Reviewing the Reviewer

2005-08-29T07:44:00.000-07:00

The following is written in response to a review of John Eldredge's Wild at Heart by Randy Stinson, of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:

******************************

I have read a lot of CBMW's material, and while I appreciate their willingness to examine issues deeply and honestly, I have had a couple issues with some of their interpretations of various authors with whom they disagree with in the past. I have a great deal of respect for Piper, Grudem, Mahaney, and so forth, but I think that on occasion some of these issues bear deeper examination. That is not to say that I think I have somehow arrived at truth where these brilliant men have failed . . . it is simply to say that it seems that Randy Stinson, in this case (as I'm sure all authors do, at one point or other in their writing) has failed to take one or two things into account.

Problem One: An Unbiblical View of God

Stinson seems to start out his critique of Eldredge's view of God on a premise that he then fails to back up. He says,

"Part of the thesis of Eldredge's book is that men have a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to fight for. The problem occurs when he tries to project these activities onto the life of God."

He then proceeds to take issue with Eldredge's choice of chapter titles, while never explaining why the above is a problem.

Indeed, each of these three things cuts to the heart of every man I have ever talked to deeply, and each of them is very readily found in God.

The Battle:

Look at Exodus 15. God had just won a mighty victory for Israel, against arguably the most highly organized and trained army of their time. Moses and those following him begin to sing a song of praise to God. They begin in verses one and two with "I will sing to the Lord, for He is highly exalted; The horse and its rider He has hurled into the sea. The Lord is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation; This is my God, and I will praise Him; My father's god, and I will extol Him.

. . . what comes next?

Why, verse three, of course. "The Lord is a warrior. The Lord is His name."

. . . what on earth is the purpose of a warrior, if not for battle? God does indeed have a battle to fight.

The Adventure:

What exactly is an adventure? What is it, for you, that truly makes your heart come awake and sing? Is it building something great? Is it making something beautiful? Is it traveling on the sea or going spelunking deep in dark caverns of the earth? Is it collecting things - stamps, coins, keepsakes, or whatever your choice might be? Is it solving riddles nobody else can answer?

Perhaps, as a young boy, you enjoyed smashing things - showing how powerful you were by taking a stick or a rock to some harder substance, over and over again, until it was broken. Perhaps you enjoyed placing things where nobody else could find them or get to them.

Perhaps you were more of the tenderhearted type. Perhaps adventure for you entailed caring for things - picking up a wounded bird that had stunned itself against an invisible window, and nursing it back to health, perhaps? Maybe instead of touching, you enjoyed just watching - observing wildlife in its natural environment. Perhaps taking pictures of it so that you could remember that moment? Maybe, instead, your adventure was in taming wild animals. Alternatively, maybe it was simply studying them - learning all you can about their living habits.

Now read Job 38 and 39, where God humbles Job in response to his self-righteousness.

It seems God has done all of these things. In Job 38:4-11, he compares laying the foundation of the earth to building a house - complete with foundation, walls, and a door to keep out the elements. Verses 12-15 sound like a loving painter, speaking of his favorite canvas. Verse 16 talks of sea voyages, and continues into verse 17 with talk of exploring the world's deepest places. Verse 23 speaks of a great battle, while 24 speaks of the puzzles of the division of light, and the east wind - two issues we do not fully understand thousands of years later.

Verse 25 speaks of cleaving channels and hurling thunderbolts. Verses 31-32 talk of creating the unreachable stars and constellations. Verses 39-41 talk of caring for animals ranging in size from lions to ravens.

Chapter 39 opens with more animals - observing the birthing habits of mountain goats and deer. It goes on to speak of the taming of wild donkeys and oxen. It goes into great detail about the lives of ostriches, talks of breeding horses for strength and for war, and ends with a wondrous discussion of hawks and eagles - for whose heart does not soar when looking at these majestic birds.

Frankly, these two chapters sound to me like the greatest adventure ever put to words! And who is the adventurer at the center of the story here??

it's God.

The Beauty:

Here, we have to examine my favorite chapter in all the Bible - Hosea 2. Any who doubt that God has a beauty to win should read this chapter - for we, His people - are that beauty. We have been faithless, time after time, engaging in actions that would force any normal man to turn and run in fear or frustration.

. . . but not God. After all of his bride's faithlessness, what does He do? In verse 14, He tells us. "Therefore, behold, I will allure her, Bring her into the wilderness and speak kindly to her."

He tells us exactly how, in the next few verses, and says notably, in Verse 16, "That you will call me husband, and will no longer call me master."

He culminates in verse 19-20, "I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, In lovingkindness and in compassion, And I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness. Then you will know the Lord."

Verse 23 concludes: "I will sow her for Myself in the land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, 'You are My people!' And they will say, 'You are my God!'"

God has a beauty to win - and has outlined exactly how he intends to woo her to Himself - kind words; gifts; and loving, tender care.

. . . and His beauty is us - His bride, the universal church.

So it seems that Stinson is wrong when he says that we cannot project these three activities onto the life of God - for it seems that God has projected these three activities onto our own lives.

However, while he fails to address his claim as to why these three things are not proper to ascribe to God, he does indeed go deeply into why Eldredge was wrong to ascribe the term "risk-taker" to God.

This issue delves into one that I know will get a bit touchy. I know that many who read this may well subscribe to reformed theology in the form of so-called "five-point Calvinism" . . . I am not reformed (to this extent, at least) and have serious doubts about some of the tenets of reformed theology. I don't normally like to broach these issues, but the issues raised in this critique of Eldredge cannot be otherwise addressed, so . . . here goes . . .

Before we jump fully into this, however, I have to say a word about open theism. Stinson seems to say that because Eldredge is aware that open theists use similar words to those he uses, and because he has claimed not to be an open theist, he should avoid using those words in order to minimize confusion. Stinson says, "If he is familiar with the debate, [over open theism] and he is not an open theist, then why would he use language that is so closely tied to that position?

To me, this doesn't make any sense - it's like saying that because I know the Catholic Church uses certain words (the word "grace," for example) to mean something completely different than the way Scripture uses that word, I should avoid using it because people might think I'm advocating the Catholic usage of the word.

Now, to the part that plays directly to reformed theology . . .

It seems Stinson is building the skeleton of a straw-man argument here. He accuses Eldredge of diminishing the power of God, by attributing uncertainty to our relationship with Him.

However, if you look back to the quotation Stinson uses from Eldredge's book, the uncertainty is completely one-sided. "As with every relationship, there's a certain amount of unpredictability, and the ever-present likelihood that you'll get hurt. . ."

Who has the uncertainty in the relationship? Who's the one that could get hurt? . . . not God, us.

Stinson is absolutely right when he says, the paragraph after this quotation, that "The Bible depicts God as knowing the beginning from the end." Of course He knows . . . if He didn't, He wouldn't be God.

However, as St. Augustine said, (and as Eldredge quoted at the conference last week) "Without God, we cannot. Without us, God will not." Sure, God knows the outcome - the risk is in getting there. In His sovereignty, he chose to create us with the capability of falling, and when we fell, He chose to use us anyway.
The risk is in using broken tools to accomplish His plan.

Here's where the reformed theology comes in.

Eldredge says (and Stinson quotes): "God did not make Adam and Eve obey him. He took a risk. A staggering risk, with staggering consequences. He let others into his story, and he lets their choices shape it profoundly." There are only two ways to interpret the scene in the Garden of Eden . . .

The first is that God, in His sovereignty, chose first to give Lucifer the freedom to rebel against him, and then chose again to give Adam and Eve the freedom to disobey him. Nothing in this interpretation takes away from the sovereignty of God. It merely says that in his might he allowed both angels and people to screw themselves up, and has spent the rest of history pointing them back to Himself in a wonderful display of His own glory.

The second is that He very specifically commanded Adam and Eve to do something they were utterly incapable of doing. He ordered them not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He ordered them not to sin - and they sinned anyway. If there is no place for free will in the story, then the only possible conclusion is that God forced Adam and Eve to sin, in direct violation to His command.

This seems to violate several different scriptures:

I Corinthians 10:13 says "God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it."

James 1:13 says, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."

Romans 6:18 says, "Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."

Each of these verses seems completely exclusive with the view that God forces us, in His sovereignty, to sin.

If Adam and Eve had a way of escape for their temptation - a way to avoid breaking God's command not to sin, under this interpretation they had a way of removing themselves from His will for them (that will being direct violation of His command).

God does not tempt us to sin - But under this view he forces us to sin? That makes no sense.

How can we be truly (as God says) freed from sin, if we are still, in His sovereign will, utterly incapable of not sinning if that is His will for our lives? That seems like enslavement to sin, by any definition.

This is Eldredge's point. He is taking the non-reformed position (and I take it with him), that God, in his sovereignty, allowed men and women the ability to violate His commands. Did He always know the outcome? Does He still, to this day, know that He will emerge victorious? Absolutely!! But that does not mean there is no risk involved, when an all-powerful God lets created beings He is perfectly capable of manipulating as He chooses, manipulate their own wills to a small extent, within His sovereign plan.

One thing that Stinson said made me literally laugh out loud. He said, "Based on the language that Eldredge uses, there are several problems . . . the sovereignty of God is placed in subjection to man's freedom. It is a man-centered model that develops a picture of God based on a particular understanding of human relationships. The best approach would be to begin with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture."

Stinson ignores the fact that the very Scripture to which he refers does precisely the same thing that he accuses Eldredge of doing. Scripture develops numerous pictures of God based on a particular understanding of human relationships: a shepherd, a husband, a father . . . these are all human relationships found repeatedly in scripture, that mirror the bigger relationship God has with us. How else is God supposed to communicate to a finite human mind, the deep relationship He desires with us, than to compare it to relationships with which we are already intimately familiar? All Eldredge does is take three of these relationships - that of a soldier with his battle, that of an adventurer with his quest, and that of a man with the woman he loves - three relationships which, as we've already seen, are very scriptural, and expand on them.

Stinson concludes this section with a paragraph surrounding the question, "Why not just argue that while God has made men and women in His image, He has also given them particular roles and functions that correspond to their gender?"

Why not? Because this teaching kills hearts! I went a little bit into why I think this view is an inadequate reading of scripture during our talk, but perhaps we can flesh that out further in more talks. Suffice it to say, though, that the view that men and women are bound to different sets of behavioral standards that rest solely on their gender - and that of those two sets of behavioral standards, the man's is always superior (the words Stinson uses, like "lead," "headship," and "oversight" can hardly be interpreted any other way) is damaging to both genders. In the case of the male, it kills his drive - his ambition. If his wife is to submit to him always in all things, what incentive does he have to improve? In the case of the female, it tells her that no matter how lousy her husband is being to her, she is forced to make herself less, in order to be "under" him. If, instead, she questions his actions, encouraging him to grow - to be more - she is being unsubmissive, is she not??

At least, that is how I have always heard such discussions end, from the patriarchal viewpoint. Those advocating such views do not intend such things, but that is the logical conclusion of those views.

Another reason as to why not (as Stinson asks) to use this approach is that it seems to be something of a nonsequitor. Why not teach that we bear God's image through the roles He has placed us in? Because I don't believe we do!

For example, let us examine the issue of "headship" (Stinson's word.)

The words "Christ" and "Head" are found in three verses together. I Cor. 11:3, Eph. 4:15, and Eph. 5:23.

I'll take them in order of complexity.

Ephesians 5:23 is a simple analogy. "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body."

. . . not the leader of the body . . . the Savior of the body . . .

. . . So what, you might ask . . . ?

I Corinthians 11:3 says, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."

. . . hmmmm . . . ok, here, man is still the head of woman, but Christ has gone from being the head of the church, to being the head, specifically, of man. Further, another level of analogy has been added. God is the head of Christ.

How on earth are we to read "head" as a level of authority, in this passage? Sure, we are no strangers to the reading, "man is the authority of woman." "Christ is the authority of man" makes sense too . . . but "God is the authority of Christ???" How does that work? Doesn't that make one member of the trinity superior to another???

. . . uh oh.

A look at the last of these three passages seems to shed some light on this question . . .

Ephesians 4:15 is part of a discussion of what, exactly, constitutes the "body of Christ." In verses 11-16, the chapter says,

"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ' until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love."

That's quite a description of Christ's role in the church . . . but is it the role of commander? of master? of authority figure?

It seems, instead, that the way Christ has chosen to relate to the church is as it's life-giver! That seems to be what the "head" in Ephesians 4:15 indicates - He is the one from whom all the other parts of the body are animated! He's not ordering them around, telling them to go this way or that way, like someone pulling the strings on a marionette . . . instead, He's animating them . . . giving them life.

Now, let's look back at the other two passages, in this regard. Christ as the life-giver to man and to the church? Of course!

God as the life-giver of Christ? Sure, this makes sense. At whose behest did Christ, after all, take life in human form? At the will of God the Father, of course. And who was it that raised the Son of Man from the dead, giving him life anew? Again, God the Father.

How about man as the life-giver of woman?

This makes perfect sense on a couple of levels. First, we are, after all, called to love our women, and what, according to Christ, is love? "Greater love has no man than this: That a man lay down his life . . . "

Second, it makes sense in historical context. The only theological systems known to the Greeks and Asians to whom I Corinthians and Ephesians were written, were pantheons mostly of Greco-Roman origin. These belief systems had much in common - and one of the things they agreed on was that the world was created - by a female goddess. This led to the widespread belief - particularly in some areas where the early church was most populous (and most beseiged) - that women had special spiritual insight simply by virtue of their gender. At every level of society - up to and including their gods, the only story these folks knew was of men screwing up, and women fixing their mistakes . . . all the way back to before the beginning of time.

Problem Two: An Unbiblical View of the Believer

I'm not surprised with Stinson's trouble over Eldredge's view of God. It takes a lot of thought, study, and consideration even to figure out what Eldredge is saying. Some things about his views didn't really sink in for me until I heard them from his own mouth this weekend.

His disagreement with Eldredge's view of the believer is a bit more disconcerting.

He starts out quoting several passages in Eldredge, with the intent of knocking them over en masse.

But when he begins to do so, his very starting point is flawed. He says, "First, to say that the heart of the believer is 'good' is not even biblical language."

I beg to differ.

Look, for example, at Luke 8. In Verses 11-15, Christ explains to his disciples the parable of the sower and the seed. He explains that the seed of God's word falls on many different types of ground - and look at what he says when the seed falls in good soil! "These are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance."

Look, too, at Luke 6. In verses 43 and 44 he speaks of fruit - and of what sort of fruit one might expect from given plants, "For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush."

What does He mean? He tells us in the next verse. "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart."

What, then, is the treasure that fills the heart of a "good man"? Ephesians 3:16-17 makes it pretty clear that what inhabits the heart of a good man is Christ. Pretty uncontroversial, right?

What, then, of Psalm 5:4, which says "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with you"?

If God resides in our hearts, and God cannot reside with evil, then how can our new hearts be evil??

I find it ironic that Stinson then goes on to say something which I highly doubt Eldredge would even disagree with, "Our confidence is not in the idea of goodness, but in God who started the good work."

That's true, and Eldredge would, I think, agree 100%. Eldredge says (and Stinson quotes), "Sin is not the deepest thing about you. You have a new heart. Did you hear me? Your heart is good."

. . . and who, if Eldredge were asked, would he say gave us that good heart?? Why, God, of course!

I'm not sure exactly what Stinson means when he says "The Bible describes the act of justification as a declaration of righteousness upon a heart that is not righteous."

If, however, he means Scripture teaches that God merely ignores the existence of guilt in our lives, and pronounces us innocent in spite of it, I have to very strongly disagree. Hebrews 10:22 says, "Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." The Psalmist says, in Psalm 51:10, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me." Ezekiel 11:19 says, "And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh." Matthew 5:8 says, "Blessed are the pure (a better word would be "purified") in heart, for they shall see God."

The theme in these verses? Renewal . . . taking what's old and dirty, getting rid of it, and replacing it with something new and clean. Stinson accuses Eldredge of confusing "new" with "good." It seems rather that Stinson is the one who has confused things, making a distinction where Scripture makes none. Our hearts are made good by the grace of God's saving work, yes . . . and Eldredge would agree . . . but they are made good.

Stinson says, "contrary to Eldredge, here is The Big Truth in church today: We are merely sinners saved by grace!"

I agree - this is the "Big Truth of the Church" . . . and I think that this is not Eldredge's failing, but the church's.

I am a sinner, saved by grace . . . but there is no merely about it! God does not stop there. He saves me, yes. But to what? To merely walk around and fulfill my role in life?? no!! . . . He calls me to be a beloved son (Eph 5:1), and an heir to His kingdom! (Gal 4:7, Rom 8:17)

Merely, huh??

Alas, that's where the church (as Stinson points out) focuses most of its energy today - telling us how miserable we were before Christ. That's all well and good, but what about how wonderful He has made us since we found Him??

Stinson moves on from there to talk of sanctification. He says "Eldredge's explanation that 'my sin is not me' only adds to the confusion he began. If it is not you, then who is it?"

Romans 7:17 answers that question quite succinctly, "So now [having heard and confessed that the Law is good, as the previous verses say] no longer am I the one doing it [violating the law], but sin which dwells in me."

He reiterates three verses later in verse 20, "But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me."

Again here, it seems Stinson is drawing a false dichotomy, claiming a distinction that is not present - either in Eldredge or in Scripture. He [Stinson] says,

"The problem here is not one of passivity . . . but one of activity
. . . emphasizing our own complicity in the sin that we committed. Only now,
through the Holy Spirit, I am able to overcome these sinful inclinations of my
flesh. This is not about whether or not my heart is good but about whether or
not I will yield to the Holy Spirit."

This distinction does not seem to be necessary. Rather, it seems that the very reason we are able to overcome our sinful inclinations is found in Romans 5:5, "Because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."

Stinson's conclusion is that "They [men] do not need to place confidence in their 'good' heart but in the God of the Bible who is not taking risks, wringing his hands, or waiting to see how all of this turns out." This sentence shows a deep-seated misreading of Eldredge. Eldredge says nothing about God "wringing his hands" or "waiting to see how all of this turns out." His point is that God entrusts us to be the instruments of His will. That is the risk He takes. He could, if He chose, snap up every single one of those He has chosen right now . . . He could take them all to glory, and send the rest to burn at this very moment. He could have done it yesterday - or a millenium ago. He could have done it before Adam and Eve ever sinned, without having to send Christ to die on the Cross.

But He didn't. His glory is better served by using us to do it.

Stinson would have us focused on trying desperately not to grieve the Holy Spirit newly implanted within us. God says, "Don't worry about it! You're free! You don't have to sin anymore!"

Therein lies the difference. Neither I nor any of the other men I have talked to who have been deeply impacted by John Eldredge is "confus[ed] over their identity in Christ and how their sin impacts their decisions and inclinations." Each of us knows this all too well! We know what it's like to be enslaved - long after we no longer have to be - by addictions, habits, and other sinful practices."

Eldredge never once tries to minimize God's role in repairing hearts and lives. All he does is point out that in Christ, God gives us permission to be free. (Rom 8:2).

And that is a message far too many men have never heard. They are stuck in a sense of inevitability - a sense of duty. Serving God should not be a duty . . . it should be a wonderful result of the fact that He restored our hearts!

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this article is that Stinson spends four pages accusing Eldredge of being unbiblical, while quoting scripture only twice in the whole article. He states, "The biblical view of God's omnipotence, His ability to bring about His will, shows that God is not subject to or dependant upon His creatures." He quotes four scripture passages - none of which have anything to do with Eldredge's point. Each of these passages (Isa. 14:24-27, Matt. 19:26, Eph. 1:11, and Luke 1:37) speak to the point that God's sovereign plan cannot be frustrated. Eldredge would hardly disagree. His point is merely that God, in his sovereignty chose us to accomplish that plan, and part of that plan was to give us the free will to screw up . . . not to screw up the plan, but to screw up our own lives. Which we all too readily do, as Stinson quite emphatically points out.

The only other time he consults scripture is in the midst of a similar misunderstanding - that of the "good heart." As I already pointed out, Stinson is creating a dichotomy between "new" and "good" where none is necessary, and when he says that Scripture never speaks of a "good heart," he's just plain wrong.

That's it . . . in no other place does Stinson choose to support any of his statements with Scripture.

In order to credibly take a brother to task for being unbiblical, his own comments should be a bit more biblically grounded themselves.

Wild at Heart and CBMW

Reviewing the Reviewer