I've used this a few times. I find it a nice quick reference guide to quickly get a handle on how the author feels the subject matter (sola gratia, Restorationism, etc) either is in agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy or departs from it. Articles were brief, concise. For instance, regarding sola gratia, he writes: "Orthodox can agree with sola gratia if it is understood to mean that it is God’s grace that does the actual transforming work of salvation. However, Orthodoxy believes in synergy, that God and man are co-workers (2 Cor. 6:1), that man must “work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12)." (p. 70) That introduces the reader to the notion of "synergy" and can lead to further study. Examples like this run throughout the book. However, because of his brevity and certainty, sometimes he'll make a (to the uninformed reader) a puzzling comment, such as saying, e.g. that the EO see grace as "uncreated" and "grace is God," distinguishing from the RC view that grace is a "favor," and this perspective, then "precludes union with God." Furthermore, he may make some simplistic overgeneralizations/assumptions, or get things flat out wrong, as he did when he wrote on "Restorationism" (known to many as the Stone-Campbell movement, denominational known through the Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ and others). Some of what he said was was true (e.g., pointing out how a unity movement itself is divided) or painful (ie, regarding some beliefs and praxis) however made sweeping statements that failed to distinguish the broad differences between, say, the Disciples and the Churches of Christ. That led me to believe he likely has done that elsewhere. While I don't fault the difficulty of integrating nuance into a brief writeup, he says things with such certitude that many underinformed readers will walk away with erroneous caricatures of other Christian groups.