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.

What I liked: 1. This book was an easy read. I like to alternate between something light and something challenging. 2. It is written from a Christian perspective. 3. If you are not completely a frozen popsicle inside, then the book tries to inspire you to be more fully alive - seeking out your dreams, the very nature of your existence - dare to explore, take risks, and find a true calling.
What I did not like: 1. The author repeatedly makes reference to fighting, like men are made to fight, physically, like David, Joshua, et. al. Just because a man can fight does not necessarily make that a central purpose for him. As a caveat, it is fair to say the author also delves into the idea of fighting for things that are right, which I fundamentally agree with. However, some of the scripture used to support said hypothesis somehow did not ring completely true.
Overall: I liked it because I can really relate to the need to go out and do manly things, like woodwork, paintball, and heavy lifting, and using heavy machinery. I think many men are wired for just such activities.
Spoiler: I agree with Eldredge's final statements that we should seek out the things that make us feel alive. I also think the theme of giving up control to God is literally the only way that we can have a true relationship with Him. Therefore, as we cede control we gain everything vs. losing our soul by trying to control everything, which effectively leaves no room for God in our lives. The last part of this review represents certain fundamental themes to the Christian lifestyle and summarizes (in a way) why we (Christians) often describe our journey as a walk with God, because sometimes we are walking with God and other times we forget and stray and reject God.

كتاب عن سيكولوجية الرجل قلبا وعقلا
هي اول مره لي مع كتاب لفهم الرجال وتفكيرهم فغالبا اجد هذه الكتب عن النساء
الكتاب به بعض الأفكار الصحيحة لكن المشكله الكبري في التحوير
أعتقد أنه يدور في دائرة مفرغة ليصل لنفس النقطة

Excellent work on a neglected topic. Eldridge challenges our culture and the men in it to live lives of spiritual adventure that will change both. What I found revolutionary was that he takes the model for this transformation to spiritual passion not from the latest cultural trend but from God Himself. Worthwhile reading for any man who believes the spiritual pursuits are a dry obligation.

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.

This is drivel dressed in very ragged Christian clothes.

Whilst the attacks on men in our culture are serious and many issues/questions identified in the book are valid, the answers are useless and could not be considered Bible based in the least. Our standard should be Christ. His Word our primary source for who we are meant to be as both men and women. Not the film Braveheart or William Wallace.

It cheapens who God is and completely misrepresents his sovereignty. There is no risk with God. He knows all things, if he didn't, or if one thing could fall outside of his control then we could not trust him, and maybe perhaps we should not trust him. But thankfully since he is all powerful sovereign creator of the universe who knows all and sees all and hears all, we can trust him.

There are so many things wrong with this book. Not least the fact that it makes a mockery of the wonderful godly man working long days at a job he hates out of love for his family and a desire to provide for them. Sacrificing himself, as christ did for the church, is the true mark of a Godly man.

Give me one kind man who will sacrifice himself for the good of others, over a million 'exciting' lion hunters who only want to serve themselves and make themselves happy.

Solid testament to the reality of God’s vision for man! I was impressed by the fact that so much of what Eldredge wrote appeals so directly to my heart and my own experiences. This book helped me to see the reasons for some of my struggles in family relationships and the route to healing.

This is a much-needed message in the midst of a culture that tries to propagate the lie that men and women are fundamentally the same. Equal, yes. The same, no. “God created them male and female.” The true desires of a man’s heart in this life line up nicely with Wild at Heart’s “a battle fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to love.” These are fundamentally different than the desires God has placed inside every woman, and the world needs to understand this reality. While some of his choices of Bible or pop culture references didn’t appeal to me, the themes this book is based on hit deep.

I think Wild at Heart is relevant for any Christian man, but I definitely see the ways where the Catholic Church in particular goes much deeper in appealing to the heart of man… and would encourage any readers who are not finding true masculinity in their Christian church to look into Catholicism. We haven’t lived these ideal perfectly either, but there is far greater depth and encouragement for men in the Catholic Church, for those who seek it.

So thanks to Jordan for inviting our Men’s Fellowship to read Wild at Heart - I’ve grown a lot in my passion for living as a true Son of God while reading it!

When the best part of this book was the summary of Gladiator, I knew it was going to be a tough read. John Eldredge's Wild at Heart is the worst advice given to men on how to embrace masculinity, and chapter after chapter solidifies this antiquated perspective as barely readable.

Looking at the very few strengths of this book, Eldredge’s writing ability stands out. He masterfully captures boyhood moments, transporting the reader to the American West with him and his grandfather during his childhood. These passages paint a joyful picture of childhood memories—perhaps the only part of the book that can make the reader smile ear to ear. Additionally, Eldredge’s chapters on spiritual warfare stand out as insightful. His understanding of scripture and how we are to use it daily is a rare hopeful note in an otherwise frustrating read.

However, the core of Wild at Heart is Eldredge’s warped fantasy of masculinity, and from here, the book takes a turn for the worse. The first chapters read as an attack on the modern man—one built on sweeping generalizations rather than evidence. Eldredge claims men have been overcome by domestication, work, and femininity, yet never provides a solid argument as to why this is true. He laments the supposed perversion of Christian masculinity but never clearly defines what that means or how it happened.

The book reads like a blog post, filled mostly with Eldredge’s personal opinions rather than substantive discussion. He fetishizes masculinity and then wonders why the world and modern men don’t conform to his vision. He argues that a good man is a dangerous man, dismissing “Real Nice Guys” as boring husbands and lovers. At one point, he even compares Jesus to Mr. Rogers, implying that this image of Christ is too weak for modern masculinity. Instead, he states, “I’d much rather be told to be like William Wallace.” Yes, John Eldredge genuinely argues that the gentle, calming image of Christ is obsolete—that men today have been neutered and need to embrace a warrior-like nature. If that weren’t bad enough, he repeatedly praises womanizers like James Bond simply because they embody "danger."

Wild at Heart does not seek to uncover the secret of a man’s soul, despite its claims. Instead, it is a fear-mongering push at masculine insecurities, artfully worded by Eldredge but ultimately hollow in substance.

I can't give it zero stars, so I give it one star, but in my heart it is zero stars. This book is very bad.

You won’t feel the same way I do about this book. I’ve heard some friends rave about it, while others criticize its author & contents—and neither person is wrong. It’s just one every man must read for himself to see where he falls, the lessons he learns, or the problems he sees with it.

Eldredge is intense, and that leads to some of the mixed feelings I’ve heard around this book. But I’d rather an author write what we believes, truly believes, to be true, rather than another book that is highly touted without really saying much.

I don’t know if I agree with everything he writes. Some things I won’t understand until I’m a father, or husband, or trapped in the same routine. But the underlying message, to truly honor God through masculinity, is one that resonated and inspired me. It’s an important message for every man, young and old, to discover. I want to live like Christ, being both tender and wild.

P.S. I want to catch, cook, and eat a fish.

I want to like this book. Eldredge makes a compelling case for what makes men “manly”, and I personally resonate with a lot of it. But, I cannot faithfully recommend this to all of the men I disciple; it is narrow-minded and lacks credibility. Simply, I do not believe there is enough evidence from Scripture given to back up his claims.

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.