The God Complex

Narcissism was first described in psychiatric literature as "the God Complex." On the face of it, that's pretty self explanatory. In fact, everyone who's had anything to do with a narcissist will say, "Yup, s/he thinks s/he's God."

But since that's a cliché so overworn that it hardly sinks in with any exact meaning, it's well worth a pause to ask ourselves exactly what that means. Just what is a god? What can we say about our relationship with one?

God is very important — all important. We exist for his sake, not our own. That is, we are to fulfill his desires, not our own. Our conduct is to glorify him, not ourselves. We are here to serve him, not our own interests. He doesn't pay us for our services: we owe him everything, including any sacrifice.

Notice that, in any other context, his rights with respect to us amount to property rights. They are rights of ownership. We would describe the relationship between a master and a slave in exactly the same terms. A slave is to be a selfless executioner of someone else's will. In fact, the ancient word for servant was synonymous with "slave," a fact that has fallen into obscurity over the past few centuries of religious teaching.

His ownership of us is what gives a god the right to judge us. For, the owner of property is also the judge of its worth. He has a right to take a sledge hammer to it if he wants. By virtue of his ownership of others, a god is therefore the judge of their worth. He too has a right to destroy his property if he wants. In fact the ancient words for "god" and "idol" were synonymous with "king" and "master" and meant "judge." He is to ultimately judge us as worthy of keeping (saving, preserving) or not. If not, he condemns us like a worthless building and fires us = throws us away (into Hell).

But he himself is never to be judged. To fault him in any way is unthinkable. He is righteous by virtue of who he is, not what he does. To question the righteousness of what he does to his property would be akin to cattle arguing that their owner does evil in slaughtering them. Simply because he owns them, he has the right to do with them as he pleases.

Here are some examples that show this — examples of things God has done that would be viewed as wrong if any human being had done them:

· It would be wrong for anyone to order the extermination of all the original inhabitants of a conquered land. Yet God ordered the Israelites to exterminate all the original inhabitants of Palestine. In fact, he became so angry when they left a few alive that he made the earth swallow up a whole tribe.

· It would be wrong for us to stand by and do nothing while our innocent child was tortured and killed. In fact, people go to prison for "failure to protect" their children. But God handed over his only begotten son for that purpose and then forgave the guilty parties on the grounds that the falsely accused victim paid their debt of punishment for them.

· It would be wrong for us to stand by and do nothing about pain and suffering that we could alleviate. Yet people buried alive in an earthquake beg God to at least let them die quickly but are denied their petition and suffer a protracted death for no conceivable purpose except maybe to punish them for something.

· If the President's subordinates do something bad on his authority that he knew about before they did it, we impeach him. But God is not faulted for allowing the episcopal and monastic Inquisitions to curse, loot, and burn in his name and claiming his authority for 900 years.

In other words, a god is infallible, has the right to do anything. Whatever he does is right by definition, because he did it. Even if the same thing would be very wrong for anyone else to do.

This is, of course, a double standard. So, a god needn't abide by the standards he sets for others. Because he is superior, he is entitled to a lower set of moral standards. In fact, he is entitled to an infinitely lower set of moral standards, because a god can do anything he wants and not be faulted for it. Nobody holds a god answerable for anything.

Narcissists are no fools. They like that arrangement. They view themselves as special and impose the same relationship on us mere mortals by playing the role of a god with respect to us.

And so, it's no wonder that a narcissist acts out the same story and gets really obnoxious the moment you depart from the script: He is very important — all important. Others exist for his sake, not their own. They are to fulfill his desires, not their own. Their conduct is to glorify him, not themselves. They are here to serve his needs, not their own. He doesn't pay them for their services: they owe him everything, including any sacrifice.

Notice that, in any other context, his rights with respect to them amount to property rights. He is the judge of his property's worth and has the right to abuse or trash us if he wants. He himself is never to be judged. To fault him in any way is unthinkable. He is righteous by virtue of who he is, not what he does. So, he need not live up to the standards he sets for us or even the standards of common decency. He is answerable for nothing. Nothing he does, no matter what, is wrong, though the same things would be very wrong for us to do.

Once you notice all these parallels in godhead and narcissism, it is no wonder that the victims of narcissists always complain that she thinks she's God.

But wait — there's a flip side, a lighter side to the God Complex. There is another relationship described by the same set of rules. Can you think of it? Go on, keep searching your brain for the answer. Give up?

Just what is an infant? What can we say about one?

An infant is very important — all important. Others exist for its sake, not their own. They are to fulfill its desires. They are here to serve its needs, at the expense of their own. Their eyes are mirrors to see itself glow in 24-7. It doesn't pay them for their services: they owe it everything, including any sacrifice. Notice that, in any other context, its rights with respect to them amount to property rights. It judges their performance and hits them and kicks them and screams at them for not knowing and providing whatever it wants at the moment.

Yet it is never to be judged. To fault it in any way is unthinkable. It is righteous by virtue of being an infant, not by virtue of what it does. So, it need not live up to the standards of common decency. It is answerable for nothing. Nothing it does, no matter what, is wrong, though the same things would be very wrong for grownups to do.


Kathleen Krajco