Not only is this an ill-quoted text, but it is also a problematic path to tread, both within and without the evangelical enclosure. If Paul’s statement is as conversation-stopping as appears to be claimed, if meaningful discussion must end at this point, then Christianity has given away more than it imagines. If Paul is positing a simple collapsing of distinction between male and female, then Christians must grapple with the ontological issues that such a position raises as well as its economic consequences.

Overreach and unintended consequence are dangers that all of us face, risks that all of us run. When the Apostle Paul instructed Titus about the elders who should minister on the island of Crete, the self-control he urged was one of moderation, of knowing how to avoid extremes. That virtue should be the aspiration of every Christian, but often its benefit gets lost in the mechanisms of how we live, feel, and make decisions.

An area which has suffered terribly in this regard is that of understanding biblical manhood and womanhood. Recent events, and reflections on them on social media, have shown some of the fallout of an over-realised complementarianism which has found implications in Scripture which are not inherent in the text. The fruit of this has been a crass misogyny, an authoritarian animus which bears no resemblance to the biblical picture. In the worst of cases it has enabled, and even sponsored, abuse of the worst kind. It is right to bring these things into the light, and show the consequence of exegetical exaggeration and cultural appropriation. Satan didn’t merely question God’s speech in Eden, he added to it and made it more cumbersome than the Creator had stipulated – we must always guard against the same sin.

That is also true, however, in terms of the reaction to this position. Twitter and other outlets are alight with debate and disagreement about what can and ought to be salvaged from the wreckage. Of deep concern is the dismissive proof texting which simply asserts that this is an arcane debate, a throwback from yesterday, an aftershock of patriarchy, a hegemonic system of control which has run out of fuel. This is less than what a balanced and scholarly espousal of egalitarianism offers, and it gives away considerably more than it intends.

Top among the texts to proof is, ‘there is neither male nor female’ (Galatians 3:28). This is often offered on the assumption that its truth and implications have not been factored into complementarian theology, and that it is the final line of the closing credits of interpreting Scripture in that way.

[Editor’s note: This article is incomplete. The link (URL) to the original article is unavailable and has been removed.]