• ThinkChristian excerpt
• Sarah Flashing’s review from the Center for Women of Faith in Culture
• Today interview
• Kathy Keller review and Rachel’s response.
• Ben Witherington’s Review
• Matthew Lee Anderson’s review
• Richard Beck: “hermenutical performance art” 
• Carolyn James on HuffPo
• Preston Yancy on reading the book as hyperbole

Excerpts from Comments:

This one from the Kathy Keller review.  This by Hannah Anderson. I think she makes an exceedingly important point here. I hear Evans critiquing the simplistic literalism haplessly applied in the communities she’s protesting, but the manner of the protest is itself laden with some assumptions that will seriously prejudice the discussion.

I recently read a review  that suggested that some people will not “get” RHE’s use of literary convention and insist on engaging YBW as a literal argument because they lack the capacity to understand post-modern irony. I assume that’s something akin to what you’re saying here as well.

My only response would be that irony is a really bad way to engage in dialogue. If your stated point is to open honest conversation about womanhood and biblical interpretation, this is not a good way to do it. Irony and humor rely on shared assumptions and it’s obvious that those are the very things in question here–there simply isn’t a shared hermenuetic. And an ironic approach becomes even more absurd (in the existential sense) when the discussion moves to a mainstream market that doesn’t have any context for it–in that milieu, stripped of a common understanding of the Scripture’s role in guiding our lives, RHE looks like she’s poking fun at it not simply the Stepford wife stereotype. (I recognize that she doesn’t necessarily intend to do this, but the nature of the her rhetoric doesn’t make it clear.)

All that to say, because of her choice of literary convention, the only people who will “get” the argument are the people who already share her assumptions. The disconnect is not solely the result of reviewers being unable to understand RHE’s approach. The approach itself was never capable of facilitating “honest dialogue.”