Getting back to exegesis; Paul's discourse before he reaches the description of elders states that women were to learn in complete submission, and were forbade from having authority over a man. This could not be cultural, as Paul clearly stated the reason for this directive as being the deception of Eve and most likely a result of God's statement that the man will rule the woman in Gen. 3. In addition, since the description of PRESBUTEROS in Titus also makes the reference to overseer, the gender rules regarding husband of one wife still apply there. I THOROUGHLY AGREE (caps for emphasis, not screaming) with your analysis that "the husband of one wife" refers to monogamy. More specifically, it was likely a prohibition of polygamy. That still does not change the fact that he said "husband". In addition, there were specific instructions to Titus that an overseer must be able to exhort using sound doctrine and and refute those who contradict (apt to teach according to Paul's description in the first letter to Timothy). One cannot logically say that Paul meant for women to learn in submission and forbade them to teach a man in I Tim 2 or speak in the assembly I Cor 14, and then authorize them to teach men in chapter 3. Now Jay makes an argument that woman's subjection to man is not an all-time command with his example of the immolation of the Scottish woman that took sedatives during childbirth, but that argument is faulty at best. Some women naturally feel little, others feel a lot. If a woman happens to have a child and feels little pain in the process, is that an excuse to break the other directive of God? BTW, no matter how much sedative a woman takes, this doesn't take away the fact that pain is still part of the process. Once again, this is a human argument against an inspired directive. BTW, I could care less what Campbell, Stone et.al. have to say regarding the matter. They were neither inspired nor infallible. I'm simply using Paul's words as best I can to make a sound judgment.

The gender reference in I Tim 3:11 regarding deacons I think is more unclear. Therefore, you MAY be right in your assessment that women could have served as appointed deacons during that time. My wife certainly fulfills that role as described in Acts within our house as a true "wife of noble character". However, the gender reference still remains in the description "husband of one wife". Furthermore, the description of Phoebe serving in the appointed office of deacon as some have deducted in Rom 16:1 is not consistent with the role of women in church governance found elsewhere. Therefore, Paul may have simply used DIAKONOS in the form of servant as translated in the NASB. My faith and lack of knowledge will not let me draw the conclusion that women were or would be authorized to serve in that role. A more thorough description of deacons can be found here. http://bible.org/article/deacons-and-leadership-c…

We could go on arguing all day and night about this, but I don't want to get caught up in chasing rabbits in light of the fact that we cannot be presumptuous regarding God's church. It is, after all, His and I'd rather run it how He commands instead of reacting to the feminist agenda and using worldly wisdom and thereby invoking unintended consequences for future generations.

Stone-Campbell wisdom and sectarian intellect do not trump inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Faith and I worship from time to time with the local Mennonite churches. Some of the women wear a covering, but most most don't. My wife wears a covering , and I respect her for that. That was her decision for her faithfulness to Christ. She does not bind that upon others.
There is a mixture of acapella and instruments in the local churches. I like both, but somehow the acapella rings my bells. People say I sing acapella well, and that must have been from the 5 years I spent with the COC. I still like it a lot.

That being said, I think there is room within the Body of Christ for a little difference in practice:instrumental and acapella, women elders and deacons and preachers, worship on various days of the week, and even differences of when and how often to take the Lord's Supper.

If congregations are truly autonomous, why can't we live and let live?

Not one word is mentioned about baptism here. It is faith in God and receiving His righteousness that saves us-from first to last. From the first minute we say "I believe in Jesus" till we take our last breath and say: "into your hands, oh Lord!"

We obtain God's approval by faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross and His bodily resurrection. Then we are declared righteous. Then we are baptized because we have been saved. The Baptists have baptism right. We are baptized because we have been saved, not to be saved. It is like getting married for love. We are married because we are already in love, It is the same way with baptism, we are baptized because because we are already saved by faith.

God bless you.

Human wisdom and intellect does not trump inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is total reactionary doctrine to the feminist movement of the 1960's and we would not be holding this argument but for that.