Christ was angry.... can I be?

[anglomedved]

Christ could get pretty angry. When the people in the synagogue were watching to see whether He would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3). Or when He made a whip of cords and threw the traders out of the temple (John 2, Matt. 22). Or again in a series of very thinly-disguised parables against the Jewish hierarchy in the days before His death.

Anger is generally viewed as one of the key sins in the Christian tradition. Top of the lost of things to confess. "Batushka, I lost my temper with my mother, my son, my boss, or whoever".

But is anger always wrong? Is repressing it always right?

Is there not a good anger, one that is fully conscious of itself, knows that it is fundamentally right and justified, and for this reason controlled and not repressed into that semi-subconscious where the Evil One prowls so gladly? An anger which is not afraid to express itself, forcefully, at the right time, without boiling over at the wrong time?  Dare I suggest that properly controlled anger may even be a distinguishing virtue of the really adult male?

An anger, not because my selfishness has been thwarted or my pride hurt. But at situations where people’s development towards the 'perfect man, the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ' (Eph. 4.13), is blocked. And particularly in the Church. While Christ was far from complementary about the worldly power (Luke 13.32), he was scathing at the Jewish hierarchy who ‘shut up the kingdom of heaven against men’ (Matthew 23. 13).

I suspect an awful lot of people are angry in and about the Church, whom they see, either as a whole, or through the actions of individual bishops and priests, as ‘shutting up the kingdom of heaven against men’. Many feel that they cannot be angry in it, and slip out through the back door.

But is not the correct, the really adult Christian approach, rather to look straight at the icon of Christ, and say, 'Yes Lord, I'm angry. Purify my anger. Teach me Your anger.’

Comments

[olga-1821.livejournal.com]

Well, in fact, the Church Fathers wrote quite a lot about the right usage of anger - that is, about using it against sins (not against sinners) and against evil (and the evil one) in general.

The problem is that in too many cases we cannot (perhaps do not even want to) distinguish the sin from the sinner...

[ursusanglicanus.livejournal.com]

You are absolutely correct. You will get full marks in your theology exam. But I am not sure that on its own this answer will help you handle in yourself (or, if you are a priest, treat in others) that sick, long-term anger that you have nowhere to express effectively (other than in gossip, or on ЖЖ) at the almost systemic way, it seems, that the structures of the Church seem to be pervertible into something far short of the Christian gospel.

[olga-1821.livejournal.com]

This answer will certainly be of no help on its own. But other people's experience - in this case, that of the Church Fathers who also saw the Christian Church of their times turning into something "far short of the Gospel" and tried to do something about it - can be of much use. It does not mean we cannot - or must not - look for our own solutions. But we must not also think we are the first who ever encountered this sort of problems and tried to solve them, and it is certainly not wise to ignore the experience of others. As regards myself, the writings of the Fathers helped me quite a lot to handle the anger and the shock I experienced when I first came face to face with the Russian Church in Russia (after I moved to Russia from South Africa because of my marriage). These writings do not contain any "ready answers", of course, but there is much to learn from them, and it certainly is a nutritious "food for thought".

[ursusanglicanus.livejournal.com]

Which Church Fathers in particular? Maximus the Confessor comes to mind immediately, though possibly more for his biography than his writings themselves. St Symeon the New Confessor is pretty blunt on career-seeking in the Church.
If I am not being indiscreet, did you come into Orthodoxy on moving to Russia, or are you 'cradle Orthodox'? Originating from a Protestant background (Methodist/Anglican) myself, I am aware that an inherent distrust of 'church' is in my genes somewhere...

[olga-1821.livejournal.com]

I like St. Gregory the Great and St. John Chrysostom.

Yes, I am "cradle Orthodox", that is, I was raised Orthodox, but my background in this respect is more Greek than Russian, and even now I feel more "spiritually connected" with the Church of Alexandria than with the ROC.

Just noticed

[olga-1821.livejournal.com]

*sorry, I meant Gregory the Theologian*

[overtakenbyjoy.livejournal.com]

Отец Майкл, судя по всему, апостол Павел тоже не считает гнев грехом: в Ефесянам 4:26 он, цитируя псалом 4, говорит: "Гневаясь, не согрешайте" ("BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN" (NASB)).

[ursusanglicanus.livejournal.com]

Yes, I had this Scripture in mind when I wrote this. Most people would, I think be quick to 'counter-quote' the following two phrases: "Let not the sun go down on your anger. Do not give space to the devil," also the admonition of St James (1.20): 'For the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God'.

The key may be to differentiate between the 'anger of man' and the 'anger of God'. For man in a state of unholiness, anger is almost inevitably negative and 'leaving space for the devil'. At a more purified and illumined state, there may, IMHO, be times when one shares the 'anger of God'.... But like God, one is then pretty forebearing, and does not cast thunderbolts everywhere..... and 'wants everyone to be saved'

[overtakenbyjoy.livejournal.com]

Да, Майкл, мне давно следовало бы понять, что мне не стоит обращать Ваше внимание на те или иные цитаты Писания. Вы их помните не хуже меня.

Мне очень близко то, что Вы написали во втором абзаце. После этого Вашего постинга я беседовал о гневе с одним своим знакомым, и мы пришли к заключению, что "гнев сам по себе не грех, но у нас, людей, он почти всегда становится грехом". Это похоже не то, что Вы пишите.

Мой собственный опыт это тоже подтверждает: несколько лет назад я увлёкся христианской психологией, и именно от неё узнал, что гнев не обязательно грех. Но, надо сказать, плод этого оказался не очень хорошим: я стал значительно менее сдержанным за последние несколько лет, и не в последнюю очередь потому что говорю себе: "Гнев - не обязательно грех, и не надо себя сдерживать".

А всё таки интересно, чем на практике проявления греховного гнева отличаются от проявлений гнева Божьего?...

[ursusanglicanus.livejournal.com]

Pavel, I'm glad you dropped the Отец in your reply. Among friends, which includes you, it's not necessary. Keep it simply Michael please!
Your final question is a good one, but I prefer to think about it and give you a good answer, rather than an 'off the cuff' one. So be patient, and I'll be back to you

[overtakenbyjoy.livejournal.com]

Майкл, только Вы не считайте себя обязанным, только если Вам действительно интересно подумать над этим.

Насчёт "отец". Я не уверен, но у меня есть ощущение, что это не только наше с Вами личное дело, как я буду Вас называть. Потому что ваш сан (и, тем более, если бы это был сан священника) - это тоже не только Ваше личное дело или должность, которой Вы полностью распоряжаетесь. Рукоположение делает Вас особенным, выделенным человеком, и эту "особость" мы подчёркиваем обращением "отец". И, мне кажется, не в Вашей власти делать это необязательным.

Есть несколько священников, с которыми я общаюсь на "ты", с которыми мы при встрече общались бы по-дружески, просто и даже шутливо. Но я бы никогда не стал опускать обращение к ним "отец" или "батюшка".

Только, пожалуйста, не подумайте, что я Вас учу. Я просто излагаю собственные мысли, в которых я не вполне уверен. Было бы интересно, что Вы об этом думаете.

[ursusanglicanus.livejournal.com]

Pavel. Let me try and come back on your last two replies:

The difference between ‘sinful’ and ‘godly’ anger. My own test is to look straight into Christ’s eyes in a good icon of Him and say, ‘Lord, I’m angry’. If the anger can withstand Christ looking straight at you and you looking straight at Him, then you’re OK. When you can’t look at Christ with the anger, then you’re in trouble. You may start to get the message ‘Don’t hit out now’ or ‘Wait’, or ‘Leave it to me’. That’s fine.

On the second question, I hear what you’re saying, and accept it. Thank you for being direct. I think as a theologian one has to ask: what does ordination really do to a person? How does an ordained person sense the grace of God working in them specifically and, more importantly, what difference do the people around them feel? If I understand things right, grace is given for a particular task: for me to serve correctly, but not to always come up with the right answers in the ‘prikodski soviet’.

Also, grace comes with certain pre-conditions. The ground must be prepared for the seed. A man who has not sorted out his penchant for pride will not suddenly be healed of it by being ordained. If anything it could well make it worse. What is difficult with priests is that, in the normal course of things, most human beings are not spiritually mature at the age a young man who has gone through theological college comes up for ordination. It is interesting here to observe the approach in Athos monasteries. Here the key thing is not ordination (many monasteries ordain no more than the strict minimum) but receiving the schema - which basically says that you are spiritually mature - which seems to happen rarely before about 35 (to be distinguished from the Russian grand schema, which comes much later). Certainly no man should be made a bishop before being eligible for the schema.

There is also the question of visibility: a lot of people need to see 'spiritual' people in visible religious clothing, on the street, in the metro.

Greet Tatiana and Timmy from me. And have a good Lent.

[overtakenbyjoy.livejournal.com]

Майкл, спасибо за ответ на мой вопрос. Вы предложили замечательный образ - "смотреть в глаза Христа". Я уже даже попробовал этот метод проверки своего гнева :-) Пока ни разу не выдержал...

О втором. Вы пишете: "I think as a theologian one has to ask: what does ordination really do to a person? How does an ordained person sense the grace of God working in them specifically". У меня совершенно не возникает таких вопросов (применительно к исходному вопросу об именовании Вас "отцом"). Объясню почему. Во-первых, я вообще не люблю рассуждать о чём-либо, используя понятие "благодать", потому что этот термин слишком неясен для меня. А во-вторых, мне кажется, что здесь это и не обязательно. Таинство священства я в первую связываю с понятием "посвященности", "избранности". Это близко к значению слова "святость" в смысле Ветхого Завета ("kadosh") - как отделённости, священности (как противоположности мирского = laic). И для меня тут уже не важно, как именно действует в священнике благодать. К сожалению, я не раз видел и слышал, как священники говорили или писали недостойные вещи или глупости. Но главное то, что священник уже не такой как остальные люди, он особенный перед Богом. Это я и подчёркиваю, обращаясь к священнику "отец".

Правда, всё сказанное выше относится именно к священству, так как это таинство. Именование же диаконов "отцами" - дань традиции.

Приветствие Тане и Тимофею передал, спасибо! Желаем вам с матушкой тоже хорошего и плодотворного Поста.

[ursusanglicanus.livejournal.com]

A. On the question of ‘grace’: let me pick up two sentences from the service of ordination of a deacon:

i) a description of what 'grace' is: The grace divine, which always heals that which is infirm, and completes that which is wanting....'

ii) what the specific grace asked for a deacon is: "Do thou, master of all men, fill this thy servant, whom thou has graciously permitted to enter upon the ministry of a Deacon, with all faith, and love, and power, and holiness, through the inspiration of thy holy and life-giving Spirit; for not through the laying-on of hands, but through the visitation of thy rich bounties, is grace bestowed upon thy worthy ones..."

(I notice that it does not include wisdom – a deacon can holy but as thick as two planks.)

B. On the word ‘priest’. Yes, the Russian word священник has the idea of ‘made holy, ‘set aside’ in it. But the Greek word presbyteros does not: it is simply an ‘elder’.