I have to disagree with the popular assumption that the pastoral Epistles are not authentic. I'm far from being the best Greek scholar but I do study the NT and Septuagint in Greek for a few hours every day and have been doing it for years. I also have a degree in culture anthropology and sociology and have studied comparative linguistics. The emphasis on word order used to support the argument that the pastoral letters are forgeries doesn't work at all in Greek. We English speakers are use to a syntax controlled language. Basically we understand the parts of speech by the order that the words are presented to us and we have our own way of understanding the significance of a position of a word in a list which doesn't corralat at all with NT Greek. I will defer to the opinion of the extremely well studied scholars Keaner and Fee. Both agreed that by the principals used to discredit the authenticity of the pastoral letters much of what they have written would definitely not be expected as authentic. Think about this for a minute. I'm a retired EMT and a Habilitation plan coordinator (I had oversight on a multidisciplinary team and was responsible to document every aspect of clinical care). I have written hundreds of technical documents and EMS run reports non of which resemble this writing. By the standards that are used to disqualify the pastorale letters this can't possibly be me writing this because it doesn't resemble the vast majority of my writing which is extremely technical and specific to the situation I was addressing. The scriptures are what they are and we have to deal with that. Luther (I'm certainly not a Lutheran) wanted to get rid of lots of the scriptures that did not fit his theology and he rearranged his Bible to deliberately discount the importance of scriptures he disagreed with. I believe strongly that that's wrong. The pastoral letters were always assumed to be authentic until a few hundred years ago and as I stated the reasoning to question them is flawed in my opinion. Having said all that there's definitely room to decide what aspects of the very specific instructions to Timothy and Titus are to be interpreted as absolutely normative for the whole church in all times. Part of the problem with understanding any epistle is that it is like listing in on half of a phone call. We only hear the answer and have to guess as to what the original issue was that was being addressed. There were definitely radical issues in play in the specific regions that have profound implications for biblical egalitarianism and church politely. One can certainly question wether the leadership structure and the restriction placed on women were specific to that time and place or were intended to be normative in the church for all times and places (any in-depth study of the NT definitely would cause any impartial student to see that there is a lot of diversity in the types of leadership and the roles of women in the rest of the NT). I'm always amused by the fact that many modern Christians have a need to say that understanding the scriptures is simple. If that we're true we would not have to be disciples ( μαθητής)