Quixotic Thought and Randy Stinson’s Review of Wild at Heart

  by Brian Congdon

"Obviously," replied Don Quixote, "you don't know much about adventures.  Those are giants—and if you're frightened take yourself away from here and say your prayers, while I go charging into savage and unequal combat with them.¹"  The adventure-thirsty knight charged after his "giant" foes ignoring Sancho Panza's warnings, only to be flung violently to the ground, bruised and disgraced.  Even if taken literally and the thirty or so windmills were actually giants, Quixote would have been far outnumbered and ill-equipped to slay them.

For those who have read Don Quixote, the reader knows all too well about his maniacal character.  Each adventure or misadventure, depending on interpretation, is inaugurated by a drawn-out monologue of extraordinarily eloquent speech articulating the intricacies of some knightly code or custom.  But when the speeches are compared with the stupidity of Quixote's actions in "battle," they do not make any sense.  An incongruence between lofty statements made for the sake of justice, and such ridiculous actions, signal that at base something is not right.  Quixote knows plenty about laws of knighthood and chivalrous conduct, but next to nothing when it comes to the intuitive nature of fear in the presence of dangerous individuals.  Quixote has a very hard time sensing trouble, or any pernicious situation for that matter.  He always finds himself right in the middle of them with too little time to escape.

The adventures of Don Quixote are relevant for contemporary study because the main character's wild conduct reveals a gaping deficit in experiential knowledge.  Despite his “informed” opinions and eloquent speech which always seems to defend a valiant cause, his actions are reckless and foolish.  His extremely low capacity to intuitively or experientially navigate through a difficult situation becomes an overriding issue and major source of hardship.  Cervantes wrote this novel using fictional characters, but regrettably the Christian church brims with persons of remarkably similar disposition.

Much like Don Quixote, man does not function well when solely relying on intellect.  More often than not, modern man displays a disproportionate reliance on cognitive, rational analysis.  The schism of head and heart, or the distance between discursive reason and intuitive, symbolic-feeling, is the chasm situated between two necessary and complementary faculties.  They form the essential makeup of man.  Extreme circular and introspective analysis alienated from the intuitive, feeling faculties has a propensity to strip concrete thoughts of their actual meaning.  The head and heart faculties are complementary and were never intended to be separate, lest one or the other suffer isolation and abnormal development.  Man equally possesses a certain propensity to base understanding solely on his heart, isolated from the rational and logical ways of knowing.  However, a balanced, healthy person relies on both faculties simultaneously as a means of interpreting and knowing everyday life.

 

Leanne Payne says “this schism probably began with the advent and universal acceptance of greek philosophies, then Rene Descartes' dictum "I think therefore I am," followed by the Cartesian world and its emphasis on scientific knowing.²”  An extreme dependence on the intellect probably results from mental over-compensation for lack of integration with one’s heart. Subsequently, the imbalanced person must "balance out" the lack of emotional substance with the mind.  Some might refer to this condition as hard-heartedness, or relational “dryness.”  More precisely, this is the system of defense that one develops to combat estrangement from emotional or feeling-based types of knowing.  It is "the terrible schism in the heart of man that Kierkegaard cried out about when he said that we have forgotten how to exist, and can only think and talk about being.³"

 

Fundamentalist camp Christianity suffers dreadfully from this condition.  A relatively new, often “anti-psychology gospel” pervades the fundamentalist Christian church.  Of the most common recognizable traits is the consistent use of rigid literalism to interpret the Bible.  Their leaders are hallmarked by strictly logical or rational defense of the Scriptures, quickly rejecting anything that they perceive too subjective, personal, or emotional.  To “live by faith” actually signifies absolute inflexibility in regard to their interpretation and application of scripture, always limiting other valid perspectives.  My use of the term “literalist” should not, however, imply an attack on concordant biblicity, which is unequivocably essential to Christianity.  Rather, when I say “literalist,” I am referring to erroneous, overly-rigid, rationalistic interpretation of otherwise valid Bible verses.  That said, the following characteristics describe the literalist approach:

 

§            Denial of the basics of relational dynamics, subjective response, and spiritual experience—all commonly labeled as “humanistic psycho-babble”

§            Interprets the world in rigid black and white terms, with few grey or neutral areas  (Subjects absolutely everything ever conceived of to an exaggeratedly narrow litmus test of "in line with scriptures,” or “out of line with scriptures")

§            Aggressive supporters of orthodoxy while frequently misusing it to justify bias

§            Often accusatory of others exhibiting the exact tactics and behaviors which actually characterize themselves

§            At extremes, one must live in constant fear of divine punishment, ignoring the de facto new covenant age we live in.

Consider Edward Babinski’s experience of misfortune:

“Fundamentalist Christianity was for me an 11-year ordeal of confusion, self-censorship and self-abasement. After the joy of my initial religious experience wore off, I moved into the modus operandi of Christian fundamentalists everywhere: I shut down emotionally and instead relied on the Bible to dictate my feelings. In Christian fundamentalist circles this is known as "living by faith."

 I felt as if I was issuing a direct challenge to God himself, and lived in great fear of divine retribution. My doubts led me to discover that it was indeed possible to make sense of life, to make decisions for myself, to set and attain goals, and to know my own heart. My spiritual path forked. Do I remain true to honesty, or true to the faith? I chose honesty. Thus was I deconverted.⁴”

 

A wise Christian once said “the light and life of Jesus Christ reflects in distorted ways through the unwhole believer.”  That is, Christ cannot be manifested in fullness when an individual is unable to admit his own nature or needs.  It is only human to need—it is to practice honesty.  A true Christian, if not daily, very often seeks honesty, humility and openness of heart before the Lord.  Throughout the gospel texts, Christ repeatedly and consistently allotted time to pray and spend time alone with the Father.  So, if we are human, erring, and possessing needs, how much more should we emulate his example?  Low levels of experiential knowing often lead us down the path of humanistic living, and narrow interpretation.

Now that I have outlined some of the perils of literalism and Quixotic interpretation, I would like to cite a current, relevant example.  In the following paragraphs I will proceed with a response to Randy Stinson’s review of Wild at Heart, a book aimed at men by John Eldredge.  The response highlights the most common strategies of literalist thinking and assault tactics.  Reading the review, Stinson clearly cannot swallow the thesis of Eldredge's book, which consists primarily of a definition of masculinity different than his own.  What makes a man uniquely masculine? How is a man prevented from becoming a man?  What forms of living promote a return to healthy, whole masculinity? Which types of living disrupt the process of Christian redemption/restoration?  The book attempts to answer these questions.  The book has become enormously popular for the wisdom and authentic, christocentric help it offers to men.

Though Wild at Heart is helping change thousands of lives, statistics, and personal, experiential accounts of spiritual maturation (even testimonial redemption) are never enough to convince literalist thinkers.  Literalists require their version of "faithful biblicity" and “absolute scriptural fidelity” to extremes.

"The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath"  (Acts 13:27).

Literalism, as previously defined strays from honesty and the very Biblical truth they are adamantly claiming to defend in many ways.  As I explained, man is made up of both head and heart.  Balanced analysis integrates both subjective and objective interpretation.  Analogous to heart and head complementarity, the objective and subjective are symbiotic.  They go together and necessitate one another.   Focus too much on one or the other, and we lose the balance.  Their primary error lies in expecting to bring everything modern man does and says under the scope of rigid analytical scrutiny, as if a merely human instrument were adequate to comprehend cosmic realities.  There is a very disconcerting tone to this supposed logic.  Honesty should force confession of the ridiculous and the impossible.

In his review, Stinson starts his critique by saying:

"The first problem is that Eldredge appeals to a wrong view of God as his foundation for masculinity. 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.  These statements do not portray God in the same way that the Bible portrays Him.  The problem occurs when he tries to project these activities onto the life of God. In the words of the title for chapter two, God is “the wild one in whose image we are made.” Eldrege’s description of God and His “adventure” leave the reader with a confusing and unbiblical picture of God. For him, men are risk-takers and adventure-seekers at heart because God is a risk-taker and adventure-seeker."

Human interpretation alone never constitutes authority or absolute credibility just on the basis of utilizing scripture as a ruler.  It is still just an interpretation.  This being the case, I will show how Stinson's entire critique is a one-sided, classic literalist reading of the Bible. The Bible is inspired and infallible but my understanding of it is neither.

Stinson continues with:

"...which leaves Eldredge’s understanding of manhood fundamentally flawed. The Bible depicts God as knowing the beginning from the end. He is aware of our thoughts before we say them. He knew all about us before we were formed in secret in our mother’s womb. He removes kings and establishes kings. He holds the heart of the king in His hand. He is the potter and we are the clay.

A biblical view of manhood should be connected to the roles and responsibilities assigned in Scripture. 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? " 

These remarks retain their biblicity.  Nonetheless, they reflect a paradigm of absolute rigidity.  Stinson describes a few elements of the Bible that give God a very predictable tone.  Then he describes his vision of masculinity by basing it on the lives of Biblical men such as Moses and Abraham.  He states the (basic) case that they are often tied to the responsibility to head, lead, defend, and protect.  The bottom line of his interpretation is that men are called to be responsible, tending to duties.  The problem I have with this is not one of doctrinal coherence. It is that this is a boring, self-explanatory, painfully obvious definition of “manhood.”  Biblically coherent and faithful to a literal reading?  Yes.  Fully encompassing the desires, dreams, goals, and needs of men? Not even close.  The Bible gives no exact formula for the individual's life beyond Christ’s follow me and the basic biblical precepts for living.  Living by spirit coupled with following the Bible is entirely different. Remember we need both.

God does not prescribe specifically what course that choice to follow Him will entail.  God does not do things for everybody the same way, nor win battles with a constant formula.  He never limited life to Stinson's two-dimensional "dutiful man" existence.  Literalism has a certain propensity to remain immovably on predictable ground.  One of Eldredge's critical points is precisely that God is not predictable.  This is Biblical and veridical.  Neither should Christians live safe, shallow, invulnerable, riskless, "fear of the unknown" lives.  The Bible never gave me instructions on whether to be an astronaut or a pastor in life.  Quite frankly I think it to be obvious that the decision is in my hands.  That it is left up to us should imply that great confidence is being placed by the Creator in our capacity to choose, and that He not only loves us, but believes in us.  That is inspiring!  He sent His Son to die for us and redeem our perdition because He believed in us.  The literalist can't see past words on paper.  Moralistic, coded living only speaks for itself with a small and predictable view of God.  Sadly, it stops painfully short of where authentic, fulfilling life in God can begin.  This is because it tends to deny individuality and experience.

Eldredge first says: "God is a person who takes immense risks."  According to Stinson this is incomprehensible because: "If God takes risks (which requires He is uncertain of the outcome) then I am left with a sense of hopelessness."  Stinson is understandably left with a sense of hopelessness, because he misses the point entirely.  Contrary to Stinson’s suggestion, saying that "God took a risk on us" does not signify for Eldredge that divine control has been lost.  Eldredge’s emphasis is on God’s loving investment in us.  But he never says nor infers God to be dependent on us. God's (not man’s) purposes and ways will always be infinitely higher than ours.  The misinterpretation is caused by a confusion over what is meant by God and man’s possession.

Consider a conjecture: God could have utterly forced us to obey Him, depriving us of complete freedom; yet He did not.  The dynamic of human love presents a similar case.  If we do not allow a loved one to choose to love us back or not, we are not practicing love.  We are practicing manipulation and possessiveness, symptoms of immaturity, not love.  But God’s love cannot be immature.  Only when man freely decides and acts does he possess total liberty.  Since the beginning, man's decision was left up to man, and consequently the outcome of his decision left uncertain.  Man’s uncertain decisions are why Eldredge speaks of God’s “risk,” a figure of speech, and refuting Stinson’s interpretation.  Only man can practice either responsibility, or conversely, irresponsibility.  Even fundamentalist Christians agree that God is the definition of perfect love. 

Famous theologian John Piper presents a paradigm that is diametrically opposed to ours:

“One last guideline for thinking about God's action in view of all this: Always keep in mind that everything God does toward men - his commanding, his calling, his warning, his promising, his weeping over Jerusalem, - everything is his means of creating situations which function as motives to elicit the acts of will which he has ordained to come to pass. In this way He ultimately determines all acts of volition (though not all in the same way) and yet holds man accountable only for those acts which they want most to do.⁵”

Did not man use his own volition to make a decision between good and evil when he disobeyed God?  If man did not have his own volition, he could not have disobeyed.  We know all too well that His sin meant eternal condemnation, that is, without God’s forgiveness.  Adam and Eve made their fateful choice and the consequences of the fall ensued. Our bible studies as well as the daily news reveal that we all have followed their example.  Our repetition of this pattern is constant and to be expected—volatile is the actual degree to which it occurs day by day.

With the arrival of Jesus and the new convenant with mankind, the map forever changed. The shift from “old” to “new” signifies a change, a metamorphosis if you will, of incomprehensibly far-reaching effect.  It is the very essence of our hope as believers, which means we cannot afford to ignore it.  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Good news! Now forgiveness is readily available to all who seek it, because Christ has paid the price of atonement.

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:1,2).

Those whose theology is more heavily based on an old (rather than new) covenant exegesis have the potential to be what the Bible refers to as “blind guides.”  And “if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14).  The New Testament books of John and Timothy both testify God’s desire “that none should perish.”  The God I serve is not a god of coercive authority—He is the righteous Judge and the Rock of my refuge, my comfort.  He is both the Alpha and the Omega, the great I AM.  He is both the gentle Lamb and the roaring Lion.  He is not “either one or the other.”  Antinomic tension will never satisfy a literalist with an all black versus all white view of God.  Small vision begets confusion of this sort.  While the literalists remain stumped, those possessing True Understanding will find it crystal clear.

The misunderstanding continues with Stinson’s quote:

“If God is taking risks, there are no assurances that God’s purposes will actually be accomplished. If God is uncertain about how his creatures will respond, then how can we really be guaranteed that He will be ultimately victorious over evil in the end?”

Stinson also says that Eldredge misconstrues the concept of "we are merely sinners saved by grace."  Actually, Eldredge never contradicts this.  He simply deciphers it and delivers relevant information.  For example, he makes the comment that we have a "good" heart when born again.  The reason is not to deny that we will continue to sin, but that we are far more than just a sinner.  We have an identity in Christ that is far more substantial than a generic label.  I would much rather know that my main identity is minister to the nations, if that were the case, than presume I am only "a sinner saved by grace."  That latter does not encompass the total reality of Christian living. 

Super-rigid spirituality is not a virtue of maturity.  It is a vice in those whose God is smaller than their intellect.  Stinson’s beliefs, as well as hosts of other Christians (as Eldredge points out), are pitifully insufficient.  Just because the Bible doesn't use the exact word "good" to describe the heart, doesn’t make it unbiblical.  Yes, the Bible does make it clear that: “for out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” (Matthew 15:19).  But what if we compare this with “As water reflects a face, so a man’s heart reflects the man” (Proverbs 27:19)?  Or how about “he who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false. He will receive blessing from the Lord...” (Psalm 24:4, emphasis mine).  Which part of the phrase “pure in heart” doesn’t signify “good?” So, here our emphasis is on the latter type of heart, not the former. Both exist. An individual with the “bad” does not cancel out the existence of “good.” The same conclusion applies to the rest of Stinson's criticisms. The erroneous notion of disqualification for writing which doesn’t line up with the scriptures in a narrow literal sense, in reality discredits the literalists.

One's life cannot be limited to the extent that Bible verses say exactly the same.  Should we ban brain surgery because there is no biblical support for it?  Spirit-dead legalism will always limit the power of God, confining it to the scriptures.  This keeps their god on manageable, predictable ground.  Textual analysis of His word can never substitute for human existence and spiritual experience.  And visa versa.  This is not to say the scriptures are not deeply complex, nor that there is no power behind them—they are both indeed.  We need to live dimensionally in His spirit, not linearly.  Simultaneously we heed the authority of the Scriptures by obeying them.  But always in personal, living, relationship with Him.  Intellect alone is insufficient to study His Book.  The Quixotic approach, or intellectualism separated from the heart, is nothing short of a personal defense mechanism, and plainly put, is pride.

Knowing a lot about God because I read the scriptures is not the same as knowing God.  One can have all the facts straight and have a plethora of historical information concerning His inspired Word.  But no one can attain spiritual rebirth just by thinking.  To begin life in Christ, we need His touch.  The spirit life always commences with brokenness and true repentance.  We also must taste our need.  Unfortunately for literalists, redemption must happen to my heart—a deep, radical change that in turn effects all of me, not merely brainpower.  The gospel is not Descartes-compatible.  Jesus said to the Jews: 

"You have never heard His voice nor seen his form, nor does His word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one He sent.  You dilligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life.  These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (John 5:37-40, emphasis mine). 

He knew their hearts had not changed.  There was no spiritual rebirth.  In order for a "re-birth" to take place, a death must occur.  How can something be born again or resurrect if it has not died first?  We must die to sin.  Literally, Jesus told us to “take up the cross,” yet I have never met a literalist that talks about his sufferings in Christ.  This is because the literalist, like Quixote, cannot understand the heart-language; he has no idea how to arrive there with his mind.  The individual without access to his heart is incapacitated to comprehend the Bible.  The Bible is just another book if it does not touch our hearts.  Deep pain and joy—both are intrinsic parts of knowing God.  Suffering is not a condition our mind need undergo.  Our hearts must experientially taste it.  Without it, we have no idea what true joy is. 

The true Christian life has nothing superfluous about it.  Jesus' atoning death on the cross cost physically, mentally, and spiritually—it crushed him.  It will cost us as well if we are to die. God helps initiate these deaths in us because we are not willing to undergo them on our own.  We equally possess the liberty to escape them, but we will only remain in sin.  Although painful, it is the only solution for eradicating deep sin in our hearts.  We must practice the resurrection life.  The majority attempt bypass of this essential step.  There is no resurrection without death.

John 3:3 says: "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."  Nicodemus too was baffled because he interpreted Jesus' words from a fixed literal perspective.  Despite being all Israel's teacher, he could not comprehend the statement.  Jesus continued with "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (John 3:5-6).  In other words, without baptism (purification) and spiritual rebirth (being touched by the Spirit of God), we are still just flesh and not yet part of His flock.  This is bad news for most literalist believers.

For these reasons I believe literalists are on dangerous ground when they employ inflexible interpretations of God's word.  The faith they are claiming to defend, is the very thing they are attacking in the name of faithful biblicity. I admire the idea of a Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, but am deeply concerned over the language and misinterpretation which characterizes its executive director.  Christ came to the world to grant us authentic freedom through repentance, restoration, and the renewing Spirit Life. He came to restore our hearts and renew our minds.  We are created for redemptive, living relationship with Him.  The Scriptures serve their purpose extraordinarily well—testifying to a supernatural reality that is greater than mere words, beyond the measure of time, and infinitely more powerful than the human brain.  

"By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:16).

 

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.  For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.  Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them" (Matthew 13:14-15).

 

“The error of textualism is not doctrinal.  It is far more subtle than that and much more difficult to discover, but its effects are just as deadly.  Not its theological beliefs are at fault, but its assumptions.  It assumes for instance, that if we have the word for a thing we have the thing itself.  If it is in the Bible, it is in us.  If we have the doctrine, we have the experience.  If something was true of Paul it is of necessity true of us because we accept Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired.  The Bible tells us how to be saved, but textualism goes on to make it something which in the very nature of things it cannot do.  Assurance of individual salvation is thus no more than a logical conclusion drawn from doctrinal premises, and the resultant experience wholly mental.”  (A.W. Tozer).

Note: All full sentences in italics are the words of Stephen R. Crosby.  Unless otherwise noted, quotations are from NIV Bible verses, John Eldredge, or Randy Stinson.

ENDNOTES:

 ¹Cervantes, Miguel de, Don Quijote.  Trans. Burton Raffel.  Ed. Diana de Armas Wilson.  New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1999.

 

²Payne, Leanne,  The Healing Presence: Curing the Soul through Union with Christ. Grand Rapids: Hamewith Books, 1995.

 

³Ibid.

 

⁴Babinski, Edward T.,  Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of former Fundamentalists.  Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1995.

 

⁵Piper, John,  A Response to J.I. Packer On the So-Called Antinomy Between The Sovereignty of God and Human Responsibility.  March, 1976. (Accessed 1 Feb. 2004) <http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1976/1581_A_Response_to_JI_Packer_on_the_SoCalled_Antinomy_Between_the_Sovereignty_of_God_and_Human_Responsibility/ >