.
Wild at Start
Lately there have been a Ba-ZILLION posts about men… and specifically a particular book called “Wild at Heart“. It’s the newest christchun phenomenon. ((Who hasn’t done the 40 days? At least twice? We’ve finally moved on, it seems…)) I’ve gotten more and more irritated as the blogs have been pouring in.
First, I need to preface for those who haven’t read the book (because I have). John Eldredge wrote about about men having been demasculinized in our modern day by the demands of women and society, and he calls for men to return to what they were before. The book’s premise is that there are three things every man wants: a battle to fight, and adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue.
Now on the surface that all sounds pretty good… especially to a guy. ((heh)) The whole macho thing being glorified and encouraged. But I only see the two major kinks that makes the whole damn thing crumble. And let’s start with the biggie: If this is a call for men to return to what they were before, I just want to know: BEFORE WHAT?
Brian and I listened our way thru Tony Evans’ series on a Biblical marriage. It was fascinating. Because he (Tony, not Brian) took the verses about how Christ loved the church, and applied them to men ((since guys are supposed to love their wives as Christ love the church, right?)) It involved claiming headship, honor, and (some other ‘h’ word)… and then, on behalf of the wife, sacrificing, sanctifying, and (some other ‘s’ word). But the main point was that as Christ was head of the church, so should a man be head of his home. The warrior-leader. With a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue.
Now (and I beg your pardon my cynicism) but… this is horse-crap. First of all, men don’t take full headship of a family. It’s easier not to. You put things off, and pretty soon she’s paying the bills because if she doesn’t, they’ll be forty dollars higher than they need to be. Each. Every month. So much for financial headship. You really enjoy that TV show or that magazine, and pretty soon she’s in the kitchen crying because she’s been home alone all day, and when you got there, you had better things to do than pay a *little* attention to her. She feels unloved, abandoned, alone. You haven’t even made her *feel* like a beauty! ((I’ve seen my MIL at the table in this exact scenario. Not pleasant, btw.)) You really don’t care when the family meets for the holidays, and don’t know your brother’s wife well enough to buy for her, and it’s easier to just let your wife do all the shopping… and you’ve never been any good with presents, so she’s doing all the wrapping and trying to coordinate families while people are testy over the phone with her… and you’re not head of your family anymore. There’s a beauty begging to be rescued, a battle to be fought, and you’re just too damn lazy.
My grandma was spiritual head of her household. My mother was spiritual head of her household. My aunt is spiritual head of her household. N is spiritual head of her household. I am spiritual head of our household. I have found that men have not taken up the ‘adventure’, fought the ‘battle’, or rescued the ‘beauty’. It’s bogus, y’all. And those were just examples citing spirituality. Even in nonnie households… my MIL gets what needs to be done done, and makes the decisions. It falls on her shoulders because he ain’t a’gonna do it. My next door neighbor, my mom’s best friends (ALL of them), the ladies in my theatre group… every single one of them shoulder the decision making and family responsibilities completely by themselves. Hey, da man brings home the check, so you should just be glad y’got that much, right?
The only man I’ve ever seen head his home was Kevin (my first fiance)’s father. He is the only man I ever saw actually live his faith out, and take responsibility for his family – rescuing the beauty, fighting the battles, and living an adventure. I met him once. Spent a day with him. He changed my world in one afternoon. So, having made such an audacious statements I have above, I need to clarify. Not all men are that way. But those who are not are in a miniscule minority not even calculable percentage-wise. Saying you want something and actually going after it are two different things. Sure, you can say you want to be head. You can even claim the almighty title of ‘head’. But what happens in that house can easily be a totally different scenario than the one you got goin’ on in your head.
I want to take you back. After all, men want to reclaim what they were ‘before’, right? ((grins)) Okay, let’s go to ‘before’. It was a lovely little piece of Heaven called Eden. There was only one man and only one woman, and so things weren’t too complicated. No TV, no job stress, no financial worries, no in-law angst. There weren’t even any kids to worry about. There was perfection everywhere. Hello… GOD was there! It couldn’t have been any better.
Then came the Snake. ((Oh, how I love snakes.)) The snake lied to Adam’s wife. Jeopardized her. There was a beauty to rescue, and a battle to be fought. And adventure to live. What did Adam do… back ‘before’ it all? He let the woman shoulder the decision making and take responsibility. It was easier, hey, he named the damn snake, she could deal with it, for cryin’ out loud. He didn’t do what he was supposed to. And that was specimen number one. So I ask you again… you men want to go back to how it was… BEFORE WHAT?
And now let’s take it one step further… Women are to ‘submit’ to their husbands, according to scripture. ((Tony Evans had three ‘s’ word for her, too, but that’s moot at this point.)) Submit not meaning be like a servant to him, bowing and being ruled over, but to allow him to be head of the family. Now this is where I started laughing. Brian could NOT figure out what my problem was… but here it is, simply:
Women cannot submit to something that isn’t there. Okay, I’m with the Bible. Men should be head as Christ is head of the church. But if they aren’t (and btw, they aren’t)… then what in THE hell am I supposed to be submitting to? Do you see why this *doesn’t* work? If the man were fighting the battles, you don’t think his woman would be his second? You don’t think she’d be at his back, giving him everything he needs? Frankly, since she doesn’t have a rescuer, she has to do the rescuing herself. And after a while, she just gives up on that lazy jerk on the sofa and does it herself – she’ll have to in the end, anyhow. You don’t think I got sick of nagging Brian to help me talk about camping and the Snake with my mom for SIX WEEKS STRAIGHT?? And what happened in the end? I had to fight the battle. I had to rescue the beauty… namely, me.
Wild at Heart my ass. Call me jaded, but I’ll believe it when I see it. And I ain’t seen it.
And the second major problem with Wild at Heart? The focus. Even if John had a good premise, he blew it in the delivery. How so? Well, YOU have a beauty to rescue. YOU have a battle to fight. YOU need to get back to where YOU were before. YOU-YOU-YOU. Wrong emphasis, dude. The man is still so wrapped up in himself that he’s not putting the focus where it belongs. So even if he follows the book’s advice, he’s not thinking of the beauty he’s rescuing, he’s thinking of himself as the rescuer the book promotes. He’s not thinking of the battle and who it will affect, he’s thinking of himself as warrior. Do you see what I’m saying? The focus is on ego. It’s still promoting the man’s selfishness. ((sigh)) Did Christ see Himself as the hero, the rescuer, the warrior… or the servant? Ouch.
Anyhow, I just had to go there. Because it drives me crazy when people jump on bandwagons without thinking. And it really sucks when people get so close and still miss it… which is why I gave up supplemental books. They fall short. There’s one book that will never fall short – and if you can get down all of the concepts in that one, you’ll be a far better man than the one Eldredge promotes. You’ll be as Christ… who gave up Himself… for others.
—VIEW OUR TRIP MAP— 
annamatrix.wordpress.com 
Anonymous
/ January 27, 2005But these aren’t attacks against the book. (Remember I’ve neither read this book nor the 40 days) In fact, the things you put down are actually reasons why a book, if it does espouse those things you claim it does, (all my info is 2nd hand, so notice the profuse use of the word ‘if’) then you are actually presenting a case why this book may be critical literature.We step on a logical land-mine if we take the followers of a certain doctrine, book, faith, whatever, we could be talking about cheese-cake of all things, and then draw our conclusions based on that. If we did that, we would have to conclude the non-existence of God. I mean Gentiles blaspheme his name on our account. And I have something to say about bandwagons and the “me”-centeredness in a future post. Stay tuned. :)
christianthought
/ January 27, 2005Wow, this is the first time that you said something that I actually had a problem with. But amazingly, everything you said makes sense, and I agree. I think that you summed it up correctly when you said ” If the man were fighting the battles, you don’t think his woman would be his second?” You are right. The problem is that the vast majority of men aren’t doing it. That’s why the author wrote the book, I would suppose: to give men the proverbial kick in the seat. If men are doing what they are supposed to be doing, then I don’t believe that any woman would have a problem deferring leadership. But alas, that isn’t the case.
As far as the last part, I do think that Christ was the hero, the rescuer, and the warrior. I think that He saw Himself as such because he was such. He was humble, in that He realized exactly what He was. He served us by being such, and I think every husband would actually be improved if he imitated both concepts…being a servant, and serving his wife by being the hero, rescuer, and warrior. I believe that the author was attempting to use the innate motivations of men, and channel them into goals worth pursuing, instead of seeing who can yell the loudest at football games.
As always, great topic and perspective. I appreciate all of your words, and your unique way of putting things. Very refreshing. =)
RebeccaStar
/ January 27, 2005So so interesting, Anna. Im my own experience, I am in charge, because like you say, if I didn’t do it, it wouldn’t get done, whether that be paying bills, washing up, or speaking to his parents about …. erm, Christmas presents, the wedding, etc etc etc. I like your point about ‘before what?’. I like how eloquent you are.
Anonymous
/ January 27, 2005Well said Anna! We have Wild at Heart in our bookcase. Never opened, never read, sale price sticker still on it…purchased while a baby because it was being used for a men’s bible study my husband decided not to attend because they were studying a book, not “THE BOOK!”. Good for him!
I read an article on Eldrige a few months back and based on that article, not the book, I knew the book would never be read in this household.
CHorsey
/ January 27, 2005I don’t know about your conclusions, since I’ve never read either book. However, I have been in your situation, and shared the frustration of a husband that could seemingly care less … about me, about being “leader” (spiritually or otherwise) and about pretty much anything. The advice from my parents (note – my dad actually is the “head of the home”, spiritually and otherwise) was from I Peter 3. Of course, I had all the same arguments you’ve got: I couldn’t “submit” (v. 1), because he wouldn’t “lead”; “if I just let things go and don’t take over, then it will never get done”; “if I don’t pay the bills, we’ll just get further behind”, etc., etc. I justified taking over the “leadership” because he was just “never going to do it” and “he just didn’t care”. Part of my thinking also said that if he wasn’t praying anyway (see v. 7, I think it is), then it didn’t really matter what I did, because he was never going to change anyway. I wish I could say I followed my parents’ advice and that everything worked out (it didn’t). Instead, I followed thru on my self-justifications until I eventually got tired of “doing everything” and just gave up. After all, marriage is about *both* people being partners – not about one person “doing it all” … right? So … I don’t know the solution. I suppose a lot of it really does depend on your trust in God, but that’s so easy to say, you know. I only know from experience that if you always “step up and do” the things your husband “won’t” do, it makes it a lot easier for him not to bother in the future. So maybe the real question is, can you trust God to follow thru and “win” him? Can you trust God to get you out of financial (and other) “messes” caused by hubby’s lack of “leadership”? From JFB’s Commentary on I Pet. 3:1 – “The discreet wife would choose first of all to persuade her husband to share with her in the things which lead to blessedness; but if this be impossible, let her then alone diligently press after virtue, in all things obeying him so as to do nothing at any time against his will, except in such things as are essential to virtue and salvation” [Clement of Alexandria].Sorry to be so long-winded. Maybe I should’ve taken this to my own site!
Anna
/ January 27, 2005No, that’s great, Carrie… and I agree… we are to submit, but as far as we’re still in the will of God, right? And God wants us to be wise stewards, honest, responsible, etc. So if the hub isn’t doing his part, we can’t just let it go to pot – we have to take up virtue ourselves. But I don’t see that as an excuse for men to be lazy and leave that to be the status quo. They could come up with an excuse even if we didn’t continue in virtue – I didn’t have time, I didn’t know what to do… excuses are a dime a dozen.
Which is why I think Tony Evan’s did his ‘men’ section before he did his ‘women’ section – if the men don’t do their part, the whole thing falls apart.
satsoul
/ January 27, 2005Where in the world did you get such a brilliant mind? You are the first post I read EVERY DAY – thank you!
roseyred
/ January 27, 2005I agree with you on men not taking charge like they should…my dad is awesome though…he is the head of our family. I think it’s awesome…and he just recently started taking my mom out on dates again. I think its awesome. : )
roseyred
/ January 27, 2005oh my. Pardon my last comment. I guess I can’t think of any descriptive words other than ‘awesome’ today. haha Guess that’s what I get for being a college student who’s sleep deprived. ; )
Anna
/ January 27, 2005((it made me smile, so it was worth it.))
circumstances_mean_nothing
/ January 27, 2005I completely agree!
Anonymous
/ January 27, 2005Dang Anna, that was one heck of a post. You really nailed the whole issue. You should write a book!!!!!!!!!!!
Anna
/ January 27, 2005Marriage for Dummies? I’d rather not. I’m not betting I’d generate enough sales to make it worthwhile. LoL!! Besides, with my luck, it’d be the next christchun sensation, and I’d have to kill myself, or assume another identity…
tozhannah
/ January 27, 2005I agree, this is an excellent post. I also agree with the premise of the book, as well as with your assessment of the current role of men as “household heads.” I have not heard much about the book; however, I do recognize the Eldridge name as one to stay away from. I wanted to make sure I was right and just rechecked it. Here is a link to an article from Christianity Today (not a common source for me, but it says volumes that even this publication pans the Eldridge book): http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/008/15.34.html . Obviously this is an author that should not be used as even supplementary reading by anyone.
Anna
/ January 27, 2005Wow – and that led me to this one: http://www.churchofthegoodshepherd.info/WAHcritique.htmyeah… I’m thinking there are some issues there ((shakes head))
momi26kdz
/ January 27, 2005hhhmmm, I need to reread this several times and ponder it carefully. I haven’t read the WAH book, don’t intend to. however, I do see my man as being my rescuer, my warrior, my hero. I’m lucky (blessed) that I have a man who DOES take charge, who always has MY best interests at heart, who takes care of me, who loves me more than himself. I submit to him in most everything. No, I’m not perfect, and yeah, I do fail (too often!), but it always ends up biting me in the butt! I’m learning, as the years go by, that my submission brings sweet freedom.
Just my 2cents worth. As I said, I really need to reread your post and ponder it carefully…….
Sandcastles
/ January 28, 2005Here’s one more thing about the Adam/Eve story: When God asked Adam if he did the big “no-no”, what did Adam do? He blamed it on Eve! Not only did he NOT step up to the plate and take responsibility, he pointed to Eve and said, “The woman You gave to be with me (not even calling her by her name, just “woman”!), she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Translated: “It’s her fault! SHE gave it to me!” (Gen 3:12) Sounds like a couple of 10-year-olds:Father: How do you know that you’re naked? Did you disobey me?Adam: SHE gave me the fruit! It’s her fault!Father (to Eve): What have you done?Eve: It’s not MY fault; that dirty snake TRICKED me!Nope, don’t want to go back to “before”.
deeta
/ January 28, 2005Facinating. I have to agree on the lack of leadership in men (in general). I have seen it in women too. I think it goes to the way our society thinks we (as a whole) need to be – non-confrontational. Let everyone do their own thing and not bother anyone else with it.
LMRamos99
/ January 28, 2005Wow! I have no other words at this point.. You have touched areas that I never thought of.. my husband is great in alot of areas.. but also has some of those weaknesses that you wrote of.. I am just amazed at how much your post relates to me.
darkstar218
/ January 28, 2005Here’s my question to you, Anna. Is a wife’s obedience to 1 Peter 3, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 11, Genesis 3:16, etc. dependant on her husband’s obedience to the same scripture? It sounds like you are saying that if he doesn’t hold up his end, you aren’t obliged to hold up yours. I’m not making excuses for men that don’t take their responsibilities up. What I’m sensing, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that you are trying to justify women usurping a husband’s headship because he’s not taking it anyway. That doesn’t sound like the heart of a submissive wife, which is what God desires. More so than grabbing the reigns whenever your husband fails to take the lead, I think it’s Biblical for a wife to be gently and prayerfully encourage her husband to seek the will of God in his household. And if he fails to do so, I believe it’s a wife’s duty to control her desires to take over and wait on her husband to finally come around. I’d like to see where Scripture gives wives the conditions and circumstances to take over when their husbands aren’t doing things the way wives think they should be done.
What about Romans 13? If the authorities over us are not following God, does Paul give us a Pass to no longer follow their instructions? Are there conditions/fine print listed in Romans 13 for the charge give to submit and obey? I don’t see that.
Being head of his household doesn’t mean the husband has to be doing everything himself. At least, that’s not what I see in the Bible. (Proverbs 31:10-31) You bring up things like paying bills. Another favorite of wives is taking out the garbage or doing the shopping. Yes, a considerate and loving husband will see a wife in need and want to help where he is able. But your tone, cursing aside, is argumentative and combative. Take caution about leading women to be quarrelsome wives – which Proverbs warns about on several occasions.
Again, I’m not excusing weak or lazy men – especially those who claim to follow Christ. But let me give you an example of the amazing obedience to Scripture that my wife had in the early years of our marriage. When we first got married, we were Christians in name only. I was making 6 figures and spending it recklessly. My wife, though she wanted to jump in and take control, decided to wait patiently and let God work on my heart. After 3 years of fast living, it all came crashing down. We lost everything. And I have only myself to blame.
The amazing thing was that my wife held her tongue. Yes, she could have easily forced her way to being in control and reign in our finances and put me on a strict budget, etc. And she would probably have been right. But, she would have permanently killed any hope of me rising up to becoming a responsible, God-fearing husband and father. In the end, I realized how foolish I was, but the ordeal made me cherish my wife and her willingness to obey and trust in Christ. All along, she was on her face begging God to change my heart – not so that would obey her desires, but that I would submit to Christ as my head. When I realized that, it humbled me and energized me to take my responsibilities as husband and father.
Anna
/ January 29, 20051 – I don’t see where specific words are taboo in the Bible, aside from the Lord’s name in vain. Pot. Kettle. Black. You also just earned a MAJOR red flag with that one. Being new, consider it your warning. Once more and the ‘-ian’ will turn to ‘chun’. We don’t add to scripture on this site.
2 – The whole premise of this blog is focused on the mindset of the man – if he is loving his wife, thinking of her as a beauty to rescue, thinking of his life as an adventure, his problems as a battle. You’ve turned it around (as Brian does EVERY time) to be ‘things’ that need to be ‘done’ – ie, garbage, bills, etc. While those were mentioned as external actions reflecting the internal attitude, that was NOT my (or Eldredge’s) point – ever. You’ve missed the point. Meaning you’re of a wrong mindset to begin with.
2 – I don’t see in the scripture where it says a wife should allow her household to go into bankruptcy, fall apart spiritually, and/or become ineffectual while ‘waiting’ for her husband to get up off his ass and fulfill the verses writ to him. There would go your glorious Prov31 chick out the window. I also fail to see where submission is ever defined as passive.
3 – If a man is treating his wife as a partner and not as a maid/servant/cook/nanny/secretary, there wouldn’t be a need for her to be ‘quarrelsome’, not would there? Again, something that could be avoided if the man weren’t sitting on his computer trying to rationalize the woman into a helpless position of silence and suffocation. You are so obviously ‘male’ and of a warped mindset, it’s not funny. And yes, it all comes down to the man. Which is why the Bible tells the Man to love his wife, and never the woman to love her husband. Because if he does what he’s commanded, the woman would automatically love him back (we’re wired that way). It’s also why the Bible commands the man to leave his parents and cleave, not the woman. Because if he provides the environment of care and love that she needs, he wouldn’t have to worry about her running to her family. Women are also wired more independent than men. It *is* on your shoulders. Because if the boss doesn’t have it together, the company falls apart.
4 – Yes, I am combatative. If this is news to you, you have a lot to learn. I fight the good fight. That would be combat. And a good fight is one that tries to put scripture into action. Sorry if that doesn’t fit your CGM definition of ‘meekness’. I run the race, dude, not sit on the side waiting for my husband to decide if we as a family should participate. I learned long ago in (christian) marital counseling that I’m responsible for my own walk. And I cannot carry him. But I can challenge him. And if that’s what it takes to get him to take up his own cross, then damn me to hell for doing it.
5 – You haven’t been paying attention. Our current budget is such that SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH is going out over what we make. I’ve *been* silent. I’ve BEEN good – I still have the damnable Explorer that is sucking us dry. I’ve lived that. So don’t give me that ‘you haven’t done it right, I’m more pious because I have’ bullshit.
Why the hell am I wasting my breath on you? Your philosophy is to throw the hands-on approach of P31 out the window while endorsing her ‘more acceptable’ qualities – the ones that apparently appeal to you. Don’t pick and choose, dude. And don’t piss me off with your legalism and glibe handling of scripture. It doesn’t fly at this site.
I don’t mean to endorse that authority be usurped, in fact, I argue for just the opposite – that the man get off his gludious-hiney and TAKE the damn authority so that we ladies don’t *have* to be put in a position of lovelessness, weakened faith, disappointment, loss, and responsibility for things that are not given as our position.
And now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a full Saturday of being alone with my children – AGAIN – taking full responsibility for my happiness and the success of my family by myself.
darkstar218
/ January 29, 2005Best of luck to you and your marriage.
outofthefire
/ January 30, 2005Well, I had a response ready, but Xanga was down when I tried to post it…
I’m really not sure what to think about all this. We, as humans, are imperfect. As such, we will never be able to understand God completely. When someone (be it Eldridge, Arthur, Lucado, Dobson, or anyone else) tries to understand an aspect of God, they (hopefully) realize that their description does not totally describe God, but just the aspect of God that they were hoping to promote.
As far as this book goes, a lot of what was included in the book did describe that aspect of God very well. The danger comes when we take that aspect and elevate it above anything else. God is an adventurous warrior, but He’s also a tender lover. To forget either aspect is to limit God and place Him in a box.
I haven’t read any of his other books, so I don’t feel like I’m really all that qualified to comment on his worldview. Whether or not it’s a complete biblical worldview, I can’t say. However, there are some good things to consider from the book. It’s when we elevate the book above THE Book that we run into trouble.
You’ve probably figured out that I’m pretty anti-hype, and that goes for “christchun” and “secular” things alike. I saw the book, thought it looked interesting, but it took a good year or two before I picked it up off the shelf and read it. I still haven’t read (nor do I plan to read) the PDL, and I decided against a church because they were in the process of beginning such a study. Even so, blind squirrels will find a nut occasionally. But that’s another blog for another time (and for my site probably)…
letseewhatthiswilldo
/ February 20, 2005I make it a rule to buy NO BOOKS from the bandwagon. What I could expose from the bandwagon booksale would cause quite a stir in the hive…
And I have been curious about this book…cuz im kinda feisty..it appeals to the “man” after reading this I defintely wont be reading it.
Something I was thinking of…did you ever wonder why Eve was a rib? An internal supporting structure in the house of the body protecting the most delicate of the organs…think this is a coincedence?
Hmm.
Some men know how to lead…some men want to know, but dont know how, others want to, but there wives need to get out of the leadership position first. I know this is not always the problem and that just as you have described it is the norm in many households. Few are the men in the lead, because of crappy churches, poorly prepared people entering marriage, and luke-warm lifestyles which exalt the flesh rather than the Spirit, and the tent versus house people…meaning those allowing their marriage to minister to the world, or using it as an insulation from the world. Big difference.
just some thoughts…
Me, I am ready. But there is not a woman in this town interested in me, or one that is willing to let me know that. The irony of it all. But…none the less I am seeking and serving Christ, and if any woman comes into my life, THAT is what should attract her first and foremost.
the whole relationship in God thing seems to make much more sense when it is looked at as a ministry…not only to each other, but to the world. I know these are just words…waaay easier to say than do…may God grant me integrity to match my mouth.
Thanks for the information you provide…I do use it, and it does help. Your words have weight with me. You are one of my few sources of info on the EU from a christian standpoint. thanks.
charles.
Psalm113vs9
/ July 27, 2006This was a good post even though it is like a year and a half after it was written that you led me to it via ambleramble. thanks!!