In the public sphere, for example in online publications and on social media, one sees two extremes regarding women in the church generally: let us call the first the “make me a sammich” crowd.1 This is the online face of the patriarchalist movement. This view is the mirror of and reaction to the second: the evangelical egalitarians. The former argues that females are subordinate to males in their being and in their roles in every sphere of society. For the patriarchalists, females are said to derive their being and significance from males. In some cases, their patriarchalism is either derived from (or more likely read back into) the Trinity in the form of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son. The egalitarians, on the other hand, seek to eliminate distinctions in roles in the same spheres. Both movements are largely culturally driven, which is reflected in the quality of their biblical exegesis and systematic theology.
Recently, however, the uglier side of the online patriarchalist movement reared its head in response to a social media post by my alma mater (and my employer). The seminary published a photo of some recent female seminary graduates and congratulated them on their accomplishment. Sadly, most of the comments below the original post were misogynistic, ill-informed, and shocking in their ungodliness. Virtually all of these profiles in masculine courage were anonymous.
Nevertheless, because people will see such comments and some might be influenced by them, and because I continue to hope that at least some of those who say these things might still be secretly open to rethinking their position, I want to defend the righteousness of females attending seminary and engaging in theological studies. My thesis is that there is a biblical middle ground between the “make me a sammich” crowd and the evangelical egalitarians.
One Bad Premise Spoils A Whole Argument
First, let us clear away some confusion about what seminaries do. Several respondents to the social media post objected to female seminary students on the ground that seminaries are only for educating future pastors. The argument is thus:
- Seminaries are solely for educating future pastors.
- Females are biblically disqualified from pastoral ministry.
- Therefore females are ineligible to attend seminary.
The middle (minor) premise is true but the major (first) premise is false and therefore the conclusion is false.2 Most seminaries, including mine, offer Master of Arts (MA) degrees that are not intended for ministerial students. Some MA graduates go on to become writers, some go to the missions field in various non-ministerial capacities, some work as Bible translators, some male MA students are preparing to become ruling elders, both males and females take the MA in order to teach in high schools, others study for for personal enrichment, or as preparation for further studies.
As it happens, however, the seminary that published the social media post which set off the patriarchalists, exists primarily to educate future pastors. As a matter of principle and fact, the seminary does not enroll females in the ministerial studies degree (Master of Divinity). By conviction, the denominations served by the seminary do not ordain females to the pastoral or ruling elder offices.
The principal reason the seminary was established was to educate future pastors and thus about 70% of the students are enrolled in the Master of Divinity degree with the intent of presenting themselves as candidates for pastoral ministry, and most of those are headed for the ministry in the churches in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council. This means that the vast majority of the more than 1,000 graduates have been men headed for pastoral ministry.
When I enrolled in seminary in the early-mid 1980s, there was a Master of Arts in Religion (MAR) degree. Since that time, however, the MAR degree has been replaced by three MA degrees: the Master of Arts in Theological Studies, the Master of Arts in Biblical Studies, and the Master of Arts in Historical Theology. As it happens, I was a student when (to the best of my knowledge) the first female student enrolled in the MA program. She was an excellent student. Since that time, the seminary has enrolled a number of female students in the MA programs, and those students have gone on to do useful work in the academy and in other areas. They have made notable contributions to the life of the seminary and beyond.
What God’s Word Says
If the evangelical egalitarians will not be limited by the unambiguous teaching of God’s Word (e.g., 1 Tim 2:12), the “sammich” crowd simply ignores those parts of Scripture that describe the active and important role that females play in the church, both formally and informally.
Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2) is perhaps the most visible female serving the visible church. We need not answer the question whether she was ordained to the diaconal office to pay attention to what we can see plainly on the face of Scripture. Whereas the “sammich” demanding patriarchalists would tell her to stay in the kitchen, the Apostle Paul commends (συνίστημι) her to the congregation at Rome. He commended her as “our sister, being also a servant of the church in Cenchrea.” Paul did not tell the congregation in Rome exactly what her role was in Cenchrea but he did tell the congregation (composed of both males and females) to “welcome her” (προσδέξησθε) and he tells them how they are to welcome her: 1) “in the Lord” (i.e., as a fellow believer) and 2) worthily (ἀξίως) of the saints. Further, they are to place at her disposal (παραστῆτε) whatever financial resources (χρῄζῃ) she might need to accomplish the task (πράγματι) that the Apostle Paul has given to her. She was evidently a person of means (προστάτις) who has helped many, Paul among them.
We should also notice the prominence of females among those whom Paul greeted in Romans 16, for example, Priscilla (Rom 16:3). She is notable along with her husband, Aquila, for helping Apollos to understand the history of redemption in light of Christ’s fulfillment of the types and shadows (Acts 18:26). If, as some believe, Apollos wrote Hebrews, then Priscilla’s contribution to the life of the church has been mighty indeed.3 Paul also singles out a certain Mary (not the mother of our Lord; Rom 16:6), Junia (Rom 16:7), Tryphena and Tryphosa (Rom 16:12), whom Paul calls “laborers in the Lord” (κοπιώσας ἐν κυρίῳ). He mentions a certain “beloved Persis” (Rom 16:12) who also “labored much in the Lord” (πολλὰ ἐκοπίασεν ἐν κυρίῳ). He greets Rufus’ mother (Rom 16:13), and mentions another Julia and the sister of Nereus among others.
Paul’s recognition of the significant service by women in the church is part of a pattern. Consider Paul’s expression “coworkers of God” (θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί; 1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 1:24; Col 4:11; Philemon 24). In 1 Corinthians 3 he applied that expression to Apollos and explained that both Apollos and he were coworkers of the Lord. So, we can see that this is an elevated title.
In that light, consider what Paul wrote about Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2–4).4 Though it might be tempting to pass over this passage, if we do we might be missing the very reason Paul wrote Philippians.5 In Acts 16:12 we read of Paul’s arrival to Philippi, “a leading city of the district of Macedonia and Roman colony.” On the Jewish Sabbath, he went “outside the gate to the riverside” where he thought he might find some people at prayer. He did. He found “the women who had gathered” (Acts 16:13). One of them was Lydia, a businesswoman from Thyatira (Acts 16:14). As you will remember, she was converted, and she with her whole extended household were baptized (Acts 16:15). She was the same sort of patroness as Phoebe. She had a house large enough to host a congregation. Evidently, among those at the river that day were Euodia and Syntyche and now, as Paul writes Philippians, the two women, founding members of the church, are at odds. In Philippians 4:1 he begs Euodia and Syntyche “to think the same things in the Lord.”6 Who were these women? They “had struggled together in the gospel” or perhaps “contended together in the gospel” (συνήθλησάν) with Paul “and with Clement and and the rest of my coworkers, whose names are are in the book of life” (Phil 4:3). If Paul does not quite call Euodia and Syntyche coworkers in the Lord, he classes them right next to the coworkers.
When we pay attention to what female Christians were doing in the New Testament church we do not see what the evangelical egalitarians imagine. We do not see them acting as ministers, ruling elders, or deacons but, contrary to the patriarchalist approach, we do see them actively serving the Lord in significant ways such that they are either called “coworkers in the Lord” or classed next to them. Their service was sometimes so important that Paul required the congregation to help them with their service, whatever it was.
If women could help to found congregations, if they could be delegated by Paul and called “co-workers in the Lord,” and help members of the apostolic company to understand Scripture, then it is hard to understand how anyone could say that females may not learn Greek, Hebrew, systematic theology, biblical theology, historical theology, and church history with a view to being of use to the church in a variety of modes of unordained Christian service. Do we have too many highly educated females in confessional Reformed churches making videos for other women or writing VBS and other Christian education curricula? Do we not need theologically educated teachers and administrators for Christian schools or do we not need theologically educated females to write and edit books and articles? Certainly we do. We also need theologically educated females to help with Bible translation, missions, counseling, and many other worthy modes of service.
The culture wars we will always have with us. In the church, however, our task is to seek to bring our thinking into submission to God’s holy, inerrant, infallible Word and not the bring the Word into submission to our cultural or political positions. Here it is necessary to distinguish between nature (creation) and grace (redemption). The church is not a subset of the culture. It is the embassy of the Kingdom of God. The culture is not semi-eschatological (heavenly), but the visible church is. It is headed for the city whose maker and builder is God (Heb 11:10). We are not the prisoners of our culture now any more than Paul, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, Euodia, and Syntyche were prisoners of their culture.
Notes
- This is the shorthand expression they use, “make me a sammich,” for “make me a sandwich.” It means that females should restrict themselves utterly to domestic duties.
- For more on women in the church see our resources page.
- On the authorship of Hebrews, Calvin wrote: “Moreover, as to its author, we need not be very solicitous. Some think the author to have been Paul, others Luke, others Barnabas, and others Clement, as Jerome relates; yet Eusebius, in his sixth book of his Church History, mentions only Luke and Clement. I well know that in the time of Chrysostom it was everywhere classed by the Greeks among the Pauline Epistles; but the Latins thought otherwise, even those who were nearest to the times of the Apostles. I, indeed, can adduce no reason to shew that Paul was its author; for they who say that he designedly suppressed his name because it was hateful to the Jews, bring nothing to the purpose; for why, then, did he mention the name of Timothy? as by this he betrayed himself. But the manner of teaching, and the style, sufficiently shew that Paul was not the author; and the writer himself confesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples of the Apostles, which is wholly different from the way in which Paul spoke of himself. Besides, what is said of the practice of catechising in the sixth chapter, does not well suit the time or age of Paul. There are other things which we shall notice in their proper places.” John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, trans. John Owen (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), xxvi–xxvii. We cannot know with certainty, of course, that Apollos wrote Hebrews, but he seems to fit the profile of the sort of person who did.
- My translations, unless otherwise indicated.
- I intend to explain this more fully in a forthcoming podcast series, but the actual purpose of Philippians was to address the upset caused in the congregation by the dispute between Euodia and Syntyche. If the dispute was the influence of the Judaizing doctrine of salvation, then we have an explanation in chapters 2–4, which the thank-you note theory does not offer.
- The echoes of chapter 2 are unmistakable.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
>> The culture wars we will always have with us. … The church is not a subset of the culture. <<
Amen and amen. I'm borrowing these sentences (with credit!).
-=Cris=-
The quotation by ‘Kanute’ from Titus 2, although referred to later as verses 3-5 is actually only verses 4-5. Verse 3 provides the evidence that solves the problem: “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behaviour, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good…”
There is the instruction that older women are to teach. We know from 1Tim 2 that they are not to teach men, so therefore they are to teach only women, notably the younger women. So if the older women are to teach theology and biblical exegesis to other women (and I can find nothing in the NT prohibiting this) it would be a very good idea for them to be seminary-trained.
Angus,
Thank you for this helpful note.
Angus, since I’m the one who referenced Titus 2:3-5, I want to respond. I deliberately cited all three verses, not just vv. 4-5, and I did so for a reason. I had hoped Kanute would comment, but he’s apparently decided not to “take the bait.”
I agree with you on the correct understanding of Titus 2:3, which reads: “The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things.” Yes, older women can and should be trained to teach younger women, and that could include seminary training in some cases.
The complication is there are people who read verse 3 and its reference on “teachers of good things” and believe it means **ONLY** to teach those “good things” which follow in vv. 4-5, namely, “[4] That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children [5] To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
In that interpretation of v. 3, older women are NOT “to teach theology and biblical exegesis to other women” but rather only the enumerated list of domestic duties. Under that interpretation of v. 3, no, it would NOT “be a very good idea for them to be seminary-trained,” but perhaps it would be okay for women to be taught in “home ec” classes.
Before people say, “that’s an extreme fundamentalist view,” no, it’s not, and it’s a lot more common in conservative circles than some people think. The first time I heard that view was back in the 1980s from a man who is now a well-known URC minister, and when I pressed him, he doubled down that Proverbs 31 involves household businesses and home-related skills whose products were being marketed to others. I haven’t talked with him in years but as far as I know he still teaches that position. I was initially confused by his argument, but once I understood it and understood its consequences, I’ve been arguing against that position now for over three decades.
I wish Kanute had come back to explain his views. Since he hasn’t done so, I don’t want to put words in his mouth. One of the things I was going to press him on was precisely this point of whether he believed verses 4-5 were an exhaustive list of what sort of things older women, according to verse 3, are to teach, and if so, why it’s an exhaustive list rather than only a list of examples of things older women should teach younger women.
In my view, people who think that way are seeing the destruction caused by modern feminism, but overreacting and reading things into the text rather than taking the text on its own merits.
I think the Dutch Reformed world of previous generations largely got this one right, with women being encouraged to become Christian school teachers and then applying the teaching skills they had learned to a variety of activities in the church. Becoming a teacher requires formal training and education, and that was being done with women in the Dutch Reformed world almost two centuries ago, long before it became common in a lot of other conservative church circles.
Today, lot of people in conservative Christian circles are doing a “pendulum swing” and not just reacting to feminism but overreacting.
We are not supposed to be more conservative than the Bible. When we do that, bad things happen.
Some observations:
1.) John Murray, one of the most stalwart defenders of Reformed theology, married a women who attended WTS. He was not an egalitarian.
2.) Two things can be true at the same time: a) Church officers are to be only males and men are to be the leaders of their household b) Females can grow and be trained up in the faith so as to better serve Christ’s church and their families. (If a female is a Christian/biblical counselor or serving on the mission field, I think it would be preferable that they know the word correctly and have a good theological foundation.) Also- No female at the seminary in question earned an MDiv or took a preaching class.
3.) The irony that, as Dr. Clark mentioned in the post, most of the patriarchal critics are anonymous and then one individual pushing back in the comments is using an anonymous name and not their real name. This is also not to mention a failure to interact with the post itself which shows more weakness in their position. Barring the need to be anonymous for physical health reasons, why not attach one’s name to the strong opinions?
4.) The females in the picture that caused the peanut gallery to speak up most likely can articulate the biblical position on male headship on exegetical and theological grounds in a more efficient way than the men chiming in.
5.) A couple of my brothers in seminary married female classmates while in seminary. Another pair of classmates were already married to each other prior to seminary. In all those cases, the spouses complimented each other and helped make each other better students, exegetes and theologians which was reflected academically. This is quite the opposite of being a distraction.
Carefully argued, Scott. Too many churches leave half the team on the bench.
Sorry that Westminster Seminary is going through this, though I’m certainly not surprised.
Suffice it to say that more than a few eyebrows were raised when it became publicly known that I was engaged to a female graduate of Calvin Seminary who I met when she was in the MA program there. Reminding people of the work of such women as Laurie VandenHeuvel, Gertrude Hoeksema, and others in the Dutch Reformed world reduced but did not end the problem, especially once I pointed out that my wife’s Master of Arts in Christian Education from Calvin Seminary was essentially a teaching degree comparable to what many Christian school teachers had received from secular institutions.
Unlike some parts of the conservative Reformed world, due to the role of Christian education and the resultant necessity of having women teaching in Christian schools, some of whom have married ministers and become Christian writers in their own right, the Dutch Reformed seem to have largely “gotten it right” with regard to the issues of women receiving theological education, teaching, and writing on religious subjects. It’s pretty hard to argue that the Protestant Reformed, Free Reformed, and Heritage Reformed are egalitarian groups, and all have had prominent women in such roles, though some are now deceased.
To be clear, yes, I do recognize that the women I’m citing in those denominations did not go to seminary and their denominational seminaries do not operate the way Westminster does as an independent seminary not under synodical authority. They’re church-run seminaries and that is a significant difference from Westminster.
The point is not what degree they have but rather the work those women were doing — the same sort of work that a Westminster MA prepares people to do, which is NOT pulpit ministry but other forms of Christian service.
There is no defense for female seminarians. Paul makes this abundantly clear in his letter to Titus:
“Then [the older women] can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.”
Women are called to the following actions:
1. “Love their husbands and children”
2. “To be self-controlled and pure”
3. “To be busy at home.”
4. “To be kind.”
5. “To be subject to their husbands.”
This is Christianity 101 guys.
You haven’t addressed the evidence that I presented.
All those things are true that you say from scripture, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from the evidence.
What do you do with Phoebe?
And what do you do with single women gifted with celibacy? Just let them sit around being self-controlled and pure?
It’s sad that it had to be written but as always, grateful for your wisdom on such difficult matters.
Thanks for this defense, Dr. Clark. It’s sad that it’s needed. The church needs more theologically educated women. And if pastors-in-training find it distracting to have a woman in class (an argument I saw on X), how will they manage to shepherd the women in their congregation? I find it ironic that one of the only seminaries to restrict their MDiv to men (that I’m aware of) was criticized for this.
Hi Christian,
The idea that mail Seminary students are unable to concentrate because they are females in the room is a singularly stupid argument.
They are graduate students. They need to grow up. The female students aren’t having any trouble concentrating on their work.
As you say, how are they going to function in pastoral ministry. If there’s a female in their catechism class or their Sunday school class or in their congregation, are they going to go to pieces?
If so, they probably shouldn’t be going into pastoral ministry. The world needs good carpenters.
No, the church needs more women who will take care of their homes and raise children. We’ve had our fill of Aimee Byrds, thank you very much.
Kanute,
Aimee never went to seminary. That was part of the problem.
When you say no, how do you answer the argument from Romans 16 and the other evidence that I presented?
Why can’t females go to Seminary and be wives, mothers, and homemakers?
If you can’t address the evidence then why should we take your objection seriously?
Dr. Clark, I’m not going to speak for Kanute, but I will quote his previous post, citing Titus 2:3-5:
_____
“Women are called to the following actions:
1. “Love their husbands and children”
2. “To be self-controlled and pure”
3. “To be busy at home.”
4. “To be kind.”
5. “To be subject to their husbands.”
This is Christianity 101 guys.”
_____
I’ve been hearing that argument since the 1980s arguing against theological education for women, and often arguing against women working outside the home at all.
Rather than being a careful exegesis of Titus 2 and Proverbs 31, I think it’s largely an overreaction against feminism, egalitarianism, and women in office. Yes, women **ARE** supposed to be doing those things, but those aren’t the only things they are allowed to do, and it is not the way Reformed churches were operating for centuries before the rise of feminism.
If those are the only things women are allowed to do, then Christian schools need to have only male teachers. Church secretaries either shouldn’t exist, or we should go back to the practice of the 1800s in which secretaries were male. I suppose a case could be made for female nurses to serve female patients since there are things men should avoid doing with women when possible, and there are specific examples of midwives in the Bible.
That last point proves the error of saying women should **ONLY** work at home. Nothing in Scripture criticized the Hebrew midwives for being midwives; in fact, they are commended for their work, including their deception of Pharaoh.
Frankly, the argument that Titus 2 forbids women from going to seminary “proves” far too much. It would mean women can’t be doing a long list of things they have been doing for centuries in the conservative Christian world, including in Calvin’s Geneva.
We need to be careful not be more conservative than Scripture on these matters. Yes, we need to reject feminism, but we can’t let the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction without biblical warrant for doing so.
Well said, Darrel!
Thank you for your thanks, Angela.
A related discussion has shown up on a prominent Reformed FB group in which a discussion of women in the military — which is a legitimate discussion on which I agree that there are valid concerns — quickly turned into a debate about whether women should be working outside the home at all and whether it is sinful for a woman to accept employment because her “boss” to whom she will submit in employment is not her father or her husband. While it hasn’t yet been stated in that group, the usual way that argument goes is that a woman can work with her husband or her father in a family-owned business, but shouldn’t be accepting employment outside the family, or at most, the extended family.
I think that argument is likely behind Kanute’s comment here, and much of the opposition to women going to seminary. Again, he hasn’t explained himself and I don’t want to put words into his mouth, but that’s the typical argument underlying his position.
It’s not just an argument against women going to seminary, but women going away to college if it involves leaving home, or sometimes getting an education at all, on the grounds that women should be moving seamlessly from the headship of their fathers to that of their husbands without the “distractions” of college or employment.
I’ve been listening to that argument now for decades. I recognize that it has a history and some of our Reformed forefathers made that argument, or arguments like it.
Put candidly, it goes far beyond Scripture. Fathers have the right to run their families according to those principles if they think they are prudent, and I am the last one to say everybody should be pushed to go to college. There is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging a woman whose goal is to be a wife and mother to get married soon after high school.
However, a church has no authority to mandate principles of family life which go beyond the clear teaching of God’s written Word on male headship in the spheres of the home and of the church, and do NOT extend into the sphere of society or civil government.
We can’t turn into IFB legalists who use Reformed language but add rules made by man but not found in God’s Word.
Amen!
I do wonder whether ANY of the offices in the Church exist in the same way as they did before the Canon of Scripture was fixed. Surely what we now call Pastors, Ministers, Elders, etc. cannot carry the same authority in the Church that they had before the Canon was fixed? Or rather, perhaps they have a even greater authority that is not invested in them personally?
And what is “teaching or having authority over the man”? Does it include the one-off public address?
John,
I think so, to some degree. This is a difficult question. The very early second century helps me here. They (e.g., Ignatius) received the NT to teach three lasting, permanent offices: episkopos (pastor), presbyteros (elder), and diakonos (deacon).
Practically, I suspect the episkopos had extraordinary authority because of the developing canon but the picture of the transmission of the canonical books is clearer in some places than in others but, the mission of the episcopal office is clear enough in Scripture. The earliest fathers consistently recognized Scripture as the final authority. They consistently deferred to Scripture.
The great difficulty is in sorting out the NT presbyterial and episcopal offices. I’m influenced by Calvin on this (and Ignatius) but on their own terms, the NT picture is murky and fluid. There even seems to be development in the diaconal office. What we see in the epistles seems different from what we see in Acts.
The situation of 1 Tim 2, however, seems clear to me. The context is corporate worship and females are unambiguously limited in their exercise of authority. “Public address” where? In the secular marketplace or government? I don’t see that Scripture speaks to those spheres. It does speak to corporate worship. Harrison Perkins has offered a fascinating and helpful interpretation of 1 Cor 11.
He argues that we’ve misread the setting of 1 Cor 11. In that case, there’s no tension between 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11.
Thank you so much Dr Clark – there is also the question of whether, by women, Paul means the fair sex in general, or just married women with husbands they can be subject to within the church. “If they will learn anything,let them ask their husbands at home” is a totally unChristian insult if one tries ot apply it to any woman who doesn’t have an authoritative male at home. what’s your take on this and the Greek behind it?
The Greek is well reflected in most English translations.
“διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ” (NA27).
Lit: “To teach and a woman not I permit neither to exercise authority with respect to a man, but to be in silence.”
Elsewhere Paul does speak about husbands and wives, but per Harrison’s explanation, that may not have anything to do with corporate worship.
1 Tim 2:12 seems categorical contra the attempts by evangelical egalitarians to evade the force of it. The more honest egalitarian approach is simply to dismiss Paul, as one person did some years ago, as “hopelessly patriarchal.” I don’t think that’s true at all. Paul wasn’t a patriarchalist at all. His teaching, like our Lord’s on males and females was actually rather radical in that culture (or in thsoe cultures) but it wasn’t overturning the creational order (to which Paul appeals) nor was it egalitarian. As S. M. Baugh has shown, there’s no evidence of Ephesian Feminism needing to be put down.
Did you read Dr Perkins’ account of 1 Cor 11? Here’s the series.