[Other Personality System] Book on APS Temperament system: "God Created You"

[Eric B]

Now that we have a separate forum for book reviews, I might as well post this here (I originally linked to the book in the Inclusion/Control/Affection thread, but hadn't written the review yet).
There are also APS videos now, which I linked to in the video section.

God Created You: A Guide to Temperament Therapy
by Dr. Rick Martin; Jesus Is Lord Ministries, Charlotte, MI; Cook Communication, Dundee, IL 60118 (2004)
http://jacksonsnyder.com/mgi/studies/GCY.pdf.

It’s 220 pages, and almost a rewrite of the Arno’s The Missing Link (http://www.amazon.com/Missing-Link-Revealing-Spiritual-Genetics/dp/0981489427/ref=pd_cp_b_0) which is a scaled down version of the Temperament Theory manual given to NCCA counselors. Those are likely not available online anywhere, and probably hard to get even in paper form, but this new volume is pretty much the same thing, and available in .pdf form in the above link.
It reflects when the Arno Profile System (APS) was still known as the “Temperament Analysis Profile” (TAP).

One big difference is the assigning of named “characters” to the five temperaments, just like Tim LaHaye does with the original four. Phlegmatic actually ends up as “Phil” in both systems, but the others were all changed. Martin intermixes discussion of both the male and female version of the temperament in the descriptions, while LaHaye only introduces the female “wives” of the temperament characters in the chapter “Temperament and Sexuality” (This is in Why You Act the Way You Do). Martin doesn’t have any illustrations of the characters, however.

LaHaye	Martin
Sparky and Sarah Sanguine	Sandy and Sammy Sanguine
Martin and Martha Melancholy	Melvin and Melody Melancholy
Phil and Polly Phlegmatic	Phil and Phoebe Phlegmatic
Rocky and Clara Choleric	Eric and Erica Choleric
	Stewart and Susie Supine

It pretty much follows the outline of The Missing Link; introducing the concept of temperament, then three areas of Inclusion, Control and Affection, and then each of the five temperaments broken down in the three areas by “strengths” and “weaknesses” and what the temperament can do to live in its strengths. There’s also a chapter on how to deal with anger, since it plagues each of the temperaments in different ways.
It, like The Missing Link, doesn’t go into the Phlegmatic or Compulsive variations of the other four. Only the main Manual does that.
It also doesn’t deal with blends between the three areas (A couple of those are briefly discussed in Missing Link and some of the other manuals). So it deals with the “pure” temperaments; assuming them to be the same in all three areas. (It should be noted that other temperaments in other areas will modify each other, so things may end up a bit different from these descriptions).

Here I will focus on the Control area descriptions, to match them to the Keirsey temperaments, since these correlations are generally not as strong (and are disputed in two key areas) as the correlation of Inclusion to the Interaction Styles.

---

My linking of Melancholy in Control to the SJ “Guardian” of Keirsey, and by extension, MBTI type theory was always the strongest correlation. Melancholy in Control mentions “Adheres to the Rules” and “Family-oriented”. These would correspond to the “concrete structures” the Guardian is known for.

Melvin Melancholy is self-motivated. Self-motivated means, from a temperament viewpoint, the Melancholy gathers information, analyzes information (sometimes analyzes it to death), draws conclusions and acts accordingly. … The best way to motivate a Melancholy in Control is to provide him with sufficient and accurate information and allow him to draw conclusions. Melvin Melancholy usually makes good decisions, depending upon the information gathered, and he adheres to his conclusions.

Here we see a perception function with an extraverted Judgment. The perception being introverted Sensing, even though it is not specified as “concrete” and “internally” based there (this is not recognized in APS).

Inbetween, it’s pointed out that IF the Melancholy “concludes doing well in school is beneficial, he will be prone to do well scholastically. He will not have to be reminded to do homework often. He will not be prone to skip school or waste school time. The Melancholy worker will not need to have constant supervision, will not miss work often and will do a better than average job.”
Again, these sound like typical Guardian descriptions.

“The only time a Melancholy in Control is domineering is because she feels responsible to make sure select people are doing it right. Therefore a Melancholy mother might be controlling with family members because she has concluded it is her responsibility before God to make sure everyone turns out right.”

SJ’s are often pictured as “controlling”, and this would match and explain why. It would also explain why in FIRO-MBTI correlations STJ types often come out with high expressed Control (Melancholy is low). FIRO is measuring temporary behavior, while APS, using the same questionnaire and scoring system somehow, is measuring the inborn need.
It then mentions the Melancholy’s “black and white” sense of “right and wrong” (according to the conclusions she has drawn based upon the information she has gathered). The person even assumes “everyone has this list”, and knows when they are doing wrong when not doing according to the Melancholy’s “right” list.
Sounds like S and J again! (Si+Je with maybe some tertiary or inferior Ji as well).

However, we next see the flipside of this that looks like it would contradict the SJ profiles: the tendency to rebel.
“The Melancholy student who concludes she does not have to graduate from high school, or education will not benefit her, simply will not do well in school and probably will not graduate.” “These Melancholies have all drawn conclusions based on inaccurate information” it then says. Yet the same strong will that gives them their “stick to-it-ness” will now lead them to not change their behavior, unless forced to rethink their position.

In the Inclusion section, the book even mentions a Melancholy who thought her T.A.P (APS) was incorrect because it said she was a “perfectionist” and her house was always messy. She was a strict perfectionist when it came to her husband remembering some obscure regional holiday no one else ever herd of, though!
It then concludes “Melancholies are perfectionists in the areas of life important to them.”
This can explain a pure Melancholy Compulsive close to us who is very messy, when Melancholies and ISTJ’s are stereotyped as very neat. A “control” issue from childhood, basically, has led her to hoard clutter.

The book next says the Melancholy’s criteria for the rules he lives by is that they are the ones he has made. An example was a Melancholy who believed it was OK to speed, because she was married to a police officer, and could thus get away with it. This I haven’t seen in the APS material. This on one hand sounds more like an NT or Choleric in Control (or perhaps SP or Sanguine in Control) and you would think, of course, very un”Guardian”-like. However, this is an instance where the authorized “concrete structure” (the “authorized” institution of “the law”) is allowing this, so it’s OK. This would actually help bust a stereotype of SJ’s as always doing right, and a possible assumption that if a person speeds and gets away with it, “they probably can’t be an SJ”.

Then it goes into the family-orientation, which of course is a big match with the Guardian. It mentions that this is not expressed to family members, however. They often express negative stuff, like what people do wrong.
Yet on the positive side, “They will not be quick to divorce or run away from normal family problems. They have the tendency to hang in there and stick it out during the tough times”.

More weaknesses include “rigid” and “inflexible”. The example given is the movie portraying that if supper is not on the table, “there will be hell to pay”.

The fear of failure stops her from doing or attempting new events she would like to try. In the workplace, she tends to stay at the current job instead of going after a position she would like to have. If she is not confident in her ability, she is likely not to attempt it. If she has attempted a new activity or project in the past and failed, her fear of failure is even more sensitive to new events. She feels like a total failure by merely contemplating the new job or position or promotion. In the weakness of the temperament, she will remain in the current position and will grumble, complain and often express “I wish I had…” once the opportunity goes by.

Here we see the negative Si in overdrive.
Also, the midlife crisis where they wish they had done various things when younger, and then rashly act out with “poor decisions in the ‘before it is too late’ attempt to compensate for their loss. An affair, a weird job change, a new sports car, etc., can be an attempt to make up for what the Melancholy in Control feels has been lost”. This sounds like it is straight out of Quenk’s “Ne in the inferior grip”, and could of course be tertiary Ne too.

From here, it goes into the “rebellion” tendency. In Leo Ryan’s FIRO-B “locator map” the same set of Control scores are called “the Rebel”. Again, this sounds very contrary to the Guardian, but FIRO generally focuses a bit more on the negative side of the behavior groups. APS focuses on both positive and negative (while MBTI and Keirsey focus more on the positive).

The rule he lives by becomes “All rules were made to be broken – and I am the one to break them.” Melancholies are clever at passive-aggressive types of rebellion.
Melvin Melancholy will not necessarily verbally rebel to your face, however his actions will be in line with his rebellion and anger. As a child, he may believe parents have no right to inflict rules concerning his bedroom. He may never say defiantly, “No, I will not clean up my room” but his room will always be a mess. Grounding him to the bedroom until it is clean will not help. As a teenager who believes he should be making all of his own decisions at 15, he will not necessarily say (though he might), “I do not care what you say, I am smoking, drinking, partying, etc.” but he will be doing it behind his parents’ backs at every opportunity. Even after he has been caught several times and punished his behavior will continue. Melancholies continue to live by the rules until they change the rules. Melvin Melancholy will not necessarily attempt to get the “stupid” shop rules changed, he simply will not follow them. Reprimands will not help. If he believes the government should not be telling its citizens what to do, he will not necessarily work at changing the seat belt law, he consistently will refuse to wear one. Tickets will not change his mind [emphasis added]

The passive aggressiveness will support the typical “Guardian” stereotype when you really think about it. The “passive” part can be seen as still being consistent with what Keirsey called “cooperative”, and Berens, “affiliative”. But as we always say in type, people are never “always” anything. So this would explain many anomalies you might see in known SJ’s.

It then talks about some familiar traits, like being slow to move in into unfamiliar areas. In a new leadership position, they will be slow to act like the boss, but once they have been boss long enough to be comfortable, they will likely be an able boss. Otherwise, “do not like new. They do not like changes. Change equals stress to them.” Again, very compatible with an Si preference. They need time to move into unfamiliar areas, or in type function lingo, to build the internal storehouse of concrete (tangible, “at hand”) data Si operates off of.

In the area of Affection, something I don’t remember spelled out elsewhere, that both “Melvin Melancholy and Eric Choleric initiate love, affection, approval and recognition in order to get what they want. It is sort of a trade; I will give you what you want IF you will give me what I want.”

---

What should also, in passing be pointed out, regarding the Melancholy and Sanguine in all the areas, is “indirect behavior”. Now, from what I learned in the old APS literature, Sanguine, Phlegmatic and Melancholy, whose expressed and wanted scores were congruent (both high, medium or low) were “direct”; expressing what they want, and wanting what they express. Choleric and Supine were the indirect ones, expressing and wanting differently (one high and the other low). However, this book is calling the Melancholy and Sanguine “indirect” too.

However, this is based on a point that everyone really has the same needs, such as interaction with others, affection, recognition and independence. The Sanguine in Control conveys little need of recognition, though has a lot of this need, and the Melancholy conveys little need of any interaction, though still has it. So “Want” simply refers to the typical way the temperament goes about getting their need met, while “need” in that respect is a basic human need. The Melancholy says “I don’t want”, and truly in his mind doesn’t want, yet the underlying need is still there. They “do not need a high amount of appreciation [and thus it wasn't mentioned for them in other APS material), but when this need is not being met(which indirect behavior causes) they do feel people are taking advantage and resentment begins to build."

So e/w is congruent, yet there's still an indirectness. The difference from the Supine is that the latter knows he needs interaction (hence high "want") but still doesn't express this need, and then hopes others "read his mind" and come to give it to him, which they likely won't. So he's truly "indirect" in a greater sense.

---

The Phlegmatic in Control's strengths are "Practical", "Conservative", "Peace-loving", "An efficient peace maker/arbitrator".While two of these sound like the NF, the other two sound more SJ, as does this description:

The Phlegmatic in Control is not the person with off the wall, out in left field ideas. Phil Phlegmatic does not suggest tearing down the 150 seat auditorium and building a church seating 5,000 because “God is going to send them in” when Sunday School is running 52. He will suggest practical and conservative ways to find Sunday School classrooms space. He will figure out how to incorporate the existing structure into the building project. He knows what can be done to keep costs down. He likes usable space instead of showy space.

Phil Phlegmatic is conservative. He is not going to be driving a Cadillac on a Chevy’s budget. He lives within his means. He does not get extravagant too often. The carpet in his office is nice, not too plush, and long wearing. He feels the boys can continue to share a bedroom instead of buying a larger house he cannot comfortably afford. After all, the kids will be gone someday and then he will have to downsize anyway. He does not own many risky stocks. He does not take risks in business. He does not own too many work suits, and is seldom flashy

It then goes into the "peace" traits, but a part of this is "Phoebe Phlegmatic...does not get too emotionally attached to the people involved in the dispute. She is able to clearly look at the whole picture from different points of view. She does not take sides. She is able to stay neutral". Later, in addressing weaknesses: "Logical reasoning and positive reinforcement are the two motivators in Phil and Phoebe Phlegmatic’s lives that will actually change behaviors."
"If he recognizes there is a problem and he can be a part of the solution, logical reasoning is a motivator. At this point, presenting factual information and end results will help Phil Phlegmatic find great answers. Facts and results: if you continue down the path you have chosen, the results will be thus. However, if you choose to go down this path over here, the results will be these."

Now all of this sounds almost like typical NT descriptions. Though the NT's motive is not said to be "peace". They are "strategic" rather than "diplomatic" according to Keirsey. HOWEVER:

I have found a better motivator than logical reasoning – positive reinforcement. Most Phlegmatics who are forced into my office for counseling are not ready to be motivated by logical reasoning. After all, the Phlegmatic does not have the problem, the other person does.
At this point, Phlegmatics are not open to suggestions about anything they might do to help the condition. Logical reasoning requires them to at least consider different behavior/results possibilities. Positive reinforcement does not need their cooperation at all.

Now this sounds a bit more like NF again.

So it sounds like Phlegmatic in Control has traits of three of Keirsey's temperaments (everything but the SP). In my theory, Phlegmatic should hypothetically be "XXXX". When someone on a blog suggested this years ago, this was when I set out to create the "81 Types" idea (and someone in this forum came up with a "76 Types" version), which sought to add a third pole to the four dichotomies. However, I found that this does not work with the cognitive functions type is based on since they are "either/or" in introversion or extraversion, and basically abandoned the idea.

So Phlegmatic then would seem to be possibly the most moderate form of any type, and can be any of Keirsey's temperaments (though it would fit NF the most and SP the least).

The weaknesses then go into the stubborn resistance to change and the non-involvement, and indecisiveness, and eventually, the dry humor.
It also mentions the Phlegmatic having a need of appreciation, which I had never seen in APS literature. It seemed only the Sanguine, Supine and Choleric had a high need there.

 

[Eric B]

Supine in Control, you basically see the typical "dependency" traits, that they "cannot independently make decisions nor take on responsibilities without becoming anxious and insecure", which you don't see anywhere in type profiles. Though it does seem the NF is the closest to this.
It mentions that they do in fact have a need for independence, though it doesn't look like it.

"On the other hand, Susie Supine does not want to be dominated or controlled, although her indirect behavior may indicate this to certain people." This sounds like a shocker, and was never put this way in APS publications. This however is explained in the familiar terms

She is looking for a close personal friend to share responsibility in the decision-making department of life. If forced to take on responsibilities and make decisions, stress and feelings of inadequacy and worthlessness result. Susie Supine (and Stewart, this is not gender connected) seeks a trusted significant person who will share in the decision-making process. She needs someone, in a healthy relationship, to share ideas with, to confide in, who will listen, guide, and reassure her.

This is similar to Phlegmatic, and would be compatible with NF. Some NF's I asked on forums testified of behavior like this.

Now here's a really good one: "Stewart and Susie Supine are fearful of being left alone. They are constantly searching the world for someone to share life. 'Share' is the key word. They do not want to be totally independent of everyone else, although they talk about it frequently when in unhealthy relationships".
Excellent, because a man named Riemann described NF's in a very similar fashion! "NFs fear separation from others"; "So while the NT strives for autonomy and independence, the NF fears nothing more than the loneliness of becoming an autonomous, independent individual". (Grundformen der Angst[Elementary Forms of Fear"]: E. tiefenpsycholog. Studie ; 1961 Riemann then goes into the NF’s need for love and “dependence on love relationships”).

So in Martin’s book, we see again:

They do not wish to be controlled and dominated. The Supine hates to be, or feel, dominated and used and taken for granted. What the Supine hates even worse is to be left alone. One reason Stewart or Susie Supine end up in one unhealthy relationship after another is the fear of being alone. In their thinking, being left alone is worse than the pain and agony of an unhealthy relationship; any relationship is better than being alone. What Stewart and Susie Supine really want and need is a close friend who will share in the decision-making responsibilities of life.

So this would really clarify what the “high wanted Control” is really about, and make it more compatible with the NF, who is never described in terms of “wanting to be controlled”, which high wC sounds like. In either the Supine in Control, or the NF, they want to “share” responsibilities, and along with the Phlegmatic in Control, it is apart of the NF’s “Diplomatic skills set”.

The strengths are: “Dependability”, “Ability to enforce policies”, “Serve those they follow”, and “Absolute loyalty”.

Stewart Supine shows up for work on time, does his job well and proficiently, does not take a lot of extra time off, and volunteers for overtime when necessary. He goes the extra mile without being asked. He perceives what needs to be done, and does everything in his ability to get the job done, done right, and done within the allotted time frame. He is a stickler for the rules. He does not tend to change employment often.

Most of these sound a bit more like SJ “Guardian” traits. But I would say it was from the common “cooperativeness” of the low expressed Control. NF’s can likely be this way as well, though it doesn’t often get specified.

He is also a faithful husband and father and friend. Even in the strengths of the temperament, he is not flashy, the life of the party, or spontaneous. He does not initiate often (but is a great responder). He is not a great disciplinarian with the children, but is fairly good at enforcing the rules he and his wife have set together. He is committed to his relationships. He is not a flash in the pan.

These sound pretty compatible with NF, from what I’ve seen.
Then it goes into the “service” descriptions and “following the rules” again. “She reads instructions. She reads ALL the instructions. She reads the instructions for the new coffee maker before brewing a pot of coffee. It does not matter how many coffee makers she has previously owned, the instructions are first read and then the coffee maker is used.”
“The rules do not have to be actual laws or even written down anywhere. The rules can as easily be whatever has always been done a particular way”. This would sound like Si, but the focus is not on memory and familiarity as it was with the Melancholy, but rather more about authority: “Stewart and Susie Supine do not make up these rules. Someone else made the rules for them, usually parents. However, once it has become a rule in the mind of the Supine, it will be kept religiously”. The Melancholy and even the SJ are more independent than that. (Should also be pointed out that the pure Supine, in my theory, would have Si in a tertiary position, which may also manifest in a “childish” dependent sort of way like that).

Two of the weaknesses are “Aggressive disorders” and “defensive against loss of position” (both listed in APS manuals too).

The business world, and pretty much the rest of society, is always pushing (encouraging) people to stand on their own two feet, to be their own person, to climb the ladder of success and to be a leader. After a while, especially in the temperament weaknesses, Stewart Supine gets sick and tired of being this way and decides to be in control. Instead of learning to be more assertive in healthy ways, in the temperament weaknesses he tends to develop aggressive disorders. At this point he begins to look like a normal Choleric; independent, demanding, controlling, abusive, self-centered, self-absorbed, narcissistic and uncaring. This once passive, non-confrontational person is attempting to be totally independent and in total control of himself, his life and everyone else.
This is not healthy.

This is precisely what Keirsey observed in NF’s as their tendency to become “irascible”; the very trait that led him to decide NF was “Choleric”!

Finally, Stewart and Susie Supine are overwhelmed with anger and anxiety and turn on the people who have dominated them, usually using the same unhealthy techniques of manipulation used on them. Yelling, screaming, physical force, cruel statements, aggressive behaviors and especially guilt trips become the new way of life to be independent and in control. At this point, Stewart and Susie Supine are viewed as overbearing and dominating. However, they are only attempting to manipulate people into taking care of them. Their words and actions do appear manipulative and controlling. The aggression and attempts to be dominant are usually shortlived or sporadic at best

This is the “short sustain” that distinguishes the NF from the traditional Choleric, which had “long sustain”.
“Unlike Erica Choleric, Susie Supine can only be domineering for a limited amount of time, and she has to be stressed to the max even to attempt this. Erica Choleric is stressed out when she is not in control.”

It next goes into them feeling totally powerless and at the mercy of people, and having a difficult time saying “no”.
“She is weak-willed. She wants to say ‘No’ but does not want to hurt anyone’s feelings. She goes through life doing all sorts of activities she does not want to do because she perceives this is will make people happy. They continue to manipulate her with guilt because she does not seem to mind and it works so well. As this continues, Susie Supine feels used, unappreciated, anxious and angry.”
I did find evidence of this in some NF type profiles when I looked long enough. Even the “In Charge” (Choleric, socially) ENFJ variant was said to allow themselves to get taken advantage of!

Rather than really wanting to be controlled or dominated, “He wants to have input on the decisions made affecting him. He becomes angry if his choice or preference is denied or opposite decisions are made by those in control.”
They look like they do not want to be involved, so just like in Inclusion and Affection, people do not involve them, and make decisions without their input.
“They are not being asked opinions. When their preferences are expressed, people make them feel stupid or worthless.”

So the Supine in Control ends up harboring the most anger, or even be “the angriest of the temperaments”! They (Especially males) can even become violent! (This you also saw in the APS texts, and would again explain Keirsey, not knowing about the fifth temperament, thinking NF was the Choleric).

---

The Choleric in Control‘s strengths are “Tough-willed”, “An able leader”, “Capable of making intuitive decisions”, “Capable of taking on responsibilities, usually done in an efficient, well-disciplined military fashion.” and “Possessing the will power to carry projects through to “completion”.

Most of these don’t really specify NT traits, but could be SJ as well. “Structure focus” is the common factor (discovered by Berens) of both, and this would fit what is here called “low wanted Control”. The “intuitive decisions” is somewhat of a clue, however! Considering this is also obviously a more “impersonal” temperament (“He has a tendency to view the goal or project as the all-important priority, thus he has a tendency to use and abuse people. He can (without even knowing it) view people as tools to be used to accomplish tasks or to reach goals”), NT is clearly inferred!
You don’t really hear about the NT’s “needing to be in control” as is stressed here for the Choleric in Control, but in practice, it is there.

Erica Choleric has excellent decision-making abilities. She makes quality decisions and handles responsibilities in a magnitude everyone else would run away from. Her decisions are made quickly and intuitively, leaving the rest of the temperaments in her wake. These decisions are usually based on facts instead of feelings. The Sanguine in Control, in the independent mode, looks Choleric but bases decisions on feelings of the moment.

Doesn’t this look like an N+T vs Se (S+P) perspective? Se is often associated with “facts”, but it’s a perception function. T is the judging function that deals more in “facts”. “Feelings” in this case is clarified by “in the moment”. Clear sign of the Se, again!

Erica Choleric is great at gathering information. She has a thirst for knowledge. She draws excellent conclusions (usually) from the information she gathers. When she takes on responsibilities, they are done in an efficient, well-disciplined, military fashion. She usually sees herself as the general of projects undertaken – even if she is not technically in charge of the project.

In my own experience, I can certainly testify to: “The Choleric who decides drugs and alcohol are not for him will never be bothered by them.” While the Supine by itself (in the “affective” areas) would be pulled to give in to peer pressure, I knew they were no good (from the information I knew about their effect on health), and so never even considered them!

More good evidence of intuitive logic:

Parents, you can help your Choleric children to come to the right conclusions.Give them facts and figures and correct information. Explain to them, if they choose path A this is where it will lead. If they choose path B this will be the result. Provide them with adequate, honest, and correct information. They can draw conclusions and reach correct decisions if they have accurate information. Do not lie to your children! “If you do not quit distorting your face, it will freeze like that.” Please, Cholerics are usually intelligent, even bordering on geniuses. Even at a young age, Cholerics can figure out what is true or not. Give them honest facts, figures and information. Cholerics usually come to decent decisions if they are provided with accurate information

They also need recognition for accomplishments and become angry when they don’t get it. Meanwhile, they “blow off” the recognition they are getting! This too seems to be compatible with NT’s in practice. Then, “in the temperament weaknesses, they view people as a necessary evil.” Another weakness is “Associating with weak people and resenting their weaknesses.” I’ve seen this in some NTJ’s.

An additional reason Eric Choleric is highly susceptible to burn out is he feels no one else can do it (the tasks, the project, reach the goal) as well as he can. It is not hard to convince him he is the best, or he is the only one who can do it. He feels a little superior to people to begin with. He is a perfectionist and no one else ever totally measures up. He will tolerate almost no interference and seldom trusts anyone else with projects. He does not naturally know how to delegate. He absolutely believes, “If you want it done right, do it yourself.”

All of this is compatible with NT, including even in Keirsey’s books.

---

Sanguine in Control focuses on the so-called “swing” between independence and dependence. This is might not sound a lot like SP, but evidences of it are in both Keirsey and some descriptions of at least three of the types, as far as needing a “cool off period”. (The Sanguine in Control’s “dependency” is often described in terms of “narcissistic” interludes).

---

In the chapter on anger, I love the way he acknowledges:

Anger is only an emotion. Everyone who is healthy has anger. It is neither good nor bad, but the ways we deal with it can be. Our behavior when we are angry can be good or bad. Whether we are in control of it or anger is in control of us can be good or bad. But, anger – the emotion – is neither. Many people consider anger as bad. The church I was saved in considered anger a sin.You cannot imagine the denial, masking, and stuffing going on in the congregation. It was a sin to acknowledge you were angry. Righteous indignation was okay if you were in leadership in the church, but anger was a sin. I heard many a weird explanation when it came to God being angry in the Old Testament or Jesus cleaning out the Temple. [emph. added]

I saw a lot of denial in the church I was saved in. Anger is a sin. I am a Christian. Therefore, I am not angry even through steam is blowing out of my ears. This is denial.

The Bible says, “Be angry, and do not sin.” Externalizing one’s anger in ungodly ways (screaming, yelling, breaking objects, throwing articles, and/or hurting people either physically or emotionally) is recognizable as unhealthy. Internalizing one’s anger would also fall into this same category because the same Bible – the same sentence – says, “do not let the sun go down on your wrath.” When one internalizes his or her anger, it stays with him or her for many years of sundowns.

LaHaye is one who flatly takes the opposite view, right in his temperament books. (Fear also). Martin nails it here.