Now, this is not to say that there are not some things which the Bible itself makes clear are culturally conditioned. Contrary to the argument we often hear, it nowhere endorses slavery; it merely regulates it- and with Paul's argument to Philemon set the stage for its elimination. Luther pointed out that only the Jews were liberated from bondage in Egypt, and argued on that ground (with some support from Paul) that only they were obligated to keep the Sabbath as a day of rest. Even the rabbis agree that Gentiles do not sin when they eat ham or violate one of the other OT laws which God only gave to the Jews. Paul's argument about men uncovering their heads during worship and women covering them was not an attempt to create a new law to bind consciences, but precisely a reversal of the requirement in the OT that the rule be directly reversed. The historical-grammatical method (the method traditionally used in the Church, before the historical-critical method was invented) has no problem with looking at the internal evidence within Scripture to see what is time conditioned and what is binding for all time.

In the case of women pastors, though, Paul bases his argument on creation. His very argument excludes the possibility the prohibition is time-conditioned. Unfortunately, that means as a practical matter that you can't have women pastors without directly disobeying what Scripture explicitly says is not only a divine command, but one rooted in creation itself and therefore in force for all time.

One more thought. I would ask for examples of women serving as evangelists in the NT. There is no question that there were prophetesses, but that's a different issue. Prophets and prophetesses were not occupants of an office bearing authority; whatever authority they had came from the genuineness of their message. Prophets were charismatic leaders who arose when they arose, and had the gifts they had. That's a completely different matter than holding the pastoral office- an office instituted by God and invested with authority of such a nature that by Paul's argument it is closed to women.

For what it's worth, I feel the same as you, for the most part. I hate to hear people dance all around a topic like this. It's not about women pastors. It's really a much more fundamental question about what you believe about the Bible.

The real question here is: is it possible that the Bible contains social biases that existed during the time of authorship, editing, and compilation? I'd love to offer an answer but, frankly, I'm still trying to seek one out for myself.