Grr.

             All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:37)

Excuse me while I vent. I’m reading a book about simplicity, in which the author cites this verse as an argument that we should live out a divine center in which we do not experience internal conflicts about what we should or should not do.

Now, had he referred to the first chapter of James, I probably would not be having this response. I’m not saying his idea of being single-minded and living out of the divine center are wrong. But Matthew 5 does not address the issue of being conflicted about what one should do. It has to do with taking oaths. Jesus taught that we are not to swear by Heaven, the Earth, Jerusalem, or our heads. Rather, we are to simply say, “Yes” or “No.”  That’s not the same thing. It’s not even close.

His claim now creates in me a conflict of motivation. Do I throw the book in the metaphorical trash and reject everything the author has to say on any subject because he’s engaged in Scripture twisting? Or do I continue to read in hopes of learning what I’m actually reading the book to learn (simplicity) even though I know he plays fast and loose with Scripture?

I’ll probably keep reading at least a little more, but the warning flags are up. His principles can be sound even if his proof text is not. But I won’t be recommending his book to anyone. And I certainly will not use the Scripture the way he has any more than I would use 2+2=4 as my justification for voting.

Does that mean I think I’m always on target in my application of Scripture to life? No. I know I’m not. There have been times when I have said that my comments were not appropriately and carefully based in the text I’ve chosen. That’s part of why I’ll continue to read.