Here's the link: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/july/paulwethink.html
Again, I want to point out that my views on Paul in general (although not always on specifics) are very much those of Pauline experts in general. If at times I seem to be controversial on some things, this is usually more because of the gap between scholar and pew than because of any real radicalness to my thoughts. In the words of Jack Handy, "Sometimes I think the experts really are experts."
This leads to some interesting rabbit trails in my mind. I affirm in general the political structure of my denomination, where at district and general conference, half the vote is lay and half the vote is ministerial. But of course a lay person is not likely to be knowledgeable about theology or the original meaning of the Bible and in my denomination, ministers are generally only a little further along.
I can justify this structure in two ways, where doctrine and ethics are set by those who are not studied in these things. First, doctrine and ethics are lived out in community, and these individuals represent the community. Secondly, the Spirit is not limited by knowledge. It is more important that a church have the heart of God than full comprehension.
Still, a denomination would be wise to bring in its scholars on important matters of doctrine or ethics. True, scholars can disagree with each other. They can in fact be skewed in their expertise and myopic, since a certain personality often goes on to be a scholar. Yet if you ask who is more likely to have it right, surely the collective voice of a denomination's scholars are far more likely to sense the current lay of the land.