>”Risk” without commitment isn’t really a risk
>”Commitment” without risk isn’t really a commitment

Why? Because they both deal with consequence. Remember, that consequences aren’t always bad, but are merely the result of the interaction between two or more variables.

>Without acknowledging the commitment involved in risk, what would make it risky? It is the element of committing to the vulnerability inherent in the risk that make it risky. The commitment binds the committed to face the consequences of the risk (good or bad).
>Without acknowledging the vulnerability of commitment, what’s to ensure fidelity? It is the element of embracing the dangers of vulnerability that make it committed. The risk binds the risktaker to commit to the consequences of the decision (good or bad).

So, why do people take risks at all? It must be said that vulnerability is not always bad. Some of the best things will only come on vulnerable terms (salvation, love, open heart surgery, meaningful relationships, ministry) We take risks because we evaluate the consequences (good and bad) and decide that the actualization of the good consequence is worth risking the actualization of the bad. All this comes down to the very core and personal decision of our values. What could be worth our potential demise? Surely it must be something bigger than and outside of who we are, for we risk our very self for its actualization. Is there a transcendent thrill that is received from sky diving, romance, being fully known, loved, and accepted, or cherished that dares us to risk it all just for a taste? With many such enticing appeals, may I admonish you that they are not all bad nor are they all good. Therefore, as you seek the transcendent life God has for you,

Choose your risks wisely, and know they will affect all your heart.