Language, Metaphor, and the Incarnation

I was told today that God as Father is a metaphor that we know is limited. I reacted strongly against this statement. My issue is that Father is the new language we are taught both about God and how to pray to God. Winking at this language, knowing it to be limited, seems the liberal move that makes reason and, I expect more accurately once fleshed out, feeling the more important theological source (we all feel rather strongly about dead-beat dads, right?), rather than Scripture. This position says that while Scripture teaches us God is Father and Jesus teaches us to call God Father, we know it's metaphor.

Here's my concern: Where do we get the arrogance to say we know that it is metaphor? Clearly this is not the same as metaphorical language of God having feathers, eyes, etc. Scripture's confrontation of our world involves teaching us a new language to speak, with new vocabulary. It should flip our relationships on their heads, so that our earthly father-son language is the metaphor of the true, eternal begottenness of the Son by the Father.

Now, to the Incarnation. If the Father is truly the ontological (in his very being) Father of the Son (not with the sex-act, etc. that we have in the human act of fathering), then the Incarnation, by which we are made brothers and sisters of Jesus, changes our ontology, as well, to make us ontologically Son and Daughters of God. God's embrace of humanity is final and complete, never to be rejected, as the Ascension affirms, and that embrace of humanity, done through his human Son!, includes us.