The grammar of God

Is God a "he"? The phenomenon of divine masculinity runs much deeper in Scripture than pronouns. In Scripture, God assumes stereotypically manly roles. Defensive roles. Punitive roles. God as protector and provider (e.g. father, shepherd, deliverer, warrior king) as well as avenger (judge). These are social roles which in the ancient world are naturally and necessarily associated with overwhelming might. The physical power to subjugate adversaries. In addition, there's the procreative metaphor, which trades on the fact that the woman's role is more "receptive" in relation to the male contribution. 

Of course, mothers have a protective instinct regarding their kids. But women lack the natural equipment of a she-bear. The force to back it up came from male aggression, musculature, and weaponry. 

Moreover, these aren't primarily literary representations of God, although some of them are theological metaphors. Rather, these are ways in which God actually operates in human history.  

So divine masculinity in Scripture isn't primarily grammatical or rhetorical, but grounded in God's economic roles. The grammar and imagery are a reflection of that deeper reality. 

This does raise the issue of the extent to which God's economic roles mirror his essential nature. That's more a question for philosophical theology. 

But if we think the Bible accurately represents divine action in the world, then that's sufficient reason to retain predominantly masculine language, imagery, and metaphor in theological discourse and liturgy as normative usage. 

If you don't think that's the case, that's not a reason to substitute feminine or unisex alternatives. Rather, that's a reason to become an atheist.