ModernAngel has significantly revamped his w/u, so what I have said below may seem a bit out of context; I was responding to the claim that the book had a bit too much of a Christian slant. If anything, I would say that the book suffers from a bit of a slant toward natural theology (not uncommon in the Anglican church and other branches of British protestantism), particularly in light of its very Christ-centric themes and conclusions (see especially Part 2, chapter 13 and thereabouts). Perhaps I will set aside a few hours to do an appropriate w/u someday. In the meantime, my original response remains below:
I don't think it's fair to say it suffers from a slant when Mr. Phillips was deliberately targeting a Christian audience. Let's not forget, this is the same guy who authored a translation of the new testament.
I seem to be accumulating downvotes for this observation, but I think an occasional check against this kind of postmodern literary criticism is warranted. Saying J.B.'s book has a Christian slant is like saying the Pope is too Catholic. We should expect it to be useful to non-Christians just as we might expect a papal edict, or the teachings of Jesus to be so: one may very well glean some insight or another, but to remove the "slant" is to debase the work, as what is here being called a "slant" is the axiom, the basic paradigm out of which what we read now was conceived and upon which they rest. For example, some of Phillips' refutations are far less convincing if you cannot assent to (or at least posit for the sake of argument) trinitarian monotheism, a strict no-no in Islam and most of Judaism.