So, this has me wondering if this line of thinking puts Paul’s admonition of the female teacher/preacher archetype in question from a Paul as pastor or missionary perspective. Namely if he is approaching this pastorally a compelling case would have to be made that the upstream theology is complimentarian, vs one of ethical and pastoral peacemaking and administration.

David,
I know I, and I’m confident Tim agrees with me on this, don’t want to assign discreet statements of Paul to the “pastoral” or “missionary” line. All of it fits under Paul’s gospeling work, and what is stated theologically in a pastoral situation will have significance at the theological level.
But I know I would agree that the condition-specific contexts are the precise location Paul makes a point and those conditions can change and, therefore, one would have to be more circumspect in assuming Paul’s pastoral point is always and forever the same.

Yes, while each issue would have to be examined separately, the larger point is that Paul?s task entails counseling communities that are attempting to enact and embody the Kingdom of God. Each and every situation is going to be slightly different, with different challenges and different possibilities. It helps to make sense of Paul to rightly envision just what he?s doing in his letters.
This actually puts Paul in a different situation in relation to the Gospels than is typical of much of Protestantism. No longer does Paul trump the Gospels nor make them narrative illustrations of his theology. Kingdom communities attempt to inhabit, enact, and embody the Kingdom of which the Gospels speak, and Paul is on hand to help provide counsel for when things go off track, when communities are discouraged, confused, alarmed, etc.

I get why people today might be hesitant to say Paul was a theologian but perhaps saying Paul is not a theologian says more about the current practice of Christian theology. I realize it is hard to place Paul in a particular box which is why it might be best just left said that Paul was a gospel/church leader who wrote with theological, missionary, and pastoral concerns without so compartmentalizing those categories as if one can be done without the other.
Grace and peace,
K. Rex Butts

I would say he was a pastor first and theologian second, but I would argue that he was both, and a missionary as well. It is no coincidence that he was among the most studied of the Pharisees. Insofar as his goal was to mete out compromise, he would certainly have done so in accordance with the scriptures and the teachings of Christ.
I agree that his purpose was not to trump the gospels, and his books are rightly regarded as templates for how to build community. However, understanding Paul as someone well equipped to handle theological paradoxes lends gravity to his teachings.

This approach to Romans sounds vaguely like Mclaren’s approach in ANKOC. Am I off base in that or is that accurate?

Another great book that helps makes sense of Paul’s pastoral emphases is “Pastoral Ministry According to Paul” by James Thompson. (Baker Academic)