What follows are some of my thoughts on the Russian Church Abroad, and her relations with other Orthodox Churches. I realise that some of my opinions are based on premises not accepted by others here. I will not try to defend my opinions here as that is beyond the scope of this post. For two examples, I am not going to try and prove that the 1983 anathema on ecumenism has more than just a local character; and I am not going to try and prove that the Antiochians are, in actual fact, in communion with monophysites. There have been lots of discussions of these types (with the nitty-gritty details) on the Cafe before: this post is more of a conclusion to a couple years of such discussions.
My primary opinion (relevant to this post) is this: there is a great degree of ecclesiological dissonance in the history and current actions of the Church I am in, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. I think this dissonance can be seen in a number examples, including the following:
1) The Process By Which Russian Orthodox Will Be United
A. For some time, the Russian Church Abroad maintained that there was indeed a Catacomb Church in Russia. The ROCA in fact took steps to strengthen this Catacomb Church through secret ordinations and consecrations. The ROCA also set up parishes within Russia so as to strengthen Orthodoxy among the Russian people.
B. After the failures in Russia in the mid-90's, which resulted in the creation of ROAC, the ROCA decided to pursue a different avenue for the hoped for united Russian Church. On this new avenue, talk of helping the Catacomb Church dissappeared, and talk of a "Catacomb Church myth" increased. The method for unity thereafter became focused almost totally on an MP-ROCA union.
2) Grace in the Moscow Patriarchate
A. For most of her history, the ROCA held to a position of agnosticism, saying that it couldn't say whether the MP had grace or not. Opinions were sometimes expressed, both in private and in public, but there was no one position that could be proclaimed the ROCA position.
B. In recent decades, the healthy agnosticism that once characterized ROCA's position has turned into a rigid stance based on, what I believe to be, an anachronistic reading of history. Thus arises claims like: "ROCOR never officially declared the MP to be graceless." Well, yes, that's true: but she never declared her to be grace-filled either. Unfortunately, this second aspect of ROCA's witness is often ignored now.
3) Greek Old Calendarists
A. Throughout the 1960's, the ROCA looked favorably upon the Greek Old Calendarists who considered the New Calendarists to be schismatics; however, for a time the ROCA kept their distance from these Greeks and maintained normal relations with the Greek State Church. Eventually ROCA saw that much of the Orthodox of the world were on the entirely wrong path, and therefore the ROCA left off normal relations with those who were thought to be on thw wrong path, and the ROCA united herself in communion with certain of the Greek Old Calendarists.
B. In 1994 ROCA joined herself in communion with a different Greek Old Calendarist group, under Met. Cyprian: this was a group with a decidedly different ecclesiology than the previous group she had been in communion with. This new group was declared to have the exact same ecclesiology as ROCA.
C. According to Met. Cyprian, however, the ROCA very shortly after started distancing herself from their new Greek Orthodox Old Calendarist brethren. Met. Cyprian also pointed out the inconsistency in the ROCA's actions: for in the year 2000 the ROCA was trying to claim that they had always been in communion with the Ecumenstic Serbs, and were expressing the wish that this communion would continue. But, if the ROCA did indeed have the ecclesiology that they claimed to have in 1994 (ie. the same as Cyprian), then their claims about Serbia in 2000 were indeed, at the very least, inconsistent.
D. This inconsistency seems to be the result of purposeful ambiguity, though, and not because of a lack of competence. The ROCA seems to have almost always remained somewhat vague about their relations with other Orthodox bodies. This can be seen in the way that they originally broke off relations with world Orthodoxy. It can also be seen in the on-again off-again relationship with the Serbs and the JP which has continued right up to the present year. (As an aside, I do not say that this ambiguity was a bad thing--I am certainly not taking issue with how our past hierarchs went about things! What I think is harmful is trying to read something solid and definate into the past, when in this case history is as clear as mud.)
4) Ecumenical (World) Orthodoxy
A. In the 1960's the ROCA tried to sound a warning bell for those Orthodox participating in the Ecumenical movement. Things had gone from bad to worse in the WCC, and it seemed as though any hope for something truly productive to come out of it had failed. Therefore, since most of the World's Orthodox refused to cut herself off from the pan-heresy of ecumenism, ROCA decided to take the first step and (as the canons instructed) seperated from world Orthodoxy.
B. Throughout the 1970's, 1980's, and especially in the 1990's, the ecumenical movement got progressively worse. It was no longer even an inter-Christian body, but now included services and prayers and so forth with non-Christians. In 1983, the ROCA, under Met. Philaret, anathematized both ecumenists and those who defended ecumenism.
C. ROCA has now taken a different course than the one described above. The ROCA are now preparing for discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, which will culminate in the union of the MP and ROCA at some time in the (perhaps near, perhaps distant) future. In essence, the ROCA and MP would be one Russian Church. Therefore, unless the MP broke relations with world Orthodoxy first, all of those within the ROCA would come into communion with the rest of world Orthodoxy. What does this mean?
We (now in ROCA) would be in communion with Constantinople and all the other Churches who are full and "organic" participants in the already-anathematised pan-heresy ecumenism.
We (now in ROCA) would be in communion with Antioch and all the other Churches who have established a false union with the "Non-Chalcedonians," who were condemened by the Saints and Ecumenical Councils.
We (now in ROCA) would be in communion with Churches that take the Balamand Agreement seriously; and with Churches whose theologians believe that there is no difference between Catholic and Orthodox sacraments.
We (now in ROCA) would be in communion with Churches who use the New Calendar and consider it an acceptable innovation. What's more, we (now in ROCA) would be in communion even with those Churches who celebrate Pascha with the Catholics and Protestants (these things being anathematized by the Church many times).
We in ROCA are at a crossroads. The dissonance can't last forever. Neither could the agnosticism. Eventually decisions will have to be made. Unions will happen, as they are already happening. False unions will occur, as they are already occuring. Schisms will take place, as they are already taking place. 
When this happens, I pray that we all might have 20/20 spiritual vision, and can therefore see God's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, the true ark of salvation, the only source of sacrament and divine virtue. I hope I will not have offended too much with this post.
I won't suggest a Church since I'm not solidly in one place myself. God knows, though. Knock, and he will open.