Talk:John Eldredge

Conversion to Christianity

The phrasing "... Eldredge came to Christ and later to the church" doesn't sound right for an encyclopedic article. I suggest changing it to something along the lines of "... became a [born again?] Christian and later joined the [which?] church". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - /* Criticism */

Please refer to Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute for the correct procedure in handling this dispute, in case you are not familiar with its provisions and recommendations.

First off, I do agree that criticism does belong in a Criticism section, so, just to be sure, I do not dispute the mere existence of the present criticism.

That said, I would like to emphasize that since a WP article is not a forum for criticism as such but strives to provide a comprehensive view of its subject, including the existence of whatever respectable criticism (i.e., criticism that exists outside the WP and is merely reported in this section of a WP article), such criticism should be referenced in a way that is, in itself, sound and dry and that does refrain from extending or challenging the viewpoint of the criticism in itself.

To point out where I feel that this standard isn't met by the current state of the criticism section:

• Some passages in Eldredge's books have caused leaders in other churches to question the perspective that defines Eldredge's style. As an example, Christianity Today quotes Rut Etheridge III, a seminarian in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, who describes Eldredge as having an "alarmingly unbiblical worldview."

With some knowledge of the field, you'll have noticed that the accusation of "unbiblical" view is deplorably common among many theologians when disagreeing about some view that may be connected with, or is based on (one's belief with reference to) the Bible. So the quote reported of that Rut Etheridge III is really a platitude here - no information has been given to the reader so far on what really is the issue in question. This is misleading for any reader not equally familiar with the customary characteristics of (unqualified) dispute in the field (who will not easily spot the fact that all that is reported so far is an undetailed disparaging categorization). WP articles should not be misleading.

BTW, I've found the referenced web page to be unreachable so the reader can't go check for themselves (so what's our policy with the content here). I haven't checked yet if the original quotation still exists on the Wayback Machine or so.

Bottom line, all that's being said in this item of criticism might as well (and at most) run something like

Some theological seminarians disagree with some parts of Eldredge's world view on the grounds of his style, based on some passages in his books.

Which is already quite a tall rendition based on the fact that the article, in its present state, does not explain what Eldredge's world view is, after all.

And which is not yet as tall as

/* objectionable */ Some theological seminarians have contested the biblicality of Eldredge's world view

which is objectionable because, as explained before, that's exactly what most any such contestants will say about each other, which amounts to plain discredit of the kind that the uninitiated will not recognize as not properly supported (yet). BTW, only one seminarian is actually mentioned, so there's a bit of another problem here, too.

• Eldredge uses descriptive language and gives references to popular culture in his writing more so than to substantive theories and quantitative studies. (...)

Being said this way, this is a claim of fact rather than a proper reference to external (existing outside the WP) criticism (see Wikipedia:No original research). It is also tendentious as the way it is put insinuates that (more) "substantive theories and quantitative studies" should be given although they are not.

Some critics find fault with the fact that Eldredge uses descriptive language and references to popular culture in his writing, suggesting that "substantive theories" and "quantitative studies" should be used (unverified: quotation missing)

Which still leaves open the question if calling for "quantitative studies" - of whatever - is appropriate for the subject or rather a dishonest trick frequently occurring in argument (compare Schopenhauer, The Art of Always Being Right).

• (...) As an example, Eldredge says that "Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, the Incarnation of grace, meekness, and love is not Mister Rogers with a beard! He is more like Maximus in the movie Gladiator or William Wallace in Braveheart

Our section, in its current state, does not report why or how critics argue for that to be objectionable (whether it may or may not be objectionable, this information is just not given). Or otherwise, the quote should be given first with any criticism referring to it appended, as a matter of style and readability.

Eldredge uses descriptive language and gives references to popular culture [in talking about attributes of God], such as saying that "Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, the Incarnation of grace, meekness, and love is not Mister Rogers with a beard! He is more like Maximus in the movie Gladiator or William Wallace in Braveheart". Some critics find fault with that while suggesting that more "substantive theories" and "quantitative studies" should be used (unverified: quotation missing) in his writing.

• Although he does not promote criminality, Eldredge has also received criticism for use made of his book Wild at Heart by the "pseudo-evangelical cult" and Mexican criminal cartel La Familia Michoacana

I can't see how it is seriously appropriate to say in an encyclopedia that an author has "received criticism" for somebody other's obviously blatant misemploy of his works. I doubt that the reference given really goes to show that the author is being criticised for that.

One American Anti-Conservatist blog has verbally attacked Eldredge after a Mexican criminal cartel introduced a policy of methodical misuse (upon which Eldredge has no influence) of his idea that “Every man wants a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue.”, although, as confirmed by FPRI findings, Eldredge does not promote violence.

Actually, if that cartel's acts of crime were not as outrageous as they are, this would almost belong in a trivia section, as (obviously) anyone with a sufficiently twisted way of thinking could twist anything to claim justification from it for anything. Looking at the FPRI reference, that's what La Familia Michoacana are doing with their own self-righteousness and with their support of local campesinos, too. As a matter of philosophy, everybody has obviously understood that Eldredge's idea is substantially figurative, as all archetypical ideas are, only some criminals (who really have, too) are playing they haven't so as to use it as an intimidation tool on their contemporaries.

--217.229.1.227 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

John Eldredge as inspiration for a violent drug cartel

"Although he does not promote criminality, Eldredge has also received criticism for use made of his book Wild at Heart by the "pseudo-evangelical cult" and Mexican criminal cartel La Familia Michoacana.[5][6][7]"

When I reached this concluding sentence on the entry for John Eldredge, I was immediately struck by its ludicrous nature. First, there's nothing in this book or any of his other books that could justify this criticism. Second, one may as well blame Chevrolet for the use of a Chevy Suburban as a getaway car in a bank heist.

I looked at the references provided. The first was to a blog called Thump and Whip. It provided a couple more links, one of which (elchucotimes) just went to a generic page with no content, the other (JulyDogs) was another blog that was so similar that the content in Thump and Whip had to have been copied, pasted, and slightly redacted from it or both from other sources. From this blog I followed a link to the El Milenio article. After reading this, in Spanish, it was evident that both blogs contained redacted versions of it in English (though both Thump and Whip and JulyDogs also repackaged information written elsewhere about John Eldredge). The other citations that mentioned John Eldredge in connection with La Familia Michoacana, 6 and 7, by George Grayson at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and by Michael Isikoff at The Daily Beast, respectively, were derived from the El Milenio article. George Grayson specifically mentioned it. Michael Isikoff did not provide any citations but the content of his remarks was such that he had read the El Milenio article or the redactions of it mentioned above. For example, "muscular Christianity" appears in Isikoff's, Thump and Whip's, and JulyDogs versions.

In the El Milenio article (http://www.msemanal.com/node/613), it is alleged that "sources" within the federal intelligence network said that Eldredge's Wild at Heart figured prominently in the recruitment and training of leaders in La Familia Michoacana. The author of the article says that Wild at Heart is mentioned 4 times in the intelligence memos on the group. The author states that pamphlets are distributed by the thousands to train folks to The Family way. But the author never provides an example of any of those pamphlets that shows any quotes from or references to Wild at Heart. The author also mentions that La Familia Michoacan draws on connections from local Catholic priests and a variety of other religions:

“Aunque tienen nexos con algunos sacerdotes católicos, sus principales creencias se encuentran (sic) entre otras religiones, principalmente en las denominadas cristiana y evangélica, las cuales les sirven para el reclutamiento y adoctrinamiento de nuevos integrantes de la organización delictiva”, se anota en el documento."

In addition to this, the author in El Milenio says that Mexican self-help authors Carlos Cuauthémoc Sánchez and Miguel Ángel Cornejo have given motivational courses in Morelia under the patronage of The Family:

"...escritores mexicanos de superación personal Carlos Cuauthémoc Sánchez y Miguel Ángel Cornejo han impartido cursos de motivación en Morelia bajo el patrocinio de La Familia."

So, given that the author in El Milenio cites a variety of religions and self-help teachers as sources of motivation for the training of leaders in La Familia Michoacana, two of which were said to have actually given motivational talks sponsored by La Familia Michocana, it's very strange that the article should so prominently focus on John Eldredge, including a large photo of him and his book. Perhaps it's because he's American, evangelical, and famous on both sides of the border.

Bottom line: All three citations are uncritically derived from a single source, an article in El Milenio (http://www.msemanal.com/node/613), not even listed in the Wikipedia entry, in which the author quotes unnamed sources in a Mexican federal intelligence service alleging that the leader of La Familia Michoacana really likes Wild at Heart.

Aruanan (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Eldredge is being picked on because he's a famous American evangelical. All our article says is that he's being picked on. Whether he deserves it is beyond our scope. Staecker (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been static for a year and a half. Until there's something more substantial, I'm taking it out. For one thing, this the misuse of Eldredge's work isn't actually criticism, and the actual references to online criticism fall under the notability threshold, imho. Happy to thresh this out if people see it diffently. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Eldredge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120613053156/http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/2011/12/14/interview-with-john-eldredge-on-beautiful-outlaw.html to http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/2011/12/14/interview-with-john-eldredge-on-beautiful-outlaw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Misleading referencing

At first glance, the article appears to be well-referenced, although strangely PR-sounding in tone. The reason seems to be that 11 of the 18 current reference links are to the same episode of one audio recording the subject did from his own organization.

As structured, this article tilts heavily to PR for the subject and needs to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveworld (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Can a label be added to this whole section (Ministry and Message of John Eldredge) until it can be corrected to a more neutral tone? 153.142.16.144 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have acted boldly and removed the entire section. It seemed to be soapboxing, rather than a neutral summary of his core views. More importantly, the references (poor as they seemed in any case) are lost to the ages as far as I can see. A new section on his beliefs could be started with proper sourcing. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)