Accomplishments

Whenever we accomplish something, the thought behind it is that in some way we believe it to be important.  Even if we have not deliberately thought it through, we believe that doing it is beneficial or necessary.
As we raise up our children, we train them, either consciously or unconsciously, that certain things are valuable.  When we praise or reward them for earning good grades, we are training them to believe that education is important.  When we cheer them on for the goal, the point, the run or the touchdown, we are training them that success in sports is important.  When we praise them for being pretty or handsome, we are training them to believe that external beauty is valuable.  So the question stands, do these things align with the beliefs of our faith? 
As we set goals and accomplishments for ourselves and our children, what is motivating these?  Are the things we are aiming to accomplish eternally worthwhile?  Are the things we are training into our children eternally valuable?  And more importantly, are there things we are neglecting or merely giving lip service, that actually are eternally valuable? 
What are the things that we claim to believe, that are part of the historic Christian faith, that we just don't have the time to do, because we are distracted and too busy to make them part of our lives?

Sacrifices

     The question is not so much, "What sacrifices are we willing to make for our faith", for I think that most people will be consistent with what they practically believe. The question will only honestly be answered in the moment when sacrifice is called for.  Any other time is mere theory and much too easy to falsify.
     The question is more about what we see as the value of our earthly life, the value of our passions, and the value of our comfort and ease. 
     The claim of belief and what is actually believed are different, often because one has been taught something false. What I mean is this:  if someone believes that they are X, simply because that is what they have always been told is true, does not mean that it is true.  There is deception involved in this, but not necessarily malicious deception.  And of course, there is responsibility on the part of the person believing. 
     My point in bringing these two seemingly random points together is this: belief always produces fruit and sometimes this fruit may not be what one expects.  The sacrifices that one will make will be based, often times unconsciously, on the beliefs one holds. 
     So what sacrifice are we willing to make?  The one that is consistent with what we practically believe. With that, we need to compare what we say we believe with what we actually live out, and then honestly ask ourselves of we are ok with any discrepancies we may find.

The wallet points to the heart

     I may be beleaguring the point, but it really seems that the things that we spend our time, money and energy upon are the the things that we find important.  I really don't know what else these expenditures can mean.  As I was reading a blog from the abbot of a monastery, he noted that it is very easy to point out the sins of others while ignoring our own.  But to do so accomplishes nothing and helps no one.  To do so only opens us up to demonic influence.
   So instead of looking upon others and judging them by our own standards, let us all critique ourselves and do so harshly.  For a two week period, document how you spend your time and money and see where it leads.

Overt vs Subtle

I have thought about this in bits and pieces over the past couple of years and thought I would try to put together and articulate it cohesively.  This idea has come up in connection with the education of children and with religion.  The question is that of danger.  What is more dangerous, the overtly wrong thing or the subtle, slightly, ballpark, almost right kind of teaching? 
A few examples might help clarify what I am getting at.  Would it be safer to send a young man or woman to a secular university or a nominally Christian one?  It's it safer for a child to listen to overtly anti-Christian music or subtley watered down, questionably religious music? The question really comes down to defenses.  Is an obvious enemy more dangerous or a secret enemy?
Think of the difficulties in either case.  With the overtly secular music or school, we know exactly who is the enemy and where the lines are drawn.  But with the subtle situation, the line is fuzzy, the black hats and white hats both look kind of gray.
With the overtly secular situation, one is deliberately walking into enemy territory.  But with the subtle situation, one does not know who exactly the enemy is.
I'm inclined to think that the overt situation is safer.  At least one knows where the lines are.  But of course there is still the question of influence.
Historically speaking, we have seen this exact situation in early middle age middle east.  When Islam and/or Roman Catholicism was overthrowing the middle east, the Orthodox Church chose Islamic rule over Roman Catholic, for the very reason I am discussing.  They understood the danger of subtlety.  We need to ask ourselves what we should do if we are ever in a similar situation.
And of course there is still the question of recognizing the subtleties and dealing with them as they arise. Is this a safe practice in which to engage?  Or should one avoid every subtle situation, if at all possible?  I would suppose it would depend somewhat on who is exposed and what is their level of maturity.  And then there is the question of multi generational influence. We must give consideration to how an overt exposure will affect the generations that follow us.
We can even take this back one step.  We should probably even consider the influence of acquaintances as well.  These are not enemies per se, but merely different from us.  Should we not think through the possible affects of exposure to these as well?

Initial consideration

     When giving consideration to any particular set of beliefs, the first place to start is it's internal consistency.  In other words, are the claims and/or beliefs of the religious system consistent with one another.   If at one point, belief system X says that "a" is true, then at another point says that "a" is not true or that "b" contradicts "a" to some degree, the system is internally inconsistent.  If a religious system is flawed at such a fundamental level, then continued investigation at deeper levels is pointless.
     Practically speaking, being able to comprehend, interact with and analyze a set of beliefs is vital.  The less clearly and articulately one is able to think, the more likely one will be deceived.  

The Christian faith, as taught and practiced by the Orthodox Church, is the only belief system that will pass an articulate critical analysis.  In other words, at some level, all other belief systems or religions will fail.  The Orthodox faith is the only faith that flawlessly answers all criticisms.
     Of course, not all other belief will fail such a critical internal analysis.  There is further investigation that can be pursued that will reveal other fallacies.  Even if a belief system is internally consistent, it could hold false presuppositions.  Ultimately, there will be some belief that is faulty.  This has to be the case.  If one starts from a foundational question and works upward, answering each question correctly, one will end up at the Orthodox faith.  If one does not, then one has answered something wrong, somewhere along the line.

     Of course, there is always the point of personal lack of understanding or wisdom.  No one person is ever perfectly clear in his thinking.  We can be deceived.  We can make logical or emotional errors.  This is one reason that we look to the early church fathers for guidance.  When we can look to the wisdom of the church, as guided by the Holy Spirit, we can be assured of our position in the faith.

Hidden uncertainty

As it has been a few years now that I have stepped out of Protestantism, something has been coming clear to me.  As a Protestant, the choice of doctrine and practice was mine to make.  And I did make that choice multiple times over the years.  As an avid reader, and lover of study, the more I read, the broader my understanding base became.  Essentially it came to the point where I realized that anything I wanted to believe, I could justify by the manipulation of Scripture and logic and I could find a community that believed and practiced the same thing.
This is what every denomination, parachurch organization and quasi- Christian cult does.  This is the whole problem with Protestantism/evangelicalism. 
Looking back over the years as a Protestant, I wonder how I wasn't more apprehensive about the whole thing.  I guess I couldn't see the problem from the inside.  Now, as Orthodox, the thought of not having a legitimate authority over me and my family is frightening.  This is not cowardice or mindlessness, this is common sense.  One would not travel through the Amazon jungle without a guide and this world is far more dangerous than any jungle. God has given us the Holy Spirit led body of Christ (the historic church).  It is sheer lunacy to reject that authority and wing it alone.
Of course, the Protestant response is, "I have the Holy Spirit leading me."  While this sounds holy and pious, it's arrogance.  To claim that the Holy Spirit is leading your church and no other, is ridiculous.  There is no historical footing upon which to stand.  And even beside that, every single denomination, parachurch organization and quasi Christian cult makes the same claim, and they can't all be right.
Unless one wants to claim that doctrine and practice doesn't really matter, the present state of the Protestant world is untenable.
What is historically true is the fact that the Holy Spirit is leading the Orthodox church.  Herein is found the body of Christ and communion with God.  There is no need to look anywhere else.  All the answers are here.

Practically speaking

While the practical position of the Orthodox church in regards to non-Orthodox religious persons is one of non-judgment, this does not mean that the details of doctrine and the practices of various groups are unimportant.
As Orthodox, we never say a particular person will NOT go to heaven, for we can never know someone else's heart.  It seems that often we don't even know our own heart, so we should never judge anyone else.
One thing we do say, though, is that the Orthodox church is THE body of Christ.  We know where the Holy Spirit is, we don't know where he is not. 
We can say that various religious groups, as a group, are not valid forms of Christianity, and therefore should not be pursued or acknowledged as Christianity.  But again, we are talking about organizations, not individuals. Is person A part of denomination X? We will say nothing about person A, but we can say that denomination X is not a good place to be.  Although, we do believe that God can and does use a wide variety of situations, often very unusual, to bring someone to himself.
Our job is to love everyone.  If we do that, everything else will fall into place.