Third, the response to Trinity-as-democracy should not be the implicit subordinationism that has infected some traditional Trinitarianism; we don’t need to resort to a unilateral hierarchical Trinity, paternal monarchianism or paternal causality, to avoid the problems of social Trinitarianism. An asymmetrical account of Triune life takes the pleas of social Trinitarianism seriously, and can get at all the dynamism and personal interactivity that social Trinitarianism wants, without threatening to collapse into tritheism.This perhaps more than other quote articulates for me why I am not convinced the subordinationist explanation of the Trinity to establish why women should not be pastors is not even close to being a viable theological solution. American Protestants who want to ensure that women don't get ordained and invoke a subordinated set of relationships in the Trinity need to reckon that they are insisting on building gendered hierarchy from a the9logical proposition regarding persons that must be called Father and Son and Spirit whose pronouns via translation are all "he".
Finally, this perhaps leads to another axiom: Don’t smooth the rough edges
They are doing something that has a long and wildly checkered history in Christianity across every theological spectrum, namely articulating a dogma specifically to solve a current social or political problem. I know, of course, that these things get done but I sometimes believe this thing is done too quickly and lightly by those who would claim they are the most serious-minded about what they are doing.