The Strangest Review of “Bourgeois Babes”

Beth Barnett offers what is one of the most polemical and oddest reviews of my ebook Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Hair-Cuts: A Case for Gender Equality in Ministry over at her blog under the title Pricks, Jocks, and Princes.

I thought my book would only annoy people more conservative than me on the gender issue, evidently I was much mistaken!

"Frank is probably the greatest OT scholar of my generation. He is thoroughly evangelical, thoughtful ..."

OT Scholar Francis I. Andersen on ..."
"Thank you for your reply.1. I see how the author could believe that Adam could ..."

Why I Believe in Monocovenantalism
"Thank you for this explanation. It prompts these questions for me:1. Do the Scriptures indicate ..."

Why I Believe in Monocovenantalism
"Thanks, Michael, for this exposition of the covenants. If one sees a spectrum of (non)covenant ..."

Why I Believe in Monocovenantalism

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • She may have a point at least she`s honest

  • Patrick

    I’d take her concerns by trying to place yourself in a thinking Christian girl’s shoes in 2013. Forget for a moment the exact question of ministry/egalitarianism/complimentarianism.

    The totality of Christ is totally inclusive, totally virtue love, total grace and in total equality of “whosoever will”, evil folks, good folks, barbarians,Jew and Gentile,etc.

    Even IF she’s wrong on this specific issue as it relates to ministry and ultimately marriage/parenting(not saying she is), she is likely holding hostility to the views because to a large extent, especially with the family, we’ve taught it all wrong.

    I won’t go into that, but, I admire her for just wanting us all to think and act as if what the narrative teaches on the grand scale(total equality in Christ) could be the reality.

    Even if complimentarianism is the accurate view( I think it is relating to marriage), the fact we’ve missed the import of what Paul wrote has caused modern females to react against it w/o grasping it’s accurate beauty(IMO).

  • beth barnett

    I’m slightly alarmed by the traffic that has come across to the blog from this site. Do note, that as stated in my opening disclaimer, this is not a review of Michael Bird’s book, but a response to the impact of the whole debate as I (and I am guessing a few others) experience it. There are no quotes, no critique of his argument. Who am I to do such a thing? There is irony and satire, but no lack of respect.

    My little blog has a tiny readership, mostly of post-church and almost-post-faith-but-can’t-quite-kick-the-habit refugees, seeking solace from ‘evangelicalism on performance enhancing steroids’.
    A little community of strong faith and strong doubt.
    I have no doubt it is odd. I am not writing for the mainstream evangelical world.
    (I am not writing for liberals or progressives or emergents either.) Evangelical culture and scholarship has many, wonderful voices. It does not need mine.

    If that doesn’t dissuade you, you are most welcome to listen in – but as perhaps a few have discovered, it’s not what you might expect.

  • Mike Bird

    Beth, well I’m glad that I created some traffic for you. I also appreciate that you seemed to have liked somethings about the book. But despite your disclaimer it still looks like a review given you describe the contents and make judgment about its contents and even second guess my apparent motives! So, it still looks like a review to me, a mostly unhappy one. But a beer with reservations might change my mind.

  • Ian Thomason

    The following URL points to a site that probably doesn’t require much in the way of commentary:

    Another self-professed ‘gate-keeper’ of ‘orthodoxy’ hefting rocks 🙁