[Tax-chick]

We should think of God as He has revealed Himself through the Scriptures. In critical ways, this self-revelation is masculine, as Father and Son. However, He has also, at times, chosen to use maternal imagery for Himself, so He clearly has qualities that we consider “feminine.”

The fact that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God, male and female He created them, tells us that both maleness and femaleness are necessary for humans fully to exemplify the image of God. However, God is not bound by our limited conceptions of “male,” “female,” or even “person.”

[spankalib]

Yes...one of the maternal references:

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Since they are “one”, I have no problem with Jesus referring to himself as a mother hen.

Interesting too, Scripture refers to the nature of the Father and Son more than the nature of the HS...
“She” IS somewhat mysterious after all - just the way daddy ‘warned’ me :)

[Wuli]

The fact that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God, male and female He created them, tells us that both maleness and femaleness are necessary for humans fully to exemplify the image of God. However, God is not bound by our limited conceptions of “male,” “female,” or even “person.” I would agree. And I would disagree with the writer, because I think I am in disagreement with what I believe are his motives - to encourage people to think of G-d as feminine (as well as masculine. But, given the true mystery of G-d that we can not even dare to imagine, wouldn't it be better to think of G-d without gender, and thereby not impose our, human, gender values on G-d? Why not think of G-d as G-d, who is, we are also told, above "gender".