Understanding Anger

In order to better organize the material, I will begin with an overview of the general assumptions of the schools of psychology as they relate to the topic of anger. Beginning with the psychoanalytic approach, we learn that anger is a pre-determined act, or emotion devoid of free-will.

The cognitive approach asks us to believe that anger is a self-defeating negative outlook concerning a situation only to be overcome by re-framing how a person perceives the situation.

Behaviorist would tell us that anger is a learned behavior, and it is developed through a person’s experiences and interactions with their environment. Finally, the humanist thought tells us that anger is a product of a person’s thwarted desire to become fully-functioning.

 

Likewise there are certain ideas about personality in relation to anger. Psychoanalytic ideas espouse anger, via personality, as a by-product of internal conflicts of the unconscious instinctual urges. Cognitive thought tells us that people are predisposed to see the world differently, and that certain people are wired to be “primed” to anger by being exposed to situations involving anger. The behavioral approach says that anger is part of who we are based on experiences that shape us as we progress through life. Humanist will state that anger is a road block on the way to becoming who we want to be.

 

These theories also describe healthy behavior and abnormal behavior in light of anger. Again, psychoanalytic thought says that anger can be countered though defense mechanisms, and if those mechanisms fail, the person will exhibit abnormal behavior based on the unresolved conflicts that remain. Cognitive thought maintains that the healthy causes of anger stem from an understanding that what causes one to be angry comes from an unstable world, and there is a possibility that things can change. However, the abnormal cognitive idea can be stated as focusing on the external factors, and believing those factors cannot change. That means abnormal anger is somewhat fatalistic in nature. The behaviorist has the simplest view of healthy and abnormal anger. They posit that properly self-directed anger leads to self-efficacy.

Conversely, abnormality is present in those who continue to have low self-efficacy. The humanistic view teaches that healthy anger can bring agreement between our real-self and our actualized-self, but abnormal instances of anger will lead to distortions of the way things really are.

My personal theory of anger is fairly simple, but not simplistic. I believe that anger is based on the desire for something to be different.

Jesus gives us such a great picture of this,

And Jesus went into the temple (whole temple enclosure) and drove out all who bought and sold in the sacred place, and He turned over the four-footed tables of the money changers and the chairs of those who sold doves. He said to them, The Scripture says, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers (Matthew 21:12-13, AMP).

This is the picture of the role that anger should play in our lives. Jesus saw something that was, at best unethical, and made the decision to correct the situation. The amazing thing is that Jesus, in the preceding passage, was angry. This model forms the basis for my theory about anger. The desire for change can often swell up within us so strongly that it will manifest within our behavior as anger.

It is a part of who we are as created beings. I believe that we are creatures created in the imago Dei, or the image of God. The Bible tells us that God has the capacity for anger (Numbers 32:10-15), and therefore, as His created beings that attribute is within us as well. 

However, the Bible also describes a healthy anger only in terms of being righteously exacted. Through the writers of the New Testament we can glean an even clearer picture of anger. In the epistle written by James we are told to be “slow to take offense and to get angry” (James 1:19b, AMP). In Matthew’s Gospel we learn that anger is something we should reconcile (Matthew 5:21-26). The Apostle Paul, in the letter to the Ephesians, tells us we should deal with anger immediately when it arises. The Bible also teaches that anger can be manifested in destructive ways (abnormal ways) when people refuse to see the reality of a situation (Luke 4:14-29). Although anger is built in, so to speak, to who we are, it is our job to engage it in a Christ-like manner.

 

I believe that anger is not pre-determined. Although it is a part of who we are, we are slaves to the emotional response of anger. I believe that we, as created in the image of God, have the ability to control and focus our anger. Anger is not necessarily negative by nature. Anger, when focused righteously, can be a force for positive behavior. Anger as learned behavior is a troubling concept.

Agreed, people can become conditioned to not like something, but their response to whatever it is, in my opinion, is not necessarily learned. However, there could be room to believe that conditioning can explain some situational behavior. Anger as a tool to help us become who we want to be is a suspect idea as posited by humanistic theories. Rightly focused, some anger can be beneficial to our lives.

For example, standing in the gap and helping someone in a situation where they are not capable of defending themselves can teach us the value of human life and dignity. However, always looking for an opportunity to become righteously angry does seem to produce an abnormal pattern of behavior.

 

There are probably more similarities in my theory and those of the schools of psychology mentioned in the paper, but I have noticed a few areas of agreement. Some agreement is tentative, but there none the less. Psychoanalytic determinism seems to hint at anger being a part of who we are as human beings. Psychoanalytic theory also suggests that not being able to resolve internal conflicts can lead to abnormal behavior. My personal theory, based on Biblical understanding (Numbers 20:10-12), states that when anger remains unresolved, the resulting behavior can be abnormal. Which means that a person’s behavior can drift outside the boundaries they know should exist. As with the cognitive theory, my theory is that anger can often cloud our reality, and can result in destructive behavior.

One only has to read the Biblical account of Cain and his brother Abel. Cain’s anger clouded his perception of reality to the point of murdering his own brother. So close, but yet so far was Carl Rogers. Reaching self-actualization is an admirable goal, but not very Biblical. So how does my theory agree with this humanistic belief?

My basic view of man is this: if we are not in a right relationship with God we will not be in a right relationship with our inner-self, and if this is the case we will not be in a right relation to those around us. Therefore, controlling anger brings us closer to (peace with) God, self, and others.

 

Of all of the areas of conflict between my theory and those of the different schools of psychology, most are not easily resolvable. They would entail volumes of writing to even flesh out the differences. However, one area continues to stand out as a glaring difference. The humanistic idea that anger leads to a distorted view of reality, like most falsehoods found in the realm of psychology, has an ounce of truth mixed with a pound of theoretical double-speak. I believe the Bible teaches a quite different view of the effects of anger. 

Jesus, in Mark’s Gospel account of driving the money-changers from the temple, shows great clarity of mind and purpose although angry.

And they came to Jerusalem. And He went into the temple [area, the porches and courts] and began to drive out those who sold and bought in the temple area, and He overturned the [four-footed] tables of the money changers and the seats of those who dealt in doves; And He would not permit anyone to carry any household equipment through the temple enclosure [thus making the temple area a short-cut traffic lane]. And He taught and said to them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have turned it into a den of robbers (Mark 11:15-17, AMP).

The schools of psychological thought also have ideas that are unique to each theory. Psychoanalytical thought says no free-will, but the others rely heavily on free-will. The cognitive approach focuses intently on the internal-vs.-external causes, but the others focus by-and-large on internal causes with some variance. Behavioral theory bases the entire idea on anger being a learned behavior. Finally, the humanistic approach states that one cannot be a fully functioning person and angry at the same time.

Who is right?

 

How can we articulate a conclusion from all of the disparity? I will offer a humble evaluation summary. Both secular psychology and Christian based theories agree that anger needs to be dealt with. The psychological view sees anger as predominantly negative, but the Christian perspective sees anger as both positive and negative based on the motivation. Purely psychological views believe that anger needs to not only be dealt with, but it needs to be eliminated through various means. The Christian view tells that anger is a part of who we are as created beings. The Christian view also suggests that properly channeled, righteous anger can be helpful. It also tells us that if anger is not properly monitored it can lead to un-Christian behavior. 

Psychoanalytic, cognitive, behavioral, and humanistic theories, as pertaining to anger, all have some valid points as well as some not so valid points. They seem to address anger a stumbling block on the road of life. I believe it is much more than that. With the exception of being angry at sin, anger is one of the most dangerous emotions we can exhibit. God can exhibit anger because He is perfect, and the creator of all, so there is no chance of unrighteous anger coming forth from Him.

On the other hand, we are very imperfect created beings with a propensity to sin as a result of being fallen people. This means we have to always be on guard to keep ourselves from being a pawn of unrighteous anger, and experiencing the detrimental effects anger can have in our lives.

Reference

Scripture quotations taken from the Amplified^® Bible, Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964,1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission.

TJ