My point in posting this article was NOT to agree with it, but to examine the evidence within it.
I have always tended in Stedman's direction, with the provision that there is fair evidence for deaconesses. I also think that 1 Tim 2 speaks to something very specific on Paul's mind, because of daughters who prophesy, women who pray, etc. Whatever this verse means, it does not mean ABSOLUTE silence.
However, I've not seen many of the posters engaging this lady's data. Some of her data is useful in other contexts besides this one.
The Greek word diakonos has many usages in Scripture. Sometimes it has to do with what we might call a formal office of "deacon" (e.g., 1 Tim 3; Phil. 1:1), sometime it has to do with ministering (serving) in general. Jesus Himself is often refers to as a diakonos (Rom. 5:8). All believers are enjoined to consider the work of serving one another, "It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant," (Matt. 20:26).
I don't think the argument is whether women can "minister" (serve?) in the Church, I think the question is one of the nature of that ministry.
I'm not satisfied that she has proved any point about the level of egalitarianism in the Scriptures. There is much speculation about the relationship of men and women in the early church, but it is largely an argument from silence. She's also given to making sweeping statements, e.g., "And, [Paul's] practice of including Christian women as partners in his ministry was the culminating expression of his conviction that “In Christ, all things are made new” (2 Cor. 5:17)." She fails to explain what she means by "partners" or give any specific examples. Paul frequently mentions men and women that have labored for the Lord in a particular church without offering details. The author seems to suggest that mentioning men and women together in a sentence is enough to suggest that they performed the same works.
It might have been helpful if she had discussed 1 Tim 5:9,10 where it discussed the commendable works of women (widows). Although perhaps not exhaustive, there is no mention of "leadership" that that list.
I must admit that I'm not up on the Nazarene-Wesleyan-Arminian strain of Christianity, and their traditions regarding women in ministry. I take it they have accepted female ministers, since she claims to be one. (At least she self-identifies herself as a “minister of the Word”.)
I'm also not familiar with many of the names in her bibliography. Perhaps it might have been more helpful if the author had interacted with the historical leadership of her communion on this issue.
There's alot in the paper, but I don't think there is anything groundbreaking. These same arguments have been about for decades.