I wanted to write out a few thoughts on here with regard to this criticism, and add some comments to explain why it does not hold up to scrutiny.
ἐκκλησία
It does not take into account the biblical usage of the word church (ekklesia in Greek). In the New Testament the word never refers to the building where Christians gather to worship God. BDAG gives 3 usages:1) a regularly summoned legislative body, assemblyEkklesia is used in the NT with reference to a group of humans united by a similar purpose (ex. the legislative body mentioned in Acts 19:39), a non-formal gathering (Acts 19:32), or those united around a religious commitment. This 3rd definition is likely what our critics have in mind, however the word is used with reference to people, not buildings.
2) a casual gathering of people, an assemblage, gathering
3) people with shared belief, community, congregation
In Hebrews 2:12 it is used with reference to the Old Testament assembly. The first part of Romans 16:5 uses the term in distinction to the building they met in:
Greet also the church in their house.The word is also used with reference to the universal body of believers across space and time. Examples include Matthew 16:18 and Ephesians 1:22.
Objection
One critic objected to this fact by noting that there were a number of believing Christians present at the interfaith dialog. He contended that even with the biblical usage of the word, it was still wrong to have a Muslim in such close proximity to the church (the present believers).My answer to this objection is that this event was set up in such a way so that neither the Christian or the Muslim would compromise their respective beliefs. It was not a feel-good "love fest" where differences were diminished, rather it was an honest discussion of differences for the purpose of understanding.
It was also a ticketed event. Meaning that everyone present was aware of the nature of the event. It was a dialog between two men from very different religious perspectives. It was not a worship service.
Given the nature of the event, the presence-of-numerous-Christians argument does not seem to apply. If the "church" (group of Christians) happened to be near an Imam and other Muslims, that would not mean the integrity or identity of the church was compromised. That would simply mean, well, that there were a number of Christians at an event.
If a number of Christians happened to show up to a concert or a football game that would not compromise the identity of the church. Why would their presence at an interfaith dialog cause such a compromise? It simply doesn't make sense.
Three specific verses addressed
Um... 2 John 1:10. 2 Corinthians 6:14. Titus 1:11-14. That's just off the top of my head. I don't think JW obeyed those passages...— Jeff Dornik (@jeffdornik) June 26, 2017
Lets talk about these verses.
Titus 1:11-14
This passage is a part of a larger section where Paul is explaining qualifications for elders to Titus. This larger block of thought comprises Titus 1:5-14 (or through verse 16, depending on how you address the last few verses). In this context Paul writes verses 11 through 14:They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.The passage would seem to indicate that "they" (those unqualified for eldership, see verse 10) should not be given the benefits of such a position. Rather than teach they ought to remain silent. The application here has to do with leadership qualifications, not interactions with non-Christians.
In the context of the Memphis dialog the question of eldership was not on the table. White has been an elder for years in his home church and Qadhi made no pretense of being (or desiring to be) an elder.
2 John 10
Read in isolation this verse says,If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greetingOf course, when you consider the context of the verse you begin to see what is really being communicated. James White addressed 2 John 9-11 on his website on 6/30, concluding that
...this passage teaches us to examine the doctrine of Christian teachers and to not give a basis for operation in our communities for those who are not orthodox in their teaching. Likewise, we can see the text has nothing at all to do with doing debates, outreaches, or even dialogues with those of other religious faiths. Even if we greet them, we are not doing so in the context of 2 John, for the greeting there had a particular content and meaning generally absent from our greetings today...
2 Corinthians 6:14
The text here readsDo not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?What first comes to mind are White and Qadhi's statements with regard to their refusal to compromise their theologies in their interactions. I would like to know how the critics would say that these men are yoked together? In what sense (other than agreeing to the dialog format and to communicate cordially on their two religions) has a mixing of light and darkness occurred?
It is clear that neither White nor Qadhi had become "unequally yoked" to each other. Have there been other people, in other dialogues, where compromise occurred? Sure. Was this one of those times? Of course not.
The Dialog itself
Night 1Night 2
