Can a Lawful Neutral truly follow God?

Perhaps I am not Lawful Neutral. Adam maintained in his last comment that we need to stop thinking of God as Lawful or Chaotic, Good or Neutral, and instead think of God as Love. He went on to state that a LN would know neither love nor God because they are too bound by rules. Instead, a LN is doing their best to avoid such… emotions? attachments? This wasn’t clear in his comment, and I don’t want to put words in his mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be), but that’s how I interpreted his closing paragraphs.

As I thought about the subject, I considered how we learn to love. In the nature vs. nurture debate of human development, it is difficult to discern from whence certain parts of a human’s personality and behaviours develop. I believe that we are made in God’s image, and subsequently are capable somewhere in our core of being good and holy. Sin, however, has corrupted this and separated us from God, and during this earthly life we will always struggle against that sin. Subsequently, I do believe that humans are capable of loving from the time they are born, yet need to learn how to love unconditionally and truly, because that kind of love is difficult for us.

Maybe you learn love through having a loving family, or from having a good relationship with God. I learned it mostly from the latter and through study of subject, which highlights my Lawful Neutral tendencies I suppose. It seems a bit ridiculous to learn of love through reading, but that has played a large part in my development. Books like Tuesdays With Morrie and the Dragonlance Saga taught me of sacrifice, chivalry, and love.

Can a Lawful Neutral love? I believe they can, depending on their moral code. The key to LN is that they uphold a code or set of rules, and they interpret and cling strongly to those rules. They are a Judge, working hard to figure out what fits and what doesn’t in light of that code. Let us suppose that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a Lawful Good God (of which I’m still not convinced, though I feel that Jonny made a compelling argument that the definition of “good” really ought to be “like God.”). Were I to set my compass by God’s star, and working hard to obey His moral codes, I would be tending Lawful Good as well. What’s more, there are some very specific instructions that belie Adam’s statement that a Lawful Neutral is incapable of love and sacrifice.

1 John 3:16 (NIV)

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

My code tells me I ought to sacrifice my life for others. Therefore, I must do so, and in the doing I will learn what love is. My code speaks of sacrifice and love; anyone who follows it that is truly Lawful Neutral must devote themselves to understanding these concepts. This is why I say that “the majority of our country” is not Lawful Neutral, as Adam puts it–I agree with him that many do not hold to the code the Bible presents, and subsequently they could not be LN.

Still, I do not think that God sacrifices and loves and has compassion doesn’t immediately translate to Him being Lawful Good. I suppose the question really comes down to, “Would a Lawful Good deity harshly punish disobedience?” A Lawful Neutral deity surely would, for obedience to the rules and code is what Lawful Neutral is all about. One could, as Irrelevant observed, much more easily make the case that the God of the New Testament is Lawful Good and the God of the Hebrew Bible is Lawful Neutral. But the same God is represented in both canons. The question has been raised for centuries, “What changed between the Old Testament and the New?” I maintain that nothing changed.

To give a short synopsis to that belief, I see the Hebrew Bible and New Testament as being very different collections of work. In the former, the collected books are primarily 1) God communicating to His people, and 2) stories about people who followed God. In the New Testament, we have a bit of God communicating by way of Jesus, and then a lot of interpretation about what Jesus meant by the things he said. Even here, though, we do not see a God who fails to punish disobedience, we simply see it on a more human level. Rather than God punishing the nature of Israel, we see Paul recommending that a member of the Church be cast out for breaking rules.We see in Revelations the fate of the angels who have rebelled against God and broken rules.

And yet… I am not entirely convinced myself of my own thoughts. In the end, I think perhaps God does prove Himself Lawful Good. I am reminded suddenly of a passage I read recently in the book by Walter Wink I am working through, where Wink talks of God’s redemption.

I’m going to leave off here and go read–sorry for the abrupt ending and lack of conclusion, but I think re-reading these passages and simmering the thoughts a bit will yield some good results.

If God is Good… what’s that mean?

Jonny made an excellent point in reply to my last post:

To borrow from Christian Platonists, God is Good in the sense that God = Good. We call other things good for the ways in which they are like God. We do not call God good because He is like something else.

Right, this makes sense. I continue to hold firm to the phrase, “God is good all the time, and all the time God is good.” I’ve heard it uttered in both Baptist and Catholic churches, and everywhere in between, and I find truth in it. It is uncompromising and hopeful. God is Good.

So what is “Good?” What does that mean? Extending from my last post, my first thought was that our definition of Good is probably incorrect. I’d like to recognize that Christians, at least some, make an honest effort to align their definition of Good with their concept of God, thereby equating the two, but as a knee-jerk interpretation of the word Good, I doubt we really do that all that often. Jonny states that D&D’s definition of Good is “altruism,” and that this is incorrect when compared to reality, ((He also states that D&D’s definition of “Holy” is shallow, in that all it means is that it does 2d6 damage to evil. I’d dispute that–the reason Holy does 2d6 damage to Evil is because Evil can’t stand the touch of something set aside for and consecrated by deity. It is anathema to them. The damage is just the result.)) but as I look at how a lot of people live their lives with God, I don’t see too many contradicting that view.

Can we say that we do not believe that God is altruistic? I’m not really comfortable with the word “we” in the last sentence, because I’m questioning it a bit, but let’s roll with it. One of the things I was getting at in my last post is that a lot of people in the Church seem to think that God’s purpose is to serve them, or at best to serve humanity. I get that we should ask for God’s help, God’s healing, God’s blessing, etc… but do we recognize the purpose behind God’s actions? If God heals someone, does anyone else wonder why?

It took me a bit to reach this thought, but Adam’s reply gets at what I’m going for. Essentially, I’m calling into question our definition of Good. I’ll be honest, I’m not entirely certain who I mean by “our” in that sentence. Partially, I mean humanity in general, but I loathe over-generalization and that’s too far for me. If I narrow it to the Church, that’s still too overgeneralized, though I don’t consider my question irrational in that context. Let’s just say, a lot of the Christians I’ve met seem to have this definition of good: kind, compassionate, altruistic, humble, forgiving, honorable, and honest. They equate Good with Jesus, who washed the feet of His disciples, and so we assume that God will always wash our feet no matter where we tread.

I agree that God is Good, but I don’t think God’s definition of Good and our definition is the same. I think our definition is the list of words I put above. I’m beginning to think that God’s definition is closer to that of Lawful Neutral. So in turn, what humanity considers Lawful Neutral, God considers Good.

Part of the problem, it occurs to me now, is English. After studying a couple other languages, I’m pretty unsatisfied with ours: it’s too limited, with too few words that mean too many things. “Good” can mean a ridiculously broad number of things. Same as “Love” and, apparently, “Companion.” ((By which I mean Eve, who was created for Adam–the English translation of this word is nowhere near its original meaning.)) In my head, I’ve got at least 2 different definitions of Good going, one being “God,” in the sense that Jonny related the definition as God = Good and Good = God. The other is my own thoughts in regards to God’s alignment, that being Lawful Neutral, so if God is LN, and God is Good, that means that our original definition of Good is incorrect and we ought to bring ours more in line with the traditional definition of Lawful Neutral.

Which means that Good isn’t necessarily a humble, all-forgiving, altruistic servant, but is instead a fair, honorable judge, upholding a moral code. There’s a part of me that is revolted by this thought, as a positron revolts an electron. I wasn’t raised in the Church, and fantasy fiction had more to do with my moral upbringing than anything else, but the definition of Good as I related it above (kind, compassionate, altruistic, etc.) is deeply ingrained in me–to defy it and consider something else to be Good is difficult. Yet the phrase, “Does not hesitate to protect the innocent” keeps going through my head, and I look at this world, and I don’t see it. I don’t see our Protestant American definition of Good in this world, and I can’t find a reason for God to not impose that Good if, indeed, God is Good (by the definition of protecting innocents, altruism, etc.).

Here’s how my logic works, then: I know that God is Good. Since God is Good, God would do Good things. My knee-jerk, gut definition of Good would require God to do things that he is not, in all actuality, doing. Therefore, I can only logically reach one of two conclusions: either God isn’t Good, or my definition of Good is incorrect. I have already stated that I know that God is Good, but I am less confident in my definition of what Good is. Therefore, my definition must be incorrect.

If my definition is incorrect, I must find a new definition of Good. And thus far, the concept of Lawful Neutral seems to fit the bill.

What alignment is God?

Preface::

First, please don’t get turned off because I’m referencing some Dungeons & Dragons stuff at first. It’s not much, and you’ll be past it eventually.

Second, this post has been a long time coming. The matter has been on my mind for weeks if not months, and I’m still not settled on the matter. It’s a bit of a mind dump.

Third, because of that, I’d really like your consideration and input. Comment below and let me know what you’re thinking, even if you just agree or disagree. This is one of the theological subjects I’m really wrestling with and curious about right now.

Moving on::

For those of you who haven’t played D&D before, or maybe have only played the latest edition (the 4th), you may be unfamiliar with alignments. In general, there are two axes, as seen below.

The 3.5 edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Player’s Handbook lists nine alignments as options for a player character, because in addition to the four labels you see above, there is also Neutral. Someone might be Lawful Good or Chaotic Good, but they could also be Neutral Good, or Chaotic Neutral.

With that established, let’s talk a bit about God, Christianity, and myself. For my part, I have finally reached the conclusion that I am Lawful Neutral. This is kind of a Big Deal for me, mostly because it’s not what I expected. When I was younger, I liked to think of myself as Chaotic Good: I didn’t always follow the “rules,” and I didn’t always listen to “the man,” but I generally strove to do good things and help people. Robin Hood is Chaotic Good, as is Captain Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly.

When I was a kid, my heroes were the knights in shining armor from the fantasy stories I read, but I bucked authority a lot of the time. I didn’t care much about school or grades, or what my parents thought or wanted me to do. I tried to do good, but I did it my own way. Now, though, my outlook seems different. I don’t know if it is that I have changed, or if I was always this way but just idealized “Good” and strove for that… but it’s not me. I’m not Robin Hood. I’m not even Mal.

Lawful Neutral is generally referred to as the “Judge.” Wikipedia has a good definition of Lawful Neutral:

Characters of this alignment are neutral with regard to good and evil. This does not mean that Lawful Neutral characters are amoral or immoral, or do not have a moral compass; but simply that their moral considerations come a distant second to what their code, tradition or law dictates. They typically have a strong ethical code, but it is primarily guided by their system of belief, not by a commitment to good or evil.

In regards to D&D, you generally see Lawful Neutral characters on the side of Good, because Evil has a tendency to go against the law. The important point is motivation: where a Good aligned person would uphold Good for its own sake, a Lawful aligned person upholds it because it is the law. If a law is unjust or not “good,” someone who is Chaotic Good may choose to not uphold that law and will make their own code–a course of action that would be practically anathema to a Lawful Neutral person.

My work has forced me to the analyses of my own alignment and motivations because we do have some policies and ways of doing business that I don’t particularly like or agree with. Because it’s my job, though, I have to follow through regardless of my personal feelings… but I have found, over the last couple of years, that my personal feelings strongly uphold the following of these rules for the mere fact that they are the rules. I’m an INTJ, so inefficiency and poor work angers me, and within the bounds of the system I will do everything I can do improve matters, but as a Lawful Neutral, I have found that I won’t break the rules ((As the above linked definition of INTJ states, I will sometimes “implement critical decisions without consulting my [sic] supervisors or co-workers” and I have little respect for anyone I perceive to be slacking, even if they are higher ranked than me. But I don’t break any rules, which is the key.)) to do it. Not anymore, anyways.

So my first question becomes, “How does being Lawful Neutral square with being Christian?” Jonny and I were on our way to a conference a few weeks ago and the topic of alignments came up–we were discussing why certain things in our jobs have gone as they have, and I replied that I do what I do, how I do it, because I’m Lawful Neutral. He was surprised; a Christian should by default be Good, he said.

This really set me to thinking: if God is Good, then should all Christians be Good? The more I thought about the classical, humanistic definition of Good, though, the less God seemed to fit into the assumed alignment.

From Wikipedia:

Lawful Good is known as the “Saintly” or “Crusader” alignment. A Lawful Good character typically acts with compassion, and always with honor and a sense of duty. A Lawful Good nation would consist of a well-organized government that works for the benefit of its citizens. Lawful Good characters include righteous knights, paladins, and most dwarves. …

Lawful Good characters, especially paladins, may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or good when the two conflict – for example, upholding a sworn oath when it would lead innocents to come to harm – or conflicts between two orders, such as between their religious law and the law of the local ruler.

If God is Lawful Good, then, how do we account for the suffering we see in the world? For centuries philosophers and theologians have attempted to address the problem of pain in the world: why do bad things happen to good people; why do children die; why do natural disasters wipe out civilizations; do those who have never even heard of Jesus to go hell, etc. If God is all powerful and all Good, would He not then save these people? Why would He not wipe out all disease, death, and pain?

In short, the answer is generally, “Adam and Eve sinned and now we live in a fallen world.” When asked why God doesn’t just fix it, the answer is generally that God is either waiting for more people to be reconciled to Him through Christ, or that some other plan is at work. We, as Christians, work very hard to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with God’s goodness.

Before I was Christian, I believed strongly in the “rules” of this world. I believed that angels and demons, while powerful, were only able to interact with this world and shape its events within certain restrictions, and that the deities were likewise limited, not due to a lack of power but due to some cosmic agreement. At the time, I considered it a dualistic issue: the gods of Good and the gods of Evil had made an armistice to prevent the destruction of the world over which they fought. Skirmishes occurred, but outright war was avoided.

I no longer hold that dualistic view, but the more I think about the world and God’s interaction with it, the more I come back to the idea of there being some sort of cosmic rule at work, or a self-limitation by God. Jesus is a good example of this: we uphold that he was entirely human and entirely God, yet there seemed to be times when he didn’t know exactly what would happen next, and he went so far as to ask that the suffering to come be put away from him. In taking on mortal flesh, limitations were put in place, and since I do affirm that God is all powerful, I can only conclude that these limitations were self-imposed to provide a better teaching example to Christians. ((Or for some other reason–the conclusion stands regardless.))

What if God was closer to Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good? Our concept of Lawful Good is someone who protects the innocent without hesitation, works and fights always on the side of Good, does whatever he or she can to protect and benefit others. I don’t propose the Deistic concept of a clockmaker God, who set the world into motion and then stepped back to watch silently, but I do perceive restraint that contradicts what we think Lawful Good should be. Could a Lawful Good deity who was all powerful watch as Haiti was torn apart and innocent children died in the streets? Could a Lawful Good deity sanction the genocide in Darfur or the ongoing civil wars in Sri Lanka and the Congo? We wonder at the horrors inflicted upon the Hebrews in the Hebrew Bible, and it is hard to reconcile them with our concept of a Lawful Good God, but they make more sense if we consider God to be Lawful Neutral, a God who has made certain laws that must be upheld.

By this, I do not mean that God is not generally good, but I do question our concept and the assumptions we make about God’s goodness. If you ask me, “Is God compassionate?” I will reply, “Yes, yes, God is compassionate.” And if you ask if God is forgiving, I will say, “Yes, yes, God is forgiving.” He is kind and loving and awesome. But if you ask, “Is God good?” I will wonder at your definition of “good.” If by good you mean that God is our servant and sworn benefactor, I say no, God is not these things.

We assume that actions follow nature, and so if God is compassionate, He must act upon that compassion. Likewise, too many look upon suffering and conclude that God must therefore not be compassionate, and since the Bible teaches of God’s compassion, many take it a step further and conclude that there is no God. These conclusions do not follow; God can be compassionate without always acting upon that compassion.

Let us consider Jesus who, as I referred to earlier, displayed adherence to the rules (if such do exist) throughout the gospels. There are numerous stories of Jesus healing someone, but he heals relatively few of the people around him. In one such story, Jesus actually delves into a great crowd of the ill and infirm, and finding a particular man at the center, asks him if he wants to be healed. ((John 5:1-18)) The man states that he has been seeking healing but has been unable to find it, and Jesus heals him.

Why does he heal no one else in all that crowd? Why pick that one man out? Some have wondered whether the issue is that Jesus’s power is limited, using Luke 8:40-48 as indication that he not only had limited power but the use of that power depleted his reserves. What if, instead, Jesus was limited by a set of self-imposed rules, a guiding plan, and was loathe to deviate from that course? The man at the well was healed for some purpose, and we can only conclude that an all powerful God would not heal those He didn’t want to heal, so Jesus must likewise have had some reason to heal the woman who touched his cloak (though he seems surprised when the event occurs).

Perhaps Jesus only healed those who would have the greatest impact on his mission–it certainly makes sense in a Lawful Neutral way. I wonder as well about the mystery of faith. In Luke 8, Jesus states that the woman’s faith has healed her, and it seems to me like that gives us a clue in itself. No one healed by Jesus is recorded as temporizing or rationalizing away the miracle, but I have seen miracles occur to people who have done just this. I believe that, in the stories recorded in the gospels, those healed had the faith to believe, and subsequently they kept that belief. I might conclude, then, that faith is one of the components necessary for a miracle. ((As Jesus himself seemed to state in Matthew 17:20.))

We have read that the door to heaven is narrow and few will enter, ((Luke 13:22-27)) but we all believe we will be part of that few. Just as I questioned our definition of “good” above, I question as well our concept of “faith.” How many Christians in the Church are there because they want something, rather than because of their faith? What they want might be all good things: to serve others, to join a community of like-minded individuals, to find belonging or love, to find peace or healing, etc. But how many are involved in the community of Christians purely because they believe in Jesus and the truth of the Bible? All those good things follow faith, but I wonder for how many faith is the primary motivator and factor.

It would be Lawful Good for God to let everyone into heaven. He indicates in Luke 13 that this is not the case. One could argue, though, that the “Lawful” balances the “Good,” and that God is indeed Lawful Good in this respect: God wants everyone to enter heaven (Good), but must turn away sinners (Lawful).

Back to the earlier question, rephrased, I ask, “If we consider God to be Lawful, then who’s law?” The previous paragraph feels more like temporizing to me. ((To be honest, I’ve reached the same conclusion in regards to Calvinism as a whole.)) I feel like we’re attempting to cram God into the Lawful Good alignment because we want to believe that God has our individual best interests at heart and will always take care of us. In looking at the world and at the Bible, particularly in light of the verses above (as well as countless others I’m not relating here because I don’t feel like taking the time to look them up right now), that conclusion just doesn’t seem to fit. It seems more like God has created a world and an order and we have deviated from it. It is now our job to get back in line, and God has aided us in that by providing the sacrifice of Jesus. We still have to accept that sacrifice ((A la Arminianism)) and follow God faithfully to get back within the boundaries accorded by the cosmic rules.

I’ve got another branch of thoughts on this topic brought up by the book I’m reading, but I’ll end the mind dump here because those veer off into spiritual warfare territory. If you’ve made it this far, thanks for sticking with it, and please comment to share what you’re thinking. I’d really like to read it.