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

Jesse Pomeroy: A Stark Illustration of Lack of Introspection

I just finished reading the book Fiend by Harold Schechter. It is the true story of the crimes and conviction of America's youngest serial killer, Jesse Pomeroy. He was a full blown narcissistic psychopath lust killer by the tender age of 14. Of course, these terms didn't exist back in 1874. He became known as the "boy fiend" thanks to the tabloid journalism of that era.

What I want to bring to your attention is the striking illustration Pomeroy presents of my last post. The absolute lack of introspection. This lack is highlighted all the more by the nearly incomprehensible length of his confinement in solitary. Forty-one years -- the second longest in U.S. penal history. The severity of his confinement was most pronounced in the first decade when he was confined to a very small, mostly dark cell. Here is a quote from page 263 of the book:

Clinical studies have proven that prisoners subjected to even relatively short periods in solitary confinement commonly begin to show severe psychopathological symptoms, ranging from hallucinations to panic attacks to paranoid delusions. More protracted stints can drive a man to madness.

So the question is: was Jesse Pomeroy already "mad" and therefore had no sanity to lose? Or was he in possession of an "indomitable spirit" as he was credited to having by James R. Wood, a onetime Boston police detective who had played a key role in Jesse's arrest half a century previous to Mr. Wood's statement about Jesse's spirit?

I will back up that half century to Jesse's conviction in 1874. The boy was examined in prison by several psychologists, called back then "alienists". Here is an excerpt from the observations of one of these psychologists named Tyler. He first observed that Jesse was physically and intellectually average.

By contrast, his 'moral sensibility' was strikingly aberrant. Though able to discriminate between right and wrong when presented with various hypothetical cases, Jesse was absolutely 'obtuse' when it came to his own crimes. "He evinces no pity for the boys tortured or for the victims of his homicide," Tyler writes, "and no remorse or sorrow for his acts." Moreover, his wildly "contradictory statements" -- his detailed "account of killing the children and subsequent denial of any agency therein" -- were the sign of a deeply duplicitous nature. Fiend, page 162

Even though it was apparent by examining Jesse, as well as how he conducted his crimes, that Jesse was not insane, his defense team knew all they had was to try to convince a jury that Jesse was indeed insane. The all-male jury couldn't quite go there with the defense and so they convicted Jesse of first degree murder. It was not the place for the jury to recommend a sentence but they attached a note to the verdict requesting Jesse not be executed for his crime due to his young age. Jesse was given a sentence of death as the law required, but the governor of Massachusetts was under a lot of pressure to reduce the sentence. After much wrangling, and the election of a new governor, Jesse's sentence was reduced to life in solitary confinement. Some argued that was more cruel than the death sentence.

Now, more to my point of observation. Jesse spent his entire time in prison working tirelessly and patiently to escape. He was able to fashion tools like chisels, knives, picks, etc. from prying pieces of metal off of various objects or finding innocuous objects in the yard on this rare exercise romps. His mechanical bent of mind enabled him to come up with some ingenious improvisations. His prison records reveal that he was disciplined for escape attempts every year, sometimes several times a year. What becomes evident when reading the account of his prison activities is that his every power of mind was focused on one thing: escaping. When he wasn't trying to dig, scrape or bomb his way out of his cell, or making tools to facilitate escape, he worked diligently on another form of possible escape: the law. He became a quasi-lawyerly prisoner as he consumed hours in reading law books and persecuting the courthouse with his endless stream of requests for documents and demands for attention to his case. One of the benefits he received from his repeated escape attempts was that it kept him in the limelight. He reveled in the attention he received from the press each time he was caught trying to escape. He loved to brag about each attempt as he would describe how he did it.

What becomes very evident is that Jesse not only didn't go insane while confined in solitary for 41 years, he thrived. He was able to avoid any opportunity for introspection even though he only had himself for company for over four decades!! This is a profound illustration of how it is possible to avoid introspection even when sent away from human contact for an interminable length of time. He focused every shred of his mental energy on escape. It is also how he determinedly persisted in his belief that his cause was just. He was unjustly incarcerated and therefore it was his right to try to escape. His constant focus on escape was how he escaped introspection.

It should be noted here as evidence of Jesse actually thriving in solitary was that when his sentence was eventually reduced to just life in prison Jesse refused to leave his solitary cell for three months! He knew he would not have some of the amenities in the general population that he had in his solitary cell like being able to control the heat, having all the room he needed for his rather large personal library, as well as not having to work. All prisoners were required to work, but Jesse had avoided that while in solitary. He was absolutely lazy. He was able to get out of work after being released into 'gen pop' because the jailers didn't want to have to constantly punish him and receive bad press for being crueler to Jesse now than when in his solitary cell.

Obviously, Jesse was a psychopath. A malignant narcissist is likely not a psychopath, but all psychopaths are malignant narcissists so there are behaviors and thought patterns that are identical with both malignant narcissists and psychopaths. The refusal to introspect is one of them. I drew your attention to Diane Downs in my last post because she has managed to avoid introspection for 25 years as testified to by those who have examined her state of mind. Jesse Pomeroy shows us that Diane will not be any the wiser once she gets to forty plus years of incarceration. Neither will the malignant narcissist in your life. You cannot exile them from your life for any length of time with the expectation that they may have possibly come to a place of recognition of what and who they are and what their crimes have been. There is no exhausting their ability to justify themselves and their resolute ability to avoid any inward look at the evil within.

Jesse Pomeroy was an extreme case of isolation. When he got to the other end of his life (he died in prison at age 73 = 59 years in prison total) he was utterly unchanged. He was as narcissistic and mentally immature as he was at age 14. He was intelligent, but forever immature. He consumed all 8,000 plus books in the prison library and read many of them several times. He wasn't a mental deficient. He certainly wasn't insane. He was forever a case of arrested development emotionally as is true of all malignant narcissists. They never grow up past age six emotionally no matter what intellectual accomplishments they may boast of in adulthood.

Don't assume the malignant narcissist in your life is not as extreme as Jesse was in terms of the absolute and profound lack of any introspection. In this regard, Jesse was the norm and not the exception for malignant narcissists. Simply by virtue of the fact that he ended up incarcerated for so long we have been given a clear picture of just how resolute the malignant narcissist really is in their refusal to admit to what they are.

You've exiled the malignant narcissist. Make sure it is until death. There is not enough reason to nurture any hope of their reformation. To do so will only place your well-being at risk yet again. Malignant narcissists should all be put into solitary confinement. The next best thing is you putting them into solitary of sorts i.e. going 'no contact' with them. At this point, there is no salvation for the narcissist that you can bring about. Your only hope lies in your own salvation. Lock up the narcissist and throw away the key. They will be just fine without you. There is no confinement that will permeate the walls they've thrown up around their consciences. No prison sentence you invoke will reach their inner life. You are not hurting the narcissist with 'no contact', you are saving your own sanity and the well-being of yourself and those you love. 'No contact' is not punishment. It is not vengeance. It is confinement. A cage you put the dangerous beast in to limit his ability to cause further harm.

P.S. Any time you buy at Amazon by clicking on any Amazon widget on my site you'll be supporting this blog with your purchases. Even if you don't purchase what is featured in the widget, if you click through the widget Amazon will credit me with a percentage of your purchases. I would, of course, be grateful for any and all who will think to do your shopping at Amazon through my site!

We Shoot Mad Dogs

The debate will likely continue ad infinitum: are narcissists the result of their own free will choices over time resulting in their becoming dangerous and evil, or are they victims of genetics and/or bad circumstances? The debate will likely never conclude because there will always be a large number of people who refuse to acknowledge the reality of volitional human evil.

The position I've taken on this blog is that malignant narcissists provide ample proof that they've chosen to be what they are. Did they set out to become the menace that they are to all their relationships and society in general? No, of course not. Evil people don't see themselves as evil. They've turned the world upside down so they are righteous and all those who oppose their will are the evil ones.

The debate on whether or not malignant narcissists create themselves or are victims of circumstance and genetics doesn't have to be settled in order to deal with the problem of what they are today in the here and now. We can completely lay aside origins when deciding the best course for ourselves and loved ones going forward.

Consider the rabid dog.

Let's say you are suddenly confronted by a rabid dog. You are staring into the eyes of a beast who has malignant intent toward you. You know beyond all doubt that this dog will bite you given half a chance...and you know that bite will likely kill you.

At that moment does it really matter HOW or WHEN the dog became rabid?

Would understanding all the circumstances and reasons for how the dog became rabid help you in that moment of confrontation?

Obviously not. What the dog is at this moment is all you must enter into your calculations on how to proceed.

Even though the dog became rabid because he himself was the victim of a poisonous bite doesn't matter one tiny bit to your situation of being directly imperiled by the rabidness of that dog. It is completely irrelevant as to the WHYS and HOWS ... what is relevant and useful is how to protect yourself from the rabid beast right now.

I hope my point is clear. No matter how you believe the narcissist in your life became malignant doesn't change how you must deal with that person. After you are safe from the narcissist's predations you'll have more of the luxury to examine the whys and hows of what kind of person they are. Hopefully you won't even then spend too much time on that line of inquiry. Acceptance of the reality of who they are today is much more useful than expending your precious energies on how they got to today in the shape they are in. Because any so-called understanding won't change what they are now.

I know there are individuals who justify their endless theorizing on the etiology of NPD on the basis that this will help us to someday cure NPD. I think this is hopeless naivete. Genetics, circumstances, social forces always provide only partial, at best, explanations. There have always been too many people with fewer advantages, harsher circumstances, more horrible family lives who manage to overcome these things to become decent people in order to explain away the ones who don't. Another aspect of naivete that these saviors of narcissists demonstrate is their reliance on psychology for answers. This should make us laugh ourselves hysterical. Psychology is itself nearly hopelessly clueless on the nuts and bolts of NPD.

I realize that the analogy of the rabid dog is imperfect. Malignant narcissists are not insane, mad, out of their minds. The correlation is the desperate malignant intent toward you and all others; the clear and present danger they are right now. The other correlation is how you ultimately must deal with either the rabid dog or the malignant narcissist. You don't bargain with either. You don't protect yourself by finding the 'reason' for their malignancy. You protect yourself and your loved ones first and foremost by whatever means necessary. You don't overcome them with bargains, with hope, with platitudes, with naivete. You must gain distance as quickly as possible.

We put the mad dog down because we realize there is no cure for the danger they now present to all who cross their path. While we obviously can't solve the narcissist problem that way we certainly can face facts and exile them from our lives. There is no such thing as safe contact with a rabid animal. Similarly, there is no safe level of contact with the predators hiding in human flesh.

Writing Letters; Good Idea or Bad Plan?

In the comments on my post of April 27, 2008 a line of discussion developed on the pros and cons of writing letters, especially kiss-off letters, to the narcissist in your life. Some say yes...some say no.

I say yes and no. It depends. Maybe.

You may or may not have noticed my lack of dogmatism on this point if you have read much here. That is because it really depends on circumstances and personalities as to whether or not it is a good idea to put pen to paper. It is a personal decision you have to make because only you can ascertain whether, in your circumstance, it is better to write or not write. You know the characters in your particular play. You know yourself. You get to decide.

The 'no letter' crowd are more vocal about their position. They have good reason to believe that it is an exercise in futility. A waste of time. It can hand ammo to the enemy. These are excellent points and you must carefully weigh them when making your decision.

You had better know your own mind very well before embarking on a letter writing course. If your thoughts are not crystallized, if they are not well-organized, if you are uncertain of your position; these are contraindications for writing a letter.

For my family and circumstances letter writing was the right plan. I am competent with the written word. There were many things that had never been said before and I wanted them out there. And I wanted to be able to say those things without interruption. I have the type of family members that I knew would read every word I wrote...and then re-read them. So even long letters were an option. If the narcissist you're dealing with has a short attention span then you would need to consider that fact. The most important aspect for me was having a record of everything. It was something I deeply felt I needed. I wanted a record of exactly what I said because my family members are big on revisionism. I wanted to be able to quote chapter and verse what I said so they couldn't get away with that. Just as important to me was having a written record of what they have said. This has been invaluable to me. Because my family are even more inclined to rewrite their own words.

My family members were highly confident of their ability to carry off their deceptions and sleight of hand tricks on paper as well as they are able to do face-to-face. Their confidence worked in my favor. My mother, my father and my sister in turn all began with great confidence. They were sure of their ability to pull one over in writing. Only too late did my mother recognize how the written word works against her. When I could hold her to her words and when I could prove she was twisting my words, she backed into her corner and quivered in fear. My sister isn't as smart as my mother, so sister dearest still has enough hubris to come at me again, after two years, in writing. She will likely regret her decision. My point is, narcissistically-driven people don't see how they reveal so much of themselves when they write things down. The written word is tangible. Solid. Grab-able. You can grab their words and hold them to it. Because it is written they are greatly hindered in their habit of taking back what they say. That worked beautifully in my situation. Because they are so unprincipled they contradict themselves or outright lie because they only have their eye on the outcome they are pursuing. Getting what they want from you. If you can get them to write down their responses to you then you are able to document their lies. Guaranteed. They talk, they write, they lie. It is nice to get those lies down in black and white.

I really believe that people know in their gut whether or not it is useful to write an kiss-off letter listing some of the reasons for saying bye-bye. I have no regrets for having written letters, kiss-off and otherwise. Those letters are invaluable to me. I have assembled a fat file filled with my letters and their responses. Forever and ever I have written proof of who they are. (I have redundant copies in various places to ensure they don't get lost.) They each in their turn completely revealed themselves on paper. I have all the proof I need that these people should not be in my life. In the early days when I could still have moments in insecurity about my decision to cut them off (particularly my mother) I could go back and re-read the letter exchanges. Those letters, both mine and theirs, contain proof. Proof that I did everything I could to try to persuade them to reason. Proof that I extended myself to the uttermost in order to attempt to save some kind of relationship. Proof that they rejected my efforts and would only agree to their own terms. Totally unacceptable terms. Unlivable terms that I had lived with for four decades.

Obviously, I am pro-letter under certain circumstances. But I am also very aware that with some narcissists it would be a complete waste of time. Or worse. When I wrote my letters I was extremely careful to not hand my family ammo to shoot me up with. I succeeded brilliantly with that. I didn't give them handles on my emotions. I was able to protect myself. If you are not confident you can do that with letters then it is best to not write. Yes, my mother showed my letters to those in her circle of sycophants to prove what an evil daughter I am. That doesn't matter to me. In my mind, if anyone could read my letters to my mother and still perceive me as being evil, then screw 'em. I don't need people like that around me. Their opinion is of no weight in my estimation. Mommy dearest showing my letters to people she was sure would support her is not, in my opinion, using my letters as ammo. No, what I'm talking about is whether or not my family could use my own words to prove to me that I'm a bad person. I said nothing to them that I want to take back. I said what I meant and meant what I said. And I didn't shoot below the belt. They can't guilt me with my own words. Also, I didn't dwell on or make a point of my negative feelings be it hurt, anger, frustration, etc. I kept on the subject of behavior. Theirs and mine. Stay away from describing how they hurt you. That is rich fodder for their future plans of annihilation of you. This is what I'm talking about when referring to using your words as ammo to shoot you up with. Do not tell them what makes you tick.

Did my family accept my arguments? Did they understand me? Hell, no. If you are writing a letter expecting those outcomes, then fugeddaboudit. In that sense, letters are a waste of your time. If you're writing a kiss-off letter, remember, they are for kissing them off. Not for persuasion. My letter writing was a bigger effort than kissing my family off. I started each letter writing campaign as an effort to try to do what I could to save some semblance of a relationship with them knowing that if I didn't achieve that outcome at least I would have proof to myself that I tried. Ultimately, I ended up with each of them in turn having to write that final letter closing off contact. But I think I've shown there are other outcomes you can be going for when writing a letter besides an expectation of gaining their understanding. In fact, you never approach a narcissist hoping they will gain insight or understanding from your words. That would just be stupid.

The last letter I wrote to my sister didn't definitively shut the door forever. I left a little ray of hope that someday I would contact her again to see if she had grown up yet. The reason I did that was because I was quite conflicted about blowing her off forever. She isn't an evil genius like my mother. Sister is very narcissistically driven, but I can't be sure she is a malignant narcissist. I can't be entirely sure because I have maintained a large emotional distance from her all my life because she was so consistently untrustworthy. She would pull out emotional knives at unpredictable junctures, so I learned to keep the emotional walls up with her very early on. I can't answer the question of whether or not she is predatory. It feels like she is with me, but I can't know if I'm the exception or the rule.

Because I didn't slam the door completely shut I am now faced with her latest attempt to persuade me she is changed. I am presently in the position of deciding whether to write or not write. I know it will only accomplish one thing if I do write her--she will leave me alone again. For awhile. I am inclined to write for that reason alone. Persuasion? Reconciliation? No, those will not be my objectives. Her email proves she in exactly the same place she was two years ago. Her so-called proofs that she is changed actually prove to me she is utterly unchanged. She is also playing games in her email. I want to call her on it really badly.

So, off I go to spend some considerable mental horse power deciding for sure whether I'll write...and if I do...what I'll say. That reminds me of one other reason to write. I start composing in my head and there is no stopping it until I get it out in writing and I say it just the way I think I need to say it. Only then can I stop the infernal persecution of composing at 4:00 a.m. when I would rather be sleeping. My private analysis of my sister's non-apology letter that I wrote in the week following my buh-bye letter to her was done for this reason. I never sent that analysis to her. Just getting it down in writing silenced the composer in me.

Anyway. Wish me luck.

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

Narcissists Can't Be Rehabilitated

I'd like to build some on the line of thought in the last post. I made a case that the grown malignant narcissist was a difficult, devious and generally obnoxious child -- to their peers and siblings especially and primarily. The logic is that the malignant narcissist is a case of arrested development. They have never progressed on to emotional, spiritual and mental maturity. So you get a constant view of the child they were at six when watching the operation of the grown narcissist.

Let's go from the thought above to this thought: The narcissist is a malicious child cloaked in an adult body. Because the malignant narcissist has always been what they are it is impossible to "rehabilitate" them.

Let us look carefully at the concept of rehabilitation and what it truly means. We're going to do so with the assistance of Stanton E. Samenow, Ph.D. who has spent a whole career studying how criminals think. His observations on criminals are completely transferable to our study of malignant narcissists. Most criminals are narcissists. Robert Hare has established as fact that all psychopaths have narcissistic personalities. Just because the narcissist in your life has managed to stay within the law (or not get caught) doesn't mean they don't think like a criminal. They do. The main problem we put in front of ourselves when trying to deal effectively with narcissists is that we don't recognize that criminals and narcissists do not think like we do.

Quoting from page 7 of "Inside the Criminal Mind" by the above mentioned author Stanton E. Samenow:

"We must understand that criminals are different, that they do not think like responsible people and do not want the same things out of life. It is also time to realize that unless we help criminals to think differently, they will continue to prey on us all."

Page 20:

"Despite a multitude of differences in their backgrounds and crime patterns, criminals are alike in one way: how they think."

Page 23:

"A surprising number of people who deal with criminals do not know how criminals think. How a person behaves is determined largely by how he thinks. Criminals think differently."

Okay, now humor me and do a little exercise. Read each of the quotes above again and insert "malignant narcissist" in where you read the word "criminal". If you know anything about malignant narcissism you can see that it is a perfect fit. Narcissists, at the very least, are criminals in their operations in the moral and spiritual realm. That they can stay out of the reach of the law doesn't mean they are not criminals in their thinking. I have stated in other posts that the narcissist is an anarchist at heart. What is an anarchist but a criminal who recognizes no law as binding upon him?

One of the thrusts of Samenow's book here mentioned is that the concept of rehabilitation is not congruent with the experience of the criminal.

One last quote:

"But rehabilitation as it has been practiced cannot possibly be effective because it is based on a total misconception. To rehabilitate is to restore to a former constructive capacity or condition. There is nothing to which to rehabilitate a criminal. There is no earlier condition of being responsible to which to restore him." All emphasis in the above quotes are the author's.

Samenow is not addressing the issue of NPD in his book. I am not wanting to misrepresent what he is saying. I am the one drawing the correlation between understanding criminals and recognizing the same principles apply in dealing with people who are malignant narcissists.

I want to make sure you've taken in what is being said about rehabilitation. You can not REhabilitate someone to a condition to which they've never been habilitated to. The false assumption that at some point in time the narcissist has been properly integrated into society and relationships is just that...false...and dangerous. They have always held themselves apart and superior to society, its rules, its norms and expectations. The narcissist is above all that. He has never been "normal", so to think he can become normal by your reasoned arguments and firm application of boundaries and controls is simply an exercise in futility. He spurns your efforts to reform him because he is perfect.

To believe that the adult narcissist who was a narcissistic child can somehow be transformed into an empathetic and normal human being is naive at best. They are fundamentally broken. They have always been broken. You can not rehabilitate a malignant narcissist. They've never been integrated into human society. They've never been "habilitated". They have held themselves above us all. They have rejected humanity. To think you as an individual have the power in your little ole' self to make the narcissist what they have never been is a bit of delusion and God complex of your own that you need to get over.

The only hope for the malignant narcissist is with God Himself. If God can't change him...for goodness sake, why do you think YOU can? While you place the fate and future of the narcissist into God's hands you need to start putting the miles between you. The hope of the narcissist changing is so infinitesimally tiny that you need not waste time sticking around to hopefully see it happen. I realize that not everyone who retains a vain hope of the narcissist changing their spots is thinking they can "save" the narcissist. Some people want to believe in fairy tales so they can cling to a dream. A dream that a nightmare marriage can become a good one. A dream that mommy dearest will someday love me and I'll have a happy family. A dream that dad will finally treat me like a real human being. These dreams may give you comfort today, but someday as you stand there holding the dust of your dreams in your hands when confronted by the harshest of realities that the dream was always hopeless, you will realize how much of your life was wasted on smoke, vapor and ashes. I'm trying to save you that outcome.

For those of us who can acknowledge that the malignant narcissist is likely even beyond the reach of God Himself, we can heartily commend the narcissist to the devil. Christians: even Christ Himself recognized that some people have the devil himself as a spiritual father (John 8:44). "Your father, the devil" never applies so well as it does to malignant narcissists. Know it. Live accordingly.

Do yourself a big favor and buy Samenow's book, "Inside the Criminal Mind". It contains some fundamental and foundational changes in how we think about and deal with criminals of all stripes which includes the malignant narcissist.

A Force of Nature

If you've withheld forgiveness from the narcissists in your life then I am sure you have experienced some particular accusations. These come from the narcissist and their sympathizers. They accuse you of "refusing to forget the past", "holding a grudge", "being resentful", "not letting go". One of my and my family's favs is "a heart full of hate". We erupt in gales of laughter when we conjure up that particular memory of my father's accusation in defense of my mother.

Narcissists have a very limited range of emotions. While being able to fake having a wider range of emotions, they really operate on an emotional level of an animal with the two primary motivating emotions of fear and anger (jealousy is a close third, but is really a combination of the other two). This is one reason they impute one of these two emotions to you when you are not behaving properly. They project their own emotional state or reactions to you. Which is why, when you calmly and firmly withhold absolution for their misdeeds, they immediately assume a negative.

Is it true? Is it inevitable that your decision to wait for someone to show true signs of confession, contrition, restitution and a firm resolve to not repeat the offense can only mean that you are a resentful, grudge-filled, vengeful, nasty person? Is it possible to withhold a gift of forgiveness while simultaneously living your own life with productiveness, happiness, and a clear conscience without bitterness?

Indeed, the assumption of the narcissists, sympathizers and Holy Joes is that you can't be a spiritual person with a clean conscience and a focus on the good things in life while withholding forgiveness. They are screwed up in the head so you can put their opinion on this in the trash. Lets look at it from healthy person's perspective.

Emotionally healthy people are realists. They are people who want to see reality, accept reality and live in reality. The realist has seen that the narcissist is not wanting a real gift of forgiveness, therefore the realist has accepted that truth and proceeded to live their life based on that truth. The realist doesn't have to be upset or angry about this reality because it never does any good to get pissed and stay pissed at reality for any length of time. Reality is. If you refuse to accept what is, you end up fighting truth. Not a good situation since, in the end, truth wins. The person I'm describing is able to depersonalize the behaviors and accusations of the narcissist because they've come to understand that the narcissist is not truth-based. Because an emotionally healthy person is only interested in truth-based reality, they don't take a lying narcissist at their word. When the narcissist starts hurling accusations the realist doesn't take them to heart once they've figured out that the narcissist is an inveterate liar.

In fact, this person is able to completely depersonalize the narcissist too. The realist thinks of the narcissist as a Force of Nature. Realists do not get angry at a force of nature. It would be senseless to do so. The force of nature is just what it is and it can't help what it is. It does what it does, wreaks its destruction, and moves on. The energy and effort of the realist is used to stay out of the way of the force of nature until it passes. When the hurricane threatens, the wise realist does all they can to protect them self and their family from the coming storm. They hammer boards over the windows and hunker down in the relative safety of their basement. When the hurricane comes knocking you don't run up and open the door to it. You don't invite the hurricane to dinner. You don't throw your kids out on the front porch to appease the hurricane in order to save yourself. Or, like the natives of certain tribes, throw your virgins into the volcano to stave off its rage and rampage. No, you simply do all you can to protect yourself and stay out of the path of a force of nature. Where is the resentment? Where is the grudge-holding? It doesn't even apply. You have simply come to recognize the truth about the narcissist; they are destructive forces and unsafe for humans. You do not try to reason with a force of nature. You don't try to placate it. You don't waste time hoping the force of nature will grow a heart. You get out of its way and stay out of its way. That is all you can do.

In one significant way the narcissist differs from a tornado, hurricane, tidal wave, volcano, etc...a force of nature is not predatory. The narcissist is. And, unlike most predators in nature, narcissists are predators of their own kind. This reality only underlines the need to get out of the way of the narcissist's storm.

Let us say for a moment that you've misjudged the narcissist, or perhaps a non-narcissist person who has become a detrimental force in your life. If you have misjudged them, your withdrawing doesn't prevent them from proving they are good people. Your withdrawal doesn't hurt someone in an irreparable way. Yes, maybe their feelings get hurt, but normal people are able to function in spite of some hurt feelings and eventually their feelings will resolve. What I'm saying is that withdrawing is the kindest and least damaging of any other action you can take. The other person, if misjudged by you, will lead their lives in such a way that will prove they are something other than what you thought they were. You may or may not be aware of how they are leading their lives, nevertheless, your withdrawal does not damage anyone's ability to carry on their lives successfully. You are no one's savior. Staying in the narcissist's life is not going to someday save them. Leaving them will not destroy them (no matter what they tell you). If you decide you must withdraw, do so without apology or shame. If you happen to be wrong, your withdrawal is not going to damage the other person's life. If you didn't misjudge, you've taken an action that has protected your self without taking retaliatory actions against the other party. Narcissists would like to pretend your withdrawal is retaliatory, but that is a lie. It is the kindest, gentlest way of dealing with their toxicity. It acknowledges that you are not willing to be hurt anymore, and that you've abdicated the idea that the narcissist's salvation somehow is dependent on you. While they characterize "no contact" by you as cruel, the opposite is true. It is the kindest thing you can do for yourself and for them. They are deprived of using you and you are not responsible for increasing their evil by letting them hone it on you.

Refusing to forget the past is thrown in your face like it is a bad thing, but if you don't have any recollection of the terrible damage a tidal wave can do, then you won't know enough to get off the beach when the water draws back. Remembering the past is essential for survival. It is not a fault of character. An operational memory is what helps keep us safe! Don't let someone shame you with that.

The narcissist should be asking us for our forgiveness. Instead, they demand us to forget. There is a very large difference between the two. They don't want forgiveness, they want us to wipe our memories into blanks. Why? Because they want carte blanche to recommit their crimes against us at their whim. This is why I refuse to let the bad guys make the rules for my life anymore. The criminals want to make the rules. Their demands always boil down to the same thing--that I continue on as before and allow the narcissist the right to abuse me as they see fit. Well, I have a good enough memory, and enough sense, to know that I have been dealing with a force of nature. My desire for it to be different won't change it. When the blizzard threatens, I'm locking the doors and not stepping a toe outdoors until it has moved on. While the storm rages, I'll be quietly and contentedly reading a book or taking a nap. No, my heart isn't full of hate. I'm very happily and realistically leading a life out of the path of the storm.

"A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished." Prov 22:3 (NKJV)

The Christian and the Fifth Commandment-Part Two

In part one I began addressing some principles involved in the fifth commandment. Christians have unique issues when dealing with a malignantly narcissistic parent which is why it's important to look carefully at principles so we can know what is truly expected of us. Narcissists who pretend to be Christian have the weight of one of God's commandments to justify themselves and force their adult children into a lifetime of servitude. I am endeavoring to show that this commandment is not a license for a parent to ruin your life.

Exodus 20:12 NIV "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you."

One of the ways that children, both as minors and after becoming adults, show honor to their parents is this: by living honorably. Deservedly or not, if a child misbehaves it reflects poorly on the parent. When an adult child breaks laws of decency and good behavior it still reflects dishonor upon the parents. The parents of serial killers and other murderers, child molesters, etc. are looked askance upon by society when the crimes of their progeny came to light. I am sure many have changed their names in order to evade the shame. So, first principles of the fifth commandment to an adult child is this: live honorably in order to not bring shame upon your parents.

This principle of not shaming one's parents holds true in other contexts as well. You do not honor a parent when you publicly shame them. This is why I do not post under my real name at my blog. All identifying marks that would tell people who exactly my parents are, are not given. No one can link my blog to my parents. Only the principle players would recognize themselves in my descriptions if they were to stumble upon them. I would never write a book, even after my parents death, that would publicly shame them.

Religious Jews are big on keeping the fifth commandment, yet they do acknowledge there are times when a parent behaves in a way that dishonors themselves, therefore they teach that an adult child would be dishonoring their parent if they did not try to remonstrate with them to right the wrong. Again, one would do this privately so as to not publicly shame a parent. Religious Jews understand there is a principle in the fifth commandment that requires an adult child to not just stand by if their parent is in the wrong. Adult children are to make a sincere effort to persuade their parents to do what is right. We honor our parents in trying to bring them back to right principles. Which leads us right back to the reality that God never requires His people to honor what is wrong. If a parental figure is living contrary to God's principles, we are required to submit to God's authority and not our parents. "Children, obey your parents IN THE LORD" Eph. 6:1. That is an essential phrase, "in the Lord". Our parent's authority is superseded by God's authority. We can not honor God by honoring our parents if our parent's are doing evil.

Which leads us to the sometimes sad reality that sometimes parents who do evil can not be dissuaded from their course. If any person persists in evil, God's instruction is to leave them alone.

Titus 3:10-11 says: "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

The King James Version calls the "divisive" person "heretic". A heretic is someone who teaches and lives contrary to the Word of God. In other words, they divide you from God. In the context of the verses that surround the word "divisive" is the picture of an individual who is argumentative and quarrelsome. Some versions use the word "troublemaker" instead of "divisive". A malignantly narcissistic parent's behaviors go far beyond these descriptors of the type of person we're instructed to separate ourselves from. Keep in mind that this instruction is to Christians toward other Christians. So if your parent lays claim to being a Christian, far from finding shelter from accountability, these verses apply even more directly to them.

The principle of these verses that we need to take into our consideration is to learn to recognize when another person's behavior is consistently influencing you or others close to you (i.e. your children) to live contrary to Biblical principles. If you are married, then your first obligation applies to your spouse, not your parent. If you have children, you are accountable to God to raise them according to truth and righteousness. If your parent represents a threat to these primary obligations of yours, then you would be in the wrong to keep such a parent in close proximity to you and yours. God has not been unclear as to the proper order of things. Your spouse is first, your children next. Your parent is described as the person you leave (Gen. 2:24) in order to embark on these new, and now primary, obligations. A narcissistic parent who is demanding first place in your life is betraying their disregard for God's order of things.

In the passage we're looking at, Paul uses the term, "self-condemned". Take note. If a person will not turn from their evil course, they are SELF-CONDEMNED. YOU are not condemning them. They do it to themselves. When you follow the instruction to "have nothing to do with them" they are not being condemned by you in God's eyes either. They have condemned themselves. The "Christian" narcissists in my family have decried my attempts to deal with the truth with them as evidence that I am condemning them. Then they would condemn me for condemning them. This line of logic doesn't hold to up the scrutiny of God's Word. They are self-condemned. My mother has acted like my choosing to no longer have her in my life is somehow condemning her before God. Nothing could be further from the truth. She has direct access to God's throne of grace. Nothing I do can prevent her from making things right with Him. I do not have the power to make God condemn her. Don't be diverted from by the silly logic of narcissists. They twist and turn to make you into the bad guy any time you refuse to give them what they demand. The Bible is misused by them to accomplish this with you.

Notice also that the Biblical number in dealing with overt and/or persistent sin is "two or three". It is part of Christ's instruction in Matthew 18 in dealing with someone who has sinned against us. We are not required to remonstrate with someone forever. They don't get endless chances for do-overs. There is an end to how much we are to deal with unrepentant evil. Why is this? I believe it is because evil is infectious. By close association with it, we become more tolerant of it. God isn't willing to risk the integrity of His followers by forcing them to rub shoulders every day with evil people in the church or the Christian home. Like Paul says, God isn't asking us to judge the world, that is His purview. But we are specifically to distance ourselves from those who call themselves Christians but who behave in evil ways:

1 Cor. 5:9-12...I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

There are a slew of verses in the Bible with similar instruction on how to deal with evil people. Paul is quoting the Old Testament when he writes, "expel the wicked man from among you." That specific phrase is used six times in Deuteronomy, which Paul was quoting. The list he gives above of types of wicked people is not an exhaustive list of evil. But it is important to note what he is really emphasizing here...that Christians are called to judge (i.e. use discernment) those who call themselves Christian. Not people in the world, but Christians. There are many Biblical exhortations for Christians to judge behaviors. It is presented as a duty to do so. We aren't to sit around and decide who is going to heaven or hell. That kind of judging is for God alone, but we are to decide whether or not someone's behavior is evil and deal accordingly. The Scriptures are clear that the prescription for a Christian concerning people who persist in evil is to "expel the wicked man from among you."

Notice in Paul's statement in 1 Cor. that the "greedy" person is condemned just as much as the sexually immoral. The "slanderer" is just as condemned as the idolater. This is important to consider because we often have our own ideas of what is "bad" or "evil". We may not tend to think the "slanderer" and the "greedy" are necessarily wicked, but we have the Bible telling us this is so. As Christians we need to allow the Bible to define evil, not our mother or father and not society.

Some parents force their adult children to honor their parents in the only way left to them, by living an honorable life. As long as you do that, you are honoring your parent.

What about Christ's statement to Peter that we are to forgive "seventy times seven"? You can find the exchange in Matthew 18:21-35. Christ follows this command of the number of times we are to forgive with a parable. What is forcefully portrayed in the parable is the picture of a repentant individual. We have no right to withhold forgiveness to someone who is showing remorse for their actions and is willing to restore what they've taken. In a few verses previous to this instruction (Matt. 18:15-17) is the formula for dealing with someone who has sinned against you. Going to them first privately, then taking two or three witnesses if the private meeting did not result in repentance for a sin against you. Finally, confronting the person in the presence of the congregation. After that, they are to be treated as a "heathen man and publican" by you. The juxtaposition of this instruction with the instruction given to Peter a few verses later has to be reconciled. Christ wasn't contradicting himself. We see a contrast here between a person who is repentant and a person who refuses to repent. Big difference in how we are to deal with them. Please note that Matt. 18:15-17 is about dealing with something objective. A "trespass against you" is something that can be objectively determined to be wrong. I have had people try to use this passage to say that their "hurt feelings" are my sin against them. Sorry. Doesn't fly. Sin is measured by an objective standard, the law of God. Hurting someone's feelings because you told the truth doesn't qualify as "sin against them". Narcissists twist this all around to suit their own agenda. Don't let them get away with that.

The last principle I'll touch on concerning the fifth commandment is how we deal with our evil parent(s) if they become indigent. We are required to make sure they have food in their stomachs, clothes on their backs and a roof over their head. Not our roof, but a roof. Basic humans needs are to be met. The fact that we are alive today is because they provided these basic things to us when we were helpless and dependent. I don't think a Christian can walk away from an indigent parent without dishonor. (If you have a parent who abandoned you and didn't raise you, and didn't provide any of these things for you as a child then I'm not sure this applies. Follow your conscience. My conscience would say this person is not a parent in any sense of the word.) There are ways to care for a horrid parent from a distance. It doesn't have to be "hands on". Arrangements for their care can be made. Other people can administer that care for a price. I'm not saying we have to take them into our homes in these instances if it would be destructive to our own family. Even social services are available and can be utilized by us to make sure the parent's basic needs are being met.

These are some principles that you can use to guide your thinking on the concept of "cutting off" a parent as it pertains directly to Christians. Remember, by doing so you are not condemning your evil parent. He or she has condemned themselves by their persistence in clinging to, and the excusing of, their evil behaviors. You are accepting the principle of free will. By the Bible's emphasis of two or three approaches to someone who is behaving badly and then leaving them to themselves we are seeing God's respect for free will. He does not instruct His people to violate the principle of free will because free will is a God-given principle. God Himself will not violate free will. We are to recognize what people are freely choosing to do and leave them to their decision if they persist in evil. You, by choosing to accept your evil parent's decision to persist in their abuse and cruelties, are simply acquiescing to their decision. Since you can not honor God and honor an evil parent at the same time, you are left with one alternative...to remove yourself. As long as they are unrepentant, you have no other choice but to "expel the wicked one from among you."

The fifth commandment is not a cloak for an evil parent to wear to protect themselves from all accountability. We are all accountable to each other for how we behave toward each other. It may be that our persistently evil parent(s) may force us to separate ourselves from them in order that we can fulfill our obligations to our own families, but by living honorable lives we bring honor to the name of our parents in the eyes of others. By refusing to publicly shame our parents, we honor them. So, even if separated from evil parents we are able to still honor them in a way that doesn't dishonor God.