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
