It has been over a year since the Presbyterian Church USA decided that ''Mother, Child, and Womb'' was acceptable as a synonym for the relationship of the ''Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'' (Weblog , Christianity Today June 30, 2006).

Gender neutrality is a dubious topic amongst biblical scholars and laity that divides pretty evenly along political party lines, mostly because gender is political (thanks Foucault!). Many people that belong to the Church see the patriarchal metaphors to be the last marks of a society that, less than a hundred and fifty years ago, still did not give women the right to vote or own property. Those of us in the land of the living take the relative equality amongst the sexes for granted these days. But with such a notorious history being only five generations away, the issue of gender and sexuality is an important one to debate in the Body of Christ. Father and Son (with the Holy Spirit) are patriarchal terms and combine to create one of the motifs of the entire Bible. It is important to recognizes that these are such, though for the gender-neutral camp the very logical and pragmatic answer is: ''they are only metaphors, educate your parishoners and deal with it.''

That might be a solution for some people, but for others the metaphor is patriarchal because language is patriarchal (see Sedgewick, Butler, and your local Marxist critic). If men control the language then it is in their power to subvert women, hence the man writing part of the Bible choosing masculine terminology and metaphors. This is not some conspiracy theory, it is a simple, benign act---would John, a fisherman, choose fishing or sewing as a metaphor, or attempt to use the metaphor of Mother and Daughter when he is neither?

It is a fact, however hated or regrettable some may think it, that people are offended by the gendered, patriarchal language of the Bible even when the metaphors and terminology are explained. Thus we end up with the Trinitarian antithesis: ''Mother, Child, and Womb.'' Some see these two polar opposites as balancing each other out, but I submit the metaphors of Mother, Child, and Womb are as problematic and frustrating to a gender-inclusive strategy as the traditional mode. Replacing gendered language with more gendered language still leaves you with a problem of gendered language.

In the realm of thought circulating in todays learning and worshiping communities it is high time for a stance on language within liturgical, theological, and biblical studies that is appropriately post-gender. My argument has two main parts.

First, the patriarchal language of the orthodox definition of the Trinity is part of the metaphorical meaning and interpretation of Scripture and the Traditions of the Church and must be valued highly. The creedal statements of ''Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'' are not to be tossed away like a straw-gospel, as much as modern day ''Luthers'' contemplate doing in their reform missions. The patriarchal metaphor is saturated in Scripture, making up significant binaries in the Word: God/Adam, Abraham/Isaac, Qoheleth/Reader, Rich Father/Prodigal Son, God/Christ. These are gendered metaphors, but these do not discount the feminine metaphors in the Bible as well; in example the metaphor of God/Israel as the Brooding Eagle/Child under Wing. It is best instead to accept that patriarchal language is part of the Bible and that it must be properly taught as a figure of speech within the Word---as metaphor within the narrative, as well as within our traditions and theologies. The fault of misinterpretation and prejudice caused by patriarchal language is not patriarchal language's fault, it is the fault of the Church for not instructing and discipling its flock in such matters. Therefore the traditional ''Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'' should not be done away with.

Second, in contemplating new ways of signifying the Trinity, a true synthesis should be reached, one that is both complementary to the traditional Trinitarian formula and not misleading with gendered language on either the masculine or feminine side. A third way is necessary for the elaboration and discussion of the Trinity as opposed to the traditional formula. It was suggested at the PCUSA convention last year, along with ''Mother, Child, and Womb,'' that ''Rock, Redeemer, and Friend'' be a complementary metaphor. On just an aesthetic note, it sounds like the Triune God is equated with a children's game of chance, let alone the lack of any ''unity in metaphor.'' The statement ''Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'' works so well because they are actual, present metaphors linked to one another within the Scriptures. Not many stories use Rock and Redeemer as metaphors together, nor Rock and Friend. The integrity of the formula must be grounded in its narrative function, and thereby produce a formula that is representative of the narratively linked qualities of God Almighty, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. A formula based on the Genesis/John openings: ''God Almighty, Logos, and Breath,'' or a formula based on Pentecost: ''God, Messiah, and Fire,'' lead to a metaphorical contemplation that is both grounded in the relationship of the Trinity within Scripture and meets a post-gendered understanding.

In this contemplation of the Trinity, as we seek to name the unnameable and know the unknowable, we look at the Being beyond Being and utter words that always fall short. In the times we do not have words it is critical that we lean on the traditions of our Church Fathers and Mothers, at the same time seeking to contemplate such a mighty mystery using language that moves beyond petty quarrels---letting us enter into the great dance of worship together in unity.