Comments on: Captivating: Not a Wild Enough Beauty

By: Danni

Danni — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:51:10 +0000

I read ‘Captivating’ and I actually got a lot out of it. I’ve never been girly or played the damsel etc but I don’t think it was just physical beauty that the Eldridges meant. I took it as the wanting of every young girl, in fact child to be liked/loved, to be thought nice/good etc. I think the problem they came up against is that if they tried to cover in detail every type of male/female personality the books would be 10 times as long so they have had to generalise and hope each reader can get SOMETHING.

By: Amber

Amber — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:09:27 +0000

Kathryn wrote above: “I remember in the 1970’s when Southern Baptists were teaching people outright that women could not lead churches because they were prone to false doctrines in ways that men were not.”

Quite an interesting theory they had. Unfortunately, for them, it is completely illogical. If men are not prone to false doctrines, what can explain all of the men participating in, leading and creating false religions. Even Aaron, Moses’ brother, formed a gold calf for the Isrealites to worship! Do the Southern Baptists think women are prone to false doctrines in ways any worse than that?

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:01:21 +0000

wow! thanks for all the discussion. I am a student at Northwestern College in St. Paul, and there are many guys and girls on campus who are reading these books, and books like them, much to my displeasure.

I was a tomboy as a little girl, and even though it was promised that I would grow out of it, I never did ;-). It has been a struggle finding my place in a largely complementarian school, where doctrines are more influenced by tradition and upbringing than clear consideration of the Scriptures. I’ve even cried a few tears over the fact that I’ve never felt like I was less of a woman because of my personality and my gifts. My heart is not in the home–it’s on the battlefield, and it’s hard explaining that to fellow students who have been indoctrinated to view me and those like me as “liberal feminists”, rather than as God’s unique creations tailor-made for His purpose.

I never set out to be an activist, but the more I see the kind of unBiblical and demeaning material out there, which many girls my age are taking as pure Gospel, the more I feel compelled to say something. I am not a perversion of nature–I am a co-bearer of the image of God, and I am through with allowing my dignity to be taken away from me because I do not fit into a cultural mold.

Peace.

By: Beth Durden

Beth Durden — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:55:02 +0000

Re comment #9:

I think that both men and women are infinitely more complex than these books assume. Lets give each other the freedom to be who we are, and not say that a love of adventure or beauty is restricted to a particular gender.

That’s exactly what I was thinking! I’m sick of these Christian living books trying to mold men and women into one little idea of what a “man” and a “woman” should be like.

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:18:40 +0000

Re: comment #8: Lynn, thank you. The struggle you describe sounds all too familiar. I went through that myself. I don’t guess there is a woman anywhere that hasn’t heard that nonsense. Even if she rejects it, it is still hurtful at the time. You are made to feel as if women are “defective,” but it is not we who are defective, it is the bad theology! You are wonderfully made in God’s image, and He doesn’t make mistakes! I remember in the 1970′s when Southern Baptists were teaching people outright that women could not lead churches because they were prone to false doctrines in ways that men were not. Even then, I knew that that could not be true. The women I knew demonstrated a clear commitment to godly doctrine, including my own mother. What of godly Bible women? They disproved the myth too. Male superiority was the cornerstone of Southern Baptist teaching on relationships. They are more subtle now, talking about “equal but different” or “gender roles,” and things are some better, but the message of “male authority” still resounds. Of course we are different, but the great thing is, we are all called upon to be like Jesus (Romans 8:29, among others)!

Re: comment 10: Janet, thank you for drawing such a clear distinction between the Christ of the Scriptures and the “John Wayne” model of men which is too often held up as “normal” even for Christian men.

By: Janet Macor

Janet Macor — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:17:45 +0000

Re: Comment #7:
I read through your ‘article’ on heroes. I thought it very strange that you tagged on Jesus Christ, who is God, at the end of your list – as if He was in the same category as the imaginary men in the movies.

Those imaginary men fought, killed. Jesus laid down His life and didn’t fight back.

Those imaginary men sought after treasure, accolades for themselves. Jesus came to serve others and put Himself second.

Those imaginary men are heroes in a culture who hates God. They are the heroes of men who neglect their wives, children, society to pursue their own desires.

They are not heroes in the eyes of our Lord.

Even the title, Wild at Heart conflicts with everything the Bible says what a man should be like — self-control, humble, gentle, self-sacrificing, etc. These are not qualities of the worldly heroes in the movies.

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:18:39 +0000

Re: #7
I read your other writing on this topic. Go for the wilderness adventure/rite of passage/prove yourself quest if that is what you dream of. My problem with the Eldredges is that they seem to deny women the same thing. My girlhood fantasy was dog sledding alone across the arctic! I think that both men and women are infinitely more complex than these books assume. Lets give each other the freedom to be who we are, and not say that a love of adventure or beauty is restricted to a particular gender.

By: lynn

lynn — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:07:33 +0000

–I just had to say that I struggle with all these issues and self-hatred as a woman, and while I don’t want to make any men or women anything they aren’t, I get scared of “archetypes” as ways of understanding people. Growing up in a Christian school (where I found out later women teachers were paid less than male ones) I was told by a teacher that men “provided the intellect in a relationship, women the emotion”. (this teacher also constantly asked why women always “went for the jerks”.) I felt as though I were being called stupid to my face. Another teacher read Proverbs 31 and said she hoped the girls grew up to be like this, and that the boys grew up to be like Jesus. I remember thinking, Isn’t Jesus way, way better than any human, however good? How come you always get to be Jesus? I felt sort of like an alien or a bad Xerox, not someone created in the image of God. It has taken and is taking me a long time to trust the way God made me and accept it. I know I have knee-jerk reactions to things like this based on pride and fear, but I am comforted to know that there are people like the ones on these boards.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:15:47 +0000

Re comment #5:

It was great for the guys who hunt and camp, but DH is an artist, quiet and thoughtful, a person who doesn’t like sports even a little.

Even this statement seems like a generalization regarding the kind of people that would like Wild At Heart. I’m not a hunter and only camp very occasionally. I’m no mountain-man, but I’m fiercely competitive. I’m more of an introvert, with a lot of artistic leanings. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t relate to the topics in Wild At Heart.

Personally, I feel that Eldredge was writing with archetypes in mind. For better or worse, there are lots of classic stories of men (and women) in epic adventures without a hint of intended sexism in the subtext. It’s a constant source of inspiration in the great movies. Here’s something I wrote about the topic.