Imagine Timothy on a Sunday morning in Ephesus. He goes to church after a week spent studying Jonah 2 in his office (of course following the standard one-hour-of-study-per-one-minute-of-preaching rule) and is ready to deliver the second sermon in his four week series on the book (which he's cleverly titled "Belly-Aching in a Bulimic Fish"). 10 a.m. rolls around and Timothy sits in the front row and enjoys the first song, which he and everybody else knows is really just a warm-up. When that finishes, he goes before the congregation, makes the announcements with a smile, dismisses the children to go to Sunday School (which is in another wing of the church building), makes sure the guests know that they're welcome and asks them to fill out a Connection Card, then tells everybody to give a holy kiss to someone they haven't met before. After worship Timothy delivers his sermon, another song finishes the service, and everyone leaves until the next week.
I think not. I bring up the situation as a reminder that church in the first century looked a lot different than church does now. Scholars are almost entirely agreed that the earliest Christian churches were house churches (thus "in every place" in 1 Tim. 2:8 probably means "in every house church"). The idea of a "worship leader" would have been entirely foreign (despite that hymns were most definitely sung congregationally) and each house church would need at least one teacher. Further, 1 Cor. 14:26 (and probably Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19) gives the impression that church was a time for everyone to participate in some way or another. And if you can find me a New Testament church ministry specifically to kids, young adults, or any other niche group, I would be learning something new.
Too often when we try to apply NT ecclesiology to the modern church, we fail to recognize the vastness of the structural and sociological chasm between them. This comes to the fore in the gender debate especially when we consider that major difference between the number of voices contributing in a regular church meeting. Think about it like this: if a woman cannot teach or have authority over a man and the only (or almost only) person that gets to edify the congregation when it gathers is the one preaching the sermon, then it is easy to understand why women feel slighted for being born with two X chromosomes. What role do they have if they don't want to do children's ministry?
There are a few things that ought to be considered to remedy this problem, but I will focus on one that I think is especially important and invite you to share any others you think relevant. One of the most important things we can do to recover the proper place of women in the church is to rediscover the importance of the charismatic spiritual gifts (i.e. those charismata that Paul addresses in 1 Cor. 11-14). 1 Cor. 11:4-5 makes quite clear that women contribute with prophecy and prayer in edifying ways in the congregation. But except in overtly charismatic churches today, most women will simply not have that medium for edification.
And that is a shame on any number of levels, at least two of which are worth enumerating here: (1) I am an unabashed charismatic and cannot help but remind the reader that if the charismatic gifts are for today, our not pursuing them is essentially a denial of the importance of the Holy Spirit's ministry to us. (2) If women should be contributing in certain ways and we stifle that, we are hurting both them and ourselves. They need the opportunity to minister and we need to be edified by them. It's that simple.
I should close by making a specific point of asking for more input on this point (especially by women!). I would be interested to hear in particular what other ecclesiological differences you see that make the application of complementarianism difficult, and what other ways you think your and my solutions could help.