Entirely debatable. Notice how Priscilla and Aquilla are referred to (Ac. 18:18ff, Rom 16:3, 1Co. 16:19, and 2Ti. 4:19) - she's mentioned first. Odd, considering the Greek grammatical convention that the person you emphasized was mentioned first. There's a colorable case to be made that she was the leading member of that ministry team.
Add in 1 Tim 2:11 and Romans 16:1, and there is at least a prima facie case for women in leadership in the church.
As for me, I am not convinced by this argument, but I must admit that it is not insignficiant. In order for this argument to be pursasive, one must be able to effectively deal with 1Co. 14:34 and 1Ti. 2:12. I've not seen that on this thread, nor have I ever really seen it.
I think you will find that the names were interchanged at times.
Luke that was a Greek placed his name first in Acts . Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Paul was a Roman Jew and probable free from the greek cultural practice one time put him first and to felt free to honor who he would . 1Cr 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
There is discussion on the rendering of Act 18:18 And Paul [after this] tarried [there] yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn [his] head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
This can be read that Paul and Priscilla having cut Aquilis hair because he made a vow.
So it could be grammatical if one takes the position that it was aquilla not Paul with the shone head
As for me, I am not convinced by this argument, but I must admit that it is not insignficiant. In order for this argument to be pursasive, one must be able to effectively deal with 1Co. 14:34 and 1Ti. 2:12. I've not seen that on this thread, nor have I ever really seen it.
The question Jude is do we make doctrine of exceptions to the rule? Perhaps we can get an ass to preach on Sunday
Have you read James E. Bordwine, "The Pauline Doctrine of Male Headship"? He deals with those passages exhaustively.