This is something I read a while ago that has been resounding in my mind recently, so I decided to share it. This is a quote from Richard J. Foster’s book “Freedom of Simplicity.” Here, Foster is talking about balance; how many teachings in the Bible are two seemingly opposite ideas that must be kept in balance, otherwise they become distorted. This is a great subject to have in the back of your mind when thinking about different ideas presented in the Bible.

“Christian simplicity lives in harmony with the ordered complexity of life. It repudiates easy, dogmatic answers to tough, intricate problems. In fact, it is this grace that frees is sufficiently to appreciate and respond to the complex issues of contemporary society. The duplicitous mind, on the other hand, tends to confuse and obscure. While the dogmatic person cannot understand the divercity in simplicity, the double-minded person cannot perceive the unity in complexity.

This brings us to the central paradox of our study: the complexity of simplicity. The fact that a paradox lies at the heart of the Christian teaching on simplicity should not surprise us. The life and teachings of Christ were often couched in paradox: the way to find our life is to lose it (Matt. 10:39); in giving we receive (Luke 6:38); he who is the Prince of Peace brings the sword of division (Matt. 10:34). Those with simplicity of heart understand the Lord, because much of their experience resonates with paradox. It is the arrogant ad the obscurant who stumble over such realities.

Paradoxes, of course, are only apparent contradictions, not real ones. Their truth is often discovered by maintaining a tension between two opposite lines of teaching. Although both teachings may contain elements of truth, the instant we emphasize one to the exclusion of the other the truth becomes distorted and disfigured. We can see this easily enough when we insist–rightly I think–that God is both imminent and transcendent, both in the created order and beyond the created order. If we stress imminence to the exclusion of transcendence, we end up with some form of pantheism. Conversely, if we stress transcendence to the exclusion of imminence, we will end up with a detached, disinterested, wind-the-clock-up kind of God. If we embrace either end of the teaching exclusively, we get a distortion; if we hold both in tension, we find the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We could just as easily take concepts sich as the love and justice of God, the deity and humanity of Christ, or and number of examples that abound in Scripture.”

I continually find that this is a true idea. Molly has mentioned this concept many times when we’re in a group that is discussing controversial subjects. Most times those conversations end up with the concession that both sides must be kept in a balance.

What do you think about this subject? Is there and teaching in the Bible (or an idea in general) that you’ve realized recently must be kept in a balance?

btw, I recommend this book, it’s very interesting.