Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part 7: Anger
October 23rd, 2006 | by Scott |The non-violence life is what we see modeled in the person of Jesus. It is consistent in His teachings, life and example.
We have seen the way of Christ exemplified in His denial of self and humility. By way of self-abnegation we are able to make broad steps into a peaceable relationship with others.
Like the proclivity that we have towards elevating the self we also live in a society that propagates anger and rage. For the sake of brevity and staying on point, I will not belabor the prevalence of anger generating avenues of entertainment in our culture. That has been addressed in more detail and depth than I have time or interest to do at this point.
However, it must be noted that, among the plethora of violent video-games and splatter flicks, rage is in.
Couple that with this misguided notion that anger is something that must simply be managed and you have the recipe for violence run amok. I have encountered many people in counselling and pastoral sessions struggling with anger issues.
Jesus knew that anger full grown is murder. He warned us of the murderous seeds that we plant in our own hearts whenever we tap into anger. We saw it in the early days when Cain presented his bruised kumquats to the Lord and grew angry that God was more pleased with Abel’s first fruits. The progressive, insidious nature of anger mushroomed into violent actions in the heart of Cain.
To be non-violent then we must get a hold of our own anger. One of the greatest harbingers of the onset of anger in our society is an escalated sense of entitlement.
Anger often results when we feel that our rights have been violated. If someone comes between us and our ideas of what we deserve then our response is often of a volatile nature.
From a middle finger to the guy that impinges on our rights to navigate the interstates to a nasty email to the co-worker who robbed your right to a peaceful work day we often respond to life’s happenings as if our rights have been encroached and trampled on.
But what we must do is recognize that all that we have and possess (including our rights) ultimately belong to God. If all we have is truly His, then that must include our morality, our virtues, and our entitlements.
Therefore, if someone robs you of what you think is rightfully yours, they are ultimately robbing God. So it’s best to leave it in His hands.
To be non-violent then we must resist anger. We must not allow the seeds of violence to take residence in our hearts. Here are a few suggestions to defeat anger in your life:
1. Seek God’s release from the oppressive hand of rage and anger.
2. Understand that God is in control. What comes your way can be for your benefit.
3. Do an inventory and seek to understand how you may have contributed to the problem. Have you been lazy, negligent, mean, stubborn, inconsiderate or anything else that might have contributed to the current situation you find yourself in.
4. If so, repent and seek to make amends.
5. Ask what Fruit of the Spirit can be honed through these trials.
6. Seek out relationships with people who can have a calming influence.
7. Seek to remove stressors from your life. If you feel yourself more agitated after playing video games or watching violent movies, it’s time to get a new interest.
8. Develop a God-honoring course of action. How can you navigate through the situation
9. Be honest. Speak the truth in all dealings.
10. Deal with the problem. Anger delayed is anger amplified.
11. Journal your struggles with anger. Note the times, situations, and people that are prevalent when you are most likely to respond in a negative way. This will give you insight into situations to avoid, relationships to redeem and whether or not you act out when over-stimulated or tired.
12. In all things give yourself grace.
Non-violence begins with each individual humbling himself and seeking not to respond in anger to the every day situations of life.
As Christians it is up to us to model what that is like. We must not give vent to our anger. Nor must we ever seek to repay evil with evil.
29 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part 7: Anger”
By JTB on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Connection between anger and desire for revenge? And to ideas of retributive justice?
By Scott Freeman on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
I think there is a great connection between anger and the desire for revenge. Cain is a great example of that. It seems endemic to human nature that we seek to lash out when we feel wrong.
I believe that spreads to much of what constitutes our ideas for retributive justice. What is the Iraq war but a 10-year build up of anger and spite over a daddy’s misstep in a previous administration.
I think much of a punitive system is born out of the anger that sees our sense of control taken from us.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
That should say “feel wronged.”
By KS on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Would agree with the blog, but I would think the war in Iraq is to stop some terrorists, call me naive.
By justin on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
It wasn’t ever about stopping terrorists Kenny, in the short term.
The plan was, pick an easy target in the middle east that we had an actual reason to attack. Remove the dictator and put democracy in its place, which, hopefully would spur democratic revolutions in other countries. With democracies in place, and properity from capitalism bringing people out of poverty, terrorism would eventually fade out.
Problem is… it didn’t work that way. From a Kingdom of the World standpoint, it was a decent idea. However, the neocons that Bush put in the cabinet misled us (and the president, I imagine) on how easy it would be to rebuild a tyranical government with three warring factions. Bush was anti nation building before the Iraq war. He knew it didn’t work… but he got conned by the neocons who were angry that Bush one didn’t take out Saddam in the beginning. Bush 1 listened to guys like Colon Powell. Bush two, unfortunately, didn’t.
By euphrony on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I found your site through Technorati. Funny thing is, I think we may have met before (have you ever been down to Bammel in Houston?).
I skimmed your previous six posts on non-violence; good reading. Anger is, of course, a big part of violent actions. Going back to when you talked about turning the other cheek (the concept of striking the cheek as an insult and not a physical attack is one I have tried to get others to understand): to turn the other cheek is first of all a practice of self-control, not letting anger or pride control you. I think you over-simplify the war in Iraq; but, then, it is hard to talk about wars anywhere in a current context without serious simplification and missing several important points.
You might check out Shaun Groves’ blog for past discussion on non-violence and pacifism. He tends to be more influenced by anibaptists, but it is also good reading.
By KS on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Justin: Again maybe I am naive and Bush planned the whole 9-11 attacks, but seems to me we went into Iraq after they were protecting those who would aid others. Obviously they are not that way judging by the roadside bombs and such.
By Scott on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Euphrony, thanks and welcome. I’ve never been to Bammel but I’m sure we might have bumped into each other somewhere else.
You are right, I greatly simplified the war in my previous comment. I’m no conspiracy theorist but I am convinced that there has not been a definitive reason for our detour into Baghdad.
Kenny, Bush did not plan the 9/11 attacks. He was too busy clearing out brush in Crawford.
By justin on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
There were plenty of countries aiding terrorists at that time. Several North African Countries, Iran, Syria, Palestine.
Iraq did have some terrorists there, but that wouldn’t have been enough for a preemptive war. The biggest issue was Saddam being a bad guy.
Saddam was pretty much a secular ruler though. Compared to the mullahs in Iran, he was tame. But the thing is, Iraq is a lot easier to invade than Iran, and held more promise of a successful nation building project…. except, they underestimated sectarian issues and they didn’t expcet the Saddam loyalists to cave so quickly. But they knew they couldn’t win a traditional war, but geurilla warfare… that was their only hope. And its working. Our army can’t fight a geurilla army without unprecedented civilian casualties and our country won’t stand for that.
So we continue to sit around and let people blow us up and blow up other Iraqis and have no idea how to fix things.
By Jon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
justin your pretty good at repeating what you hear on tv.
By justin on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Not from TV. Sorry Jon.
A year or so ago I read a document that outlined the intial plan for the democratization of the middle east. Something the government declassified. That’s pretty much what I was repeating.
And I did make some assumptions on my own, about why they didn’t attack another country. I mean, its pretty obvious you aren’t going to win a land war in Iran. Its more mountanous than Afghantistan and there’s more of an army
By justin on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
BTW Jon, you and Kenny are really good at repeating Hannity’s talking points and using his logic. Good job.
By Matt on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
The Bruised Kumquats would be a great name for a rock band…
By Jon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
tv, reports, etc, either way repeating someone elses ideas of why ‘we’ shouldn’t be over there and how this was all Bush’s idea to finish ‘daddy’s’ war…yada yada yada. I’m just glad neither the poodle nor gore were in office then, who knows what kind of mess those nut jobs would have gotten us into.
Scott-
Good points on society’s view of ‘my rights have been infringed so now I am going to take it out on you’. Definitely one of the major roots of the trouble we have in society.
By justin on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Who doesn’t repeat ideas from other people? I imagine God could come up with original ideas, but pretty much all our ideas come from what we’ve heard from others.
I don’t know that anyone could have messed up things worse than the Neocons. True conservatives probably wouldn’t have, and while we may have had another terrorist attack if someone weak on defense were in office, several hundred thousand Iraqis probably wouldn’t be dead.
Its just a bad situation, and all the more reason to realize our true citizenship in the Kingdom of God and do our best to be the inbreaking of the Kingdom rather than trying to using evil to defeat evil.
By Jon on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
good point
By KS on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Justin I agree it is awful that Iraqi’s are getting killed. How would you propose standing against terrorists? I am not saying what is taking place is right, but am wondering what you would do if you were making the call?
Or do we need to completely refrain from any position where we might need to make decisions like this?
By justin on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Well, first, I would say we should pray that their hearts be changed through the love of Christ.
Second, I don’t know what we should do. What I do know is that, as Christians, we should be just as concerned with the deaths of Iraqis as with the deaths of Americans. We should mourn, not only for those that look and think like we do, but for those whose skin is darker and whose ideology makes no sense to us.
By Doug Freeman on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
I am now in favor of bringing our troops home and replacing them with 1/2 to 1 million illegal imigrants we could arm with weapons. They could slip accross the borders to Syria, Iran, Afganistan and the other countries that are harboring these terroist. They could operate out of Iraq as they are trained. Maybe also send a group Korea.
By justin on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Cause they are subhuman, and it doesn’t matter if they die right Doug? Just make sure we protect those english speaking boys
By scott on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Justin, you need to recognize humor. My dad was kidding.
Right, dad? You were kidding?
By Doug Freeman on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, i’m joking. Just wanted to see if any one responded.
By justin on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
The dangers of written word. Sarcasm is tough to distinguish online.
And while Doug might have been kidding, I have heard that before from people who weren’t, and its disgusting.
By Larry Freeman on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
LOL!!!! That was funny Dad.
By KS on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
I’d always heard the make an island of all the rapists and murders and arm them and leave for a few weeks…
By Jon on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
I say we send that moonbat Cindy Sheehan over there to talk to the dog eater in Korea and while she is there revoke her passport and leave her there.
By MOTX on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Doug - That was funny. If USA did do that, maybe it would stop the flow of illegals. Thanks for the laughs.
KS - The English did that with their criminals. It’s called Australia.
Scott - How did this become a blog over the Iraq war? It doesn’t take us much to start debating the war, I guess. Great non-violence blogs.
By Scott on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Corey, it was a result of my shamelessly inserting a reference to it in the second comment just to see if it would goose up my comment totals.
It did, and I should be ashamed.
By MOTX on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Scott, you sure did. Remember it’s quality not quantity. I like the joke about Bush not planning 911 because he was clearing bush at his ranch. That was cold, but funny.