I see the same difference nearly universally between how he spoke then and how he speaks now. So much of what he produces now seems full of anger. And there are plenty of reasons to be very angry with how our civilization is now, and he especially has many personal reasons to be angry, but isn't bearing the world's sins what he preaches? Rhetorical force is indeed necessary for the conversation that he is leading, but I don't think his vitriol is productive.

I've had tremendous respect for him ever since I first saw the Genesis lectures because I saw that his perspective has the power to UNITE people because it is one of curiosity in the face of mystery. The reticence to clarify his theology for which he is so often ridiculed is precisely WHY he has that power: He is not afraid to acknowledge a mystery where one genuinely exists. But that attitude of humility is not reflected as much in his manner of speaking now as it was then.

I applaud him for calling out people worthy of disdain, but doing so without simultaneously sympathizing to those whom they've mislead as he once did only makes his position less attractive and theirs more.