The reason the Southern Baptist Convention is still arguing about women preachers is because they won't address the fundamental issue. The vast majority of the conservatives have no problem with women teaching - which is to exercise authority. The arguments in the New Testament that forbid women office are tied to the question of authority and the role of women which is one of domesticity.
As I continue to argue, 1 Corinthians 11 deals with extraordinary or charismatic prayer or prophecy. Paul is not contradicting himself in chapter 14 when he enjoins women to silence - to not even ask a question in the church gathering but to learn at home. The latter example refers to normative practice which now dominates in the post-apostolic period. If the SBC wants to have women teaching in the Church, then it needs to become Charismatic in doctrine.
What about Sunday School? This argument assumes that Sunday School (if valid at all) is somehow exempt from worship or the formal gathering of the Church. It seems clear enough that there are occasions when the Church can meet in which the normal reverence, male-teaching, sacraments and so forth are not in play - not that the Evangelical world pays much attention to these things anyway. It would follow this arrangement (say at a picnic or around the campfire) does not require the silence of women. It's not an absolute ban akin to the Taliban.
However, Sunday School is still part of the congregational gathering. We get lost in the weeds when we start splitting hairs over the timing of the 'call to worship' and so forth. The Church is meeting and the Word is being taught. That's all part of the formal gathering and worship. Perhaps Sunday School (so-called) should be re-cast and integrated in with the formal meeting - so that there is no confusion. It's simply a time of more didactic instruction as opposed to preaching and sacraments. The whole model is flawed and this has been exacerbated by age segregation and much else. Women began to teach children and then it expanded from there.
Further as 'conservative' churches know allow women to teach in seminaries and the like - it's no stretch to let them teach in terms of the Church meeting.
And as women have abandoned the domestic sphere assumed and prescribed in the New Testament, it also follows that as they are in leadership and authority out in the world (and increasingly in the home) the idea that on Sunday morning they would suddenly flip a switch and turn into the meek, submissive, and shamefaced women held up as examples by the apostles is unrealistic.
The SBC and other groups will continue to have this problem because they're not addressing the core issues. Should they do so - their denomination would most likely splinter if not collapse.
In the meantime these measures and bureaucratic games make for good gossipy news stories but once again - the point is missed.
Evangelicalism broadly speaking has a problem when it comes to ecclesiology. Despite the claims of submission to Biblical authority, the faction all but explicitly rejects the Scripture's sufficiency on this point. New Testament worship is deemed insufficient as evidenced by their services dominated by pop music and other innovations. The New Testament is insufficient for the Christian Life as they clearly rely on therapeutic and psychology-driven models. Church growth is more dependent on market-driven strategies and Madison Avenue gimmicks than the Word and the Spirit. And when it comes to the structure of the Church, they rely on business models and continue to multiply the number of offices and functions within the Church.
They can laugh all they want about the multiplicity of offices created by Rome - Cardinals, archbishops, deacons, arch-deacons, sub-deacons, and on it goes. But they're no different. Visit the webpage of most Evangelical churches and your met with a multitude of offices - pastor of this and pastor of that. There's no end to it and as such there will always be loopholes and ways of framing office and authority that allow people into positions of authority that are outside the boundaries set by the New Testament.
The bottom line is this - when it comes to Evangelical ecclesiology, the New Testament is not authoritative. And when it comes to authority in the Church, they will not follow what the New Testament teaches because they have already abandoned what it says about the questions surrounding men, women, and authority. These realities function in dynamic terms and continue to shift and chip away at the authority structures within their denomination and individual congregations.
For these reasons and more, the SBC and other Evangelical bodies are going to wrestle with these issues over and over again. The leaders are treating symptoms but failing to address the underlying problem. And here's another aspect of that problem. The vast majority of these leaders are unclear themselves and unwilling to follow through. Biblical fidelity on these points will result in a mass exodus - which drives one to ask, just what is it they actually have in the SBC? Since the model is unbiblical to begin with, I would argue, not much.