Problem #3: Making God in the Image of Man

John Eldredge's "insight" into the human heart is bad theology. But as early as chapter two, he goes from bad to worse, diving below the murky waters of theological error, and burying himself in the muck of outright heresy. This is what I was referring to on page 3 of this review when I spoke of his "low, humanistic, and even heretical view of God." In order to show you this, let me first quote Eldredge where he writes, on page 32, " . . . for those aware of the discussion, I am not advocating open theism." Why does he insert this disclaimer? What is open theism?

Open theism is a theological heresy, the proponents of which hold that God does not know the future perfectly. God is not omniscient in their view. He is learning day by day, along with us. He is very wise, they say, so He can predict the future very accurately, but He does not know it infallibly, let alone control it.

Just so you understand, this is not a Christian belief. It is not one of those "minor" doctrines. God is a Trinity, He is sovereign, He is righteous, He is omnipotent, and He is omniscient.

To deny God's omniscience is heretical, just as surely as to deny the deity of Christ. John Eldredge says he does not advocate this heretical view, but we must look at the facts.

On page 30, he tells of a wilderness adventure where he was in real danger from grizzly bears. As he thinks of the wildness of the situation, of the possibility and reality of death, he writes, "It then occurred to me that after God made all this, he pronounced it good . . ."

Just a quick note here: In saying this, Eldredge seems to have forgotten that when God pronounced creation "good" (actually He said, "very good" ) a little thing known as the fall of man had not yet occurred, and therefore, death had not entered the world. What God called "very good" did not include the danger of a man being mauled to death by a grizzly bear.

Eldredge continues musing about his predicament when he says, referring to the goodness of this wild and dangerous place, "It is [God's] way of letting us know he rather prefers adventure, danger, risk, the element of surprise."

Now I don't know about you, but when something surprises me, it is because I did not know it was going to happen. When I take a risk, I do not know the outcome. If I were omniscient, there could be no "element of surprise," there could be no "risk." And in case you wonder if I am just picking on one lone statement, consider the following examples where Eldredge promotes the same idea:

"God is a person who takes immense risks" (pg. 30). "He 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" (pg. 31). "God lives in a dynamic relationship with us and with our world" (pg. 31). "As with every relationship, there's a certain amount of unpredictability, and the ever-present likelihood that you'll get hurt" (pg. 32). "God's willingness to risk is just astounding—far beyond what any of us would do were we in his position" (pg. 32).

I couldn't help but chuckle at that last one, because if you really think about Eldredge's view, we are in God's position. We have, at any moment, the ability to surprise God. We have the ability to hurt God. We have the ability to make God's risks become bad ones. In fact, by knowing what we intend to do in the next moment—things that will surprise or hurt God—we know the future better than He does!

Some of the leading proponents of open theism are Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. These men have co-authored a book entitled, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, in which we find the following statements: "We believe that the Bible presents an open view of God as living and active, involved in history, relating to us and changing in relation to us." In their view, God "is happy to accept the future as open, not closed." " . . . God cares about us and lets what we do impact Him."⁴

Do you notice that these statements sound similar to those made by Eldredge? Keep in mind that within the last several years, two votes were taken by the members of ETS (Evangelical Theological Society): one vote declared open theism to be heresy, while the second was the decision to expel several of these men from the organization for their heretical views.⁵ And as you remember Eldredge's statements about God being a risk-taker, know that John Sanders, who openly advocates open theism, has written a book entitled, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence.⁶

I realize that I cannot know what is in John Eldredge's mind. He may, in fact, not believe what these men believe. But his book will have a prominent place on the bookshelves of many open theists because he promotes, even if out of ignorance or carelessness, their heretical view of God. Wild at Heart will make wonderful devotional reading for those who hold such beliefs.

And Eldredge is not finished with his creative but degrading portrait of God. Having re-created God in the image of man by making Him less than omniscient, Eldredge continues in his effort to humanize God by making Him needy. You could easily find yourself feeling sorry for God, if He is anything like Wild at Heart portrays Him. Consider this quote from page 36:

"As a counselor and a friend, and especially as a husband, I've been honored to be welcomed into the deep heart of Eve. Often when I am with a woman, I find myself quietly wondering, What is she telling me about God? I know he wants to say something to the world through Eve—what is it? And after years of hearing the heart-cry of women, I am convinced beyond a doubt of this: God wants to be loved. He wants to be a priority to someone. How could we have missed this? From cover to cover, from beginning to end, the cry of God's heart is, 'Why won't you choose me?' It's amazing how humble, how vulnerable God is on this point."

Please forgive me, but I could almost hear a whining tone as I listened to "the cry of God's heart." This understanding of God does not engender feelings of worship as much as pity.

And here again, Eldredge removes Scripture from its context in portraying this needy God. He continues the above statement by writing, " 'You will . . . find me, says the Lord, 'when you seek me with all your heart.' (Jer. 29:13). In other words, 'Look for me, pursue me—I want you to pursue me.' Amazing."

The only amazing thing I found was that Eldredge discovered all of this information about God, not from Scripture, but from the time he has spent with women.

And what about Jeremiah 29:13? That verse is in the middle of a promise from God to His people—a promise that He will redeem them after seventy years of captivity—a promise that they will seek Him and they will find Him—a promise from the God who knows, declares, and controls the future, even the free choices and actions of people. Jeremiah 29:13 is not, as presented by this book, a pitiful plea from a desperate and lonely God who needs people to seek Him, find Him, and love Him.

Eldredge goes on to tell the reader (pg. 36) that the reason God often delays in answering prayer is because "he wants to talk to us, and sometimes that's the only way to get us to stay and talk to him." If God is as needy as this book presents Him, how did He manage to survive throughout all of eternity past without us? And I can't help but wonder how He feels about Eldredge's statement on page 32: "God needs to get a message out to the human race, without which they will perish . . . forever."

"God needs . . . "?!! Those two words, if they are ever next to each other in a sentence, must be in the reverse order if they are to be true. Mankind needs God "for in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). But to say that God needs anything is to contradict what Scripture says— "as if He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things." (Acts 17:25).

I am going to end here. I read the whole book, but 222 pages of humanism, radical Arminianism, open theism, and the bending, stretching, and editing of Scripture was more than enough. There is much more that could and should be exposed regarding John Eldredge's book, but time, and the reasonable length of a book review convince me to stop.

I have learned one important thing from this book. The wild popularity of a book, among the Christian culture of America, even among a large number of pastors, is more often an indicator of superficiality and error than of truth and sound doctrine. Americans want treatment for their itching ears, and this book gives a good scratch.

I am convinced that not so many years ago, when the senses of Christians were "exercised to discern both good and evil" (Hebrews 5:14), Wild at Heart would not have been published by any Christian publisher, much less read by hundreds of thousands of believers.

But our senses have become dull, and for one reason: We have not heeded the warning of Colossians 2:8 in that we are allowing ourselves to be cheated "through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ."

I know that many will argue that there is much good to be found in Wild at Heart—good that outweighs the bad. But for those who feel this way, I have a few questions: If you knew that a glass of pure spring water had one drop of arsenic in it, would you still drink it for the water? Would you give it to a thirsty friend? Shepherds—would you give such water to your sheep?

On the night before He was crucified, Jesus prayed to the Father on behalf of all who would become His followers. His request, found in John 17:17 was this: "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth." With this in mind, a fair and necessary question to ask yourself is this: Does the counsel given by John Eldredge in Wild at Heart represent the truth of God?

Spurgeon once said that truth may be distinguished from error by three standards: "by God, by Christ, and by man; that is, the truth which honors God, the truth which glorifies Christ, and the truth which humbles man." ⁷

Wild at Heart does none of the above. On the contrary, John Eldredge's book exalts man and puts him in control while at the same time portraying God as humble, vulnerable, needy, and limited in knowledge. Based on the above quotation, it seems certain that Spurgeon would not have affirmed this book as truth.

Not only can I not recommend this book, I feel compelled to warn Christians to keep it away from others, especially from the lost and from the immature believer. Books like Wild at Heart—books that humanize God and glorify man—books that teach a generation of Christian men, already weakened by humanistic philosophy and biblical ignorance, to look anywhere other than the pages of the Bible for guidance—have a seductive appeal to the flesh—a poisoning effect in the already deceitful and desperately wicked heart of man.

If I could say one thing to John Eldredge, it would be this: Contrary to the clear message of your book, the human heart, regenerate or not, does not contain the solution; it contains the problem.

And if I could leave just one reminder with you, the reader, it would be these ancient and sobering words of wisdom: "Error never shows itself in its naked reality, in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself." (Irenaeus of Lyons—2nd Century A.D.)