BEING UNOFFENDABLE: THE RIDICULOUS IDEA

Okay. So this may sound like the dumbest thing you've ever read, but here goes:

You can choose to be "unoffendable."

I actually heard a guy say this at a business meeting. That is striking to me for a few reasons: (1) I'd never, ever thought about that before; (2) I remember something from a business meeting; and (3) I was actually invited to a business meeting.

I remember the guy saying it's a choice we can make, to just choose not to be offended.

Sure. Right, man. Choose to be unoffendable. Just—you know—choose, as if it's really just up to us.

I found this offensive.

* * *

By the way, I just looked up the definition of offended, and all the dictionaries say something about anger and resentment. When I'm writing about the word here, then, that's what I mean.

There's another definition, about having your senses affronted, or offended, but that's not the definition we're dealing with here. We just made some homemade barbecue sauce the other day, and we unanimously and immediately agreed, right then and there, that it was highly offensive. That happens.

It's the taking of offense, and the very presumption that I'm somehow entitled to be angry with someone, that I'm talking about. Surely there's got to be a place for "righteous anger" against someone, right? Surely there are times we are justified in our anger ...

But what that guy said at the business meeting did get me thinking, because he was so obviously wrong. And besides, since I call myself a Christian person, wasn't I supposed to be angry at people for certain things? Isn't being offended part of being a Christian?

So I did what any rational, fair-minded, spiritually mature person would do: I scoured the Bible for verses I could pull out to destroy his argument, logically pummel him into submission, and—you know—win.

Problem: I now think he's right. Not only can we choose to be unoffendable; we should choose that.

We should forfeit our right to be offended. That means forfeiting our right to hold on to anger. When we do this, we'll be making a sacrifice that's very pleasing to God. It strikes at our very pride. It forces us not only to think about humility, but to actually be humble.

I used to think it was incumbent upon a Christian to take offense. I now think we should be the most refreshingly unoffendable people on a planet that seems to spin on an axis of offense.

Forfeiting our right to anger makes us deny ourselves, and makes us others-centered. When we start living this way, it changes everything.

Actually, it's not even "forfeiting" a right, because the right doesn't exist. We're told to forgive, and that means anger has to go, whether we've decided our own anger is "righteous" or not.

* * *

I sense a lot of people think this idea is stupid, and they don't agree with me on this. And I sense this because lots of people say, "That idea is stupid, and I don't agree with you on this."

I've got antennae for subtlety like that. I pick up on things.

Plus, lots of the Christian literature out there says I'm wrong.

Typical: This entry from an online devotional, dealing with anger. The writer gives what I think is the reigning understanding: anger's often just what we need!

There is also a positive, even essential, side to anger. I doubt that we ever accomplish anything fruitful when anger isn't part of our motivation, on a certain level at least.

We don't ever accomplish anything fruitful without anger? Including, say, writing devotionals?

Here's another example of how we retrofit actual scripture with our current embrace of anger-culture:

Ephesians 4:26 NCV

When you are angry, do not sin, and be sure to stop being angry before the end of the day.

Ephesians 4:26 MSG

Go ahead and be angry. You do well to be angry—but don't use your anger as fuel for revenge ...

Did you catch that? I love Eugene Peterson—the guy who wrote The Message—but sheesh! "You do well to be angry"? That's not in the original, folks. That's an updated version. Hope you like it better.

It's remarkable that Peterson does this, considering that just a couple of sentences later, Paul wrote, "Do not be bitter or angry or mad" (v. 31 NCV). And somehow, from this, we get "You do well to be angry"?

Honest question: Why do we decide to read the Bible that way when it comes to this issue?

And another question: Why, when I talk about anger on my radio show, do so many believers instantly go to the scripture about "In your anger, do not sin," and then skip the rest of the paragraph? Why ignore the context? Do not be bitter or angry.

Paul was saying, clearly, that, yes, we will get angry; that happens; we're human. But then we have to get rid of it. So deal with it. Now. We have no right to it.

Another fair question, and one you're likely asking: But isn't God allowed to hold on to His anger? Doesn't Jesus get angry?

My well-read, thoughtful, theologically nuanced response to this is, "Well, yeah, of course."

God is "allowed" anger, yes. And other things, too, that we're not, like, say—for starters—vengeance. That's His, and it makes sense, too, that we're not allowed vengeance. Here's one reason why: We stand as guilty as whoever is the target of our anger. But God? He doesn't.

For that matter, God is allowed to judge too. You're not. We can trust Him with judgment, because He is very different from us. He is perfect. We can trust Him with anger. His character allows this. Ours doesn't.

God loves you and thinks you're special, but no ... you're not God.

* * *

We won't often admit this, but we like being angry. We don't like what caused the anger, to be sure; we just like thinking we've "got" something on someone. So-and-so did something wrong, sometimes horribly wrong, and...