About two years ago I started to read Wild at Heart.  I liked the introduction, and I liked what he said about men needing a battle to fight, a beauty to fight for, and an adventure to live.  I resonate with these things.  But I stopped reading the book, because after the introduction, when Eldredge attempted to flesh out his view of masculinity, the more he wrote the less biblical he became, and unfortunately he was not starting with much in the biblical catergory.

This was especially true when Eldredge began talking about God.  This book has maybe a few redeeming sentences but for the most part it should be avoided.  See this article for a similar assessment.

Instead of Wild at Heart I highly recommend Future Men. 

Order it here.

Thomas writes,

Jesus said he came to bring a sword. A sword divides. The primary objective for the Christian should be to seek and to point others toward Jesus, not to political parties and agendas.

The social ills confronting us have not produced our collective indifference to a moral code. They reflect that indifference. Fixing social ills does not begin in the halls of Congress or Supreme Court, but in individual human hearts.

Government can't go there. God can. But if God's servants prefer government to God, or seek to attach God to political parties and earthly agendas, they are doomed to futility.

From how I see it, I think Thomas has a few things right.  First, Those of the conservative Christian 'movement' ought to make sure their homes are in order, before they go about fixing everyone else.  Second, I think in the quote above Thomas hints at what I think is missing today, that is doing the hard work of persuading people to right behavior instead of seeking to legislate it. 

But I find two things a bit muddled in the article.  First, is his statement "The primary objective for the Christian should be to seek and to point others toward Jesus, not to political parties and agendas."  When the word 'primary' is used I concur.  But I do not want people to think that because of this truth it is not proper for the Christian to persuade another to a specific political party.  Why?  Because I think the one party has more in line with the gospel than another party.  Thus, being a Republican or Democrat does not make one a Christian, but I do think that the gospel moves the Christian to one party over the other.

Second, and this is related to the above critique, is the use of Billy Graham's silence on 'hot button issues' as a model of virtue.  Now that Graham has matured in his faith, he does not take on controversies.  But, if we don't persuade to political parties, and we don't take on hot button issues, then how is it that the gospel is changing things?  That is, where is there room for the prophetic speaking of gospel ministers into the world?  King Jesus calls out into the world through the Church, and he is king of all things, and thus all things falls under authority.  And thus the Church must be speaking into the world about all things, especially hot button issues.  How else will change come about?  We must persuade individual hearts but not at the expense of the prophetic pulpit.

Read the whole article here.  What do you think?

Read Sowell on Budwiser's diversity.