Theological clarification

The fourth century brought about  ecumenical councils that sought to clarify and articulate key theological doctrines.  So often people want to interpret these events as doctrines imposed on believers, top down. This is not the case, at all. 
One really important point to remember is this.  Just like today, the fourth century had those who were faithful to the faith as it had been believed and taught by the apostles. But it also had those who wanted to philosophize, to scholaticize and to filter the faith through worldly standards.  In short, the ecumenical councils were a response to theological deviations from the historic faith.
We are very much in the same position today.  Since the schism of the church of Rome, the rise of the enlightenment and the appearance of the Protestant Reformation, many deviations from the historic faith have arisen.  It is the responsibility of the faithful to explain, articulate and defend the historic faith. 
The truth must be told and defended.  People need to hear the gospel, the good news of the apostolic faith.
And like the ecumenical councils of the past, it will be deep,  complex and articulate.  And that's okay.

Old vs New part one

Over the years, I have moved through a few different views regarding the applicability of the law of God, in the life of the Christian.  As a youth, I grew up with old testament law not even being considered.  As I became a Calvinist,  a variety of views were considered and worked through, with my landing in the theonomic camp,  via the teaching of Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Now, having come into Orthodoxy, oddly enough,  I have come to a much more covenantal position.
The main point underlying covenant theology is recognizing the covenant changing work of Jesus Christ. Jesus' life, death and resurrection fulfilled everything of the old covenant and establish the new.  But, for some reason, adherents of covenant theology seem to want to hold onto much of the legal aspects of the old covenant. But why?
I understand, historically, the church had held that all of the old covenant had been fulfilled and faded away, as we see in Hebrews 8:13. And this makes perfect sense.  In the time prior to the incarnation,  all interaction between God and man was temporal and physical.  When man was obedient, he received physical blessings,  long life, peace in the land, health, wealth and many children.  When man was disobedient, the opposite occurred,  short life, war, disease and barrenness. Even the manner of life was dictated in physical terms, a law written on stone. And it had to be this way, for death had possession of man and control over him.  Man could not look forward to an eternity in heaven.  Heaven wad closed to him.
But now, Jesus' work had destroyed the power of death, so the entire structure has been changed.  We no longer have a physical temple, physical blessings or curses and no longer a law written on stone. Now we have the Holy Spirit, leading us, filling us and working on our hearts. We are no longer directed by law but by love. Our motivation is no longer that of obedience in order to avoid curse, but a response of love for the redemptive work already done by Jesus.  We don't seek after holiness in order to gain eternal life, we seek a life of holiness because we have already been saved and now we can form our souls to actually be like Christ, the form we were made to be.

Fat and happy

This is not so much about being overweight and in a good mood but instead about contenting one self with the mediocre or easy, content with the pursuit and enjoyment of comfort.
I'm sure you are at least familiar with the evangelistic technique of going door to door.  This is seen often, even stereotypically, in the Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses, but there are Baptists and some others that use this as well. Typically, one canvasses a neighborhood, systematically going door to door,  trying to preach the gospel to whomever will listen.  My thought here is not so much a critique of this methodology (though there is much here to critique), my thought has more to do with the listener.  If the guy who answers the door is not interested or is "fat and happy", he simply will not listen.  One may as well be selling freezers to an Eskimo. You are offering something he sees no use for.
This is all about perception, self perception and standards.  When we present the gospel to someone, we are typically speaking from our interpretation of reality, not that of our listener. And most likely, some very foundational, even presuppositional, items will differ between us. And until those items are addressed,  our words will fall on deaf ears.
If someone is of the opinion that this life is all there is, spending ones times praying and studying the Bible really makes no sense.  If someone is basically content and/or limited to the temporal,  speaking of eternity is nonsense.
A really horrible, but technically accurate metaphor works here.  To go into battle with the expectation to win,  one must know ones enemy.  The general who knows his combatant inside and out will have a far better chance of defeating him. Understanding our neighbor, and even better, understanding and loving our neighbor, will put us in a position where we can speak intelligently and effectively with him. To know his needs (personally his) is to know his cure.

Responding to America

It is very easy to respond to news we hear of goings-on in America, without really thinking about the many presuppositions and worldviews that are behind those events. 
I want to start with who America is, who she claims to be and if those two scenarios are compatible.
Having spent the last twenty years as a homeschooling parent, I have read and heard many arguments about how America is or at least originally was, a Christian nation.  And in my Protestant years pretty much believed that line.  But having stepped out of that camp, many questions have been raised and observations have been made from a different perspective.
Obviously, how one defines "Christian" is foundational.  In the past, I argued that anyone who called themself a Christian, was one. Simply on the grounds of profession.  But I was wrong.  With a few extreme exceptions, according to Scripture and church tradition, a Christian is one who has been baptized in the name of the Trinity and is part of the church.
So with that definition in mind, what does it mean for a nation to be Christian?  A nation cannot be baptized but a nation can be part of the church.  Being in the church is about community.  Being in the church is literally vital for life.  In the same way that we eat, sleep and breathe,  and do so, so as to physically live, so too we must worship in communion with the church, repent of and confess our sins and partake of the sacraments, in the church.  It literally is as vital for our spiritual life.
America, sadly so, is not there and arguably never has been.  The few references to God in our founding documents means nothing in the face of the lack of structured ecclesiology.  Horribly present though is the concept of rugged individualism.  As we read in Genesis, it is not good for man to be alone.  The fact that America was founded on the rebellion against king and rebellion against church, does not bode well.
In short,  the American bloodline is rebellion. For as educated and articulate as our founding fathers were, they were tragically wrong in this regard.
So going back to my original statement,  how do we respond to America? By realizing that she stems from a long line of rebellion and seems to take pride in that.  Our position needs to be that of humility and submitting to the God established authority in our lives. The only time that rebellion is allowable is in the face of sin. Obey God first and all other authority after that.
We respond to America by confessing our own sins first and then praying for those around us, understanding who they and from where they stem.

Couple more photos

Here are a few more photos:

Christian Leaders

Below is a photo of President Putin, in church, lighting a prayer candle, with a child.  This is a regular practice in the Orthodox church.  You'll notice that there don't appear to be secret service like men standing near. Just a child, a teen, an old lady and a two priests.  I don't know how frequently President Putin attends the Divine Liturgy, but I do know that Patriarch Kirill is an adviser to the president.
I know I've never seen Obama in an Orthodox service and Obama certainly does not have an Orthodox worldview.
What can we expect from Trump? I guess we have to wait and see.

Starting off level

One thing that I have noticed, during my time answering questions on Quora, is the foundational error of presumption.  People will critique the Christian worldview as foolish, ridiculous and fantastical.  They will say things like,  "People who believe in 7 day creation have serious mental problems, they should probably be committed."
Despite just being rude and arrogant, they are making one, of many, logical errors.  Imagine if one argued that Beethoven's symphonies were garbage because they were too musical. You couldn't even really give a response or even discuss it.  The best response would be simply to walk away, feeling only pity.
One cannot critique Beethoven this way because the foundation for the criticism is wrong headed. 
Secular philosophers make the same mistake.  In judging the bible as ridiculous or fantasy,  the critic is starting from the premise that God is not whom he says he is.
If God is whom he claims to be,  then a literal interpretation of creation makes perfect sense.  It is not unbelievable.  If God is who the bible says he is, then reading the bible as actual history is not at all unreasonable.
So it really comes down to one thing.  Who do we believe God is?  Is he the Triune God who created and sustains all things? Who took on human flesh and saved man so as to restore a relationship of love and communion?
Or is he a figment of someone's imagination, a mere opiate for the masses?  A means to control a bunch of mindless pathetic sheep, who cannot think for themselves.
That is the question that needs to be answered first.  Then we can begin to engage the skeptic.  Otherwise none of it will progress at all.
A foundation must be solid, otherwise the building will fail.