What is the purpose of the church

Stained glass window in a church

What is the purpose of the church?
Sunday – September 21, 2025

Is the purpose of the church and the leaders of the congregation to promote the material order and other modern confusions, to act on behalf of the serpent? Well, in many contexts the church has taken up this role, not to further the meaning of the Bible and the words of God as recorded in the Bible and transmitted through time, but rather to interpret and manipulate the original meaning of God's words in order to lead men astray, in order to encourage men to embrace the beastly form. Indeed, many modern churches and congregations have fallen victim to the whims of the serpent, and this has been a growing tendency in many congregations since of at least the inception of the modern nation-state, but really since the dawn of this latest cosmic cycle, and in the past many pastoral and parochial churches acted on behalf of the feudal lord, or rather they acted in the interest of the feudal lord, they acted to promote, uphold, and protect the material standing of the feudal lord. Of course, in more recent times, many churches have become beacons of the humanist axiom, the liberal persuasion, and instead of promoting the primordial values, the timeless qualities, in the Bible, these churches have actively disobeyed God and his wishes, and to that extend these churches can be said to have formed an alliance or axis of the serpent, to manipulate men, men of sincere conviction. Of course, the modern church and the modern congregation is very much a space that is political and ideological, as opposed to eternal and a place that exists outside of time, a point of focus, heavenly and divine focus. There are of course issues such as homosexuality and other modern confusions that many churches today act to uphold, but there are surely many other confusions as well that are being promoted by the church. Indeed, the fewer and fewer churches that do act to uphold the primordial values of the creator are often being shunned and labeled "extremist", "obstructionist", "rearguard", and hateful. Why is it that the proponents of the humanist axiom consider men of faith, sincere faith, to be hateful? Well, the only real force in the world that can challenge the rule of the serpent and the beastly order is faith and religion, and this is why these societal institutions are being attacked and often criminalized, all in the name of egalitarianism and democratic governance. Notice how more and more expressions that depart from and diverge from the core tenets of the humanist axiom are being increasingly suppressed and silenced, again in the name of egalitarianism as well as in the name of "suppressing hate". Indeed, hatred is very much a political act and in our times, hatred is to act in ways that contradict the humanist axiom, but increasingly even passively contradicting the humanist axiom is being labeled hatred and is criminalized. What kind of freedom is this? This is no freedom, and this goes for the church as well as religious freedom in general: to sincerely practice one's faith is in many ways already criminalized and you should expect that more and more of it will be criminalized. The humanist assumption is the progress maxim, and this applies to the church and the congregation as well: the congregation must operate for the benefit of and the promotion of "social progress", and that invariably includes the destruction of all organized religious life in the land, for it is not possible to be a man of God, a man of faith, on one hand and on the other act in to uphold the material and the beastly order. Indeed, the Bible does contradict the tenets of the material order, yet most churches choose to openly ignore this, instead opting to promote what liberals deem universal values: such as love, solidarity, and the supposed brotherhood of man. What kind of "love" is this, I ask? This is no kind of love, but for most men love has been reduced to this sickly and universal concept of complete indiscriminate acceptance and approval of every act under the Sun. Depart from this sickness, I say!

    The purpose of the church from a Christian point of view or the point of view of Christendom, should be to promote the life and act of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and to that extend the temple, the building has replaced Jesus with modern authority, which is really a misunderstanding of Jesus, but it is a very modern misunderstanding of Jesus, for the congregation and the church is not one place, it's not one building, and it's not one set of people: the congregation and the church exist all among us at all times, something that most supposedly christian men seem to have missed. Sure, modern churches promote the humanist axiom, for they have been taught that the moral authority of the church is derived from the material standing of the church, not the spiritual standing of the church and of the congregation. Indeed, men of God, or supposed "men of God", are being promoted as scholars of the material order, not men of ascendant rank. How many of these materialist scholars are truly men of ascendant rank you may ask? Verily, verily, I ask the same thing. But I do want to add that while the church and the congregation is all among us that there's nothing inherently wrong with the temple or the modern institution of the church: this is just the modern mode of being and if the church could act as a bridge between men and their creator, there could actually be many great spiritual achievements made by the church, and this is surely the case with Islam and therefore a reason why I respect Islam more in the modern context, for Islam has shown itself capable of resisting the malign influences of the serpent, but this largely seem to have to do with the nature of what I call anthropological distance between Islam as a cultural phenomena and the imperial core, and it is very likely the case that Islam is bound to undergo the same societal shifts as European Christendom has undergone these past two millennia, and therefore it can be expected that Islam may very well lose most of its primordial foundation in the future, but that is a topic for another time.

    In the end, there was never a single purpose of the church beyond functioning as a bridge between men and the ascendant, but in the modern world this simply isn't the case and it surely cannot be said to be the case either, and while I pity men of sincere conviction, I can only call on them to depart from their congregation and the corruption of the modern world if they actually seek to align themselves closer to the creator, all of our Jehovah. The realization that the congregation is all among us should be the basis on which the true church of Christ should stand. But for me, these are also questions of secondary importance, to the extent that they do not solve the problems of the modern world, for the problems of the modern world can only be resolved once and for all at the close of the Kali Yuga, when men feel the righteous wrath of the divinely inspired vengeance.

    I do not wish to attack anyone in this post: these are just my views on the modern state of Christendom and most religions in particular, but it is also clear to me that the most corrupt and diseased congregation is the aggregate Christian congregation, and some men would make the case that it was the internal weakness within the original congregation that doomed the church in the first place, and this hold true with the current cosmic cycle: indeed the seed was planted a long time ago, and the downfall of the church is to that extent merely a part of God's divine providence.

    I want to end this post by saying that the role of the church is one and one in particular: to act as the bridge between God and men seeking the light; the role of the church is however not to promote ideology or even morals. The church itself is not a required step or a required middle man between man and his God; the church is merely a bridge between men seeking God and God, that's it.

Reginald Drax – September 21, 2025.