The Christian Use Of Anger
Sermon
There was an incident some years ago, when an elderly lady in some village parish in England was so fed up with the sound of the church bells ringing, that she took an axe and hacked her way through the oak door of the church. Once inside, she sliced through the bell ropes, rendering the bells permanently silent. The media loved it. There were articles in all the papers and the culprit appeared on television. The Church was less enthusiastic - and took her to court.
The woman displayed her anger over the bells in a very extreme and damaging way. Many of us seem to find difficulty in expressing anger, so that when eventually it does emerge, it can come across in bizarre and unsuitable ways. That puts the angry person at a considerable disadvantage, and makes it even more difficult to express anger next time.
It seems to be especially difficult for Church people to be angry. It's as though we feel that as Christians, we should be nice to everybody all the time, whatever the provocation. Perhaps there's also the feeling that love and anger are opposites, and that those who show anger cannot possibly be showing love.
Anger is a very threatening and frightening emotion, both to those on the receiving end and to those who are angry themselves. Yet it can also be a purging emotion, and one which works for change. Anger properly expressed at the right time, can be both positive and good, and can be an expression of love. It can be powerful enough to prevent bad things happening. For instance, if anger rather than appeasement had been used in the 1930s perhaps we would never have seen the Second World War.
Anger has plenty of biblical precedents. We hear quite a lot about the wrath of God in the Old Testament, and the prophets were constantly angry. But the New Testament has its share as well. In today's passage from Matthew's gospel John the Baptist comes across as a very angry person.
It's interesting that almost the first words we hear from the mouth of John the Baptist, are angry words displaying a good deal of verbal violence. As soon as he saw the Pharisees and the Sadducees coming for baptism, he called them a brood of vipers. And yet surely the expected reaction to anybody coming for baptism, would be to welcome them with open arms. Especially someone coming from the enemy camp, so to speak, for presumably a desire for baptism would indicate a change of heart.
The image of John which comes across from the pages of the New Testament, is that of a latter-day Elijah. He certainly seemed to model himself on Elijah in his chosen manner of dress and in his way of life. And the expectation of the age was that Elijah would precede the coming Messiah. Even at this very early stage of his ministry, John the Baptist seems to be aware of his role as a forerunner. He identified himself with Isaiah's prophecy of the voice crying in the wilderness, and immediately spoke of the one who was coming after him.
So he's aware of his task of making paths straight and rough places smooth. Anger seems to be an odd accompaniment to such a task. How can rough places be made smooth through anger? Surely anger is associated with roughness rather than smoothness, and is more likely to increase roughness than to make rough places smooth.
I wonder what the reaction of the Pharisees and Sadducees was to such an attack? John seems to have made an assumption that the Pharisees and Sadducees have come from evil motives. But how does he know that? Is he in danger of regarding them not as individuals, but only as an enemy group?
One outlet for anger is to tar everyone with the same brush. When people are regarded as groups, it's much easier to hate them. Such hatred gives rise to anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, gay bashing etc. It's much more difficult to hate individuals. When somebody is regarded as an individual, "love your enemy" becomes possible. But when people are regarded only in terms of the group they belong to, "love your enemy" remains impossible.
If anger is expressed directly towards an individual, there's a very good chance it can become cathartic and healing. But the flames of anger which are expressed indeterminately towards a group, are usually fanned.
Perhaps John is deeply intuitive. Perhaps he can sense when the Pharisees and Sadducees are at a distance, that they come to make mischief. If this is so, he doesn't waste time with politeness, but has the courage to immediately face them with the truth.
Elijah was a rough, tough prophet, who held no quarter for King or commoner, he treated everybody the same. He was concerned not with politeness, but only with the truth. And in true prophetic fashion, John the Baptist doesn't mince his words. He too is concerned only with the truth.
And perhaps at a time when there are great changes ahead, anger is necessary to shock people into awareness. For the people were comfortably apathetic, as people so often are. The ruling religious castes were comfortably hiding behind the minutiae of the law. It seems that very few people were aware of the need for change, or were aware of how far from God's path they had slipped.
Sometimes the shock of righteous anger can turn a whole situation around. Many families have experienced the pain and discomfort of anger, but on looking back can identify that moment of anger as a turning-point in family life.
So John doesn't refuse to baptise the Pharisees and Sadducees. While he clearly displays his anger with them, nonetheless he remains alongside them. That's a very difficult thing to do. It's much easier to explode with anger, then walk away.
Jesus too displayed anger, even with his friends. Apart from the famous example in the Temple, when he turned out all the money changers, he was angry on at least two other recorded occasions. On one occasion he said to his great friend Peter, "get behind me Satan!" And on another famous occasion he called the Pharisees "whitewashed sepulchres"!
But on neither of these occasions did he then walk away, leaving behind someone who was upset, hurt and angry themselves. He stayed alongside Peter and they remained friends. One of the marks of true friendship is that people can be themselves, and be confident that displaying their true feelings will not damage the friendship.
We live in a very polite society. Nothing wrong with that, unless we are all so busy being polite that we hide our true feelings behind a kind of mask. In a community where that happens, the cathartic and healing effect of anger is completely lost.
We are not all John the Baptists, but if all Christians and all Church members learned not to be afraid of their anger, but to express it and use it to the advantage of the whole group, then perhaps we too really would be preparing the way of the Lord.
So perhaps our prayer this Advent should be not simply for peace on earth, but for a deep, healing and loving peace arrived at through the proper expression and cathartic use of anger.
The woman displayed her anger over the bells in a very extreme and damaging way. Many of us seem to find difficulty in expressing anger, so that when eventually it does emerge, it can come across in bizarre and unsuitable ways. That puts the angry person at a considerable disadvantage, and makes it even more difficult to express anger next time.
It seems to be especially difficult for Church people to be angry. It's as though we feel that as Christians, we should be nice to everybody all the time, whatever the provocation. Perhaps there's also the feeling that love and anger are opposites, and that those who show anger cannot possibly be showing love.
Anger is a very threatening and frightening emotion, both to those on the receiving end and to those who are angry themselves. Yet it can also be a purging emotion, and one which works for change. Anger properly expressed at the right time, can be both positive and good, and can be an expression of love. It can be powerful enough to prevent bad things happening. For instance, if anger rather than appeasement had been used in the 1930s perhaps we would never have seen the Second World War.
Anger has plenty of biblical precedents. We hear quite a lot about the wrath of God in the Old Testament, and the prophets were constantly angry. But the New Testament has its share as well. In today's passage from Matthew's gospel John the Baptist comes across as a very angry person.
It's interesting that almost the first words we hear from the mouth of John the Baptist, are angry words displaying a good deal of verbal violence. As soon as he saw the Pharisees and the Sadducees coming for baptism, he called them a brood of vipers. And yet surely the expected reaction to anybody coming for baptism, would be to welcome them with open arms. Especially someone coming from the enemy camp, so to speak, for presumably a desire for baptism would indicate a change of heart.
The image of John which comes across from the pages of the New Testament, is that of a latter-day Elijah. He certainly seemed to model himself on Elijah in his chosen manner of dress and in his way of life. And the expectation of the age was that Elijah would precede the coming Messiah. Even at this very early stage of his ministry, John the Baptist seems to be aware of his role as a forerunner. He identified himself with Isaiah's prophecy of the voice crying in the wilderness, and immediately spoke of the one who was coming after him.
So he's aware of his task of making paths straight and rough places smooth. Anger seems to be an odd accompaniment to such a task. How can rough places be made smooth through anger? Surely anger is associated with roughness rather than smoothness, and is more likely to increase roughness than to make rough places smooth.
I wonder what the reaction of the Pharisees and Sadducees was to such an attack? John seems to have made an assumption that the Pharisees and Sadducees have come from evil motives. But how does he know that? Is he in danger of regarding them not as individuals, but only as an enemy group?
One outlet for anger is to tar everyone with the same brush. When people are regarded as groups, it's much easier to hate them. Such hatred gives rise to anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, gay bashing etc. It's much more difficult to hate individuals. When somebody is regarded as an individual, "love your enemy" becomes possible. But when people are regarded only in terms of the group they belong to, "love your enemy" remains impossible.
If anger is expressed directly towards an individual, there's a very good chance it can become cathartic and healing. But the flames of anger which are expressed indeterminately towards a group, are usually fanned.
Perhaps John is deeply intuitive. Perhaps he can sense when the Pharisees and Sadducees are at a distance, that they come to make mischief. If this is so, he doesn't waste time with politeness, but has the courage to immediately face them with the truth.
Elijah was a rough, tough prophet, who held no quarter for King or commoner, he treated everybody the same. He was concerned not with politeness, but only with the truth. And in true prophetic fashion, John the Baptist doesn't mince his words. He too is concerned only with the truth.
And perhaps at a time when there are great changes ahead, anger is necessary to shock people into awareness. For the people were comfortably apathetic, as people so often are. The ruling religious castes were comfortably hiding behind the minutiae of the law. It seems that very few people were aware of the need for change, or were aware of how far from God's path they had slipped.
Sometimes the shock of righteous anger can turn a whole situation around. Many families have experienced the pain and discomfort of anger, but on looking back can identify that moment of anger as a turning-point in family life.
So John doesn't refuse to baptise the Pharisees and Sadducees. While he clearly displays his anger with them, nonetheless he remains alongside them. That's a very difficult thing to do. It's much easier to explode with anger, then walk away.
Jesus too displayed anger, even with his friends. Apart from the famous example in the Temple, when he turned out all the money changers, he was angry on at least two other recorded occasions. On one occasion he said to his great friend Peter, "get behind me Satan!" And on another famous occasion he called the Pharisees "whitewashed sepulchres"!
But on neither of these occasions did he then walk away, leaving behind someone who was upset, hurt and angry themselves. He stayed alongside Peter and they remained friends. One of the marks of true friendship is that people can be themselves, and be confident that displaying their true feelings will not damage the friendship.
We live in a very polite society. Nothing wrong with that, unless we are all so busy being polite that we hide our true feelings behind a kind of mask. In a community where that happens, the cathartic and healing effect of anger is completely lost.
We are not all John the Baptists, but if all Christians and all Church members learned not to be afraid of their anger, but to express it and use it to the advantage of the whole group, then perhaps we too really would be preparing the way of the Lord.
So perhaps our prayer this Advent should be not simply for peace on earth, but for a deep, healing and loving peace arrived at through the proper expression and cathartic use of anger.
