I appreciate his attempts at taking a more sound approach when viewing human nature (ie. looking for the real causes of the actions of people, rather than just attributing them to wickedness, demons, etc.) I have often found his psychologically analysis insightful. For someone in the Orthodox/Catholic tradition, he is probably much easier to read than most Protestants, both because of the depth of his insight (which is hard to deny), and because he just sounds traditional sometimes (e.g., coming close to endorsing theosis). On the other hand, I disagree with many of his arguments, especially the ones he uses to defend Christianity. I suppose in that way I probably see him much differently than most, since a lot probably remember him as a defender and explainer of Christianity (which I consider to be his weakest point), while I remember him as an explainer of people in general (regardless of religion).