I think that the problem is that Bishop Kallistos is making errors about central aspects of our Faith. These errors are intentional in Chapter 4. He writes that Jesus Christ assumed fallen human nature in a way that is at odds with Orthodoxy. This is very sad because Bishop Kallistos is sowing these errors into impressionable inquirers, catechumens, and Orthodox in such a way that they will go on believing the Bishops words to be the Orthodox Truth rather than Bishop Kallistos private ideas.
As one of those impressionable inquirers, I did not find the material in "The Orthodox Way" to be as problematic as you suggest. From my Roman Catholic background, it is very clearly taught that Christ was like us in all ways but sin. So, on the one hand, Jesus did not sin and He was never separated from God and was never not God. On the other hand, Jesus is a man; and, in Jesus, God assumed human nature in order to redeem it. How to understand this? I don't know. I don't know if *can* be fully understood. The nonsense from "The Da Vinci Code" or "The Last Temptation of Christ" shows the dangers of an uniformed or unthinking or imprecise understanding. On the other hand, I did not get a sense of that kind or level of unorthodoxy in Bishop Ware's book. Instead, I think he was trying to emphatically state that God, in Jesus, really is trying to restore humanity to Himself by assuming our human nature while also maintaining His Divine nature.
The author of the review (Hieromonk Patapios) made an interesting inquiry into a question I had never considered before to any depth: Did Jesus assume our unfallen or our fallen human nature? From the review, I can see that this is both an interesting and important distinction. Yet, in my reading of Bishop Ware's book, I can honestly say that the question never arose in my mind. Instead, as I noted above, I interpreted Bishop Ware's remarks as an emphatic proclamation that God, in Jesus, is indeed with us in all our sufferings and that He is there to help us overcome them.
Yes, “The Orthodox Way" is not complete. For example, it does not discuss much about participating in the liturgical life of the Church or the need for personal ascetic practice and prayer with the help of a spiritual director. However, I did not approach this book as a complete resource. Instead, I regarded it as a supplement to his "The Orthodox Church," which introduces Orthodoxy historically and religiously. There are other books (and personal experience) which delve into the other dimensions of Holy Orthodoxy.
Finally, the other criticisms which Hieromonk Patapios raises in his review simply did not register with me as an inquirer. For example, the use of non-Orthodox, questionably Orthodox and non-patristic sources for quotes was completely beyond my scope because I don't know most of the authors being cited. Instead, I looked at the quotes to see if they had anything worthwhile to say to me. And, if it is any consolation, one person quoted had a huge effect on me: Vladimir Lossky. As a Catholic, I did not know too much about the Holy Spirit. Bishop Ware's discussion of the Holy Spirit and then his quote of Vladimir Lossky so impressed me that I bought and read Vladimir Lossky's "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church." I have nowhere near mastered that book because it is so rich, broad, complex and profound. However, Vladimir Lossky's book has and continues to open my mind and soul to (Orthodox) ideas about God, most especially about the Holy Spirit, to my immense benefit and happiness. So, as you can see, some of the quotes in "The Orthodox Way" have done, at least for me, much good.
Overall, I find "The Orthodox Way" one of the most useful discussions of Orthodoxy that I have encountered. It is neither complete nor perfect. But, it is very, very useful for making elementary concepts of Orthodoxy to be intelligible to this inquiring, non-Orthodox reader.