Modern take on vernacular or still just architecture of nowhere?

I'm not sure that I really know how to respond to critical regionalism because Kenneth Frampton seems to me to be unclear in discussing his 6 points.  He makes a point to distinguish critical regionalism from imitating the past vernacular of a place which of course makes perfect sense.  But then I think a certain vernacular emerges due to the way buildings respond to their sites, particularly climates of their regions.  He clearly states in point 5 that part of critical regionalism is responding to the site through execution of a tectonic that is also coming from location and culture of craftsmanship.  So if a building is responding to its site utilizing construction methods born from its region is it not inherently similar to the vernacular of such region? Is that his point...architecture should be a modern take on a region's vernacular?

I'm not sure I understand his discussion of the Bagsvaerd Church because I don't understand how an architecture influenced by "multiple cross-cultural references" can also comply to critical regionalism.  How can a church whose construction is reminiscent of Eastern oriental style comply with the tectonic style of building in Copenhagen? 

I understand the problem of architecture from nowhere but it seems to me that a building can respond to its site, utilize building techniques from the the region it is in, be tactile versus visual, and comply with every other rule Frampton has set up and still be nothing more than architecture of nowhere.