I don't fit with any party or package, to Christian liberals I seem conservative, and Christian conservations will seem liberal--as an independent of sorts, I most enjoy books by other Christian free thinkers who are all over the map and who don't conform to the partline of any tribe.
Honestly, when you think of the wide, random, and diverse set of positions a majority of evangelical fundamentalists have settled on, if people actually engaged in critical thinking, Christians would have very different opinions, since several doctrines and interpretations have scanty support and dubious biblical backing. It seems the accidents of history and tradition are far more the reason for the broad acceptance of certain beliefs. It is off-putting when someone just so happens to agree with just about every desperate opinion in a large package of beliefs. I bet I could accurately predict what Lennox would say on almost any issue.
Anyhow, Lennox is a party person--on every issue he will take the fundamentalist evangelical stance (though a non-Calvinist version)--this makes Lennox seem more like a spokesperson for his tribe; he will affirm uncritically every part of the package. Sometimes this means ignoring problems, or briefly mentioning that there is a debate, but of course, he will always land on his party's position on every issue.
To me, I suppose that tribal allegiance seems to be in direct conflict with any true value of truth, beauty, and goodness. It seems that they feel that they HAVE TO affirm everything in the package OR ELSE. As literally any opinion can be defended, no matter how absurd, it makes him like anyone deep in a cult who must rationalize and defend, for their identity depends upon it. But this type of absolute fidelity to a package of beliefs undermines their credibility. Too much motivated reasoning.
I suppose I find many aspects of the evangelical fundamentalist package to be highly problematic, repugnant, and weak--which increased my dislike for this overly long book.