Apparently there is a home church movement to replace the evil mainstream cuck churches. This would seem to be a good thing those with Christian backgrounds should get into, as there really is a need for a sound religion to survive the current degeneracy and this is a good opportunity to shed our denominational baggage and get back to basics. It does however pose a few questions.

For example, who is fit to be a preacher or presbyter of such a church and what is the allowable scope of belief? Obviously preachers should be confined to intelligent, educated men, but without an officially sanctioned creed or sermons, is this enough? It would not be desirable for any established cuck church to ordain or approve of priests, given that most of their priests are heretics who would ideally be burned at the stake, but might there be any basic prescribed course of pastoral education we could agree on? A school of thought is that in order to understand Christianity you would need to be educated in Platonic philosophy, as the founders of Christianity were Hellenised and the church spread within the Greco-Roman world. Would we agree?

On the issue of acceptable creeds it would probably be possible to keep things fairly open ended within the limits of the accepted traditional norms of Christianity and Christian society. Any attempts of introducing the scourge of cultural Marxism/feminism would result in the miscreants responsible being immediately banned, and to me this should include any of the Enlightenment era equality bullshit.

Then there is the issue of what to actually do in church. Here we would be at a disadvantage over some of the established churches. Take singing for example. A lot of church singing is cringeworthy, but the church I have attended recently has a majority of Mennonite-background members, so they know a huge variety of hymns they learned as children and can sing them very well. A traditional old-school Mennonite church I attended had a bizarre yet harmonious verbal music type of chanting that most people couldn't possibly imitate. Hence singing works very well for them. However, for a small new church, particularly one populated with those of us who couldn't carry a tune on a shovel, the singing could possibly best be dispensed with.

So what does that leave? Well, in the books of Acts and Corinthians, the Bible itself guides us. Church is for preaching, teaching, praying and eating together. So a service might begin with a prayer of some sort, the preacher could expound on a historical and/or religious topic and relate it to everyday life, there could be discussion on doctrinal matters, a video on a religious topic could be watched and discussed and a meal could be eaten. That sort of thing.

Thoughts.