From a netfriend:

I acknowledge there are examples of liturgy, song, and prayer using images other than male-gendered ones in use within the church. However, my argument is that in order to say we are a church that respects diversity in how we name God we must be able demonstrate we equally value (not necessarily equally use) different images for God.

We all acknowledge male imagery is by far the most widely used. Even where other imagery is used it is most often backed up or followed with male pronouns. In baptism the (mainline church) Assembly has determined that only male imagery can be used. This suggests to me there is still a preferential value placed on male imagery and that we have not yet embraced a diversity of images.

Let me clarify that I don't think we should eliminate male or female images of God completely. I would like to see us change from using male imagery as our "default" and instead see male and female imagery used when the author/speaker is intentionally interested in highlighting these aspects for poetic, theological, or other reasons.

We could argue that no default is necessary but I think the reality is that one will always exist. People will fall back to some consistent image once they stop specifically thinking about what they are calling God and focus on the nature of God they are trying to convey. So the question becomes what should the default be: male, female, or neutral (or other?)

I argue for the latter because:

a) theologically I see God as a divine mystery transcending human concepts including gender. As such, gender neutral (in general) with gender laden (for specific attributes) seems to capture this mystery the best.

b) as mentioned previously, gender neutral language allows people who strongly relate to male (or female) images to still connect with the liturgy because they remain free to overlay their own images on the gender-neutral base. Thus, it values a wide variety of perspectives.