I would never begrudge God His anger for one second. He is righteous and He is the Creator.
But as for my own anger, I have come to the point where I find it utterly useless - except as a warning light on my own spiritual dashboard.
I have learned there's too much danger in getting angry. Even so-called "righteous anger".
Andrew Klavan calls anger "the devil's cocaine". It's addictive and takes control over your mind and actions.
Yes, Paul writes, "Be angry and do not sin." But he goes on to say, "Do not let the sun go down on your , and give no opportunity to the devil." (Ephesians 4:26-27)
Seems clear enough that anger is not sinful itself, but it's also clear that anger opens the door to sin and so it is something you want to dispose of quickly.
And while we should be quick to rid ourselves of anger, in his letter, James says we also should be "slow to anger" in the first place:
19 Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. (James 1:19-20)
Anger sure feels righteous, but that is a trap.
So take a hypothetical like a person saying something racist in front of me.
It would instantly catch my attention, I would recognize it as evil and ... honestly, I would pity the person in front of me.
God's anger is already set against that person. Why should I entertain my own?
Would I say something? Probably. But it would be motivated by fear for the state of that person's soul. Not anger against him or what he said.
Give it some thought: Have you ever spoken a word in anger or even in irritation (which is still anger, though milder) which had righteous results? An angry word that opened someone's eyes? That motivated them in a positive direction?
If so, I would love to hear the story - because it would be an unusual one.
Most of the time, any anger I might express to another human being is only going to produce one of two results:
Hurt feelings
Or redoubled anger towards me.
Not righteousness. Not in him and not in me.
(P.S. Let's not forget that Jesus Himself was no fan of human anger: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." Matthew 5:22)
(P.P.S I recommend a fantastic little book by Brant Hansen called Unoffendable: How Just One Change Can Make All of Life Better.)
I appreciate your thoughts and thank the Lord for the opportunity to reflect on his Word. This will be my last comment, I promise! I agree with the scriptures you quoted about being slow to anger and not dwelling on anger when it arises...but to me, that still implies that there is an appropriate place for anger and that it isn't "utterly useless." Given that James' statement that "the anger of man doesn't lead to the righteousness of God" is followed by "therefore, put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness," I think that suggests that the anger he has in view is not righteous anger but the kind of anger that involves cussing and brawling. That anger certainly does not produce the righteousness of God, but "the faithful wounds of a friend" might (Prov. 27:6).
ReplyDeleteFire is dangerous outside of designated contexts but it serves an essential purpose in its right place. We can probably all think of examples in life where we have encountered parental discipline (often motivated, at least in part, by anger) that did us good in the long run (Heb. 12:10-11). I certainly can (I got spanked a lot as a kid).
The Apostle Paul left us several letters in which he corrects his congregations with stern rebukes. In 1 Corinthians 4:21, he asks arrogant members of the Corinthian congregation whether they would prefer he come "with a rod, or in a spirit of gentleness?" In 2 Corinthians 7:8, he mentions a previous letter that by its strong wording produced "godly grief" in the believers that led them to repentance. In Galatians 2, he mentions confronting Peter to his face about his hypocrisy, "because he stood condemned." (That can't have been an entirely anger-free conversation.) In Galatians 3, he calls his readers "foolish" twice (was he unaware of Matthew 5:22?) and asks them, "who has bewitched you?" In 5:12 he even goes so far as to wish that "those who trouble you would emasculate themselves (!)." To me, these all seem like expressions of anger that go beyond mere sorrow or regret. Granted, Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, he also exhorts his successors to "rebuke" or "rebuke sharply" on several occasions (Titus 1:9, 13; 2:15; cf. 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2). If he were leading the church today, we might see him as a strict disciplinarian. But he also loved his people like a father and apparently saw "using the rod," so to speak, as an occasional responsibility of fatherhood.
I think we largely agree. Certainly there is a place for rebuking. But even a sharp rebuke - to me - does not imply anger. I think it's dangerous to read it into Paul's motivations. And I'm not sure there are different types of anger in James' mind - with one type being wrong and the other ok.
ReplyDeleteWhen my kids were young, I experienced times when my discipline was motivated by anger and it filled me with regret every time. You do not want to spank a child while you are angry.
I am all for rebuking someone where appropriate, but I don't think you want to rebuke somebody while angry either.
I just don't believe in such a thing as "righteous anger" in the end. By its very nature, our anger ALWAYS feels righteous. That's what makes it dangerous and that's why I use it as a warning to my own spirit.