STRENGTH by Pestle

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 23, 1877

STRENGTH

By Pestle

“THAT is the best rope in my store,” said a dealer in cordage, pointing to a not very large rope which lay coiled up on the floor.

“In what way is it best?” I inquired.

“In strength,” he replied.

A friend who was present pointed to a much larger rope near by, saying that it must surely be much stronger, for the size was greater.

The man of rope then went into a description of the process of manufacturing the different kinds of ropes, from a whale line up to the largest hawser. His explanation was so clear that we readily saw that a cable owed its strength, not so much to the amount of manilla it contained per fathom, as to the close union existing between the fibres, or in other words, that a pound of manilla made into a loosely twisted rope, one foot long, would not be so strong as the same amount of material closely twisted; or, more properly, a loosely twisted rope, weighing a pound to the foot, would not be nearly so strong as a hard twisted rope of the same material and weight; and yet the loosely twisted, weak rope would look the larger of the two.

A familiar example of this is shown by the shoemaker, who untwists his hempen thread when he wishes to break it. This untwisting does not rob the thread of a single fibre; and yet it is so weakened that the thread, which before almost defied man to break it with his naked hands, will now part with such ease that it can hardly be called breaking, very few of the fibres holding firmly enough to require fracturing. Its strength depended more upon the close union of the fibres than upon their individual strength.

It is not unusual to find persons, who, like the rope dealer’s friend, look upon size and strength as synonymous. This impression is much more general than some would suppose. We frequently hear people speaking of some unusually large man, saying, “Just look at him; I would not like to have him take hold of me.” Or of a church, “It is a very strong church—over three hundred members.” Corporations are judged in the same manner—the number and wealth of the members being taken as the standard of strength; and yet the fallacy of this is apparent to any who will take the trouble to examine the facts of the case.

Great size does not always indicate corresponding strength. Even in physical contests the largest does not always prove to be the best man. That this is true of individuals, probably no one will dispute. Yet many who acknowledge this are unwilling to apply the same line of reasoning to societies, to which it is certainly more applicable than to individuals. Probably many of these same false theorists could recall circumstances that would clearly disprove their own theory of strength in proportion to size. In fact, we are certain that the most striking illustrations of this are found in the case of numbers in societies, whether social, educational, political, or religious. “Many men” are likely to have “many minds,” and instead of a unity of purpose, there will be more or less individuality—they will be less closely united. As great bodies exert a more powerful attractive influence upon the lesser, so two or three great minds, running in different directions, will soon be surrounded by their attendant satellites. Thus our society is split into factions. And so completely is this untwisting sometimes done that societies composed of hundreds, or even of thousands, are often broken in two with as much ease as the shoemaker breaks his thread. Surely the strength of the family, society, association, church, state, or nation, depends upon the close unity existing between the individual members.—Pestle.