When you read the title of this post, you probably interpreted the word 'believe' in the sense that "I don't believe in anger the same way I don't believe in premarital sex," meaning that I am opposed to it, that I avoid it. But what I really meant was something more like, "I don't believe in anger the same way I don't believe in fairies," meaning I think it is a myth, something imaginary. So yes, when you say you are angry, I believe you are making it up. Now that all of you are "angry" with me for questioning your emotions, let me explain.
Out of all the things they tried to teach me in elementary school, most have gone to my subconscious, a vast pile of things I know but don't remember learning. A few lessons stand out, though, and one of them is that anger doesn't exist. Perhaps I remember it so well because it was an object lesson, or perhaps because over the course of my life, I have repeatedly noticed evidence to back it up. The object was a Hershey's kiss. The premise was that the thin, shiny wrapper was the anger that only served to mask another emotion. The underlying emotion, represented by the chocolate, was the bulk of the real problem. One could not properly deal with the issue (chocolate) without removing the anger (the wrapper) and seeing the problem for what it really was.
Anger can be a mask for a multitude of unpleasant emotions. Frustration (disappointed expectations), hurt feelings, sadness. In my personal case, anger is often (OK, almost always) a mask for hunger. But then I think to myself, "I'm not really angry with this person. I'm just hungry." This allows me to not be angry. Do I always succeed at being pleasant to be around when I'm hungry? No. But sometimes I do. It's possible, because I recognize the real problem. Imagine, however, that I didn't know, that I went around being angry and not realizing how hungry I was. I would be a very unpleasant person, upset about various real or perceived offenses that really didn't matter. I would endeavor to force my bad mood on those around me and damage the relationship I had with those people. And I would not be fixing anything, because I'm not dealing with the real issue.
It sounds silly with hunger, but imagine someone I loved hurt my feelings. I feel negative emotions because I love that person and desire their good opinion, I desire a good, strong, loving relationship with them. But admitting this is hard. Being vulnerable is hard. And dealing with those kind of hurt feelings can be hard. The easy way is to throw on the shiny wrapper of self-righteous anger. It gives us a false sense of superiority and of control, so in a way it makes us feel better. But what does anger do? It belittles the other person in order to feed the false superiority, it builds walls between the two people in self-defense. In effect, it worsens the very problem that it is masking. You cared enough about the relationship to feel hurt in the first place, and to "fix" the problem, you are damaging it even more.
I believe this is why the JST removes the "without cause" from Matthew 5:22 "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause is in danger of the judgement" I believe this scripture constitutes a commandment to deal with real emotions and real issues instead of choosing anger. I believe that we are not given commandments over which we have no agency, and as such, I believe that we can choose which emotions to allow and which to cast out. I believe we choose how to deal with those emotions, and that anger is an ineffective and destructive way of doing that. And that's why I don't believe in anger.
