I’ve Got Your Braveheart Jesus Right Here, Eldridge! An Opening Barrage

Jump to Comments

So John Eldridge, author of the wildly popular Wild at Heart, tells us that most men in churches across America today are bored. OK, fair enough. But is adopting a posture toward the world at large and women in particular that is akin to kayaking down the Niagra Falls or urinating off impossibly high mountain cliffs in the name of unbridled manliness worthy of being considered an appropriate (or, for that matter, faithful) Christian response to the problem?

No pulling punches today, girls and guys. I’m getting this one off my chest.

I’ve come across so many guys that love Eldridge that I think I’ve begun to anticipate some of the responses to this initial barrage. Let’s take them one at a time, please. 

1. “Of course it’s not exactly ‘appropriate,’ but was Jesus ‘appropriate’?”

Well, obviously not. No first-century Jew who directs his time and energy preaching good news to the poor and bad news to the entrenched “religion-istas” of his place and time could be accused of having an overriding concern for “appropriate” behavior. But did he direct his disdain for the soul-crushing tedium of religious hypocrisy into outlets for alpha male behavior? Did he see the manipulation of God’s people in the very house of God and go Henry VIII on their butts? Some of you may say he did, but overturning tables in response to economic blasphemy is miles away from Braveheart face-bashing, in my opinion.

Jesus’ example does not give us necessarily a picture of appropriate beahvior for today’s world; but that is only to say that the way of Jesus sometimes rubs up against polite society. When we give our lives over to the rule of polite society, we will live a life that is sometimes at odds with the life lived under rule of the Kingdom of God, which has truths to express to us about human messiness that polite society simply cannot address. Anyway, the question here is not even about “appropriate behavior,” it’s about an appropriate Christian response; that is to say, How do we as Christians respond to a situation? I would argue that Eldridge’s vision of manhood is at odds with Christ’s vision of manhood.

2. “But, aren’t most men in churches across America today bored?”

I have not seen the empirical data that speaks to this fact, but OK, let’s play that game. So, most American Christian men are bored. They don’t want to be bored, so how do we kill that boredom? Through war movies and nature hikes? Now don’t get me wrong, we can learn a lot from some war movies (and absolutely nothing from others: see John Wayne), and I’m enough of an environmentalist to say that we actually learn quite a bit from spending time admiring Creation. But to suggest that the Christian way to make Christian men “not-bored”is to reinforce their dude-ness seems to suggest a secular answer, if you will. Does getting in touch with my inner man-beast get me closer to God, or does it get me closer to some American ideal of man? Here’s my suggestion: if we want to kill Christian men’s boredom, let’s not get them to engage in dangerous mountain excursions; let’s get them to accept some dangerous beliefs. And by dangerous beliefs I mean the Kingdom of God beliefs, the ones that take all of our assumptions about life (i.e., war is good, poverty is morally acceptable, things are good the way they are, women belong in the kitchen, some people are inferior to others) and flips them upside down and shakes them all around until we’re seeing things through Christ’s eyes. Not an easy view.

3. “Isn’t Elridge right when he says that men need an adventure to live and a beauty to rescue? His wife thinks so!”

Yeah, I know that Stacey Eldridge agrees with her husband on all of this. I’ve known women who love John and Stacey because they speak to the kind of household order they hope to establish. But generalizing this desire for a knight-husband and a damsel-in-distress-wife arrangement honestly offends honest Christian men and women who strive for what they see Scripture preaching as a more equitable household. That equality, these people would suggest, must be both physical and psychological. One woman I know (my wife, that is) gets fired up every time she reads Eldridge tell her that what she really wants is a shining white knight. In truth, she wants a husband that loves her for who she is (Renee-wife-daughter-sister-friend-employee-nurse-footballlover-OSUfan-comedian-confidant) rather than what she isn’t (fairyprincess-Rapunzel-SnowWhite). At the same time, she sees me in the very same way, as a sum of the roles I play and myself in an entirety, not a sum of mythological desires and Walt Disney-planted wishes. That is what I want. Leave the adventures for the movies, which are never real anyway. Give me Renee, the person with whom I share this messy life.

4. “Well, aren’t men inherently violent, though?”

Men satisfying their need for adventure apparently requires a little spilling of blood here and there, so says Eldridge. This, he says, is a good thing. Now if we accept his position that men are inherently violent, does that mean that we should indulge that violent tendency? When I read the New Testament, I see a constant theme of chaotic nature needing radical transformation. Paul says that there was an old man, and now there is a new man. Before/After. I was one way, now because of Christ I am another. Because we are a certain way, does that give us license to indulge in that behavior? The biblical witness seems to say, No.

Right about now, I’m gonna need some feedback. Send me your thoughts. I don’t think I’m through with Mr. Eldridge yet.

And hopefully the next post will be a little nicer.

17 Comments

Filed under Christianity, life