I'm all for losing our "balance." That is to say, for some time now I have wanted to get rid of appeals to "balance" in theological discussions. Here are a couple reasons. (1) I have found that every person thinks of himself as balanced, so appeals to balance end up being appeals to "see things my way." (2) Appeals to balance regularly try to reduce issues to two simple opposites, both with equal claims to being correct. But this is almost never the case, so the appeal to balance actually obscures the very issues that we are discussing.
Last week I read an article by Graeme Goldsworthy, retired lecturer in Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Moore College in Sydney, Australia, and I was gratified to see his cogent statement on "balance." He put effectively into words what had bounced around in my brain for some time without ever being well-articulated. Goldsworthy wrote:
Just what does balanced mean here? An equal number of tomes, or of sermons, on each? Two great truths simply stated? I would suggest that balance is not a biblical word, nor a biblical idea, and it doesn't explain anything. Try balancing divine sovereignty in predestination with human responsibility, as some argue we must. Or try balancing the human nature of Jesus with his divine nature. They simply do not balance, but there is a biblical perspective on them that we must try to understand and express. So there is also a biblical perspective on the relationship of the being of God and the action of God. It is this relationship between them, not giving them equal time, that is the important issue.
Later in the article, Goldsworthy applied this insightfully to the debates in early Christianity regarding the doctrine of God and the person of Christ.
We can see the ravages of balance when we look at the Trinitarian and Christological heresies that led to so much systematic formulation in the early church. Balance suggests an interchangability that, in the end, produces modalism. The insight of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 was that, in the matter of the two natures of Christ, balance does not suffice. It was the nature of heresy to try to balance the two natures.
Trying to be "balanced" is a good way to end up a heretic. It is much better to strive to be biblical.
(I'm not sure how to link directly to the article I cited, but you can find it by going to beginningwithmoses.org, clicking at the top of the page on bt articles, and then clicking on "Ontology and Biblical Theology" by Graeme Goldsworthy.)