Well I finally made it through this essay and it wasn’t easy. First of all, what really struck me was how this was yet another example of an obviously intelligent believer try to grapple with Harris’s arguments. Clearly he had never encountered such a concise attack before. He ends up talking in circles and conceding many of the most damaging blows that Harris posited.
The most revealing part seems to be:
As a person of faith, broadly defined, I interpret morality as being, obedience to God, regardless of how that manifests itself in human happiness or suffering. This is what frightens Mr. Harris, and frankly, me, misinterpreted in the hands of the violently unstable. I concede that there are problematic issues with my definition as well, particularly in the attempt to more narrowly interpret the application of the broader concept, which will be addressed later.
He never does go back to address this and although he recognizes “problematic issues” with the definition, he doesn’t accept that this logic is more or less a source of pure evil.