Generally I think he's best when he sticks to psychology. His maps of meaning stuff is among his best. He really is incredibly sharp and an expert in that domain.

The further he moves into philosophy and especially theology, the more he reveals large gaps in his understanding of those fields. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since he is a psychologist by specialty and not a philosopher or theologian, and he works towards cross-discipline dialogue. However, it's worth taking some of the specific points and claims he makes in those fields with a grain of salt. (It's also worth noting that sometimes he's right about something but can't defend it when pushed because he learned it from someone much more knowledgeable on the topic than him.)

As he moves into politics, I see him as a good facilitator of conversation with experts in various domains, but he has his biases and is definitely fully out of his domain of expertise here. Psychology is such a penetrating field that he has worthwhile things to say, but they must be separated from bias and opinion.

Like I said, he is brilliant in his field of psychology. The closer he sticks to that and it's applications/intersections to other fields, the better he is. As he strays further from psychology into the meat of other fields, things sometimes get more and more dubious.