Although there are others who do not share my experience, on the whole, John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart had a positive impact on my life. Among other things, his insights on Satan’s strategy are worth the price of the book and are probably the most helpful thing I’ve read on that subject. Eldredge’s influence was so profound in my ministry that his teaching on the differences between the masculine and feminine image of God in the soul showed up in my doctoral project. Here’s an excerpt and it’s also the part I’ve been rethinking:
“God made us male and female… to teach us important things about Himself. That being so, here’s an important truth: whatever virtues are associated with being male or female, God has them all! John Eldredge, in his popular book Wild at Heart, tries to root his work with men in what it means to be created in the image of God. Despite deficiencies in his teaching,[1] his contribution to men’s ministry has yielded fresh and important insights:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). Now, we know God doesn’t have a body, so the uniqueness can’t be physical. Gender simply must be at the level of the soul, in the deep and everlasting places within us. God doesn’t make generic people; he makes something very distinct—a man or a woman. In other words, there is a masculine heart and a feminine heart, which in their own ways reflect or portray to the world God’s heart.[2]
He goes on to describe the masculine heart as having three distinct desires which consist of:
- an adventure to live,
- a battle to fight, and
- a beauty to rescue.
He suggests that we ‘think of the films men love, the things they do with their free time, and especially the aspirations of little boys and see if I am not right on this.’[3] For women, he also suggests three corresponding desires:
- a yearning to be fought for, yearned for, and pursued;
- an adventure to share—to be caught up in something greater than herself; and
- a beauty to unveil.”
Although there’s truth in Eldredge’s provocative analysis above of why, for example, on average, James Bond movies appeal to desires in both men and women, I’ve come to see that the way he dissects and differentiates them is inaccurate, unbiblical, and damaging to both men and women. What’s more, his teaching that the three bolded desires above are ONLY masculine diminishes the beauty, mutuality, and mystery of the sexes, and ends up demeaning women in the following ways:
- Women as well as men have an adventure to live and men, as well as women, have an adventure to share. Separating these thoughts in any way is inevitably and needlessly reductionistic. Further, women are not just passively waiting around to be unveiled, pursued, or yearned for. For example, many conservative Christians grew up being taught that “men are initiators and women responders.” But is this nature or nurture? Is it part of God’s design or someone’s popularized opinion or experience? Is it biblical or just a reflection of a certain subculture? Women are so much more than objects of desire. Actually, Tremper Longman points out that in Song of Songs “the woman is the main speaker and initiates the relationship.”[4]
- Women as much as men are engaged in the battle of life. In looking at the Proverbs 31 woman, for example, in verse 11 it says, “Her husband can trust her, and she will greatly enrich his life.” The Hebrew word behind “enrich his life” is plunder or the spoils of war. Longman notes that “the idea of the verse seems to suggest that the woman is a warrior in the battle of life. She goes out and fights on behalf of her family and comes back with the victor’s spoils, which allow her family to thrive in the midst of the conflict.”[5]
- Women—not just men—care about rescuing beauty. Should “rescuing beauty” be confined to a damsel in distress or militaristic imagery? Is not a mom or dad’s nurture and care for their children rescuing beauty? Might not it also be rightly applied to someone’s passionate commitment to save unborn children or even the coral reef? Preborn children and the environment are certainly beauties to rescue. Another prevalent evangelical teaching related to this is that “men care about significance and women security.” But again, is this nature—part of God’s design? Or just nurture—the way we were raised or thought it was supposed to be? In the adventure of life where there’s beauty to rescue, why can’t it be a human thing—something men and women do equally together—to care about both significance (Matt. 6:33) and security (Rom. 8:35-39)?
The main point of this post is that our views of male and female differences need to promote a mutuality, not one sex over, or at the expense of the other. Yes, women can bear children and men can’t. And, yes, on average men are physically 50% stronger than women. These are biological facts, and they play out differently based on the people involved, the voices they listen to, and the times they live in. But that doesn’t mean that men aren’t equally—alongside women—supposed to be “involved, responsible, and committed” to their children. Or, that strength is a masculine virtue and not a feminine one. Again, note another characteristic of the Proverbs 31 woman:
- “She girds herself with strength, And strengthens her arms.” (31:17, KJV)
- And here’s the same verse in the NLT: “She is energetic and strong…”
As Longman observes, in this verse, “the woman’s strength is praised in a way that may surprise those who incorrectly believe that is reserved for men in the Bible”[6]
Finally, Eldredge’s thought-provoking insights about how great literature and movies awaken the three bolded desires above—although harmful when applied to men only—could be useful if applied to women and men equally and together. In doing this, the eternity God placed in our hearts (Eccl. 3:11) might be more clearly seen and savored: God, the reckless loving warrior, invites us into relationship and a spiritual battle. He’s the God of Easter who gave us his only Son because we are part of his beauty to rescue.[7] Moreover, he desires that we pursue and seek him, that men and women—equally and together—share in his adventure, fight for and see his beauty unveiled.
Happy Easter, dear friends!
For discussion:
- If you’ve read Wild at Heart, was that a positive or negative experience for you? Why?
- This article makes the case that Eldredge’s three descriptors of “the masculine image of God” should equally be applied to women. What about Eldredge’s three feminine descriptors? Should they also be applied equally to men? Why or why not?
- Which of the two sets of three descriptors do you find the most compelling? Why?
[1] For example, see Christianity Today’s article “A Jesus for Real Men” by Brian O’Brian, April 18, 2008.
[2] John Eldredge, Wild at Heart (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 8.
[3] Ibid., 9.
[4] Tremper Longman III, Proverbs: Baker Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 540.
[5] Ibid., 543.
[6] Ibid., 544.
[7] John Eldredge, Wild at Heart (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 16–17.