First and foremost, what a great book! That might be obvious with the time this book has spent on the bestseller list, but it needs to be said, this is a great book. John Eldredge does a fantastic job of unpacking masculinity and what God calls men to be. Wild at Heart, subtitled Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul, does just that. John takes a look at what makes the masculine heart and soul come alive and then explores how we need to call that out in our journey to manhood.
He starts off the book by addressing "the wound". This is huge and before you can get to the "rest of the story", you have to start by healing your wound. Everyone has wounds and John does a great job of unpacking the wounds most men receive and how to recover their masculine hearts, given to us in the image of a passionate God.
John explores three big theme's that he says are essential to men; a battle to fight, a beauty to rescue, and an adventure to live.
A battle to fight: I think this really hit home for me as I watch my 3 year old nephew play. He is all boy and it is clear when every stick turns into an imaginary gun or sword that will be used to defeat the "bad guys". He is always ready to take on any "bad guy" that stands in his way. John Eldredge says that at some point, that warrior spirit was crushed and pushed down. As he says, our churches today are filled with "really nice guys" but we need to be reclaiming our warrior hearts, hearts that are God given!
A beauty to rescue: To me, this ties into a battle to fight, deep down men want to have somebody to fight for and women want to be fought for. That is why timeless fairy tales, generally, have the story line of a damsel in distress being rescued by her knight in shining armor. To me, this brings back memories of my college days when I was pursuing and dating my wife. The dates I would plan, the hours spent talking to one another, I was fighting for her heart. The book then challenged me to continue that fight. Often times, once we hit marriage a man's mind shifts, it goes from fight for her heart to I have her heart...what now? John did a great job of reminding me to fight for my wife's heart on a daily basis and I have found when I pursue my wife, her heart comes alive!
An adventure to live: This last section tied everything together. With a battle to fight and my beauty to rescue, it is going to be an adventure. The big thing I realized is that my beauty wants to live the adventure with me, and I love that! The adventure is so much better when I get to share the adventure's with Heather.
John makes that point that in most churches today, if you look around you will find that the majority of Christian men are bored. I think this book does a great job of exploring the masculine heart and what it will take to recover our hearts and live how God designed us to live. I would highly recommend this book to anyone. Now that I understand my past and the journey that God has me on...it is anything but boring!

Where in the Bible does it really suggest that men should be "Wild at Heart?" living constantly on the edge and taking all kinds of risks and engaging in dangerous activities. Of course this idea will appeal to younger men and new Christians but it is completely the opposite of the Biblical model of denying self and taking up the cross to follow Jesus. There's nothing weak or unmanly about that!

Warto dowiedzieć się, ile potencjału na mężczyzna i do czego został stworzony.

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.

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."

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 book is based on so many overly simplified truths, that do not hold up in real life: "small girl never make up games, where a lot of people die..." To prove his point he adds: "- hockey isn´t invented by a girl, nor is boxing". Well, i am a girl- and i did play those games- most of my girlfriends did- and we loved it.
"i have yet to meet a woman who would marry one of those two types" (referring to Alfred and Samuel in "time of legends"). WHAT!? what women do you ask this- do they qualify to represent women in general?! - i disagree strongly based on my experience and the girlsfriends i talk to.

I agree with the fact that a lot of people (man and women) can feel the desire to seek the wild and adventures. I disagree in the distinguishing between the desire of a man to do so, compared to a woman.

In fairness i need to add that i did not finish the book, it made me angry, and i dont think it is based on any legitimate premises.

Which girl wouldn't grab a book with the title 'Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul'?. Men say they don't understand women,well, we don't understand you too! So, out of curiosity, I grabbed this book when I was a young twenty something year old. I don't know what prompted me to read it, or may I do and I just don't want to tell you.

I read it alongside 'Bringing up boys' and as an aunt to several boys, these two books taught me to just let boys be boys. When they decide to fight, I just watch them and I will only intervene when there is need. It taught me to reduce the number of 'NOs' I use on boys because as John Eldredge says, 'God designed men to be dangerous.' they are just wild and as a woman, you need to relax and let them be.

John Says, "Adventure, with all its requisite danger and wildness, is a deeply spiritual longing written into the soul of man. The masculine heart needs a place where nothing is prefabricated, modular, nonfat, zip lock, franchised, on-line, microwavable. Where there are no deadlines, cell phones, or committee meetings. Where there is room for the soul."

Here are some few points I noted while reading this book that try to explain how man is created in Gods image. Of course you have to read it to understand where all this is coming from.

1. There is something fierce in the heart of every man.

2. There is something wild in the heart of every man.

3. There is something passionate in the heart of every man.

Okay, I will have to read it again now that I am grown to come up with more points.

Have you ever seen a boy try to climb a wall and wondered what's wrong with him? Well, there is nothing. :D

Like many works which espouse a religious or philosophical value, this book has its appreciators and its detractors. The implications of the book's message are immensely significant; gender issues are frequently at the forefront of discussion in the social arena of our society. It's essential to understand, therefore, that the stakes are high for this book, as you can probably sense from other reviews.

To me, it is noteworthy how stridently many of this book's critics attack it. If I don't like a book, I'll perhaps offer a few measured words of critique and then put it down and move on with my life. The fact that so many people have taken it upon themselves to disparage this book with such verbose ferver, to me, is something of a hint at its true value. This book is neither "dangerous" nor "naive," despite what others claim.

In offering my own critique, I will note that Eldredge's presentation of ideas has some rough edges that could stand to be smoothed and that a few of his minor conclusions probably ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, his overall premise rings very true to me. We live unwittingly in a world in which masculinity is increasingly losing its divinely-appointed bearings. John Eldredge speaks to this problem straight from his heart, and he provides a good number of moral gems in this book that both men and women can profit from.

Eldredge speaks against the spreading "conventional wisdom" that being a man is somehow inherently a bad thing, and he observes that men are increasingly struggling to find a sense of masculine affirmation. He notes that men are blessed with unique gifts and abilities that need only to find proper expression, and that insisting that men be docile, submissive, "domesticated," and even apologetic is not in harmony with their divine purpose. God created man to be strong and "wild at heart," Eldredge says, and this is not incompatible with his intended roles of husband, father, and spiritual seeker. While Eldredge's language may be somewhat overly idealistic, his assertions that each man needs "a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue" seem, at least in my judgment, to be generally pretty accurate and insightful. Overall, the book presents a truly thought-provoking message.

It must be acknowledged that, just like nearly any other book, Wild at Heart has a target audience and a niche that will probably appreciate its message more than others. Those who aren't looking for what it has to offer will not likely get as much out of it. But I think anyone who is earnestly looking to learn something will find something worthwhile in this book.

Undeniably sweaty review but I’ve heard way too many positive comments about this book to just say
“it’s trash

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.

Not bad, there were some parts that I really resonated with and some parts that I thought may have been missing the mark. Overall I think this book was a great way to begin to evaluate the state of my own manhood and the manhood of the church more broadly. I’ll probably pick up fathered by God but not certain yet.