I was only supposed to read one chapter today, but I had only one left after that and I really just wanted to finish it, and so I went to the end.
I didn't like this book at all. I hope it's not for the reason that most people will think of. I am a very proud and arrogant person. I know this about myself, it's something that I am consistently and constantly struggling with. How can I practice humility? How can I value others above myself? And how, in the name of all that is holy, can I have patience with those that take absolutely forever to understand the most basic of concepts?! See, already you can see the pride and vanity coming out. I'm sure to some other people it seems as though I take forever to understand the most basic of concepts.
But my own failure to put into practice the tenets of humility is not why I don't like this book. I don't like this book because it's self-contradictory, heretical in some places, and just plain wrong in others.
For example, Andrew Murray is just plain wrong when he says that "humility is the mother-virtue, your very first duty before God" (p. 97). If it was the very first duty before God, God would have said so in his word, and he never did. It's very easy to show that Andrew Murray is wrong here because God actually tells us what is most important, he uses those exact words! "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important commandment." (Matthew 22:34-40). That makes it pretty clear that love is the mother-virtue, the first duty before God.
I think the reason that Andrew Murray is hammering humility so much is because he doesn't actually believe the Bible as it is written, he thought there must be some sort of secret knowledge, that it couldn't be as easy as the Bible presents it to be, and so he advocated something extra 'becoming nothing'. But he takes this way too far, even attributing words to Christ that are not in the Bible. For any non-Christians reading this, that is a big no-no, maybe the biggest no-no. You don't go telling people the Bible says something it doesn't say, let alone telling people that Jesus said something he didn't. There's a couple of verses that make that very clear, like in Proverbs "Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" or like in Revelation "if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book." Granted that last is only talking about Revelation, but since the same idea is located in other places throughout the Bible, I think it's safe to say that it applies to the whole Bible. Anyway, Murray does this great big no-no. He says that Jesus says: "I am nothing." Christ did not say that, not anywhere in the Bible. Not only did he not say it, but the idea that he would say it is heretical. The 'I am' statements of the Bible are foundational doctrine. When Christ says 'I am' he is saying that he is God, the God who is not bound by time, who has no beginning and has no end, who forever is. You can't have a God who is be nothing.
Maybe Murray was trying to argue a metaphorical meaning rather than an actual physical meaning. I still contend that it's heretical, because when Christ says an 'I am' statement, like he does throughout the book of John, it's always to draw an important symbolic connection between Jewish traditions that are illustrating some aspect of God from the old testament. In John 8:12 when he says "I am the light of the world", he is claiming that in the middle of the Feast of Tabernacles, where the Jews had a giant illumination ceremony to remind them of God's promise to send light to them. Christ is letting everyone know that he is the fulfillment of prophecy, and is alluding to all kinds of old testament verses like Psalm 27:1 "The Lord is my light" and Isaiah 60:19 "The Lord will be your everlasting light." The statement 'I am nothing' has zero references in the old testament, because it came out of Murray's head. Not only that, but every one of Christ's 'I am' statements is him declaring himself to be God. When he says that 'I am the light' he is saying 'I am God', because the Jews clearly believed what the Bible said and identified God with light. Nowhere in the Bible does it have God the Father claiming to be nothing. With Murray's insistence that Christ declared himself to be nothing, he's saying that Christ wasn't God. That's pretty heretical.
Then there is the self-contradiction. In the same chapter he says that "[humility' is not something we bring to God or that He bestows" and " humility is not something that will come of itself, but that it must be made the object of special desire, prayer, faith, and practice." If humility is not something that God bestows, why would you need to pray for it? If it doesn't come from us and it doesn't come from God, where does it come from?
But perhaps the quote that illustrates everything that I find most ridiculous about this book is the following: "God has so constituted us as reasonable beings that the greater the insight into the true nature or the absolute need of a command, the quicker and more complete will be our obedience to it." I have rarely come across such a strong statement that is propounding something so laughable. All someone has to do is glance at another human being to see that this is patently false. Yes, we are reasonable beings, we have the power of reason, but simply understanding that something is true and needful doesn't mean that we quickly and completely obey. I understand that it is true that I shouldn't eat an entire pizza in one sitting, I understand that my body needs to eat food that is more nutritional than pizza and not as calorie-heavy as pizza. My reason tells me I should eat the salad instead, it's lower in calories, higher in minerals, I'm struggling with weight gain right now, the cheese in the pizza contributes to my LDL and triglycerides...I know all of these things. I understand them. I'm still going to eat the entire pizza in one sitting, because I want to. Pizza is delicious. The satisfaction of my tastebuds outweighs all of the other considerations. Because we are not solely reasonable beings. We are also biological beings, which means sometimes our biological desires will outweigh the desires of our minds. We are also psychological beings, which means sometimes our psychological desires will outweigh the desires of our minds, sometimes depression keeps us from doing the things we know we should. We are also spiritual beings, and sometimes our spiritual desires will outweigh the desires of our minds.
This author just gets so fixated on one tiny idea that he ignores other things that are blatantly obvious, it's like he never thought about anything outside of this one idea. He has the opposite of my problem. My problem is that I think of one idea and then I think of all the other ideas that are vaguely connected to that idea and end up getting all muddled in my head and unable to hold all of the related ideas concurrently. The truth of the matter is, we don't live in a simple world. Multiple things can be true at the same time, you can't just focus on one thing, because if you do, you are missing out on all of the other things. It's true that I like to read because I get to learn new things, it's also true that I like to read because I want to escape my life. Both of those things are true at the same time. We are reasonable beings, but we are not solely controlled by our reason, and that's what makes us human.