A Pyrrhic Victory

When is a victory worse than a loss?

In 280 B.C. a king lived in Southern Italy who was a great military leader. His name was King Pyrrhus and he led his small but valiant army north to fight the Roman legions. He won a decisive victory inflicting large casualties on the Romans. But Rome was large and its military ranks were quickly replenished with eager new though less skilled soldiers. So King Pyrrhus returned the next year in 279 and won another victory.

The Romans, however, like drawing water from a bottomless river had an almost inexhaustible source of recruits. Pyrrhus on the other hand, who had won both wars with comparatively fewer casualties, could less afford to lose a few than Rome its many. Pyrrhus had lost a sizable percentage of his small army, his leading commanders and his closest friends. Worse he had no way to replace them because the surrounding cities that shared his animus of Rome were reluctant to provide military support.

When he was congratulated for his second success he is reported to have said, “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans I shall go home alone.” It has become known as a Pyrrhic Victory meaning it is a victory that leaves the winner worse off than the loser.

It’s a lesson politicians in America should learn. As we turn increasingly socialistic politicians should understand that those who will sell their vote to gain a political victory have rendered our country worse for their success. Men who buy votes have won a Pyrrhic Victory. In the end socialist nations and states have won their programs but the nation has gone bankrupt.

A good parallel may be Jesus’ parable of the rich man and a beggar named Lazarus. Jesus doesn’t say how the man became rich. It may be that he was politically powerful or maybe he was a ruthless businessman whose monopolistic practices forced competitors out of business. The point is he had overstretched his power. Lazarus was lying outside his gate begging for the crumbs from the rich man’s table. (Luke 16:19-31)

This parable came to mind recently when I read that for every dollar the government receives for welfare, only 10 cents reaches the hands of the needy. The rest is absorbed by government. Even money citizens have paid into Social Security has been used for other purposes. Now people approaching retirement are threatened with the loss of income or the devaluation of currency. Either way the citizen’s loss does not immediately affect the men and women in power.

Christ’s metaphor of the rich man and Lazarus correctly characterizes the relationship between the politically powerful and the common man. Citizens like Lazarus lay at the gate receiving the crumbs that fall from the table of the powerful while the latter pass by with pretended concern.

Men who exercise power, whether in nations, businesses or churches should heed the first rule Jesus gave for exercising power. “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?” (Matt. 16:26) In this case what good is it for a man to succeed politically if the nation or business is lost?

Men who direct the affairs of a nation or a church should be men who put values first and personal interests second.

In the first century when the Christian Church was beginning the Apostles told the members to choose leaders for the congregation. “Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them.” (Acts 6:3 NIV) Whatever process was used it is clear that the group did the choosing. Since they were choosing the leaders this could not have been a top down process. Somehow each member had to express his opinion about who the leader should be. The choice should reflect the spirit of members doing the selecting.

Voting is a way for citizens to legally express matters of conscience. These deeply held moral values establish the guidelines for government to operate. To sell something so precious is prostituting a gift from God. Votes can only be bought from men who have no values. Such men cannot be entrusted with the reins of power.

Until next time,