Physics Guy wrote:
I'm perfectly prepared to call Paul flat wrong on some topics; he was a man of his time, to be sure. He's a giant, though, and I'd like to think as well of him as I can. For me it sheds a different light on his pronouncements against women speaking in church, if at the same time he could so casually concede his own proudest title of apostle to a woman. It would incline me to think that the odious silent-in-church thing might have been for Paul a mere policy against offending conservative public opinion, rather than something he thought was really important. He did also urge people not to eat meat that had been sacrificed to pagan gods, even though there was really nothing wrong with eating it, just because it might shake some people's faith to see a Christian apparently accepting a pagan ritual. Of course it's still pretty thick to stop Christian women from speaking in church just to placate potential male converts, but it's arguably better than doing so on actual principle.
1Cor 14:34
"women should be silent in the churches.For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church"
I do not have a list of who all but I have seen a number of sources state that there is good reason to think these statements are not from Paul but are a later addition by somebody wanting to add what they believed Paul should have said.
Some reasons to consider this, first earlier in the letter Paul labors through an explanation of why women when praying and prophesying in worship should ware a head covering. That is an absurd discussion if women were required to be silent.
Second, the phrases here are an interruption to the discussion of orderly interpretation of people speaking in tongues. The passage reads better without the odd addition about women being silent.
Third it observes the law as a reason which is quite odd for Paul but would be natural for some of Pauls opponents.
Fourth, it agrees in view with first Timothy which was not written by Paul.
Because I like Paul I feel glad he did not pen these particular obnoxious sentiments. That does not mean he had no culturally narrowed viewpoints but not so much here. But if people are manipulating the text then it would indicate that the idea of allowing women leadership was not seen by everybody as ok. One might think that there was some struggle over the issue in the first couple of centuries of the church.
Churches have to grow bloated and comfortable before they can afford the luxury of handicapping ~50% of the church. 