This book is extremely misogynistic.
Two chapters talk about emotional healing for men, the rest has extremely outdated and unfair views of feminity.

Best book of 2020!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I disagree with almost everything written in this book the premise intrigued me: deep within every man is a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue. I actually agree with the premise; the problem is that I see those things so very differently in the pages of scripture. The battle to fight is against sin and the flesh - we must be killing sin lest sin be killing us (John Owen; Gal 5:16-18; Eph 4:20-24; etc.) The adventure to live is the Christian life (Phil1:21; 2 Tim 3:12) - there is real adventure in being counter-cultural in secular society. The beauty to rescue is the church, the bride of Christ (Acts 20:28-30; Matt 25:1-13; 2 Tim 4:1-5) - she is in need of being rescued from pastors and authors practicing "narcigesis" (having your best life now) and proclaiming a prosperity gospel that saves no one. Avoid such books as this.

I would recommend this book to anyone who has never thrown a book, let alone the same book, against the wall, clear across the room, but have always wanted to.

A great read for men to embrace biblical manhood and for women to realize just how wild men want/should be. WaH questions why our Christian society sets the standard of Biblical manhood with Mr. Rogers rather than William Wallace (Braveheart). WaH pushes the envelope for men to embrace the biblical role of being men on fire for God and living on the edge. Most women probably won't like this book (or for their man to read it), and even some men may think it is too radical. So, maybe it is time to put down the book and go out and do a little hunting, football, and sky-diving! ar ar ar! Pass the peanuts, the Redskins are on.

Muuuuy buen libro. Una explicación "políticamente incorrecta" de la masculinidad, pero muy real. Termina uno la lectura muy animado por demostrar con hechos la verdadera razón de ser un hombre.

Ok…wow! So many thoughts about this book. Buckle up for a long review. In the shortest summary ever, I really liked it and walked away feeling like I learned a ton.

I didn’t give it five stars, and the reason why is pretty simple and doesn’t have much to do with the book’s controversy (which is very apparent in goodreads reviews

Serious Review:

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

Very good book. Best chapters are near the beginning and end. Talks about masculinity in a different light than what is typically discussed today. Good call to action throughout the book. The end of this book leaves readers wanting to read the sequel. I disliked how John Eldredge keeps plugging in his website but i understand it’s a business.

Nope. Nope. Nope. This book was recommended on a podcast that I listen to and enjoy so I thought I'd give it a go.
Nope. Cannot stand it.

Sure - it's important for men to be strong and fight for what's important to them and not be a push over.

BUT that's all I got.

I disagree with so many of the things the author was saying and proclaiming to be truth that I had to stop reading.

To me it came across very "men need to be this way and women this way and anything else is wrong and that's why society is falling apart." I strongly disagree with that. Men shouldn't just be strong and fierce and women shouldn't just be beautiful and want to be pursued.

I could go on and on about all the things I disliked and disagreed with in the quarter of the book that I read, but I won't.

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.