He Might Not be an Narcissist, He Just Might be an “Arcissist”

A Neologism

My wife and I had a good laugh yesterday morning discussing someone in church leadership whose behaviour was less than godly and who had had a history of insecure behaviour that resulted in broken relationships and people leaving the organisation he headed.

Now as a clinical psychologist, my wife is cautious with the “n” word – narcissist – because it is a technical term that has been used a lot recently, and especially in relation to toxic church leadership. She has seen more than a few narcissists through her practice. She knows the presenting pathologies.

So she said jokingly,

 “Ok, maybe not an narcisisst, perhaps he’s just an ‘arcissist’!”

And we had a bit of a laugh because of the phonological (how the sound of the word conveys the meaning) nature of the neologism (a newly minted word). You get what type of person we’re talking about, don’t you?!

Well all jokes aside, and I mean “all jokes”, because soon after I posted that as a funny on Facebook, it got serious.  The concern was raised that we are prone to using the term too readily, and especially in the church at the moment. After all, this is the age of the victim – apparently.

So what was intended as a funny post became a bit charged for some folk. Folk who wanted to point out that there are very few narcissists around and that we are diminishing the term’s true meaning by throwing it around.

And I kinda get some of that. Of course there’s been an over-correction in this direction. The “n” word can become a weapon when used of someone who is not one.

But What if It Quacks Like a Duck?

We are living in a therapeutic age. We all know it. The internal “you” is the real you. it’s very easy to have that particular word – and others within the same semantic field – at our fingertips, ready to pull out and use against people we have crossed, or more likely, have crossed us. The times are ripe.

But there’s still an issue isn’t there? What to do with the ones who almost quack almost like a duck, almost swim like a duck, and almost look like a duck. What does it mean to have duckesque features without being the full feathered creature?  Though we have to admit, that most of the time it’s “drakesque” not “duckesque”. The stats just seem to say it.

So apart from spoiling what I thought was just a funny Facebook post, it did raise the question: If not the “n” word then what?

And I think that’s where my new term comes in – or least my wife’s new term: “Arcissist”.

Most people don’t think the jerk at work is a total narcissist. They may lazily use the term. But they do think their colleague is on a train line which terminates at that station. They are most likely to get off before it goes full blown psychopath.

So like so many things in the psychological field, this is a sliding scale. And with that in mind, permit me the little game of  dropping the first letter from “narcissist” and allow the neologism to do the heavy lifting. Humour me that much at least. For as someone else commented on my Facebook post:

Reminds me of Jean-Louis Gassée’s self description as a “recovering assaholic”.

Once again a bit of linguistic gymnastics in a very Aussie way and you get the idea. But let’s add a note of caution about the “n” word in order to fulfil all righteousness, before I get to the point of what I want to say.

I’ll quote one of the comments at length which cautioned against the term “narcissist”, a comment that I think has merit to it:

Secondary Abuse

Yet I also get why people do rush to judgement and use the term. And one of the primary reasons is that those who could do something about the “arcissist” never seem themselves to be fleet of foot to rush off and solve the issue. Not at least until there’s a body count or a loud enough noise to be embarrassing.

It’s one thing to rush to judgement quickly. It’s quite another to have to put up with excuse after excuse about poor behaviour from a church leader that gets brushed under the carpet. I can tell you now, one of the primary reasons in the church setting that people use the word is sheer exasperation.

For those people who have fallen under the wheels of the particular “arcissist” bus, their ongoing problem is not with the “arcissist”, but with the “arcissistic” system that allows this behaviour to continue. What we call the secondary abuse.

And what is that secondary abuse I am talking about? It’s the abuse of not being believed or at least having their experience being diminished or dismissed by those who either fear the “arcissist” or who have an ongoing relationship with them in the sense that they belong to the same tribe.

In fact being believed, but having nothing done about it due to the lack of willpower or the refusal to get one’s hands dirty, is often far worse.

Central to the enabling behaviour of the bully is the lack of will among those with no real interest in seeing change because it’s just to hard or too uncomfortable or they are in too deep relationally with the “arcissist”.  There is often a predetermined decision not to upset the apple cart, or take a hit at cost to themselves. Or in other words – moral cowardice.

The problem we have in many of our church structures is not a quick rush to judgement and hot-headed hangings in the manner of The Crucible. In fact it’s pretty much the opposite – a failure to do any judgement at all. A reticence to actually solve anything, or at least grasp the nettle as leaders and take a real hit for the team.

I get that there is nuance. I get that one-off situations are hard. But some of the situations I am talking about are “launder/rinse/repeat” over a series of years, with whispers of “ongoing problems” etc, etc.

And it’s often in my own theological cohort. We’re fantastic at straining out theological gnats, and swallowing pastoral camels. We will rush to find a theological micro-aggression from twenty paces, but struggle to see the ungodly, unfit for ministry folk right in front of us. (At least I hope we’re struggling to see it and not just ignoring it).

Those who lose their jobs, their livelihoods, – and often their minds –  over the treatment meted out often find that this secondary abuse is often worse than the initial abuse.  To be abused by a bully is one thing. To have those with a vested interest deflect, diminish or excuse that behaviour is another thing. And it happens in church systems all of the time.

Bringing It On Ourselves

Why are we populated with people who can see the problem of the world from the pulpit, but who cannot call out in theological and moral terms those whose behaviour among their own tribe is causing so many concerns?

If the abused person cannot come to those in leadership positions and be believed and their concerns acted upon, then it’s little wonder they go the “narcissistic” route. If they have to shout to get a hearing then the problem is not their over-reach, but the system’s lack of desire to change anything.

Tribalism within church settings is responsible for more dismissal of concerns around “arcissistic” behaviour than just about anything else.  The tribe will do all it can to deflect concerns and protect their offending fellow tribe member. And it’s enervating churches and leadership systems.

How does this deflection present itself to those who come to the tribe with their concerns? It presents itself in ways that diminish the issue, or put it back on the one coming with concerns:

“Yes, but he gets stuff done.”

“I hear there have been a few issues.”

“We all have our faults.”

“He’s still your brother in Christ.”

“The problem is people don’t give him enough grace.”

“Have you checked your own heart?”

If you have done that to protect the “arcissist” in your own tribe, then you are part of the “arcissistic” system.

All of  the above comments I have heard by the way, All of them. And of all sorts along the spectrum. Both about the two truly narcissistic types I have run into, and of other clunky, insecure and bullying leaders, who sadly I have also run into, or who run into me.

The concern of course is that the poor person on the other end of the bad behaviour – arcissist or narcissist, choose your poison -, doesn’t experience their trauma on a sliding scale.  They don’t get to keep a bit of their job. They don’t get to have part of their wage. Their kids don’t get to stay in the local school two days per week. Their wife doesn’t cry herself to sleep only every second night.

See the problem? While the rest of us are splitting hairs, people are being damaged.  By ungodly leaders. And too many godly, but timid leaders, do little about it.

A Moral Issue

So let’s not make it a therapeutic issue. Let’s make it a moral issue if it indeed is exactly that. Let’s make it a theological issue.  And let’s not be cowards. If you are someone supporting an “arcissistic” system, then perhaps ask yourself what might be the outcome of you addressing the concerns of others on their behalf with the offending person?

Chances are you’re worried about your own relationship with the “arcissist”. Chances are in your gut you know that to push back on them – in a moral and theological manner rather than a therapeutic manner – might see you kicked to the kerb.  Cowardice is a serious sin. Serious enough that the book of Revelation tells us that it bars entry to the city of God.

We’re very good at assuming we are braver than we are. That we have more courage. Yet for me, the courageous ones are those who are able to call out bad behaviour and put an end to the dreary treadmill of arcissistic  and yes, narcissistic – leaders who are a blight on the church and her gospel witness.

So narcissist, “arcissist”, whatever. I’m probably over the splitting and defining of terms. It’s behaviours and their results that I’m interested in. And let’s face it, it’s not hard to recognise bad behaviour. It’s not hard to see the difference between a muddy conflict between two colleagues, and a long term aptitude for being a self-centred and domineering leader.

It does seem hard though to call it out when you see it affecting other people, and especially if calling it out might come at cost to yourself.