I've lately made an experiment out of referring to God with feminine pronouns online, except in situations where I am directly quoting something or categorizing the views of someone who doesn't. This isn't because I believe that God is anymore inherently feminine than she is masculine, or because I believe that the use of masculine pronouns is somehow wrong, but rather because I think it's a useful thought experiment to understand that at least 2 of the 3 persons in the trinity do not and never had chromosomes, sexual organs, and so on and so forth. In a biological sense, they are neither male nor female, and we know that both men and women are made in the image and likeness of God. I also have heard it said that, historically, societies with more feminine images of God tend to be more peaceful than societies with more masculine images of God, on average- which of course has nothing to do with gender itself, because we know both male and female leaders are equally capable of initiating wars or working towards peace, but might have something to do with how we perceive gender and how our perceptions of gender effect our perceptions of God and how our perceptions of God reflect our culture.
And, of course, it's important that young women growing up understand that they are equal to men, to reaffirm gender equality as a religious, ethical, societal, and cultural norm to the extent that it exists as a norm, and to bring gender equality as a norm into existence to the extent that it doesn't yet exist as a norm.
So, in general terms, I have no problem with feminine descriptions of God, although I think that we should be balanced and make sure we aren't replacing a patriarchal bias in our language with a matriarchal bias. There still must be room for masculine as well as feminine descriptions of God.
I would say that scripture should stand as-is, because it's a historical document, but that bias towards patriarchy that come from translations should be eliminated. For example, if there is no gender implied by an original verse in the original languages, bibles should be translated in such a way as not to imply gender in that verse in English. However, if there is a gender implication in the original verse, like "Father", then it should be translated "Father", because that's what it says.
Liturgy and sacraments are a tricky matter. I am inclined to say that baptisms need to keep the "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" formula to keep historical continuity and to ensure that the validity of baptisms are recognized by other churches or denominations. Though one doesn't want other churches or denominations to completely dictate your church or denomination does, churches and denominations really should be thinking not once, not twice, but many more times than twice before changing something that isn't an intrinsic matter of justice and morality that could effect sacramental validity or recognition. The Nicene Creed speaks of one baptism for the remission of sins, and we don't want a situation where there a zillion variants on baptismal formulas to the point where anytime someone changes a church or denomination, they have to be conditionally re-baptized because of potential defects of form in their previous church or denomination.
Similarly, I would be very hesitant to change much around what many of the sacramental churches refer to as the Liturgy of the Eucharist, or the part of the mass or service that surround and include the moment of consecration where the bread and the wine become of the body and blood of Christ, or whatever thing various churches and denominations feel happen at that point. Same with ordinations and so forth.
However, I do think there is room to work on this in other aspects of liturgy and prayer, sermons or homilies, blessings within and without of liturgies, prayers, etc., and introduce some gender-neutral or female language for God to give things a greater sense of balance.
One thing to consider about "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" is that while it sounds nice and does eliminate gender bias issues, there may be theological issues there that have nothing to do with gender. When we replace a traditional formula like "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" with "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier", there's an implication that we are saying the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Reedemer, and the Spirit is the Sanctifier. Actually, though, traditionally, trinitarian theology has been that all three persons in the one God are all three things.
If you look at the beginning of the Gospel of John, for instance, you'll find this:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. (NRSV)
The Word, of course, is Jesus.
So, we have some very long standing scriptural theology there that the first person of the trinity is not the sole creator and that not one thing came into being without the second person of the trinity.
But, wait, there's more. Here's the beginning of the first chapter of Genesis:
1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. (NRSV)
Historically, Christians have interpreted that "wind from God" as the Holy Spirit, and the root Hebrew word is something like "divine wind". Some Christian translations even just say Holy Spirit. So, in a way, the third person of the trinity, too, is creator.
So, in some senses, this substitution of descriptors for each person of the trinity in place of what has traditionally been there, can be thought of as implying a very different theology of the trinity that I don't think the folks who are changing this for reasons of inclusions mean to imply. That's of course, doesn't mean it can't be used, but, as I said, I'd try to keep it away from sacraments. Use it in other contexts IMO.