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”.
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!
I would agree her arguments are far more sophisticated than simply appealing to cultural biases. It is a well written article and rather lengthy to go through point by point. I just happen to think she draws the conclusion she would like to come to rather than seriously explore women's roles in the scriptures and the history of the church. I've believe I've pointed a few things I've disagreed with earlier.
I think the Bible is clear on church organization. 1 Tim 3:1-7 talks about the overseer of the church and it talks about this overseer as a man-not a woman. The author's household codes are interesting in Master/Slave and how there is a reciprocal relationship. However, there still remains a Biblical organizational structure which is what the author seems to neglect to review.