wrong answer...you cannot expect me to believe that the Lord would specify the importance of arming themselves, before clothing, with the whole intent to never use em...
Peter wasnt rebuked for 'brandishing his blade'...he was instructed that the timing and Will of the Father for the crucifixtion couldnt be changed...
the 'context' in 22:36 is their journeys into the world, formerly with Divine protection and provision, but when Jesus is no longer in the flesh, their witnessing will be handled in their human capacity...
the Lord will grace those who will hear...jihadis have been preached to for a couple thousand years, hence i think this particular church has a bit of evidence that they should shake some dust off and move on...
any current muzzies that are chosen cant be taken from the Fathers hand, by myself or a mo-ham-head-ean book burning...
how many deciples of all men will be called by the Truth of unmasking the evil of izlam ???
Peter brandished his blade for the purpose of killing the high priest’s servant (he was apparently not skilled in the use of the sword, and thus missed the skull, striking off a piece of the ear); he was rebuked for brandishing his blade for that purpose. “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword”, as Christ says in Matthew, prophesying both Peter’s death, and chastising him for his decision.
Were the disciples to arm themselves while traveling on the road to complete their task (missions and discipleship)? Yes. Is that analogous to the present scenario? No.
You have provided no evidence that this particular church has preached to any Muslim groups; the principle of shaking dust off of their feet does not apply.