Do you ever think about how God might fit into our socio-cultural situations? It seems like, especially in the Free church Protestant movement all of the various and multitudinous denominations and traditions project God to be a certain way; with a certain emphasis of character. Indeed it is this kind of projecting that ends up defining one denomination’s distinctives over against the next denomination’s. I am trying to articulate something, really, that I am having trouble articulating. It seems to me that my question is going to take us back to a fundamental bedrock consideration; that is, we are going to go back to what most would consider a dry and arid platitude—i.e. theological method, and doctrine of God. But I think we must consider this in order to understand how it is that we end up with so many various versions and/or emphases of who God is. Let me brainstorm a list of emphases or shapes that I see God taking, in particular, in North American Protestantism.

1. God as the Fundamentalist (or Legalist extraordinaire).
2. God as the Lover (shaped by social analogies, so a bottom up conception of God).
3. God as the Lawgiver (the God who we find in Federal Theology, or certain kinds of Reformed theologies).
4. God as my Buddy (this is the God who has been domesticated to function as my chum, or who has been so collapsed into my personal situation that I can no longer think of God as sovereign and transcendent).
5. God as my Genie (this is the God who I only go to when I want something from him, for me).
6. God of Word Faith (this is a Pentecostal version of God that correlates with the God of point 5, and who created and creates reality by using the ‘force of Faith’. At a metaphysical level this God is no different than the monistic conception of God found in various Eastern mystical religions).
7. God as Triune Love (this is the God that we articulate and gravitate to in the mood of Evangelical Calvinism. This is also the God that can be found in various Patristic theologians as well as Reformed thinkers on both the Continent, UK, and the USA, at least in the history).
8. God of the Jews and God of the Church (this is a very prominent conception of God found in North America as he is conceived, understood, and articulated through the Dispensational hermeneutic).
9. God of Liberation (this is obviously the God found in what has become known as Liberation theology; the idea that God’s activity of salvation is focused on the downtrodden and oppressed [usually socio-economically, racially, or concerning gender issues, etc.]).
10. God of the Liberals (this God is collapsed into the human psyche and then re-projected as the God of the Bible. This God is often concerned with social transformation, and the Democratic party in the political arena).
11. God as Neo-Orthodox (this God is usually associated with Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and other German, and now American theologians. This God is averse to natural theology, and he is construed in actualistic terms that render him post-metaphysical and thus not of the classical theistic variety).
12. God of the Pietists (this version of God overlaps with some of the other mentions I have provided, but, in particular, this notion of God is the God of Bible believing, warm hearted Christian folk who resonate with deep and personal and introspective forms of spirituality).
13. God as Open (the God of ‘Open Theism’).
14. God as the Pluralist (the God who is the same God, but just takes on various religious expressions; like the God of John Hick).

This is obviously not an exhaustive list, and as you can see, some of the categories I propose could function in a more locus or primary heading placement, while others could function in a sub-heading spot (i.e. under the categories that are prone towards a primary heading). I really didn’t get us into dealing with theological method, instead I ended up throwing out the various forms that God takes as a result of a prior commitment to a certain theological method (although some of my versions of God identify certain kinds of prolegomena or theological methodology relative to a doctrine of God).

Anyway, I just think it is very interesting to consider the various ways and emphases that we Americans (and all peoples, especially Western ones, since I have experience with them) understand God through. I wonder if we are drawn one way or the other, relative to the emphasis that we understand God through, as a result of personality disposition, nature/nurture, our socio-economic experiences, our ecclesial experiences, our personal crises, etc. etc.? I am sure it is an amalgamation of various things (a multi-valent reality). And then I further wonder if we can identify the true version and emphasis of God over and against other emphases? Certainly, even amongst some of the versions I list above, there is a mutual exclusivity between some of these emphases of who God is. And so this presupposes, again, a prior commitment to some sort of criteria in discerning who we think represents the best version and emphasis of God. I, personally (of course), do not think that this is some sort of relativistic  /salad bar endeavor (e.g. understanding what the best emphasis of God is); but then I also think that while the best version and emphasis of God is ‘God as Triune Love’, that this also conditions and implicates certain other emphases and versions of how God then acts in the world for us.

Okay, this ramble is now officially ended.