If you travel the same web byways that I do, over the last week or so you may have noticed that a ruckus over the Trinity erupted. The occasion was the fact that some complementarians have wanted to ground the submission of a wife to her husband in the “eternal subordination” of the Son to the Father.
As the critics have pointed out, this does in fact play old harry with the divine simplicity, and the unity of the divine will, and eventually monotheism, and so in that respect my sympathies are entirely with the critics.
But, as dearly beloved children, there should be more than one way to be imitators of God (Eph. 5:1) In short, I believe the critics are right about the threat to classic trinitarian theology that a certain line of complementarian reasoning presents. At the same time, I would urge the critics not to overstate their case, which might happen if they said that the marriage design has nothing whatever to do with how God is.
In some sense, the fact that we are created male and female reflects or images God (Gen. 1:27). Our sexuality is not simply a brute fact of nature, like having redheads and brunettes. God the Father is a Father ad intra, and all fatherhood on earth somehow derives its reality from that fact (Eph. 3:14-15). Something is going on, though I am delighted to agree that it is not eternal subordination of the Son.
Might it be the eternal generation of the Son? Fred Sanders says maybe, and I commend his cautions which you can find if you go back and click on maybe.
Postscript: On 1 Cor. 11:3, keep in mind that Christ is an incarnational title. Substitute the Messiah, which means that we also have some ad extra things to imitate.