In 
particular I am bemused at the way complementarians do theological gymnastics
 with 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Tim 3:2

On the one
 hand they totally contextualise the first by allowing women to teach in certain
 circumstances; whilst on the other they refuse to accept that Paul may not have 
been addressing the gender of elders in 1 Tim 3 but dealing with men having
 licence to have multiple partners (something that was not common for women).

 
I think the problem here is not that Molineaux disagrees with the complementarian position (and in saying that I am not saying we need to agree to disagree) but that he has no need to be bemused. It is much more helpful to be clear about where our disagreements lie, than bemused about them.

In the example Molineaux cites I think it is relatively easy to clear the fog of bemusement. Why do complementarians handle 1 Timothy 2 and 3 the way that they do? Here are three possible reasons:

1. There are those who are convinced
 exegetically of complementarianism but culturally would much rather be 
egalitarian. I was born in 1970, slap bang in the middle of the population cohort that used to be referred to as “Generation X”. Where our parents’ generation had overthrown social conventions in the cultural revolution of the 60’s, we came of age in the 80’s knowing sexism is bad and that there are no gender distinctions. (And, incidentally, the slippery word ‘gender’ was introduced, to replace the more definitive ‘sex’.) For my generation – and even more so for the one that came after us – our complete social wiring is to push against anything that seems to discriminate between men and women. And this means that those who are convinced
 exegetically of complementarianism but culturally would much rather be
 egalitarian tend to push the boundaries as much as their 
conscience will allow. I agree that this can lead to theological gymnastics, but there is no need for bemusement about it – the reasons for those gymnastics are clear. What those who practice such gymnastics need to do is learn to submit their cultural preference to exegetical integrity, and be prepared to carry the social stigma that may result (Heb 13:12).

2. There are those who are convinced 
complementarians but are so sensitive to egalitarian accusations that they fudge whatever can be fudged in
 order to appear less offensive. Again, I totally get this! None of us likes to be told that we are using the same logic and arguments that a supporter of the slave trade would. None of us likes to be told that we are arguing a theology that leads to oppression or violence. So, again, theological gymnastics results and the reasons are clear. In this case the way to stop doing somersaults is to have a greater confidence in theological conviction, and to build churches that demonstrate the falsity of the accusations that come. If we can’t demonstrate it, we shouldn’t teach it! (1 Cor 1:6)

3. There are those who read 1 Timothy 3 
alongside the rest of scripture and in so doing are convinced that eldership is 
limited to men; at the same time they read 1 Timothy 2 alongside the rest of 
scripture and are convinced that there are some contexts in which it is 
inappropriate for a woman to teach and others in which it is appropriate. There is nothing to be bemused about here – this 
is not theological gymnastics but doing the hard hermeneutical yards. It is, of course, what I consider the correct way to proceed!

So, three sets of reasons for why complementarians handle 1 Timothy 2 and 3 the way they do – which leaves plenty of room for disagreement, but little for bemusement.

However, all complementarians (gymnasts or otherwise) would surely agree that the egalitarian argument about men having multiple partners while women didn’t being the issue in 1 Timothy 3 has as much 
hermeneutical credibility as the argument that “they exchanged natural for 
unnatural” means it is wrong for straight people to have same-sex sex but not for
 gay people. Again, absolutely no reason for bemusement there, but every reason for disagreement.

Whichever side we’re on, let’s make sure our lenses are clear about where the real disagreements lie, and not allow our arguments to become fogged by bemusement.