I full agree with Fusi's analysis of the relationship between Christianity and culture. I personally feel that there is a need of contextualising the gospel. Much of the gospel as it was preached in Africa it was done in the context of the western culture. In the Northern province where I was brought up the people were told that when they accept the Christian faith they must stop wearing their traditional clothing, even though the "Minwenda" (Vhavenda traditional dress code) is a very modest attire that covers the whole body including the knees.
Even today this dress code, which is more modest than most of the skirts that are wore in our churches, can not be seen in our churches. Why? Because the missionaries said anybody who wears traditional dress code testifies that they have not yet repentant. I am convinced that if some of these missionaries have been more sensitive to cultures of our people the results of their efforts could have been different. The example of trying to contextualise the Christian faith can be seen in the Tshivenda translation of the Lord's prayer. Instead of asking God for the daily bread, which up to the recent past was a luxury to many, it talks about the daily 'buswa' (pap or stiff porridge).

One area in our worship that requires a re-look in the context of our debate of culture and Christianity is the area of music. Most of the music that forms the liturgy of our churches has been translated from English. Yet music is more like poetry, its beauty lies not only in the message that is presented but also in structure and the wording, how one sentences rhymes with the next one. When you translate music from one language to another it loses some of its soundness and meaning. In some cases our translators failed to understand the idiomatic expressions used in the English songs. The example of these is found in the very common song: "Pass me not a gentle Saviour." The third sentence says "While on others calleth do not pass me by." In almost all southern African translation this sentence is translated as saying, "When you call others do not pass me by" which is meaningless to say the least. The 'calleth' in the context of the song means to visit, so the songwriter is saying when you visit others do not pass my house, visit me also. This just illustrates the problem of not having the liturgy that is dynamic enough to accommodate native cultures.
I agree with fact that God addressed His people through out the generations in the language that they understand. This then concludes that He spoke to them within context of their culture since language is part of culture.
However, I disagree with the ideas that have taken ground in recent years that ascribe some Bible texts to certain cultures and geographic areas. I believe that Bible was written for the current generation as much as it was for the first generation Christians. The Bible clearly says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2Ti 3:16
It is important to note that Bible says "All" scriptures are profitable for doctrine. If parts of the scriptures apply to certain cultures and nations, how can they be profitable for doctrine? Since doctrine has to be a universal standard of fellowship.
Having said that, the question is how does one explain 1Co 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2 v11, 12, without ascribing the texts to a particular culture of that time.

Before we continue, I would us like to take note of the following:

• 1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

• Phi 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
• Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

In view of the above statements how do we understand the following 1Ti 2:11
" Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
The secret to understanding this text will be in the understanding of parallelism. If I say to someone, you need a Technikon diploma or a University degree to get a particular job. What I am actually implying is that as far as the requirements for this job are concerned, a University degree is just as good as a Technikon diploma. So if I do not understand what I Technikon diploma is, I will guess that it is some qualification similar to a University degree. Therefore one side of the parallel helps to understand the other. The Bible says "But I suffer not a woman to teach NOR to usurp authority over the man". This suggests that the teaching that this women are disallowed to engage in is that one that have to do with the authority over man. Or any teaching that was seen as undermining the authority of the Bible.
Paul's letters to Timothy present the teaching ministry as a governing function performed by Paul himself, by Timothy, or by other appointed elder-overseers of the congregation
1. 1 Tim 2:7; 1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2. 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3. 1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
4. 2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
What we find from the above verses is that 'speaking' that Paul is talking about is not preaching on a Sabbath school morning but the teaching which require one to have authority over the church, or ordination.
It is important to note that in both occasions where Paul raised this issue it attached to the statement about authority over man.

Now lets look at 1Co 14:34,
" Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but [they are] to be submissive, as the law also says. " NKJV
The key phrase that qualifies the kind of "speaking" Paul had in mind is, " but [they are] to be submissive ". This phrase suggests that the speech denied to women was speech that was seen as inappropriate to them as women or wives. Such speech may have included speaking up in the church as authoritative teachers of the congregation, or as critics of the prophets, elders or even their own husbands.
The rhetorical question that Brother Fusi asks (Which Law?) may be easy to answer if we take a closer look at the verse itself. The law that Paul is talking about is not some cultural law, but the law that says women "but [they are] to be submissive."
Could this be the law that Paul is talking about? Col. 3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." Eph 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. "

In conclusion I believe that women are not to be silent in the church. Paul seems to expects them to be prophesying (which can be interpreted as preaching) and praying in the church. However, what Paul is addressing is the issue of authority in the church (ordination). The above text confirms the stand that the church have taken in 1990 and again in 1995 against the ordination of women, which is a topic that I wouldn't like to be drawn into.

My belief is that the scriptures where written for all, in all generation, and all cultures, and they are no sections that we need to confine to other cultures. Whilst the understanding of the historical settings is important the Bible is too broad to be confine to a certain historical area.
That's my opinion.