Wild at Heart, Chapter 1

I mentioned in an earlier post that I am part of men's group that is reading the book Wild at Heart. We met again this week to discuss Chapter 1 and we are off to a good start. At first read, I was a little put off by all the stereotypical machoism that the writer uses. I am not a man's man and yes I often get tagged with being a nice guy which if you read the book is more an insult than a compliment. However, after discussing it with other people and cutting through all that nonsense there is alot truth to what the book is saying.

The premise of the book is that men today are too timid, stuck behind a desk and too nice. This is why men are bored and discontent with work and relationships and the church. The book supposes that men are called to three things: an adventure to live, a battle to fight and beauty to pursue. As I look at my own life I see that I am not content and a little bored and aimless. I also notice that I don't have any adventure and the only battles I have are superficial. Furthermore I am not interested in currently pursuing any woman. Are these the reasons I am restless? Maybe.

The book does a disservice to its arguments by creating the idea that the adventure and battles are tied to traditional manly activities. As if only more men were hunters, then they would lead a more satisfying life. I know that is not the point the author is trying to make but he goes down that road all too often. If I properly understand his point, it is that regardless of your hobbies or work, you still need to have some level of adventure in your life and have some cause or battle worth fighting for. I completely agree with this point and see how destructive it is for men when they don't have adventure. Thoreau said it best when he wrote that "the mass of men are leading quiet lives of desperation."

So now I am trying to figure out what my adventure is supposed to be and what I am supposed to fight for. The sermon at my church last week spoke to me in this regard. The subject was Esther and how she was called at just the right time to save the Jewish people from destruction. Her whole life had led her to the place where should could make such a difference. What time am I called for? What has my whole life led up to? Will I be able to answer that call when it comes? What if I missed that call already?

Lately I notice my life has become completely risk averse. I used to live at or near the edge of risk but now I am afraid to gamble away the comfortable life I have, even if it is comfort without contentment. I do know from the past that when I do take risks and embrace adventure that I usually feel much more alive and fulfilled. I also notice that when I put my faith in God to take those chances, he typically reveals to me a part of my character and abilities that I would not have otherwise discovered. This isn't to say all my risks were a success. Far from it, but the process was always a success.

While I can buy into the idea of adventure and fighting, I am less inclined to agree with his third point of manliness which includes pursuing a beauty. I am sure this is my own bias as a single man in a culture full of married people so take the rest with a grain of salt. Having said that I have seen the fruit of this book's thinking lead many good men into bad relationships simply because they are taught that are supposed to pursue women and get married when they grow up. On the flip side, I have also seen men who frustratingly pursue woman with whom they have no hope of catching. Is that really what men are supposed to do? Additionally this thinking sets up a false notion that if someone is not in a relationship that they are somehow less man or incomplete.

Does the author not know that Paul says it would be better to be celibate than be married? Was Paul not in touch with his true man? We have a whole lineage in the Christian tradition that elevates celibacy including the priesthood and the monastic orders. Are those traditions wrong? I realize that women were created to keep men company and that relationships are typically good for men. But the focus should not be on catching women but rather on learning how to be content with who we are as men regardless of our relationship status.

One last thing, I found it ironic that at our meeting Wednesday night we watched a video that was telling us not to live vicariously. Then we sat around and discussed the video. The point of the book, if I understand it correctly, is that we should get out of the movie theatre and into the real world. I find it amusing that we are supposed to be learning about how to live an adventure but in the process we were sitting in a circle doing the same thing that has supposedly led us to our present unadventurous predicament.