Common Sense Christian

The Thinking Christian’s Site

Daily Devotional – May 24

Angry. Part 3 of 5

Recognizing anger

There is one kind of anger that is positive and three kinds that are negative.  Only one kind of anger is appropriate and brings about positive consequences, the rest are negative and most likely bring about negative consequences.

Consider the following matrix:

There are two types of anger – Constructive and Destructive.  Anger can be channeled in two different ways: in a controlled way and an uncontrolled way.

  • If the anger is for the wrong reason, is destructive in purpose and uncontrolled then the person is in a rage and anything and anyone close by could potentially be hurt.
  • If the anger is for the wrong reason, is destructive in purpose and controlled then the person becomes malicious and seeks to channel that anger into a methodical but destructive way (vengeance).
  • If the anger is justified, is destructive in nature and uncontrolled then the person is subject to their passion and will more likely do damage before good.  
  • If the anger is for the right reason, is constructive in purpose and the person is in control of thier anger and actions, then a positive outcome is always sought.  We recognize this from Christ:

Mark 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched [it] out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. 

Notice that Jesus was angry, but he did not react to those who made him angry, but was rather saddened.  Then he proceeded to bring about a positive outcome.

Learn to recognize your types of anger and you will be on your way to bringing the bad angers into control.


May 24, 2006 - Posted by | Daily Devotional


  1. Very useful and sensible information here. Thank you.

    Comment by Helen Losse | May 24, 2006 | Reply

  2. Hi Helen!

    A little generic, and things that most people already know–but a little reminder never hurts any of us.

    Hope you’re day is a blessed one!


    Comment by bereans | May 24, 2006 | Reply

  3. I still think this is the most useful and informative of the posts. When I first started studying King and became familiar with nonviolence, I was angry at the injustice. I could literally feel the anger rise in me, when people made ignorant, racist remarks. As I became more and more pacifistic, I felt this anger less and less. I am no longer angry in an uncontrolled way, and I no longer feel God quell it by pushing it down as I once did. The injustices (sin, evil) in the world (racism, povery, war, sexism, homophobia, etc.) still anger me, but I try to speak the truth to power and then let God work in the lives of others. Studying nonviolent confrontaion can help an individual control anger, yet speak confronational truth.

    Comment by Helen Losse | May 25, 2006 | Reply

  4. Hi Helen,

    A few thoughts:

    Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world” and with that proclamation removed all excuses from Christians to wage war or violence upon another. Paul also pointed out that our battle and the weapons we use to fight them are not carnal–we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual darkness. Our only defense against such is the Word of God and its saving/life-changing power.
    One thing I have noticed in this nation is a rise in anger–our children are being taught to be angry, our young people are being taught they are victims, our adults have embraced the doctrine of entitlement. We are becoming an angry society because of our self-centered focus, and because we are conditioning ourselves to do so. We are in the ultimate “me” generation–a generation that frames its arguments in “rights” but formulates its conclusions on feelings. I think Rev. King perceived those things that we should be angry about, but went about their remedy in a controlled fashion. Could that be the reason he was so effective?


    Comment by bereans | May 25, 2006 | Reply

  5. I think so. And I think we are not so effective because we think King’s battle is over. We do not see what King saw: That is, that we cannot “segregate our souls.” Injustice anywhere involves us. We must battle against all forms of hatred. Homosexuals may be the new blacks, but how many Christians welcome them? I cannot see how Christians flock to defend the case against abortion but silently or even loudly support war, capital punishment, etc. The commandment (Thou shalt not kill.) does not mean we must revere inncent life (who among us has that?) but life without condition. More later. Gotta run. We are remodeling our kitchen.

    Comment by Helen Losse | May 25, 2006 | Reply

  6. Hope the remodeling goes well, Helen! Post picture! 🙂

    Yep, we Christians like to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that are convenient for us.

    I will beg to differ on one issue. There is definitive science that indicates that someone who is born black is…well, black. (Anthropology and genetics). There is none yet to indicate that someone is born a homosexual, (although some studies may suggest that), anymore than someone is born a pedophile or any other sexual category. Helen, I believe just from a logical and scientific viewpoint that comparing black people to homosexuals is apples to oranges, and so is the issue. There are some people that believe that practicing homosexuality is sin and is taught as such in the Bible, just like some people believe that infidelity in marriage is a sin and that it is taught in the Bible. Someone can be convinced that something is a sin and not appreciate that sin in others without persecuting or prosecuting them for it. Of course we always need to keep in mind Matt 7:3.

    As far as Christian’s treatment of homosexuals, we should view them as any other fellow human being. If they are unsaved we are to bring them the Word, if they are saved, then treat with them according to the scripture.

    On the latter I would pose a question. If two homosexuals are practicing and they are not married, wouldn’t they in the very least be practicing fornication? For example, if one holds the belief that one is born either homosexual or heterosexual then if I sleep with women other than my wife wouldn’t I be committing fornication? What makes it different for homosexuals engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage? Just wanted to know your perspective.

    Look forward to further discussion!


    Comment by bereans | May 25, 2006 | Reply

  7. Sure it’s fornication. But does the law give them any choice? Are we accomplices to fornication, when we stand opposed to gay marriage? If they “burn” should they also marry? Hard quesions. Easy to proof-text. But at the time the Bible was written, people knew even less about homosexuality than they do now, only that it existed. Is it infidelity or homosexuality that God opposes?

    Comment by Helen Losse | May 25, 2006 | Reply

  8. Good question. What is your take on Romans 1?


    Comment by bereans | May 25, 2006 | Reply

  9. How ’bout I answer this tomorrow? Too much going on here now for me to give it much thought.

    Comment by Helen Losse | May 25, 2006 | Reply

  10. Romans 1 states quite clearly that homosexuality goes against God’s will. But isn’t Romans written by the same Paul who said the hat thing to women in Corinth (so that the Christian women wouldn’t be confused with the pagan whores)? That one held for a long time for all Christian women before the hatless ones were considered virtuous, too. Maybe, just maybe, Paul said this also to a specific group for a specific reason. Maybe we know more today about sexuality than we did in Paul’s time. His insistence on being single screwed up about 1,000,000,000 Catholic priests, who take a vow of celebacy but can’t seem to get sex off thier minds. (Wonder why? 🙂 ) Protestants (along with Orthodox clegy) fixed that one. Jseus never mentioned homosexuality. If it was that big a deal, seems like he’d have had a few words on the matter. I think we don’t know, despite this one very clear passage. But, like you, I do know God loves homosexuals and doesn’t have special rules for them (concerning salvation and a realationship with Him). If Christian homosexuals need to change their behavior, the Holy Spirit is perfectly capbale fo convicting them of sin (if sin it is).

    Comment by Helen Losse | May 26, 2006 | Reply

  11. Helen, I think that things need to be viewed in their context to be understood. Paul was correcting problems at the church of Corinth that were largely internal (some based on cultural norms) as opposed to teaching instructional truth in Romans. The focus of either book is different and really has to be read in context of the whole. Homosexuality was alive and well during Paul’s time, and largely accepted among some cultures–I’m not sure if we can lump it in the same category as hat wearing 🙂

    Also, I don’t know that we can accuse Paul for the Roman Catholic Church taking a small passage and running with it (celibacy being instituted over 1000 years after Christ had left the earth), any more than one can blame him or other apostles for any of the other “practices” and teachings such as indulgences, purgatory, inquisition, infant baptism, transubstantiation, or auricular confession.

    Helen, I don’t look at homosexuality any different than lying or gossip. But all sins have an earthly consequence for both the saved and the unsaved. Our Bible is a book of prevention, not cure. That’s the reason it is so important to read it, study it, know it.

    Have a good weekend, Helen! Happy kitchen remodeling.

    Comment by bereans | May 26, 2006 | Reply

  12. ” Our Bible is a book of prevention, not cure.” Interesting comment. I want to think about that. Thanks.

    Comment by Helen Losse | May 26, 2006 | Reply

  13. Actually, Helen, I am going to be speaking on that this Sunday morning. I’ll put together my outline and get it to you. It’s an interesting concept.

    BTW, thrilled you drop in and discuss the way you do. Always look forward to talking to you. You are a blessing to me and our blog!


    Comment by bereans | May 26, 2006 | Reply

  14. Thank you. “Our Bible is a book of prevetion, not of cure.” So 1) How does healing play into this argument? Can’t God cure? 2)Doesn’t this mean the whole book of Revelation is a warning, not a prediction? In other words, if we get cracking and make the earth more nearly what God wants (do away with racism, povery, war, etc.), can we prevent or delay these end-time events? Does this mean Christ won’t have to come again, because we “got it” the first time?

    Comment by Helen Losse | May 26, 2006 | Reply

  15. BTW, a few years ago a friend of mine, who is also a preacher, came up with the concept of diving Christians into four categories by the liturgical season that spoke to them. He had Christmas people, Lenten people, Easter people, and Pentecost people. I’m a Christmas person. He preached the first three sermons, but never got to the last one because something else was planned at that time. I’ll dig around and see if they’re still on the web. You might find them interesting.

    Comment by Helen Losse | May 26, 2006 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: