"Lectio Divina: A Critical and Religious Reading of the Bible" definitely fits a religious reading but it ain't that critical. Harrington does apply some logic and reasoning in his approach to scripture but not nearly as much as he seems to think. Most of what he talks about still relies on heavy doses of assumption, bias, and delusion. He references historical-critical methods but blatantly fails to apply them consistently. Moses is a prime example. He talks about the various possible interpretations and contexts for reading Exodus 3:1-6 and even compares it to another related passage but all the while treating Moses as if he had previously been confirmed as an historical figure. Most of his interpretations require Moses to be historically sound. Problem is there is no reason to accept Moses as anything other than a mythical/legendary figure. He analyzes many other elements rather well but never seems to think to apply the same scrutiny to one of the most important aspects, Moses. Ooops. Unfortunately, this is pretty typical among theistic scholars. Those that are willing to examine scripture usually stop short of any thorough analyses that would actually challenge their preferred views.
Note: Harrington references Peter Enns, which is one of the blogs listed on the Top 200 Church Blogs. I have previously commented on some of Enns' posts.