This book was recommended to me by an old friend of my sister's who lived in New Brunswick, back around 2011. He recommended it and I ordered it.

He is something of a wild man himself. Towards the end of our friendship I grew leery if his acerbic and biting emails, and I suspended contact with him.

It was just as well. Burnt out and browned off by aggressive Gnostics of his ilk, I got to know his type.

Gnostics purport, often secretively, to be in possession of a superior form of knowledge. You may know a few of them yourself. Their ego is six inches thick. Affable and quick of tongue, their friends readily affirm their selfhood knowing their action will be reciprocal. An easy sorta acquaintance.

We are not part of their clan.

They will readily confirm that fact tacitly, being always on the move toward greener pastures. The "greener" the better, and jaundiced oldtimers who keep their salt shakers handy need not apply.
***
Gnostics seek Eldorado. Sorta like Whitman in Leaves of Grass - the Grand Old Vision of Superabundant Life.

Relax, folks! That’s only a shimmering mirage in the desert of modernity. And anyway, Superabundant Life in now verboten by our modern, belt-tightening standards.

That’s a good thing, too, because Eldridge’s hyperbolic view of life is nowadays a Bridge too Far - more perceptive people than I once was have erected a roadblock on our modern highway to it - and that’s only sensible.

If the human race is to survive it must use its head.

That bridge too far has been washed away by our demagogues’ chaotic floodwaters. It’s time to wake up.

So, hotheads take heed:

Touting passion over reason, as you do, will only get us all a Darwin Award.

This was an awesome book. The book is intended for men, as they usually enjoy the outdoors more than women.... My friends know differently, atleast in my case! It really focuses on spirituality in a "man's" view. It involved nature and I learned something about men at the same time. I loved it and would recommend it to anyone, male or female. Although it is a Christian book, it really has lessons to be learned for all faiths. However, there are some portions that did not always make sense to me and my opinions.

Best book of 2020!!!

Ok um if you ever have a son, or a husband, or a father, or a brother, or a guy friend, or any dude in your life, read this in order to understand and love them more! Or if you’re a guy and want to know more about yourself. Or heck if you’re a woman and want to know more about yourself through the complementarity of men and women.
Point being, you should read this. A tad repetitive at times but drives home one heck of a point.

A familiar title to many, wild at Heart is a popular book amongst male Christians. After hearing mixed views, I set myself the task of reading the book myself. This book explores the make up of the masculine heart, which appeals to me and I?m sure, to many other female readers out there.


One thing that is clearly highlighted throughout this book is this: you can take the guy out of the country, but you can?t take the country out of the guy. Let me explain.
The writer suggests that boys, sorry men, have this need and desire to be in the wilderness, where he can create his own ?dangerous? adventures. He states that, men don?t have to be raised in the country to possess this overwhelming desire, but implies that this desire is all part of God?s creation. Something in that Y chromosome then eh??

With this said, he does what a lot of American writers do (in my personal experience) and relates this desire back to Disney. Disney is popular nowadays for creating fairytale romances, where the young man fights for his true love. Although not the first to create such a tale, Disney brought these to the younger generation. The brave young man finds himself in his comfort zone, that is the wilderness, where he challenges his attackers. Obviously his attackers are greater than he, but somehow, this young man fights against all odds, to win the heart of his true beauty.

The writer suggests that men crave this desire to fight for someone, the women he has been looking for. But do they fight for the women, or do they fight for the adventure of fighting??

One thing the writer emphasises is this. Men, being married does not make you any more of a man, than killing a lion does. Women do not make men, ?men?. He says:
?A man does not go to a woman to get his strength, he goes to her to offer it.?

The writer highlights that often men feel, when they have a wife or girlfriend, they become a man. He emphasises the need for God in this equation. A man needs to seek God and get his strength for Him.

Becoming a man, is a journey that a man takes with God. Here he will discover what kind of man God has called him to be and God will guide and mentor him. That is the most important thing I can take from this book. A man will become a man, is God?s perfect timing, and women, you are the same. You will become that woman of God, when you seek Him, to guide you in that.

Although the media creates the common misconception, that men can grin and bare all, they can?t. Their heart is more than a muscle too, and they need God to be their comfort, just like we do. Girls, this is important to know. I look at the males who surround me in my family and I consider what I?ve just said. How many times have I seen them cry? Not many at all, but it has happened, and that?s good thing. It lets us girls know that they do have a heart?trust me guys, its ok to cry.

To quote a great song ?My troubled soul, why so weighed down? You were not made to bare this heavy load. So cast your burdens upon the Lord, Jesus cares He cares for you.? He cares for you men out there too.

God creating man in his own image, so of course He will be the only one who can define the masculine heart. He knows your heart, and knows what you can handle. Take everything to Him in prayer, and He will mould your masculine heart. The book itself, does raise issues that I do not agree with, but that?s for another time. On the whole I found this book enjoyable which I was surprised about. For all your ?Wild at Heart? readers out there, you should read ?Captivating.?

And for all you William Wallace?s out there, the battle belongs to the Lord

peace

I honestly didn’t know what to expect when starting this book. I’m not usually the go hike up the side of a mountain by myself kinda gal, so I wasn’t sure if I was going to be able to really get into wild at heart...but holy cow, John Eldridge paints such a beautiful picture of the masculine heart and what its true desires and capabilities are. It awakened my desire for a more adventurous and fully engaged life! It allowed me to somewhat understand the struggles and lies that so many men deal with on the daily. Of course I couldn’t follow every single topic John discusses as so much of this book is written for the men, but it gave me a desire to ask the men in my life about those topics and to know their hearts so much better. Definitely a must read!!

I started this book years ago but did not feel determined to finish it, whereas in this season of life I wanted to mark this as read.
In this book, John Eldridge talks about how “masculinity is bestowed by masculinity.” i’m so in awe of the way God designed men and women and how they are so different & function so differently. I really appreciated the call to action for men to stop asking the question of “what does this world need me to be?” & ask “what makes you come alive?” I would definitely agree that the world needs more of men that have come alive. Solid read.

الكتاب ملهمٌ ومتحدٍ للواقع الذكوري العام والديني بشكل خاص. يستخدم الكاتب خبرته الشخصية وخبرات آخرين ليجيب السؤال: ما هو الاحتياج الأعمق في قلب الرجل؟ ما الذي يميزه؟ ومن هناك يبدأ، بدلاً من البدء بما يجب أن يكون الرجال عليه كغيره من الكتب. الكتاب أيضاً غنيٌ بالاقتباسات وبه نظرة متميزة للنصوص والقصص الكتابية.

يُؤخَذ على الكاتب ما قد يُعتبر تعميماً وقولبة فيما يختص بالشوق العميق لكلٍ من الرجل والمرأة كأنما لا يوجد اختلاف بين رجل وآخر أو إمرأة وأخرى، ويُرى ذلك في كثرة استخدام تعبيرات مثل "كل رجل" و"كل امرأة"، وتكرارهما. كما أن الكثيرات من النساء سيرفضن تصويرهن بصفتهن أميراتٍ أسيراتّ ينتظرن رجلاً ليحررهن!

الترجمة العربية جيدة جداً باستثناء عدم وجود حواشي ومراجع للاقتباسات المختلفة. وسعر النسخة العربية مرتفع جداً بالنظر إلى حجم الكتاب وأسعار السوق المصري.

بوجه عام أنصح بقراءة هذا الكتاب لكل رجل راغب في اكتشاف المزيد من نفسه وتحقيق دعوته في الحياة.

This book gave me a different perspective of men and women. Although I've been single for awhile now, I already had in mind what kind of man I wanted in the future and made me think that I can always find someone better than the person in front of me. This book allowed me to focus what I wanted in a man in a way that was refreshing and much more focused on his natural abilities of being "wild at heart."
In the same way that men were created to be adventurous and seekers of challenges, Eldredge points out that women were created to be beauties and shines when she is being admired and loved for her beauty. He wasn't talking about just an outwardly beauty but beauty that shines from inside out. Just enjoy being the creation you're meant to be. It is the most beautiful and most satisfying state of being one can ever be.
Eldredge narrows such a broad topic of the difference between men and women to the most fundamentally understandable ways.

1.5 stars

Ok, here it is: don’t read this book.

It’s just … not worth it. For one, Eldridge has a writing style that tends to wander and ramble with every whim that comes to his mind resulting in a text that is just painful to read (especially when you’re trying to figure out what the heck point he’s actually making, like I was). For another, the good parts are buried in Chapter 7, by which point the reasonable among us have either stopped reading or have so bought into the ‘be a man, be adventurous, go outside’ reduction of Eldridge’s point that we completely miss these good parts.

If you pick up a copy of this book, it’s because someone told you it’s about manhood (or worse, they told you it was about biblical manhood - it’s not). So it’s unfortunate that the introduction and first chapter paint a picture of what’s wrong with manhood in our world that is speculative at best and deluded at worst. In Eldridge’s mind, it’s three things: men lack a battle to fight, and adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue.

But, before I get carried away, perhaps the biggest mistake I could make in a review is to convince you this book is trash from front to back. Because it’s not, to be fair. So, in an effort to not throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, allow me to first defend these good parts.

* The Baby *

The progression of this book is essentially this: men have a problem -> the problem is a “wound” received when our father made us feel unmanly -> the solution is a relationship with Christ -> we can now go do what we were made for (namely, fight the battle, live the adventure, rescue the beauty).

And Eldridge is exactly right that Jesus is the One that heals our wounds. Absolutely. No issues here. As I mentioned earlier, when Eldridge is firing on all cylinders with this ‘Jesus heals your wound’ thing, I was right there with him, even found some good nuggets to underline and think about.

And let’s be clear, we do have a battle to fight. Sin is prevalent in our world, no arguments there. As long as that’s the battle in question, Eldridge does a decent job exploring what it looks like to do that. And life with God is in adventure! He has some practical advice to give, and there’s a lot there to find.

* The Bathwater *

Uggghhhh, ok here we go:

The problem is sin. It’s bigger than one wound of insecurity to a masculine identity. Also, like, we probably have tons of wounds, and our fathers don’t have a monopoly on the wound-giving. Eldridge completely whiffs on that point.

We were made for so much more than fighting a battle with sin and rescuing the beauty (to say nothing of the fact that Jesus was not married). Any effort to frame manhood around our need to “rescue the beauty” is reductive at best.

Eldridge is so so liberal with the text, even going out of his way to say that we over-use the “turn your other cheek” verse so much so that it’s worth entirely disregarding. Like … big yikes!! Actually, gunna bother me if I don’t drive that point home: Eldridge tells his son to learn to punch bullies back (“be a man, stand up for yourself”), and completely misses the fact that Jesus was trying to tell us about fighting injustice by emphasizing the injustice. Ah, but I digress.

For a book claiming to be a biblical perspective on manhood, there’s way to much wisdom from other places. For example, William Wallace (who Eldridge ~loves~) is like the masculine ideal here. But was he a Christian? I don’t know, doesn’t matter apparently, because he was a man’s man and lived adventurously and freedom and face paint and the whole thing. You couldn’t go three pages in this book without Eldridge falling back on “like in this movie where …” or “on a hike the other day I … ”. Bleh! Use some scripture, my guy!!

Perhaps my biggest pet peeve: Eldridge loves to kinda just make stuff up. “Most men in the church believe God put them on the earth to be a good boy” … uh, says who? Not at my church, for sure, maybe in yours? Either way, he just over-generalizes based on his own experience. Give me a survey or something, golly! Oh, and these three pillars of manhood he defines (battle to fight, adventure to live, beauty to rescue)? Yep, also made up! These things, supposedly so core to manhood that they merit a whole book, don’t have any solid backing besides “pages of literature”, films men love”, or “what men do with their free time”. So then my question is if Hollywood can point to it and say “that is masculinity”, how could the church ever sign off in agreement?

*Deep Breath*

I think I’m most frustrated because Eldridge makes this whole thing out like men are on earth to fight sin, to go outside, and to rescue their wives. And some of those are good/helpful, but our calling is much bigger. Love God. Love your neighbor. Make disciples. Fight injustice. Be quick to listen and slow to anger. God wants us (men and women) to partner with Him in bringing His Kingdom to bear. And if you’re so obsessed with being a man (whatever that means), then I’m worried you’ve missed the point. There’s just way too much noise in this book that crowds out the good stuff - I would be worried to give this to any brother who might walk away thinking that this is all there is.

So I'm about eleven years late in getting to the party here. I remember "Wild at Heart" being really big among guys (and some gals) 16-22 when it came out and I can see why. I'm also really glad I didn't read this at such an impressionable age. There are a few good things here: Eldredge recognizes that there is something of a male identity crisis in many parts of the Church. In other words, there is confusion about what biblical manhood and womanhood look like. He also accurately pinpoints some of these problems as stemming from the absence of a father or having a poor father. Eldredge clearly has a heart to minister to men in the 21st century Church and for that he should be commended.

Unfortunately, there are some significant problems in his method and his message that make this an unhelpful and perhaps even a dangerous book. First, most of Eldredge's points come from films ("Braveheart" is a particular favorite of his it would seem), books, conversations with friends, Eldredge's own life experience, and moments of God speaking to him privately. Now, of course God can use movies and books and friends to communicate with us and that's fine. But God's primary way of speaking to his people is by His Spirit, through His Word. Unfortunately, most of the book's main points come from the former list of things and not the Bible. Eldredge then pulls Bible passages out of context, twisting and distorting them to fit his purposes.

One glaring example of this that is crucial to the book's central argument is that because Adam was created in the wilderness and *then* put into the Garden of Eden and Eve was created *in* Eden that this somehow accounts for why men crave adventure and the wilderness while women desire to be safe and sound in a domesticated place. This is an example of trying to pull WAY too much meaning out of an incidental detail. When taking the whole Bible into account, one quickly sees how misguided Eldredge's point here is. First of all, the wilderness is almost always seen as a bad place to be in the Bible (consider what happens immediately after the Fall: Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden and sent into the wilderness, in Moses' day the scapegoat is sent out into the wilderness according to OT sacrificial laws, in the New Testament Jesus' temptation takes place in the wilderness, and so on).

Furthermore, Eden is meant to point to the New Heavens and the New Earth. It's no mistake that John's description of Heaven at the end of Revelation bears more than a passing similarity with Eden. Another example of Eldredge reading his own ideas into the text comes with his treatment of the book of Ruth. According to Eldredge, Ruth teaches us that biblical womanhood involves a woman being a seductress and using her feminine charms to get what she wants (contrary to Proverbs 31 and every other biblical passage on womanhood. He goes on to say that this Ruth as seductress thing is a biblical example for "all women" to follow (191). These are just two examples of Eldredge's misuse and abuse of the biblical text.

Then there's the actual content of the book which is troubling on a number of levels. Eldredge's view of biblical manhood is that we should be wild and untamed. The problem with men, he argues, is that their mothers, wives, and the Church has tried to tame them and make them "nice boys," instead of the wild adventurers that their hearts crave to be. Again he tries to insert this idea into various places in the Bible. His primary argument for why men are this way is because men are made in God's image and He is wild, passionate, and untamed, too. Putting aside that this isn't how anyone in the history of the Church has ever interpreted what it means to be made in God's image, is Eldredge somehow implying that men are more in God's image than women? I'm sure he wouldn't state it in those terms but it sort of felt that way in this book and that's just one example of how the book often seemed kind of sexist to me. Eldredge continually emphasizes that men are supposed to be adventurers and women are supposed to be the beauties waiting to be rescued (or seductresses, according to his exegesis of Ruth). The problem is I know lots of godly men who aren't naturally adventurous and lots of godly women who are. Which leads to another big problem with Eldredge's argument.

Eldredge seems to have taken a particular type of man (outdoorsy adventurer who likes to take risks) and made that the definition of masculinity. That idea is not rooted in the Bible and it isn't true according to our experience either. Is the guy out hiking a mountain somehow more manly than the guy working 9-5 in the office to put food on the table for his family? What about the man who leads with quiet strength? There are different types of personalities and it seems very unhelpful to tell all men that they need to be like this one type of man and go take some risks in order to be a true man.

According to Eldredge's definition, manhood looks and sounds a lot like boyhood. Be wild, let your desires lead you, don't worry about making a mess or being a nice boy (at one point, Eldredge shares the story of his first grade son getting picked on at school and Eldredge then encourages his son to hit the bully as hard as he can the next time he is picked on, he then defends this advice by saying that his son's "soul was hanging in the balance" because he might have been emasculated by the bully and he goes on to say that Christians today have misinterpreted Jesus' instructions about turning the other cheek but he offers no counter-interpretation).

But manhood is not about letting your desires lead you into the wilderness or being a risk-taker. In fact, that's the exact opposite of biblical manhood, which has historically been viewed as having mastery over your desires and impulses. Little boys and young men are lead to and fro by their desires and whims, men should have self-control and mastery over these things. (Maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Eldredge clarifies more than once that men shouldn't leave their wives perhaps realizing his advice might give some men justification for doing so.)

I could go on noting other theological and exegetical problems but I've said more than enough about a ten+ year old book that has received tons of praise and criticism as it is. Ultimately, this book is contradictory, confusing, and only muddies the already murky waters of biblical manhood in the American church today.

It is also one of the most popular Christian books of the last decade.

This is one of the worst Christian books I’ve read and I do not recommend it for anyone. I read it out of curiosity, knowing it’s been a popular book for Christian men for the past two decades. I was so disappointed by the hyper-masculine stereotypes, the complete misinterpretation and lack of contextulization of Scripture, the lack of ownership for sin, and the over-emphasis on individualism. There were more action movie references and out-of-context quotes from random poets and authors than there was Scripture. Sadly, the Scripture that was used was so poorly interpreted and used out of context that the book probably would have improved slightly without the butchering of Bible verses!

I wanted to give Eldredge second chances and after every chapter I hoped it would improve. But every chapter only added to the pile of poorly written, sloppy arguments that are more suited for masculine action movies than for reality. I seriously question this guy’s ability to read any text in Scripture and not take it out of context. Sometimes I found myself pondering if he wrote this book by merely finding all of the Scripture references he could that he thought could support his previous notion that men need to be wild and that God is a masculine God and then poured over Scripture finding random passages that seemed like they fit into the book.

The book was so disjointed. Most of the time he summarized dangerous adventures in movies and used that to justify his thesis that men are acting as God designed them to be and at their best only when they are allowed to fight a battle, rescue a beauty, and live an adventure. There are so many issues with his thesis, and he does such a poor job that his arguments contradict themselves frequently.

His thesis is wrong for multiple reasons. First is that not all men think like him and want to be “hyped-up masculine men who drive motorcycles and shoot guns.” God made guys different and he never once addresses the diversity between men. He lumps all men in the same category and even uses the words “aggressive” and “dangerous” as if they are positive connotations for manly men. In doing so, he ends up putting down a lot of really good things. His main qualm with the church is that it tries to domesticate men by making them have “quiet times” and Bible studies and turning them into “nice guys.” What’s wrong with a man who humbly works a simple job in a cubicle and then studies the Word in Bible studies? He puts down Scripture reading, women (because apparently all women are out to “emasculate” their little boys and husbands), and even Mister Rogers. Yes, he puts down a man who exemplified Christ is so many ways (and arguably redefined masculinity). I have serious problems with this mischaracterization of both Mister Rogers and Jesus.

Another reason his thesis is wrong is because his support for it is entirely vague. The most I could pick up on as far as practical reasons to “get the masculine heart back” was that men should go be alone in the wilderness, abandon their cubicle jobs, stop going to Bible studies, and stop being nice guys. He had bits of other vague advice like not running from danger, following your heart (which is arguably not godly advice), and asking God to “initiate” you “as a man.” If you’re a man who doesn’t like the outdoors and actually enjoys corporate America, this book is condemning for your lifestyle and choices. Sorry, you’re not manly according to John Eldredge and you’re probably disobeying God and not living out your “truly wild heart.”

His arguments are so sloppy, heretical, and black-and-white that I am shocked he’s such a best-seller. He’s convinced that every single man thinks like him, has wounds like him, and needs to hear everything he says in order to feel like a man. Has he considered that some men are comfortable in their manhood and don’t need to read a book filled with movie references to feel whole? He has serious daddy issues and it seems like half of the book is him ranting about how much pain his father’s absence caused.

Another pet peeve is that he has no works cited page, which just goes to show that the only evidence he comes up with is about a dozen action movies and his own life experiences. He placed more weight in the lessons his movies taught than in the Bible or just common sense and reason.

I’m especially upset with how proficient Eldredge is at playing the blame game. Every time he mentions his own sin (which he does maybe three times), he shifts blame into how it was really his wound from his father that caused him to blow up in anger at his wife and kids or cheating on his wife with a hot woman. He never took responsibility for his sinful nature. He even went so far as to blasphemously say that his sinful nature isn’t a problem anymore now that’s he’s a Christian. He said that because he has his “true self”, sin is not an issue. It’s like he completely misunderstands the book of Romans, which says that the struggle with sin is still real and present in our hearts.

Lastly, I’m disappointed how little gospel is present in this book. In a Christian book about masculinity, I can maybe forgive movie references and stereotypes, but I cannot forgive a complete lack of the gospel. From what I could gather from his book, John’s view of God is that God wants to be our friend, “needs us” (that’s cringeworthy), is someone who talks to us inside our head, and has the power to heal the wounds left by our earthly fathers. That’s it. The book is so heavily focused on the self, that if you took out the God references and poorly interpreted Scripture passages, you would basically have a really cheap, secular self-help book about hyper-masculine stereotypes. What about our purpose of glorifying God? Is that not a man's calling?

Honestly if you’re a man and you struggle with your masculinity, you should not read this book. Pick up a book that just preaches the gospel message and emphasizes the power of Christ, and you’ll be in a much healthier spiritual state. Or just read the Bible. Do the opposite of what Eldredge says. Go to Bible study. Live humbly, and reject your "true self" and let God replace your heart.

Do not take this man seriously. Do not read this book.