Long term visitors to this blog will know that at the heart of my interests is a fascination with the outworking of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). This personality disorder can be seen to be at the heart of much of the dynamics of harmful behaviour both in individual relationships and in institutional settings like the Church.
Before we examine, what I want to call, institutional narcissism, we need to return to the classic psychoanalytic understandings of the word narcissism. In offering a brief summary of the current thinking on the term, we should be aware that like PTSD, NPD has only been in circulation as an idea since around 1980. As a word that has entered wide public awareness, narcissism has only been in existence for around a dozen years. Narcissism’s essential meaning, which most people are now familiar with, has the idea of self-inflation. Such self-aggrandisement, combined with a readiness to ‘feed’ off others in a relationship, has become easily recognisable for countless people. Dysfunctional power relationships in families and institutions can often be identified as an outworking of NPD.
The psychoanalysts who laboriously described the dynamics of narcissism to their professional colleagues in the 1970s, paving the way for it to enter the official classificatory manuals, offered theories about its origins. Narcissism was, in summary, the result of a child failing to create a core ‘self’. Without that self at the centre of the personality, the child and later adult would find it necessary to reach out to fill this empty space with compensatory attachments and relationships. There would be an ongoing narcissistic hunger for parental-type attention and praise. Such hunger often proved to be insatiable, leaving the sufferer deeply wounded for the whole of his/her life. Some narcissists do achieve a level of stability and success, at least superficially. They obtain, by cunning and manipulation, a context in which they can control others sufficiently to hide their woundedness. For a time, they are the heart and soul of the party before some crisis exposes the fragility that lies deep down in every narcissist.
As with most psychological disorders, one suspects that NPD exists on a continuum. Possibly every human being alive is a victim to some extent of this disturbance. The question is whether it becomes a disorder able to disturb ordinary flourishing. Within the literature there is, as I have discussed before on this blog, a suggestion that some find that a hitherto unacknowledged narcissism is brought out by particular settings. A typical example of ‘acquired situational narcissism’ (ASN) might be a pop star beginning to enjoy fame and having a constant supply of ‘girl-friends’ ready to oblige at any time. More central to our concern is the ASN awoken in an individual promoted to a bishopric or the House of Lords. A sense of self-aggrandisement and importance is granted through the new role. The enjoyment of privilege is not in itself a bad thing, but it becomes serious if the new preferment removes an individual from his old ways of relating to others. The thought that that ‘I am now too important to be bothered with the likes of you’ is a dangerous notion. It is effectively poisoning the soul of a hitherto straightforward person.
The idea that I am wrestling with at present is the notion of institutional narcissism. By this term I am thinking of the way that when people become important in their own eyes, above ordinary mortals, they use institutions to consolidate that superiority. One of the ways that Michael Reid of Peniel expressed the toxic power he enjoyed over his followers was to confront them with the institution he had built. He literally pointed to the church and the real estate it owned and challenged his opponents with the question. ‘Who is God showing his favour to?’ In short, money property and influence were the tangible backing forces of narcissistic behaviour. The institution was a means for exercising power over others.
As I thought about the way narcissists build their power around the institutions they have created, the image of a sea-creature building for itself a shell came to mind. The shell is the means to protect the vulnerable core of the narcissistic leader. We see this process happening all over the world in a religious context. Plant and wealth equals power and, as such, helps to protect the vulnerable narcissistic leader from challenge. A particular extreme example is found among Scientologists. All over the world they are converting large buildings to be bases for their activities. The only problem is that there are not enough people interested to go to these buildings. They form an empty shell to give the illusion of power and influence which does not in fact exist.
The sea creature analogy can be taken one stage further. The hermit crab is known to use the empty shells of other creatures to provide protection for itself. I am wondering if in fact that the Church of England, with its complex system of rank, preferment and privilege, is proving an unhealthy environment where narcissistic behaviour can flourish. In other words, the sheer number and variety of protective shells that litter the Church’s landscape provides a rich soil for the incubation of many examples of an institutional narcissism. Even if we assume that the Church of England clergy do not possess a greater number of damaged selves than the rest of the population, it might be argued that there is greater possibility for ASM to emerge, thanks to the extent of the many institutional props or shells that exist.
I leave my reader not with clear answers but with a number of questions. Is the structure of the Church conducive to unhealthy power dynamics? Do our leaders unconsciously slide into narcissistic ways of thinking as the result of preferment? When they exercise power in a church setting, are they mindful of the way that such power should only be exercised in the name of the institution and is never personal to them? These questions and other are relevant not only to bishops and senior clergy, but they are worth asking of clergy of every rank and seniority. One thing that occurs to me is that a better understanding of all the different manifestations of narcissism in the church would make the institution a far healthier place than it is at present.
I have shared this with a support group for divorced and separated clergy wives. Many have experienced what you describe, and ‘narcissism’ has been word used.
Would I be right to suggest that some clergy marriages are put under strain as clergy are encouraged to become more and more self-important over time? My institutional narcissism idea would certainly be extremely relevant to your group, Rosina. I did not see this particular working out of my speculation, but it certainly fits.
I’m not able to comment on the role of NPD in clergy marriage breakdown, Stephen, but in my case it was cover-up and deceit at the highest levels of Winchester Diocese which fatally undermined my marriage to a priest, after he had self-reported misconduct to his superiors. My trust that our family would be supported in a healthy, constructive way was devastatingly misplaced.
In recent weeks I’ve received an apology from Lambeth Palace for the way I was treated, although I’ve received no such acknowledgement so far from Winchester Diocese.
Hi jay, I’m glad someone has apologised. Is it a start? Or will it end there? I hope something comes of it.
Yes, maybe Lambeth will lean on Winchester?
I would hope that Winchester Diocese would take responsibility and wish to put matters right (to the extent that is possible) of their own accord without the need for being leaned on by others.
One can live in hope!
Here’s hoping, with you, that they give you a full apology and some recompense.
The issue of narcissism has been raised several times in our discussions. A narcissist does not make a good husband or father, even though he may claim to be a ‘Father in God’.
I am not so sure about dividing ASN (the acquired narcissism of the celebrity) and Institutional narcissism. Outside the institutional church we also see narcissism in church too often in my opinion.
Another place it flourishes is in the “mega churches” with 1,000 plus services in warehouse style buildings – but by no means do I suggest it is endemic there I hasten to add. Also large conference movements – such as New Wine and Spring Harvest – again often really good wholesome environments – but they carry the weakness of “christian stardom”.
These contexts are in some senses causing the problem. Read Vicky Beeching’s book “Undivided” (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0008182140) for example… Though Vicky didn’t suffer from ASN, her book clearly demonstrates the massive damage that “christian stardom” can do.
Another great, thoughtful post, Stephen. As one of the plebs, I have certainly met clergy who thought they knew it all on the basis of their having been ordained. The things they think they know all about are as many and varied as human beings. But a notable one is counselling. And of course, theology. I’ve seen people riding over lay people who actually do have training and qualifications. One silly incident: a Cathedral canon who knew I could pronounce Latin, asked me how to say the title to the anthem at evensong, I was rudely talked over by another who offered his suggestion. He was wrong, I was right. Leaving his colleague looking foolish. It’s absolute power. It changes people.
An interesting form of “knowing it all” and exerting power I’ve come across is the clergy person asserting they know what’s best for the church because they are the only person in a position to know what everyone in the congregation thinks and needs.
😂 Yeah, right! Interesting right enough!
To identify narcissism within the church is deeply disturbing. It’s also fascinating to discern narcissistic traits in our pastors, our institutions and even in ourselves. More study is certainly welcome.
A healthy person in an accountable role within a group grounded in reality would hopefully avoid acquiring narcissism, or in other words, bring corrupted by power (as English Athena infers).
People, organisations and their leaders tend to flea reality and live in a bubble when things get tough. Blocking their ears to voices of truth increases the tendency to inflate leaders. Such preferment actively encourages power abuse.
The above behaviour is of course in the long term self limiting. But in the short term mid-life-crisis vicars have affairs with their adoring acolytes. We would too (in all likelihood) if we had the same power and temptations.
Organisations only change after major crisis. No one really wants to talk about this. It’s too fundamental and too difficult to face.
Broken people, if they survive, look to change, to learn, to see how they can do better. It’s almost impossible to do this on your own.
Their allies are transparency, and honest grounded advocates. And each other.
I would say that churches are magnets for narcissists, and church with the misfortune to have a narcissistic priest or pastor eventually adopt the same personality traits. Institutionally narcissistic churches are outwardly friendly and welcoming, but inwardly manipulative and bullying.
Whilst revisiting institutional narcissism, I wonder if I may be permitted to ask about other institutional “personality” disorders?
For example, has anyone come across “autistic” leadership? I hesitate to use the word “autistic” in an extension of its technical definition partly because many families (including my own) have been badly afflicted by Autism Spectrum Disorder and I don’t want to add to people’s grief. But I’m trying to describe an absence of feeling in leaders and their followers . Another word for it would be “alexithymic” church, a place where emotions are studiously avoided.
Organisations living like this are entirely cerebral. They use intellectualisation. Everything is complicated or clever. Academic.
Personalities, whether individual or group, sometimes develop a bias as a defence against past trauma for example, in attempt not to be hurt again. ‘If I think everything through in excessive detail, I won’t have to feel (pain) will I?’
I once attended an Easter Sunday service at such a place. It was like a funeral. The church was full.
For me, it may be safe, but it’s not quite whole. Far from it. When an injured soul wanders in, what is there for her? Only doctrine.
There is again a spectrum for this disorder. We will be attracted or repelled from “autistic” style leaders depending on our own predisposition.
I’d be interested to know others’ experience here.
Very good article.
Steve Lewis: I have experienced and have many accounts from clergy spouses and ex clergy spouse who have been subjected to what you have described and I quote
“But I’m trying to describe an absence of feeling in leaders and their followers . Another word for it would be “alexithymic” church, a place where emotions are studiously avoided. Organisations living like this are entirely cerebral. They use intellectualisation. Everything is complicated or clever. Academic.”
When dealing with senior staff on clergy marriage breakdown factual accounts were needed while leaving the emotional devastation at the door. It is unreal, devoid of compassion, cold, hard hearted of the likes I have never in my life came across and hope to never be confronted in that way in life again. I have written about narcissism in my book “Set Adrift” Former clergy wives speak out (available on Kindle now and soon. paperback)
It’s a small world Vivienne! Courageous of you to find the strength and compassion to assist others.
I couldn’t walk away from this even if I wanted to. I and we at “Broken Rites” will continue working towards a “National Care Policy” for clergy spouses and children if it takes the rest of our lives to accomplish this as we don’t want one more clergy spouse to go through what many of us did.
‘Alexithymic’ is a new word to me, but it exactly describes the emotional illiteracy we far too often find among church leaders. Especially, perhaps, Anglican church leaders. I recall a female theologian telling a group of women clergy: ‘Don’t share your emotions with bishops. Don’t cast your pearls among swine.’ It was good advice.
It’s not just bishops, either. Years ago a colleague, much-respected area dean, was outed by the News of the World for living a double life. The bishop appointed a replacement are dean and at the next chapter there was 100% attendance – the only time I can recall that happening. Everyone wanted to share their shock, sense of betrayal, and concern for the man’s family and parish. We needed to talk about it. But the new area dean avoided the subject completely, pretending nothing had happened. It was surreal.
And I’ve seen that kind of thing happening time and again.
We had an autistic incumbent once. Now my son has Asperger’s, and he is very empathetic. Hasn’t read the handbook, obviously. But boyo took the service the Sunday after September 11th without mentioning it at all! One of his churchwardens didn’t speak to him for three months, and he didn’t notice! Someone had to take him aside. But I haven’t really any experience of a whole church behaving in this way. It sounds horrendous. Power to your elbow, viv.
I was guest preacher in a parish the morning Princess Diana was killed in Paris. When I arrived I told the vicar I felt I should change my planned sermon and preach about Diana’s death instead. He wasn’t too happy, but afterwards he did have the grace to say the sermon had been appropriate.
As Joel Edwards says, ‘Preach about what everyone is talking about.’ And especially if it’s something people have deep feelings about. That’s when the Church needs to prove it has something to say.
Well, yes. Quite. Unbelievable.
I would be wary of making generalisations here, along the lines of ‘don’t trust bishops’ etc, because of the possibility that we all might be sitting somewhere on a narcissistic spectrum as Stephen rightly reminded us. I suspect there is also a risk that a nascent, originally minor, touch of narcissism can grow if we find ourselves in a situation where we are suddenly given the power and machinery required for it to become a problem for others as well as ourselves.
I did find it a bit odd, though, that Stephen singled out the Scientologists for criticism for “converting large buildings to be bases for their activities”. Although that may indeed be the case, is there not a mote in the eye here? What about the monstrous medieval piles which the CofE still permits to litter the landscape in its name? Whenever I see one I am reminded of George Bernard Shaw’s opinion that they should be dynamited, “organs and all”, if they become the home of a systematic idolatry. Well, I’m afraid I think many of them are just that, and when it happens it also becomes inextricably linked in my mind to narcissism on the part of their clergy.
Good point. But we are looking after listed buildings on behalf of the nation. We’re stuck with that. We’re long past being the people who sought either self aggrandisement or salvation by building bigger, higher, better! Personally, I do think giving a nice normal person absolute power is not good for them.
With the alexithymic, there is often a flight into trivia. These things may have a semblance of importance, such as the car parking hierarchy, but really represent a distraction from the main work of the church or organisation.
An alternative to trivia would be a return to obsessive repetition of previous mantras or dogma. There is frequently a flight to overwork.
The topics being worked on or the doctrines being re-emphasised are undoubtedly of value, up to a point, but the flight often represents a reaction to unresolved conflict. Anything to avoid engaging with people one-to-one.
That’s very interesting.. Perhaps it explains some contributions to the Church Times. Like the article in Friday’s issue earnestly explaining why prefacing items for intercession with ‘we pray for…’ is wrong, because it means they’re not intercessions! I didn’t bother to finish it.
One of the reasons I love the Old Testament is that in its stories it depicts all human passions. Maybe that’s the very reason why some people dislike it so much?
Giggle. Sounds as if I was right not to start it! And I totes agree about the Old Testament.
Here’s another example of “flight to trivia” https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/22-february/news/uk/general-synod-rebels-attempt-to-quash-wedding-and-funeral-fees