Light-work

Can't We Just Talk?

 LD has been struggling with how to have a positive conversation with relatives whose words drip with venom. Maybe you've had some similar experiences: Parents who have nothing positive to say about you; coworkers who constantly fixate on the negative, especially your shortcomings; "friends" whose insatiable ego feels compelled to douse you with a bucket of cold water whenever you receive some token of praise.

The best way to avoid getting bit is to stop having conversations with snakes. So I have encouraged LD to simply excuse herself from the conversation when it has taken a turn for the worse. Alas, there are times when a silent retreat is not possible.

So let me suggest a second strategy that can be employed when "refusing to engage" is out of the question. Jesus taught, “But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27-28). To bless those who curse you means to speak well of those who are spitting venom at you. This will take some pre-planning and creativity. It will require great restraint and strength of character. But when someone lobs a verbal grenade your way, figure out how to lob flowers back.

Someone came to me a number of years ago profoundly disturbed by something I had said. Their words stung, particularly because they assumed the worst of my motives. After they had said their piece, I replied, "Thank you so much for honoring me by coming to me directly. I truly do want to please the Lord and your insight can help me do a better job of it." In essence, I blessed them for speaking to me even though what they said was painful to hear.

So LD and others in similar situations, you are going to have to ask the Lord to show you some scrap of nobility that you can verbally affirm. It can't be a back-handed complement like, "I can always count on you to see the hole in my donut."  Don't try faking it - It must be something genuine. Perhaps the negative parent needs to hear, "I am grateful for your love even though you see so clearly all my faults." Maybe your friend with a big ego would be encouraged to hear you say, "I appreciate your reminders that 'It's not all about me.' That is so true." (This last one works on two levels: It IS a good reminder for you but ALSO for your friend who struggles against the pull of me-centered living.)

It is EASY to speak kindly to those who have spoken kindly toward us. But it is a rare thing when someone returns good for evil. This is precisely the kind of response that can grab the attention of those caught in the web of negative speech patterns and provide them with indisputable evidence that there is a better way. This is precisely Paul's point when he says, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21). When you bless those who curse you, you achieve a small but significant victory. Good will have prevailed by having the last word.

An "Unusual" Ultimatum?

I read about a curious conversation from the life of King David. To appreciate what caught my ear, ponder the art of the ultimatum. Presidents and Kings need to be masters of the art when declaring a final demand, one whose rejection will end negotiations and be followed by a resort to force. There are lots of ways to mess up.

• The Petulant: Provoke a fight that's not worth fighting.
• The Pacifist: Fail to issue an ultimatum when vital interests are threatened.
• QuickDraw McGraw: Issue an ultimatum when there are viable alternatives still on the table.
• Johnny-Come-Lately: Issue an ultimatum after a "point of no return" has already been passed.
• Mr. Hollow Threat: Draw an appropriate line in the sand, but attach it to a threat you have no intention of using.
• The Cream-Puff: Make a reasonable demand, but attach it to a threat of insufficient force.

The above possibilities are enough (there are plenty more) to illustrate how easy it is to get it wrong and singularly daunting it is to get it right. David understood this art well. While Saul was still alive and seeking David's death, a group from the tribe of Benjamin came to his stronghold. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, so David had good reason to be suspicious of the intentions of these new recruits. He delivered a "choose-whom-you-will-serve" ultimatum: Then some of the sons of Benjamin and Judah came to the stronghold to David. David went out to meet them, and said to them, “If you come peacefully to me to help me, my heart shall be united with you; but if to betray me to my adversaries, since there is no wrong in my hands, may the God of our fathers look on it and decide” (1 Chron. 12:16-17).

What kind of ultimatum is this? The first half makes perfect sense: Help me and we will become a great team. But in the second half, David's "threat" would strike a "modern man of enlightenment" as the words of the cream-puff: Mess with me and you'll have to deal with God. In a day when life is defined with God factored out of the equation, a threat has no "teeth" when it invokes God.

To get an appreciation for the modern irony of David's ultimatum, imagine saying this to a robber who has you at gun point: "Walk away. If you don't, you will answer to God for whatever you have done to me." How many thieves would find this compelling? How many would flee in terror for their fear of God?

David's ultimatum is a window into a value system profoundly different from modernity. David knew how to wield a big stick, but the verdict of heaven's opinion was of far greater consequence. The worst possible outcome, from David's perspective, was for a man to be on God's bad side. The poverty of modern "threat making" stands in such stark contrast. Where there is no respect for God, men are left to issue ultimatums that depend entirely upon their own efforts. Such ultimatums only carry as much force as the stick one is able and willing to wield.

Do we believe that men will answer to God for their actions? Is this the worst that could happen to those who act on their intentions against us? Is this what leaks out when we utter a threat? If not, our value system may fit the times but not the heart of David, a "man after God's own heart."

What Gets You Outraged?

Yesterday, we noted that Joe the Shouter was about to get his comeuppance. The House did not disappoint. Their most common punishments for members are expulsion, censure, reprimand or fine. But they decided to use a lesser measure, a "resolution of disapproval." Wilson's conduct was cited as a "breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House." The vote was, understandably, divided along party lines. I'm not sure if the Democrats have exhausted their outrage, yet. Presumably, they are now ready to get back to business as usual.

Here is an irony. Fox News has been showing a series of video-taped interchanges between Acorn staff members and a filmmaker and associate posing as a pimp and prostitute. Click here to watch one. A fourth videotape was shown last night and another is promised for today. The one from last night was outrageous! I have no doubt there will be an ample supply of spin and dissembling from those associated with Acorn. I am confident  that the film-makers and their work will be scorned and discredited.

But how can you watch these interviews and not marvel at Acorn staff members' nonchalance, even enthusiasm, while their clients outline a scheme that reeks of  debauchery? Where is the shock, where is the outrage? Where is the staff member who warns, "What you are doing is terribly wrong. You need to get your life headed in the right direction."

What a contrast between Acorn staff's casual response to gross immorality and the passionate ado of The House over a two-word breech of decorum. Mind you, I am not making little of House Democrats. Let them enjoy their diversion. But the quickness and intensity of their disapproval serves to highlight its absence at Acorn.

What a sad commentary on our society that many view immoral behavior with casual acceptance, even with a tinge of pride in their enlightened tolerance. The Apostle Paul dealt with something similar in what was the "sin city" of his time, Corinth. A young man was having a brazen affair with his step mom, and those who knew the parties involved were celebrating their enlightenment in accepting this as normal. Paul declared, "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst" (1 Cor. 5:1-2).

One of the litmus tests of the health of our society, and our churches, is our ability to lament sin. If the response of Acorn staffers is a window into the heart of our culture, heaven help us. When Jesus said, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matt. 5:4), He was talking about being broken-hearted by the things that break God's heart. My heart is broken by what these Acorn interviews say about who we are becoming. God forgive us.

Joe the Shouter

I was shocked, shocked, I say, to hear someone shout, "You lie," during the President's recent address to Congress on September 9. That someone was Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina. Ms. Pelosi's break from her glazed default position was but the first of what has become swelling outrage over the congressman's cheek. I am not about to defend the man's act; he himself has admitted there is no defense by personally apologizing to the President and Vice-President.

But let's put things in perspective. On Sunday, Sept 13, Chris Wallace of Fox News interviewed Representative Joe. Here's the transcript. After playing a video clip of the President's speech and Rep. Wilson's "town hall moment," he was asked what he was thinking when he shouted, "You lie!" Here's his response:

I just felt so provoked because I am on committee, on the committee -- Education and Labor. I know the amendments that were on Ways and Means -- at Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce that the Democrats voted down for citizenship verification. So I knew what he said was not true. I read the bill. I read all 1,000 pages.

In other words, although the proposed bill (or bills) did not authorize the provision of health care for illegal immigrants, an illegal immigrant would be able to freely access these benefits. Joe Wilson was outraged because some disingenuous razzmatazz was creating free health care for illegals while giving the impression of doing the exact opposite. The inclusion of a "no-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants" provision was mere wrapping paper. As if to make his point, the inclusion of a real enforcement mechanism has now become a live issue in deliberations by the gang of six currently drafting a Senate bill.

For someone to lie, two conditions must be met: He must misrepresent the facts and know that he is misrepresenting the facts. Simply getting your facts wrong can involve making an honest mistake. But when a man states what is untrue, and knows it is untrue, he has lied. As Rep. Joe listened to the President's speech, he assumed two things: What the President is saying is not true, and the President knows it.

Checking the first condition for lying is relatively simple: How do the facts line up with what someone has said? In this case, the facts appear to cut both ways. A "no-illegals" provision is in the the bill. But the absence of adequate enforcement of this provision makes its inclusion pointless. I'm with Joe on test #1. An unenforced denial of benefits equals a provision of benefits.

The second question is a lot trickier because you have to get in someone's head. Joe Wilson assumed that the President could not possibly think that this bill, despite its professions to the contrary, would deny health care to an illegal immigrant. Joe's outburst reflected his conclusion that the President knew better, that he was consciously deceiving Congress. On this count, I am not sure. It is possible that the President knows the toothlessness of this denial constitutes a de facto provision of health care to illegals. But it is also possible the President thinks that simply because he has said, "no-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants," it will somehow happen.

Even "Joe the Shouter" has dialed it back. Later in his interview with Chris Wallace, he acknowledged that the President did not meet both tests for lying: Got his facts wrong, yes. Intentionally misrepresented the facts, no comment. Here's the dialog:

WALLACE: Do you think when the president was saying what he said there that he was lying?

WILSON: I believe he was misstating the facts.

WALLACE: Well, you didn't say that. You said, "You lie."

WILSON: Well, I truly would have said it in a different way if I had time. And I — I respect, again, the president. But what he said was not accurate and that's why I'm glad they've now agreed to having citizen verification on Friday.

Getting at the facts can be a challenge, but it is nothing compared to getting in another man's head! So, Joe's outburst might have benefited by sticking closer to the facts. Had he shouted - "Not true!" - he could have stayed away from claims that assume his accuracy as a mind-reader.

I am confident that the Democratically controlled congress will make an example of "Joe the Shouter." I wonder if they will succeed in crowning him as a poster boy for town-hall discontent and award him a land-slide re-election. Frankly, there is something to admire in the man. We are hungry for representatives who will boldly speak up against business-as-usual politics. Joe the Shouter may have displayed the right stuff.

Holy Hatred!

"Hate Crimes Legislation" attempts to make murder more egregious when it is motivated by hate. You might get the impression that hatred always makes things worse. No so, according to the Bible. In Revelation 2:6, Jesus commends an ancient church by saying, "Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." Jesus considers it an earmark of a healthy church when they have a holy hatred for the same thing He hates.

If hating what God hates is a good thing, it's worth asking, “Are there other things that God hates?” Twenty are specifically mentioned in the Bible: The Lord hates the sacrifice of children to false gods (Deuteronomy 12:31); sacred pillars (Deuteronomy 16:22); those who do iniquity (Psalm 5:5); the one who loves violence (Psalm 11:5); hypocritical or heartless worship (Isaiah 1:14); robbery in the burnt offering (Isaiah 61:8); idolatry (Jeremiah 44:4); those who do wickedness (Hosea 9:15); impure worship (Amos 5:21); evil schemes against others and perjury (Zechariah 8:17); divorce and wrong-doing (Malachi 2:16). In Proverbs 6:16-19, we have a complete laundry list of the Lord’s “top seven” hatreds.

   

There are six things which the Lord hates,
    Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
    Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    And hands that shed innocent blood,
    A heart that devises wicked plans,
    Feet that run rapidly to evil,
    A false witness who utters lies,
    And one who spreads strife among brothers.

This list orbits around two poles: False worship and mistreatment of others. The Lord loves it when we love God and love our neighbors. Here’s the hard-edged flip side: He HATES it when we do otherwise. The Lord finds false worship and false dealings with others absolutely distasteful. So when we can’t stand worship that is fake and compromised, when we are disgusted by injustice and mistreatment of others, that’s when Jesus says, “I can’t stand that either – it’s nice to meet a kindred spirit.”

In these oh-so-tolerant times, it is decidedly out of fashion to break from the homogenized spirituality that has become the norm. Oh, we might get our groove on for some praise singing, maybe even give the preacher an "Amen" now and then, but heaven forbid we develop the kind of fierce passion for God that gets worked up over the things He despises. Where are the lovers of God who share His hatred for what is unholy?

Getting Mad at the Wrong Guy

Here's a handy prescription for those who want to conquer anger. When you find yourself getting steamed, ask yourself, "Is my anger directed at the wrong guy?" Proverbs 19:3 describes a condition that can lead to anger: The foolishness of man ruins his way, and his heart rages against the Lord (Prov. 19:3). This Proverb has two phrases, the first describes a situation, the second outlines what follows.

Here's the situation. A man has made a foolish choice with serious consequences. It could have been an unwise business decision, an inappropriate relationship, a knee-jerk response, or a course involving moral compromise. Whatever he did, it was fueled by foolishness and, not surprisingly, has turned out badly. The second phrase describes the result and it is ironic. Instead of admitting, "I did something foolish," he gets mad at God. What's God got to do with it? God doesn't resort to "bailouts" for foolishness. As a good parent, He allows us to experience the consequences of our poor choices. God is not responsible for the ruin a man reaps when he sows foolishness.

So when you feel yourself getting angry, do a quick diagnostic. Try to identify ways in which the outcome that is prompting you to anger is the result of your own actions. Make a list of ways you could have done things differently to reap a different outcome. If you come up with just one item on your list, then you're getting mad at the wrong person. Go look in a mirror and counsel the person you see to use all that energy to make some changes. Repeat as necessary.

Lest We Forget the Prodigal's Brother

The Prodigal Son is the celebrity sinner, the poster child for stories of failure and forgiveness. For parents of wayward teens, his tale gives them reason to hope. For those who have wandered far from God, the prodigal's return is a prototype for making a fresh start with God. I am not trying to take anything away from his "great comeback" story, but the prodigal is a secondary player in the parable that is named after him.

Parables are intended to make a point, and clues as to the nature of that point will often be found in context, in this case Luke 15. The entire chapter consists of three linked parables, "The Lost Sheep," "The Lost Coin" and "The Prodigal Son," that all answer to the need identified in verses 1-3:

Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” So He told them this parable, saying . . . (Luke 15:1-3).

Jesus' three stories are intended to turn the tables on His critics. The religious big-wigs are grousing because Jesus is ministering to riffraff. Instead of celebrating that losers are flocking to the One person who can help them, they're grumbling that Jesus doesn't dust them away like so much shoulder lint.

So Jesus recounts a trio of parables that swell in a crescendo of celebration. First he talks about the recovery of a lost sheep. Yes, this sheep was only 1% of the flock, but surely it's recovery would be reason for joy. Then he talks about finding lost wealth. Even though it was only 10% of someone's life savings, who wouldn't host a party to celebrate its recovery? Finally he talks of a lost son. If you celebrate when one sheep (out of a hundred) is found, or one coin (out of ten) is found, then what kind of celebration would attend the return of a lost son?

Right as Jesus' audience is catching the party vibe, a new character shows up, the prodigal's whining brother. He is the one in the harsh spotlight crashing the party, the party-pooper with an attitude, and the embarrassing spokesman for Jesus' complaining critics. I draw your attention to the prodigal's brother because he is the punch line in Luke 15. THE PRODIGAL'S BROTHER is the one Jesus wants us to examine and understand.

I confess that I see in myself much that reminds me of the prodigal's brother. I have not lived a life of rebellion or moral abandon. I came to Jesus at an early age, began living for Him in earnest as a teen, and have sought to stay true to Him to this day. (Don't misunderstand me. I am just as much a sinner as the most profligate prodigal - no difference. And my steady pursuit of Christ has not kept me from presenting a pitiful picture of what it means to be His follower on occasions without number.) Despite my failures, flaws, and growing pains along the way, however, I am a fair example of the classic "good kid."

So when I observe the prodigal's descent into the depths of loose living, I can't identify. But when I hear his brother protesting, “Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours” (Luke 15:29), I hear in his words the voice of my own dissenting heart. I have expressed words like his, words of disappointment in God for His seeming lack of appreciation.

There are prodigals and there are prodigal's brothers. The prodigal's obstacle is his sense of unworthiness to lay claim to the heart of his father. The obstacle of the prodigal's brother is his sense of entitlement, an insistence upon God's approval for his faithfulness. In its advanced stages, "Prodigal's Brother Disease" (PBD) can rob a man of his joy. He can become a spiritual scrooge who mutters "Bah, humbug" on occasions when even angels are pulling out all the stops.

The religious leaders called out by Jesus have a pronounced case of PBD. It has achieved a level of spiritual toxicity that is acute, perhaps from which there is no recovery. But for anyone who seeks to be faithful (at risk) and who is willing to learn (teachable) from their sad story, there is hope in timely self-screening (self-examination) and treatment (repentance).

Are you a prodigal? Come home to a Father whose grace is greater than your sin. Are you a prodigal's brother? Then serve without strings before it robs you of joy. Stay faithful to God without getting sucked into thinking that God owes you recognition. Your faithfulness matters. Never forget what Jesus says to the prodigal's brother, “And he said to him, ‘Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours’” (Luke 15:31). Staying true to God WILL BE WORTH IT. That is no less true for the fact that we party strong when a prodigal comes home.

The First Angry Man

...For Cain and for his offering [God] had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Gen. 4:5-7).

These verses recount what happened BEFORE Cain killed his brother, Abel. Cain had prepared an offering for the Lord. The details are somewhat sketchy, but based upon God's response, we can be sure that Cain's offering deviated from what God desired. Perhaps, when God covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve using animal skins, He made it clear that innocent blood must figure into a man's offering. Perhaps, Cain's offering deviated by putting emphasis on himself and what he could produce. Regardless of the reasons that lay behind God's response, Abel's offering was accepted; Cain's was rejected. And this made Cain mad.

For anyone who wants to conquer anger, there are two key lessons in this passage. First, it tells us something about WHY men get mad. Cain is angry because God has not honored HIS plan. Cain had already worked out in his mind how things would go. He had prepared an awesome offering of fruits and vegetables; God was supposed to say, "Wow! Thanks, Cain. You're swell!" But God didn't come through with high fives - He showed complete disinterest.

Cain's face clouded with disappointment. God responded, "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?" God is intimating that Cain has not done what is right, and this is the source of his problem. Like Sinatra, Cain "did it my way" but wants God to respond as if he did it GOD'S way. Cain is angry for the same reason men get angry today: We want to do things our way AND want God to bless us for it.

When you get angry, ask yourself these two questions:  Have I done something wrong? Am I mad because I am reaping the consequences of my poor choices? If the answer to both questions is "yes," there is a simple solution. Change course and do what is right! Your anger will evaporate.

When God warned Cain, "sin is crouching at the door," He was alerting Cain to the fact that his rage had increased his vulnerability to sin. An angry man can do something he would never otherwise think of doing. Cain's anger made him an easier target for sin's impulses.

Knowing this ought to give us a healthy fear of becoming angry. Like drunkenness, so anger can distort our vision and weaken our resistance against sin. Look what happened to Cain! His brooding anger made him a sitting duck when the impulse to kill his brother asserted itself. When you are angry, sinful words and deeds which would otherwise make no sense at all will seem perfectly reasonable. Don't give sin such an advantage. Lay off the anger to get things into their proper perspective!

What An Angry Man Needs, Pt. 2 of 2

Yesterday, we checked out this verse: A man of great anger will bear the penalty, for if you rescue him, you will only have to do it again (Prov. 19:19). We  warned those on the receiving end of another's rage to do what will work toward the angry man's improvement. Today, let's flip this verse around and discover a cool technique for another individual, not the one being railed against, but the one doing the railing. There is a powerful application embedded in Prov. 19:19 that can profoundly help the man of great anger .

According to this verse, anger is not a terminal condition! Here's some irony - The man of great anger who is rescued is the one who is trapped, forever repeating the same old cycle of resentment, rage, remorse, and relief. But if he is NOT rescued, he can be saved! It might not happen in one fell swoop, but if those around the angry man REFUSE TO RESCUE him, there is a good chance he can improve. So if an angry man can invite, even authorize, those around him to let him suffer the full consequences of his rage, he can make progress in his quest to conquer his anger!

Here are a couple of steps you can use to put feet to this principle:  First, do some research. Research all the ways your anger has created pain, hurt and hardship for others. When you are calm and committed to remain so, do some interviews of those who have been on the receiving end of your outbursts. Ask them to give you a candid and complete description of what your tirades have actually done. Write it all down. Read what you have written. Often! Let it really sink in - don't dismiss what you're hearing. By listing all the ways your anger has gotten you into trouble, you will get in the right frame of mind to follow step two.

Now, issue some "Permission to Refuse Rescue" (PRR) Cards. Give to each of your previous research subjects a red card. (Depending on how serious your problem is, you might want to have these cards laminated!) Here is some suggested text to put on your card:

I am serious about wanting to conquer my anger problem. So I am asking you to refuse to rescue me when I lose it. When I am yelling, throwing stuff, getting in your face, and out-of-control, you have my express permission to simply show me this card, quietly exit the area, and leave me to stew in solitary silence. This is for my own good - please do not rescue me by trying to pretend nothing happened or by making little of the damage I am causing. DO NOT RESCUE ME OR WE WILL BE IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE AGAIN!

I am not such a schmo (This begs the question - how much of a schmo are you, Jim?) as to think anger will be forever vanquished once everyone around you is equipped with PRR Cards. But this procedure does have an intriguing feature. Remember how we talked about the addictive power of anger?  Anger (being out-of-control) is addictive because we enjoy the feeling of being in control. (No irony there, eh?) When others flash a PRR Card on us, they are doing so because we told them to. So in this angry moment, we can salve our ego in the knowledge that someone is letting us stew in consequences precisely because we commanded it.

Bottom line: Whether you use PRR cards or some other process, establish some type of pact with those around you. Authorize them to let you stew in the pickle produced by your passion - you might just learn something that makes you LESS likely to yell "Flame on!" when someone hits your button.

What An Angry Man Needs, Pt. 1 of 2

When you live or work beside someone with a volatile temper, you know the warning: "Push the button - reap the whirlwind!" So you tread lightly, hoping you don't. But when you accidentally do, hardly have you uttered "Oops" before Mr. Hothead starts breathing fire and scorching the earth. That's when you'll do anything, ANYTHING, to throw some water on the flames and reclaim your fragile peace. All your energies are now harnessed for damage control.

For those who eek it out walking on these eggshells, here's a Proverb that sounds like an invitation to be the test dummy at flame-thrower practice. A man of great anger will bear the penalty, for if you rescue him, you will only have to do it again (Prov. 19:19).  It sounds like Solomon is counseling eggshell dwellers to forget about it. Forget trying to salvage the situation. Forget trying to undo all the damage caused by someone else's angry madness. Forget placating your way to peace. Stand back and just let 'er burn!

When we minimize or erase the consequences of a man's wrath, we REINFORCE his reliance on anger. We reward him with the ego satisfaction of seeing everyone jump at his bidding. And, by our reluctance to say anything negative for fear of "setting him off again," we deny him the benefit of beholding all the damage he has caused. Solomon would say that the best possible thing you can do for the man of great anger is allow him to feel the full brunt of the mess he has made. Anything else will insure that Mr. Hothead learns NOTHING from his folly and is spring loaded to do it again.

Suppose a woman with small children has inadvertently pushed her husband's button and he is going ballistic. She must face the fact that his anger is putting the safety of her children at risk. So her next move is to get them (and herself) out of the house without fanfare. This might help her husband see he is making a mess of things when he gets out of control. The wife is not responsible for her husband's anger. She is responsible for reinforcing this negative behavior if she insulates him from the consequences of his mess and tries to just "patch things up." (Translation:  Pretend it didn't happen but live in fear that it WILL happen again!)

There is a great principle nested in this verse for the man who wants to conquer his anger. Let's talk about it tomorrow.

Are zeal and anger related?

Ace stopped by. After our last meeting, I proposed using a card as part of his anger defying tool kit. He showed me his well used card and reported how he hasn't gone ballistic since our last meeting. How great is that! He raised another facet to the whole anger question. He sometimes feels extreme negativity towards others. He might not go public and express what he is feeling, but he still feels it. So then he asked, "How is it possible for someone who loves Jesus to have such an unloving response to his fellow-man?"  GREAT QUESTION!  Any ideas?

I suggested a related topic for him to ponder:  "Is anger the evil twin of zeal for God?"  This is a question with profound implications.  If the answer is "yes," then trying to eliminate anger may be less effective than converting anger into zeal for the things of God.  We are transformed as we live in Christ.  Is it possible for anger to be transformed into something constructive?  What do you think?

The Addictive Power of Anger, Pt. 2 of 2

Okay, so James 1:20 says anger doesn't produce the good stuff.  What does it produce?  Let's first distinguish between the source (the one who gets angry) and the recipients (the ones toward whom an angry outburst is directed).  We can then ask two different questions:  What does anger produce in the one who gets angry?  And, what does anger produce in those on the receiving end?

Let's talk about the latter group and analyze a situation where the one who is angry (call him Ace) is using anger to compel another to do what is right.  (I will volunteer to be that other.)  Knowing that true righteousness is a matter of the heart, we can make this connection.  When I am the brunt of Ace's anger, he can force me toward compliance, an outward conformity to his wishes.  But at the same time that I comply outwardly, my heart is reinforced to resist.  It reasons, "Ace is out-of-control.  He wants ME to exercise self-control and do what is right, but he's out-of-control.  He is asking me to do what he refuses to do.  No way!"  Bottom line:  Ace's anger might force me to comply on the surface, but at the heart level, gives me a formidable reason to resist doing what is right.  In this, Ace becomes a negative reflection of a heavenly Father whose character and actions give me every reason to do what is right.

What is produced in the one who gets angry?  Besides the obvious (anger breeds more anger), how does Ace's anger work as an accelerant for unrighteousness?  Understanding the phrase, "the anger of man," in James 1:20 is critical.  James is not talking about the anger of God, nor zeal for the things of God like that observed in Jesus' cleansing of the Temple.  He is talking about "man-anger," the passion that arises from the frustration of a personal agenda.  One of Jesus' most stinging rebukes of Peter was this:  "You are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's" (Matt. 16:23).  Peter's judgment was clouded; he became a willing accomplice to the unrighteous one, Satan.  "Man-anger" creates just such an unholy alliance.

(For language buffs, the word translated "of man" in James 1:20 is not the same word translated "man's" in Matt 16:23.  The meanings in both passages are similar, however.  Note that the word in James is without an article which puts emphasis on the quality of the term, hence "man-like anger."  Also of note is the contrast between anger of man and righteousness of God.  "Man-anger doesn't produce God-righteousness" would be the idea.  Man-anger might produce man-righteousness, that is righteousness in the eyes of men, but not God-righteousness which is the genuine article.)

The "anger of man" gets results, alright, the kind of results Satan would be pleased with.  So what's a man prone to anger to do?  (1) Write James 1:20 on a card.  (2) On the flip side write this:  "The temptation to become angry in order to "get results" is a trap!  I will only succeed in making it HARDER for those around me to  do what is right.  And, I will be duped into serving as my enemy's accomplice."  (3) Then whenever your blood is starting to boil because you're not getting the respect you deserve, or things aren't going your way, or your plans are being resisted, flash out your card and f-o-c-u-s on its truth.  (4)  Repeat after me:  "What I want" does not matter.  "What God wants" does.  The ONLY WAY to promote what God wants is by refusing to "GET RESULTS" with anger.

The Addictive Power of Anger, Pt. 1 of 2

Ace struggles with anger and wants help.  He is not alone.  I remember an incident when the children (we have three) were much younger and I totally lost it.  I don't recall what the issue was, but I do remember being totally frustrated by the fact that all my calm and reasonable appeals for action were being completely ignored.  So I put on my angry face (scary!) and started using my angry voice (very loud) and was amazed.  I was getting impressive results.  I had everyone's attention (How could they ignore this louder and scarier me?) and all their energies were focused on compliance.

In this moment I felt the drug-like power of anger.  In my mind, I was "in control."  I was simply using a mode (angry mode) that more effectively motivated others to action.  It would be easy to rationalize a recurring resort to anger, especially when the ends seemed noble and biblically appropriate.  A question asserted itself:  If the goal is for my kids to do what is right, isn't an angry outburst warranted when lessor means are ineffective?  This question exposes one of the compelling attractions of anger.  It gets results!

Yes, anger gets results, but what kind of results?  James 1:20 declares, "For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God."  Translation:  Anger may get results, but it does not result in righteousness!  I say again:  Whatever anger is producing, it is NOT righteousness.  Now this begs the question:  What  exactly DOES it produce?  Find out next week in part 2.

Answers for Angry Aces

Yesterday, I met with "Ace."  He agreed to be a lab rat for a noble experiment.  Yes, "Ace" is not his real name.  Yes, he is a real person.  He had enough courage and humility to declare, "I have a problem with anger and I need help."  So, I proposed the following:  "Ace, you could help me understand the struggles and thinking of the angry man.  I could use what I learn from you to do a series of posts which provide biblical principles, applications, and projects for you and other Angry Aces."

Ace agreed and we'll all benefit.  Here's how it will work.  I have created a new category titled "anger."  Every so often (after a meeting with Ace), I will post a relevant comment.  If you are a regular reader, you'll catch 'em as they come.  But you can also go to the little "category cloud" to the right and click on the word "anger."  It will show you all the posts for Angry Aces.  A year from now, there should be 10-15 posts that could benefit anyone who is struggling with anger.

Even if you don't struggle with anger, you can direct those who do to these posts at light-work.  It's like having a biblical counselor in your purse or hip pocket.  Kinda cool!

Kudos to Ace for his willingness to do this.  I also want to commend him for his ability to say, "I have a problem and I need help."  It is rare for a man to achieve true change who cannot say these words.  But for the man who can, he has already made the first and most important step toward conquering his problem.