The reason for the negative is the misleading use of "complimentary" in the Logos description and the work's self description of "complementarity." I find this language potentially confusing- it sounds like its billed as aligned with the "complementarian" viewpoint, but this work promotes the opposing "egalitarian" point of view. When I read the description to my wife, she said, "Wait...at first, I thought this would be egalitarian, but which is it?" Buyers should be made aware of this- aside from the "Praise for this product" quote by the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, you would only have hints that this is a work espousing the egalitarian viewpoint. That said, although I did not ultimately agree with the few chapters that I did read in seminary (Fuller), I did appreciate seeing how those who disagree with me think through these issues, and did help me to learn how to have better dialogues over gender roles in the church and in the home. I think we need more works like these from both sides where we can disagree honestly, disagree well, point out the "slippery slopes" we see in another's position- and be aware of the slippery slopes leveled against our own, and strive to bring "light and not heat" to a very important discussion. Finally, I think even an egalitarian should read this book with the following in mind: based on the footnotes, the main work it seems to critique is "Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood." This work was initially published in 1991. This response ("Recovering Biblical Equality") was first published in 2005. That's 14 years difference. Why did it take so long? Is this waiting so long a fair critique? For example, in the last 14 years, what currents have ceased or begun in OT & NT scholarship that affect these issues? Are you critiquing what these men & women said in 1991, or what they would have said in 2005? This makes wish there was a way to have the scholars of both the CBE & CBMW publish a joint work where each side offered their own articles/essays, and then each side got to write their own critiques of the other's position- a "written roundtable." I think that would be more beneficial.