On anger, and the hope of Easter

Anger is an unfairly maligned emotion. If you're reading this blog, you most likely remember that Howard Dean was deemed too "angry" to be electable. Time and time again, I have seen labeling someone as "angry" used as a way to dismiss and discredit a person who has an important, possibly revolutionary message. Typically, that message is one that "the powers that be" don't want us to hear. There is nothing more worrisome to those who hold the power than the possibility that the public will rise up en masse and challenge them. So if someone has a compelling message that might inspire people to action, it is in the interests of those in charge to neutralize that message.

There are a number of ways people do that. Silence that voice. Discredit that voice as being "too angry" or "unbalanced". With either of those options, the seeds of the message won't have a chance to really take root. People won't "wake up". And the people in charge don't want us to wake up--after all, we're so much cuter when we're asleep.

In the wake of the Washington Post article about Maryscott O'Connor of My Left Wing, there is a lot of discussion of her portrayal as a representative of "the angry left". wmtriallawer, in a diary entitled, I am Not the Angry Left, writes, Simply put, this piece is NOT going to win hearts and minds. Not like dKos or other blogs do every day. Clearly there is the concern that being seen as "angry" hurts our cause. The reaction at Democratic Underground, at least what I've seen so far, has been entirely negative. it's simple IF you ignore the complexity has a different take on the issue: Sabbath Time #36 - Fear, Courage, Change.

Of course, in addition to silencing or discrediting the person with the "threatening" message, there is another option. Kill the messenger. Make an example of him or her so that others will think twice before trying to buck the system. Whatever else you believe about Jesus, there seems to be a growing amount of historical evidence that his execution by crucifixion was, from the standpoint of the Roman government in power at that time, politically motivated. According to Marcus Borg,

Jesus, like the great social prophets of the Hebrew Bible, was a God-intoxicated voice of religious, social protest. He, like they, protested against and did a radical critique of the domination system of his day, just as they did of the domination systems of their day. Indeed, if one wants to ask the historical question, not "Why did Jesus die?" but "Why was he killed?", the answer is, he was killed because of his passion for justice. He was killed because of his critique of the domination system of his day. This is the political meaning of Good Friday, the passion of Jesus is about Jesus' passion for the justice of God.

You can read more here about the different "lenses" Marcus Borg uses to understand Jesus. Whatever else you may believe about Jesus (some divergent views are discussed in this article in the Detroit Free Press), we can be pretty sure that his teaching was perceived as threatening by the local representatives of the Roman Empire. Crucifixion was the "ultimate form of Roman humiliation, punishment the Romans reserved for those judged guilty of insurrection against the state." So, whatever theological meaning we attach to the death of Jesus, the *political* meaning seems to be that he was perceived as a threat by the "powers that be". An "enemy combatant", if you will.

Getting back to the issue of anger (honest, there really is a connection here!) The "cleansing of the temple", that is, overturning the tables of the moneychangers, is seen by some as a form of political protest that led to Jesus' death sentence. But, whatever one believes was the reason for that particular scene, can there be any doubt that he was angry when he did that?

In an interview he did two years ago, Rev. William Sloane Coffin shared the following thoughts on anger.

"Anger has a very important spiritual benefit," Coffin says. "If you don't have anger, you end up tolerating the intolerable - and that's intolerable. I still have plenty of anger that is ready to be used at a moment's notice."

And, to end this entry on a hopeful note, here is what Bill Coffin once said about the meaning of Easter:

"Easter has less to do with one person's escape from the grave than with the victory of seemingly powerless love over loveless power"

Alternate link for comments