As for your two last items: Thanks for the formatting mention. I posted that when the blog was hosted under another platform, and never thought to go back and check. I’ll try to fix it first chance.

Second item: I cannot see anywhere in Scripture where danger or rescuing from danger is a part of the afterlife. But as to whether or not such absences would be boring – I don’t think so on several fronts. First off – not unless we assume the Godhead had to be bored in eternity past without any such things. Secondly, how will the endless plumbing the depths of the awesomeness of the infinite God ever even remotely become boring? Endless, mindblowing discovery sounds pretty exciting to me.

Blessings. Reid

On a sidenote, as my reading is not in the right order, i wonder if Eldredge’s sequel is a response to many of these criticisms that you and others have made? Either way, your points are very interesting and deserve a closer look on my part.

Two last items:
1. There seems to be some formatting issues with this article. My view of it in Firefox shows numerous question marks amidst the text, and the text itself appears to have parts missing….

2. When John says that every man needs “a beauty to rescue”, i think it is a bit of a stretch to say that he will “hate heaven”, because there will be no “beauty rescuing”, etc..! I know your main point is about violence and that there will be none in heaven, but i simply question your interpretation of heaven, and that simply because the premise of this book is based on these three statements about masculinity in the here and now, that in another reality, these three will not apply. Does this make any sense?

I would like to take more time to look at what Scripture says about the afterlife, and what verses you are basing your critique on. I cant quote any verses offhand, but a Heaven that doesn’t have room for courage and danger (what is adventure without these elements?) doesn’t sound quite right to me…. (and yes, I confess, sounds a tad boring…! hahaha)

Thanks in advance for your reply.

)oe(

Blessings.

I’ve written my own review of Wild at Heart.

1. What God supposedly spoke to JE. I am not judging his spiritual condition at all. I am reacting to the fact that he was more moved by some “supposed” – non-Scriptural word from God, than he was by the Word of God itself as a verifiable authority. We have no means whereby to judge such things acceptably except by the Word of God itself – “Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.” (Isa. 8:20) Even in the NT, those who supposedly would “prophesy”, were to have their words “weighed”. We are to weigh them against Scripture – it is our only secure and divinely objective means. And the things supposedly revealed in that section could be tested against Scripture as they were purely subjective. We ought (I believe) to reject such things.

2. Violence. I did indeed say that all violence involves sin of some sort, but did not speak so broadly as to say every act of violence may be sin itself. In war, violence must indeed be met with violence, and those seeking to see justice prevail are not sinning in doing so. That being said – all such violence always has as its end – the ending of violence, not the perpetuation of it. When Christ returns, it will be a violent time. BUT -and this is most important – it is to put a final end to ALL violence. The Bible’s clear message against human violence (wherever and whenever possible) is unmistakable. That it is sometimes necessary in this present fallen world is not an endorsement of it as a normative action where sin is finally subdued. There will be no violence in Heaven. All sin will be put down and all violence will end. That is what we are after. Not the promotion of it in this life.

3. Your citation of Christ in the Temple. Several things are errant in your paradigm there. a. Jesus wasn’t being accosted, and thus wasn’t in the circumstance of turning the other cheek. He was eaten up with zeal for His Father’s house. He was not being vengeful. b. This was not in the context of a personal affront. c. There is no scriptural evidence he used the scourge on the people. Most commentators agree it was for the purpose of driving out the animals. Jesus never once in His life resorted to physical violence and did indeed turn the other cheek, or you and I wouldn’t have the cross. None of this is to negate the right of self-protection, but if you will read the NT approach, it was to flee first, and avoid physical retaliation on a personal level. A good reading of the OT laws on this as well would be enlightening.

4. Your story about your own experience is compelling, but it is not how we interpret Scripture. We use Scripture to assess our actions, not use our actions or experiences to interpret Scripture. The best advice my Dad gave me was to have justice done by getting the proper authorities involved, rather than taking justice into my own hands. God’s prohibitions against our acting independently in such cases are replete in the OT laws governing Israel. We do well to listen to them even though we are not Israel. Private justice is always a poor substitute.

5. I will not argue that there is a masculine aspect to spirituality, but there is also a feminine one too. That God told his friend that, I find highly suspect. God’s Word on these issues is sufficient to build the right constructs on masculinity and femininity as well. These extra-Biblical revelations are not the way to progress. Lets find out what God has ALREADY said in these subjects. Once we’ve truly mastered that – then come and talk to me about “God said”.

I pray the Lord will indeed assist you in “recovering” you heart – though to be honest I am not quite sure what that means. But if you would be truly masculine – lead your family in knowing God’s revealed Word and will, and set yourself to live it. You will never need to be more masculine than that – and that (believe me) will be quite enough.

You attack his statements on what God spoke to him. Not to be rude, but thats judging him on his spiritual condition. Hearing God’s voice is much different from your flesh or the enemy speaking to you.

Another thing you said is that bloodshed always involves sin on some level. Sin on whos part? The people commiting the act of violence? Because last I checked, Jesus is going to come back riding on a horse to judge the nations. Not to mention God killing 185,000 soliders in the OT. Seems rather violent.

Its because its justice. God is a just God, and we are called to be just as well. Yes, vengence is the Lords. But Jesus didn’t turn the other cheek in the temple. He pulled out a whip and beat on people.

You don’t seem to like what he told his son about punching the bully. I was hesitant at first, but after awhile, I realized thats exactly what happened to me when I was younger. I was stripped of my manhood at an early age because I never fought back. I was passive, just took it, like everyone. That would have been the best advice my Dad could have given me at that age.

Eldredge says in one part of the book that God told his friend that spirituality is masculine. Its soo true, but we stop there in America today. Many people struggle with fear and insecurity. Wild at Heart really brings a boldness that has been lacking in the American church nowadays.

Besides, how many real men are there out there? Not a lot, I dare say. Certainly not myself. And its a long, hard journey to go and recover my heart.

I like the warrior motif myself, particularly as expressed by Don Juan Matus in all the Carlos Castaneda’s books. That author is more of an esoteric author, that few Christians would probably ever give serious thought to. He calls it sorcery, but certainly not in a traditional, let alone evangelical, sense.

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth, so is everyone born of the Spirit. John 3:8

There is no such thing as a cat owner. Maybe the cats cannot be made suburban either.

Mickbic