Wild at Heart

[Jedi]

Doesn't that conscern you? Doesn't it beg the question whether you are somehow unduely biased to the message of this book?

No, not really. Simply because I don’t remember anything I disagreed with does not, by default, mean that I blindly accepted every word of the book.

Especially considering that one of the major objections I see coming through is that the book tells men exactly what they want to hear, I wonder at the fact that you don't find anything wrong with the book.

I don’t see how the acceptance of a message has any baring on its veracity.

In my mind, being unable to find even minor faults with the book is just as bad as not reading it! The only things which appear to attain perfection in this world are either divine or idolized. And it would be hard to argue that this book is divine...

I’m not so sure this is true. It’s quite possible that a book can be written in which I find no fault, but there really stands no reason to say that because I find no fault in this book that I’m idolizing it. I analyze the books I read while reading them, and I simply can’t recall anywhere in Wild At Heart where I disagreed. Such a situation does not necessitate idolization, but could simply highlight the book as very well written. A book isn’t guilty until proven innocent here.

 

[Cubbs]

http://www.cbmw.org/resources/reviews/eldredge_wah_review.php

This review sums up what I think is wrong with the book

Living, with all due respect I asked you what you thought is wrong or off-base. Not someone else.

 

[Apollonian]

I don’t see how the acceptance of a message has any baring on its veracity.

My point was that veracity does not necessarily have baring on the acceptance of a message. It is possible for a person to accept a false message. If the message is both false and compelling then it is all the easier to mistake it for truth. I point this out since you yourself admit that you critique everything you read and yet you haven't critiqued this book. Why should you find fault with every other book and not this one? Sometimes it is better to first ask the question: "Why have I accepted this as true?" and then once you have an understanding of your own bias ask "How is this true?"

Epistemologically speaking, this book should be taken with a grain of salt, since it is not scripture and the handling of scripture in the book is at least questionable if still correct. You simply seem to have done this while reading and discarded what inconsistencies there were. Not remembering the imperfections is not the same as asserting perfection. I'm simply trying to be clear.

Here is a thought to discuss. If, for example, eating dates was viewed as a sin, and I had given them up, then I may have some idea of what the right path was. But, wha if I suddenly encountered an extremely well written article that presented the idea that dates are a natural food and that they were only wrong to people who misused them in ritualistic practices? Then the article says that eliminating dates from our diets was a foolish thing which deprived us from enjoying God's creation. So, it says that dates can be eaten as long as they are eaten properly. I would be compelled to say: oh, I really like dates and so I may eat them in this manner. But what if it is still wrong to eat any dates in any fashion? Given two sources, one which says that dates should not be eaten and another that says they may be - I imagine that I would be biased toward eating the dates.

In similar fashion, I can imagine that being "wild at heart" is compelling - but is it right? Punching a bully is incredibly compelling, but is it right? Why can't some men be more docile and happy with that lifestyle? Doesn't this book boil down to a suggestion to men on how to seek themselves rather than any absolute truth?

American cultural pluralism is a funny notion. Books like Wild at Heart seem to try and present a social norm for everyone in a society where there are so many diverse groups. In reality, it may only be a few of us that agree and perpetuate the books teachings. It then begs the question, if this book is "correct" - for whom is it correct and who would it simply mislead?

-Apollonian

 

[Living4Him03]

Just read what Apollonian writes. I agree with what he has to say and I am not good at articulating what I mean. I've tried to convey what I think about this book to him and I think he knows pretty much what I think and his above post pretty much sums it up. I"m not trying to use it as a crutch, so don't tear me down as some of you have done before, but I do have a learning disability which makes it difficult for me to process and organize information and to articulate what it is that I mean.

 

[Jedi]

If the message is both false and compelling then it is all the easier to mistake it for truth.

Of course, of course, but I don’t think that’s the case for Wild At Heart. I enjoy it because I agree with it; I don’t agree with it because I enjoy it.

I point this out since you yourself admit that you critique everything you read and yet you haven't critiqued this book.

Oh, I have. I simply found nothing that I disagreed with. Agreement isn’t necessarily a sign of lack of critique.

Why should you find fault with every other book and not this one?

I haven’t found fault with every book. There are plenty that are along the same lines of Wild At Heart (non-scholarly books) that I simply have no qualms with. Remember that a book isn’t guilty until proven innocent here.

You simply seem to have done this while reading and discarded what inconsistencies there were.

But that’s just it: I have found no inconsistencies in the book. People keep saying that there are so many problems with it, yet fail to provide a single example that stands up to the heat of scrutiny.

But what if it is still wrong to eat any dates in any fashion? Given two sources, one which says that dates should not be eaten and another that says they may be - I imagine that I would be biased toward eating the dates.

Of course, but there is no other credible source I’m familiar with that contradicts the teachings of Wild At Heart. Thus, in this picture, we have only one source.

Why can't some men be more docile and happy with that lifestyle?

It really seems that God has so much more planned for men than a simple, docile, quiet, uneventful life (no adventures, no battles, etc). I’m quite sure there are people who are very content in a “docile” environment, but they are merely fooling themselves in not being the sort of men God created them to be. Spiritually speaking, we are born into a world at war. This isn’t Home Improvement; it’s Saving Private Ryan. To be content with a docile lifestyle in saying, “heck with the battles” most definitely seems contrary to what God would have us do.

Besides, looking at the male gender, it seems abundantly clear that we are naturally geared toward those three things: a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue. Look at the products, video games, and movies aimed at men and see if I’m not right.

American cultural pluralism is a funny notion. Books like Wild at Heart seem to try and present a social norm for everyone in a society where there are so many diverse groups. In reality, it may only be a few of us that agree and perpetuate the books teachings. It then begs the question, if this book is "correct" - for whom is it correct and who would it simply mislead?

In traveling across the world from Saudi Arabia to Thai Land to Zimbabwe to Grand Cayman to Mexico to Holland to Jamaica, the desires of men as described in Wild At Heart appear to be very universal, transcending all these different cultures.

Just read what Apollonian writes. I agree with what he has to say and I am not good at articulating what I mean. I've tried to convey what I think about this book to him and I think he knows pretty much what I think and his above post pretty much sums it up. I"m not trying to use it as a crutch, so don't tear me down as some of you have done before, but I do have a learning disability which makes it difficult for me to process and organize information and to articulate what it is that I mean.

Understood, my lady.

 

[Cubbs]

Just read what Apollonian writes. I agree with what he has to say and I am not good at articulating what I mean. I've tried to convey what I think about this book to him and I think he knows pretty much what I think and his above post pretty much sums it up. I"m not trying to use it as a crutch, so don't tear me down as some of you have done before, but I do have a learning disability which makes it difficult for me to process and organize information and to articulate what it is that I mean.

10-4 Good buddy

 

[Cubbs]

Eh some of you dont like the book, oh well thats fine. As for me,Jedi, and tens of thousands of men are embarking on something great. God has captured our hearts into this romance. I am becoming a better husband, man of God through this book. That is my evidence; it is written on my heart. I look forward to hearing "Great job Eric, you did it!" when I get home.

 

[Raanan]

You know, It's probably not wise of me to resurect this post considering how heated the last few pages were but I was just wondering if anybody realized all of Eldredge's books build on each other. A teacher of mine called it flow of consciousness. Wild at Heart builds on concepts from The Journey of Desire which builds on concepts from The Sacred Romance (might have gotten the order mixed up). You aren't truly going to understand Eldredge's message if you don't start from the beginning or stop in the middle. With things written in a flow of consciousness style, you HAVE to read in its entirety or it won't make any sense. Maybe that's why people so easily misconstrue what's in Wild at Heart?

For me, I love this book. It's pointed me in the direction of life as Jesus created me to live. However, I've also read The Sacred Romance and the Journey of Desire. The first time I read WIld at Heart I had not read those other two and didn't understand alot of what Eldredge had written.

Whatever though. Pardon me while I spend the next 5 minutes debating whether to click the post button.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

For me this book was awesome. As a women, it really helped me understand my boyfriend, my father, my brothers, and the other men in my life.

Every guy I've suggest read this book (and every guy I know who has) has come up to me later and thanked me for it. They say it says everything they've been trying to say to the women in their lives for years, and haven't found the words to do it.

That was more than enough proof for me to say it was a great book. Plus the book tugged at my heart and revealed so much about myself as a woman - that I knew God meant for me to read it. Read the chapters on 'worth fighting for' - that did it for me!

Sasch

 

[Living4Him03]

This post needs to be closed. Sorry all but we will just have to agree to disagree for those of you who support this book. I have not seen positive things from it and I believe it just tells men (and women) what they want to hear, and is a speculation from the author, not biblical truth. God Bless.

 

[Amiko]

I recently read the book. I thought it brought a balance back... the world is becoming more and more poiltically correct and the lines between sexual identities are blurring way out of control. This book redresses some of the balance and while I don;t agree with everything that Eldredge says, I think it's a powerful discussion starter on what it is to be a real, godly man!

 

[JPPT1974]

Livingforhim03, Yeah if the topic gets out of hand we all do need to go to the moderator to report that the topic does need to be closed but give the forum another chance and see what happens and forgive all of us for sounding and/or coming off condescending and acting like better than thou!!