Walking is a perpetual state of imbalance. It is a recurring prevention or “catching” ourselves from falling. We step forward with our right foot and just before we fall precariously forward our left foot takes the initiative and prevents the disastrous results of the right foot. Even though it becomes second nature, without this fluid state of imbalance, we could only stand still. Interesting…. You can’t move forward without becoming imbalanced first…

I noted in a previous post that there are those who may take exception to some of my posts. I stated it is not my goal to present a balanced view. The reason, in my puny mind is simple: I don’t recall ever being motivated by anyone who presented me a balanced approach to anything of consequence (nothing like a steak dinner over veggie delight!). Trying to portray every perspective on a portrait, besides taking a consuming amount of words and work, may create an image that could be quite unrealistic, much like a Pablo Picasso painting with two eyes on the same side of the face! In an effort to present a balanced perspective of reality, a view from all sides, we may only get a gruesome caricature!

Again, I know there are exceptions to this. That is not my point. Here it is: I believe we do just fine balancing out others’ viewpoints. It’s second nature. What we need occasionally is a voice that challenges us to stretch beyond our inherent nature to “stand still”; that motivates us to take that first step towards another, more radical -and perhaps godly - direction. Many times the balanced perspective is really not taking a position on anything. It’s safe, but not without its risks.

Perhaps it may help to share with you the words of the One who always speaks the truth…

Jesus said you are only satisfied if you hunger and thirst for righteousness. In the words of Peter Kreeft: This is the Lord’s one requirement: to be a saint, that is, a fanatic; to love one thing infinitely; to put all our eggs in his basket; to seek the one pearl of great price.

Fanaticism? Is it? What would your portrait look like if you loved this one thing infinitely?

Kreeft again: It is not that we don’t admire holiness, we don’t admire the passion for holiness. It is the pursuit that we resent in others. The radicalness. We may talk about righteousness all the time, but pursuing it is another thing altogether.  We always have reasons, legitimate reasons …

A passion for anything other than righteousness will not satisfy us here on earth or in eternity.  Yet, as CS Lewis wrote, we are far too satisfied with other things.

So we have the option to respond with “but we know…” perhaps add our “balance” to His words… The upshot according to John will be a Laodicean “niceness.” I don’t recommend this. Jesus didn’t present the exceptions to his own words…  for that I am truly grateful, because He challenges me to take another step of risk towards His direction. What would Western Christianity look like if we took another step Christ’s direction and risked a little imbalance?