I found this book so offensive that at one point I chucked it across a room and broke a glass figurine. How's that for wild at heart?

This book is well-intentioned. I imagine it being given by well-intentioned parents to their come-of-age son as he heads out from under their wings to college. I imagine a well-intentioned group of men (and possibly curiously concerned wives) sitting down to include this in their Bible study. John Eldredge himself strikes me as a well-intentioned man. I've heard a lot of buzz in the last couple years about this book, mainly from peers in college, so I decided to finally take the dive. What I found was that well-intentioned though it is, this book falls short in several concerning ways.

First, I want to make it clear that I don't believe this book is without its beneficial qualities. There were many topics touched on by Eldredge in these pages that I find important to face. I can't help but notice it was published in 2001, I assume before 9/11, riding the last waves of the comfortable, popular, and formulaic trend of pew-warming faith that took Christianity in America by the throat in the '90s, mirroring the general comfort and safety felt in society during that decade. I see this book as a reaction to that comfortable faith lifestyle, aimed particularly at men, calling them to be who they were meant to be in Christ--not a pew-warmer.

Eldredge is calling on men to be what he believes we were created to be: "wild at heart," and while this looks different for each person, it generally comes across in his words as looking unfortunately similar. What I like about this book is the call for authenticity it inspires in each man's journey of faith. I appreciate Eldredge's acknowledgement that each person has a "wound" inflicted at some point in their lives which manifests itself in many ugly ways throughout. One of these manifestations is what he calls our "False Self"--the persona we try to live up to, what we want everyone to see us as, ultimately a damaging wall built in order to avoid the truth of our frailty. Lastly, I am grateful Eldredge ultimately believes it is Christ, and he alone, that can validate men, and that all other searches for true self-actualization are in vain short of knowing his love.

This brings me to the parts of the novel that concerned me. Eldredge has a tendency to paint highly-exaggerated pictures of what true masculinity looks like in a man's life, and these delusions of grandeur are often depicted in the over-clichéd images of stallions, cliff-jumping, cattle-roping, grizzly wrestling, mountain moving (in the literal sense), and battles. In fact, his fixation on battle imagery is concerning to me, though we are involved in one. Despite the acknowledgement that our battle is a spiritual one, Eldredge seems too easily caught up in the idolization of physical warfare (there are ample references to Gladiator, Braveheart, and Saving Private Ryan, among other go-to "guy" films). Frankly, the idolization of masculinity in and of itself bothers me, not, as one might suppose, because I don't find myself masculine, but because there is much more to it than Scottish claymores and rock climbing. Self-sacrifice seems to take a back seat in determining what is "manly" and what isn't.

To prove his point about what men are and are not meant to do, Eldredge alludes often to overly-simplified conversations he has had with counterparts dubbed with good ol' pseudonyms such as "Reggie, Bob, Janet, and Dave." It's as if he writes a sentence or two articulating what he believes about a deep issue (made too simple to fit his writing style), and then decides to attribute them as dialogue to affirm his presuppositions.

Another disturbing trend of Elredge's is to frequently (as in every other page) pull lines from a plethora of great works of literature, popular songs, films, quotes of influential figures, and--worst of all--scriptures, out of context to fit his argument and support what he already believes. From Robert Frost's often misused line "I took the road less traveled by; And that has made all the difference" to Christ overturning tables in the Temple courts, Eldredge slaps his ideas on all of them to enforce his unbalanced visage of masculinity, and scarily, the persona of God.

This masculinity, which Eldredge belabors throughout the book, is one that champions the "tough-guy" attitude, even if not meant to be, and shirks altogether the idea of nonviolence as a feasible or strong option. In fact, about backing down, Eldredge says this exact thing to his son, who was upset from being hit by a bully at recess that day (from page 94): "I want you to get up...and I want you to hit him...as hard as you possibly can. . .Yes I know that Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. But we have really misused that verse. You cannot teach a boy to use his strength by stripping him of it. Jesus was able to retaliate, believe me. But he chose not to. And yet we suggest that a boy who is mocked, shamed before his fellows, stripped of all power and dignity should stay in that beaten place because Jesus wants him there? You will emasculate him for life. From that point on all will be passive and fearful. He will grow up never knowing how to stand his ground, never knowing if he is a man indeed. Oh yes, he will be courteous, sweet even, deferential, minding all his manners. It may look moral, it may look like turning the other cheek, but it is merely weakness. You cannot turn a cheek you do not have. Our churches are full of such men."

This would seem to have standing for anyone of the world, but wasn't Christ "mocked, shamed before his fellows, stripped of all power and dignity"? Jesus was able to retaliate...yet didn't. Eldredge seems to neglect the idea that sometimes suffering is the right (or "masculine") thing to do. His habit of bemoaning the ideals of politeness, gentleness, courteousness, and at times even kindness, becomes overwrought throughout the book. It calls to mind the idea that Christ turned our usual sense of strength on its head--becoming a servant, championing those who were not "on their game," or "strong" in the traditional sense. Where is that in this book?

And then there's Eldredge's idea of women. In several chapters of the book he calls men to be the leaders of men, stating that "femininity cannot bestow masculinity." In some way that may be true, but it is overstated in the book. His view of women is simplistic, while claiming them to be profound, captivating, and mysterious at the same time. They are written to play the part of the "princess in a tower," ones in need of saving, by who else, the knight in shining armor (that's you, gents). It's as if he thinks their role is to be a beautiful gem, locked away, protected, and pursued. While yes, women may enjoy being fought for (in a non-literal sense), men can also feel that longing, I think. Eldredge makes it clear that men can only find validation in God, yet it appears through how he frames his argument that women must be validated by men and their attention. He generalizes about how it is a father's job to lead a son out from under his mother's influence to avoid becoming a "momma's boy" leading to issues later on in life. Again, while this may be partly true (boys need their father's guidance), it undervalues the role mothers can (and should) have in their sons' lives.

On top of all this categorizing and sweeping generalities made of women, Eldredge also makes an overly-simplistic--in a way damaging--claim that men are the ones in charge of "saving" the world: "That strength so essential to men is also what makes them heroes. If a neighborhood is safe, it's because of the strength of men. Slavery was stopped by the strength of men, at a terrible price to them and their families. The Nazis were stopped by men. Apartheid wasn't defeated by women. Who gave their seats up on the lifeboats leaving the Titanic, so that women and children would be saved?" (99-100). In discussing this with a (female) friend, the point was rightly made that men (the saviors and true heroes of the world) were the ones who began Slavery, Apartheid, the Nazi Party, and the very ones who ran the Titanic into an iceberg in the first place. Eldredge tends to vastly understate the importance of women while overstating the importance of men--all while neglecting the fact that all humans (of both genders) are broken, fit different molds and ideals of masculinity and femininity, and are equally responsible for the participation in good and bad in the world that Christ saves us from.

Lastly, there is the Eldredge's complete neglect of single people. Given his idea that men and women were made to save/fight for/be pursued by/complete one another, if an individual is single (something the Bible supports as being just as, if not more, valid in a relationship with Christ), are they...broken? In need of fixing? Has something gone wrong? Are they less valuable? It's hard to tell what he'd say of them as he doesn't address it at all.

As I've said, Wild at Heart is well-intentioned, yet it falls short of delivering proper justice to an important topic. In wrapping up this lengthy review, the longest I've yet written, I leave you with a powerful quote from a friend I discussed this book at length with:

"I just think God is so much bigger than we imagine, so taking him out of a traditional box and putting him in a new one from REI isn't super helpful. It's great for people who do fit that mold that they can say, 'I'm made in God's image and he can use this part of me for good,' but that's true for everyone in different ways. We're all made in God's image - the ones who jump off waterfalls, the ones who read books, the ones who sculpt vases, the ones who play football. God is in all of them. Same God. Different facets of the image."

Let me start by saying, bless John Eldredge's heart. Bless it. But this book is more scary than anything. I think the author has seen something distasteful to him in the men he has counseled, or possibly in the media, or in church, and while trying to encourage, has thrown the pendulum in entirely the wrong direction.

Maybe it's my bias against the regular use of The Message translation of the Bible, but he plays fast and loose with his Scripture references. Some are not as offensive, like concluding that God was disappointed with Bathsheba since she is referred to as "Uriah's wife," as opposed to Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew. Whatever. But then the story about telling his son to hit the bully back, instead of turning his cheek, turned my stomach. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? HELLO! This isn't even about turning the other cheek anymore, this is about teaching your kid that retaliation is ok. That the rules of behavior are relative to if someone did it to you first.

Most disturbing is his insistence that God is a risk taker. It's just not true. When God created us and this world, He knew exactly what would happen. And he even had a plan (1 Peter 1:20).

There are some good points, and the guy isn't a cult leader or anything, but in general, I think the book gives men permission to blame other people for their problems, and misguides them on their journey to true manliness.

(But don't ask me what true manliness is. That's the beauty of giving a book review on the internet.)

A very disturbing book that pays no heed to particularity or Biblical interpretation. John is neither a theologian nor a psychologist but occupies the bland middle ground of knowing just enough to be damaging but not enough to recognize how much damage his views cause.

Many of my male friends in college recommended this book to me, so i finally read it in the summer of '04, my first summer away from home. Those who recommended the book to me acted as though this book changed their life, so I might have gone into it with high expectations. I did not find it as "enlightening" as they did, though I did enjoy it. The author has some good insight into the mind's of Christian men, though I feel he over-dramatizes certain ideas in the book. I would recommend the book to any man who would like to hear idea on men and their relationship to God, but I would encourage readers to decide, on their own, how much/little the book applies to their own lives. Enjoy.

A lobotomy would hurt less than reading this drivel and would be over faster, too

If you can look past the Protestant commentaries and inaccurate science, you can get a lot out of this book. I know I certainly have.

Edited January 2023.
Ok, the below review that I wrote when I was an intellectual child still married to my first husband keeps getting likes, so I clearly need to either update it or delete it. Those of you who see this, please understand, I was obliged to find good in this thing that my then husband loved so much. I wanted to love what excited him. But you should also know: I divorced him 6 years later. And most of the reasons can be found in this book.

The primary problem with this narrative, that I somehow didn't remember reading the first time I reviewed this, was what ultimately led to 6 years of misery for me, and an eventual divorce. That is the premise that men need to have adventures, and women need to go along with men having adventures. My marriage was driven only by what my husband wanted to do, and what his life goals were. He was clearly on his own adventure, and expected me to just be along for the ride. My own desires, goals, ambitions, were not taken into account. It was symbolized strongly by the name I gave up, quickly followed by my individual identity that was eclipsed.

Now, years later, 20 years of life experience, one divorce, and two degrees later, I am a bit more solid on my own two feet, and also in an actual healthy marriage, with a man who thinks this book is bullshit. We are very happy.

So why, I have asked myself, did this book resonate so much at the time? And I have to say, that the audience it is aimed at, fundamentalist Christians, could still benefit from a part of this message. I think the permission to be adventurous, joyful, wild, to live life fully, is something that ALL of us need, not just men. I think the fact that companion books written for women were so unsuccessful, and their messages were so downright depressing, demonstrates the need we all have for this wild and soulful kind of living. It needn't, and I would argued shouldn't, be gendered. It is tragic that the Eldredge's built an economic empire on insisting that it IS gendered. It destroyed my 20s, and messed up the lives of many others that I know of.

What I'm grateful for is that that isn't the end of the story. There is life after John Eldredge. I hear that my ex now considers himself a feminist, hyphenated his name, and lives happily with his wife. I have an equitable and super fun marriage with my dream person, who grew up Buddhist. He never once even thought of asking me to change my name.

My prayer is that gender roles someday die, so that each person can be fully themselves, as wild or calm, as unbound or homebody as that may be.


Original review (book was read in 2004):
I know that this book is surrounded by vehement controversy. After my husband read it, it was as though he came alive for the first time. Curious, I picked up the book myself. Though there are sections that I would drastically edit (and so would my husband), I found the heart of Eldredge's message incredibly moving, necessary, and paradigm-altering. I was truly astonished that this "man's man" would have such a perfect grasp of women and their needs and desires. I have consulted with other women who have read this book cover to cover, and they, too, feel that Eldredge truly understands a woman's heart. I do not suggest that we take all his advice literally, nor do I think he meant it that way, but this idea of setting men free to be men is something I can definitely get behind. One note: only read this book if you are starting with the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different. He does not address the philosophy that men and women are the same except for nurturing practices.

Great book.. A journey to know oneself.. It is an interesting book.. Read it in one go..

On a positive note to start out this review, the general message of this book for men to be men is very good and appropriate for this day and age. Men need to get off their couches and have courage and fight for their spouses and what is good in God's sight. However, while this overall message is good and necessary, the probably good intentions of John Eldredge in writing this book are not enough to give this book a good review, since the theological views expressed by the author need to be questioned again and again...

For a good, short overview of the problems with this book, see the review by Tim Challies at https://www.challies.com/general-news....

Challies also provides the website links to a more detailed review by Gary Gilley available here:
https://tottministries.org/wild-at-he...
https://tottministries.org/wild-at-he...

Both of these reviews refer to the original 2001 edition of the book. When I read the updated and revised 2010 edition of the book, I noticed that not all the criticisms of the above reviewers were valid for this new edition. It seems that John Eldredge must have been made aware of the criticism his original book received and has corrected or removed some of the bad theology in his revised edition of the book.

These revisions relate mainly to the promotion of open theism, the view that God is not in control nor in full knowledge of future events. In a discussion concerning the sovereignty of God and the free will of man in the 2001 edition, Eldredge states among other things that theologians who emphasize the sovereignty of God “have overstated their case” (30) and that “God is a person who takes immense risks” (30). This whole section of about half a page has been completely removed in the 2010 edition. The 2001 edition further describes the choice God gave Adam and Eve to obey or disobey Him in the following way: “He did not make Adam and Eve obey him. He took a risk. A staggering risk, with staggering consequences. He let others into his story, and he lets their choices shape it profoundly” (30). These statements and this complete section of about another half page has also been completely removed in the 2010 edition. Further, in the 2001 edition, we read at the beginning of another paragraph, “It is not the nature of God to limit his risks and cover his bases” (31). In the 2010 edition, this statement has also been completely removed. In both editions, this paragraph, however, still contains the statement, “It’s not just a battle or two that God takes his chances with, either.” (32/33) But the next paragraph has again been completely removed in the 2010 edition, in which Eldredge describes God’s relationship with us humans in the following way: “As with every relationship, there is a certain amount of unpredictability…” (32). Towards the end of that same paragraph, Eldredge later writes, “God’s willingness to risk is just astounding” (32). Both of these statements and the whole paragraph in which they are contained have been completely removed in the revised edition. Despite the statements made in the original version of the book, however, Eldredge already then claimed, “I am not advocating open theism” (32). This statement remains in the 2010 edition (33). Nevertheless, the concluding statement which pretty much forms the thesis for the whole book remains in both editions: “There is definitely something wild in the heart of God.” (32/33). Most of the bad theology in his area, however, has been clearly removed, which is a good thing in the revised edition.

Eldredge holds a very remarkable (in his own words: “scandalous”) view of the meeting between Boaz and Ruth at the threshing floor, which he describes as follows in the original version of his book:

“So what does Ruth do? She seduces him. … Ruth takes a bubble bath and puts on a knockout dress, then she waits for the right moment. … What happens next is simply scandalous, the verse continues, ‘Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down.’ … This is seduction pure and simple – and God holds it up for all women to follow…” (191)”

Such a twisted view – even if there should be something to it in the case of Ruth, which I personally cannot see any basis for – is certainly completely wrong if not blasphemous to ascribe to God. So it is good to see that Eldredge removed the reference to “seduction” in the revised version of the book which reads “She ‘inspires’ him” (193) instead of “She seduces him” (191) and completely removes the reference to God holding seduction up as a virtue for all women to follow. Nevertheless, the tone of the whole scene remains essentially the same by placing quotation marks around the word ‘inspires’ and painting the scene with the references to bubble bath and a ‘knockout dress’. A sad and very unfitting view of Ruth and her character…

There is one more instance of note where Eldredge has revised his book and in so doing significantly improved his theology (or at least stayed away from completely unbiblical views). In the original version of the book, we read:

“… when he [Jesus] encounters the guy who lives out in the Gerasenes tombs, tormented by a legion of spirits, the first rebuke by Jesus doesn’t work. He had to get more information, really take them on (Luke 8:26-33)” (166).

In the revised edition, Eldredge softens this statement to “the first rebuke by Jesus doesn’t seem to resolve the issue” (168).

A right understanding of this text would see and emphasize Jesus’ complete power and authority in this situation, not any supposed lack of power or knowledge in order to deal with the situation. Nevertheless, it is interesting, how Eldredge has toned down his statement here as well as in the aforementioned cases.

I would love to say that Eldredge has also revised the many other false theological views in his book, but this is unfortunately not the case. All the other points criticized in the review by Gary Gilley remain exactly the same in the revised edition, including the following:

-tThe view that aggression in men shows that they were made in the image of God:
“Aggression is part of the masculine design, we are hardwired for it. If we believe that man is made in the image of God, then we would do well to remember that ‘the LORD is a warrior, the LORD is his name’ (Ex. 15:3). Little girls do not invent games where large numbers of people die, where bloodshed is a prerequisite for having fun…” (10)

-tThe view that God frustrated Adam’s bent for adventure by placing him in Eden:
“the second chapter of Genesis makes it clear: man was born from the outback, from the untamed part of creation. Afterward he is brought to Eden. And ever since then boys have never been at home indoors, and men have had an insatiable longing to explore” (4)

-tA low view of Scripture evidenced by constantly using movies, rather than Scripture, to support his theology (throughout the book). Here one example:
“Compare your experience watching the latest James Bond or Indiana Jones with, say, going to Bible study. The guaranteed success of each new release makes it clear – adventure is written into the heart of a man.” (13/14)

-tA low view of sin that tries to excuse or explain or “soften” sinful actions: For example:
“Things began to change for Carl when he saw the whole sexual struggle not so much as sin but as a battle for his strength” (147/149, emphasis in the original).

-tA (too) high view of (the heart of) man:
“Too many Christians today … walk around believing my heart is deceitfully wicked. Not anymore it’s not. … Your heart is good.” (133-134/136)

These are just a few examples of some very bad theology that is on grand display throughout the book (whether the old or the new edition). For a more detailed analysis see the review by Gilley mentioned at the beginning.

Again, Eldredge probably means well and wants to help men be men and live according to the image of God, but his book is unfortunately littered with too much bad theology that I cannot recommend it.

I started this book, but wish I hadn’t. 4 chapters was too much for me... I strongly disagree with eldredge’s view of masculinity. I agree that Christian men are to be passionate and “fierce” but Eldredge belittles portrayals of Jesus that make him seem like mother Theresa, or soft spoken, or gentle, and by implication- humble. Eldredge exalts characters like William Wallace over the character of Jesus himself. Also, he glorified the character of Samson when Samson’s character exists in the Bible to illustrate the corruption of Israel’s. Bad biblical scholarship. I think this philosophy alienated a huge portion of men and women from who they are called to be. I could continue, but I shouldn’t. Not a fan.

I really hate this book. I know people that I respect who like it so I thought I would give it a try. Maybe I am totally off base but it seems like the author uses the Bible to support his a priori definition of manhood. His view of manhood seems more rooted in American culture than in scripture. If going into the woods and beating your chest does something great for you then knock yourself out but you don’t have to baptize it and make it some spiritual right of passage. I have not read any feminist literature but I would guess it has the same tone as this only in their version The Man is keeping them down instead of the church keeping men down.
I applaud the perspective that Jesus wasn’t Mr Rogers but he probably wasn’t John Wayne either. Read your Bible and try to be like Jesus. If you need to express your manhood by going on some Alaskan trek go ahead but if it doesn’t engender Love, Joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control then it is of little profit except to your taxidermist.