K
Kain99
Guest
The belief that we sin by feeling angry is usually derived from Jesus' familiar statement in the Sermon on the Mount:
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." (Mt 5:21-22 RSV)
On the surface Jesus does seem to say that the emotion of anger is sinful in itself--as condemnable as a murderous act that might spring from it. In the same spirit he seems to indict the feeling of lust as tantamount to the sin of adultery.
When we look beyond the Sermon on the Mount, however, we find other New Testament passages which show that negative emotions can occur without sin being present. Thus Paul declares, "Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger" (Eph 4:26 RSV). Paul clearly indicates that we can feel angry without sinning. How can this be?
The usual Christian response is that we experience two types of anger: "righteous indignation" and "sinful anger." One is directed at a noble cause, the other at a selfish one; one is admirable, the other deplorable.
Scripture, though, never makes this distinction, which ignores the nature of human motivation. Pride and hurt feelings can run as deep in righteous indignation as they do in any other type of anger. Anger is the same emotion, whether evoked by a righteous concern or a dishonorable one. I frankly wish we would throw the term righteous indignation out of our Christian vocabulary; far too much self-righteousness is encouraged by it.
But how, then, does Paul's counsel to be angry but not sin reconcile with Jesus' teaching on anger in the Sermon on the Mount? Here it's important to note what Jesus says and what he doesn't. He doesn't say that one who is angry is being judged as sinful but that this person is liable to judgement. He or she is at a highly vulnerable point--a hair's breadth, perhaps, from doing something rash. But this is different from saying that this person is sinning simply by feeling angry.
"Does our Lord mean that a mere feeling of anger is no different from the actual crime of murder? He can scarcely mean . . . that. No, He is reminding us, rather, of what can happen if an angry feeling is allowed to fester in our minds. . . . He is also counseling us to be on guard against the illusion that as His disciples, we no longer have those drives and impulses that can break out into violence."*
Jesus' point, then, isn't that anger is a sinful emotion but a dangerous one. When we examine the New Testament thoroughly on the point, in fact, we never find it condemning any emotion as sinful in itself. It's always the action which proceeds from an emotion that is judged sinful. Again, "Be angry but do not sin."
You have me sounding like a minister!
Anger itself is not sinful... The aftermath is.
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." (Mt 5:21-22 RSV)
On the surface Jesus does seem to say that the emotion of anger is sinful in itself--as condemnable as a murderous act that might spring from it. In the same spirit he seems to indict the feeling of lust as tantamount to the sin of adultery.
When we look beyond the Sermon on the Mount, however, we find other New Testament passages which show that negative emotions can occur without sin being present. Thus Paul declares, "Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger" (Eph 4:26 RSV). Paul clearly indicates that we can feel angry without sinning. How can this be?
The usual Christian response is that we experience two types of anger: "righteous indignation" and "sinful anger." One is directed at a noble cause, the other at a selfish one; one is admirable, the other deplorable.
Scripture, though, never makes this distinction, which ignores the nature of human motivation. Pride and hurt feelings can run as deep in righteous indignation as they do in any other type of anger. Anger is the same emotion, whether evoked by a righteous concern or a dishonorable one. I frankly wish we would throw the term righteous indignation out of our Christian vocabulary; far too much self-righteousness is encouraged by it.
But how, then, does Paul's counsel to be angry but not sin reconcile with Jesus' teaching on anger in the Sermon on the Mount? Here it's important to note what Jesus says and what he doesn't. He doesn't say that one who is angry is being judged as sinful but that this person is liable to judgement. He or she is at a highly vulnerable point--a hair's breadth, perhaps, from doing something rash. But this is different from saying that this person is sinning simply by feeling angry.
"Does our Lord mean that a mere feeling of anger is no different from the actual crime of murder? He can scarcely mean . . . that. No, He is reminding us, rather, of what can happen if an angry feeling is allowed to fester in our minds. . . . He is also counseling us to be on guard against the illusion that as His disciples, we no longer have those drives and impulses that can break out into violence."*
Jesus' point, then, isn't that anger is a sinful emotion but a dangerous one. When we examine the New Testament thoroughly on the point, in fact, we never find it condemning any emotion as sinful in itself. It's always the action which proceeds from an emotion that is judged sinful. Again, "Be angry but do not sin."
You have me sounding like a minister!
Anger itself is not sinful... The aftermath is.
@ Kain's last statement.