Keeping Your Cool…When Your Anger Is Hot!: Practical Steps to Temper Fiery Emotions (32 page)

Read Keeping Your Cool…When Your Anger Is Hot!: Practical Steps to Temper Fiery Emotions Online

Authors: June Hunt

BOOK: Keeping Your Cool…When Your Anger Is Hot!: Practical Steps to Temper Fiery Emotions
7.92Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
15
BOMB SQUAD BASICS
How to Handle Hotheaded People
“Do not make friends with a hottempered man,
do not associate with one easily angered”
(PROVERBS 22:24).

 

“I’M NOT A VERY GOOD PERSON,” Sylvia said when I prompted her to share why she had called me at
Hope in the Night.
Most people who phone in—especially those in great pain—have a determined, demonstrative quality to their voice. They are calling because they’ve finally had enough of some difficult circumstance in their life. I listen for this last-hope resignation in their voice because it’s evidence of a readiness on their part to let God intervene in their lives and circumstances and lead them toward emotional and spiritual health and healing.
I’m
Supposed
to Take It
Sylvia sounded lifeless, flat, and utterly defeated. Her voice had the telltale emptiness of someone who has given up on herself. Later I learned it wasn’t Sylvia’s idea to phone in. A concerned friend dialed the studio number and put the phone in Sylvia’s hand.
“What makes you think that about yourself?” I gently asked when she referred to herself as a substandard person.
After a lengthy pause, she said, “My husband, Gene, has a terrible temper. I don’t blame him for that. He came from a very angry family, so it’s pretty much all he knows. I’ve tried to love him unconditionally, to lay down my life, and turn the other cheek—all those things God expects me to do. But I always fail miserably, and things just get worse.”
At that point, I suspected Sylvia’s ideas about how to handle an angry person—and what it takes to be a good wife—were significantly different from God’s. Something had indeed gone wrong in her life, but probably not in the way she imagined. I asked her to describe her relationship with Gene. What did she mean when she said that, despite her efforts, things “get worse”?
“I always know I’ve pushed him too far when he gets in a rage and starts swearing uncontrollably or throwing things,” she said.
“That sounds extreme,” I told her.
“Well, he doesn’t throw things
at me
,” she explained. “He’s not really abusive, just angry. Usually he gets that way after I’ve become angry myself.”
Right away it seemed to me Sylvia excused her husband’s rage because she thought that’s what God expects of her, as if it was His will for her to suffocate beneath Gene’s pile of paper slips in his colossal anger bowl. And she blamed herself for provoking him, as if she was the detonator for his explosive temper.
As a result, Sylvia couldn’t see Gene’s unresolved anger as abusive. But, to the objective observer, throwing things, slamming doors, and yelling without restraint are all very threatening behaviors. Their presence day after day creates a climate of fear that is severely damaging to any relationship.
Although Gene’s anger could apparently be ignited by any number of things Sylvia said or did, the most incendiary issue in their relationship was money. He kept tight control over what she was allowed to spend, yet he would often bring home expensive electronic gadgets or power tools he seldom used. If Sylvia questioned a purchase, Gene would start shouting and defend his right to spend his hard-earned money as he pleased. She also suspected he gambled a good deal with his co-workers and on occasion lost considerable amounts of money.
“I used to believe if I could just love him well enough, he’d see there was no need to be so angry at me or the world,” Sylvia said. “Now I think it must be God’s will for me to just love him unconditionally in spite of how he treats me. The only problem is, I just can’t seem to do it…not for long, anyway.” Again, there was defeat and heartbreaking heaviness in her voice.
“I certainly agree with that last part,” I said. “You
can’t
do it.”
There was silence as she thought about that.
God sets clear limits on what behavior He will accept.
“You can’t do it because you shouldn’t do it,” I continued.
“I shouldn’t love my husband?” she asked, as if she hadn’t heard me correctly.
“No—what I mean is, you shouldn’t assume it’s ever God’s perfect will for you to suffer abusive mistreatment from anyone for any reason, and especially not from your husband,” I replied.
Misconception About Turning the Other Cheek
Over the years, I’ve learned how startling that statement can be to many people—both men and women. Somewhere along the way, we have mistaken God’s exhortation to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek as commandments to become doormats in His name.
Even Jesus did not subject Himself to abuse by those who wanted to harm Him. On several occasions, He escaped an angry crowd. The only time He submitted to abuse was when it was time for Him to die for us. And His instruction to turn the other cheek was said in the context of not retaliating or taking revenge, not returning evil for evil. Inexplicably, we equate standing up for ourselves with aggression, selfishness, and sinful pride.
Even though God sets clear limits on what behavior He will accept, we somehow believe He has prohibited us from doing the same for ourselves. We allow abuse on the assumption that holding an offender accountable is less godly than quietly accepting the mistreatment and hoping the person will eventually see God’s love in it. Surely the Lord wants better for His children.
When it comes to dealing with angry people, this flaw in our thinking is the first and most formidable obstacle we have to overcome. In truth, offering no resistance to angry people can actually work
against
helping them resolve the issues that make them angry in the first place.
In Sylvia’s case, what incentive did Gene have for confronting his own pain and consequent anger when he was free to dish it out day after day with no repercussions and no consequences? Indeed, God’s will for Sylvia was to require dignity and respect in
all
of her relationships, including her marriage with Gene.
Self-defense or Going on the Offensive
It is true there is often a fine line between self-defense and going on the offensive. You cross that line the moment you set out to cause reciprocal pain toward someone who has wounded you, rather than simply preventing further harm to yourself. That’s a trap Christians are right to painstakingly avoid. As the apostle Paul wrote, “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.”
1
But many people operate on the other end of the spectrum, avoiding conflict at all costs. In the name of what they mistakenly think is Christlike love, they don’t set healthy boundaries for themselves.
There is a big difference between the “brawling and slander” and “malice” Paul warned us about, and justifiable self-preservation. Misunderstanding this distinction renders us powerless to protect ourselves from mistreatment and abuse—primarily because of this one reason:
We don’t believe we even have a right to defend ourselves.
Private Property, No Tre
s
passing
Look around. Society is full of signs sending messages about personal rights and the boundaries that protect them, such as “Private property. Keep out.” We know to cross those boundaries by invitation only—or face the consequences of violating another’s right to protect their property. Our legal system provides backup, making it a punishable crime to steal, destroy, or vandalize someone else’s possessions, or to trespass where we don’t belong. These judicial laws help form the foundation of civilized society.
All abusive husbands—Christian or not—seem to know this one scripture; “Wives, submit to your husbands.”
2
The all-too-prevalent mind-set is that a wife must submit to all mistreatment at the hands of her husband. There is no recourse, for that is God’s will.
However, anyone who decidedly wants to be in God’s will
must
know what God says in His Word in context of the
whole
Bible. We must correct the confusion that is too prevalent worldwide.
Correcting the Confusion
The woman who sincerely wants to please God but is not grounded in the Word of God can become captive to an incorrect understanding of biblical submission. All too easily she will
accept
abuse, thinking it is right when God says it is wrong.
Likewise, the man who sincerely wants to please God but who is not grounded in the Word can become captive to an incorrect understanding of sacrificial love. All too easily he will
accept
abuse, thinking it is right when God says it is wrong. One key to correcting the confusion is to read Scripture passages in light of their context. So when we read, “Wives, submit to your husbands” or “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church,” we need to…
• look at the surrounding verses
• look at the purpose of the passage or book in which the verse is found
• look at the whole counsel of God’s Word on submission and love and how we are to relate to one another: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
When I was teaching in Russia, Ukraine, and Romania, I remember the sincere attitudes of many pastors and spiritual leaders who assumed that wives had to submit to abuse. I said, “Show me the scriptures you are using to substantiate this position”—and indeed they did. The next day I addressed each one of their scriptural misconceptions. At the conclusion they said, “We’ve never heard teaching on this. We’ve known that somehow violence was wrong, but never knew what to say.”
I want to give you this assurance: You are going to be the knight in shining armor—the desperately needed “Good Samaritan”—when you know how to help a woman suffering the devastating pain and the demoralizing shame of domestic violence. (The statistics are one out of every three women
worldwide
.)
Here are the arguments and answers regarding this matter:

 

Argument:
When Jesus said, “Turn the other cheek,
”
He meant that marriage partners should submit to abuse.
3

 

Answer:
When you look at the words of Jesus, the context is the issue of retaliation: Refuse to retaliate evil for evil. Jesus was not saying we should willingly accept abuse.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”
(MATTHEW 5:38-39).

 

The backdrop of “turning the other cheek” was refusing to take personal revenge rather than promoting or accepting abuse.

 

Argument:
Because Jesus submitted Himself to abuse, people who want to be Christlike must also submit to abuse.
Answer:
It is important to notice that on numerous occasions when the enemies of Jesus sought to harm Him, He eluded them and escaped. However, when the time came for Him to take away the sins of the world, Jesus allowed His blood to be the payment to purchase our forgiveness. Clearly, Jesus did not submit to abuse, except when it was time for Him to go to the cross.
“Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from
Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life…
Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp”
(JOHN 7:1; 10:39).

 

Argument:
In 1 Peter 2 we are called to endure “unjust suffering.” Therefore, abused mates should take such suffering as commendable before God.
“It is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God”
(1 PETER 2:19).

 

Answer:
The context of this passage in 1 Peter refers to suffering “because [you] are conscious of God,” which means suffering ridicule, criticism, and rejection because of your faith, not because you are someone’s mate.
God does not call anyone to accept abuse from their mates. To the contrary, spouses who abuse their mates do so because of their own ungodliness. In fact, God specifically calls husbands and wives to sacrificially love their mates and treat them with respect.
“Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husband… so that they may be won over without words by [your] behavior… Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers”
(1 PETER 3:1-2,7).

 

Argument:
An abused mate should view suffering as a legitimate “cross” to be taken up and carried for the sake of Christ.
“If anyone would come after me [Jesus], he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me”
(MATTHEW 16:24).

 

Answer:
Nowhere does the Bible indicate that the cross is an instrument of physical and emotional pain to be inflicted upon a mate. In context, Jesus was saying the cross is a symbol of death—death to self-centered living, death to self-rule so that the Lord can rule our hearts and lives. The very next verse confirms that the cross stands for yielding our lives to the Lord, not yielding our lives to abuse.
“Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it”
(MATTHEW 16:25).

 

Argument:
God made men superior/inferior to women.
Answer:
God made women and men different from one another, with different roles and functions. The Bible does not say that God regards one gender as superior and the other as inferior; rather, He regards them as equal.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”
(GALATIANS 3:28).

 

Argument:
Because Ephesians 5:21 says, “Submit to one another,” a mate must submit unconditionally—even to abuse.
4
Answer:
This conclusion contradicts other scriptures. A hierarchy of submission is demonstrated when the apostles refuse to obey the high priest and instead obey the Great Commission by continuing to teach in the name of Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20). They committed a severely punishable offense by directly disobeying the high priest in order to submit to God.
Similarly, if a mate expects a marriage partner to do something that God says is wrong, the partner is to disobey the erring mate in order to submit to God. Our Lord clearly states His opposition to violence, as well as His position that spouses are to treat their mates with respect.
“Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men!’ ”
(ACTS 5:29).

 

Argument:
Because the Bible says, “The husband is the head of the wife,” a wife must not resist being abused by her husband.
5
Answer:
A wife is to submit to the
headship
of her husband, but the Bible nowhere implies she is to submit to the abuse of her husband. She is to respect his position, not be victimized by his power.
In Ephesians 5:23, the husband-wife relationship is compared to the relationship between Christ and the church. Christ is “the head of the church, his body
.”
Although the husband is the head of his wife, no head abuses its own body. A husband never chooses to beat his body—unless, of course, he is “out of his head” (mentally ill)! Instead, he does whatever he can to protect and provide for his own body. A godly man will treat his wife in the same way.
“The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior… husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church”
(EPHESIANS 5:23,28-29).

Other books

Twenty-Seven Bones by Jonathan Nasaw
Alterant by Sherrilyn Kenyon, Dianna Love
Bad Boy Boss by Abby Chance
Red Iron Nights by Glen Cook
The Spuddy by Lillian Beckwith
Serendipity by Cathy Marie Hake