He's started reinterpreting the Bible. I have to respect many of the conclusion's he's reaching, not out of agreement but because he's making some lovely distinctions that I never even considered. Of course, I'm going to need to learn Hebrew or Aramaic if I'm to doublecheck him. He's still reinterpreting classic literature in some very unusual and unexpected ways.
Dave Sim is probably best known, these days, as a patron saint of misogyny. His opponents have long since (and almost universally) declared his justifications so transparent as to require no refuting argument. His supporters continue with "well, where's the refutation?" Both look pretty bad over the whole train wreck, really, but that's for more complicated reasons. I'm not sure whether to consider his reinterpretation of the Bible in these terms, but then I'm an atheist and so I put no store in what he decides about that regardless. The Bible is simply not proof from my point of view, though Sim *does* tell a good story.
I'm alarmed about his transition from attacking particular feminist viewpoints to justifying these things in terms of religion. I'm bothered by it for the same reason that at least one female acquaintance is -- his original writings on the subject, being basically a characterization of modern feminism and, to a lesser extent, modern first-world females, allows nicely for exceptions, which he admits to there being. Coco Chanel, for instance, makes his "good list". The problem with religious justification is that it paints with a broader (and less rational) brush, and allows for fewer exceptions.
I liked his Middle Eastern political commentary and the history of the ascent of Mohammed in Medina and Mecca. He's been using the extra "editor's pages" for essays lately, and I approve of the overall quality of his work. He and I disagree politically, but he explains his positions and their reasoning quite well.