other activities (many might call highly cerebral activities) as the opposite of thrilling and adventuresome. What a NARROW VIEW. Outdoor activities are important, but DAMN, he misses a LOT. Many men and women LIVE for that kind of adventure. EXAMPLE: A computer scientist designs and writes the perfect algorithm for a performance problem, then she watches it eliminate what had been a thorn in the company's flesh... accomplishing in minutes what used to take many hours. What a feeling of power and knowledge! This author absolutely misses that adventure and anything but traditional macho type activities (tractors, farming, hunting, motorcycles, etc). His loved activities are all legitimate interests (love my motorcycles) but not matching those of all men. What a loss of the broad areas that provide life-enhancing adventure to many men (and women!).

The parts I liked are the embracing of fierce pursuit of goals and embracing being adventuresome, avoiding stereotypical meekness. That's FANTASTIC, and I TOTALLY SUPPORT breaking out of the mold that some stodgy people try to force on all. SADLY, he ONLY applies these freedoms (danger seeking adventure, etc.), to men, as if women are born to a supporting role. Yeah, like straight from the 1800's. He must have missed Harriet Tubman, Emilia Earhart, and so many more fierce women that embraced danger FAR MORE than anything in most men's lives. REMEMBER, BOTH of those women WILLINGLY did these amazing and image shattering heroics. When women do brave things, they must have bravery for the act, AND to overcome prejudices like those taught by this author.

There are SO many statements that are limiting for classes of anything other than Christian, straight, males, that I'll skip most of them. But I'm driven to mention this unchristlike statement. He said “The sluggard who quits his job and makes his wife go to work... , is worse than an unbeliever.” FIRST: this is a huge cut to an unbeliever because he's using an unbeliever as the standard for how bad you can be (i.e. the sluggard is so bad he's worse than this low level). SECOND: He seems to have a narrow view of unbelievers. There are MANY paths to being an unbeliever, some are admirable. Not believing out of anger is a horrible reason. Simply admitting how things currently seem to you, even in the face of high cultural penalties, is admirable.

John Eldredge clearly devalues me (or is not sufficiently careful with his words - I can't tell which is true). Either way, this hostile attitude is a NEEDLESS division between Christians and non-Christians. Sadly, many Christians may not even notice it, but it SCREAMED at me. It revealed how little John Eldredge values me and anyone else who lacks his specific set of beliefs.

If I'm to think from a Christian perspective, I have grave concerns about Eldredge's devil blaming. I'm not saying devil doesn't tempt and trip you up. I'm saying that focusing on that is a convenient excuse for bad behavior. He'd do better to assume that humans can and must control themselves (asking God for help... fine) and if the devil adds temptation, you just have more to resist. That's part of life, so deal with it WITHOUT blaming the devil. When your wife feels insulted, it's far better to assume that YOU DID imply something (even when unintended) than to refer to the devil as causing her to receive a bad message. Blaming the devil is... well... maybe a tactic from the devil? Humans are good at doing things without even knowing it. I do that crap all on my own, whether the devil is there or not. When I hurt my wife, it's ME and I WILL NOT blame the devil for it (even if the devil contributed).

Here's what appears to be surprisingly misogynistic too... Eldredge referred to a passage (Matthew 1:1-17 I believe) that references Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah. I was aghast reading Eldredge's words “that Bathsheba goes unnamed tells you of God’s disappointment with her.” WHOA! It seems FAR MORE LIKELY that God was disappointed in DAVID, yeah, remember? ...The one who raped Bathsheba and murdered her husband! (I hope Eldredge is not pretending that Bathsheba had a choice.) Many (including me) believe the Bible was honoring Uriah, and highlighting DAVID'S sin (NOT devaluing Bathsheba at all). Until Eldredge clarifies further, his words seem to flagrantly blame the victim (even in the face of David's murder and rape). This is misogyny.

In the end, John Eldredge has some fantastic points, then poisons them with a narrow and super-traditional perspective on rigid gender lines. He emotionally lifts up women, and "glorifies" them in a sense, while stripping away her right to be just as humanly adventuresome, dangerous, and exploratory. Even for men, the author disparages many activities that are exciting to others and seems to hold his beloved concepts as the ideal for all men.

Didn't like it. Not that good. I know some people have found this book helpful. (And if that's the case, I'm not here to condemn that. Things meet us in different ways in different seasons.)

There may be a crisis of masculinity but I doubt this is the solution. I was troubled by the valorization of male aggression and the fact that many of his male heroes were warring conquerors. In his view, masculinity is primarily characterized by initiating, taking, and conquering. Of course, this is to be tempered by other virtues, but it's the most common trait of a man. Also, his section on "the beauty to be rescued" was unrealistic and unhelpful. (I wonder what "beauty" Saint Paul had to rescue. Was his masculinity lacking?) Women are idealized as damsels to be rescued and whose primary influence on men is through various forms of "encouragement" (read manipulation). This book touched minimally on what it means to be a woman, but what was said was minorly helpful to woefully problematic. Also, his description of sex was phallocentric.

There were a couple things he advocated for that were good - counseling, intentionality, responsibility, priority of family. But as someone who is a fairly secure man, this book connected almost nil with me. (Which is strange for all the times he said his descriptions were universally true for all men.) Anyways, I'd like to find better books on masculinity.

Not recommended! Just wishing there was a zero star option!

John Eldredge believes that men are Wild at Heart. “Deep in his heart, every man longs for a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue.”

Men find themselves in a world that tries to domesticate their longing for adventure. “For after years of living in a cage, a lion no longer even believes it is a lion . . . and a man no longer believes he is a man.”

It’s not just the world that tries to beat the wildness out of men, all men struggle with a wound from their fathers that they must overcome, Eldredge insists. He says,“Every man carries a wound. I have never met a man without one. No matter how good your life may have seemed to you, you live in a broken world full of broken people.”

I appreciate Eldredge’s invitation to risk, to create a mission, a purpose bigger than himself. I resonate with Eldredge’s challenge to risk opening your heart to what God has made you for. He encourages, “don’t ask yourself what the world needs, ask yourself what makes you come alive, because what the world needs are men who have come alive.” I appreciate how this is tied into God’s purpose for us, from the very beginning, to have dominion. We are those who are made for adventure and are written into God’s adventure.

Eldredge reiterates, “The most dangerous man on earth is the man who has reckoned with his own death. All men die; few men ever really live.”

On the other hand, Eldredge often pushes past mere complementarianism into patriarchy. He tends to overstate the differences between men and women and understate the differences between men. I was surprised that Eldredge doesn’t even attempt to back his claims with psychological research and his biblical support is little more than proof-texting. I don’t think Eldredge is wrong that there are differences between men and women, I just think he exaggerates those differences.

I’m sure there are plenty of men who resonate with most of what Eldredge says. I wasn’t one of them. And, while I think Eldredge would be more helpful to that type of man’s man, I also would want to caution a man cut from that cloth to drink too much from this fountain. For instance, Eldredge paints Jesus as the ultimate man’s man, and bashes those who feminize Jesus. Jesus is a man of great strength and purpose, to be sure. And yet, is his strength most often found in his meekness and humility? In his gentleness and compassion? That’s the kind of man I aspire to be.


For more reviews see www.thebeehive.live.

I read this book because the guy I was dating at the time was reading it and loving it. I wanted to be able source the book as I refuted what he was saying about men and women (as his points and the book's points were INSANE and sexist). I have never felt so marginalized as a woman as when I read this book.

Serious Review:

This book started off badass. It told me to just chop wood and fight Saracins and do all that stuff and made some great points that I appreciated. Men who try to be dangerous get put down, told to stop, and are trained to become little estrogen boys that just suck air and eat Cheetos. It says to fight for beauty and truth and to use all that passion to go on the adventure and take a risk, touch some grass.
Later in the book he makes this initially awesome idea way more lame by saying that guys essentially need to stop being pushovers and that you can’t let the barista put too much whipped cream on your coffee and you should stand up for yourself. Then you’re finally a man. It has truth to it but goodness I hope that’s not the key to manhood.
Finally, he says a few things that were problematic throughout the book that I would be sure to watch out for before reading. He does way too much wound talk and makes it the biggest deal ever. He goes on long rants without scripture to back it (which he used for all other points) and just puts way too much emphasis on it. He also doesn’t quite understand the entirety of humility and barely makes reference to it but frequently tries to hype you up as if you’re the freakin man (which you are not).
Overall, I would recommend the first 100 pages to a guy and the whole book to ladies bc they could benefit from seeing how men should be handled in relationships

Note: I preface my review by stating that the second half of this book is very heavily based around the core religious creed of Christianity. If you are not a Christian, or are antithetically opposed to Christian beliefs, you will just have to skim over or let it slide over your head and try to appreciate the overall point.

I myself am a Muslim and I was able to understand the general message being put forth whilst discarding beliefs which I do not share with the Author. The rest of this review (and the 5* rating itelf) is representative of the book content itself, aside from the Christian teaching within.

This book was one of the most profound I have ever read. Its one of those books you feel as though you have read before in your life, but not from paper. You feel it in your heart and mind. Me reading this book was the physical counterpart to the words I already knew within.

This book isnt what some may think, it isnt calling upon Men to leave their families, quit their jobs and live in the wild. Rather it speaks to us telling us truths that are essential for us to be able to support out families, follow our dreams and overcome our fears.

This isnt just the standard hocus-pocus self help book either. This is a fundamental reunderstanding of what it means to be a Man, and equally as important, how we can go about becoming one.

If I can sum up the book in a single sentence, it would be as John Eldridge himself says:

"Femininity cannot bestow Masculinity, only Masculinity can bestow Masculinity"

For Men to grow up and be Men (what defines Manhood is also explained), we need to be taught by our Fathers, Family and Friends. We need their company, their assurance, their guidance and their encouragement. Without this tacit approval, we are left forever wondering if we are Men, if we have what it takes. This journey to find an answer in the absence of one can break down lives.

This book reads as a theoretical and practical guide as to how to nurture a healthy sense of Masculinity in our children, and how to fix ourselves if we suffer the wound of not knowing if we are Men or not.

I am not exaggerating when I say that this book has changed my simplistic outlook on the matter of Fatherhood and Manhood by an astronomical proportion.

Fascinating read. This review does not do it justice. This book is a note-takers dream.

We keep this book in the bathroom so that if we ever run out of toilet paper we have something to wipe our asses with.
If you like books that foster gender biases by speaking to, and encouraging humanities' lowest common denominator, this books for you.

If you can make it through the first 3/4's of sexist sludge, Eldredge does manage to say some intelligent things about brokenness.
That said, those specks of light are far-and-few between, and aren't enough to redeem the amount of damage this book caused (and causes) the Christian community.

Much of this disconnect is simply a difference in opinion. If you'e into traditional gender roles you'll probably love this book. If not, than skip it - unless you're looking for a toilet-paper substitute.

P.S. I wasn't lying about the bathroom thing.

Full of erroneous historical, Biblical, and gender assumptions. In fact, Eldridge even criticizes Biblical scholars for never interpreting the Bible the way he does - ha! What a laugh - a sad, sorry laugh. (Not to mention that his writing is atrocious.)

However, if you are a) a man looking for Christian validation for modeling your life after William Wallace but who will never actually interact with women or b) a jaded scholar of history, religion, literature, film, or gender studies looking for amusement, go ahead and read it, I guess.

It's a unique and interesting experience to read the literary equivalent of a male book in tandem with its female counterpart (Captivating, the book we're reading through in my Navs women's small group)-- they're both about the same issue, and even reference much of the same material, but are definitely gender-specified in delivery. I feel like I'm somehow learning more about men through reading this, even though I'm not quite entirely sure I could articulate any of it.

One thing I'm quite sure of now, though, having read this book, is that men are just as wounded as women are-- if not more, because at least women are given the liberties to express it. Men and women alike have been told so many lies about what their roles mean; surprisingly, I found myself resonating with and getting worked up by the chapters about battle. More and more, my eyes have been opened to the fact that spiritual warfare is everywhere.

I've never read a book on biblical masculinity. There is SO much to look forward to in this book and honestly, some to be cautious of as well. It was really hard to choose between giving it 3 or 4 stars, but ultimately put it as 4 because I believe that anyone within the church body should be able to read this and be challenged in specific ways, though it may not speak to all the same. When I read the first chapter, I had to stop reading for a while in confusion and ask for wisdom from community that had read it... it felt like a military manly hype-speech with a couple bible verses at first. Though he continually tries to point out that that's not what he's trying to be, it can still be interpreted that way.

Eldridge makes three big points about men. In the heart of every man is a desperate desire for:
1. A battle to fight
2. An adventure to live
3. A beauty to rescue

The dangerous ways we could interpret this book:
1. Each man needs to live out their “dream” no matter what it is.
2. Men need to just be more "manly." If only we will go hiking and camping more then we will discover what it means to be a man.
3. Could be seen as stereotyped versions of men & women.

But as you read on, Eldredge makes some incredibly insightful points...
1. Most men in the church believe God put them on earth to be passive moral people. That is not who we are called to be! God has a fierce heart and jealously loves, the same way that we should. We must not strip a man of strength and call it sanctification.
2. Our wounds from our past affect how we live into a "false self," often either overcompensating with being driven (violent) or passive (retreating). We must seek to heal the wound rather than deny it. Desperately depend on God. Often healing our wounds can lead us to take part in healing our community's similar wounds.
3. God must be the one to where we find our masculinity. Everything else falls short: the achievements, the adventures, the girl all are empty pursuits. True masculinity is spirituality.
4. We must be disciplined in our consistent delight in God or we will look for other things that don't satisfy.
5. Don't go to battle alone. Have at least one man by your side. Men find it hard to accept they need fellowship with other men. There is never a more devoted group of men than those who have fought alongside one another.
6. Many men (especially living in the false-self) make life choices based off what they can be competent at and can control, and never take a risk. We call it "duty." Meanwhile the passions of our soul is waiting on the other side of our fears.

Some fire quotes:
- "Some women want a passive man if they want a man at all; the church wants a tamed man- they are called priest, the university wants a domesticated man - they are called tenure-track people; the corporation wants a... sanitized, hairless, shallow man." - Robert Bly
- "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation " - Thoreau
- "Ecstasy and delight are essential to the believer's soul and they promote sanctification. We are not meant to live without spiritual exhilaration... The believer is in spiritual danger if he allows himself to go for any length of time without tasting the love of Christ... When Christ ceases to fill the heart with satisfaction, our souls will go in silent search of other lovers" - Maurice Roberts
- "The place where God calls you is the place where your deep gladness and the world's deep hunger meet" - Frederick Buechner
- "Naturally we are inclined to be so mathematical and calculating that we look upon uncertainty as a bad thing... certainty is the mark of the common-sense life; gracious uncertainty is the mark of the spiritual life. To be certain of God means that we are uncertain in all our ways, we do not know what a day may bring forth. This is generally said with a sigh of sadness; it should rather be an expression of breathless expectation" - My Utmost for His Highest

I walk away challenged to find my identity and masculinity deeper in the Father, emboldened to speak up and fight for things God is passionate for, and encouraged to look deeper into my heart as to how I can fulfill the beautiful and pure desires God has placed in there.

As a preface, I still almost think I should just knuckle down and read on past the halfway point before reviewing this book; but I just can't. I've tried, guys, and I can't. I'll try to keep the review as brief as I can, because I have a lot of thoughts and not a lot of very gracious ways to share them just yet.

This book has a companion book called "Captivating," by John Eldredge but also featuring his wife Staci's voice, and I read that one a while ago and was blown away by its richness; it re-bestowed so much dignity on women as an equal part of God's creation, while remaining grounded in the gospel. (Those aren't mutually exclusive, by the way.) I went out and recommended it to at least 7 3/4 of my friends. "You have to read this," I said with big eyes, "it's incredible."

And now, here I am, reviewing the male counterpart book, and feeling about as disappointed as Denethor every time he looks at Faramir. My disappointment has principally to do with two elements in "Wild at Heart": 1) the sheer amount of generalizations, and 2) the self-coddling tone in which the book is written.

Because I don't also want to make any sweeping generalizations, I'd like to point out that Eldredge also made some good points that fell in line with the gospel, and that there are some rich things to learn from him too-- for example, how he illustrated Adam as the embodiment of God's strength, and Eve as God's beauty; or how he explained mankind's "wound," the detrimental strike men receive on their confidence on the daily (i.e. "Be a man," "Don't be a sissy"). He also pulled some Scripture in occasionally. But for the most part, my Discernment Radar kept going off and causing me to question how far he took his ideology, how he worded that ideology, and how he thought that that could possibly line up with God's Word.

Firstly, the generalizations. From the get-go, Eldredge makes sweeping statements about boys and girls. On pages 10-11, he says, "Little girls do not invent games where large numbers of people die, where bloodshed is a prerequisite for having fun. Hockey, for example, was not a feminine creation. Nor was boxing… On the other hand, my boys do not sit down to tea parties. They do not call their friends on the phone to talk about relationships. They grow bored of games that have no element of danger or competition or bloodshed.”

Sorry, what? While I recognize that many boys and girls fall into this example, I also can't help but think of all the kids who don't; and yet he uses this stereotype as a foundation for his book's message, that men are wild and that women are-... less wild, I guess. (Which, if you have any real-life women in your life, you'll quickly recognize how this is untrue.) There's no "Generally" or "Most girls seem to be this way"; it's just "If you're a girl, you like *these* things, and *these* things are off-limits."

Secondly, I call to question why Eldredge phrases this paragraph as if the thought of his sons talking to their friends about relationships (or any other example of *not* being emotionally stunted) would be a shame to him, as if he'd failed to raise men who were strong enough to stuff their emotions. I don't know his sons, I don't know their family dynamic, and I'm certainly not going to tell someone how to parent (not being a parent myself, that would be pretty foolish); but I have caught some wisdom about stuffing feelings, and how that's dangerous and unhealthy no matter what gender you are. This paragraph just generally seems to leave no grace for those who fall outside Eldredge's experience and understanding of boys vs girls.

On to the tone of the book. I described it as "self-coddling." An aside: as I was reading "Wild at Heart," I remembered something Jani Ortlund said when she and her husband Ray came to speak at our church. They had many wonderful, gospel-inspired things to teach us, but one thing Jani said has been needling me: "It's our responsibility and our joy as women to uplift our man's ego."

The word "ego" really bugs me, because if I took Jani to be using the word as we commonly understand it, she'd be advising us to bolster pride, which is the exact opposite of the gospel-- we're all to die to ourselves. If she means encouraging men's confidence as masterpieces of God's creation, as beings made to exhibit *his* strength, then I agree; but similarly to John Eldredge, Jani's wording leaves so much room to wonder whether she's calling for encouragement or for pride-coddling, that I end up disagreeing with what could possibly be a rich truth. "Wild at Heart" is saturated with phrasing that makes it sound as if Eldredge calls for a blind allowance, for women to let the men in their life to run buck-wild, exercising little to no biblical discernment. Read the book and you'll hear the ripples of arrogance: "boys will be boys," never mind growth or maturity.

This went on much longer than intended. But it's really important to me to show that I did try to unpack this book for what it was worth, and that this isn't part of a feminist agenda. I believe there are good things to glean from this book, but for myself, it left me feeling confused and a little frustrated. I don't see how it's helpful for believers to be shown such a separatist example of the differences between men and women, nor do I find that to be biblically true. God does separate, as he separated the sky from the sea, but he also brings many things together, and if we're to be brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, or even friends at all, then there can't be so little room for grace to work. My concern with "Wild at Heart" is that it might mislead another girl/woman like myself to view themselves as lesser than the men in their life, or like they can't be strong or wild or a leader too; the other side of that is that it could mislead boys/men to have not a confidence in Christ, but in themselves and their thrill-seeking nature.

I'd really love to hear what men have to say on all of this, but alas, none of my guy friends have read this book yet. Forgive me if this review has come across as a rampage, but I'm just trying to understand how I can show Christ's love to the brothers he's placed in my life, and this book only lends me confusion.