I don't have any issues with called God Father, particularly not in the context of an ancient traditional prayer. I also don't have any issues with gender-neutral language or calling God Mother. It's all fine with me. However, I'd be uncomfortable with actually using the word "Daddy", simply because I think it makes it sounds like we are small children and God is the only adult in the room. Even when I actually was a small child, I didn't call my own biological father "Daddy".
Mainly when I speak of alternate resources, I'm thinking things that play down the feudalistic elements of faith (i.e. relating to God as a serf would to a nobleman in the middle ages), sin, hell, traditional mores, and so on and so forth, and play up hope, love, and communion, and social justice. God as someone who's essence we share in and as a friend more than someone who hands down orders that we need to curry favor with lest we suffer hell fire. It's more of a change in emphasis than anything else. It doesn't have to be redesigning the religion from the ground up.
But it'd be nice to have a God who grows with us and respects our right to make our own decisions without demanding abject worship and threatening us with torture over disagreements. I'd like to think God isn't so insecure that he needs to be called Lord and groveled to and punish people harshly for not doing so.
In starting the thread, though, I should mention that I'm providing it as an opportunity for people to sort of advertise or mention anything they like that is a bit more progressive or liberal than some mainstream resources. It doesn't have to match what I talked about in the preceeding paragraph. Maybe someone has some sort of special Jesuit book of meditations or something. Just stuff that we may not have heard of that fit the general liberal Christian theme.
My concern with the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier formula is specifically baptismal and in making sure baptisms are considered valid by other parishes, dioceses, churches, and Christian groups. I don't mind the use of those terms in liturgy. But I think messing with the baptismal formula would likely cause a break in ecumenical recognition of a church's baptisms. In the case of some Roman Catholic parishes that did it, the RCC actually sent out letters to the people baptized like twenty years later telling them the baptisms weren't valid and they'd have to do them again. I'm concerned that when the rare Episcopalian parish does it, it may mean that relatives from other faiths attending the baptism get upset and don't feel the baby is properly baptized, etc.. I think it's easier to stick with the traditional formula on that one just because of how widespread the implications are of changing it when it comes to other churches.
