though when he calls himself a Puritan, or writes a rambling and disjointed piece titled Liberal Theologians which includes such statements as The Ecumenical movement has been a huge inroad to modern theological confusion, then I naturally form certain impressions about how he and I might disagree
It is, of course, not necessary to agree with someone to profit from what they write. I consider Wittgenstein a brilliant and thought-provoking philosopher, with whose writings I almost always disagree -- but since I can find it difficult to explain my disagreements with him cogently, Wittgenstein forces me to think carefully, from which I conclude he is well worth reading. The ambiguities, brevities, and seeming contradictions of the ancient Hebrew scriptures similarly provoke my thinking; and that may indeed be partly the point of those texts, since there is an old and extensive tradition of argument and dispute over the meanings there, as recorded (say) in the midrashim. In a brief web-search of his writings, I haven't found myself challenged in that way by McMahon, so I think I must simply let him go his way while I continue to search for material that better helps me learn
= new reply since forum marked as read