Church/work carry

[kjolly]

The concept that you are not at work, is a huge gray area, and how you handle this depends on how much you need your job. No one can give you legal advice.
This must be your own decision because you can be hurt by this. There are no legal issues when you have to abide by how a church board will decide. whether it is legal or not if you ruffle their feathers it could turn out badly.

[gringo pistolero]

Ephesians chapter 6:5

Thank you for confirming the true purpose of gun control is to enslave us.

[C-dub]

KJolly beat me to it. IMHO, while you are still employed by that church it doesn't matter whether you are there during work hours or not, but I don't know of any case law that would help us out here.

Regarding Jesus telling us to carry versus Paul telling us to honor our employer, wouldn't that be like my supervisor telling me I could not do something, but the CEO telling me I could?

[Beckster]

The concept that you are not at work, is a huge gray area, and how you handle this depends on how much you need your job. No one can give you legal advice.
This must be your own decision because you can be hurt by this. There are no legal issues when you have to abide by how a church board will decide. whether it is legal or not if you ruffle their feathers it could turn out badly.

The thought that I would feel comfortable about carrying at the church outside of work hours comes from the fact that the weapon would be concealed. Yes it would be concealed during work hours also, but since it is clearly listed as an offense which could lead to termination, I feel I must respect that for the time being. If, for some reason, it was discovered I was armed on church property outside of work hours, I would at least have a valid argument that I was not on church time but was there in my place as a member of the church. Gray area, yes, but one I would be willing to cross should the need ever arise.

Our church must begin to act proactively in the area of safety, and not wait until something happens that MAKES them take a hard look at our security measures, which right now are a bare minimum. I have attended conference breakout sessions about church and personal safety and can see just how far behind we are. Hopefully, a new pastor will be willing out some stock into the information I have picked up.

This has been an interesting discussion and I appreciate the input.

[SewTexas]

there have been so many church shootings, yes during worship times, but also during general work times. problem is, during "work" times there are often very few people there are they are generally women, possibly that's why bad guys feel comfortable going there, then?

I know that we will never be in a church unarmed, simply won't happen, we lived in CO Springs during the New Life shooting.

[jmorris]

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.

[ScooterSissy]

The concept that you are not at work, is a huge gray area, and how you handle this depends on how much you need your job. No one can give you legal advice.
This must be your own decision because you can be hurt by this. There are no legal issues when you have to abide by how a church board will decide. whether it is legal or not if you ruffle their feathers it could turn out badly.

The thought that I would feel comfortable about carrying at the church outside of work hours comes from the fact that the weapon would be concealed. Yes it would be concealed during work hours also, but since it is clearly listed as an offense which could lead to termination, I feel I must respect that for the time being. If, for some reason, it was discovered I was armed on church property outside of work hours, I would at least have a valid argument that I was not on church time but was there in my place as a member of the church. Gray area, yes, but one I would be willing to cross should the need ever arise.

Our church must begin to act proactively in the area of safety, and not wait until something happens that MAKES them take a hard look at our security measures, which right now are a bare minimum. I have attended conference breakout sessions about church and personal safety and can see just how far behind we are. Hopefully, a new pastor will be willing out some stock into the information I have picked up.

This has been an interesting discussion and I appreciate the input.

Don't know how your church is run administratively, but were I in your situation, I would approach one of the board members that I know personally, and ask that he bring the issue up at a board meeting, and to please not use my name (if I were afraid of job repurcussions).

[The Annoyed Man]

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! )

[RogueUSMC]

In the same account on John 18

11So Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?"

notice he did not say to get rid of the weapon, he instructed him to holster is weapon...as in to retain it.

[RogueUSMC]

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.

[bdickens]

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[RogueUSMC]

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.

What is the allegory then? I take His words literally unless allegory is confirmed. I don't believe He would use something he disagreed with on principal allegorically...it would raise too many questions. Therefore, by his allegorical use of weapons in general and swords in particular, that he does not disagree with them on principle. That added to the fact that He encouraged the possession of swords a few days later makes more of a case to his use as literal rather than analogical.

[bdickens]

I'm not interested in debating literal vs. non literal interpretation of the Bible as that has no place whatsoever here. I am merely correcting what someone said the purpose of red lettering in some copies of the Bible is for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_letter_edition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RogueUSMC]

lol...My bad...I just assumed everyone knew what the words in red were...