Skip to main content
I'm sitting here listening to Whitney Houston and wondering if I want to watch the Olympic coverage. Then again, I'm a writer, and writers write. It's the middle of the day. So here we are.

I wanted to talk about anger today. Being a man, I have lots of opportunities to think about it. We're used to offering the stock evangelical trope about anger: "Well, Jesus got angry, so there's non-sinful anger!" And then, that's it. I don't recall a discussion that went past this, ever. I'm just being honest. I was some kind of Reformed evangelical for 13 years. I've been Catholic for just a shade over a year. I'd probably qualify as a Catholic evangelical if that was anything other than a nonsense phrase. But I am looking forward to thinking more deeply about it.

The way to make me really angry is not to listen. I get angry when I'm not being heard. I get angry at injustice in general. I get angry when people don't say what they mean. Willful stupidity makes me mad, too. Generally speaking, I've had to do very little apologizing for these kinds of anger.

But all of us get frustrated at times. I'm bad about being rude when I'm really hungry. This almost never happens, but it does happen sometimes. These little things, little annoyances, are the proof to me of my need for growth and God's grace. Not the big things. I may come back and apologize for raising my voice or leaving someone with a doubt in a tense exchange about whether I love them. But if I get that angry, there's something really wrong, and I like to think it wasn't on my end. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong about that.

But I've been spitting, screaming, swearing mad a few times. And I think that when anger gets here, it's dangerous. It's sinful. You forget the good you've had with that person; you forget that he is a person. Don't get here; you're beyond reason. You're not able to control the words you say. If you get here too many times with the same person--absent some serious grace and healing--it does harm that might never be fixed.

I'm certainly not speaking from acute experience in saying all this; it just seemed good to say. I was talking to Dr. Hebrew Catholic Woody Allen about some matter unrelated to me, and he said that one of the first rules of wisdom is, "Never make a major decision while you're angry." I see the goodness in that.

I hope that all of you out there have never done anything like that. The heat of the moment is a really bad time to do things that have far-reaching consequences. Love and peace to all of you today.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un