The last part, the part about revelation, don't many Christians use the same terminology (save for the "talks to him directly" part) most of the time?

As I have heard some say, and probably said before, myself, that God "really spoke to me through (so-and-so)" or something of the sort.

Am I way off base in my feeling that God still speaks to us through things like the Bible, other people, books, movies, and most of all His Spirit? None of which encompass an actual dialog/conversation (i.e. anything audible) with God.

Am I way off base in my feeling that God still speaks to us through things like the Bible, other people, books, movies, and most of all His Spirit? None of which encompass an actual dialog/conversation (i.e. anything audible) with God.

Andy, I for one am with you.

I haven't read WAH, but maybe the difference is that he substitutes what God said to Him through "Braveheart" for substantive interaction with Scripture. It's my understanding that Eldredge basically treats the Bible like any other source along with movies, books, etc, drawing little decontextualized prooftexts for "quotes" like he does lines and scenes from movies.

At least that's what I've heard.

But I agree with you that God is always speaking, and while the clearest, best, and first place to hear Him is through the direct revelation of His written Word, I believe that He can and does also speak to us through other mediums (all of which must be filtered through and measured by the main medium of Scripture, however).

I haven't read WAH, but I have to agree that it sounds like a must-miss. I am particularly appalled at the interpretation of Ruth in WAH (I read it in the link that Mr. Challies provides). All I can say to that is...yuck!

I love posts like this. I struggle to buy books for my church's library. I've a budget of $500 a year, and reading a variety of opinions helps me more than anything.

This makes me wonder...are all of these books coming out because the Bible IS clear, and we just don't want to obey it, or is there really a need for men's opinion on what God has said?

I'm all for the scholarly type books that take the time to show us how they came to their opinions. It's the self-help variety that just spouts stuff with no foundation that are causing my nerves to shatter.

(quick! someone write a book for women who have 'shattered nerves due to reading self-help books syndrom'.)

Good post, as usual!

I *highly* recommend the WAH review by Rut Ehteridge: "Wild at Heart: God in Man's Image" The intro reads;

Our first original essay is by Rut Etheridge III.
He is a ministerial student in the Reformed
Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA).
His article is a reasoned response to a phenominally
successful book, John Eldredge's Wild at Heart. Mr.
Etheridge's writing demonstrates clear thinking, a
passion for orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and courage to
speak against the dangerous errors in doctrine and
worship that injure so many in our day.

Click. Download. Read!
http://www.churchofthegoodshepherd.info/resources.html

Am I way off base in my feeling that God still speaks to us through things like the Bible, other people, books, movies, and most of all His Spirit? None of which encompass an actual dialog/conversation (i.e. anything audible) with God.

I have no idea about this book because this is the first I have read of it but God does speak through many things but he does not speak through things in any way that would contradict the Bible.

BTW, the WAH topic is now a little personal. A very close friends of mine has a marriage on the rocks and he's now looking at getting in to a church (a big step for him) and in to a men's ministry for growth and accountability. He went to Church where his wife goes (she's a Christian, he's questionable) and they announce that they were rekindling their flagging men's ministry and rebuilding it from the ground up. The foundation for their rebuilding? Wild at Heart. Books, DVD's, workbooks, etc. My heart sank. I told him he's be better off staying out of that men's ministry. It's like rushing a critically wounded friend to the hospital, only to discover that their only on-duty doctor is Dr. Kevorkian.

Darrel and Andy

Of the points that Tim made, the one about Revelation was the one that I had the hardest time remembering re any offense by Eldredge. I was a bit irritated by his constant reference to movies (and his telling us to be more like Maximus and less like Mother Theresa, for instance) but I can't remember if he was majorly off on that topic or not. Of course God can speak any way He wants to. In other words, what Jared said. :-)

I think WAH made some points that needed to be made, though I didn't like it on the whole. However, I think that I most of the specific criticisms offered in this post miss the mark -- some entirely.

Open Theism I really hate to bring this up, but C.S. Lewis -- yes, the man himself -- said in Mere Christianity (not an exact quote, but pretty close) "We must think of God as a gambler." The "risk" language fits pretty well in the context of a broad definition of Arminianism. No one need get alarmed by this language except for Calvnists, and then, only the "Calvinism is Christianity" Calvinists.

View of Satan I think this might point out some inconsistency in Eldredge's thinking but, though I am a little rusty on WAH, I bet I could go in and find plenty of passages that put the responsibility square on the sinner.

View of Jesus and Use of Scripture OK, not off base. But I can find plenty of Evangelicals Fundamentalists who are even worse than Eldredge.

Revelation You can go too far -- waaaay too far -- with thinking that God gives you special "messages" about, I don't know, healing, house buying, where to find a good parking space, whatever. But either you think God speaks to you in extra-Biblical fashion sometimes, or you think He never does. There are no other possibilities. Maybe Eldredge goes too far. (My memory of WAH is too hazy.) But someone who thinks such "speaking" never happens goes too far the other way, in my humble Evangelical (and, I think, Biblical) opinion. I am in strong agreement with Andy and Darrel in their previous comments.

As for why I didn't like the book: I think if you read it carefully, it is one of the most anti-masculine books ever written by an Evangelical Christian! I should explain further, but I have to go.

No one need get alarmed by this [open theistic] language except for Calvnists, and then, only the "Calvinism is Christianity" Calvinists.

What about those who simply believe in the traditional view of omniscience? That's not just Calvinists.

Jared, perhaps you might want to start another post on this, but the topic of God "speaking" to us has been a bit of a troubled area with me lately. Although baptized Pentecostal (where *anything* can happen) some 13 years ago, I'm now Reformed in my theology. The problem I have is that many Reformed publications immediately slap the label "heretic" on anyone who claims that God "speaks" to them. This is because, they seem to generally say, that when God "speaks" it's infallible, inspired divine revelation -- ergo, it's Scripture. Therefore, anyone claiming God "speaks" to them is claiming what Paul, Peter, Jude, et al., claimed: divine revelation (and presumably cannon authority). Since the cannon is closed God no longer "speaks" to people (except through the finished Scripture) therefore anyone claiming this is a heretic. Ugh! I see their logic, but then I have questions:
- How do you get answers to prayer?
- How do you feel convicted of sin, especially those you can't directly look up in the Scripture?
- Is our spiritual life reduced to intellectualized musings about the Scripture with no supernatural input, and if so, what does the Holy Spirit do?
- When you strongly feel God prompting you to call and pray with someone, do you just put your fingers in your ears and scream, "This canNOT be happening, God stopped speaking to man 20 centuries ago!!!"?

What do to? If I were to live like that, I'd feel like my "relationship" with God had gone from an intimate experience to nothing more than a one-way speakerphone where I can talk but God can't respond. But on the other hand, if the communications go both ways, then I'm in the position of claiming that God speaks to me, that is to claim divine revelation -- and I'm not saying that. Frankly, I can't think of a better place than Thinklings to "have it out" over this issue… an issue that is not so cut-n-dry for many of us.

Phil in CA,

Great comment. Nothing profound to add (yeah, I know, what else is new?) but, since you and I have been on the opposite side of a few fences lately, I wanted to take the opportunity to agree with you publicly. (or "internetally" or whatever)

Jared,

In response to your question, it is the distinction between God knowing what will happen and choosing to exercise absolute control over what will happen. And if you really want me to elaborate further, we will be up to our eyeballs in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate again faster than you can say "tulip." :) And besides, CSL can deliver any answer I could give with much greater eloquence.

Phil,

Just wanted to say I completely agree with your comment about God speaking to us. There is a blogger who is of the same denomination as me (LCMS Lutheran) who very stridently insists that God doesn't "speak" to people anymore. I vehemently disagree with that, and you have put into words why I disagree. If that makes me a bad Lutheran, so be it. ;-)

Bob, I understand the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. That wasn't what I was getting at at all, and I also don't really want to go down the road the thread to this post (which is unrelated to that subject).

I was only meaning to point out that it isn't just Calvinists concerned about Open Theism, and therefore the language of open theism, in Eldredge's work and elsewhere, isn't just of concern to Calvinists.
My good friend Kenny, who is a Free-Will Baptist pastor, will differ with me on how God's omniscience "works," but he is no less opposed to Open Theism than I am, and I suspect he'd be just as troubled by "the God who risks" (a la Sanders or Pinnock) as I am.

Jared, We may sort of be talking around each other. Not that that has ever happened before .... My point was not to defend open theism, but to point out that the language of "risk" is used all the time by Christians we otherwise have complete respect for. Given this, and the fact that Eldredge seems more concerned about "having an impact" than about presenting cogent arguments (a problem, of course, but very common in Evangelical circles these days), and the fact that he tends to exaggerate to make his points (also a common problem, but anyway ...) I don't think we have to say he is an open theist.

I don't think we have to say he is an open theist.

Open Theism, which is what Eldridge teaches, is that "God knows everything that can be known." In other words, God knows "everything" only in so far as what *can be known*, but no more. If I flip coin, God only knows what can be known -- that I flipped a coin -- but the head/tails result is not, according to Open Theism, known to Him until it hits the ground for all to see. Eldridge clearly stakes out a theology marinated in this type of Open Theism. The word "risk" permeates every inch of Eldridge's view of God and God's character. Risk is taking an action wherein, by definition, the end results remain unknown (e.g., flipping a coin, rolling dice, investing in stock). This is bald-faced Open Theism, since the premise of the idea is that God is taking action for which He does NOT, for whatever reason, know the outcome. There really is little middle ground here; either He is omniscient or He is not. Eldridge's god is reduced to a foolish gambler rolling the dice with men's souls, hoping the outcome will go His way. This renders God's promises little more than a gambler's promise of, "Um, I'll pay you back when I win big at the track tonight!" Singing "There is no rock like our God..." becomes meaningless when that God is one roll of the dice away from having his latest "risk" go bad. That's what risk means: potential failure due to uncertainty of outcome. That's what Eldridge teaches, and both Arminianism and Calvinism reject this and should speak against it. One of the few things that Arminianism and Calvinism have in common -- and Eldridge rejects -- is the view that God does in fact exhaustively know all that will come to pass.

When I first read Wild at Heart, I liked it, and my wife didn't. I thought at the time it was because it was a guy book. But the longer I thought about his claims, the more extra-biblical I realized they were. It is not that many of his assertions are untrue, just incomplete. Somehow Eldredge is comfortable exegeting the scripture on "turning the other cheek" into a commentary on the need to fight to prove you have a cheek to turn. He's an entertaning writer, but his theology leaves one wondering yet again about how safe it is to trust in his books for spiritual counsel.

I certainly agree that God still speaks to us today. While I think it is mostly through his word He is God and can speak how ever he chooses.
My question is really how do you balance that with extremist who claim God tells them to do something. Thats why I still believe like most of you I would imagine that we must way what "God tells people" with the Word.

Great points. I totally agree with Darrel about "testing the spirits" and myself believe that God speaks mostly through his Word.

Thanks for taking part in this discussion all. I've got to leave -- I feel the soft-yet-fierce talons of Calvanism trying to grab hold of my mind/heart again.

;)

Bob

Regarding your reference from C.S. Lewis - you are probably right that he used the "God risks" language. That being said, if you read Mere Christianity, especially the parts about the trinity, the nature of time, etc, it's abundantly clear that C.S. Lewis was not anything like the current crop of Open Theists. He firmly believed in God's omniscience.

A few comments:

1. Tozer says that God has never stopped speaking. If He's never stopped, then maybe it's simply us who have stopped listening.

2. Eldredge. Where to start with this piece of evangelical (very small "e") work. No other author I have known has so captured the imagination of men like Eldredge. I know that in my small group he sits at the left hand of God to hear people talk. In my area, they do entire men's (and women's) retreat weekends around Eldredge's material (http://www.cincinnatiexplorers.com) and folks just suck it up like crazy, no matter the fact that it is totally extra-biblical at its heart. I've refused to go to these retreats, but my wife went because she wanted to see if what I was talking about was the case and she came back from one and agreed with me that it is really out there.

There are so many Scriptural mishandlings in Wild at Heart and such a gross misunderstanding of just why "men are bored with church" as Eldredge likes to claim that it is hard to know where to start in critiquing the errors. My biggest beef is that everything that Eldredge assumes about maleness is assumed post-Fall. He wasn't there when Adam was created, yet he extrapolates all sorts of assumptions about how Adam was made by God, yet only uses character traits that could be tainted by sin. The way Eldredge manipulates Jesus is also extreme. He uses the fact that Jesus was a "tough carpenter" to justify his own son's retaliation against a bully. He completely mishandles the cleansing of the temple to show that Jesus could get angry for anger's sake, rather than acknowledging that Jesus wasn't trying to defend His own character, but the character of the Father. That distinction is critical, yet Eldredge plows right over it in order to reinforce his wild man image of everyone and everything. Even from a psychological perspective he fails, since the examples he uses wer men of a different time who had no need for Jung or psychotherapy; these were guys who just sucked it up rather than talking about "their wound." Wound-schmound! Any men's group founded around "the wound" will still be talking about that wound ten years later and nothing will have changed. I've seen it all too often.

Anyway, I'm just getting hacked off writing this. It's late, too. My review of Eldredge's tome got a lot of blistering "Not helpful" comments on Amazon, so I guess the proof that people want to hear what they want to hear is right there. A million Elvis fans may not be wrong, but every single one of Eldredge's are.

DLE

Thanks for the comments. One thing I have noticed is that as time passes there appear to be more people who've done their homework on Eldredge's work, and I think that's a good thing. When Bird first posted on WAH here on Thinklings, one of my first comments was "I hope it's a fad that passes". I'm not sure how quickly it will pass, but I do believe it will.

Bill and Jared,

I thought I already exactly answered your point in my response to Jared, but I will try again. I am not trying to defend open theism here. I am merely pointing out that the language of "the God who risks" is used time and again by lots of Christians, some of whom we have a great amount of respect or even reverence for. So when Eldredge says that God takes risks, that is not enough to put him in the open theism camp. If Eldredge has actually come out and said "Hey folks, I am an open theist" then I stand corrected. Otherwise, I think we can chalk all this up to some combination of his Arminianism and his penchant for overstatement. (And if you want to talk about whether those are good things, well, that's another question.)

Sounds good, Bob.

To shift back to something else you said, so we can leave the "is Eldredge an OT" debate behind - heh:

In comment #9 you wrote: "it is one of the most anti-masculine books ever written by an Evangelical Christian! I should explain further, but I have to go."

Can you expand on this a bit? I'm interested . . .

Bill wrote,

In comment #9 you wrote: "it is one of the most anti-masculine books ever written by an Evangelical Christian! I should explain further, but I have to go."

Can you expand on this a bit? I'm interested . . .

A question? Since long before your Sun burned bright, I have awaited a question. (No one is going to get that reference except for the died hard original series Star Trek fans. But I couldn't resist.)

OK, in a nutshell: In the early chapters of WAH, Eldgredge does, in my opinion, a spectacular job of describing the plight of the modern American Christian male. Regardless of the stories that make the headlines and the intentionally skewed statistics we all hear, men suffer outrage upon outrage these days, especially in the church, and I think Eldredge is right to say so. But then he goes on. He says things like Eve was really the crown of God's creation, almost implying that Adam was just a mere "divine warm-up", and that her eating the apple was really Adam's fault. Pure claptrap. Very common claptrap these days. But claptrap nonetheless. He talks about the importance of fathers, but usually concentrates on the problems that fathers cause. And if you really cut through all the Braveheart talk and see what his cure for the modern man's problems are, it is: Recognize that your wife is better than you are and commit your life to doing everything she wants you to do. Recognize that your children are far more important than you are and commit yourself to giving them everything they want. And don't expect your family to respect you. You're a man. You can take it. They're emotional. You're not. Suck it up. Sit in the pew every Sunday and listen to your preacher tell you what a worthless pile of junk you are for being a man. You're a man. You can take it. Oh, and commit your life to God and read your Bible and pray every day. I know alot of people will disagree with me on this assessment. But really, read it not for the William Wallace whetowic, but for the concrete solutions Eldredge proposes. Whew! Glad that's over.

One more thing, though: I think if some of the more doctrinaire Christian leaders had been pointing out the problems the Eldredge points out, instead of cowtowing to the feminists in their congregations (even in fundamentalist congregations!) the niche that Eldredge has found would have already been occupied and we wouldn't be griping about him right now.

OK, folks. Enough discussion.

Buy my book and LIKE it, or else I'll be forced to bust some heads. Grrr!

hehe back again...

Whats wrong with this logic...

We are all made to be MEN by God
Some time in our life we need to go from Boy to Man
Masculinity is only bestowed by other MEN
All other men are failures and will therefore bestow masculinity badly and wound you (Romans here)
Therefore we are all searching to have our wound "healed" from the perfect man
God is a perfect man
We need to stop trying to heal ourselves with anything worldly and look to God to do it...


Ie

Every man needs God

Isn't that the whole point of the book? Except to say that in a really sturring fasion?

He talks about "nice guy" stuff... but isn't it true that whilst being a nice guy may or may not be good... that Its by faith and not by Works? Being a nice Guy cannot replace God in your life... isn't that all he is saying?

"Recognize that your wife is better than you are and commit your life to doing everything she wants you to do."

But then he also goes on to say, your wife can't "bestow" masculinity onto you... that you need to stop using your wife for that, and instead look purely to God for a while, so you can return with a God fucsed life to her and actually end up treating her better because of it? It seems to me that he goes on about "wives" so much purely to inforce the hierachy... God - Family - Church - Self.... Isn't that completely biblical?

The book is written in such simply english I think its clear that it is not a theological book... The passion of the Christ wasn't a very good comedy... does that mean it sucks too?

All issues with the book are implied and only become heretical if you put words into Eldredge's mouth and follow through...

---------------------

btw... I don't get why theology always have to be totally logical... What's wrong with God being Truly omniscient and taking risks? Is that any more illogical then shrogdiger's Cat? Or the fact you can get genes from grandparents that skip past your parents.... I don't understand it... if Our very own science, our understanding of the world is not entirely logical... if our world does not make complete sense... then why on earth does our God have to?

Yes. I finally have good reason to speak against it. I'm just kidding, but honeestly i've never really been into those particular kind of books, though I think some of them can be beneficial for some [though not beneficial for everyone]. But that argument runs weak because that same statement can be made about anything else. giving somebody the quran to read might help them believe in God [as opposed to atheism] but that does not mean I should give them something that will help them go into the right direction.

I have not read WAH, mostly because I was never interested.

WAH seems to be the equivalent of "extreme" for teenagers. If you go into any christian-book store in the "youth section" you will mostly find "EXTREME BIBLE" blah blah blah, lets go read our bibles while bungie jumping and rock climbing because God is about being CRAZY wahoo! anyway, not to be too harsh.

If anything is read complimentary to the bible we [in theory] should be fine, The reason we need these scrutiny on books like WAH is because we are supposed to be [reproach scripture] but I think it mostly comes because we lack persistence in understanding Gods whole counsel.

If we spent enough time knowing what was right we would not need these critiques of books like "wild at heart".

Regardless, I ask. Where does it go off on the "ESSENTIALS" Of christianity? Thats all I really care about. If it hints at extra-biblical jargon, or writes on a more persuasive level this should be criticized of course but, i'm mostly concerned with what a person says that hints at something that goes against the "essentials".

Of course we can dispute the essentials all day, but, this should be our main concern when critiquing. Though of course, we should "test everything" and make note of any indication of extra-biblical, for those like me that might miss stuff like that, being a generally young christian i'm all about it.

Anyway, nice critique, I love the idea of Antithesis and upholding scrutiny in love.

Stuff like this really bothers people who say "we ought not to be so nit-picky about christian stuff, we just need to love people".

Oh well.

I totally agree that people should be picking parts books like this because of the reasons you give steven... Its important, whilst John is not an open theist, maybe some impressionable readers (and its certainly true that alot of people who like WaH will be a little impressionable).. will read WaH and become Open Theists without properly knowing...

However its one step further to then start disuading people from reading the book! Its massively influenced loads of people's lives for the better... The point of the book is good imo, even if there are some bad tangents...

The quaran its "purpose" is for you to understand Islam
WaH Its purpose is apparantly give you "permission" to become truly dependant on God...
not theology... I don't think you could compare the quaran and WaH... cause whilst WaH will not serve every purpose, the purpose it does serve can be very "christian" ?

No?

Jamie,

I would say that your summary of WAH is probably pretty close to what Eldredge was trying to say, but not really what he did in fact say. If he had writen the book you are summarizing, I probably wouldn't be complaining right now.

"Recognize that your wife is better than you are and commit your life to doing everything she wants you to do."

But then he also goes on to say, your wife can't "bestow" masculinity onto you...

Yes, and this, I think, is a big contradiction in WAH. We get our masculinity (or prove it, or whatever ...) from bearing our wives' burdens. But we have to be sensitive to our wives' desires, i.e. they determine which burdens are the most important and the degree to which they must be borne. Therefore: They set the standards and they get to grade us on whether we are truly men. But not to worry, we don't get our masculinity from them! It doesn't add up. (And then there's still that Adam and Eve thing that really chaps my hide.)

It was just to demonstrate how weak the argument "well its permissible because some good come out of it".

With the quran being intended for muslim conversion while john's supposed intention was to glorify God I understand the signifigant difference.

The only point I was trying to make is we can't run it off of the argument that we see people being moved for the better because of the book. I see plenty of people being moved in a seemingly Godly direction because of joel osteen and others. You get the idea, the bible says not to measure it by those things but by its scriptural doctrine.

Even the false sheep raised the dead and did many things and Jesus responded "I never knew you".

Thats all I meant by it :]

Firstly in reply to Bob...

Well to be honest I think the whole book is a total cop out... I think its just trying to saying "All of us need spirit empowered and spirit dependant lifes..." (the exact words my vicar said confirmation is about, fairly basic theology though I suppose some would disagree)...

However another example of what you are talking about... is the idea of :
John: Stop trying to be a "good christian"... Follow your heart! Thats what God wants you to do!
Person: I want to have adulteruss sex with my secutary
John: ... yeah but is that what you REALLY want to do?
PErson: Yes
John: Come now is it really?
Person: Yes.... o.k then what is it you think I want to do?
John: I think you really what is in your God given heart... that means God's heart... that means you really want to do what God says...
Person: What be a Good christian?
John: Well... yes but no... its what in your heart!
PErson:But you said..
John: sssshh

O.k I got a little carried away with that... but yeah I agree steven there are loads of contradictions in the book. But I don't think the book is there to be intellectually sound (Look at how it is written, the language he uses is aimed at around 14 year olds)

However why do I love the book?

Because that ONE point which I think the book is trying to show... You need a spirit dependant life... but its so exciting as well... and people really need to get it drilled into their heads that its spirit dependant (Not bible dependant, not church dependant, not good deed dependant, Not charismatic encounters with the holy spirit dependant, not feeling dependant... but literally dependant on God)....

O.k now I am rambling too much and Jared is going to complain...

But I do beleive that the book for a specific genre and person, to rouse people to have fully spirit dependant lifes.... taking the book out of that (trying to make it logical, or theology) will make the book look terrible (but then The passion of the christ is not a good comedy)...


-----

Steven, I can't remember the verse but I'm pretty sure there are verses that say you should judge things by its fruits? If something results in hundreds of serious christians then its good?

however I'd argue that even if you want to hold it up against scripture... Why not just stop at pointing out the possible scriptural issues in the book? Why do you need to go further and start discouraging people who might actually benefit from reading the book?

I'm so glad Jamie's back!! That's not sarcasm, by the way; I really am. You just feel the energy and excitement bristling off everything he writes and, though he's seventeen, he doesn't think he knows everything either =o)

Jamie - top bloke. Seriously.

Although.

Jared's right - your new, pared-to-the-essence comments are even better and express your energy etc. even more effectively =o)

Did that compliment sound back-handed and a bit snarky just then? I'm worried it might have done, what with the bit about being seventeen and that. It's not meant to, though, honest! Jamie - everything I wrote is meant to sound like I'm proper excited to read you again, yeah? Cos I am. Is all.

hehe ...

No I just went on holiday :P

thanks :P

Although I think because I'm 17 and I've given up english...

"Jared's right - your new, pared-to-the-essence comments are even better and express your energy etc. even more effectively =o)"

I completely didn't understand that comment :(

Hey, do y'all know anything about Stu Weber's "Tender Warrior" book? I'm slow to this observation, but it may be a great alternative to WAH.

Sorry Jamie, mate! That, in normal English, means:

"Jared's right - when you boil your thoughts down to say exactly what you mean in fewer words, your opinions and your energy both come across loads better."