10/07/06 – Critique of John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart
Five or six years ago, John Eldredge’s books such as The Sacred Romance, Journey of Desire and Wild at Heart were big influences in my life. However, lately as I have been refining my theology, some questions have come up in my mind as to the validity and accuracy of Eldredge’s foundational theology.
Just this past Sunday, I was talking with a friend about Wild at Heart and we were assessing what Eldredge wrote and the effect of his words on our lives. Then, during our Essential Theology class the following Wednesday evening, our teacher happened to mention that John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart often sounds very much in support of a heresy known as Open Theism.
Open Theism is the idea that God only knows actual facts (i.e. - God knows everything there is to know including metaphysical facts such as our thoughts and intents); however, Open Theism breaks with traditional views of God’s omniscience by stating that God does not know all possible knowledge. In other words, this view supposes that God knows actual facts such as your thoughts, but he does not know what you will do.
When Eldredge writes about God as the “ultimate risk taker” in Wild at Heart, it can be argued that Eldredge replaces God’s sovereignty with his own image of God more suited to his personal theology.
With these questions building in our minds, my friend did some late night searching on the web and found an article at Christianity Today (Too Wild at Heart?) that addresses some evangelical Christian criticism of Elderidge. This article in turn pointed to the Eldredge critique I’m linking to at the head of this piece. The paper is a quite thorough analysis of Wild at Heart.
I recommend reading both the Christianity Today article and Rut Etheridge’s critique to help you become more informed about Eldredge’s writings which have garnered much impact in the evangelical world during the past several years.
2 Comments
Permalink
Interesting critique. On the subject of Elderidge’s strong focus realizing (what he takes to be) proper masculine and feminine ideals, I’ve been thinking about the following recently:
Much of contemporary Christian discussion is on this topic of the proper roles for men and women. It seems to me that Christians who want strongly-defined roles are going to have to come to terms with (say something about) the relevant fact that not everyone’s sex is well-defined. Some people are born intersex (having both male and female sex organs); not everyone is either XY or XX when it comes to the 23rd chromosome; and some people who are XY suffer from androgen insensitivity, so that they (to VARYING extents) have the external features of females and identify themselves as females.
So, those who want well-defined gender roles are going to have to answer the question: what are such individuals to do? I’d like to emphasize that I think this is an important point; these are real people, and while their conditions are uncommon, the Christian message applies to everyone (not just the 99.8% majority). I also want to say that in bringing up this point, I’m not just trying be argumentative; I really think the church needs to think about it.
Permalink
Claire my Sister in Love,
It’s nice to hear from you via my blog.
Thanks for weighing in with your thoughts. In regards to your reflections on proper gender roles for men and women in the church, I will start by pulling a quote from Rut Etheridge’s critique of Eldredge: