I believe, in the mixture of scripture, theology, ritual, belief, and doctrines that has defined “church”, we must also look at the impact of linguistics when dealing with evidence that support a view or another, especially when we, as English-speaking, forget that much of the original material was written in Hebrew and Greek. ¬†Even these languages, in modern times, are¬†radically different than 2000 to 5000 years ago.
There is no rhyme or reason why inanimate objects are “masculine or feminine” – it’s just how the language evolved.
Same with the various aspects of YHWH, the Holy Spirit, Yeshua, and the “genders” involved. Who today can truly know the rhyme or reason? YHWH is is not a gender and neither is the Ruach ¬†(Hebrew for “breath”. “spirit”). Both are spirits. Yeshua is the only One who is actually a physical MASCULINE gender because He was a human male who actually walked this earth for 33 years.
Languages are complicated and one must never jump to conclusions about the meanings of certain words or concepts. They must always be viewed in context.
Therefore, if we look at either the Nicene Creed or the Apostles’ Creed, which are simply, in my mind, the traditional and ritualized Statement of Belief (credo) used widely by Christians, we can easily ‘re-work’ the language to modern times and still retain the basic message. ¬†Whether “God” (however one defines it) is male, female, non-gendered, transgendered, or the “Holy Spirit” for that matter, is irrelevant. ¬†While the “Son”, by convention and definition is ‘male’, could it be possible, if The Son is also God, to be non-gendered?
IF we consider God, The Son, The Holy Spirit all to be “transformational”, does it matter what gender identification we use? ¬†Is a “convention” truth? ¬†How do we define ‘truth’ anyway? ¬†Or, we go back to the origins of the terms, debate, ponder, and, by consensus, agree to develop and adhere to a convention (as the ‘big boys’ did at Nicea), are we reducing the whole thing to “TWO GUYS AND A BIRD”?
A pondering mind is simply enquiring . . .