I am generally averse to risks. This is not to say I do not take risks at all; such an extreme would make life practically unlivable. I am merely hesitant to act without a degree of rational assurance toward my desired outcome. To myself, I justify a balance of James 4:13-15 and Matthew 6:34, whereby I am confident in God’s sovereignty and apply myself according to His explicate will, but am hesitant in commitment beyond what I know therefrom. I am ever reflective upon my emotional motivation, lest it instigate hasty action and result thereby in regretful outcomes. From a purely rational consideration, this seems a reasonable approach to decision making; but in practice, I perceive a tendency to become arrogantly reliant upon my own judgement, and potentially stunted in sanctification by my refusal to extend myself farther than I may feel comfortable. Desiring clarity, I sought out Scripture potentially relevant to my concerns.
One of the first references I found was 1 Kings 3:16-28, where we are accounted an unusual exercise of judicial process. Two prostitutes came to King Solomon with a child, both claiming to be the mother thereof. Seemingly to resolve the dispute, Solomon order for the newborn to be cut in half so that each woman could retain possession individually. While the one woman was apparently amiable to this judgement, the other desperately rescinded her claim that the child’s life might be spared. Solomon declared this latter woman the true mother and awarded her custody. This event is recorded in the Bible as evidence of Solomon’s gifted wisdom. However, I also perceive herein an application toward my subject. A lot could have gone wrong, yet Solomon presumably deemed the risk sufficiently weighed toward the optimal outcome. He had reason to be confident, given he was acting according to his God-given responsibility, and could trust in the providence of God to guide the situation.
From there I recalled the Parable of the Talents, as recorded in Matthew 25:14-30. Three servants are entrusted with varying quantities of “talents” by their master while he is away. While the first two invest their talents and make profit, the third hides his away. Upon the master’s return, the two investors deliver to him their increase, and are commended for it; but the third can only return what he initially received, and is subsequently punished severely. While I am not confident in the interpretation of the third servant’s defense (24-25), my current perception is that he was fearful of the master’s high standards, and chose to merely retain what was entrusted to him rather than risk its loss; yet he acknowledges awareness of his master’s intent, and thereby validates his own condemnation. By 1 Corinthians 10:31 (and a multitude of other references), we are made aware of our responsibility while on Earth – not merely to live and safely experience life, but to actively bring glory to God and proclaim His truth!
Testimonies such as these lead me to believe a degree of risk is to be anticipated in Christianity, not in a sense of wanton recklessness but in view of God’s greater purpose. My investigation concludes with Proverbs 3:5-6, which succinctly articulates the guiding principle; Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths. If we are earnest in seeking after Him, we can be sure He will keep us from straying, and we need not fear negative outcomes, for all is encompassed by His sovereignty. Therefore let us be open to perceived risk, so long as we are following His leading.
Trust and obey. TTT
Leave a Reply