No Contact: Because Their Evil is Contagious

I loosely follow my stats. If I see a bunch of hits coming from one site then I'll follow the link to see what the chatter is. In no less than four different forums in the last month the subject of whether or not the narcissist can be saved has been going on. Whenever this subject comes up rather a lot of heat is generated on both sides. Both sides have very personal reasons for fighting for their view for reasons you can all likely understand. It is usually a Christian who is contending for the view of the narcissist that requires an eternal optimism for their salvation and which usually is the means of justifying, yea, demanding, that people never give up on them. When this subject comes up someone puts up a link to my site as support for the Narcissist Is Doomed to Hell view point.

I think I will, for the sake of future discussions along this line, clarify my position. I think my position is already clear but I'll make it more clear just because the emotionality of this subject seems to disengage some people's logic centers. I speak of those of the Never Give Up, Never Surrender ilk.

Here is what I haven't said. I haven't said that God can't save the narcissist. In fact, I've said the opposite. I have said that God can save the narcissist but with the addendum that He doesn't need YOU to do it! We must have an expiration date on our patience with evil doers.

A year ago I dealt at length with one of the apostle Paul's very clear commands concerning what we should do about those who practice evil in the church family (and by extension, our own families) in the post titled "From Such Turn Away". I don't believe that "love thy neighbor" negates the force of Paul's command. You can't take one text to annul another text and properly exegete the Bible. Context is everything. Too often people make a passage say something it isn't by not putting it into context. Apparent contradictions can be explained when one takes the effort to understand the big picture. I want to present a bigger picture on the Biblical view of what God's people are expected to do about evil in their midst by adding a few more texts into the mix.

Whether one reads the Old Testament or the New Testament it becomes clear rather quickly that God teaches that evil is contagious. There are so many parts of Scripture that teach this it would become very cumbersome to try to list them all. This truth is a given throughout all the Bible and is the very core understanding that is central to every Biblical command to separate from evildoers -- especially and primarily evildoers in the church and home.

It is this core truth which those Christians who insist on eternal patience with evil doers must either ignore willfully or who are just ignorant of all together. I'll say it again: evil is contagious. It is contagious because evil isn't satified to be evil all by itself. It actively works to co-opt you into its evil. And when you join them in their evil they applaud and approve of you (Romans 1:32).

You, the reader of this blog, have likely seen enough of the world and life to have your own observations to call upon to illustrate this truth. You've seen the contagion of evil infect from person to person in your own family. Or the workplace. Or perhaps you've found yourself co-opted for a time into someone else's evil deeds. The understanding that evil is contagious is understood by all good parents. Most parents will guard the associations of their children because they know that bad influences are very likely to lead children and teens into bad behaviors. Evil doers are never satisfied to be alone in their deeds. They want accomplices. To corrupt their peers is essential in order to be able to carry on their evil with a minimum of moral judgment or risk of exposure. Evil doers are not confined by truth or by morality if it stands in the way of getting what they want. So this amplifies the persuasive power of evil. Because it can and does lie to get its way; because it can create a false reality; because it can use the implements of cruelty, bribery, violence and exercise of any and all power it may possess without moral considerations -- all this increases the likelihood that evil doers will create other evil doers.

Having elaborated a bit in the paragraph above about the FACT that evil is like a virus that will infect those who remain in close contact with it I have again underlined the central reason I so energetically urge "no contact" with the malignant narcissist. To avoid picking up their traits, to avoid being used by them as a "cat's paw" to hurt others, to avoid becoming indifferent to evil and therefore more likely to be evil oneself, it is essential to separate yourself from it. For a Christian to urge the opposite is to reveal themselves to be profoundly ignorant of the Bible or, I fear, profoundly over-confident of their ability to not be co-opted by evil. A confidence the Scriptures do not urge us to have!

Another aspect of my urging "no contact" with evil doers is your responsibility to protect the most vulnerable and most innocent ones whom you are in a position to protect. This, too, is the Biblical view as the Bible holds those in positions of authority responsible for the temporal and eternal well-being of those in their care. So, even if you feel overly confident of your imperviousness to yielding to evil doers in your family or church I do not see on what basis you are confident of the unyielding nature of the vulnerable and innocent in your charge. Parents are responsible before God to protect their young from evil, church leaders for their 'flock', kings for their people, etc.

Evil doers in the family are not granted a special exemption by God! Evil doers are in the best position to harm those who are closest to them by reason of familial ties. Family ties are not any justification for evil else we condemn each new generation to endless repetititions of evil doers in the familial circle. The cycle has to be broken at some point or entire families will be destroyed. There are historical examples of this going back as far as recorded history goes. Like begets like. Evil spreads. Entire nations can be eventually consumed by unchecked evil in families.


All this means that Christians who agitate for the idea that we are not true, loving Christians if we don't emulate their own eternal patience with evil are actually only perpetuating evil rather than spreading good as they claim. Eternal patience with evil is equal with being a despiser of the good and the innocent!

Don't be cowed by the unflinching self-righteousness of those who claim to be better than you because they won't give up hope that God will save the narcissist. Recognize the false premise in their reasoning. They reason thus: if you walk away (i.e. give up on) the narcissist you have, at the same time, shown that you don't believe God can save the narcissist. Walking away says no such thing! God is not rendered powerless to save anyone just because you've had to go 'no contact' to end your exposure to their evil! Where in the Bible has God said that every person we will ever come in contact with will be saved by God through us?? It is no where even hinted at such a notion. The arrogance inherent in believing that God can only use YOU to save a particular person is quite odious when you recognize it for what it is. You are not that important. Or powerful. Get over yourself.


Some more texts to consider carefully because they enjoin us to separate from evil doers and trouble-makers.


Romans 16:17-18. Notice that those who are co-opted by the "divisive" ones are called naive. Other versions use the term "simple" or "simpletons". The Bible marks those Christians who can't discern the evil acts of their brothers in Christ to be simpletons. Remember that when one of those simpletons come to you to accuse you of being ignorant! Oh, the irony of it. Also remember that the Christian church is called a family and its structure is modelled on the family. What applies to the church family can be rightly applied to the family you were born into.


1 Corinthians 5:9-13. As in Paul's instruction to Timothy where he says "from such turn away" Paul is very specific about whom we should be shunning in his letter to the Corinthians. He says that if he told God's church to turn away from ALL evil doers then the Christian would have to leave the world. Paul says this is obviously impossible so obviously he wasn't telling Christians to avoid all the evil doers in the world. He was telling them how to deal with those in the church. This is entirely consistent with the view of the contagiousness of evil. That evil which is closest to us is the most dangerous form. Paul was much more concerned about prospering evil doers in the church than in the world at large because evil disguising itself in Christian garb is much more persuasive to other Christians than some stranger outside the circle of the church family. He concludes his admonition with this unequivocal command which is a quote from the Old Testament (Deut. 13:5), "Expel the wicked man from among you." There is no special clemency for evil doers just because they are in the family. The very opposite is true. Paul is clear that we are to judge those closest to us...not those furthest away. Those who call themselves family (church or birth) are the most accountable to us for their behavior!

The law that was handed down in the book of Deuteronomy was to govern the family of Israel. Israel was a family, a denominated church and a nation all rolled into one. We can learn much from God's commands to Israel about both church and family government. We don't see God telling His people to cut extra slack to evil doers in their families or nation. No slack cutting...cut them off is the command! Paul's quoting of this command in the New Testament shows that its instruction is in full force for the Christian.

Please note that Paul puts sexual immorality next to greed. Idolatry is just as evil as slander. A drunk is as evil as the swindler. However you may categorize evil, if you call yourself Christian I hope you won't put yourself above Paul and describe greed or slander as less evil than the other sins listed. The habit of those who've long lived with the evil narcissist have usually come to excuse greater sins than these in them. Don't minimize what the Bible calls evil and exhorts you to separate yourself from!

Psalm 26:4-5, NIV A psalm of David. "I do not sit with deceitful men nor do I consort with hypocrites; I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked." Which Christian is it who can claim to be better esteemed of God than David? I daresay, none. Will you show your greater righteousness by sitting with the wicked and joining in their assemblies?

Psalm 97:10, NIV "Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked." Are you better than the Lord Himself? He hates evil. Do you? Notice the promise of deliverance from the hand of the wicked. What would that be but a promise of 'no contact'. A blessed relief from their persecutions.

Proverbs 2 Click on the link to read its entirety. In it Solomon explains the blessings that proceed from listening to and acquiring wisdom and understanding. "Discretion will protect you,
and understanding will guard you. Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse, who leave the straight paths to walk in dark ways, who delight in doing wrong and rejoice in the perverseness of evil, whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their ways." Wisdom and understanding are presented as the means whereby God can protect you from wicked people. Hello!!??? Can you hear me?? You can be an idiot and make it impossible for God to protect you! You were given a brain and are expected by God to use it. What does this chapter end with but this rather good news, "the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the unfaithful will be torn from it." Again, I ask, who of you is better than God who cuts off the wicked? From my view none of you are better than God Himself. Therefore, I will not listen to you who believe that the "good" Christian will never cut off the malignant narcissist. I can only see you as a coddler of the wicked not a protector of the innocent and the virtuous. Your eternal patience for the evil doer is taken by them to be a license to continue on as they are. Never cutting them off allows the evil doer to feel justified in what they are and in what they do.

It is because God loves people that He instructs them to cut off the wicked. It is not from hatred of the evil person himself. God hates evil because it destroys the evil doer and all those in the evil doer's grasp. The Bible records that God has many times executed the death penalty upon the wicked and many choose to see Him as being too harsh for doing so. Yet they would forget the many crimes of the wicked to accuse God in that way. God has killed evil doers with the express purpose of saving those who are still save-able. He states clearly that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. (Ezekiel 33:11) The destruction of the wicked is elsewhere called His "strange act" (Isaiah 28:21). Be assured, cutting off the wicked is an act of justice and mercy dispensed by God to preserve those not given over to evil. Don't pretend to be better than God Himself by refusing His instructions to distance yourself from those who won't distance themselves from evil deeds. He expects you to use wisdom. Wisdom is the conduit whereby He is able to shape circumstance to protect you. Wisdom is a function of logical thought. Which means you follow your head and not your fickle little heart when confronted with having to deal with evil. Family ties are not an automatic exemption from all instruction concerning evil. Family is more accountable to us, not less, for their closeness.

I'll say it one more time before closing. Cutting off the evil narcissist is not a commentary on your believing that God can't save that person. Going no contact with the malignant narcissist doesn't mean God has gone no contact with him. Please, don't be a simpleton. God can still reach them even if you never speak another word to them. Because the Biblical instruction to the Christian is unequivocal that we must "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person", don't expect God's protection if you refuse His clear command on this point. And believe me, there will come a day when the trap springs and there will be no help for you.

"Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you. Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse." Prov. 2:11-12

"A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it." Prov. 22:3

How How to Relate to the Badly Behaving and Other Questions

A question was posed to me in the comments on the last post that I'll do my best to answer in this blog post.

I was wondering Anna, if you could possibly discuss how you have moved on in respect to the effects of Narcissism. How do you find yourself relating to other people's bad behaviour, even if it isn't based in Narcissism?

I am only asking because four years on from leaving a religious group run by a narcissist, and fifteen months on from cutting off my mother and sisters, I seem to be battling more than ever with issues relating to dealing with other people.

I find I have absolutely no tolerance for BS from others, especially those professing to be christians, who then treat me with disrespect. Then, I feel guilty that I haven't given them a second chance. I have spent hours trying to explain that putting up with offensive behaviour from others isn't 'love', its passive-aggression (in a lot of cases). I just get these zombified looks, and I feel like a complete heel because I am not the 'nice' christian who just puts out, and keeps putting out like everyone else.

I am just wondering if like one poster, I am being haunted by the original evil, or whether this is just a by-product of adjusting to the 'real world'.

Any thoughts on recovery, and adjusting to 'normal' life after a narcissist would be appreciated.

I've had to ponder at length how to address your question. There are several reasons for my having difficulty knowing what to say or where to start. Likely this is because you asked a very broad question at the first, but then you did narrow your question somewhat so I will only attempt to answer the more narrowly focused aspect of your question. Actually, you asked multiple questions. So I've had to decide to try to answer what seems to be the main thrust of your concern.

One of the real challenges in trying to address your question is that interpersonal relationships are idiosyncratic. Without knowing your personality I'm not sure how you interact with others. Every person you deal with is different so each interaction has many potential outcomes depending on the chemistry of your personality with theirs. I hope you understand the limitations I have in adequately addressing the questions you've asked.

The only common ingredient in each of your interactions is you...so we'll just have to start there.

I'll focus on a couple things you said:

Then, I feel guilty that I haven't given them a second chance.

I just get these zombified looks, and I feel like a complete heel because I am not the 'nice' christian who just puts out, and keeps putting out like everyone else.

If you can be made to feel "like a complete heel" because of the looks of those you're talking to it leads me to think that you are not yet entirely secure in the positions you hold. Your residual guilt for not giving someone a second chance also gives me this impression. Or you may be too invested in gaining the good opinions of those you are talking to. Neither observation is a denigration of you. There is nothing wrong with wanting the good opinions of fellow Christians nor is there any fault for being made to feel insecure about one's opinions when those opinions aren't accepted by others. You can't be human and not experience these feelings, reactions, needs.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a zero tolerance policy toward B.S. I hope you don't try to change that. Perhaps you might need to change how you respond to that B.S. in order to move more smoothly through eel-infested waters.

You'll know when you are very settled and secure in the positions you hold when you can state them, let the chips fall where they may, and the negative reactions of others roll off of you. Until then you can decide on a more circumspect approach. There is no dishonor in being circumspect.

You asked how I deal with bad behavior that may or may not be narcissistic. Here's my general approach to others.

I reserve my opinions especially when dealing with acquaintances. (Most church relationships really don't move beyond the acquaintance stage.) I hold most of my opinions to myself until it is appropriate to the context of the conversation to express my opinion and only if there is some evidence of receptivity. This is why my relationships with my parents and sister are a complete non-factor with others. People don't need to know...I don't talk about it. I operate off the assumption that most people most of the time don't have the 'equipment' to understand the decisions I've made, so I don't talk about it. If it does come up with someone whose business it is not I only have to say, "I'd prefer not to talk about it." People will rarely challenge a statement like that. If they do, walk away! Because I don't need others approval for my decisions about my family I don't seek others opinions on it. I don't open myself up to their judgments which would be ill-informed judgments at the very best because they would lack about 20 truck loads of information. I don't have the time or interest to fill them in on what they'd need to know...and most times neither do they!

I am a very careful listener. I avoid talking about myself and try to steer conversations toward talking about the person I'm conversing with. This allows me space. I don't end up telling them too much about me before I know if they can be trusted. Most people are more than happy to talk about themselves, their interests, their opinions...so this tact often oils the gears of conversation without me having to spill my guts. This allows me to find areas of common thinking or to find out whether or not this person is someone to avoid in the future.

I can be happy to have a relationship with someone based on areas of common interest. We don't have to see eye to eye on everything. If we enjoy each others company in a specific context...that is good enough. All people don't have to be all things for me. People often have different friends with whom they do different things. One friend we may enjoy watching a particular genre of movies with. Another friend may enjoy certain types of books in common. Yet another friend may be a hiking or exercise buddy. It is important to recognize that it is okay to have compartmentalized friendships with people. We can enjoy a person for who they are and not expect them to be all things to us this way. This can reduce interpersonal friction and broaden our friendship base. Of course, if you have seen evidence that a person has some serious character issues then having a friendship on any basis would be ill-advised.

If I had to sum up how I interact with just about everyone I would say, "reserved, polite, cautious" at least until I get to know them well enough. But my problem in relating to you how I deal with other people is that this is how my personality is naturally bent. I don't know your personality. I don't know if my approach to others is something that could work for you. So maybe I should bring up what I see in the Gospels regarding Christ's approach because His example can be followed regardless of our particular personality.

He showed that he knew his listeners very well. He didn't share certain truths if he gauged that the people he was talking with were not going to be receptive. John 16:12, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Or he shared truth in parables which the receptive would be able to understand and the unreceptive could ignore and carry on. Story form (parables) is a very effective teaching method. Stories stick in peoples minds longer. Attaching life lessons to the natural world or everyday life also helps evoke the lesson taught every time the natural process or object is observed. It is a way of teaching without getting in peoples faces. The lesson slips in along with the story imagery sometimes in spite of the listener's limitations of comprehension or receptivity. Parables were a more oblique way of teaching truth that Christ often used. It increased the chances that the less receptive would accept the truth presented. But because of its non-confrontational presentation it allowed the very unreceptive to dismiss the truth without feeling like they had to rise up and smack down the truth-teller. Some people are good at drawing analogies which in many ways resembles a parable. If you have that gift...use it.

When Christ was approached by the cagey scribes and Pharisees he didn't hand them his words freely. He held himself in reserve. He noted their ill intent and often would not answer them as they were trying to force him to. This was a very non-confrontational approach to people who were trying to force a confrontation.

He would confront open hypocrisy openly and without reservation and without apology for making the hypocrites squirm. He didn't confront hypocrisy because he hated the hypocrites. He did it because of his love for the people whose lives were being compromised by the hypocrites. He saw more clearly than anyone could how the hypocrites drove people away from God and imperiled their salvation. Christ hates anything that destroys people. So should we. Open hypocrisy and lies need to be openly confronted.

Otherwise, Christ was not confrontational. The people who sought him out were the ones he shared truth with. He used the imagery of standing at the door and knocking. He isn't pushy. He waits for the invitation. So should we. He looked for openings, for signs of receptiveness. It is a good lesson in how to relate to others.

You asked: How do you find yourself relating to other people's bad behaviour, even if it isn't based in Narcissism?

I'm like vapor. I deal with the moment with as little friction as I can and then I vanish. There's a lot to be said for making yourself scarce when certain people come around. Christ did it too. He would simply slip into the crowd and disappear when the malevolence of the leaders would start to transform into murderous intent. It is just the implementation of 'no contact'. I practice that with my parents and sister. I practice that with the badly behaved. Play it cool...and escape when it is possible to do so. This is how I implement my 'no tolerance' policy for B.S.

I'm gone.

When I'm dealing with a B.S.er I know I'm not dealing with someone who wants a reality check...so I don't waste my breath on them. I don't feel the need to persuade them, cajole them, reform them. Nothing. I feel the need to get away and I follow through on it. I don't want to risk unnecessary injury to myself so I avoid confrontation when possible. If confrontation becomes necessary I'm certainly up to the challenge...but most times it is not only unnecessary it would be unproductive. For most situations, less is more.

As I've already mentioned, Christ spoke in parables to the multitudes; he spoke directly and in unveiled language to those who loved him and shared a close bond with him. That is really a wise approach to use. Most are not ready to hear all that you know about evil people (i.e. narcissism). You need to learn to be okay with that. Keep you ears and eyes open for the people who may need and want to hear what you know. No 'pearls before swine'. Save your best and most hard-earned good sense for those who are honest in heart and who demonstrate they themselves possess common sense.

Before I close this I want to go back to your comment about feeling guilty about not giving someone a 'second chance'. I want to point out the inherent premise of the 'second chance' idea that you may not see.

Why are you obligated to give someone access to you and your life simply for the asking?

Inherent in your sense of obligation to give someone you distrust or dislike a 'second chance' is that you believe they are entitled to be in your life simply for the asking. Here's my thought. No one is entitled to have a relationship with me. I get to choose who I let in. I don't have to justify my choices to anyone. They don't get an automatic pass into my life simply because of what church they belong to or simply because they are in any particular proximity to me. You have the right to determine on what basis people can have a relationship with you. YOU GET TO CHOOSE and you don't have to justify your choice to them or anyone. If you get the sense that someone is a B.S.er you have the complete right to decide they won't get a second chance to B.S. you.

Our lives are finite. This means our time, energy, resources, etc. are all finite. This means we must make careful decisions on how to spend ourselves. If you don't have the time, interest or energy to invest in B.S.ers then where is the fault in that? You have a husband and children who deserve your first and best self. If you start granting access to draining, unkind, selfish, or otherwise bent people you're going to have a lot less to give to those whom you are obligated to serve...i.e. your nearest and dearest. No one is entitled to a second chance. You get to decide whether or not to grant a second chance on a case by case basis.

If you are forced to associate (like going to church) with someone you've decided to not have a friendship with...just be polite when you have to interact and then disengage quickly. I can smile and greet people whom I don't want to spend any particular length of time with. It is even easier to be polite if I managed to disengage from them without any overt confrontation in the past. My method of easing out of a situation and then making myself scarce helps with any future contact I may have to have with the person. They don't concretely know my thoughts about them; they don't really know why I'm not around them much. So future contacts are just superficial, polite and brief without having to walk around big baggage like some direct argument or confrontation.

You wondered if you are being haunted by the original evil or just learning to adjust to the 'normal' world. I would imagine the answer is yes and yes. My experience has taught me that anchoring myself in solid truth (reality) has enabled me to overcome many of the effects of "the original evil". Evil is an absence of truth. Evil is a form of nothingness; evil is an absence of being. This is why you always find evil existing parasitically. It must leach life and form from attaching to something real and substantive. Truth is life. Lies are deadly. Evil traffics in lies hence evil kills. And because evil exists as a parasite there are always some truths amongst the lies. You have to learn to sort it out. If you can unlearn the lies and base your thinking and, by extension, your life on truth then you will overcome "the original evil". Remember that evil attaches itself to good. If you are a good person you will have to deal with evil trying to attach to you from time to time. Guard your goodness from such who would try to use it to cloak their evil.

There are many who claim there is no universal truth and therefore would find my paragraph immediately above to be laughable. Obviously, I don't subscribe to post-modernist views of truth being whatever you make it to be. My near to half a century of life has given me much time for observation. The verdict is in: the less a person believes in an objective moral structure the more unbalanced their minds are. Yeah, I said it. The more unhinged they are from reality and the more likely they are to veer off into some really scary places.

Remember, reality is synonymous with truth. I make no apology for believing in objective truth because, in the end, truth (reality) always wins.

Examining Freud

Because of a thread in the comments on the last post I am segueing into today's topic. I am quoting from an article that concisely sums up much of what I was able to independently conclude from my own research years before having read this article. The article is simply a handy device to jump into the subject with. I am not going to attempt a post which includes documentation and sourcing because it would become too unwieldy and unreadable. If you are open minded to investigation the resources are freely available if you apply yourself to finding them.

Two years ago I came across an article that I will share with you now. It is titled, "Freud or Fraud?" by MercatorNet. It came out shortly after Freud's 150th birthday in May 2006. The article is an interview with psychologist Gerard Van den Aardweg who has been in practice since 1963. Certainly long enough in the field of psychology to know the field.

My research into the theories of Freud began about eight years ago. What stimulated my research was my curiosity as to whether or not Freud's theories were compatible with Christianity since it seems that pop Christian psychology has thrown itself head-long into Freudian theories even while secular psychology at large has distanced itself from many of Freud's often...shall I say insane...ideas.

One of the aspects of this interview/article that I found intriguing (and relevant to the subject matter of my blog) was the description of some of Freud's character traits. I have excerpted below the more negative descriptions of Freud as a person for your particular perusal. Who this man was as a person is very relevant to his theories on human psychology. The character of a man devising a new way of thinking about the human mind is completely relevant. This is a man who claimed that the human mind is the cure to the ills of the human mind. And that this cure is effected through talk. So let's look at the evidences of his mind, shall we?

He presented himself as having the answers to the problems of living devoid of any spiritual context. He was not bashful in making it clear that he intended to demolish Christianity with his theories. This is relevant to Christians. There is particular peril in adopting the theories of a man who was antagonistic to the very belief system, Christianity, that you claim to believe in.

Dr. Van den Aardweg makes this statement which I know is the truth from my own extensive and independent research on this point:

he presented his “discoveries” as a doctrine of salvation promising to free the mind -- and even mankind as a whole -- from its troubles, and posed as a great prophet, on the same level as Copernicus and Darwin.

"Doctrine of salvation". Precisely. This belief often infects those who accept his theories. They, too, talk of the salvation only found on the couch with heaping servings of self-focus. This is why I was particularly alarmed when I saw the "ministry" of two psychologists in my Christian denomination making overt statements that their Freudian-based theories and exercises were essential to salvation, both temporal and eternal. An augmentation of the Gospel itself. You know...the part God forgot to mention (though they didn't say it that way it was the logical conclusion if you followed their lines of thought). What inevitably happens when someone tries to meld pop psychology "salvation" with Christian beliefs on salvation is that the Christian beliefs take a back seat to the psychology. They are competing doctrines, not complimentary belief systems.

I have pointed out on this blog the conclusions of some of the most well-respected researchers into the character-disordered that psychology and its therapies make the character-disordered worse. Not better. Quantifiably worse. This conclusion is based on the scientific approach of observation, not on antipathy toward psychology as a body of thought. These doctor/researchers are within the psych community and tried to apply the doctrines of psychology on their subjects only to be defeated and befuddled time and again. They came to recognize the need for a new basis of thinking where it concerns the disordered character. They were forced to conclude that psychology was missing some huge and important pieces of the disordered human mind puzzle. This is quite a revelation and admission considering that the field of psychology is specifically supposed to know how to deal with disordered minds. "Mental health" is their venue, yet when confronted with the "unhealthiest" among us psychology is seriously out-gunned. Largely clueless. Dysfunctional.

It is logical to conclude that the theories of Freud, and the derivatives of his theories as they've been morphed over the decades, are lacking in some essential realities concerning the psychology of the most disturbed minds among us. These are very minds psychology lays claim to the right to diagnose and treat. My research into the subject of psychology as a science has proven to me beyond all doubt that the majority of the field of psychology is not science. It is art at best. It is guesswork. It is philosophy. To quote Van den Aardweg, "The whole field of personality psychology and psychotherapy is chaotic and still highly experimental." Emphasis mine. (I think he is being gentle in his assessment.) His is a statement of fact that is easy enough to perceive even with a cursory examination of the field. This "chaos" and "highly experimental" state of the field after 150 years is a powerful argument against psychology being science, in my opinion. Held up against the continued and remarkable advancements of the hard (as in real) sciences in that same period we see the proof against the claim of the psych field being classified as being part of the sciences. The continued chaos and literally thousands of lines of thought in this field with there being little unity of opinion is little different from other areas of human philosophy. It resembles religion in its fundamentals much more than it resembles science.

I do not believe Freud was a malignant narcissist because I've not seen any proof of that, but what has emerged is a picture of a very self-centered man with strong narcissistic traits. I think this must be considered when you are basing your assumptions off of his theories of the human mind. How likely is it that a man with a demonstrated penchant for fanciful interpretations of reality was able to divine the essence, the truth, of human psychology? How is it that a man who could tolerate no dissent from his opinions was able to form a comprehensive and accurate view of universal human thought, motive and action from the machinations of his mind alone? How is it that his desire to throw out millennia of human wisdom based on a historical understanding of humanity, a desire which motivated all his theories, is now the right basis of understanding? What about his own personal delusions of grandeur?

With this preamble please read the descriptions below of the man who is the grandfather of modern psychology. A man who with all his years of self-analysis never managed to change even himself let alone others. A man who must be understood in light of his being "exceptionally self-willed, proud and arrogant". The tendency of society and culture has been that of accelerated declension, not enlightenment. In this modern age of post-Freudian psychology we cannot point to a society filled with happy, balanced, moral and productive people. The claims of psychology fall flat in the face of reality. When tested against the most destructive and devious among us, the malignant narcissists, psychology is exposed. All they have is the prescription pad or refusing to 'treat' these human predators.

In the end people only change when they determine to do the hard work following honest introspection. That some people are able to use the devices of the couch to accomplish this doesn't validate psychology as being science. Nor does it prove that psychology cures anything. The dusty pages of history prove the determination and grit of the human spirit when it reaches higher than itself to accomplish that which is difficult. Rising above nature is what gives dignity and spirituality to humanity. Freud and his intellectual offspring tend to encourage the baser drives of our natures because it chooses to ignore the spiritual aspect of humanity. Whatever is "natural" is considered good. This type of philosophy degenerates into the "law of the jungle" and "survival of the fittest". Morality is the first casualty of Freud's philosophies.

I have only copied most of the article's descriptions of the man that was Freud. I encourage you to follow the link to read the whole article in context. I want to state upfront that my 'take' on this article is not that of the author or interviewee of the article. I do not want to misrepresent their views. The views in this post are mine.

"...Freud seduced readers with his brilliant style."

"...he presented his “discoveries” as a doctrine of salvation promising to free the mind -- and even mankind as a whole -- from its troubles, and posed as a great prophet, on the same level as Copernicus and Darwin. So he had the charisma of a guru. A profound thinker, however, he was not, neither as a psychologist nor as a philosopher. What he proclaimed sounded thrilling, especially of course the sexual stuff, but it was not at all “deep”, even though it is known as “depth psychology”. Mostly it consists of far-fetched fantasies, several of which are positively bizarre."

"Throughout his life he remained immaturely attached to his mother in an ambivalent way. As a boy, he could not make friends and felt disliked by them."

"Freud was a neurotic and cynical man, probably somewhat feminine, a chronic complainer who felt all his life that he was an unrecognised genius and a victim of a hostile world. He was an outsider who was angry with society. He was very self-centred; in his relations with friends he had to dominate; he could not tolerate dissent from his views -- which is actually the reaction of a person who feels that he has not been accepted."

"Incidentally, you cannot understand Freud if you do not see that he was exceptionally self-willed, proud and arrogant."

"Here is a curious thing. Freud pretended to be very accurate in his observations and descriptions, but in fact it was often a mix of observation and fantasy. That has been solidly proven by now."

"Patients he described as cured turned out on later examination not to have been cured at all. Studies of the effects of analytic methods, which are often hardly really Freudian any more, do not support them. Talking and analysing does not change people. One of the first disciples of Feud, sexologist Wilhelm Stekel, long ago remarked that “if psychoanalysis does not find something new, it is doomed”. And Freud never managed to change himself despite all his self-analysis."

I have been upfront on this blog that my opinion of psychology as a body of thought is a skeptical one at best. The studies that have been done by the psych community to judge itself have consistently disproven its theories and opinions of itself and its efficacy in helping people. These studies are usually buried and hidden. The few honest and outspoken critics which have arisen from psychologists and psychiatrists inside the hallowed halls of the "mind sciences" are buried under an avalanche of media driven pop psych drivel which is far more attractive to people than the harsh realities these honest few have tried to bring to the fore.

Do I believe that all that falls under the label of psychology is non-scientific? No. Some research adheres to basic scientific approaches which means it stays away from speculative and unprovable theories. Science is only science when it is based on what is observable, when it can be tested and proven or disproven, the results of such tests being reproducible. An untestable theory is not science. An unprovable hypothesis is of no scientific value. When psychology confines itself to observing and describing human behavior it can be rightly called science. When psychology then delves into speculation, surmising and assignation of values it can't prove -- it has left science. It is now philosophy. Please learn to recognize when psychology is being scientific and when it is being philosopher. This explains why I am willing to use the psychological label of NPD: because it is based on a description of observable behaviors. This means it is a label based on observable behavioral fact.

I'm sure there are many who will want to attest to the wonders of psychology in helping them. You are certainly entitled to that opinion and I won't attempt to argue you out of it even though I would love to give you the credit for any positive changes you've made. What I am attempting to get you all to consider is that this body of thought is naked and helpless when forced to go up against the malignant personalities among us. This fact may very well be attributable to its founder, Freud, who himself was a very flawed man. Believing he had all the answers, his fantastical theories were transmogrified into science by sheer force of personality. He was openly antagonistic to Christianity in particular as he mocked God's ability to change or spiritually benefit human beings, yet his own theories couldn't even change himself. This must not be overlooked. Freud demonstrated many of the hallmarks of a charlatan. But because he presented a humanist theory that "intellectuals" were receptive to, his ideas gained ascendancy in the halls of academe and professional offices. And even though psychology has shifted and morphed from Freud's founding ideas his spirit still pervades. I am hoping you will seriously question psychology as having the answers for humanity's problems of living. When your common sense collides with it...please, go with your common sense.

A good definition of common sense is, 'wisdom which comes from being dedicated to reality and therefore ignores all that conflicts with reality'. Common sense discards the speculative in favor of pragmatism. I have much more respect for the hard-earned experiences and observations of people like you and me who have been in the trenches with the narcissist than I do for silly little theories which tend to turn the abuser into the victim. Any theory that does that is a fancily dressed-up turd, not science.

Do I believe there are good psychologists out there who have tangibly helped people? Absolutely. Interestingly, studies have shown time and again that the success levels of psychologists is much more correlated with their ability to emotionally connect with the patient rather than with education levels. In fact, studies have also revealed an inverse relationship between levels of education in the psych doc and how well they help their patients. More education does not equal better care. Interesting, no? Some studies have pitted regular college students against trained professionals in counselling people. Guess which group got better results consistently? Yeah, the college students. What keeps being revealed by these internal studies is that the elements of friendship and common sense are the essential ingredients in helping people get past their problems of living. So, in this age where so many are isolated and haven't got a good friend, psychologists can certainly fill this gap. You can pay for the benefits of friendship by hiring a shrink...assuming, of course, you can find a therapist you "click" with. It is clear from examination of multiple studies done by and for the psych field is that having a good friend who will be truthful with you is worth a handful of therapists.

When the narcissist in your life puts the screws to you to keep on keeping on by pointing to their being in therapy... run, don't walk. A narcissist in therapy is a narcissist who is honing all their powers of manipulation. They'll come out of it a more skilled narcissist. One that you'll find harder to deal with because she'll use all the right psych buzz words and 'feeling' phrases to anchor your feet in cement. She will have glombed onto the wonderful psych theories that make her the victim and you the abuser. She will point to her 'hurt' feelings as proof of the damage you are doing to her poor, poor self. Or she will use her childhood misfortunes to excuse her bad behavior and her abuse of you.

The medical profession has the motto, "First, do no harm". I wish this could be said to be case with the mind 'sciences'. There are far too many therapists who lack the wisdom or the will to hold a narcissist's feet to the fire. The rare narcissist who goes into therapy will shop around until they find the therapist who will only tell them what they want to hear. How is being suckered by a narcissist, or choosing to just accommodate the narcissist, doing no harm when we consider the long line of victims in the narcissist's wake? An empowered narcissist, one who is finding 'affirmation' for what they are and what they do, is a danger to society. Yet psychology seems immune to shouldering any of the blame for making dangerously selfish individuals even more committed to their selfishness and their destructive agendas toward their fellow man. Well, at least here on my blog, they will shoulder that responsibility to some appreciable extent.

"In general, few people are really interested in proving or disproving a theory if they like it for one reason or another. Most trendy ideologies are not based on scientific fact." Gerard Van den Aardweg, interview with Mercatornet.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. 1 Tim. 6:20,21

Refresher on the Savior Complex

I stumbled across a draft for a blog post that I started almost a year ago and never finished. I'll post it now cuz, hey, it still applies. It was only two paragraphs long when I last saved it, but there is something to be said for brevity. Especially around here where I mostly go on at great length. Hang on, I can probably manage to make this another long post. *grin*

I rankle at the unconsciously grandiose thinking of many Christians that they must save the narcissist. Like their very presence is necessary in order for God to work some miracle in the narcissist. It is this kind of thinking that keeps narcissists fed and good people dancing with evil. Even though there is no biblical foundation for the belief that we must stay in relationships with evil people, Christians go on blithely with their savior complexes never conceptualizing that their savior complex is naive at best, enabling of evil at worst. It is like all the Scriptures which categorically command us to distance ourselves from evil don't apply if we are married to it or related to it. Which flies in the face of Christ's own words. See Matt. 10:37.

Let me say this about a 'savior complex'.

Point one: a savior complex is actually a denial of the power of God to save.

Point two: Therefore, it shows your unbelief, not your great faith, in God's power.

Point three: it is indicative of a need you have to control. You think that by staying in a close relationship with a narcissist that you can somehow be there for that moment where the narcissist is suddenly open to 'salvation'. Only you have the ability to see that crystalline moment of recognition and exploit it to the salvation of the narcissist. A savior complex reveals you think too highly of yourself.

Can you see that thinking you must be there for the narcissist to be saved is not a proof or proclamation of your great faith in God? It is the very opposite! It is proof of how much confidence you have in yourself, not the confidence you have in your God.

A savior complex is a denial of the power of God's own Spirit to work out the mysterious power of salvation in a life without your power accompanying it.

God knows we have no power to save another human being. He doesn't ask us to save. He asks us to present truth. He then tells us that if that truth is rejected we are to move on. "Do not cast your pearls before swine" was Christ's instruction. He told the disciples to carry the truth to the various towns. If the truth was rejected they were to stamp the very dust of that town off of their shoes and leave. Endless importunities were not prescribed. The stamping of the dust off the shoes was a symbol. A symbol of the discharge of their responsibility toward those people. They had presented the truth. The truth was rejected. Therefore, the responsibility toward that truth was now resting on the people, not the bearer of truth. The disciples would be wasting their energy and efforts by staying and pleading with those who rejected truth. Christ would have them move on to more promising fields of labor and not waste their limited time, energy or resources on an endless quest to convince the un-convinceable. Learn from the Word of God that a belief in your powerful presence as an agent of change for the narcissist is not a virtue and is working in opposition to how God actually works.

Side note: Christ didn't declare those towns which rejected the Gospel as damned. He simply told the disciples to move on knowing they were relieved before God of their responsibility. It doesn't mean God was done working with those people. It meant that He would bring in different agencies and circumstances to hopefully open up closed hearts to His truth. Just because you've discharged your duty doesn't mean there is no hope left. It only means you are not going to be the direct instrument of God's hand. Perhaps an indirect one. Maybe God knows you would take the glory if you were there for the moment of someone's conversion. So, He has you plant the seed and move on in order to preserve the integrity of your soul. Think about that.

Now, to the aborted post of last summer.

****************************

Christians...listen up. All the platitudes and bromides you've been weaned on do not apply to narcissists. Quit coddling, excusing, justifying and enabling evil to thrive. Your well-intentioned desire to "save" the narcissist is back-firing. You are supporting evil when you don't hold evil people accountable for their behavior.

Christians, of all people, should be the last ones who excuse or support evil people, yet, somehow, they do it everyday thinking themselves to be good Christians by giving a pass to out right evil behaviors just so they look like "nice" people. Turn on your brains and think. Stop acting how you think you should act in order to impress all your friends with your great Christian heart. Sometimes the right thing to do isn't necessarily the "nice" thing. The Gospel of Nice is not the Gospel of Christ. You are morally weak if you are giving a pass to evil narcissists. Period. Yes, even if that narcissist is your parent.

As I've stated in recent posts, when you decide to stop feeding the narcissist, when you quit playing by their rules, you have declared war. The narcissist is in this war to maintain what they value most...power over you. You are in the war to eradicate evil from your sphere of influence.

This is serious business. No one enters war lightly. Count the costs before you engage; once engaged, do not settle for less than victory.

********************************

I wrote this abortive post last August. A few days later I wrote, "When Good is Bad". The closing paragraphs from this post go into greater detail on what you've just read above:

It is no small thing to let your goodness be exploited, used, and manipulated by predatory narcissists. Your good qualities are only good if they support good. All too often people fall for the notion that their eternal patience and determined belief in the good of all people will cause others to rise to the occasion. The narcissist will never rise to this occasion in the way you hope. They will only see opportunity for protective coloration by standing very close to you and letting your goodness hide their badness.

It is imperative for you, your family, and your social circle that you engage your rational powers and start discerning between good and evil. Discernment = judgment. Not a bad word. I have said before that "nice people suck". In this context, of how "nice" people often let themselves be used by evil people, I am speaking. There is a time for everything. Always being "nice" is a sign that you do not understand there is a time to not be "nice". There is a time to judge. A time to take an unpopular stand. A time to hold evil-doers to account no matter the cost to you. A time to protect the innocent and abused from those who have very successfully hidden their malignancy heretofore. A time for war.

The only time we should engage with evil is to defeat it. Quit trying to reason with evil. Evil is, by its very nature, unreasonable. Quit trying to save the evil. Evil recognizes no need for salvation.

Show how great your faith in God is by leaving the saving to Him.

As Per Request...

I was asked to revisit the comment that I parsed out in this post and make a more thorough job of it. The request came because I had glossed over a couple of paragraphs due to my boredom with the lame arguments therein. Because the request was coming from someone who found themselves disquieted by those glossed-over-by-me paragraphs I have found the motivation to finish the job. I don't want anyone to be struggling with residual discomfort from the words of an ignorant, drive-by Christian. I will pick up where I left off. The commenter's words are in italics.

God's word gives us clear principles to live by as far as dealing with those who are living in sin.

Yes, it does give us those "clear principles". The principles vary depending on whether or not the sinner is a repentant one or not. This person doesn't acknowledge that fact. Many of the claims of this commenter I have dealt with in my second post on the 5th commandment. In my post, "A Wicked Man", I deal with the problem of other Christians instructing us to stay in a relationship with an evil person, and how doing so contradicts God's own commands.

We are no better. Their sinful selfish attitude is no worse than any one of our sins. We all need the SAME Grace.

While I do not argue that we all are recipients of the same grace, I find it repugnant to pull the moral equivalence gambit when we are talking about the kinds of cruel abuses and predatory and evil behaviors of malignant narcissists. There is a chasm of difference between a sinner who recognizes their need for forgiveness and salvation and the malignant narcissist who consistently and persistently practices his life of vileness all the while acting like they need no such grace. Sorry, you can't make those two things equal and be any kind of consistent or rational. Or Biblical.

If we are truly going to deal with Narcissism in a Biblical manner then we need to use all of God's word not just parts of it to fulfill our own needs and desires.

Which is what I do...and what this commenter has not done. In the very blog post this person was commenting on he/she had overlooked strong Biblical statements which are positive commands for Christians to "walk away" from evil doers. I'm not the one picking and choosing which part of God's word to follow.

Just in case you are wondering, my mother is narcissistic. I was raised by her. Still struggling with her.

I think we can all understand why this person is "still struggling" with their narcissistic mother. That struggle will last until the old woman is laid in her grave.

But I will not adhere to un-biblical principals just to satisfy my own selfish desires to be "free of her". I want to do things God's way and help to restore her to her Saviour and our relationship to one that God wants it to be.

This is an naked accusation. By that I mean the accusation bears no proof with it. The accusation is laid, and the pretense which goes along with it is that this accusation alone proves the author's point. It does no such thing. Where is their proof that I am presenting un-biblical principals to support my so-called selfish desires? I have laid out the biblical support for my statements. Where is this persons proof? The only texts they presented demonstrably support my view, not theirs.

The next few words reveal the basis of their emotional fervor: the belief that the redemption of their mother is dependent on this person's own faith and spiritual virtue. I have already identified this as proceeding from a savior complex. Please read here and here. I know some Christians feel like they are demonstrating a lack of faith in their God's ability to save someone if they should walk away from the evil doer. This is itself unbiblical. God can save...you can't. Get over yourself, get out of the way, let God do His thing. He doesn't need you to hang in there for eternity with an evil doer in order to save the evil doer. He has specifically told you to get away from the persistent evil doer. Quit disobeying the God you are pretending to be obeying.

Dividing us is Satan's work.

This kind of categoric statement annoys me to no end. Probably because it is becoming such a popular mantra in Christianity. I mentally roll my eyes now when I hear this one. I heard it so many times from my sister that it became a standard part of her phone calls to me for years. There was "war in heaven". God Himself took up some kind of arms against the angelic rebels in order to "cast them out. See this post. Christ boldly proclaimed He is a divider when he said he "came not to send peace but a sword". Matt. 10:34-36. "I came to set at variance..." Um, looks to me like Christ himself is laying claim to being a divider. Strong words to claim that all division is "Satan's work". This person has condemned their own Savior.

By the way, ya'll may find it mildly interesting that the commenter above came back to my blog yesterday afternoon. Since I wrote down all their particulars, ISP, IP address, city, state, google search words, I immediately noticed the stats when the person came back. I kept track of the info because I was curious to see if this person would be returning to my blog. Well, they did. Using the exact same search words, "biblical view of narcissism", they hopped onto my blog via the very post where I parsed out their own comment. This person then did about 10 page views spending about 35 minutes on the blog. Their "out click" was the comments on the blog post, "Breathing Example of Last Post". So this person saw not only what I had to say, but what you all had to say too. The part I find especially interesting about this is that they didn't come back with another comment. Take that to mean what you will. I have my own ideas on what that means.

Not All Enemies are Created Equal

This post is in response to Jordie's comment on the last post. As a preamble to this post I'd like to ask for the indulgence of my non-Christian readers. As difficult as you know it to be to extricate from a narcissist, especially a family narcissist, Christians are rendered much more susceptible to narcissist control because of the powerful clubs that misinformed Christianity hands over to malignant narcissists. So, hopefully, you'll be patient when my posts focus on problems for Christians, especially Bible-verse-twisting antics of the narcissists and ill-informed Christians who often unwittingly support the narcissists.

*********************************

"I have heard every argument under the sun by ex-cult members not to turn away from this evil, and to in fact continue to try and reach them since God himself doesn't reject them (they believe). They use Jesus' words in Matthew 5:44, to pray for, love and do good to your enemy, and sometimes I myself wonder how to reconcile this verse and the Timothy verses in this situation.

Surely the malignant narcissist is our enemy, yet Paul tells us to turn away from them. Of Whom then was Jesus talking about in Matthew?"

************************************

Paul, in the Timothy letter (2 Tim. 3:1-5), carefully exposes the behaviors of wicked persons as important context before the instruction is given to walk away from them. Yes, the wicked man is an enemy. On the other hand, not all enemies are wicked men! Christ and Paul were not talking about the same people or persons. Let me elaborate.

There is a certain level of chutzpah required to make the assumption that "all people who oppose me are my enemy and are therefore evil". This is the baseline assumption of the narcissists. Disagree with them and you are targeted for destruction. You are their enemy and you are evil.

Early in Christ's "Sermon on the Mount", which begins in Matt. 5, He set the theme for the instruction to follow:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Emphasis mine. Matt. 5:17-20

The rest of the chapter Christ repeats the theme, "You have heard that it was said..." followed by His teaching. From whom did people hear the "it was said" that Christ was countering or expanding on? The religious leaders. Those Pharisees and teachers of the law whose level of righteousness was exposed by Christ as being inadequate for entering the "kingdom of heaven".

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' " Matt. 5:43 That was the "sage" teaching of the Pharisees and lawyers. Christ sets that teaching on its head. This teaching was based on Levitical law but had been perverted by the religious leaders' interpretations. It was the perversion Christ was setting about to correct.

Let's consider who Christ was talking about when He refers to "your enemy". He was talking about those whom the religious leaders commonly categorized as such. During all of Christ's earthly ministry He worked to overcome the extreme national pride and the religious bigotry of a people who felt assured of their superiority in God's eyes. They were a people who considered others to be enemies simply because they were in a different class of society or of a different nationality. The Jews, most especially the religious leaders, were very resistant to the Roman rule they were under in Christ's (and Paul's) day. Israel was one of the most difficult nations for the Romans to manage. It was not uncommon for a Roman soldier to commandeer a passerby to carry something for them for a distance down the road (it was Roman law that they could do this). The Jews would often resist the order of the Roman soldier. The Jews chafed under this type of thing because it was a reminder that they were a conquered people. This was a reality they liked to deny to themselves as evidenced by the Pharisees preposterous response to Christ when they stated that they had never been slaves to any man. (John 8:33) So, Christ, in teaching the people how to behave like God's children instructed them to cheerfully walk that mile with the Roman and volunteer to walk another with them. The Roman was most definitely an enemy to the Jewish mind, but was he evil? No. There would be no evidence of that in a short encounter, so the assumption must be that he isn't. The kind of wickedness defined by Paul is not going to be perceived by a short encounter. The exposure of truly evil people can only occur over time and with multiple encounters under varied circumstances.

Christ defined how we should think and behave toward those who may oppose us; those whom we may be inclined to think of as our enemy, but who are just average people. They may have prejudice against us for whatever their reasons. If we are consistently kind and helpful it is likely they will dump their prejudices at some point. We, as Christians, should not do anything to further provoke someone who may dislike us. Our attitude is to be benevolent and will be demonstrated by our doing our best to seek their good.

Christ consistently worked to expand the minds of the people to look past class and nationality--to look at someone in need as their neighbor. The story of the good Samaritan was to illustrate "who is my neighbor?" To the Jews a neighbor was of their same level in society in addition to being a fellow Jew. A "neighbor" was their peer. Period. The Samaritan's definition was the godly one; the person you are in a position to both see their need and to help is your neighbor. The fellow Jews who walked by the beaten Jew on the road were able to justify leaving him bleeding and barely conscious because he was not one of them by their very narrow partisan definitions.

Obviously, just because someone doesn't like us we are not free, as Christians, to reciprocate with hate and bad behaviors. The religious leaders of Christ's day did believe they were free to hate their perceived enemies, and to treat those perceived enemies badly or with indifference. Christ was countering this kind of thinking in Matt. 5:44. Someone may consider us their enemy, but that doesn't mean we are free to treat them like they are our enemy. On the other hand, when someone is clearly dedicated to being evil, insofar as we are able...we should walk away from them. There are plenty of other Biblical instructions to not associate with those who are evil. Christ was not negating the Scriptures. He was dealing with a different kind of enemy. Not all our enemies are evil...in fact, few are.

Also, keep in mind that sometimes a person isn't able to walk away. In those instances, the Christian is instructed to submit without rancor or retaliation. When you have the power to choose to leave an abusive situation and or the presence of a wicked person, then there is NO Biblical basis for staying in the abuse. If a person was a slave in Christ's day there was no option to the slave to walk away, hence Paul's instruction to be obedient to their masters as if they were serving Christ Himself (Eph. 6:5-8). The Jews were a slave nation to Rome. Therefore, Christ's instruction to them was to not resist Roman rule, but to comply cheerfully as long as they were not having to violate one of God's laws. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Matt. 22:21 (The gigantic law structure of the religious leaders were often out of sync with God's laws. Christ was stripping away the man-made structures that had obscured the real requirements of God's laws (Mark 7:7). This is why He was accused as being "against the law" by the religious leaders...so was Paul. Both were against man's law usurping God's law. Example: "Corban" was a man-made law that could be used to override the 5th commandment of honoring one's parents. See Mark 7.) Prisoners are another example of a situation where a person is not able to walk away from evil doers. Paul was often a prisoner...his example is one of submission and Christ-like behavior toward his captors. The context of a certain Biblical instruction has to be considered when applying its teaching to the life. Is it addressing someone who can't walk away? If yes, then the instruction is quite different than for someone who is able to choose their own course. For example, Matt. 10:14.

Even when we have proof that someone is clearly dedicated to being evil and have walked away from them doesn't mean we are now free to treat them badly. We can still follow the spirit of Christ's instruction in Matt. 5:44. You can still pray for and have genuine concern for (love) someone you've had to walk away from. That being said, going no contact from wicked people is not counter to Christ's spirit. So many people think that "no contact" is a retaliatory measure. They pretend it is an "attack". This is ridiculous on its face. Going "no contact" is a benevolent act. It is an acceptance of someone else's decision and acceptance of reality. It is a refusal to use force or manipulation to try to get someone to change. It is a recognition that evil is spiritually contagious and to remain in contact with someone who embraces evil greatly increases the likelihood that you will "learn his ways" (Prov. 22:25). You are making a choice based entirely on the evil person's choice to remain what they are. It is the only moral choice left when one is up against recalcitrant evil.

Your ex-cult members who believe they are morally obligated to remain in contact with exposed and unrepentant evil are spiritually naive. They wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. (2Pet2:16) If they must judge you as being bitter in order to justify their view, then so be it. You know your heart much better than they. There are too many other Scriptures which command us in no uncertain terms to cut off from unrepentant evil to allow one verse to negate the force of their instruction. One verse can never be rightly used to negate other verses which seem to say something different. The responsible Bible student looks for the harmony. Christ's stated in Matt. 5:17-18 that He taught nothing in opposition to the Scriptures. Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of Christ's Spirit, would not give instruction that contradicted Christ's teaching during His earthly ministry. Is. 28:10 gives the principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture to learn truth.

I hope I have adequately illustrated the harmony between Christ's instruction and Paul's. Their teachings are not in opposition; they are talking about different people. Prejudice, bad will, misunderstandings can all create a perceived enemy, but these kinds of enemies are not likely to be evil people. People who are not dedicated to a wicked course can potentially be won to Christ...but not if we treat them like they are our enemy just because they've declared us to be theirs. The gentle spirit of Christ is to be the mark of His followers. Sometimes that gentle spirit is required to give strong rebuke to evil doers and/or walk away. When Christ cleared the temple twice of the con men otherwise known as the "money changers", He was a terror to evil doers...but the average person was attracted to Him because of His scary rebuke of the con men. They recognized that Christ was being merciful and kind to them because it was the average person who was being used by the con men. After both incidences, the people gathered in great numbers around Christ in the temple to hear Him teach. There was no fear for them. They recognized Him to be a Deliverer. Sometimes we have to take a stand. Yes, that will make us a terror to evil doers, but the victims of the evil doers will recognize us to be standing with them. Taking a stand against evil doesn't make us "bitter". It means we are principled. We recognize there is no harmony between the philosophy of evil and the principles of God's kingdom. You can't stand on both sides when right and wrong are the issue. You can't harmonize evil with good.

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

"From Such Turn Away"

"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!" 2 Tim. 3:1-5 NKJV

This is a familiar passage to Christians. I know I've read it unnumbered times. It was the last sentence that jumped out at me this last time. More on that in a moment.

This counsel of Paul to the young pastor Timothy, whom Paul thinks of affectionately as a son, is specifically referring to our day..."in the last days perilous times will come..." Paul makes a rather long list of quite reprehensible behaviors that will be seen, not just at large, but in professed Christians--"having a form of godliness but denying its power."

Re-read Paul's list above. Take note of his first descriptor, "men will be lovers of themselves." Other versions say "people" instead of "men". (Men is often a global term for humanity in the Bible). The defining characteristic of malignant narcissists is their all-consuming self-love. Don't fall for the psycho-babble clap-trap that tells us they really hate themselves and that's why they're such wretched people. Their self-interest is total. Whether or not they have feelings of love for themselves is not the issue. Their behaviors are of absolute self-interest. That is the biblical view of self-love. Doing everything with an eye to "what's in it for me". Putting yourself first every single time. Ignoring the needs of others, ignoring morality, ignoring the law (God's and man's), "what I want is what I will get". That is the level of selfishness the malignant narcissist displays every day of their sordid lives. Paul is describing a person who is completely given over to gratifying their every whim, desire, lust, urge in this term "lovers of themselves".

Just like the "wicked man" passage in Proverbs six, this list of behaviors in Timothy is not a list of discrete individuals. In other words, it isn't necessarily describing one separate behavior per separate person i.e. this person is a "lover of themselves", that person is without self-control, that other person is a slanderer, etc. Someone who is given over to evil doesn't have just one objectionable characteristic. Bad characteristics breed; they run in packs. One thing leads to another. It is likely Paul is describing the global characteristics of evil individuals. The reason I think that is because when I look at the list above I can see all of these characteristics displayed in each of the narcissists I know. I think you can too. Look at those characteristics and ask yourself how different your malignant narcissist is from the description of all those behaviors. I daresay there is no difference at all. If you asked for a list of the more grotesque behaviors of a malignant narcissist this passage would work very well.

When we read the list of sinful behaviors in this passage the temptation is to think that this person or persons would be overtly evil in their presentation and easily recognizable to the average observer. This is not the case. First of all, these people must be able to disguise themselves well enough that Paul is compelled to warn Timothy of them. Timothy is well-versed in the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14-15) and wise beyond his years, yet Paul doesn't dismiss the possibility that one of these people could slip past Timothy's radar. These reprobates have a veneer of religiosity, an appearance of being godly or moral. So we have to conclude that there are people in the church who are practicing malignant narcissists in their daily lives yet are able to look like a good church person to the undiscerning observer. Some of us know these people personally. Some of our parents are these people. Some of us know that the most vile of persons can often pass for being godly. Paul knew these people too.

By the way, this doesn't condemn religion. Evil must disguise itself in order to stalk it's prey...religion shouldn't be faulted for being used by those seeking cover for their nefarious deeds. If you will fault religion then, to be consistent, you must fault many other worthy institutions of service and human welfare. The helping professions (teachers, doctors, social workers, etc.) are all ready disguises for the evil person who wants to present himself as harmless and trustworthy. The simple reality is that a person will cloak themselves with their opposite. If they are a pedophile, they may become a Scout leader, a teacher or a priest. Or a clown for kids' parties. It gives them close access to their preferred prey and the advantage of the trust and authority these positions offer. A woman who gets her kicks controlling and abusing children may become a foster care parent. Examples are legion. Because most religious people are decent, religion is another place evil can hide itself. So don't think that all religion is bad because some wolves use it to hide in and then savage the sheep. That would be simplistic and irrational thinking.

One reason I believe that Paul is essentially describing what we would call a malignant narcissist is due to his instruction on dealing with them. You and I know that malignant narcissists are unreformed and unreformable. They crossed a line someone in their dark past beyond which there is likely never a chance they will go back. Malignant narcissists fully justify and excuse all of their evil behaviors. They have turned their unrighteousness into righteousness in their own eyes. They call evil good and good evil. This is a sin there is little chance of coming back from. The reason is obvious when you think it through. The Bible makes it clear that people are convicted of sin because of the work of God's Spirit, John 16:7-8 for instance. If you come to the point where you start calling good evil then what are you going to do when the Spirit tries to convict you of sin? You will call His work "evil". When you discern the working of God's Spirit as being the whispering of evil...you will reject any chance you had that the Spirit can turn you from your ways. Constantly and persistently rejecting the moving of the Spirit on your heart will convince the Spirit to leave you alone. He is left with no way to reach you. That equates to being unredeemable. It is the unpardonable sin. When you have twisted your sensibilities to the point where you call light darkness then you will discern the light of God shining on your heart as an evil impulse. You leave even God with no way to reach you at that point. The only sin that can't be forgiven is the one you won't confess to.

Back to Paul's instruction concerning the churchified narcissist:

"...from such people turn away!"

Obviously, Paul doesn't want us to hold out that we can convince such people to turn away from their wickedness. It isn't our job to reform them. It isn't our job to hang around while holding out hope for their reform. It isn't our job to stay in close proximity to them as if our love can somehow separate them from their wicked ways. Paul is unequivocal and crystalline clear. "From such turn away!" (KJV ) Some reasons for this instruction can be found here, and here.

The Biblical model of church structure is based on the model of the family. Instruction to the church as to discipline, instruction, etc., can rightly be applied to the family. If the family narcissist pastes the "Christian" label to themselves it doesn't mean you have to pretend along with them that they are one when their behaviors consistently conflict with their profession. The narcissist "Christian" loves to pretend they are immune to accountability because they are a Christian. Passages like 1 Cor. 5:12-13 prove they are more accountable to us because they have assumed the name of Christian, not less. If the Christian is a family member, they are doubly accountable for their bad behavior. Not twice as unaccountable--as they would have you believe.

1 Tim. 3:1-5 is solid Biblical counsel to go "no contact" with those who persist in being evil. Ignore Christians who ignore this counsel. They haven't "known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation..." (2 Tim. 3:15)

Paul instructs Christians that the peril of end times will largely be because of evil persons disguising themselves as being godly. The course of action in such peril is to walk away. The concern shouldn't be for the salvation of such individuals; the issue becomes your salvation both temporal and eternal. Save yourself, your family, your church by turning away from those dedicated to their evil agendas.

Don't condone evil by standing by it, by supporting it. When you tolerate evil persons you telegraph to others that you approve of them. Don't lend your good reputation to such a base character. Don't let the reprobate hide himself by virtue of your lending your Christian name and support to him. You will join in his blasphemousness if you do so. What is blasphemy? Taking the Lord's name in vain. The true spirit and weight of the third commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain has more to do with besmirching God's name ("name" is synonymous with "character" in the Bible) than it does with swear words. To make this commandment about swear words is to trivialize something very much more serious. To take on the Lord's name (i.e. call yourself a Christian) in vanity means you take His name but not His character, therefore, you misrepresent His character to others. One of the characteristics Paul mentioned in the list above is blasphemy. Claiming to be God, or claiming His divine attributes, or claiming His name but living in contradiction of His character are all under the purview of blasphemy. Letting some malignant narcissist borrow your good Christian name (in addition to their taking on God's name) in support of their own reputation is dangerous business for a sincere Christian. The evil doer hiding under the name of Christ is guilty of blasphemy. Don't get caught in it along with him. From such turn away...or you end up participating in his evil.

And he spoke to the congregation, saying, “Depart now from the tents of these wicked men! Touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in all their sins.” Numbers 16:26 NKJV

Testing for Repentance

I was re-reading the account of Joseph's life in Genesis several nights ago. I saw something there I had never taken note of before. I'll try, as best I can, to distill it down to the part you might find helpful.

The story of Joseph is a long one. It starts in Gen. 37. It jumps over chapter 38 and continues on from chapter 39 through 49. I'll do a quick review of the first part of his life and then concentrate on what happened in chapters 42-45.

As far as I'm aware, there are only two men (other than Christ, of course) in the Bible that do not have sins recorded against them in the record. Joseph and Daniel. The Scriptures don't call these men sinless, but no specific mention of a personal sin is recorded against them. The greatest patriarchs for Jews and Christians, Abraham and Moses, both had some significant personal failings. The Scriptures never shy away from presenting even the most noble of its characters as they were...real men with real sins. David, "a man after God's own heart", was guilty of adultery and murder. It wasn't those sins which made David God's man; it was his consistent faith and his ability to fully repent when he sinned. David never blame-shifted. He took his lumps without complaint and trusted in the mercy of God.

I set up this observation about Joseph not having any sins of his recorded against him because of what he did when he found his brothers in front of him after having been sold into slavery by them many years before. What he did in testing the depth of their repentance was no sin.

Some of his brothers had wanted to kill Joseph, but cooler heads prevailed that fateful day. They sold Joseph into slavery to be rid of him. Joseph was likely around 17 years of age when this happened. A mere youth. Then the brothers faked Joseph's death to their father. They killed a goat and smeared its blood onto Joseph's coat and presented it along with the sad tale of Joseph being torn limb from limb by a wild animal. It nearly crushed the life out of Jacob, their father. What precipitated this horrid event was the envy and hatred Joseph's brothers had nurtured against him for being the favored son of Jacob. A son born of Jacob's favored wife, Rachel. A wife who died in giving birth to her second son, Benjamin.

I recommend you read the events that followed Joseph being sold to slavery. His hardships. His unswerving integrity. His faithfulness to God and man. His optimistic and uncomplaining attitude despite the serial injustices foisted upon him by unscrupulous people. His brothers first, then Potiphar's wife. After many years and a long and undeserved imprisonment, everything turned around and Joseph found himself suddenly elevated to second in command in Egypt. Second only to the Pharaoh himself and entrusted with saving Egypt from the coming famine. A famine that God warned was coming in a dream to Pharaoh. This dream caused the series of events which brought Joseph and his God to Pharaoh's attention. The famine was promised to last for seven years after seven years of plenty. Joseph came up with the plan to save a portion of the increased abundance for the years of famine ahead. Pharaoh couldn't think of a better man to implement this plan than Joseph himself, "Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?" Gen. 41:38. The famine was not confined to Egypt. All the surrounding nations were affected including Joseph's family in Canaan. Peoples from the surrounding areas streamed into Egypt for relief of their want.

Which brings us to the day that Joseph suddenly finds his brothers bowing in front of him and asking to buy wheat. "Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him." Gen. 42:8. Joseph didn't reveal himself to them either. It would be months later and after some very close testing of their characters that Joseph finally showed himself to them.

What interested me in this part of the story was how seriously and almost brutally Joseph tested his brothers to see if they had changed. He was in a particularly unique position to test their characters without their knowledge...and test he did. Each test went deeper and more painfully into truth of who those men now were. Joseph had a younger brother from the same mother, Benjamin. Benjamin was not among the other brothers as they importuned the governor of Egypt to sell them food. Benjamin was Jacob's favorite after the "death" of Joseph. How would Joseph's brothers behave toward the favored youngest son of Jacob? Were they just as jealous and cruel to Benjamin as they had been to Joseph? That question had to be settled to Joseph's mind before he decided whether or not to reveal himself to them.

The first trial Joseph presented them was his insistence that they were spies. They had already revealed that there was another brother who didn't come with them. Joseph knew it was Benjamin. He then demanded that they clear his accusation against them (of being spies) by leaving one of their number behind in his prison and bring back to him the other brother they spoke of. No compliance, no more wheat, and their lives were forfeit. Joseph selected Simeon to stay in prison. Simeon was the instigator of the crimes against Joseph those many years earlier. The test of character begins.

The brothers are thrown into instant distress. They speak among themselves unaware that this "Egyptian" could understand them since he had only spoken to them through an interpreter. Their consciences were smiting them and they immediately tell each other that their present distress was the result of their sin against Joseph. "Then they said to one another, 'We are truly guilty concerning our brother, for we saw the anguish of his soul when he pleaded with us, and we would not hear; therefore this distress has come upon us'." Gen. 42:21.

Joseph was moved by their words. He removed himself from the room and wept. He didn't swerve from the necessity to test the depth of their repentance despite how he was moved by their words. These words revealed their awareness of their guilt and how they were blaming their present dire straights on their sin against Joseph. It was indicative of possible repentance, but Joseph needed much more proof. When he had pulled himself together, he took Simeon and put him in prison.

What follows is a series of more tests of their characters which cut closer and deeper each time. Joseph takes them back over the very same ground of years earlier to see what was in their hearts. I will not go into it here because the story is long and detailed. Read it for yourself today.

What I want to draw your attention to is how Joseph's close and almost (seemingly) cruel testing of his brother's level of repentance for their vile acts against him is a righteous act on Joseph's part. There is no Biblical condemnation of his need to see whether or not these people were safe for him to be around and safe for him to grant favors to. No superficial glossing over of the past was done. No demand for a few words of apology as if that would prove anything at all about their characters. It was in Joseph's heart to protect and nurture his family as was proven by the grand favors given after he eventually revealed himself to his brethren. But he was not going to grant these favors on evil and unrepentant men. He must first prove them. Are they worthy of mercy because their repentance runs deep and true? Or must he remain anonymous to them and resist his desire to preserve them and hold them close? His brothers' reactions to the tests would give Joseph the information he needed in order to proceed. Notice that the tests did not depend on Joseph's brothers' words. They were judged on their actions. Repentance can never be determined on the weight of naked words alone.

Here is a greatly detailed Biblical account of someone going to some significant lengths to prove whether or not their abusive family members were truly repentant and safe to be around. If it was a sin for Joseph to do this the Scriptures wouldn't have failed to say so. But that isn't the record. The record reveals Joseph to be a righteous and honorable man as well as having great wisdom. What did wisdom and integrity and righteousness demand? A full revelation of the motivations of the hearts of his formerly hateful and vengeful brothers. There is no doubt at all that Joseph wanted them to pass his tests. He greatly missed his family and wanted nothing more than to embrace them. But he over-rode these desires with the absolute need to determine first if those he wanted to embrace were safe to embrace. Joseph was not testing from a sense of vengeance in his own heart. This is made clear. His motive was simple and straightforward. Have my brothers changed and are they safe to reveal myself to?

The first person to tell us we are wrong, bad, and cruel when we demand a clear demonstration of repentance is the malignant narcissist. The next person to tell you it is wrong to expect this clear demonstration are the Christian do-gooders who have bought into a mindset that expecting unequivocal signs of repentance is itself somehow sinful. Their ill-conceived advice and admonishment are not in accord with the Bible record. The story of Joseph tells us it is not wrong to test for repentance. It is the course of wisdom and integrity. To state it in the positive, it is right and good and wise to test for repentance. Not to be cruel to our former abusers, but to ascertain whether or not someone is sufficiently changed so that contact with them no longer presents a danger to life or liberty. If someone is unwilling to bear the test they leave you with no way to assume they are repentant.

The story doesn't tell us outright that Joseph would not have revealed himself to his brothers if they failed his testing. Logic tells us this. Joseph's first instinct was to conceal himself from them. If they failed his tests, he would likely have never shown himself to them. He may have granted them a few anonymous favors to keep his father and Benjamin alive, but any relationship would have very likely been "at arm's length". I realize that I now have entered into a bit of speculation, but it doesn't seem to be wild speculation. It is based on Joseph's behavior and his immediate instinct to not say, "Hey, guys! Hey, it's me!!". He proceeded so cautiously as to readily support the supposition that not ever revealing himself to them was an option he was keeping open.

It is also not insignificant that Joseph never sought out his family even after he was free to do so. He apparently was content to live on the assumption that it would not be wise to seek them out since the majority of the family (his ten brothers) had thrust him so cruelly from themselves. The only reason he found himself testing his brothers was because, through no choice of Joseph's, they suddenly ended up in front of him. Joseph had been content to let God guide his life through circumstance. He didn't force any outcome by pining or lusting for what he didn't have. In this particular case, he had no family. Yet, he takes life's lemons and trusts God to help him make lemonade with it. We see this attitude demonstrated all through his life. When circumstance thrusts his brothers in front of his face, he then dealt with what was before him as wisdom would demand he should proceed from there. I find it quite interesting that such a good and righteous man didn't feel obligated to seek out his family. The estrangement was forced upon him, but he didn't sin by maintaining the estrangement. I think this may apply to many of us as well.

I think the record is also clear that Joseph had long ago forgiven his brothers because his heart was very soft toward them though he hid that fact from them for some time. Notice, though, that his generally forgiving attitude toward them didn't mean he trusted them without solid proof of repentance on their part. He felt under no obligation to reveal himself to them without this proof. He was not willy-nilly handing out forgiveness to his abusers. His forgiveness wasn't cheap grace. What you do in the privacy of your own heart should not cause you to skip the necessary step of proving the depth of the abuser's repentance before openly showing them your forgiving spirit and trusting them enough to stay in their company. Telling an unrepentant narcissist you forgive them is a travesty and violation of true forgiveness. They will take your cheap grace and throw it in your face along with greater abuses.

Please also take note that Joseph's tests of this brothers were not done in a day. He gave them multiple tests, each time circling in closer to bring out envy and anger if it was in there. The testing period was not short. It likely lasted for many months as it involved multiple trips from Canaan to Egypt and back again. Each time they waited until they ran out of food to go back to face the scary governor of Egypt. One doesn't test the depth of someone's repentance in a single encounter or a single day. Time is necessary in this process. The narcissist is angry if you show any expectation that they prove their repentance over time. This alone should prove to you that their hearts are unchanged and they are unsafe to your life and liberty.

I know I was grateful to discover this detailed record of a righteous man doing some very close testing of the characters of his former abusers. I hope that you find comfort and affirmation from this as well.