I've search the Internet to find some other articles which Ms Sharon Clark Pearson has written to determine whether she is indeed liberal in her theological views. I’ve found none so I can only base my views on what is written in this article. However, it should be noted that Ms. Pearson is herself a minister and president of the Wesleyan Theological Society so she's not exactly coming from an unbiased perspective in writing about a women’s role in the church to preach/teach.
I would agree that Paul does not mean absolute silence and there are many places where women played a prominent role (Lydia, Priscilla, etc.). Ester is a prime example of a great woman God rose to prominent to save her people but it was Mordecai who she would rely upon for God given guidance and direction. Mary carried the Lord Jesus but it was Joseph who God revealed when and/or where he was to go. When the man wasn’t around, as in the case of Ruth, God used other godly women such as Naomi. There is clear Biblical evidence of precisely how God operates and a clear order of organization.
I do think Ms. Pearson takes liberties with the scriptures in assuming 1 Tim 2 has no meaning or is “difficult to understand”. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Steadman’s article as long as the woman is under the charge of the man but I don’t believe this is what Ms. Pearson is saying. From my reading she is co-equaling the woman’s role in the church with the man’s role and I believe her arguments to be spurious. If one is going to rely upon “tradition” of the church, you will be hard press to find a prominent woman theologian in the early church. Perhaps that is why they call them the early church “fathers”?
One can only conclude from the scriptures and from the tradition of the early church, women did not preach/teach theology or doctrine. Something I think the author either ignores or attributes to “Jewish biases”.
I meant to ping you on this response.
Her arguments are far more sophisticated than simply appealing to cultural biases. I don't recall her using such a simple, shallow argument throughout the paper, but I'm open to correction.
She has piled historical data, on biblical data, on historical data to say that Paul acknowledged the onset of a new era in terms of male/female relationships to each other and to God. She indicates a faith in the Kingdom of God being different than the kingdom of man in its approach to male/female issues.
This is what makes her explanation of "household codes" so fascinating. Where before it was just Master/Slave, it is now .... Master/Slave and masters better be just in their treatment.
In Christ, she radically thinks, there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female....
Somehow, she comes up with the outrageous idea that we are all one in Christ Jesus! Now THAT is an absolutely LIBER(al)(ating) thought!