Mike,
4given (Deo Volente) asked that I come over here, look, and comment appropriately. It is not the sort of thing I normally do. I am most committed to sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You can read my personal statement of faith here.
And my ‘World View’ here

However, I respect 4given and her heart for God so here is my two cents (plus change).
I have read Dr. Wright’s article. I have read a number of articles concerning the topic of women in positions of authority over men in the church (Pastors, Elders, and Deacons).

The two godliest people I know (I am proud to say) are my mother and step-father (my father is deceased). My mother has been a Sunday school teacher, conference speaker, author, and lecturer for over forty years. (My step-father has repeatedly stated she is the best teacher he has ever met.) She never teaches men - unless - my step-father or a pastor is in the class and introduces his authority over her teaching.

That perhaps colors my extremely conservative view of the subject. However, 1 Timothy 2:12 (2:8-15) is not the keynote text on why women should not Biblically exercise authority over men in the church.

As an ordained minister (a fact I rarely admit) and a man, the key passage on Pastoral Qualifications is 1 Timothy 3:1-13. I rarely admit I am ordained because I refuse to accept a position of authority in the church based on this passage.

I would like to draw your attention to verse 5. Paul has outlined the pastoral qualifications in this passage, but in verse 5 he explains quite specifically why the qualifications are so important. “for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” IT is a rhetorical statement. A pastor’s evidence of ability to effectively shepherd a church is how he conducts his family affairs.

Take a hard look at the word ‘rule’. It is the Greek verb “proistemi”. It is in the Aorist tense (The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar
action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without
regard for past, present, or future time.) which means it is not a relative term.

Proistemi itself means:
1) to set or place before
a) to set over
b) to be over, to superintend, preside over
c) to be a protector or guardian

Each of these actions is assigned to the masculine’s (husband’s) role in the family. The only way to discount this very specific, gender specific verb - and its inclusive phrase is to discredit completely (by unreasonable means) ‘traditional’ male female roles in a family.

That is, in order for a female to be a pastor/leader person of authority over men in a church, she must also exercise the same role in the family. That is her husband and children must be in submission to her.

Is that your argument? That in fact, a woman be the head of the marriage? One cannot discount one without the other. Either woman must be in submission in the marriage and therefore in the church, OR a woman in authority in the church must also be the authority in the family.

This is not a fallacious argument, 1 Timothy 3:5 specifically tells us why the qualifications of leadership are the qualifications of leadership (crf 1 Timothy 3:12, “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”)
If this were a ‘cultural’ argument as suggested, the explanation of the qualification would not be included.

In Christ
Unchained Slave

"That is, in order for a female to be a pastor/leader person of authority over men in a church, she must also exercise the same role in the family. That is her husband and children must be in submission to her. Is that your argument? That in fact, a woman be the head of the marriage? One cannot discount one without the other. Either woman must be in submission in the marriage and therefore in the church, OR a woman in authority in the church must also be the authority in the family."

Unchained Slave, I emplore you to consider two things.

1. Ephesians 5:21 which says we are to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. This precedes Paul's description of what each gender needs more of to meet his requirement. From women: submission. From men: love. Many are willing to focus on women's submission and totally neglect verse 21. Should a husband and wife submit to one another? According to this verse? Yes. To say that a man should not submit to his wife is like saying a woman need not love her husband, according to the same logic. Does this mean a woman is THE authority in the house? No. Neither does it mean the man is THE only authority.

2. Children are instructed to obey their parents, not just their fathers. Therefore women also hold authority over their children (until of course her sons are 13 at which age they are now considered "men" and she can no longer teach or have authority over them because that would go against 1 Tim 2:12)

Also consider the totality of authority in the church. For a man to proistemi in the church does not set him up as the sole ruler. No moreso than when he proistemi in the home.

Am I the final wisdom on the subject? Big no. But it's something to consider nonetheless.

MoopMoop

Wright is not the only theologian making this case. Gordon Fee, from which I took a course on Biblical Exegesis, also believes that this passage does not prohibit women from pulpit ministry. (See his book Gospel and Spirit).

I read my Bible, weigh the arguments of the experts and draw my conclusions. Wright and Fee make a much better case for interpreting that passage in the light of the whole gospel which does not prescribe gifting on the base of gender. Gender ought not to be an issue when it comes to pulpit ministry. The church needs as many gifted men and women as possible to proclaim the good news. We need to move on from such debates. It is not helpful for being “together for the gospel”.