If you read the article at the time, which we’ve since taken down, you’ll know that although its main aim was to address the “slippery slope” argument about egalitarianism, I began with two paragraphs on a pair of articles in The Priscilla Papers which Scot summarised and linked to on his blog recently. The problem is, I never actually read the articles, only Scot’s summaries - and consequently I misunderstood the thrust of particularly the second one, by Mary van Leeuwen, and misrepresented it (all the while critiquing both it and Scot for saying much the same thing as I was saying myself). Van Leeuwen’s piece was not arguing that social science proved anti-essentialism; she was arguing that social science does not lend decisive support in that debate one way or another. On that basis, all three of my criticisms - that her article would undermine the authority of Scripture, that the editors should have seen the irony, and that Scot should have as well - were entirely unfounded, and I apologise unreservedly to them all.
I’ve often said here, and elsewhere, that a whole bunch of the things I say or teach will turn out, when Jesus returns, to have been wrong. This is one of those times. Sorry, everyone. I’ll try to be more careful in future.