In Bader and Froese's book "America's Four Gods: What We Say about God - and What That Says about Us", they present a new rubric for mapping how we Americans think about God. (See a review here.)

Here is my post-it note of their rubric:

The basic idea is that cliche models of lift/right. liberal/conservative do not adequately provide for the diversity of  thought and voting presented by US Christians.  Rather, their analysis identifies two important vectors: whether we see God as Judgmental or not, and whether we see God as engaged in our world or not.  This grid gives us four views of God:
Critical: not very involved in our world but judging us
Distant: not very involved in our world but also not interested in judging us
Benevolent: not judging us but yet engaged with us
Authoritative: both fully engaged in our world and also judging of us.
Where we fall will give insight into our views on evolution and science, social action, and a raft of other topical interests.

Personally, my reading of scripture, people and my world, puts God as fully, fully engaged (off the charts engaged, actually) and both Judgmental and Benevolent - balanced between those two.

How about you?

Then I apply this rubric to myself.  Where do I see me? (Authoritative on details, Benevolent until I run out of grace!)  How am I seen? (Probably all four)
Then I apply this rubric to the people in my church.  Quickly several high profile individuals fall into the four quadrants.
Then I apply this rubric to our District leadership here in the New England Church of the Nazarene (Critical)

Then comes the rub...how would God apply this rubric to me?  Oh boy.  Suddenly I want a Benevolent God.