Todays Disturbing Complacency thought thinks more on the language we use to describe God. It amazes me that people can still become so concerned over the use of feminine language to describe God.

God is ontologically different from creation and, as such, any language that we as humans, being part of God’s creation, use to attempt to describe God will always be incomplete. We can only describe using concepts we have grown up, and God is way outside the constraints of any of those concepts.

God is not a human and so God does not have gender. When we speak of God as Father we are saying God has fatherley characteristics, but we are not saying God is male. When we speak of God as Mother we are saying God has motherley characteristics, but we are not saying God is female.

Gen 1:27 has always made this clear for me: So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them. People who speak against female images of God seem to disregard texts such as Is. 66:13 As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you and Matt. 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

If we are more inclusive in our language, and more open to a richer description of God then maybe we have a better chance of understanding more of our creator.