Misquoting Paul?

CNN reported that a woman has been dismissed from teaching Sunday school--after 54 years--because her church adopted a literal interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman
to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam
was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived and
became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing,
provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

I recently read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, and this story jumped out at me since this interpretation is directly dealt with in Ehrman's text. It is his assertion, based on a examination of the style difference of this passage and the contradiction it presents to Paul's claim that there are no male or female in Christ, that Paul did NOT write this passage. There is evidence that Paul was joined in his ministry by women, and would not have felt that women could not teach within the church. I find it really odd that this church is choosing THIS passage, since it's dissected pretty thoroughly in a book available to laypeople, not just Biblical scholars.

Apparently, women of the first centuries after Christ's death found His message quie popular--it offered a different role than that seen in the community and promoted a sense of community within the church that brought more responsibility and encouraged leadership roles in the church. The opinion is that monks, looking to preserve the subservient roles of women in some cultures, inserted this text as social comment. This revision would have happened long ago, before the concept of a canon or official copies. There are other comments discussed in the book that may have been inserted into Paul's letters to serve a similar purpose.

And now you see one of the reasons why I have not gone to a church in over a decade (this past May excluded). When it comes to the organization of religion, the organization is performed by man, and when man is involved, imperfection is the only certain factor. Some differences may be subtle (like the old joke about Methodists taking showers while Baptists prefer baths) and have little bearing over proclaimations of a true faith or honest practice of what is believed to be right. Other differences, like this situation, are more profound and have a distinct, powerful effect on the congregation that follows those differences.

Is this woman any more or any less Godly than the reverend making the decision? I don't think so, since she's likely been teaching since before the reverend was born. But because he is in the position of power, he decides the church doctrine. The result is a congregation following not the Word of God, but the word of a man. To me, that seems awfully misguided.

I'm not anti-Christian or an athiest. Agnostic, maybe. Lazy? Certainly. But I have an inner sense that tells me what is right and good and what I should and shouldn't do. That inner sense tells me that this decision is not right, and not something I would want to follow.