Jehovah's Witnesses are not Fundamentalists

by JeffT 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  daystar

  Fundamentalism" is a specific branch of Christianity with a set of doctrines that they have set out for themselves, just like any other branch of Christianity. It is a term that has defined characteristics, which JW's don't meet. Changing the meaning of a word because we want to use it for some other purpose is an unfair use of language.

  Ok, so JWs are not Fundamentalists, but they are fundamentalists.

  http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/fundamentalism

  You are speaking re: 2

  1. often FundamentalismAn organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture

  when others seem to be thinking 1.

  A usually [sic] religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

  In my experience, most people don't think about the Fundmentalist movement of the late 19th century when they hear that word. I don't think anyone has tried to change the meaning of any word here, but are rather referring to a different definition than you are.

  It would probably also help if people actually read the text on the link you provided or, perhaps realizing that most people won't read a lengthy diatribe, you may have clarified it in your post.

  Just a suggestion.
• 

  JeffT

  Daystar: Thank you, you are correct I am speakinig of Christian Fundamentalism.

  But I'm not sure JW's pass muster on #1 either, at least not in the eyes of about 90% of the Christians in the world. Most of us regard the Trinity as a fundamental belief, along with guidence of the individual Christian by God and his own conscience, the supremacy of the Bible over all other sources of doctrine, and a few other core beliefs. JW's with their layers of Pharisaic laws and strict adherance to the pronouncements from the GB, have strayed far from "the fundamentals."
• 

  daystar

  I suppose it would depend upon what you consider to be the "fundamentals". JWs believe themselves to be closer to the fundamental Christian faith than the rest of Christendom, that the Trinity concept, etc. are corruptions. By their own belief system, they are fundamentalists and proud of it, though they may not like the term with its current derogatory slant.

  You seem of the opinion that for a Christian to be labelled a fundamentalist, they must subscribe to a very particular set of beliefs and that is just not so.

  A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

  I suppose the debate would be in what the fundamental principles of the "real", the "true" Christian religion are. And I don't see any sort of wide agreement forthcoming on that.

  JWs are fundamentalists according to their own beliefs, though may not hold to what other Christians believe to be the fundamentals of Christianity. Who gets to be the ultimate judge of what those fundamentals are?
• 

  Gill

  Who set the five criteria? Wasn't the WTBTS by any chance, was it?

  They are Fundy, in that they fundamentally believe everything in the bible to be a literal event or a prophecy pertaining fundamentally to their belief or translations.

  They may not fit every single 'symptom' of being a fundamentalist group, just as they do not meet every single symptom of being a cult....BUT!!!! it is possible to have no symptoms of cancer and yet be riddled with the disease.
• 

  parakeet

  "Fundamentalism" (as well as "cult") is a term that means different things to different people. It's relatively unimportant whether or not JW/WTS is a fundamentalist religion. What is important is that it is a dogmatic, rigid, controlling, unloving religion with harmful doctrines.
• 

  JeffT

  You seem of the opinion that for a Christian to be labelled a fundamentalist, they must subscribe to a very particular set of beliefs and that is just not so.

  Not my opinion, it is the opinion of the people who coined the term.

  This isn't wonderland and none of us is Humpty-Dumpty. If we can all make words mean what we want them to mean they mean nothing. Like it or not, "Fundamentalism" as it relates to Christian religious thought, has a defined meaning.
• 

  Inquisitor

  Like it or not, "Fundamentalism" as it relates to Christian religious thought, has a defined meaning.

  That the term "fundamentalist" came to carry the sense of religious intolerance and self-righteous superiority is the doing of the fundamentalists themselves. Society merely decided to call a spade a spade. It has nothing to do with society living in its "wonderland" or society forcing an undesirable meaning onto the word. It is utter rubbish to imply that the more general definition of a fundamentalist was a product of whim.

  If one thinks that one can change the definition of a "fundamentalist" by promoting more currency of the preferred usage, then I wish you and your proud-to-be-fundamentalists-brothers the best of luck! But given the kind of attitudes that often mark a fundamentalist, it will be a miracle for the English-speaking world to ever refer to a fundamentalist in a bright, sparkly tone.

  INQ
• 

  Justin

  Language changes over time. In the early twentieth century, when the term "Fundamentalist" was first coined and included five "fundamentals," JWs or Bible Students wouldn't have been considered fundamentalists. But today the meaning of the word has been broadened to include even members of non-Christian religions who believe in the inerrancy of their texts or authoritative teachings. Modern JWs are fundamentalists in this sense.

  Fundamentalism is also considered a phenonmenon which came out of the conflict between traditional ways of thinking and modernity. Classical Christian fundamentalism may have points in common with Christian orthodoxy; nevertheless, to refer to a fifteenth century European Catholic as a fundamentlist would be an anachronism. It would be like referring to the same person as a creationist when there was no alternative worldview available at the time. A fundamentalist is a sort of anti-revolutionary, and you can't have one of those before the revolution has begun.
• 

  JeffT

  If one thinks that one can change the definition of a "fundamentalist" by promoting more currency of the preferred usage, then I wish you and your proud-to-be-fundamentalists-brothers the best of luck! But given the kind of attitudes that often mark a fundamentalist, it will be a miracle for the English-speaking world to ever refer to a fundamentalist in a bright, sparkly tone.

  I am not a Fundamentalist, nor did I ever say I was. Thank you for smearing me with YOUR prejudices.
• 

  Inquisitor

  I never did call you a fundamentalist. And I'm fully aware that you would not destroy your credibility by calling yourself one in this thread. What I did imply is that you seem to have a good sense of solidarity with those who would like the world to redefine what a fundamentalist means.

  INQ