Dies Irae
It is becoming increasingly common for people to have "anger"
attributed to them as an explanation of their behaviour or beliefs.
Opponents of the ordination of women as priests; critics of Porvoo; those
who are less than enthusiastic about inclusive language; activists in
movements like Reform and Forward in Faith; over and over again such
people are alleged to be motivated by their "anger".
It's not difficult to hazard a guess why these allegations should be made.
There are three reasons why it is expedient to attribute anger to one's
adversaries, and even better to be able to prove that it exists. These
reasons are as follows:
1) In an age which has become almost totally subjectivist in its thinking
it is convenient to believe that one's opponents are just as subjective as
oneself. It then becomes not so much a matter of which one is right but of
resolving the differences between us and them by showing that they are
based on nothing more than an emotional blip.
2) Anger is an infantile response whereas (say) the patient endurance of
pain is an adult one. If Smith can prove that Jones' beliefs are the
product of Jones' anger whilst Smith's own beliefs are the outcome of pain
nobly borne then Smith starts off several jumps ahead in the debating
stakes. Smith is behaving like and adult, Jones like an irresponsible
child.
3) It is usually possible, sooner or later, to generate a response which
might be termed "anger" in someone else, even if this has to be
achieved as a result of the first party being, or continuing to be, sufficiently
obtuse and irrational; exasperation can be generated by wilful obtuseness,
and that exasperation, however justifiable, can be passed of as anger in
one's opponent and his rationale thus discredited.
So, by and large, anger attributed to or generated in one's opponents is a
simple, effective, but logically indefensible way of disagreeing with them
or supposedly discrediting their beliefs.
Anger in Christians As a matter of fact anger in any obvious form is seldom
evident in the lives of Christians today. Sometimes one wishes that it
were less rare. Far too many questionable practices and ideas are allowed
to slip through because potential opponents lack the will or the
courage to speak out against them, so determined are they not to permit
their (righteous) anger to show and therefore run the risk of
discrediting themselves from the start.
No doubt there are displays of anger from time to time at public meetings
like the PCC or the AGM or Vestry Meeting. Someone who has a particular
axe to grind, or has taken unusual offence at the introduction of some
innovation or the discontinuation of a supposed long-established custom
may decide to hold forth upon their grievance. But it tends to be the same
people holding forth about the same subjects year in and year out.
The charge, then, that Traditionalist (say) are angry is based in the
first place upon a good thumping lie. Most of them believe that they have
a legitimate grievance which they would express if only they knew how, or
thought that people would listen to them. The fact that they neither know
how to express it or anticipate any support leads them to remain silent.
Such well-placed and justified anger as might provoke them to speak is
restrained by the habit which Americans call "Terminal
Politeness" Carte Blanche This silence plays straight into the
hands of anyone who wishes to promote some cause however dubious in the
parish or in the Church at large. They know that for the most part their
fellow churchgoers will say nothing; whilst if any opposition is forthcoming
it can be neutralized by being shown to come from "deeply angry
people".
An Emergency Toolkit It is much to be desired that the "guardians of
the faith" in any parish, of whom there are usually two or even more,
and certainly one always one at least, should be given a little training
in the skill of theological self-defence. The toolkit does not need to
contain very much, but the tools which it does contain should be familiar
to its owner, both as to how they work and what they are for. Here
is a list of useful tools in defence of the truth: 1) What Christians
believe (for instance the articles of the Creed) are a series of
propositions which may be true or false but cannot possibly be both.
2) The truth or falsehood of these propositions never changes though the
language and imagery by which they are explained can and should change, as
our understanding of them develops 3) The truth or falsehood of these
propositions remains unaffected by how many or how few people believe in
them at any one time. "Nobody believes that" is ultimately
irrelevant as "Everyone" [or "every intelligent
person"] believes that.
4) The truth or falsehood of these propositions remains unaffected by the
personal disposition of the believer. The fact that I have a headache
today makes the square on the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle no
less equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides than it did
yesterday when I believed it feeling perfectly well.
5) Any reference to a person's feelings, either by them or anyone else, in
matters of belief is liable to give the wrong answer to the only question
that matters, namely is this true? Tell-tale Phrases There are a
number of tell-tale phrases which act as signals that the person using
them is about to "pull a fast one" on the person with whom they
are speaking.
"You only say that because......."
"How
do you know what it feels like to be .....?"
"Everyone has the
right to................."
"I used to feel the way you do about
it, but......."
"It's not fair!"
In addition there are a number of words the usage of which may presage "fast one coming!":
These are: selfish, greedy, angry, insecure,
inward-looking, violence, cruel, immature, adolescent, materialistic, old-fashioned,
dated, justice, rights, homophobic, exclusive, discriminate, natural,
narrow-, open- and broad-minded.
Of course any or all these words may be used in a legitimate, objective
way. The chances are, however, that anyone who employs them is preparing
the pitch to deliver a subjective googly, which appears to be going to
break one way but in fact does exactly the opposite!