I thought we were in agreement. Surely zeal(righteous anger) does not drive away the Holy Spirit.Didn't we agree that there is sinful anger and we will call it simply anger and there is righteous anger and we will call it zeal.
I was thinking about this: there are times when we certainly
ought to act, and that action seems like it would be fueled by anger, because the stimulus was the sort of thing that ought to make people angry. (Zeal just doesn't seem strong enough to use here)
And thinking that the opposite, not allowing anger to disturb our souls, would mean that the person wouldn't act in a situation where he
ought to act...
And I realized that the times I have actually been in a situation like that, what happened was the my emotions kind of froze, so that I was doing what needed to be done, but my actions were not fueled by anger or any emotion, but by the necessity for right to be done (which might be called zeal).
The odd thing is that when I have imagined myself in a situation like that, I tended to feel a righteous emotion... which generally tended to be a sort of puffing-up of myself (so I don't imagine things like that anymore!) So, I'm wondering if I might not have been assuming that Christ felt as I imagined I would feel.
(This is all very interesting, because I have never thought about it this way. Reading what the Fathers said about this challenged me to re-think my position.)
(Which is a bit of a bummer as my temper is definitely a weak point for me

)