Category Archives: Apologetics

Loving Within The Church

  By Craig | February 22, 2012 - 3:55 pm | Apologetics, Church Growth, Discipleship
Leave a comment

Would Jesus visit with our churches and discover that our definition of healthy fits his definition of healthy?  We love, but do we love as God loves?  Jonathan Leeman says, “We assume not that God is love but that love is God.”  The church of Christ is a community where her members love each other sacrificially, extending warm hugs and smiles, ministering to one anther in times of need, and when necessary, correcting and rebuking one another if and when we stray.  The church should be characterized by God’s love, not love as the world defines it.  Love according to many would never correct or rebuke, yet the Bible says that even a father disciplines the child he loves.  Does God see us loving each other that much?  Do we love enough to say the hard things?  Proverbs 27:5-6 says, “Better is open rebuke and hidden love.  Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.”

Godly love demands sacrifice, sacrifices of comfort and shallow relationships.  Godly love goes well beyond eating dinner together on occasion, godly love may very well mean getting your hands dirty sometimes to help a brother in a difficult time or correct an errant sister.  Godly love holds no record of wrong (1 Corinthians 13), but it does correct wrong when it can.  Of course, godly love also demands that we accept rebuke when it is delivered in a godly and edifying way.  There is much more to be learned about the Church of Christ, but I believe that the loving one another is a great place to start.  After all, it was the command of Jesus in John 13:34-35, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

 

Book: The Church and The Surprising Offense of God’s Love

Fantastic 4

  By Craig | February 10, 2012 - 11:28 am | Apologetics, Fantastic Four
Leave a comment

Ed Stetzer has written a great article on The Baptist Boogeyman

I’ve always been fascinated by the Baptist bogeyman.  Bogeymen are not real dangers, but ones we use to scare one another, often distracting us from real danger. There are real challenges in our churches and the convention—theological and otherwise—but bogeymen distract us from the real issues.

A first-century manuscript and it’s value for apologetics and the church.

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading

I would commend to you Tim Challies’ series on Visual Theology.  Here is his graphic on the attributes of God.

A couple of weeks ago I released the first infographic in a series I am titling “Visual Theology.” What I appreciate about infographics is their ability to display information visually. Just as there are many words that can be used to describe any one fact, there are also many ways to display facts.

Matt Papa is writing some entries in his blog (Part 1 and Part 2: The Golden Calf of Christian Radio) about contemporary Christian music and mainstream Christian radio stations.  Some of this would be funny if it weren’t so heart-breakingly (I think I just created that word) true.

Becky isn’t one person of course…she is the prototype target audience created by the christian music industry for christian radio.  True story.  She’s been around about 6 or 7 years now.  Christian radio demographic research discovered that “Becky” is the one who is listening, so “Becky” is the audience they relentlessly target.  So here’s what happens:

Christian radio plays songs for Becky.  The labels know that in order to sell music, they have to get songs on radio.  Radio = Becky.  So the labels coerce their artists and bands to all write and record songs for Becky….songs that will make her feel good.  Songs that tell her she is good.  Songs that are “safe for the whole family”.  Songs that remind her of her snow-flake-ness and tell her to turn that frown upside-down.  Songs that focus on love and hope.  Songs that aren’t confrontational.  Songs that aren’t theological because man, that stuff is up in the clouds.  Songs that don’t talk about blood and crosses and depressing stuff like that.  Songs that focus on Becky and her busy life.  And if the artists or bands want to write songs for another demographic or another purpose, that’s fine, they can just make music somewhere else.  There is money to be made.

Christianity: The Arch Enemy of Science?

  By Craig | January 26, 2012 - 11:32 am | Apologetics, Book Review, Worldview
1 Comment

I often hear that conservative Christianity is opposed to “real” science and that if Christians had anything to do with it, science would never have arisen.  The great problem with statements like the one above is that they are false.  The belief that Christianity is somehow opposed to science has been repeatedly defeated, and yet it seems to rear its ugly head often.

Many authors and books take up the task to defend the Christian faith against her enemies by showing that many of the commonly held beleifs about Christianity and science are false.  Rodney Stark, for instance, in his book, For the Glory of God spends an entire chapter showing how Christianity led to the rise of science.  He writes,

In contrast to the dominant religious and philosophical doctrines in the non-Christian world, Christians developed science becaue they believed it could be done, and should be done.  As Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose in Europe because of the widespread “faith in the possibility of science…derivative from medieval theology.”

He goes on to argue that science arose in Europe because, in contrast to other (especially atheistic) worldviews, Christianity provided the “fundamental theological and philosophical assumptions” necessary for its genesis.  Christianity beleived in a truth that could be discovered and in a God who encouraged such discovery.  The God of Christianity created a lawful universe that functioned within those laws.  Islam, on the other hand provides a picture of Allah that discouraged scientific advances,

Allah is not presented as a lawful creator but has been conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes on the world as he deems it appropriate.  Consequently, there soon arose a major theological bloc within Islam that condemned all efforts to formulate natural laws as blasphemy insofar as the dnied Allah’s freedom to act.

Further, Stark shows that the “Copernican Revolution” was not exactly a ground-shaking revolution from the supposed “Dark Ages” but was instead the natural outworking of a scientist building on the ideas and accomplishments of others before him who happened to be Christian scholastics.  According to Stark,

The term “Scientific Revolution” is as misleading as “Dark Ages.”  Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church.  The phrase “Dark Ages” is of recent origins, probably first used by the British historian Henry Thomas Buckle (1821-1862) in his History of Civilization in England (1859).

Contrary to what many of us have been taught in high school, the church was not opposed to the science of Galileo (though there was a political issue and a serious personality conflict) and Galileo was not opposed to the church.  Copernicus was not the first to suggest that the sun was the center of the universe.  The “Dark Ages” were not ages of ignorance and stupidity, merely a different kind of learning that did not focus on the Greek and Latin classics and philosophies.  And, finally, no one in Columbus’ time believed the earth was flat.  This concept is soundly refuted here and in this Jeffrey Burton Russell’s Inventing the Flat Earth.

Christianity and science do not stand opposed to each other, but Christianity and naturalism do.  The conflict then, is not over science but over worldviews.  Christianity certainly argues that God’s world is worthy of our investigation because God is glorified in truth, and in a greater understanding of God’s creation, humanity is better served and God is glorified.  A better and more complete critique of Christianity vs. Naturalism in science is offered by Plantinga in Where the Conflict Really Lies.

Christians need not fear science and must not blindly accept the arguments that science and faith cannot be joined together.  They were joined together at the genesis of Science and there is no reason for them to be separated today.

 

Another book to consider on this subject is The Savior of Science by Stanley L. Jaki

Book Review: The Reason for God

  By Craig | January 19, 2012 - 11:37 am | Apologetics, Book Review
1 Comment

Yes, I know, I am way behind the evangelical reading curve because I just now got around to reading Tim Keller’s The Reason for God.  As one reading this book late in the game, it had much to live up to.  After all, The Reason for God has been called Mere Christianity for a new generation and has blurbs on the back from Rick Warren, Christianity Today, and the Washington Post.  So, how does it shape up for me?

First, Mere Christianity is what it is because it has stood the test of time.  Before we can give this title to Keller’s work, it needs also to stand the test of time.  However, I do believe that it will stand the test of time.  It is incredibly well written and enjoyable.  The apologetics in the book are approachable and the stories are captivating.  His synthesis of many of the best arguments in support of the resurrection in chapter thirteen is one of the best and most succinct that I know.  Keller does a good job of mixing his academic acumen with his pastoral heart in this book.

Second, Keller has done well to engage postmodern culture.  It is fairly obvious that the predominant sin of this generation (and probably of all generations) is that of idolatry.  Keller shows that materialism, self-love, and even inclusive are all forms of idolatry and that they simply do not stack up to good reason.  However, he presents his arguments in a way that can be appreciated in the postmodern world, he is dogmatic, but not preachy.  He teaches with questions as well as sermons.  he invites readers to discover the truth through his carefully guided questions and he refutes many of the typical stereotypes of Christianity such as the false belief that Christianity limit’s one’s personal freedom,

In many areas of life, freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones, the liberating restrictions.  Those that fit with the reality of our nature and the world produce greater power and scope for our abilities and a deeper joy and fulfillment.

Finally, Keller clearly presents the gospel.  I couldn’t help but feel when reading the last few chapters that Billy Graham could have written them.  The gospel is proclaimed clearly and the necessary response to the gospel spelled out.  Keller leaves little room for anyone to walk away from this book and only appreciate it as literature.

This book is unlike any other that I can recall in my library.  Believers will be challenged to deepen their faith.  Skeptics will be shown that even their skepticism is rooted in faith or belief in something.  Keller offers a better way, faith in the one true God of the universe.  This is a great read.  I took a while to get to it, but I am blessed for having spent time with it.

Tim Tebow and the Implications of a Secular Worldview

  By Craig | October 26, 2011 - 10:17 am | Apologetics, Worldview
3 Comments

Tim Tebow has become a polarizing figure.  Of course, as far as I can tell, it is difficult to see how.  He is young, athletic, humble, hardworking, clean cut, and articulate.  He is the kind of player that most coaches dream of having on their teams, and yet it is becoming obvious to many that Tebow is a thorn in the flesh for many sportscasters.

Though I have no intention of predicting Tebow as a great NFL quarterback–I’m just not sure whether he has that ability or not–I do think that for a Heisman trophy winner with an incredible work ethic and so many intangibles under his belt, it would be best to delay judgment until he has actually performed on the field.  After all, regardless of his play on the field, the great thing for any NFL team is that his lifestyle off of the field is very unlikely to garner negative media attention along the lines of dog-fighting, domestic abuse, or drug charges.

However, regardless of what Tebow does on the field, it does appear that his life off of the field has tainted sportscaster’s view of the man.  Tebow is an outspoken Christian and his religious convictions seem to tarnish his reputation for many in the news media (remember his pro-life Super Bowl commercial) and sports media.  Of course, this has been vehemently denied, but an article published recently by Brian Phillips reveals the implications of a secular worldview against an outspoken Christian athlete.

I’m sure there are people who manage to escape the demographic rooting pattern this creates. But in broad strokes, it’s fair to say that how you feel about Tebow depends on how you feel about youth groups and Elisabeth Hasselbeck and, I don’t know, WWJD bracelets and raft retreats with a lot of bonfires and swaying.

There you have it, at least one person in the sports media is ready to own up to the fact that his opinion of Tebow as a football player is affected by his opinion of Tebow as an outspoken Christian.

Worldview determines everything (Arthur Holmes says it is “pre-philosophical”).  In academia, Christians are discriminated against because they are believers.  Of course the argument usually sounds more like, “the research into intelligent design is not real science,” but coincidentally, that is oddly reminiscent of , “Tebow can never be an NFL quarterback.”  There is no evidence to back these claims up (at least not yet on Tebow with whom Denver fans have fallen in love), but the claims are made never-the-less.  The reason: A secular worldview is dominated by the prince of the air who opposes all things godly.  Therefore, Tebow has to be a bad guy, not because he’s a bad QB, but because he’s a solid believer in Jesus.

Brian Phillips is at least honest in his estimate of Tebow even if he is unfair,

I find myself half-consciously rooting for Tebow to fail, even though I have nothing against him, have lots of religious friends, am not especially tribal by nature, and wouldn’t want to be responsible for the nacho-related deaths of any prominent evangelical leaders, even if I detest their politics. Doesn’t matter. The part of me that wants to eat pork and not stone people just switches on and cheers for the blitzing linebacker.

Phillips reveals the underlying principle behind his rejection of Tebow and the culture’s rejection of the people of God.  Ultimately, it’s not a rejection of Tim Tebow, but of Tim Tebow’s God.  As we labor to see a Christian worldview prevail and as believers see opposition, rest assured, the opposition of the culture is opposition to our God, but in the end, he will not be mocked.

Preaching to Postmoderns: Give Them Something To Believe In

  By Craig | August 25, 2011 - 10:28 am | Apologetics, Book Review, Spiritual Warfare, Worldview
Leave a comment

David K. Naugle‘s, in his book Worldview: The History of a Concept, argues that the enlightenment introduced modernity to the West, and in so doing, destroyed the many myths that existed to explain life and living with a scientific explanation.  In other words, the enlightenment reduced the West to only one acceptable meta-narrative, the scientific one.

Modernism, however, was to give way to postmodernism, and if modernism reduced the Western world to one explanation for life, postmodernism destroyed even that one explanation.  The modern mind searched for understanding and found it in science, but the postmodern mind soon discovered that though science may help us understand how the world works, science can never help us to understand why the world works.  Science has failed as an explanation, and rather than return to the religious myths and traditions of old, postmoderns have rejected all meaning.  Since science was not the savior it was hailed to be, postmoderns bought the lie that there is no real meaning in the world.

James Sire says that a worldview is

a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic makeup of our world.

The worldview of the postmodern mind is that life is meaningless and without purpose.  Kurt Cobain captured the post-modern spirit well when he sang/screamed, “here we are now/entertain us/I feel stupid/and contagious/here we are now/entertain us.”  MTV and the entertainment industry of that time (and ours) existed not to promote music, but to pander to its audience.  MTV does not and did not play the music that it thought was great, but rather the music that it’s in-depth consumer studies said would appeal to its target audience and make money.

In other words, even art in the postmodern world has no meaning.  It is not self-expression, it is marketing and money-making.  So, the youth and young adults of postmodernism stand angry and starving for a reason to live, but they are not given art and beauty leading to truth (as art was once upon a time created to do), but instead given entertainment to satsify their most base urges.  But, just as the glutton is satisfied for only a brief time with donuts while his body slowly starves for more significant nutrition, so too the postmodern soul starved of real reason longs for more than junk food.  Naugle says it this way,

But Enlightenment denarrativization came at a high human cost, and nobody has understood that cost better than Friedrich Nietzsche. In The Birth of Tragedy he writes, “But without myth every culture loses the healthy natural power of its creativity: only a horizon defined by myths completes and unifies a whole cultural movement.”" Nietzsche knew, however, that the Western world had been drifting slowly toward the destruction of its narrative resources – a kind of “mythoclasm”26 – by its intoxication with scientific rationalism. Consequently, modern humanity, “untutored by myth,” is famished and in search for any narrative morsel on which to feed itself, as the frenzied activities and compulsions of contemporary life indicate. “And now the mythless man stands eternally hungry, surrounded by all past ages, and digs and grubs for roots, even if he has to dig for them among the remotest antiquities. The tremendous historical need of our unsatisfied modern culture, the assembling around one of countless other cultures, the consuming desire for knowledge – what does all this point to, if not to the loss of myth, the loss of the mythical home, the mythical maternal womb?”

The result?  A generation longing for reasons to live.  This generation seeks out reasons for life in every possible avenue.  Spiritism and New Age mysticism is on the rise.  The vestiges of modernism that continue to teach and train post-moderns sought to destroy anything that closely resembled a Christian worldview and replace it with science.  For the postmodern, however, when science failed and Christianity was “debunked” by their mentors, the vacuum had be filled with something.  That something has taken many forms, sexual promiscuity, drugs, and even a rise in Eastern religions.

How then should Christians respond?  What is the response of the pastor to a generation angry and longing for a reason to live?  The church must answer the call by offering a solution to the problems of postmodernity.  This world has been created with a purpose.  God created the world with order, and beauty, and purpose.  God created people as special creatures bearing his image.  In a world devoid of reason, the narrative of Scripture fills the vacuum created by postmodernism.

The solution is ultimately the gospel of Jesus Christ, but that gospel needs to be told within the context of the whole narrative of Scripture.  The gospel gives us a reason to live, but only in the context of why we need the gospel. The Bible teaches us that the gospel is needed to set all things right.  The postmodern mind may know that something is wrong, but without the revealed Word of God, the postmodern does not perceive of a perfect world (Eden) destroyed by man’s sinfulness and the hopes that this world of bliss and perfection can someday be reclaimed.  The postmodern knows that this life hurts, but does not know that this pain is a result of sin and certainly does not know, without being taught, that it is God’s good plan to wipe away every tear.  The Christian narrative of creation, fall, rescue, and ultimate victory gives hope in hopeless situations and explains the difficulties of this life. The Christian worldview offers escape, love, truth, and beauty–all things that seem to be very absent from contemporary Western culture.

The Good Fruit of Christian Morality

  By Craig | July 1, 2011 - 8:00 am | Apologetics
Leave a comment

In a recent editorial on Canada’s Burnaby Now (www.burnabynow.com) website, an editorial by Maurice Harting argues that human rights do not exist without religious belief.  The editorial is written in response to a previous article seeking to abolish references to religion in Canadian schools in order to protect those of the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender community.  Harting writes,

Most of Canadian criminal law, which serves the public in Canada, is based on religious beliefs (for example, that murdering someone is not acceptable is based on “thou shalt not kill” as one of the commandments God gave), however our laws are not adopted by everyone in Canada (there are those who murder in Canada).

Interestingly, even for those who oppose Christianity and its worldview, it is the Bible that has influenced society in such a significant way that even those who disregard God and his laws are protected to live in their sin and rebellion because of the influence of His word.  The homosexual community opposes Christianity and the God of the Bible, but in so doing neglect to realize that the very freedoms they are given to indulge in their sinful behavior exist in their western culture because of a Judeo-Christian frame work that is the basis for Western law.

The author cited above goes on to argue, “human rights don’t trump, but our religious beliefs were and are the basis for the human rights we now enjoy in Canada.”  Human rights are not a proper base or even principle for an ethical system, but they do serve as a significant rule that is born out of a Judeo-Christian mindset.  The Bibilcial worldview emphasizes the principles of d love, justice, and the value of human life.  Certainly, this ethical system that emphasizes love and justice emphasizes the commands of God as well as the love of God and in so doing condemns homosexual behavior.  However, a  proper understanding of love, justice, and the value of human life also leads civilization to desire human rights for all people such that even those living outside of God’s decree are entitled to be treated as human beings born in the image of God.

Certainly, some would argue that the Bible is not and should not be the standard for establishing our ethical base, but those are yet to develop a better system.  Certainly the Quran does not accomplish the task sufficiently; Hinduism falls far short as well.  What then, secular humanism?  If the individual is the only source of rule, then murder must become acceptable when it fits the necessary requirements of the individual contemplating the act.  Those who oppose the rule of God and the people of God fail to recognize that the God who created them allows them to live in their sin and even extends his common grace to them in this life so that they may even experience some degree of pleasure in their sin.  What a shame that a God of such grace and love would be castigated as hateful by those who hate him.

Revelation, not Experience Should Drive Our Apologetics

  By Craig | June 15, 2011 - 9:03 am | Apologetics, Book Review
1 Comment

Don Piper’s book, 90 Minutes in Heaven has been on the New York Times’ bestseller list since it was released in 2004.  Though I have not read the book, Michael Patton argues that this form of apologetical argument is insufficient and dangerous. One of his strongest arguments against this form of apologetics is that Piper’s book is that Piper’s writing flies in the face of a good bit of biblical and systematic theology.  Patton explains it this way,

I thought to myself at one point while reading this book, “if what he says about heaven is correct, then my eschatology is really messed up.”  Then I am left with this familiar dilemma: Do I believe what this sincere guy says to be the truth and fit my interpretation of Scripture and theology around it or do I trust what I believe the Scripture says without conforming to Piper’s experience?

Patton’s argument essentially hinges on the question of whether we choose to believe the revealed word of God or the experience of a person.  The Bible teaches that it is truth above all truth, the very ground and nature of truth.  To elevate experience to a level of truth equal to or above the Bible is to assume that what is seen has more truth than what has been revealed.

Apologetical arguments like the one described by Piper are problematic because they hinge on experience and are unverifiable and non-falsifiable.  Piper’s book is based on an experience that he had that cannot be verified by another human being.  By definition of his experience, he no one could have been there to verify his experience.  Further, by definition, it is essentially non-falsifiable because Piper can always fall back on the “you weren’t there, you don’t know what I saw” argument.

Sound apologetics should be based on verifiable and falsifiable evidence and or revealed Scripture.  Further, experiences need always to be compared to the Scriptures to test their truthfulness.  Patton shows that in several places, Piper’s book appeals more to “common folk theology” than it does to actual Scripture.  Before one jumps in full with Piper, one should consult scripture.  The gates of heaven that Piper describes should look like the description of those same gates in the Bible.  IF we have to make a decision between who is wrong, Scripture or Don Piper, the answer should always be Don Piper.

Patton concludes by showing that there are several good explanations for Piper’s experience as follows:

  1. Piper is lying.  He made all this up for some type of personal gain.
  2. Piper is telling the truth.  He did visit heaven and his descriptions are accurate; we have misunderstood Scripture.
  3. He did visit heaven, but misinterpreted what he saw.
  4. He thought he visited heaven but he really did not.  His visions, while unexplained from a medical standpoint, are filled with the common eschatological folk-lore that you would expect from a 21st century westernized Christian.

Patton concludes that number four is probably correct, and I would agree with Patton.  We must be careful to not trust our experiences more than we trust God’s revelation.  Our senses can mislead us, God never will.

Does God Hate?

  By Craig | June 14, 2011 - 4:12 pm | Apologetics, Discipleship, Expository Preaching
1 Comment

In a recent Sunday School class, the question of whether or not God hates was raised.  Certainly, the hatred of God is not a core part of the usual curriculum in our churches, but does that mean that it does not exist?  The primary goal for our theology as Christians should be to be biblical, even when what we read in the Bible doesn’t fit nicely with our system of theology or our understanding of God.

So, does God hate?  The answer is yes if we believe what the Bible says in Romans 9:13, “As it is written, ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.’”  Now, some want to argue that in this context hate doesn’t really mean hate, but merely to “love less.”  The problem with that definition is that it does not fit the context.  Paul is quoting from Malachi who goes on to write of the results of God’s hatred toward Edom (Edom is Esau’s descendants just as Israel is Jacob’s descendants), “I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert…They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.’ (Malachi 1:3, 4).”  Other evidence is found in the destruction of entire cities in the Old Testament and in Christ’s return in Revelation.

One could choose to believe that God is love only or to accept the biblical picture that God is love and hate and righteousness and judgment, etc…  Part of the difficulty for us in accepting that God hates is that we struggle to divorce hatred from revenge or vindictiveness.  The word hate literally means to passionately or intensely dislike.  God’s hatred is not one of cruelty or vengefulness, but is merely the natural result of God’s justice as it is visited on those who are his enemies.  His enemies are those who are not his children (Romans 5:10, James 4:4).  By this line of reasoning, those outside of God’s family stand condemned already (John 3:18, 3:36).  I believe this condemnation is consistent with a biblical understanding of God’s hatred.

What does this mean, then, for our children (as the question was so kindly raised in class)?  I believe that the answer for all those outside of Christ regardless of age remains the same (not withstanding those who have not yet reached an age of appropriate accountability).  Those outside of Christ are dead in their sins and transgressions (John 5:24, Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13) and stand under the condemnation of God (John 3:19).  Perhaps one could then say that those outside of Christ are hated by God.  Nevertheless this “hatred” does not rule out God’s love and desire for sinners to come to him.  Jesus beckoned the children to come to him (Matthew 19:14) and the Bible says that we love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19).  In God’s nature, there is a demand for justice and a desire to show grace and mercy that coexist.  God’s hatred for sin was poured out on Christ (a person who absorbed his wrath) so that children of wrath (God’s enemies) could be brought into his family. After all, 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not say that Christ took on our sin and God punished our sins, rather it tells us that he became sin and God’s wrath was poured out upon him just as if he were us.  God’s wrath and hatred is directed at sinners who commit sins.  His grace and mercy is directed at some of these same sinners because he loves them and because he is glorified in the salvation of sinners.

What then does this mean?  It means that God hates where hate is appropriate and loves where love is appropriate and perhaps even does both at the same time.  God is God and we are not.  We wholeheartedly affirm God’s love, but even as we do, we must not quickly dismiss the aspects of God’s character and nature that do not fit well in our nice Americanized picture of what God looks like.  The amazing grace of God extends salvation to those whom he disdains because he chooses to love more than he hates.  Salvation is the breakthrough of God’s love!