John Eldredge’s Dangerous Theology: Part 1
Misuse of the Bible
John Eldredge, Moving Mountains: Praying with Passion, Confidence, and Authority, Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2016
I became interested in John Eldredge’s book Moving Mountains: Praying with Passion, Confidence, and Authority in 2016. My husband and I (and a small group of friends) used Eldredge’s work from Ransomed Heart to discuss the possible ways God could break through in our lives. Eldredge’s book was hot off the press and we couldn’t wait to discover more about prayer. It felt good, holy, and helpful. It promoted intimacy with God, seeking answers and wisdom from Jesus, claiming the promises and authority of God, and waiting for the redemption of God in all the places in our lives.
I bought it hook, line, and sinker.
My critical review of his work, Moving Mountains: Praying with Passion, Confidence, and Authority, will be in a four-week series based on four major issues:
First, Eldredge misuses, misinterprets, and misapplies the Bible by using eisegesis and disregarding basic hermeneutics.
Second, Eldredge makes many assertions and claims that he cannot substantiate biblically.
Third, Eldredge teaches the dangerous practice of listening prayer and the ability to hear from Jesus in various ways.
Finally, Eldredge has a skewed, unbiblical view of a Christian’s authority and ability to bring heaven to earth by declaration and proclamation.
Before I begin, I must point out that his presentation of the character of God and the Gospel is well thought out and straightforward on pages 40-47. I would not call him a heretic based on what he believes about these main orthodox teachings of the Church; however, there are no more positives I can find that would coerce me to encourage anyone to read this book. I purposefully used the word dangerous in the title. As we progress, you will understand why I believe this kind of theology is dangerous and should be avoided.
The Thesis of the Book
Eldredge begins his book with a personal story about how a fire that swept through Colorado Springs stopped short at his house. He writes that he received a text from his friend who said, “I saw an angel, above your house, spreading its wings and flapping them against the wind and the fire. I think you are going to be okay” (3). I don’t know if that friend saw an angel or not, but Eldredge believed him and believed it was true. From there, he proposes that some prayers work, like the one that saved his house, and others do not. The rest of his book is about prayer that works, well, supposedly works if you use his ideas and formulated prayers.
Within the first few pages, you learn that Eldredge does not have a high view of short, petitionary prayer. No, he views these as something like taking a “quick whack” at, or like orphans “crying for mercy outside the gates. ‘God, please … please help me’” (9, 48).1
From here, Eldredge begins to build his thesis. He writes, “If you are interested in prayer at all, you are interested in prayer that works. That kind of prayer is the focus of this book” (10). Eldredge uses one biblical text to support where he is headed; the story of Elijah praying for rain in 1 Kings 18. While this is an incredible story of prayer and one that the New Testament author James uses to show how the prayer of the righteous has “great power as it is working”, Eldredge uses these passages to build his ideas, theology, and practices of prayer. However, these ideas and practices are formed from a misuse, misinterpretation, and misapplication of the text, resulting in a man-made false theology presented as true.
#1 Eldredge’s misuse, misinterpretation, and misapplication of the Bible.
Eldredge fails to use basic hermeneutics to exegete the 1 Kings text but shines brightly in the world of eisegesis, putting into the biblical text what isn’t there to make it say what he wants you to believe it’s saying.
I Kings 18
As stated, Eldredge asserts that because there are ways in which things work, there is a way in which prayer works. Eldredges first misuse of the Bible from 1 Kings is subtle, using what seems to be a reasonable response to the Scripture, but indeed is only used to build an argument for prayer and what it takes for it to work properly. Basing his claim on how Elijah’s prayer “worked” regarding the rain, Eldredge describes Elijah as a man who was “determined to see results” (9). A case could be made for this, but Eldredge is not presenting this text to see the majesty and provision of a good and holy God. He is using this descriptive text as a prescriptive text to claim it shows a way to pray to get the results you want.
How does he do this? Eldredge points out that Elijah had to pray eight times to see the puff of a cloud. To make his point concerning the amount of times Elijah prayed, Eldredge juxtaposes it against the prayer of Anne Lamott who, during a stressful time of waiting for a biopsy result, wrote a prayer on a piece of paper that said, “I am a little anxious. Help me remember that you are with me even now. I am going to take my sticky fingers off the control panel until hear from you” (10). Eldredge is not having it. He writes that her prayer, as much as he likes her, is “just not helpful when it comes to prayer” (10). Eldredge asks, “Whose prayers do you think are more likely to see results — Elijah’s or Lamott’s?” (10). Eldredge takes what he thinks is the most important part of that story (how many times Elijah prayed) and sets it against what he believes is a rather weak prayer, to make his unbiblical claim that Elijah’s prayer would get better results.
I wonder, would Eldredge say the same thing about the man who came to Jesus saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean” (Matthew 8:2, English Standard Version)? How does Eldredge contend with these words from two blind men in Matthew 9, “‘Have mercy on us, Son of David.’” (Matt. 9:27b)? The interaction between Jesus and the men didn’t involve praying eight times to get a result. Here’s what happened: “When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, ‘Do you believe that I am able to do this?’ They said to him, ‘Yes, Lord.’ Then he touched their eyes, saying, ‘According to your faith be it done to you.’” If we are saying prayer “works” better when you have more words or more repetition, then he has to agree that Jesus gave these other people a slick pass!
Eldredge’s assumptions about the number of times you pray, how lengthy your prayer is, or whether your prayers are relentless or fervent enough begin to fall apart. The problem is that it is not about what the Bible actually says about prayer, but how the Bible can prop up what Eldredge wants to say.
Luke 10
Another passage Eldredge uses to make his claim for the supposed authority Jesus has given to all of us (more to come on this) is Luke 10:19. Eldredge argues that Jesus who has usurped the ruler of the world, “…gives his majestic authority to us: ‘I have given you authority … to overcome all the power of the enemy.’ (Luke 10:19).” This is so far outside the realm of intelligent exegetical work. Eldridge provides no context, though he argues:
“The Scriptures are not a random grab bag of passages we select willy-nilly like a child trick-or-treating: we do need to be care about that. God promised David that his heirs would always sit on the throne doesn’t mean I can just grab that for my life. The context of a passage will give you clarity on who it is meant for, whether it is a promise or a principle, whether that promise is for every person or for believers or for a moment in history when God was doing something specific with a particular person” (160).
I could not have said it better myself, but let us apply Eldredge’s own cautionary words to his work.
Luke 10 describes when Jesus sends out the seventy-two. Luke writes, “After this [when Jesus told his disciples what it will cost them to follow him in 9:57-62], the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go” (10:1). This passage is packed with all the things Jesus is telling them about what they are going to face as they take the Gospel. Eldredge skips this context entirely. In fact, he does not give any context as to the story and conveniently fails to provide the full verse 19, the very one he is using to back his claim about the authority we have been given. The verse says, “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.” Eldredge does not take his own advice about context and how it will “give you clarity on who it is meant for”.
Acts 9
Another example of Eldridge’s misuse of the Bible is found on page 54. Eldredge claims that for healing to come, “it primarily comes through the laying on of hands, illustrating how we are partners with God in prayer” (54). He writes, “His power is available; the need is there. What is needed is a conduit — a vessel through which God can work,”… says nowhere in the Bible (54). Eldredge tries to substantiate this claim using the story of how Ananias healed Paul’s eyes after he was blinded when he met the Messiah on the road to Damascus. Here, Eldredge makes a subtle shift in his focus on prayer to the relationship Ananias supposedly had with Jesus. According to Eldredge, because Ananias talked back to Jesus with a concern for meeting Paul, we should “get the impression Ananias and Jesus are friends, comrades, partners in this young revolution called Christianity” (55). I by no means got any kind of impression. Eldredge is shifting the focus away from the fact that God used this moment to set into the story the most important missionary of the early church, namely, Paul. This story is not about relationship prayer; it is about the calling of Paul to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Eldredge wants you to believe this is a proof text for how we are to have a relationship with Jesus. This is me-centric theology and blatant eisegesis.
Exodus 19
More issues are found in his chapter called “Consecration” on pages 99-101 when Eldredge argues that just as the Israelites consecrated themselves before God in Exodus 19, we need to do the same thing and that it is an act of ‘“repairing the wiring’ the first step before God’s protection and provision can flow” (98). Eldredge creates a strange theology around how we must consecrate ourselves before God for God to “flow” and that our consecration is “the first act of effective prayer” (101). I’m not exactly sure how he knows this, but we are to just trust him (see page 99). Indeed, he asserts, “Before the healing power of God can flow into a body, you have to re-present that body to God; you have to bring it under the loving rule of Jesus once again” (101). I argue that there is no Bible verse anywhere that supports this claim.
Eldredge continues his pattern of misusing the Bible in the book and uses it to build his ideas of effective prayer. Scripture is sufficient to teach us about prayer and it does not need the additions Eldredge has made and will continue to make regarding prayer, listening prayer, and conversational prayer with Jesus, as you will see in the upcoming posts.
Next week, I’ll discuss how Eldredge makes many assertions and claims and show how they cannot hold up under biblical scrutiny.
See pages 47-52 to see how Eldredge categorizes different ways of praying into “slaves, orphans, or children.” He creates a false dichotomy (slaves/orphans vs children), not allowing for prayers to have a sense of desperation or humility. He paints a grim picture of the type of prayers he has heard and decides for his reader whether or not these are worthy prayers. He argues that if one has the mindset of a child of God or an heir of Jesus, they have a better mindset. Eldredge thinks “so much of it [praying] has to do with expectation; they are expecting the lavish and scandalous” (52). This is simply a weak and unsubstantiated argument. The Bible is full of all types of prayer, from the desperate to the confident, from the fearful to the courageous. This teaching places a burden on the reader to approach God in certain ways to get certain results.