Since I am a frequent shopper here, I receive regular catalogues from CBD. The catalogues frequently present the materials by catetgory, such as "Resources for Men," "Reference Material," "Resources for Women," and interestingly, resources under the headings of popular writers. For example, in my most recent catalogue, there was a section of books by by John and Stasi Eldredge. The book Captivating, written by the pair, caught my attention.
This book first came to my attention shortly after its release in 2005, and because I had already read John Eldgredge's book, Wild At Heart, I was very apprehensive about it. I didn't necessarily want to buy it, but I was curious to see if it was similar. After reading Wild At Heart, not only was it my opinion (and my husband's) that Mr. Eldredge does not speak for every man, but I also found his view of God very small, indeed. I was curious about how this book was received, so I checked out Challies.com, and found this review of John Eldgredge's book. While I knew there was something wrong about this book, I did not have the eloquence or articulation that Tim did; his review clarified a lot of my concerns.
So, when I heard about this book, Captivating, and was aware of women in my acquaintence who were reading it, I was curious. I decided to look for some reviews of this book, and found that Tim Challies had written a brief review . His review was enough to deter me from reading it. However, it was two articles from the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that solidified my decision. At the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Donna Theonnes wrote an excellent review of this book. I could quote many sections of this article that caused me some concern, but it is this one that really alarmed me. I became convinced that not only would I not read this book, I would discourage any other woman, especially young women, to read it:
They write that each woman is “made for romance, and the only one who can offer it to you consistently and deeply is Jesus” (125). They suggest imagining yourself in a romantic scene with Jesus. They offer five romantic movie scenes and then suggest that you “put yourself in the scene as the Beauty, and Jesus as the Lover.” (114). They base this conclusion on the passage in Matt 9:15 where Jesus calls himself the Bridegroom, “the most intimate of all the metaphors Jesus chose to describe his love and longing for us, and the kind of relationship he invites us into” (114).Well, aside from the ridiculousness of imagining myself with Jesus at a romantic dinner, what's with the movie thing? Eldredge used movies a lot in Wild At Heart. Perhap he missed his calling and should have become a movie reviewer instead. I don't need to be "romanced" by Jesus to know that he loves me; His death should be sufficient, I think. Romantic love is an eros kind of love; Jesus loves me with an agape love. It's not about feeling that Jesus loves me. It's about knowing objectively. This romance idea relies too heavily on feelings. Romance can be fleeting; the love of Christ never is. Why would we ascribe such an incomplete kind of love to Him? His love is beyond our comprehension. When I read this section to my husband, he called the notion "blasphemous." And my husband is not a reactionary.
There are other issues, but this certainly was the icing on the cake. I apologize if someone is offended by my words; I'm sure people would be able to come up with a long list of why this book is "meeting people's needs," or "resonating" with them. I won't insult your intelligence by telling you that it couldn't possibly "speak" to you. But it doesn't speak to me. As an individual who embraces solid biblical Christianity, it offends me. I don't know the Eldgredges personally, but if all I ever know of them is Wild at Heart and Captivating, then I would say that they have a faulty view of God. They view him from the bottom up.
Also at the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a review of the book by Elaine Pratt.
The reason I write this is to encourage people to be discerning in what they read. Just because a book has Thomas Nelson or Zondervan on the back does not mean it is theologically sound. If you are contemplating buying a book, or receive a recommendation, do some research and find someone you trust to review it. I can't recommend Tim Challies enough. He is a very prolific reader and he writes good reviews; in fact, I think that is his greatest gift as a blogger. As busy wives and mothers, we need to manage our time wisely. Often, finding time to read a book is difficult. When we do, we ought to choose to read something that contributes to our understanding of God. I don't think this book would do that. Something about this book scares me a little. It makes me scared for new Christian women. No, I haven't read it, but any book that send this message convices me that I don't want to:
The Eldredges point to women as the pinnacle of God’s creation. “She is the crescendo, the final, astonishing work of God” (25). To aid the reader in personalizing this, the authors suggest taking in a beautiful vista and declaring, “The whole, vast world is incomplete without me. Creation reached its zenith in me” (25).That's quite interesting. I would have thought that if we were searching for a "zenith" in Creation, Jesus would get first priority, not woman. What happens if an immature Christian woman reads this and takes it to heart? What does it teach her about biblical womanhood? While there may be a few sound points in this book, this erroneous messages are enough to make the book a poor choice for reading.
May we who love reading be discerning in what we choose to fill our minds with.
*NOTE* Please don't neglect to read the comments in this post. Others have provided excellent input, and there is a link to another review of the book.
