Biblical scholars and Christian theologians have over the last two centuries progressively inte­grated advances in medical, physical and earth sciences; at times grudgingly and not without controversy. Tensions still prevail as evidenced in the current debates on Creationism and Intelligent Design.

However, some of our preaching, teaching and pastoral counselling reveals significant ambiguities when it comes to incorporating advances in the behavioural sciences.

It is not possible in this brief article to do justice to a comprehensive biblical and ecclesial theology of anger, or for that matter the psychology of human emotions with particular reference to anger.

I will however attempt to unravel some of the more popular Christian interpretations prevalent within our faith communities and the wider com­munity who claim a Judeo-Christian heritage.

My intention is not to discredit or discount the biblical tradition but to seek to re-interpret it with a view to making it more congruent with human experience in the 21^st Century.

Hopefully this would offer new pastoral insights as we confront the awful destructiveness of human anger on the one hand, and face the challenge of how to use anger to fight injustice, oppression and the social ills of our day.Where immediate change is not possible, at least, in Don Camillo¹ style, to register an honest and fervent protest.

The Hebrew Scriptures are not reticent in por­traying Yahweh’s ‘wrath’ (`aph) nor do they attempt to discount it.

Any literal interpretation of the approximately four hundred references to divine anger would leave us with an enigma no less than that fac­ing fundamentalist Islamic scholars as they try to explain the ‘Jihad’!

I offer a brief summary of varying scholarly interpretations within the Christian tradition, as a backdrop to coming to grips with the re-interpre­tation of anger I propose:

• Reference to Yahweh’s wrath is part of the anthropomorphic language used by writers of the Old Testament. It was a projection of their human rage on to Yahweh and this had a self-serving purpose.
• It is a post hoc attempt by writers and editors to explain devastating historical events while hold­ing on to the sovereignty of Yahweh.
• The abusive, vengeful, destructive characteris­tics of Yahweh are the consequence of incorporat­ing elements of a more primitive deity – ‘demon of the desert’ – on the path to monotheism. A fuller revelation of the divine had to await the coming of Jesus.
• Yahweh’s wrath is always a response to sin. It is part of a very instrumental view of humankind as expressed in the Covenant. He demands a response and gets angry and punishes disobedience: even uses ‘outsiders’ as the ‘rod of his anger’.

a God of love who is also

an angry God

• Yahweh’s anger is always justified because he is holy and righteous; his wrath is just another expression of his love. One has to hold `aph and chesed in paradoxical tension.This has been a very popular theological interpretation, well expressed by CS Lewis – “God’s anger is the fluid that his love bleeds when you cut it”.²
• As a final resort we can maintain that Yahweh is without emotions and immutable by adopting a Marcionite solution – expunge all passages that are unacceptable!

No one explanation can contain all that might be said about a God of love who is also an angry God. There is an awesome destructiveness in Yahweh which goes far beyond anything which could be regarded as fatherly chastisement or test­ing of an individual’s faith.

Yahweh does come across as willfully destructive, even at times seeking people out to destroy them. It is difficult to dispense with the ‘savage god’ of the Old Testament, says Alistair Campbell.³

The Hebrew Scriptures in their open acceptance of anger – human and divine – express the com­plexity of the nature of Yahweh and his attributes. There are approximately twenty-nine references to God’s anger, as well as that of Jesus, in the writings of the New Testament. In addition there are less frequent, but nonetheless significant references to human anger.

The Greek words orge and thumos are used inter­changeably, the former referring more to indigna­tion and the latter to rage.

Our Lord certainly expressed anger:at the religious leaders; with his disciples on behalf of children; anger in the temple; with his disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane; and with God on the Cross.

There are two streams of thought among New Testament scholars when it comes to the interpre­tation of Jesus’ anger:

The earlier tradition as portrayed in Mark⁴ depicts Jesus, as part of his humanity, experienc­ing irritation, frustration, indignation and constant threats to his values; all correlates of anger. Here we see Jesus using his anger in the service of his love but also as a protagonist, fearlessly and with great passion challenging the legalistic religious system and social evils of his day. “Jesus’ radical exposure of the dominant systems of his day resulted in his inevitable condemnation and death at its hands.”⁵

The later tradition influenced by prevalent asceticism and reflected primarily in Matthew and Luke⁶, shows a reluctance to ascribe any expression of emotion to Jesus. It is not his active opposition that provokes conflict but his ‘servanthood’. He is portrayed as the passive recipient of all injustice.There is in Jesus a saintly resignation, a powerlessness; his life is one of total sacrifice in the cause of fulfilling the Father’s will.

If there is any hint of anger, it is on behalf of others, without any self-assertion. The picture we have is of Jesus engaged in a passive march to the Crucifixion (a precursor of penal substitution theories of the Atonement).

The most that can be said of the different gospel portrayals of Jesus’ character is that these texts are “to be used with care”.They are biased and reflect competing traditions that had grown up in the life of the Early Church. If we accept that the “word became flesh” and that Jesus “became truly human” then we must, without a shadow of doubt, accept that he experienced the full gamut of human emotions, including anger, although as I have said, there have been different interpretations of how he expressed that anger.

When we move to the New Testament portrayal of human anger we are confronted with significant ambiguity about the experience of anger on the one hand and how it is expressed on the other.

This is understandable given the writers’ limited knowledge of the physiology of anger and their inability to distinguish between thoughts, feelings and actions. The Stoic philosophers saw anger as part of human nature that should be disowned or brought under the rule of reason.

perceived as the greatest

threat to spiritual life

There are however some significant passages which can be legitimately interpreted as focusing on the expression of anger:

• It should be used in the service of loving your neighbour.Mt 5:21f
• Warning against anger that is harboured, nurtured and can fester and break forth in destructive behaviour.Eph 4:26
• Reference to the devastating effects of un­reconciled anger. Mt 5:23f
• Drawing attention to anger that is allowed to go unattended in an effort to deny or suppress it.Eph: 4:31
• Expressed in ways that are life-destroying to
• both individuals and community.2 Cor 12:20, Gal 5:19-21
• Being insightful when threatened so as to enhance awareness of why there is anger and how best to express it.Titus 1:7,James 1:19f

Apologists, scholars and theologians down the ages did grudgingly accept the human capacity for anger, as they experienced it in their own lives, but they overwhelmingly perceived it as the greatest threat to spiritual life, and therefore a target for expulsion.

In the Pauline dichotomy of ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’, anger was ascribed to the former, as the early Christian writers were influenced by the prevailing Stoic philosophy.

Seneca said,“let us not try to regulate our anger, but be rid of it altogether – for what regulation can there be of an evil thing?”¹³

Augustine of Hippo and others were resolute in defending God’s holiness; He was therefore impas­sive, immutable and devoid of all human emo­tions.¹⁴ They perceived the emotions as a weaker, less important aspect of human mental processes (City of God, S.Augustine tr 1993).

For the Church Father, Gregory, anger was a sign of alienation from the likeness of the Creator.

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did justify what they perceived as “righteous anger” on the author­ity of Mt 5: 22. Virtuous anger they claimed was with cause and directed at the sin, whereas vicious anger was without cause and directed at the person. To seek vindication with the intention of banishing the sinner rather than abolishing the sin, is ‘to be angry with your brother’.¹⁵

For Calvin the passions are to be ‘repressed, bri­dled and chained’ and for Wesley anger arose from ‘inbred corruption of the heart’; if experienced, it should not be expressed

Although the dominant narrative was ‘anger-is­sin’, a minority did acknowledge the paradox of anger in terms of its power for good or ill.¹⁶

Basil, who said that “anger was a vice that makes a man (sic) wholly bestial”, could also say that “the faith does not forbid that anger be directed against its proper objects, as a medicinal device so to speak”, using Eph 4:26 as his authority.

Gregory the Great distinguished between “good anger prompted by zeal and evil anger caused by hastiness of temper”.

Martin Luther, following Augustine and Aquinas spoke of an anger that is “necessary and proper: an anger of love that wishes nobody any evil, one that is friendly to the person but hostile to the sin”.

When we move to the 20^th Century there is a surprising lack of engagement with the emo­tions (least of all anger) among theologians of the caliber of Bath, Brunner, Niebuhr, Tillich, Kung, Moltmann and Robinson.

There are sporadic references such as Tillich’s comment that emotion and reason are equal partners, even though he also warns of “emotional distortions”.¹⁷

In the main, however, as these scholars were engaged in a process of logical thinking they per­haps saw the emotions as an unnecessary diversion. It is however the feminist theologians of more recent times who have come up with the most positive view of anger.

These writers would say:“(W)e Christians have come close to killing love because we have under­stood anger to be a deadly sin”.¹⁸

legitimate to assert that anger

is a gift of the Creator

In the light of the above analysis, it is possible to conclude that overwhelming evidence shows that, at the very least, the capacity for anger is rooted in our humanity. God experienced anger, as did Jesus in ‘taking flesh’.

As women and men created in God’s image we too share the same potential to experience anger. It would therefore be legitimate to assert that anger is a gift of the Creator with significant potential to contribute to our well-being.

Even those who have subscribed to the notion that ‘anger-is-sin’ have had to concede that it cannot be totally expunged from human nature. Seeing anger as part of our ‘fallen nature’, they have been consistent and unwavering in warning us of its immense power to lead us along a path of destruction.

It is to be expected that the preoccupation in teaching, preaching and pastoral care in past decades has been to see anger as one of the seven deadly vices, and if it cannot be eliminated from our behavioural repertoire, at least it should be contained and bridled. The mature Christian in whom the Spirit dwells should not get angry. If he/she does, it must not be expressed!

The behavioural sciences in the last half a cen­tury have given us fresh and exciting knowledge about the physiological and cognitive-behavioural dimensions of anger: the links between brain mechanisms, thoughts, feelings and actions.¹⁹

More recently constructivist theories have made us aware of the dominant narratives, both conscious and non-conscious that influence our perception of environmental stimuli.²⁰

If we believe that ‘God still speaks’ it is incum­bent on us to seek to integrate the biblical and theological perspective with this knowledge in an effort to confront the pastoral challenge of helping men and women manage God’s gift of anger and employ it in constructive ways.

However, it is good to be reminded that “anger survives because anger works”.

• Anger helps to hold others responsible and manipulate them;
• Anger endows us with power over others and enables us to control them;
• Anger derails communication;
• Anger justifies destructive behaviour;
• Anger encourages wallowing in self pity;
• Anger serves as an excuse for avoiding

intimacy. There are several steps that would facilitate a responsible and productive management of anger. Firstly, an acceptance that the capacity for anger is anchored in the doctrine of Creation not the Fall; that it is part of our emotional repertoire and a unique gift of the Creator who made us in his image.

We must have a Don Camillo²¹ honesty about our anger, an openness which reveals the human face rather than the masks of social conformity.

The capacity for anger is not triggered auto­matically.We must not attribute blame to biologi­cal origins, intra-psychic forces or brain chemistry (except in the case of psychiatric conditions that impact on cognition or specific diagnosed brain damage).

Anger is not some primitive animal instinct erupt­ing with uncontrollable, blind and selfish force. No person or thing makes someone angry. People make themselves angry – they choose to be angry.

“You know I have a short fuse”, may be a convenient excuse, not a valid reason.

We are responsible for examining our anger and exploring the underlying narratives, whether conscious or non-conscious, that make us vulner­able to threat.

Threat can come from numerous sources: objects and circumstances that pose a physical threat; people and situations perceived as risky; being criticized, ridiculed or rejected; psychological or sociological threats to our sense of self, our values, beliefs and integrity.

Sources of threat are highly idiosyncratic and initially experienced as a generic feeling of ‘arousal’ over which we have no control, before we attribute our own subjective meaning to it.

For instance, while driving your car another driver horns you from behind.You are aroused.

You look in the rear vision mirror and you see a strange face. You get annoyed, irritated, angry. You may say something uncomplimentary about the driver to another passenger, or worse still give him/her a rude signal.

anger is anchored in the doctrine

of Creation not the Fall

Alternatively when you look in the mirror, you notice that the other driver is a friend. You calm down, you smile and give him/her a wave.

You chose to interpret your arousal differently and that in turn had an impact on your behavioural response.

Managing anger effectively is about increasing our awareness of vulnerability to such threats. It is about making a conscious choice to re-configure, reframe or re-author dominant narratives – socio­cultural, familial or religious – that influence perceptions that work counter to responsible anger management

Not only are we responsible for the ‘self talk’ that makes us angry, we are also responsible for our behavioural response to our anger: how, when and where we choose to express it.

It is not in the emotion of anger that true malignancy lies but in the failure to manage the outcome of anger.