I appreciate you efforts in 'the searching of scripture', but I doubt the extent of your researches. As to the 'application' of your research, you seem to have filtered your interpretation of the meaning of the scriptures you have so copiously quoted, through the filter of your own limited understanding of the true nature of the Triune Godhead. That is excusable because none of us has understanding of the Triune Godhead, but therefore should not deign to feign understanding that we do not possess. Unfortunately that is what you are doing by imposing you own interpretation on the text, then requiring compliance from others to concede agreement with your peculiar interpretation. (peculiar: odd; strange; own; belonging exclusively; very particular characteristic). All of which apply to the way you have interpreted your chosen texts. They were creatures of their time and space, as are we. They saw no need to stress the unsearchability of the nature of The Triune Godhead during the course of Christian Worship of the Father and the Son, and neither should we. They however laid down no doctrinal stipulation that God must never be referred to using female imagery, because they well knew that scripture unashamedly does so in various places. The use of "Son", "Father", "He" etc. in public worship, and in the creeds and formularies, is not a theological statement defining the necessary masculinity of the Godhead. It is a convention in keeping with Our Lord's many references to His Father and the many references in scripture to Jesus Christ being God's Son. You seem to be implying that I stand accused of stating the belief that God should be addressed as "She" or "Mother", in public worship. I would hope that that is not the case because I hold the exact opposite opinion and have actually stated such. If that is the basis of the charges against me, then I am falsely accused. I have never 'addressed God' in public worship using terms other than those laid down in Holy Writ, the Creeds and the Formularies. I have actually led public worship many times in The Church of England, so I know what I am talking about. My guess is that you have never led public worship in The Church of England, nor are ever likely to. I am astonished therefore at the confidence with which you deign to criticize my praxis and accuse me of breaking my oath. Nothing I have written on your website was written in the context of public worship. It was entirely in the context of theological reflection. Judging from your statements concerning the nature of God, my guess is that Christian theology is not your best subject. It seems to me that you are using the 'Oath' to pursue a personal doctrinaire and dogmatic 'witch hunt' to search out those who have the temerity to question any of your cherished naive and sectarian theological assumptions. You have taken upon yourself the mantle of authority and 'popishly' pronounce judgment claiming the infallibility of theological insight, it is plain for most to see, you unfortunately do not possess. My hope is that you will have the grace to tolerate plain speaking and not merely rule it disrespectful of your rank. .