Mark

Kay,

Just for you…not all comps believe what you have said, that is too much of a generalisation. Some comps do see the somewhat inconsistency in saying a woman can be in civil leadership/authority and therefore apply the teaching to that spectrum aswell as the church.
Other comps do not do that. They simply say that these instructions are for the church and therefore only apply in the Church, since the Church is God’s household.

So i would not say that all comps apply this teaching the same way. Some stick simply to the context, where as others apply it more broadly to everyday life. Either way it is a matter of application that is the issue, not a matter of exegesis. Exegetically, they both believe the same thing about what this text is saying.

Egals on the other hand have differing opinions on the exegesis (see for example the Fee, Bruce, Kroegers, Payne, Schatz etc) whereas the application is more consistently applied for obvious reasons.

That’s the best i can offer at the moment on your question/query

Anyway as i’m sure your aware, comps understand 1 Tim 2:13-14 as Paul drawing on an OT principle in creation to argue for his position on women’s teaching/oversight, NOT the reverse. He is not trying to show that Gen 2 is about worship, but that rather in the Christian Church there are male/female differences that have their root/principle in the creational order. Similarly in 1 Cor 11 he uses the creational order to highlight why he believes a women should cover her head and not disgrace her head. Same thing in Eph 5 about marriage. He is using the creation account as a basis for his principles regarding gender, not vice versa. This is common of Paul, who uses OT scripture to reinforce his argument in his letters.