Sarah, I deleted that post after a minute, but not before you saw it. I am not enamored of the idea of engaging with you over this, and it was a mistake for me to post a response. The cat being proverbially out of the bag, I will state again that I believe you are mistakenly conflating teaching with authority. I believe they are separate actions, sometimes intermixed, sometimes not, and both prohibited.
If "all spiritual matters are church matters" as you asserted earlier, then how is it possible that 1 Timothy 2 in no way addresses family worship? Either family worship is not a spiritual matter, or it is not true that "all spiritual matters are church matters".
Ruben, the prohibition against women teaching men does not relate to the spiritual/Church matter of family worship except if the wife were to be leading and teaching the husband in that worship. Are you supporting that concept? I took for granted that we understood that to be inappropriate, and meant that the prohibition is not relavent to mothers teaching children. The prohibition does not address the spiritual/Church matter of mothers catechizing children as in the case of Lois and Eunice.
Let's take another example from Acts, one where presuppositions will not have such an influence on the interpretation of the text: Acts 16:32,33. There we are told that "they" spoke to him the word of the Lord, and that "their" stripes were washed. Should we think only Paul spoke? Or that only Silas' stripes were washed? Since multiple pronouns continue to refer to the same antecedent (if they don't, we have no way of knowing who is meant), there has to be warrant to state that the referent has changed. You have no such warrant in Acts, or in Acts 18. It doesn't make any difference whether the pronouns (or the person of the verb, if you want to be technical about the Greek of Acts 18) are first, second, or third person: they function the same way. It's all very well to claim the charitable high ground, but it's not very effective as an argument when no one is accusing Priscilla of sin, and it certainly doesn't override the flow of the text.
If, in another portion of scripture, Silas had been commanded to not 'speak the word of the Lord', we would not assume by the use of the pronoun 'they' that he had done so, just as when my family name is used in the scenario I described above does not infer that Mindy did the teaching. The pronoun 'their' being possessive, does indicate that both possessed stripes, but that is not relavent to our discussion since the pronoun in question, 'they', is not possessive.
I think the nub of the issue probably lies, though, in whether there is a distinction between private conversation and public teaching. If there is no difference, by what right does anyone not appointed to a teaching role share knowledge or thoughts with someone else? If you admit the distinction, that is more important to me than what happened in Acts 18, although I've seen nothing to suggest that "expounding" has to be understood as authoritative teaching. Aquila and Priscilla can be taken to have had an informal chat with Apollos. Your view would exclude women from partaking in "godly conference" except with one another. That may be all right with you, but it does kind of bring you into a degree of uncharitableness towards the Samaritan woman in John 4.
I do make a distinction between conversation and teaching, Ruben, both public and private. I was not present at the interaction between Apollos, Aquila, and Priscilla, and the scripture does not give us any more detail than that the way of God was explained more accurately (or 'expounded' as in the KJV). If that explanation was carried out in the course of discussion between the three, with Aquila and Priscilla answering questions or stating their own take on matters theological, I would view that as conversation and not teaching (but then that would call into question the need for seminaries, if such knowledge can be so easily and casually imparted), and would have no qualms about both particpating. If the discussion transitioned into instruction (which I would normally view 'explaning' and 'expounding' as such, but I digress), then it is my view that at least that part would have been carried out by Aquila.
The woman at the well was not teaching Jesus the way of God, she was asking and answering questions, and thus the situation is unrelated to our discussion.
I admitted above that I find the onus to determine where conversation turns to teaching to be a difficult one, but I think that is true whether in a private discussion at home or in a Sunday School setting. I do not believe my position excludes women from participating with men in godly conference, giving their views on a theological matter, sharing beneficial texts or concepts, or describing their experiences in the faith in mixed company with the intention of helping others, including men, to overcome difficulties or find more joy in their spiritual walk. I do believe it proscribes direct didactic instruction in either public or private settings, and I do believe it proscribes the propounding of the Gospel by women to unsaved grown men, except perhaps in answering questions pertaining to the hope that lies within them. And I believe even that should very quickly come to a referal to husband or Elders. It may simply be my and Mindy's foolish scruple, but it is what it is.
I have seen the Acts 18 verse used to justify many an error, up to and including the likes of Ellen White and Mary Baker Eddy, so I definitely want to be careful in my handling of it. I have also seen the effects of a creeping egalitarianism on both Church and culture, and have no desire to participate or acquiesce. I don't believe we'd be having this discussion if it were 1712 instead of 2012, and that always raises red flags for me, requiring irrefutable evidence that our elders were dead wrong before I will accept the modern version of things.