I have often observed in groups that seek to motivate some sort of social action or change, the implicit assumption that anger is essential. Their actions are designed to elicit anger from those they wish to mobilize. They tell stories, they show pictures, they believe that outrage will dispel apathy and that this outrage will result in the changes they desire. Sometimes it does, but at what cost? What they have done is to fuel various forms of groupisms and factions and have now entrusted their preferred future to a path requiring conflict. Their adversaries will be labeled and despised, not respected and loved. This is the first thing I’ve read that directly confronts this unnamed doctrine of anger and shows it to be counter to the teachings of Jesus.

This isn’t to say Jesus didn’t get angry. Jesus left anger to be what it is, an emotion. He didn’t elevate it to become a doctrine. When it is turned into a doctrine what it becomes is hatred.

From Kenneth Bailey’s book Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes p. 127

Through forgiveness the bitterness, anger, hatred and desire for revenge are drained out of the struggle and the person contends with those for whom he or she may now be able to feel genuine compassion. This will influence enormously the style of the struggle…

The world despises this theology because it thinks anger is necessary to fuel the struggle for justice, and that forgiveness will dissipate that anger. The Christian disagrees and replies, “No. I will forgive and I will struggle for justice. I may still be angry, but my struggle for justice will be purified by forgiveness and thereby become more effective.”