Should Churches Be Allowed to Have Atomic Weapons?

Folks, there a lot of people out there talking about various things. One of the things they are talking about is Oppenheimer, which is a movie about a nerd who built bombs so that different ladies would sex him, then he got canceled because of woke. Christians have a lot to say about Oppenheimer, but I will not dignify their statements with a response, because I didn’t read any of them, because every second you spend reading someone else’s opinion is a second you could be telling them that they are wrong, and when you think about it, what could be more dignified than that?

---

My friends, The Discourse demands that we begin to ask some uncomfortable questions about Oppenheimer. Is there an intersection? There is always an intersection. We are standing at the crossroads of faith and weapons of mass destruction, not to be confused with Weapons of Mass Distraction, which is a series my youth pastor did when he said that Satan was trying to get us to play too much Nintendo 64 so we wouldn’t be On Fire anymore, anyway he sells Nissans out by the highway now¹. But like I was saying, we have to figure out if our churches should be allowed to have atomic weapons.

What is the worst thing that could happen?

Imagine, if you will, a future in which all of our churches are allowed to arm themselves with atomic bombs. The benefits of such a scenario are obvious, but what about the drawbacks?

First of all, think about when a denomination splits. This has been all over the news lately, in various articles that people have read. When a church decides to leave its denomination, who do the nukes belong to: the church, or the original denomination?

And what happens when a church has disagreements over who controls the weapon? Elders, deacons, board members, and pastors will all have their own ideas of what to do with an atomic bomb. This is why each church must have multiple bombs, but we will discuss that in a moment.

Now, to be fair, many churches do not deserve to have atomic weapons. Are we to cavalierly hand out bombs to simple house churches or college group Bible studies in someone’s apartment? Well, if they seem trustworthy, perhaps. But only one nuke per house church—there must be hard safeguards in place.

How many bombs should each church get?

We would be wise to remember the words of German theologian Rupert Murdoch, who said “In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity,” except he said it in German, which is a different language, so who knows what he really said. But the point remains: we must approach the issue of arming our churches with Christ-like grace. Some churches will need far fewer atomic bombs than others, and we should not make fun of them for being giant wusses. Other churches will get greedy and demand dozens of atomic weapons². What fallacy! My friends, 8-10 bombs should be enough for any church in America.

Should women be allowed to be in charge of the bombs?

Perhaps I am just a bit more progressive than the rest of you, but I believe that women should be allowed to use our church’s nukes, too. My youth pastor said that women bomb people to get love, while men love to get bombed. He also said that women could count as a Weapon of Mass Distraction if you were practicing Worldly Dating, which I guess is like regular dating, but not as dignified.

*Weekly-ish articles are free; periodic special articles are behind the paywall. If you are a paid subscriber, even for a short while, thank you for making this whole thing work. To everyone, thank you for reading and sharing. Please understand that all offensive content is the fault of Phil Vischer

1. my youth pastor; not Satan

2. looking at you, Andy Stanley