Is Anger Actually a Good Thing? | The Seven Deadly Sins | ANGER
One of the most famous Biblical narratives about the destructiveness of anger is the story of the two brothers, Cain and Abel. Cain, the oldest of the two, became a farmer, and Abel, the youngest, became a shepherd. Cain offered a share of the fruits of his land to God, but the Lord rejected that offer. But when Abel offered God his firstborn sheep, God accepted it. An intense fury seized Cain, and his face became grim, and God asked: “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”
So, God asked Cain to examine his anger, hinting that there was no reason for him to feel this way. Unfortunately, Cain refused to take responsibility for his emotional state, succumbed to his rage, and murdered his brother. The story of Cain and Abel portrays how anger could lead one to commit terrible crimes, like killing one’s sibling. Aside from envy, the story portrays one of the capital sins called ‘wrath,’ which entails excessive, uncontrollable anger leading to often destructive and regrettable actions.
As the word ‘wrath’ is hardly used anymore, I’ve decided to use the broader and more widely known term ‘anger’ as a focal point of this video. Anger and wrath aren’t synonymous, according to a Christian view. And, as opposed to, for example, Buddhist and Stoic viewpoints, anger isn’t always problematic in the Christian interpretation. Wrath, however, is a form of anger that Christians consider sinful. Therefore, exploring the differences between anger and wrath is essential, which will subsequently shed light on why Christians consider wrath a sin.
The Seven Deadly Sins is a Christian concept that presents humanity with seven immoral acts: seven transgressions against the divine, oneself, and the world around us. The idea of the Seven Deadly Sins came to fruition when the desert father Evagrius Ponticus listed the “eight evil thoughts:” gluttony, lust, avarice, anger, sloth, sadness, vainglory, and pride, but it had Greek and Roman precedents, specifically the ethics of Aristotle. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory I revised Evagrius’ list and turned it into the list of sins we know: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.
This video series explores the Seven Deadly Sins as a Christian concept and beyond. What’s so bad about these sins? How do they apply to present-day life and society, and how can they influence our well-being and the well-being of those around us? And can non-Christians benefit from this concept? This essay delves into the emotion of anger and its corresponding sin: wrath. “Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the heart of fools.”
Is anger always sinful? According to the Bible, it isn’t. The Bible distinguishes righteous anger from unrighteous anger, meaning that there are cases in which anger is justified. The capital sin ‘wrath,’ therefore, is always a form of unrighteous anger, which should be avoided: it goes beyond what’s justified. Cain’s anger toward his brother, which was aroused by his envy and perceived unjust treatment by God, Christians would consider unrighteous.
But what exactly makes anger righteous or unrighteous? When does anger become wrath? First of all, the emotion of anger is not in itself a sin in the eyes of Christians. From the Christian view, anger is morally neutral. However, intoxicated by the dangerous nature of anger, one could easily commit sin. The Bible stated: “In your anger do not sin; Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.”
So, if the emotion of anger isn’t a sin in itself, what part of it can be considered sinful? What’s the difference between the morally neutral ‘anger’ and the sinful wrath? There have been many descriptions of what makes wrath sinful and how it’s different from anger. We could say that the fundamental difference between wrath and anger is the way wrath expresses itself in the outside world.
Whereas anger can be managed and calmed down, wrath means that the anger has already gone overboard, leading to destructive actions and even murder, as seen in the story about Cain and Abel. But in some cases, expressing anger isn’t sinful. For example, Jesus once violently drove out a group of merchants and money changers from a temple. In that case, his anger was righteous. It was based on justice, as he wanted to protect the house of God from becoming a marketplace.
So, it seems that Christians allow the expression of anger and even violence when it’s a force for good. For example, we may get angry when our loved ones are treated badly. Or we may use violence to protect them. Such forms of anger are not sinful but even commendable from the Christian viewpoint. Many would argue that not acting out of anger aroused by genuine wrongdoings would be sinful. Why wouldn’t someone be angry in the face of evil? In short, righteous anger reacts against sin.
Even God itself expresses anger often, which we can see in the Old Testament. God’s anger is always directed at sin in some form. “God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.” Still, from the Christian viewpoint, righteous anger should be used sparingly, and unrighteous anger should be avoided. But when is anger unrighteous? There are many different views on what unrighteous anger entails, but there seems to be a consensus about several aspects.
First of all, does the intensity of the anger fit the circumstances? Anger could be righteous at first but then grow out of proportion so that it’s not equal to its cause anymore. For example, we could be angry because someone has lied to us, which could be considered a righteous form of anger because of the sinful nature of lying. But if this anger turns into physical violence and long-lasting feelings of revenge, it has become wrath and has grown out of proportion.
In current times, it’s fashionable to have a short fuse toward those with different opinions. Instead of choosing the path of compassion and understanding, people respond with immediate anger and hostility when encountering people who don’t share their views, leading us to another deciding factor regarding unrighteous anger: what are we angry about? Is it because we’ve encountered something sinful or simply something we don’t like?
If we’re angry about non-sinful things, we experience unrighteous anger. So, the anger we’re feeling may not be righteous but could have more to do with our egos or could be way out of proportion. Another deciding factor is how we treat our anger. Looking at the current social media landscape, we can observe that many users feed their own and each other’s anger. Whole YouTube channels and social media pages are dedicated to keeping people’s anger going by continually arousing it through their content.
When, for example, we spend our days deliberately watching videos that arouse anger, we feed it beyond what’s reasonable. Even though that anger may be righteous, there’s nothing constructive about perpetuating and expanding it by extensively focusing on the negative aspects of existence. Media outlets are selective. They focus on a specific topic and magnify it, making it seem much more significant than it is. If we continually immerse ourselves in specific topics (and opinions about these topics) that enrage us, we create a skewed vision of the world.
In some cases, the continual cultivation of anger could lead someone to engage in a killing spree. “Fools give full vent to their rage, but the wise bring calm in the end.” The Bible also points out how we should handle anger. For example, let’s take a look at the Bible verse from Ephesians again: “In your anger do not sin; Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.”
The first part implies the possibility of not engaging in sinful behavior while being angry. Even though anger is natural from the Christian viewpoint, we still have a choice whether or not we act upon it. The second part advises us not to hold on to anger for an extended period. It’s better to address quickly or let go of the issue instead of wallowing in bitterness and resentment. The third part warns about how anger can create an opening for the devil to influence our thoughts and actions.
From the Christian view, the devil seeks to sow division, and anger is an opportunity to do so. To summarize: from a Christian viewpoint, the emotion of anger isn’t sinful in itself but is fertile ground for sin. If we let our anger become wrath, we enter the domain of sin. But can anger actually be useful? Or is it better to be avoided? When we’re angry, we experience a strong discontent toward one’s circumstances.
We could arouse anger as a response to present circumstances but also to what happened in the past and even what we believe could happen in the future. Countless views on anger have been expressed throughout the ages. Philosophers and psychologists have not just been exploring how anger works but also the question of whether or not anger is a bad thing and if anger could even be useful. Aristotle’s position, for example, was, like the Christians, not in opposition to anger as a whole.
He saw anger as a natural response to certain situations and even potentially beneficial. In Nicomachean Ethics, he stated: “The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised. This will be the good-tempered man, then, since good temper is praised.” Aristotle stated that those who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are thought to be fools, and he calls ‘slavish’ the man who doesn’t get angry in the right way, at the right time, at the right people, as he’s thought unlikely to defend himself.
Yet, Aristotle also acknowledged the destructive nature of excessive, uncontrolled anger, which he called ‘irascibility.’ He also discerned two types of angry people: the “hot-tempered” and the “sulky.” The first category entails those who don’t restrain their anger due to their quickness of temper, but their anger ceases quickly after they retaliate. In the second category are those who “retain their anger long” because they repress their passion, but only revenge releases them of their long-repressed anger.
Contrary to these two categories of angry people, Aristotle places the good-tempered man, who’s not revengeful, and expresses what seems to be similar to the Christian concept of righteous anger when appropriate. As opposed to the Christian and the Aristotelean view, the Stoics reject anger altogether. They see anger as bad, as it disrupts one’s inner tranquility and ability to think rationally. Anger leads to destructive behavior (which we’ll explore in a bit) and is based on judgments about things that are ultimately not up to us.
As the Stoics seek to maintain their inner peace in the face of any adversity, anger has no place in the mind of the Stoic sage. In his book Of Anger, Seneca rejects the idea that anger may be used, controlled, or harnessed in any constructive manner, stating: “In the first place, it is easier to banish dangerous passions than to rule them; it is easier not to admit them than to keep them in order when admitted; for when they have established themselves in possession of the mind they are more powerful than the lawful ruler, and will in no wise permit themselves to be weakened or abridged. In the next place, Reason herself, who holds the reins, is only strong while she remains apart from the passions; if she mixes and befouls herself with them she becomes no longer able to restrain those whom she might once have cleared out of her path; for the mind, when once excited and shaken up, goes whither the passions drive it.”
Later in the book, Seneca directly criticizes Aristotle by reacting to his claim that anger and, I quote, “is necessary, nor can any fight be won without it, unless it fills the mind, and kindles up the spirit. It must, however, be made use of, not as a general, but as a soldier.” Seneca discards Aristotle’s claim as “untrue.” He believes anger is not helpful as it doesn’t listen to reason. If anger can be controlled and guided by reason, it’s not anger but something else. True anger is uncontrollable, making it harmful and not helpful. An angry soldier isn’t a good soldier.
In History Channel’s documentary on the Seven Deadly Sins, Marine First Sergeant William Bodette explains how emotions like anger should be avoided in combat. He believes that the ability to control anger is an advantage during warfare. In his experience, getting angry on the battlefield mostly ends up badly. Even though the emotion of anger doesn’t always lead us astray, there always seems to be the lurking danger of it getting out of control. And before we know it, we’ve done things we later regret.
If pride is the deadliest sin of all, then anger is the bloodiest. We just have to look at history to see how anger has led to tremendous amounts of bloodshed. An example of this is the ancient Roman emperor Nero, whose character was marked by a volatile temper. He had a tendency to react violently and irrationally to perceived threats or challenges to his power. During his reign, a great fire destroyed a significant part of the city of Rome. It was rumored that Nero himself started the fire to create space for a new palace. But whether or not this is true, Nero used the Great Fire of Rome to turn the growing Christian community into a scapegoat by blaming them for it.
A fit of collective anger and hatred toward the Christians allowed their prosecution, using brutal and cruel methods of execution and torture. We’ve seen, again and again, similar instances in which human beings fueled by anger commit terrible crimes against humanity. But the destructiveness of anger also manifests on a smaller scale. The story of Cain and Abel portrays one of the many instances in which a person commits homicide fueled by rage and hatred. Another example from the Bible is Saul’s rage toward David. Saul was the first king of the Israelites. He made David the commander of his forces. But when David was successful, Saul grew angry and resentful and tried to kill him but failed.
In our everyday lives, we can see the destructiveness of anger, particularly in romantic relationships. Most of the time, anger precedes violence and even murder. The same can be said about parents’ violence toward children and vice versa. But even outside of the realm of violence and homicide, anger can be a damaging force. The story about the angry boy and the nails illustrates how anger leaves an irreversible mark.
Once, there was a boy with a quick temper. Similar to Aristotle’s hot-tempered man, the boy would often get angry over the smallest things, and then he’d swear and even break things. So, his father decided to give him a bag of nails and a hammer and told him that every time he lost his temper, he had to drive a nail into the fence. The boy initially found himself hammering numerous nails into the wall. After a couple of days, he noticed the ugly sight of the wall filled with nails. But over time, he learned to control his anger better, so his father told him to pull out a nail every day he managed not to get angry.
After several weeks, the boy pulled out the last nail. His father praised his self-control, but then he pointed at the wall and said: “Look at all the holes. Never again will the fence be the same. Things you say while you’re angry also leave scars like these. No matter how many times you apologize; the wound will remain when you plunge a knife into someone and pull it out.”
As explored through various philosophical and religious perspectives, we find that anger is complex. The Bible makes a distinction between righteous and unrighteous anger, making it clear that anger itself is not intrinsically wrong. The risk comes from giving in to wrath, which is a sinful, excessive, and uncontrolled form of anger that can result in destructive and regrettable actions. On the other hand, Aristotle agrees that rage could be useful if it’s used in a proper and justified manner.
Contrary to the Christians, he doesn’t recognize the concept of sin and looks at the emotion more pragmatically, so it seems. The Stoics, on the other hand, completely reject any form of anger because they see it as a disturbance of inner peace and reason. In his book Of Anger, Seneca asks: “How far better is it to heal an injury than to avenge it?”
The destructiveness of wrath is vividly illustrated by historical and daily life examples. The negative effects of unbridled rage are obvious, from Nero’s violent and irrational actions that led to the persecution of Christians to intimate relationships that were marred by violence and anger. The tale of the angry boy and the nails eloquently demonstrates how anger can irreparably damage people and relationships.
From a Christian view, the answer to the question of whether anger is good or bad seems to hinge on how it’s managed and expressed. Although it should be used carefully, righteous anger, which is a response to wrongdoing and injustice, can be considered morally admirable. On the other hand, unrighteous wrath is distinguished by its intensity that is out of proportion to the circumstance, its concentration on non-sinful grievances, and its lingering and festering nature.
The Christian perspective advises against holding on to anger for too long, as it can provide an opening for negative influences. So, is it good or bad? Anger is a double-edged sword, capable of both good and evil. Its moral status depends on how it’s expressed and utilized, which also seems to be Aristotle’s view. He approved of being angry at the right things, at the right people, in the right measure.
The Stoics, on the other hand, view anger as completely useless and as a dangerous passion that is more likely to control us than the other way around and, therefore, should be banished. In Christian terms, we could say that the Stoics don’t want to give the Devil even the slightest foothold. In spite of the complexity of anger, it’s easy to identify its problematic elements just by looking at history, our personal lives, and how people behave online these days.
Wrathful behavior abounds. It’s a destroyer of relationships, tolerance, empathy, and compassion. And technology allows people to amplify and spread their anger like we’ve never seen before. Thank you for watching.