Are JW's fundamentalists? - 2005/04/28 11:51The History & Roots of American Christian Fundamentalism
Beliefs That Religious Fundamentalists Share
1. That 'Their' Brand Of Christianity Is 'THEE' Only Real Version of Christianity & All 'Others' Are False & Unsaved
2. Spreading The Gospel Motivating By The Fear Of Loved Ones Being Destroyed At Armageddon, Or Going To Hell
3. Praising Women But Refusing To Excpet Them as Completely Equal
4. Rigid Man-Made Rules That Can Not Be Bibically Backed
The term "Fundamentalist" derives from a 1909 publication "The Fundamentals: A testimony to the truth" which proposed five required Christian beliefs for those opposed to the Modernist movement. Originally a technical theological term, it became commonly used after the "Scopes" trial in Tennessee during the mid 1920s. Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher was on trial for contravening the state's Butler Act. It forbade the teaching of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." 4,5 Although Scopes was found guilty, it was generally felt that he had won a moral victory.
By the late 1930's Christian Fundamentalists had formed a sub-culture and had largely withdrawn from the rest of society. Following major revisions to Roman Catholic beliefs and practices during the Vatican II conferences in the 1960's, the term "fundamentalist" started to be used to refer to Catholics who rejected the changes, and wished to retain traditional beliefs and practices. Thus it became a commonly used word to describe the most conservative groups within Christianity: Protestant and Catholic. Back in the 1960's many theologians and historians expected that religions would become less conservative and generally weaker with time. That did not happen. Instead, the fundamentalist wings of major world religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, have grown and become increasingly dedicated to preserving religious tradition. Karen Armstrong has addressed Fundamentalism in Christianity, Islam and Judaism in her book: "The Battle for God."
Focus on the Kingdom, Volume 6 No. 9 June, 2004
My Spiritual Journey
by Diane M.
"When I was young, my parents called themselves fundamentalists. As I grew older, they began to use the term evangelical. (In my experience, the difference between the two is mostly one of tone: the manner of presentation of doctrine rather than the substance of doctrine. The stance of an evangelical toward the world is less confrontational and less wary than the stance of a fundamentalist.) The theology I was taught, and believed, from adolescence through most of my adult years I call evangelical orthodoxy. Some major doctrines are the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, salvation by faith evidenced by works, eternal security, the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, the immortality of the human soul with immediate heaven or hell after death, and the everlasting suffering of the damned in hell."
In the U.S., the Fundamentalist-led Moral Majority emerged to challenge social and religious beliefs and practices. Today, Fundamentalists are the most vocal group in opposition to abortion access, equal rights against discrimination and hate crimes for homosexuals, physician assisted suicide, the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research, comprehensive sex-ed classes in public schools, etc. The Assemblies of God is one Fundamentalist denomination. The Southern Baptist Convention has moved towards fundamentalism in recent years. Bob Jones University [see buttom link on him], the General Association of Regular Baptists, the Moody Bible Institute and other groups are also Fundamentalist. Among the most generally known Fundamentalist Christian leaders are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey.
Most Evangelical Christian do not accept the beliefs of mainline and liberal Christian churches and of the majority of American Christians. In fact, some conservative Christians do not regard mainline and liberal churches to be fully Christian. Also the majority of Evangelical Protestants views non-Protestant Evangelical/Fundamental faith groups such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Christian Science ( as well as All New Thought groups) as NOT truely Christian at all and call them ALL as 'cults'. Regardless of this fact, still LDS,JWs, Catholics, ETC., ARE STILL Evangelical/Fundamental in nature, whether Protestants Evangelicals acknowledge them or not or whether they themselves offically embrace of reject the terms, "Evangelical," or "Fundamental."
The Far Fundamental Branch of Protestantism
(e.g. Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God
1. The Bible not only contains the Word of God, it is the Word of God; God inspired the individual authors to prevent them from error.
*2. Salvation is not achieved by doing good works. Only those who have trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior will be "born again," be saved and go to heaven after death.
*3. Hell exists as a place of eternal punishment for the unsaved.
Their is NO hope or second change after death.
*4. The rapture and the return of Christ to earth is imminent. That "True Christias" will be taken to heaven while all others are "Left Behind," and then tossed into hell.
5. Feel a strong obligation to evangelize: to share their religious beliefs with those who are not saved, in order to bring them to a saving knowledge of Jesus.
6. Are strongly opposed to women's equality.
7. They actively oppose and condemn any action to treat gays and lesbians equal to heterosexuals.
9. Conservative faith groups and para-church organizations often recommend that their members vote for political candidates on the basis of their rejection of free abortion access and equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Mainline denominations have gradually become more inclusive. Decades ago, they fought over the issue of equality of women. This was settled by allowing women to be ordained, and to hold positions of power in the denomination. Current conflicts deal mainly with human sexuality -- particularly sexual orientation.
Fundamental Christianity - A "Us vs. Them" Thing
Many people tend to view the Christian world in terms of "us ". e.g. "there is my denomination, and then there are all the other faith groups that consider themselves to be Christian ."(1) For example, a Fundamentalist or other Evangelical Christian might believe that his/her faith group represents true Christianity. She/he might consider non-conservative denominations, grouped together, as non-Christian, heretical Christian, quasi-Christian, false Christian etc.
Reference:
"America’s Christian Commitment Has Remained Relatively Stable for the Past Decade," Barna Research Online, at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/ J. Gordon Melton, Ed, "The Encyclopedia of American Religions: A Comprehensive Study of the Major Religious Groups in the United States and Canada," 3 volume set, Triumph Books, New York, NY, (1989) Borgna Brunner, Editor, "Time Almanac 2002 with Information Please®," Page 436.
1997 to 2003 incl. by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Last update: 2003-JUN-22 Author: B.A. Robinson
FOOTNOTE:
*JW's,LDS,All Bible Students,Second Adventists & Catholic would agree with all points except: points#7, 8, and #9. LDS and JWs do believe that salvation is achieved by doing good works...going "door-to-door". However LDS believe in reaching the third and highest relm of heaven, while JW's believe in eternal life upon this restored earth.
The Catholic Church offically changed it's view on hell from an eternal punishment to eternal seperation from God, while JW's believe that hell is merely a mistranslation of the Hebrew word SHEOL which translates into Englsih as "grave", or simply to cease to be foreve, as do Second Adventists and all Bible Students groups. JWs, All Bible Students, Second Adventists and Catholics do NOT believe in a 'Rapture', and I do not think LDS does either.
ALL Evangelical groups, both Protestant and Non would agree on all these...except #15. JW's do not believe in voting period , nor do the Christadelphians.
Many people get Pentacostals and Evangelical Protestant confused. Though seperate they often to overlap one another's basic beliefs. Evangelical Fundamental:
*Assemblies of God
Christian Reformed Church
Church of the Nazarene
Churches of Christ Independent Christian Churches (Instrumenal)
The Contemporary non-Denominational branch of Protestantism has been outstanding is heading the way for Contemporary worship music, and applying the "Seeker-Sensitive" approuch to reaching the un-church society. Where as their conserative mainstream peers have been less progressive in this way, or at the least very slow to accept change.
Destructive Charismatic Churches
April 2002
By a former member of the movement
"I was once involved in a destructive Charismatic church for twelve years. My family and I left because of the behavior within that church, which became increasingly cult-like. For instance, our church was a strongly "prophetic" congregation. And when a "prophecy" came forth, it was considered the "word of the Lord," even if it didn't match up with the Scriptures. That put us in the frightening position of having to obey the prophecy, or consider ourselves as "opposing God."
"Being a committed Christian and having spent nearly all of my Christian life within the Charismatic movement, I now recognize that some leaders within the movement have the propensity to overextend their authority. And as an elder under such authority for five years, I was once bound by fear. It seemed that if I didn't participate in a variety of "prophetic manifestations," which regularly happened within our church, I was somehow missing "God's best." However, when I objectively investigated my church's methods and beliefs, I saw its error and regained my personal freedom. Specifically I began to read the bible without the aid of any church interpretive material.
After more than a year of intensive research, from a variety of independent sources, my family and I were brought to a point of decision, which resulted in our "leaving the fold." The pain of that process was tremendous. After we left, not one person from our church visited us. The fear, which is engendered by the kind of manipulation we experienced, often locks people into a mindset that disregards common logic and even bypasses a simple heartfelt faith in the God of the bible. Instead, those involved will just "go with the flow." When I first looked seriously into my church's doctrines, I found that many of them had parallels with much criticized groups like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses."
The extreme teachings practiced by some churches within the Christian Charismatic movement have serious implications. Some of the particulars of these churches should be closely scrutinized. Consider the following:
"Extra-biblical Revelation. Much of our belief system was based upon supposed "words of the Lord," without supporting Scriptures to validate the teaching. Those who believed the "revelations," were in the inner circle. Those who did not, were frowned upon as somehow "spiritually immature." The founder of Mormonism Joseph Smith had his own personal revelation, which had no clear confirmation within the bible. But of course he explained this away, by telling his followers that he brought forth a hidden gospel, an actual addition to supplement the New Testament. This kind of personal revelation seems to be becoming increasingly common within some extreme Charismatic groups."
"Strong resistance to Scriptural authority. Any attempt to correct a leader/teacher involved with this type of extreme Charismatic church, often is met with stonewalling, excuses, or anger. They may say, "How dare you presume to question doctrine coming from the pulpit." Those who do are frequently labeled as in the "outer court" or "immature." For example, in my own experience with churches influenced by the Brownsville Revival and Toronto Blessing camps this actually led to the demonizing those who disagreed. I remember Pastor John Kilpatrick of Brownsville issuing a "prophetic" threat of destruction against Hank Hanegraaff, when he criticized Brownsville."
Esoteric knowledge. Only for those who reach the higher "levels" of understanding. One of my pastors would not openly share his "knowledge" with just anyone. Instead, this was to be shared only with the enlightened, which really meant those who agreed with him.
Unreasoning disregard for contrary evidence. Any evidence brought into the light that contradicted an experience, vision, prophecy, or doctrine, which supposedly came from God, was completely disregarded. People simply refuse to discuss the situation intelligently, react in anger, avoidance and/or fear.
"Fear. People become locked into accepting almost anything, because to question or disagree with the group's doctrine, was tantamount to questioning God. For example, when I left my church I found myself very afraid that God was angry with me and that I would lose His blessing. It was very difficult. One pastor I knew of a destructive Charismatic church told his flock, "If you question anything going on in this church, just watch out!" This fear-inducing admonition was preceded by his recitation of the account within Acts 5 about Ananias and Sapphira, who dropped dead after lying to the Lord. There are many other traits amongst some destructive churches, which mirror those found in cults, but those cited above will suffice for now."
"I have spoken with others who have left extreme Charismatic churches. They too have lost their church friends, support, experienced family conflicts, trauma and have been targeted by gossip. Some have even received death threats that were supposedly "words of the Lord." It is a miracle that any of these Charismatic causalities can still maintain their faith in Jesus Christ after all they have been through. But through my own experience I've learned, wolves clothed as shepherds, cannot invalidate the message or its true messenger.
Please understand that there were many good times as well. This included church potlucks, fishing trips, praying for one another and helping each other through difficult times. But for all the love expressed during those years of faithfulness, it is both a source of pain and concern that our onetime church brethren are now afraid of us and wish no further close contact.
We faithfully supported (our tithes and offerings to one church totaled approximately $25,000.00), promoted, and led others into a group that we now recognize was largely based upon a destructive and often heretical beliefs. The love of Christ, our purchase from sin on the cross by His death and resurrection, was certainly preached. But so many additions and personal interpretations were consistently interwoven within that simple message, the net result was often harmful and chaotic.
There are controversial preachers such as Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland, who have certainly caused many faithful Christians to ask this troubling question. And what about movements like the "Toronto Blessing," the "Brownsville Revival" or the "River" movement, which was spawned by both? Are they in some ways cult-like? I have many friends still involved in these movements. And I fear for them. My family is still Pentecostal, but we avoid the maze and torment of aberrational teachings and/or pastoral manipulation. And we know that there are many good people in Pentecostal churches. One thing we have definitely decided upon is this, we will follow no man with unquestioning obedience from now on. If what is being said from the pulpit, or even informally, does not match the biblical record, we will support neither the man nor the message."
Are Jehovah's Witnesses Fundamentalists?
Evangelical/Fundamental Non-Protestants
The majority of Evangelical Protestants views non-Protestant Evangelical/Fundamental faith groups such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Christian Science ( as well as All New Thought groups) as NOT truely Christian at all and consider them ALL as 'cults'. A common practice amoung the vast majority that the Evangelical Protestant Christian group JESUS USA happens to feel very strongly against. John Trott, a writter and major spokes man for JPUSA's magazine CORNERSTONE explains in the article intitled, Reconceptionalizing The Word 'CULT', that he believes strongly that tagging all non-dangerous faith groups CULT merley on the grounds that they are not Evangelical Protestant or happen to be non-trinitarian is , "Neither kind, Christian, or helpful." instead he expresses that he feels strongly the word Alternative Religious Movements or ARMs should be used. I happen to agree with this view 100%. Regardless, still LDS,JWs, Catholics, ETC., ARE STILL Evangelical/Fundamental in nature, whether Protestants Evangelicals acknowledge them or not or think they are cults, and whether the ARMs faith groups themselves offically embrace of reject the terms, "Evangelical," or "Fundamental," or not. The Religious Tolerance Network of Canada
Logical Questions To Ponder:
Does a Faith Groups HAVE To Be Involved in Politics To Be Indentified as a Religious Fundamentalist?
When The Watchtower Society Gives A "Suggestion" Such As Not Celebrating One's Birthday....Are These REALLY ptional 'Suggestions"..Or..Are They REALLY Rules?
"The Jehovah's Witnesses Organization," seems to be able to identify the Evangelical Protestant fundamentalists around them, yet they are unable to comprehend that the Watchtower Society itself, at the same time discribe themselves fundamentalists. In 1997, in an attempt to deal with the obvious fact that people who know Jehovah's Witnesses consider them fundamentalists, the Watchtower published an article about the subject:
"The Spread of Fundamentalism"
"A fundamentalist is one who holds rigidly to traditional, conservative religious values. The meaning of "fundamentalism" will be discussed more fully in the next article." (Watchtower, March 1, 1997, p. 3)
As we know, the Watchtower Society does hold "rigidly to traditional, conservative religious values". True, they have their own "specialties" but must be considered extremely rigid. In the next article the Watchtower continues and attempts to make a definition of fundamentalism that in their mind will exclude Jehovah's Witnesses:
"Fundamentalism -- What Is It?"
"Fundamentalists hanker after the old certainties, and some of them strive to bring their communities and nations back to what they feel are proper moral and doctrinal foundations. They do all in their power to force others to live according to a "correct" moral code and system of doctrinal beliefs. A fundamentalist is strongly convinced that he is right and others are wrong." (Watchtower, March 1, 1997, p. 4)
The above definition as printed in the Watchtower gives us, apart from some minor nuances an amazingly accurate description of the Watchtower Society. There is however no doubts that the Watchtower Society is extremely good at "forcing" on their own members a ""correct" moral code and system of doctrinal beliefs." Anyone half familiar with the Watchtower Society knows that, like the Protestant fundamentalists, Jehovah's Witnesses are "strongly convinced that [they are] right and others are wrong." But it gets even worse.
"Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned about the erosion of spirituality in the world and the immorality and religious uncertainty that pervade society. As a result, they are sometimes called fundamentalists. But are they? No. While they have strong religious convictions, they are not fundamentalists in the sense that the term has come to be used. They do not pressure political leaders to promote a certain point of view, and they do not resort to demonstrations and violence against those with whom they disagree. They have found a better way. They imitate their Leader, Jesus Christ." (Watchtower, March 1, 1997, p. 6)
There is no doubt that the Watchtower Society try to distance themselves from other fundamentalists by establishing the idea that in spite of their fundamentalist views, the Watchtower Society unlike the other fundamentalists doesn't use political means to "force" their ideas on other people, as if that has anything to do with being a ridgid religion or not. There is in reality little difference between them and the Protestant and Catholic fundamentalists.
Can you believe that the Watchtower also quoted this?
"Fundamentalist religions often try to force from the Bible what it simply does not contain --." (Watchtower, April 1, 1997, p. 4)
Like formal dress codes?
"Fundamentalism, while claiming to defend the Bible, has also actually undermined its authority. Fundamentalism undermines the Bible is by teaching unscriptural doctrines, such as eternal torment in hellfire, and at times by promoting standards of conduct other than those required by Scripture, such as forbidding the consumption of alcoholic beverages or the use of makeup by women. In these ways Fundamentalism has caused people to reject the Bible's message as naive, unreasonable, and unscientific." (Awake!, October 22, 1989, pp. 19, 20)
The Watchtower Society make all kinds of non-Biblical rules about beards, hairstyle, dress codes etc., all of this of course defames the "Bible message" just as much as any other fundamentalist view. No matter how much they try to deny it, the Watchtower Society proves itself to indeed be religious fundamentalists. There a list list of basic ideas or rules that JW's subscribe to that fundamentalist in nature:
1. You must attend 5 meetings a week, unless sick.
2. You are to devote at least 10 hours a month in the field service (going door-to-door preaching) to be considered "good association".
3. Marriage and/or becoming a pioneer and/or serving at Bethel are THEE "ONLY" worthy life choices/acceptable careers one should reach out for. Women MUST submit to men as their leaders. Compare to the Southern Baptists statement that women should "graciously submit to men."
4. You can not join ANY social clubs, YMCA, A/A or be on any school team.
5. A "mature Christian" should not celebrate birthdays and although JW leaders admit that forbidding the celebration of birthdays can not be Biblically backed and thus a "personal matter that should be left up to the individual," ... nevertheless if you chose to celebrate birthdays or harvest fests, you'll be labeled "spiritually weak".
Up untill 2000, Bob Jones forbid whites and blacks from dating. He said though it was not precisley backed in the Bible it was, "Based on Bibical Principles."
6.. Single adults, even those over 21, can not hang out together unless a chaperone is present.
Jones University does not let couples hold hands.
7. You must avoid ALL socializing with non-JW's, including school mates, work mates, neighbors and family members...
Failure to meet any of these requirements ("suggestions") will result in being avoided by others in the congregations and thus you are considered "spiritually weak" or "worldly".
| | The topic has been locked.
dinah
User Junior Boarder
Posts: 9
Re:Are JW's fundamentalists? - 2005/04/28 14:31My grandpa was a Southern Baptist. He wasn't against sports. He was normal. He had morals. He was not an "anything goes" kind of man. But even if he didn't agree with you religiously, he accepted you as a human being as tried to help when he could. Not by preaching you into hell but by making sure you had a job and food.
Some fundamentalism is good. Balance is the key. On the one hand we have to stand up for what is morally right. This puts us in a pickle today. Abortion, gays, lawlessness. Would you help a gay person get a job or help him buy food even though you knew he was gay? I would. It is not my job to judge. My place here on this earth is to try and make people feel loved and point them to Christ.
Would I tell a girl to have an abortion? NEVER. Would I be able to help her raise her child financially? NO. That's a quandry. I don't want to see any child killed, but I can't afford to help them all. I can barely help myself since I didn't think this "system" would be here this long I SERIOUSLY didn't apply myself to make a go of it.
I pretty much ceased living on the day I first understood that we were all gonna die. Still waiting. Now I can see that isn't the be all of my existance. It would be nice to not have my nose against a grindstone--but I guess that was my choice (albeit not a well informed one).
Anyway, much love to you! Dinah (Wasblind)
| | The topic has been locked.
BeachOfEden
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 70
Re:Are JW's fundamentalists? - 2005/04/28 15:10I simply don;t support fundamentalism in any form..whether it's Southern Baptists form, JW's form, Catholic or other. Do the words "Fundamental" and "balance" go together?
There are '3' religious positions:
1. The Fundamental far right
2. The Moderate Middle
3. The The Far mythical Liberal left.
The problem with religious positions #1 and #2 is neither acknowldge that # The Moderate Middle exist at all.
Religion is the problem. Fundamental or otherwise. One definition of religion is: "The formal expression of ones faith". I believe this explains the conotation of the word well. And actually, despite the wishes of billions of people earthwide, it is incorrect; Can faith be formalized?
For example, you are on a west coast beach at sundown and the sunset is more spectacular than words can describe, should you check your schedule before praising Jah for it?
Without an organisation our pharasaic tendencies have no vehicle. Without an organisation our predisposition to being pushed around is not as pronounced. Outside of an organisation, prejudiced people are only biggoted individuals. Organisations breed mob-mentality and uniformity; the opposite of the mind of Christ.
Peace and Love from Eden (on the beach)
| | The topic has been locked.
BeachOfEden
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 70
Re:Are JW's fundamentalists? - 2005/04/29 03:28"Organisations breed mob-mentality and uniformity; the opposite of the mind of Christ. "
Precisley my thoughts on fundamental religions. It breeds this egocentric mentality of, "We ARE saved and 'ALL' 'OTHERS" are NOT!"
| | The topic has been locked.
Warrior
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 128
Re:Are JW's fundamentalists? - 2005/04/29 17:42People get fundemental about a religion when they're trying to live in a certain way without the power or spirit of God. Scripture read without the Holy Spirit can become very dangerous, there are plenty of passages that can be drawn out of context and focused on and one or other form of fundementalism is born. The only solution to this kind of mentality is either a liberal and lukewarm mindset that happily accepts all creeds and religions without a murmour, or else a mind that has encountered and is being changed by the supernatural power of the living God.
Ah, I think this thread highlights the fact that there is no perfectly corret religion, and, if there was, it wouldn't make much difference to us.
The human condition is such that, even with correct doctrine, even obeying all the laws, we still need to be saved by something other than religion.
We need Jesus. We don't need an organisation telling us all about him, we need him. A living, personal, life-changing relationship.
Every religion that claims to be "the truth" (i.e most of them) cannot hide the fact that their organisations harbour peadiophiles, immorality, unpleasant characters etc. Membership of any religion - even the right one - isn't going to change the heart of man.
Getting zealous for God is worthless if you've never had a real encounter with him.
"Real" Christians are those who walk with God, who have been made right through Jesus' blood and know their God intimately. Unfortunately, even this is now taught as a "religion" in itself, many, many Christians can quote the words but very few live the reality. Churches sell membership, fear, rule-keeping and pretend-freedom. You can't serve two masters. If your church or organisation has the authority over you then your master is not Christ. Whereas, if your master is Christ, you will recognise the annointing on others (whatever denomination they might belong to) and submit to it because it is from God.
Getting right with God has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion, fundemental or otherwise. The JW's use many of the same tactics as "christendom" to keep their adherants. Different doctrines, same spirit - and I don't mean God's.
Ah, wouldn't it be nice and easy if there was one true religion and we could just do what we were told and bingo - everything would be fine. How easy to have the search for God and the responsibility for our personal walk with Jesus taken off out shoulders - and how often religious organisations try to do this for us. It's a form of slavery, true freedom comes from Jesus.
Much love. This is a very interesting topic by the way.
Forum 
