Monday, 24th January 2011, 23:35 hrs
Most of us generally do not quite know what to do when a person bursts out in anger. Similarly, some of us are not quite sure what to do or say in the presence of a hurting person, particularly when he or she cries. Perhaps, most of us are made to avoid the extreme. But anger, depending on its context, may or may not be appropriate; at times it may even be wrong. 'Tears' should not be equated with 'crying', for 'tears' are usually a chemical response of our biological make-up that is linked to our psychological make-up. While anger is oftentimes viewed more negatively, 'tears', and even for that matter, 'crying' are not. I shall here talk a little about anger.
So when is anger appropriate, inappropriate, wrong? Why do I not ask when it is 'right'? Perhaps, I should say, as far as I know, anger is often judged by its expression. For example, anger at injustice is appropriate. But what are its expressions? We may say that anger at social inequality is appropriate, or even right, but violent expressions that result in the destruction of public property and even the loss of life would be wholly wrong. In this connection, the angry expression itself has become unjust.
But we cannot confine our discussion only to the violent expression of anger. Expressions of anger can take various forms, one of which is verbal while others might be psychological. Whatever it is, we need to ask what causes the anger. Anger again can be due to so many possibilities. But supposing we take the example of a man who gets angry because he fails to get what he wants. He then turns that anger into verbal abuse of those from whom he failed to obtain what he has hoped to obtain. Somehow, nothing appeases him and so he resorts to physically hurting those he thought ought to give him what he wanted. This sort of anger is childish and pertains to that of selfish and personal realm.
There are those who become angry at the establishment for the plight of the socially marginalised. They took to the streets and picketed against the authorities. However, nothing seemed to improve and so finally they decided to go on a rampage of burning and destroying public property. This sort of anger is just anger but its result or expression has not been desirable. There are those who become angry at a policy, to which they turn to address and redress the issue that is causing unnecessary hardship to the people. But nothing changes. They then take the matter further by seeking to address the issue in a civilised manner. Though they are angry, the turn their anger into strength and find the appropriate expression of that anger.
The above concerns anger in terms of a person or persons either wanting something or trying to address a social issue. But we do witness angry people almost daily, and none of the cases of anger that we have witnessed may not even be remotely related to social issues. We see anger at work, at home, in schools, among and between colleagues, between friends, etc. One of such expression can be seen in people who hold dear to certain conflicting ideas. And it is here that very often anger gets exhibited.
Proverbs 25.28 says 'Like a city that is broken into and without walls, is a man who has no control over his spirit'. This verse in fact refers to anger in general. And the author likens a person without self-control to a city broken into. This is no exaggeration, for if we compare a person to a city, then to govern a city requires that the governer be thoughtful, makes his plans and executes his plans with care. Without any proper management a city will lose its economic edge, and gets broken into easily. By comparing a person's spirit (over here the original really means one's anger) to a city, the author is showing that anger or its control is of utmost importance to a person's success, in addition to his overall well being. Thus if a person has no control of his anger, he would be like a city broken into.
Expressions of anger may be assessed according to its consequences. We at least read of such an account in the Gospels, about Jesus turning the tables of the money-changers and whipping those who sold various items in the temple precincts. We do not know the full details of the actual story; what we do know is that the act or physically violent action of Jesus is explained with these words, 'This house is a house of prayer; but you have turned it into a robbers' den'. If we were to look at this incident from the point of 'civility', then what Jesus did certainly failed to be 'appropriate'. However, given the context of the socially marginalised then, and the openly abusive attitude of the temple authorities towards God's temple and the poor, what Jesus did was what nothing better could have been done, and what nobody would have done. In that regard, Jesus has done something no one has the moral courage to perform.
Having said some of the above, we may return to the verse in Proverbs. What it says here is in fact a reference to a general hot-tempered, aggressive person. It does not take into consideration the nature of the anger. Its point here is the 'lack of self-control'. Thus it is our daily life that is in view here. We need therefore to consider the verse on a personal level, and apply the wisdom of the verse to ourselves, and so cultivate in ourselves a sense of self-control, if we indeed do not wish to be a city broken into.
