TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:Oh, and in Luke 11

21When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed. 22But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder.

Those words are in red...

Scripture...especially words in red...are to be taken literally unless proven otherwise. And I would not think Christ would use something he was against on principle as an analogical example...just wouldn't make sense.

Um, no. Red is used to indicate the words are right out of Jesus' mouth. Jesus often spoke in parables and used allegorical language - his stories were often used to illustrate a point rather than to convey factual information.

Agreed, but what do you think about Luke 22:36? Is he speaking of literal swords, or the "sword of the spirit," when he tells the disciples to bring a sword with them, and if they don't have one, to sell their cloak and buy one? Literal, or figurative? Doesn't Jesus usually tell us if he is recounting a parable? .....or at least begin his parable with something like "There was a man who...." so that his listeners knew that he was telling an instructive story? By comparison, Luke 22:36 seems to be a literal instruction, not an allegory, and certainly not a parable.

jmorris wrote:

Luke, quoting Jesus Christ, wrote:Luke 22:36
English Standard Version (ESV)
36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Conflicting expectations? I don't know. It's certainly worth exploring if we consider that Jesus tells us to go strapped, and Paul tells us to be obedient in all things to employers who tell us not to go strapped. I think that is one of the reasons we have access to the Holy Spirit as a Helper.......to help us each answer such questions when we don't have all the answers ourselves....

I have somewhat of a problem using Luke 22:36 in that manner. Many commentaries will tell you that Jesus was not speaking of physical weapons.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Therefore, he that has a purse, let him take it, for he may need it. They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves.

But, as TAM said, we have to individually look to Jesus and seek understanding.

You know, I've asked myself about that passage a number of times, and have given it some though. Here are some of the reasons I believe that he meant physical weapons:

• The first time I am aware of that the word "sword" is used in terms of the "sword of the Spirit" is in Ephesians 6:17 (putting on the whole armor of God), which comes after Jesus's earthly ministry. I don't recall Jesus himself ever referring to the Spirit as a "sword." He called the Spirit "helper." I think we tend to use the term "sword" today because of Paul's words in Ephesians, not because of Jesus's words in the Beatitudes or any of his other teachings.....and as a believer, the Beatitudes in their beauty and simplicity are among my most cherished scriptures.
• In Luke 22, Jesus is talking about the apostles preparing themselves for the rigors of evangelical ministry on the road after his crucifixion—which he knew was imminent, but the disciples did not.
  
  1. He was sending them out into the world, a dangerous place full of brigands and highway robbers, and they needed to be able to defend themselves. A dead disciple, killed by bandits on a lonely stretch of highway without possibility of rescue or witnesses, cannot spread the gospel, and if Stephen had a sword, it was useless against a crowd with stones......and his death occurred in front of witnesses, one of whom, the instigator, might even have been Saul of Tarsus.
  2. Secondly, we have Jesus telling the disciples to sell their cloaks for money to buy a sword if they had no money. One has to examine the context of that. In Israel, in the time of Jesus, a man's cloak was one of his most valued worldly possessions. It was more than just an outer garment. It was a blanket. It was a sleeping bag. It was a pillow. It was warmth. It was a shelter from the elements. AND, it was to some extent a sign of his status in life. So Jesus was telling the disciples to sell their most valuable possession, if need be, to procure a sword. AND, they did not have to purchase anything to have access to the Spirit, which Jesus promised them after his death. The presence of the Spirit was theirs simply because they believed.
  3. Third, regarding this passage, we have verse 38: "And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”" So in response to his disciples' reaction to his admonition, he did not say "NO, Stupid! That's NOT what I meant! What I meant was the "sword of the spirit!" Instead, he made a simple statement that those two swords would be sufficient.
• Lastly, while Jesus himself does not appear to have ever carried a weapon except the ONE time he used a knotted rope to clear the filth out of his Father's temple, he was definitely around people with weapons most of his life, including swords, both among his disciples and his enemies. In fact, further down in Luke 22, at verse 49-51, at the time of his arrest, one of the disciples (Peter, I think) sliced the ear off of the high priest's servant:

  49 And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.

  Jesus didn't tell Peter to put the sword down. He didn't berate him for having one. He didn't lecture Peter about killing. What he said was "No more of this!" .....meaning, "let them do what they came to do!" Jesus knew that his arrest, passion, and crucifixion were necessary, and Peter had to stand down to let it happen........so that Peter could survive to be the rock on which the church would be founded. But I find nothing in this chapter in which Jesus uses the word sword to mean anything other than a long metal blade with a handle at one end.

And BTW, I have no divinity degree and consequently lack the formal education in hermeneutics that some of my fellow believing board members might have. But the above interpretation is what I come up with from reading the text. Nothing more, nothing less. I am endlessly fascinated by this stuff, and if I am really missing something, I'm open to having that pointed out to me.

(By the way, I just realized that I am using Matthew Henry's commentary to support my previous post, and taking exception with Henry in this post. Whomever said I was always consistent obviously doesn't know me well! )

thetexan wrote:Lots of advise here. To me this is a simple matter of Christian integrity and honor. You are aware and informed that your employer requires that you do not carry your gun at work. Even if the state of Texas allowed you to YOU KNOW that your employer requires that you dont. If we check the OTHER employee manual Ephesians chapter 6:5-8 we find what we are to do. This supersedes Texas law.

As to what you do when you are not under your employer's direction...that is up to you and what it says in ALL of the manuals.

tex

Luke, quoting Jesus Christ, wrote:Luke 22:36
English Standard Version (ESV)
36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Conflicting expectations? I don't know. It's certainly worth exploring if we consider that Jesus tells us to go strapped, and Paul tells us to be obedient in all things to employers who tell us not to go strapped. I think that is one of the reasons we have access to the Holy Spirit as a Helper.......to help us each answer such questions when we dont have all the answers ourselves.

In his Commentary and with regard to Eph 6:5-8, Matthew Henry wrote:5. What they do they must do cheerfully: Doing the will of God from the heart, serving their masters as God wills they should, not grudgingly, nor by constraint, but from a principle of love to them and their concerns. This is doing it with good-will (Eph. 6:7), which will make their service easy to themselves, pleasing to their masters, and acceptable to the Lord Christ. There should be good-will to their masters, good-will to the families they are in; and especially a readiness to do their duty to God. Observe, Service, performed with conscience, and from a regard to God, though it be to unrighteous masters, will be accounted by Christ as service done to himself. 6. Let faithful servants trust God for their wages, while they do their duty in his fear: Knowing that whatsoever good thing (Eph. 6:8), how poor and mean soever it may be, considered in itself,—the same shall he receive of the Lord, that is, by a metonymy, the reward of the same. Though his master on earth should neglect or abuse him, instead of rewarding him, he shall certainly be rewarded by the Lord Christ, whether he be bond or free, whether he be a poor bond-servant or a freeman or master. Christ regards not these differences of men at present; nor will he in the great and final judgment. You think, “A prince, or a magistrate, or a minister, that does his duty here, will be sure to receive his reward in heaven: but what capacity am I, a poor servant, in, of recommending myself to the favour of God.” Why, God will as certainly reward thee for the meanest drudgery that is done from a sense of duty and with an eye to himself. And what can be said more proper either to engage or to encourage servants to their duty?

If I understand this correctly, Henry says these verses are a "metonymy" regarding our duties to our masters/employers....in that we are to perform our duties as to the Lord, rather than as to our employer. In the case of the OP's question, we are talking about employee guidelines, versus employee duties. Maybe that's a legalistic distinction.....I honestly don't know. But you have to ask yourself why a church, particularly one here in Texas where there is a high probability of the church being pretty conservative in its theology and corporate world view, why that church would have a "guideline" forbidding guns. And another, perhaps legalistic distinction, is whether a "guideline" is the same thing as a "rule/law." We even joke sometimes in the popular culture about laws being "more like guidelines, really." If I recall correctly, that line appears in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. (It goes without saying that I do not take my theology from Pirates of the Caribbean.) In any case, the implication is that a "guideline" is not as hard and fast as a "rule" or "law." The former is a suggestion for how one should behave, the latter are a requirement for how one should behave.

So, does the church have that policy because it's an insurance company requirement to qualify for a lower rate? Does the policy exist because it accurately reflects the will of the ministry council? Does the policy exist because someone who last served on the ministry counsel 20 years ago insisted on it back then, and it has never been changed because nobody thought to? Does it exist because that is in fact the leadership's understanding of Christianity? (I find that one difficult to believe, since the policy specifically does not exclude other weapons which are legal. It only excludes "firearms" and "illegal weapons."

It's a tricky question, and I am happy I don't have to deal with it. I would not willingly work for a church which had such a view of the world. At my church, most of the employees work from home anyway, and only come to the church for meetings or to use equipment like copiers, etc. There is no way that a church could regulate, morally or legally, your behavior within the confines of your home. There is of course an expectancy of moral behavior, but they couldn't fire you for wearing a gun inside your own home during business hours. Well, to restate that more accurately.....they could fire you for that, but no rational person would have an expectation of controlling what you wear while your in your own home, even if you are on the company clock. In any case, I am part of the church's worship team, and I am the worship leader for one of our ministries. I've never been shown such a policy, and I wear a gun there all the time....including when I'm on stage.