True. It’s liturgy that can change easily and is subject to contemporary thought(s). But not our theology or dogma.
Yes, however there are many more ultimate principles regarding God, so I don't think a "rather than" type of contrast is apropos. The "rather than" creates a straw man, I think. God is our righteousness. God is our healer. God is our provider. God is our stronghold and refuge. God is our victory banner (who led the Israelites to victory in war against their enemies, for example). God is our shepherd. God is the head and bridegroom of the Church, and head of all principalities & powers. God is our high priest. God is our Master and Teacher. Throughout the recorded history of mankind and throughout the Bible accounts of God's people, most of these roles have resided exclusively with males. I don't think this was an accident. The male is better equipped physically to lead in battle, to hunt for meat, to provide for the family (as the woman is busy nurturing the youngsters), to tend the flocks and herds, and so on. Although there have been queens, by and large the leaders of nations have been kings (men). God ordained men to serve in His temple (OT), to teach (both OT and NT), and to lead His people in worship (both OT and NT). So there are many good and valid reasons why we shouldn't just focus on His reliability or on the question of His (non-)physicality.
I HATE AUTO CORRECT. Please read this paragraph as One of the ultimate principles established in referring to God as Father might be understood as the 'relateability' of God rather than the Gender of God per see. This means when you read Genesis 1:26 with the awkward plural, we see that God makes us in his own image Male and Female he created them. There is no doubt that the dominant theme of Scripture and the past 2000 years of Church History predominantly refers to God in the Masculine, however, there are clearly other viewpoints also expressed. Hopefully, that clarifies the meaning I intended. I am not sure I understand what you are driving at here, save that autocorrect had got in the way and made my first statement other than I intended. Now I had a very good, if sometimes English-Distance, relationship with my Father, and my relationship with my mother was also good, however a lot more complex and nuanced and required a lot more work on my part. Hence for me, the idea of God as Father is a lot easier for me, than if the dominant theme was God as Mother. However, I know for many had much better relationships with their Mother than they had with their Fathers. So perhaps the idea of God as Father is more difficult and requires mental aerobics to navigate. One of my theology lecturers was keen to suggest we promote the idea of God as a Grandparent, as Grandparents often have clear and cleaner relationships with their children.
In the book God of Surprises, the author suggests that many religiously brought up people might regard God as a rather indulgent doting old uncle, who is nice to his visiting nieces and nephews, if they behave themselves impeccably, but has, hidden in dark recesses of his cellar, torture equipment, which he uses on children who he deems to have badly misbehaved having seriously annoyed him. The interesting thing about his observation for me is that everybody's personal concept of the person of God is generated in our imaginations and relies entirely upon interpretations of the experiences we have in our own lives. All the attributes of the God of our imaginations are merely metaphors of physicality. The God, (The Almighty), that we have constructed mentally will inevitably have been largely one in our own image. (Hence the large pantheon of Pagan Gods). It is this self constructed notional one that Jesus Christ invites us to deconstruct and depose from its position of regal control over our lives, replacing it with the one that HE described throughout his ministry upon earth, as his Daddy. He claimed to have been the only human being EVER to have truly known God. .
“…..we see that God makes us in his own image…” Often quoted. Understandably never understood. If you look at it from the senses of human beings, what do you have? Male. Female. Black, white, yellow, olive, plus other blends as a result of multicultural relations over time. So it’s easy for me to see (pun intended) why it’s hard to not understand the above quote. I am not a theologian am certainly not well read. But it’s always been my belief that we look look more like God through our soul. Does anyone else on this forum believe that, too?
If true, that is really unfortunate. Our concept of the person (actually the three Persons) of God should derive from the Bible, wherein God describes and teaches about Himself. If everyone were properly taught from the Bible (and since the written word of God is an unchanging standard), the influence of our imaginations and personal experiences would be greatly minimized.
which, in part was the point I made in referring to Genesis 1:26 Genesis 1:26-7 Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
It is the spirit of mankind, both male and female, black or white, Chinese or Australian Aboriginal, that is made in the image of God, who is SPIRIT, not flesh and blood. Christ, once on earth becoming incarnate, - became also 'a life giving Spirit', though a spirit capable of appearing in - another physical form. .
But human imagination is required to visualise in reality EVERYTHING that is written of upon the printed pages of your Bible. Consequently even the images of God that we may have in our imaginations are human constructs, incapable of truly visualising GOD The Almighty. THAT is why God forbade the construction of any graven image supposedly representing his person. They would ALL inevitably be a LIE, just the construct of the mind of man, who cannot 'see' God. My guess is this is exactly why we never should see statues of The Father in churches. .
As usual though the media make of what was ACTUALLY said, just exactly what THEY wanted to have been said, (to make a good story), rather than what WAS said by the person who said it. The problem for us preachers though is that some 'pew sitters' do exactly the same thing with every sermon we preach. Something seems to happen to change how the words are received and interpreted by the minds of some. Even Jesus Christ himself seems to have often been deliberately misinterpreted by his Pharisaical 'hearers'. .
Apparently not a concern at all. Making the point that the our includes the whole of God's family. In other words emphasises God's oversight of family, like a Father. .