You're right that I welcome engagement/interaction. I would love to see a cordial lively discussion arise from this.

But I'm actually not (as you say--consciously--at least) seeking to argue for any more than a critique of the critique.

Any convincing argument that happens on the subject of what churches should decide, it seems to me, must happen at the textual or even the hermeneutics level, which you'll notice I chose to avoid. 

To my mind I actually was sticking to commentary only on the commentary. The examples I used of global Christianity and history were to back up my argument that we should stop using the slanderous "capitulation to culture" description (whether the conservative Christian subculture or the secular culture at large) of those with whom we disagree. If we disagree with the move toward greater public visibility for women, we need to stick to assessments that critique hermeneutics and biblical interpretation. To play the culture card is subtly to criticize motive/agenda; but a focus on hermeneutics means critique of method. The latter is far more constructive, assuming of course, it's done with kind words and a generous spirit.  

Case in point:  Just yesterday I received this from one of my favorite Greek scholars:  "We need to be careful about running the risk of discounting someone else's theological orthodoxy just because [that person] doesn't interpret the data the way we do. The issue here is one of method, not theology. I disagree with [name of scholar]'s method, but he's rock-solid on a high bibliology."

Bravo! My post emerged from a desire for all of us to be more like this scholar. We must learn to disagree with someone's method without discounting his or her bibliology/orthodoxy. And I would add that we should seek to limit our disagreement to method rather than expanding it to include the psychological issues we think someone would certainly have to have to disagree with our own [warning--satire ahead:] astute, brilliant, yea flawless conclusions.