These three words express a truth that is written plainly in the pages of human history, yet it is a truth that men are very unwilling to learn. Tyranny and abuse of power with extremes of provocation have been followed by revolution and counter-revolution, the violence of reaction always being proportionate to the violence of the exciting cause. Opposing parties have hated, feared, and persecuted each other as the fortunes of war have given them power and opportunity. Men have passed from one extreme to another, heaping up against themselves disruptive forces that have overthrown them, so that they have been brought to experience the same kind of misery that they have inflicted on others. When moderation has prevailed, it has often been through sheer exhaustion rather than through wise counsels. When wise men have deliberately chosen the moderate course, they have often been condemned by their friends as weak and yielding. We can look back on history and recognize that such men were strong as well as being wise, and that the extremists were weak as well as foolish, but for every thousand men who can recognize this lesson in the history of the past, there is hardly one who is wise enough to apply it in the experiences of the present.
In large political issues, some of the nations, in measure, have learned the lesson. Extremes always beget extremes, and moderation does not imply weakness. In the very small matters of life, too, wherever there is an attempt at politeness, the lesson has been learned very well. There is, however, still a vast field where the old errors are repeated with pathetic monotony, men working each other up to extremes of feeling and conduct that blast and destroy much of the work that might be perfected with moderation.
Perhaps the little adventures of everyday life may furnish a more helpful lesson than the great events of history. It is easier to trace cause and effect in the simple experiences of ordinary individuals than in the complex intercourse of multitudes. It may be, too, that an attitude which would seem normal and rational in connection with a great event, is exposed as merely absurd in the world of commonplace trivialities.
If two moderately sensible men, hastening in opposite directions, chance to collide, with the result that one drops his hat in the mud and the other sustains bruises. we do not expect them to magnify their injuries or to blame each other for the mishap. A sensible, fairly educated man will make light of his own trouble and express his regret, without for a moment insisting that the other was to blame, whatever his thoughts may be It would be so perfectly absurd for two respectable citizens to have a heated argument as to who was to blame, and perhaps come to blows, because they had both been too much in a hurry. If they were guilty of such folly they would both miss their appointments, they would probably both be more damaged by the dispute than by the original mishap, and no possible good would be effected. Worst of all, observers would only laugh at them. Exactly similar foolishness on the part of nations may lead to war with its unrelieved tragedy. Nations cannot be laughed out of going to war. They may be horrified out of it until the memory of the reality becomes dim; then they need another lesson to keep them from such petulant folly.
For the moment, however, we desire to contemplate the many human collisions that are neither great enough to horrify nor small enough to be obviously ridiculous. How often men and women will exaggerate their injuries, throw all the blame on the other party, impute the worst of motives, and become continually more extreme in their cultivated injustice. In the same town, often in the same religious community, sometimes in the same family, there are disputes which grow according to the law of extremes until there is permanent estrangement. Such disputes are too tragic to appear ridiculous, yet in many instances they are quite as foolish as a quarrel between the two hasty men who bump into each other at the awkward corner. So often the original cause of difference is a little matter compared with the evils which develop in the course of the dispute.
Many years ago it was remarked by the man to whom God gave especial wisdom, that “a soft answer turneth away wrath”, and that “yielding pacifieth great offences”. All observers of human nature agree that this is true, but most people want someone else to use the soft answer, and they look to the other party in the dispute to do all the yielding.
It seems quite natural for human beings to make exaggerated statements, especially in discussions. Perhaps exaggeration makes for a certain vigour and vitality of expression which arrests attention, and in that manner sometimes serves a useful purpose. It may be effective in swaying the feelings and convictions of foolish and thoughtless people, and so gaining support that would be withheld from a more temperate advocate. For worldly objects, therefore, exaggeration of statement may be effective just as with many other evil things. Christians, however, should shun it. They should be temperate and moderate and sober (Titus 2:2). They should let their “yea, be yea, and their nay, nay”, remembering that whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil. There comes a time when the moderate statement carries far more weight than all the exaggerated protestations of extremists. It may not so much please the partisan who desires to hear a new emphasis of his own convictions, but it is far more effective in presenting truth to worthy minds If a man is convicted of telling a lie, the truths he has uttered will also be accounted as lies Exaggeration of statement is only a milder form of lying, and it has a similar effect.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One