Weekly Links: Writing, the Drought, Word Nerdery, and more!

"Things I Can Say About MFA Writing Programs Now That I No Longer Teach in One":

After eight years of teaching at the graduate level, I grew increasingly intolerant of writing designed to make the writer look smart, clever, or edgy. I know this work when I see it; I've written a fair amount of it myself. But writing that's motivated by the desire to give the reader a pleasurable experience really is best.

"The Scorching of California": So, this is properly terrifying . . .

"9 Things You Should Really Know About Anglicanism":  Useful info here.

"10 Words We've Forgotten How to Pronounce":  fellow word nerds, click here!

"That Way We're All Writing Now": Oh, and here, too.

"A Brief Defense of Infant Baptism": as someone who is still coming to grips with the practice, I found this helpful.

"Not Angry: At Least Not for Long": on a hard virtue.

"Introverts and Extroverts Brains Really Are Different, According to Science": more personality fun!


Finally, on the very important practice of nosing and tasting whisky ("and this tells you . . . absolutely nothing").  Enjoy the accent!

The angry - and the poor in spirit

Providentially, just after I wrote that last blog post, on anger, I found myself copying over some notes that seemed to apply to the same subject.

(I keep a notebook in my purse, and every month or two, I go through it and copy the handwritten stuff there into a Word document on my computer.)

These notes are from a sermon preached by our deacon, Ryan Bradley, and I seem to recall he said he'd gotten a bunch of this from Dallas Willard. Anyway, it was on the Beatitudes, and it seems to me that it answers a bunch of my questions about what to do with anger. Here are my notes:

That it is safe to be a good person in the kingdom of God. You can afford to be a peacemaker – you don’t have to pay everyone back. You don’t have to do it out of vengeance and you don’t have to do it to protect yourself.

You can afford to be someone who restores relationships – it’s safe to do that in the kingdom of God.

The French embassy is sovereign territory of France, even though it’s on U.S. soil. We are embassies of the kingdom of God. Our very selves are sovereign territory of God’s kingdom.

We are also refugees – allowed into this new, benevolent, oh-so-foreign land and we have to learn to live by the laws of this new land.

“Poor in spirit” – if you’re needy, the kingdom of God is for you.

“Is Christianity a crutch?” “Yes, well, I happen to be a person who needs a crutch.”

We all need a crutch – just some of us are trying to wobble along on broken legs.

“The needy who know it.”  We aren’t the strong, whose lives God is just making better. We are the weak, who desperately need God constantly.

And so we can’t look down on others. They’re right where we are, right?

We are fundamentally the desperate – the ones who need God.

a few thoughts on anger

photo credit: Betsy Barber

So, I was just listening to an actually helpful podcast* on the subject of anger, and they pointed out that anger is a “secondary emotion”, i.e., it comes out of something more primary. That if someone’s snarling, you need to ask, why? What’s the fear, the hurt, the perceived threat underneath that?

I thought that was a great insight. When I'm angry, it's often because I want to strike out against something that I feel is threatening me.

And then the podcast folks went on to talk about how you deal with those underlying issues in a marriage relationship. How you bring them out, look at them together, figure them out. And I could totally follow that. In marriage, we’re committed. And we know each other. And – at least in my marriage – I feel like I can trust the good intentions of the other person.

But it got me wondering: how do you handle that in other relationships - in relationships that are less close, less committed? It's not like you want to open up your deep issues with every single person who ticks you off!

What do you do when you're mad with someone you don't trust? Who you're not willing to "get into it" with?

Part of the reason this bothers me, I think, is I'm such a "J" on the Meyers-Briggs scale: I want things in my life to be well-defined, clear-cut, decided. 

So when I'm mad at someone, I feel like my only two options are: 1) Fix it, or 2) Ignore them completely.

But that's a bit silly. It's a childish sort of black-and-white thinking. In real life, there are people you can't change and you still don't want to ignore.**

Here's as far as I've gotten on the problem: I can't change them, so I need to change me.

Or at least, my stance. And my view. Not who I am, but how I approach things.

Here's the question I've been asking myself about people who make me feel growly: How can I approach them in peace?

It comes back to the Golden Rule. How would I like to be approached? In peace. Even if I'm the person who someone doesn't trust, who someone finds annoying and aggravating, I'd like to be approached in peace. With all the possibilities on the table - including the possibility that it will go well.

I guess what I'm saying is: if I'm not willing to "get into it" with someone, all that leaves is just plain old forgiveness. Letting it go. Leaving it to the Lord, who - praise Him - is willing to "get into it" with all of us. 

Because He loves us that much.

But what do you think? I'm only beginning to ponder this, so this post is really an as-I-am-thinking-about-it sort of an entry, not an I-figured-it-out! sort of entry. Where are you at on how you deal with anger? And what works for you?

Peace of Christ to you,

Jessica Snell

*The interview was with Chip Ingram on Family Life Today.
**I'm not talking about boundaries here, or people you actually do need to protect yourself from. I'm assuming you're keeping appropriate boundaries, and avoiding situations that are actually dangerous - emotionally or otherwise. (That's a post for another day!)

Links - Beowulf and Tolkien, Electoral Craziness, and more!

"Seeing Beowulf Through Tolkien":

If ancient pagans could die for order and light knowing that those things would lose out in the end, how much more should Christians die heroically . . . when they know that Good and Truth will win out in the end.

"If There’s an Electoral College Tie, Things Will Get Even Crazier Than You May Know": - the punchline makes this super-short article worth a read.

"What the Bible Says About Anger": I found this short, organized summary very helpful.

Peace of Christ to you,
Jessica Snell

"See that ye fall not out by the way"

I'm very slowly reading through St. Francis de Sales' "Introduction to the Devout Life" in the evenings when I brush and floss my teeth. I recently came across a section that's been running through my head since I read it, because it struck me that the Lord wanted me to think about it in the context of how I mother. I thought I'd share it, because all toddlers and preschooler are annoying at least part-time, and I thought there were probably other moms out there who struggle with anger when they discipline their children.

Here it is:

When the Patriarch Joseph sent his brethren back from Egypt to his father's house, he only gave them one counsel, "See that ye fall not out by the way." And so, my child, I say to you. This miserable life is but the road to a blessed life; do not let us fall out by the way with one another; let us go on with the company of our brethren gently, peacefully, and kindly. Most emphatically I say it, If possible, fall out with no one, and on no pretext whatever suffer your heart to admit anger and passion. St. James says, plainly and unreservedly, that "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." Of course it is a duty to resist evil and to repress the faults of those for whom we are responsible, steadily and firmly, but gently and quietly . . . Correction given in anger, however tempered by reason, never has so much effect as that which is given altogether without anger; for the reasonable soul being naturally subject to reason, it is a mere tyranny which subjects it to passion, and wherever reason is led by passion it becomes odious, and its just rule obnoxious. When a monarch visits a country peaceably the people are gratified and flattered; but if the king has to take his armies through the land, even on behalf of the public welfare, his visit is sure to be unwelcome and harmful, because, however strictly military discipline may be enforced, there will always be some mischief done to the people. Just so when reason prevails, and administers reproof, correction, and punishment in a calm spirit, although it be strict, everyone approves and is content. But if reason be hindered by anger and vexation . . . there will be more fear than love, and reason itself will be despised and resisted." (emphasis mine)

I think somewhere I picked up the idea that it was good to let my children see my anger at their misdeeds, because it showed them that their bad behavior was a serious matter. But I have been rethinking this, especially in light of what de Sales says here. Perhaps that is true of very serious things - I don't think it's bad to let them see how horrified I am when they almost run in front of a car, say (Lord keep us from that!) - but as a general rule, oughtn't I to be controlling my passions the way I want them to control theirs? What they should notice is how seriously I take doing the right thing, not how seriously I take my emotions. As de Sales says, "a calm spirit, though it be strict [and everyone] is content."

Anyone else thought about this?

peace of Christ to you,
Jessica Snell