Using teams of men to serve widows, single moms, and fatherless children
Using teams of men to serve widows, single moms, and fatherless children

Pyrrhic Victory: Why I’m Ambivalent about Christians and Politics

Sharing is caring!

Battle of Bunker Hill by Steven Isaacson

When I think about Christians and politics these days, the term “pyrrhic victory” comes to mind. Poor king Pyrrhus, who ruled in Greece in the third century BC, fought the Romans in the battle of Asculum in 279 BC. He won, but at such a cost it was tantamount to defeat. Here’s how Plutarch relates the story in Life of Pyrrhus:

The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one other such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.

Down through the centuries there have been many such military “pyrrhic victories.” In American history, The Battle of Bunker Hill, where British troops fought Washington’s army for control of Boston peninsula, is an example. The Redcoats won the battle, but at a much greater cost in lives lost than the revolutionaries. General Washington responded to the defeat by saying: “I have a another hill I’d like to sell the British.” As a result of Bunker Hill, British troops quartered in Boston never again ventured outside the city and the revolutionary cause won wider support.

But pyrrhic victory also has a broader meaning. Besides referring to military victories that cause greater harm than good, pyrrhic victory refers to any cause that advances by means which ultimately cause its defeat. Prohibition and the Eighteenth Amendment could be considered pyrrhic victories. Alcohol will never again be banned in the United States.

On the other hand, Abolition and the Thirteenth Amendment was not a pyrrhic victory. Instead it set on course a transformation of race relations in the United States that continues to this day; a transformation that reflects deeply held beliefs about humanity and equality. Slavery will never again be instituted in the United States.

So why the difference? The difference is between imposing something on a society and infusing a society with something. The Eighteenth Amendment imposed values on the general population while the Thirteenth Amendment reflected a process of infusion that had already been going on for some time. Prohibition was an imposition while Abolition was a natural outgrowth of generally accepted values.

And that brings me to Christians and politics. If we fail to infuse our culture with Christian values, then simply canonizing those values into law will always be seen as an imposition, with the result that we will always ultimately fail – a pyrrhic victory. But if we succeed in infusing our culture with Christian values – by living them out consistently on a broad basis, by expressing them persuasively in art and literature, and by winning as many people as possible to Jesus Christ – then the legal aspect will come naturally.

This post first appeared in NewCommandment.org.

_______________________________________________________________

Learn how to form teams of men for every widow, single mom

and fatherless child in your church at NewCommandment.org.

_______________________________________________________________

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

10 thoughts on “Pyrrhic Victory: Why I’m Ambivalent about Christians and Politics”