Another look at trinitarian concepts

Ware is a highly esteemed theologian and author in the evangelical world. He came to Southern Seminary from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he served as chairman of the Department of Biblical and Systematic Theology. Prior to this, he taught at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary and Bethel Theological Seminary. In his book "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance' he reveals an already known reality regarding submission between Father and Son. On pages 18,44,48, and 153 this submission is felt even into prayer where he admittingly proposes prayer only to the Father as ascribed."We may encourage our children to open prayers with, 'Dear Jesus,' despite the fact that Jesus said to pray to "our Father in heaven...". He also understands the difference between Jehovah as the Father and Jesus as the Son. It appears that Ware has his own form of Social Trinitarianism which includes submission attitudes between Father and Son. Also on pg 44 he seems to want to ascribe different modes of being to God. He goes on to say that the Father is "the God". "And what a delight it is to contemplate the greatness, the majesty.....that is God--the true God, the living God, the Creator of heaven and earth...our God. It should not astonish us ....that whom we here behold is in fact 'the God'.Yes God is grear , and God is one. And yet this one god is also three."pg44 Here I am scratching my head as he uses the term God I assume for the father then switches to God being three. Is the Father three? Because all the time in this paragraph he is speaking of the Father being God. Yet then he says God is three.So if the Father is God, and God is three, then the Father is three. And then I might ask, three what's or whom's? Of course in my opinion all Ante-Nicene Church Fathers were Submissionist. Of course Ware is a strict adherent to Trinitarianism but sounds so much like a Unitarian. In the end when you look at his understanding of submissiveness between Father and Son, it appears he self contradicts himself using pure logic and simple syllogisms. I have not yet completely read his book but to pass it off at this point as simple conjecture leading to confusion, which in most cases portray most Trinitarians, is most likely how it will end with me.