He writes and lectures with a manner that appeals to the logical mind to a larger degree than Eckhart and some other gurus.
Is that supposed to be a positive endorsement???
I think that is a positive endorsement. I also think this is one of the most important issues and also one of the most misunderstood issues about spiritual journey.
Based on my own experience, the initial few breakthroughs along the path of spirituality is often (if not always) more of a battle between one part of mind with another part of the mind than a battle between ego vs spirit. Major changes in the mind such as "it is ok to die now", " the value of sharing with others should precede the value of seeking outstanding individual victory of little me" simply will not happen unless it makes absolute sense to the logical mind
under that special circumstances.
In the case of Eckhart, on the night of awakening, the war also was between two parts of the mind. One part of the mind wanted to seek personal power and fame, another part of the mind remembered the recent several years of suffering and struggling experience. The letting go of the part of the mind that insist on seeking power and fame makes absolute sense to the logical mind of the general public. But the deep stillness (and its power) that comes after the letting go seeking power and fame only make partial sense to readers without such real life experience.
I believe that spiritual teaching can and should be conducted in a way that makes sense to the logical mind. Only mental patients can allow their mind to be altered at the deepest level without strong logical convincing.