The trouble with Protestantism

The first problem, slightly tongue in cheek, is seen in the name.  Anything ending in "ism" is automatically suspect.  But seriously, the suffix "ism" suggests a man made thought process.  And really, when you look at it, the entire Protestant movement, regardless of branch, is about a new interpretation of text.
The problem is much harder to nail down though.  Because the genre is so incredibly large and diverse, the categorization and identification will be difficult.  I think what it really comes down to is the ultimate rejection of authority.  Every single emergence of a new branch of Protestantism is because of a disagreement over the text of Scripture or a practice supposedly derived from Scripture.  Any and every branch of Protestantism lacks any real authority and the quasi authorities that are in place are always questioned.  What this means is that no one is an actual authority.  Protestants, almost by definition, appeal to Scripture as the final authority.  The problem with this is the seemingly endless malleability of the text.  And without an authority to say, "yes, it means this, no, it doesn't mean that," the possibilities are endless and there are almost no brakes on the situation.
So having no one to whom to appeal, the Protestant fragmentation continues.  At some point, the term "Christian" will almost be void of any concrete meaning.
I would encourage all Protestants to consider who is the objective authority in their life and then give consideration to the Eastern Orthodox church.  The faith of the church goes back to, and rests upon, the apostolic tradition as given by Jesus Christ.

The trouble with Rome

It comes down to humility.  From the very beginning, the bishop of Rome, whom we know as the pope, has always held the position of leader among equals. 
From very early on, the church of Jesus Christ has been made up of five patriarchates: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria.  The problem developed over many centuries and finally came to a head in 1054 when the pope demanded that he take the title of Christ's vicar on earth.  In other words, he wanted authority over everyone.  He wanted all the other patriarchs to submit to him.  But their response was no, it has never been that way, that idea is an innovation and contrary to what Jesus and the apostles handed down to us.
At that point in time, the pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch reciprocated.  There has been a rift between Rome and the other patriarchates ever since.
What it comes down to is this, the pope needs to admit the error and accept a position of equality with the other patriarchs.
But then all of the doctrinal innovations that have developed in the Roman church since then would need to be corrected.  And that would be a really big job.

A summary statement on the church

I often times marvel at what a radically different paradigm the Orthodox church operates than does the Protestant world.  The way we think about God, man, sin, the fallen nature, repentance, redemption, sanctification, eternity, etc. are all vastly different.
With this in mind, I thought I would create a summary of where we are coming from.  This is definitely not an argument, just a brief summary and also not exhaustive.
Since Christians are always interested in worship, I thought I would focus on the nature of church.
Christianity started in Jerusalem.  Jesus completed his work on the cross then, resurrecting, met his disciples and blessed them to carry on his work.  The church was centered in Jerusalem then moved outward to Antioch, through Asia Minor, then Rome and further outward.  This is all detailed in the book of Acts.
Churches were started and led by the apostles and those appointed by them.  This has been happening since that time.  An apostolic line has been drawn down through the ages, throughout all nations, all of the time handed down, all led, directed and protected by the Holy Spirit. 
The important point to see here is that the concept of church, and, more importantly, the objectivity of the church, is a temporal, physical reality.  The church is not just an idea.  It's not just an ambiguous, vaguely defined, inarticulate gathering of people who in some way call themselves followers of Jesus Christ. The church is a concrete reality, in space and time, held together and protected by the Holy Spirit.  This objective reality of "church" is what Jesus started and is what the apostles have handed down to us.  The church is what it always has been, the gathering of God's people, worshipping the Trinity through the Divine Liturgy by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The church is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The perception of evil

It can be argued pretty persuasively that we should not dwell upon, think about or enjoy the thought of evil things.  Scripture tells us to not even talk about the evil things that people go in secret.
But what about when evil is portrayed in a way that truly presents it as evil.  My point is this, so often, Hollywood will present evil as fun, beautiful, exciting, thrilling and advantageous.  But it is none of these things.  We should not be entertained by evil.   But what about when evil is shown as evil?
If there any way that this sort of presentation can be good or helpful?  What if it stimulates our thinking to growth and clarity?

The degeneration of theatre

It is interesting that as a culture matures and grows "comfortable", that which is considered art degenerated into nonsense or depravity.  I would guess that this comes from that which people are seeking.  Most art comes from a culture that has had too much free time and too much money.  This mentality leads to boredom and thus the need to push the boundaries.  This leads to the need to shock or alarm. 
This sort of thing has been seen in ancient Rome, ancient Greece and Europe.  We are beginning to see it in the United States as well.  Unfortunately, like the proverbial frog in a kettle, we grow accustomed to it far too easy.  The Christian response is to step back, remove the emotional attachment and critique it for what it actually is, not for what we want it to be.
We need to learn to think like the church.

The foundation

I was just reminded, again, of the very foundation for the Christian faith, that is, love. Love for God and love for neighbor.  It seems that everyone knows this, as it is a well known passage from Scripture.  But how much do we really think about it?
Do we take the time to critique all of (or any of) our thoughts, words and actions?  Have we taken the time to wonder about and think through what we do, say or think and how those things may affect or influence our neighbor? 
How we spend our time.  How we spend our money.  How we dress.  How we speak.  What we laugh at.  How we drive.  What entertains us.  These examples can be multiplied many times over.
So the question stands, have we given any regard to how all of these things, and many more, display our love for God and neighbor?

Interpreting events

How often do we make plans but then something happens that prevents us from fulfilling those plans?  We then respond with, "Oh, God must not have wanted me to do that."  But in thinking so, we are not thinking clearly and the assumptions we are making are many and faulty.
To be in the midst of a situation and then comment on the unforeseen events that may have brought about that event is an extremely audacious claim.  We are so small.  Our understanding is so limited and finite.  Yet we claim to know what God is doing or not doing.
A better response would be no response at all.  Instead we should plan an event with the thought of "God willing."  We should center our thinking around the idea that just as we have a free will by which we can choose or not choose to do something, so too does God.  We ought to approach all of our actions and plans with the idea of seeing God's will.  "If God wills it, I will do such and such."  In other words, we should seek to do what would be pleasing to God.  Not what is pleasing to our selfish and short- sighted whims.
It is not the case that God will impose his desire upon us, contrary to our desires.  Wouldn't you rather form your own will to be in line with God's?