What I find amusing is how they try to evade being labeled fundamentalists by stipulating a very narrow definition of what it means to be a Fundamentalist. I know of at least two Watchtower articles that try to prove that Witnesses are not fundamentalists. One was in a Watchtower dated in the 90's, but I don't have it right off hand. The second one is very recent, in the August 2010 Watchtower on page 7. Here's what they said:
"Fundamentalism is a broad movement within Protestantism in the United States," Says the The World Encyclopedia. Some Fundamentalist organizations "have adopted social and political positions based on a literal use of Biblical texts." That definition does not fit Jehovah's Witnesses. As mentioned, they abstain from politics and do not impose their views on others by political or any other means. Rather, they converse with people, usually one-on-one, using reason and convincing evidence, in imitation of the early Christians.–Acts 19:8.
By using a definition that emphasizes political activity, they try to exclude themselves from being labeled. They exclude all the other attributes that would definitely include them, such as the literal interpretation of scripture, a suspicion of outsiders, a sense of alienation from secular culture, a distrust of educational institutions, and the belief in the inerrancy of scripture. If they bothered to read more authoritative sources on Fundamentalism, besides encyclopedias used by elementary students, they would have a harder time trying to exclude themselves.
As if this self-serving definition weren't silly enough, they included the last sentence. Sure, they abstain from politics, but their opinions are less neutral as their willing to admit. They're definitely against gay marriage and that opinion places them closer to cultural conservatives. They disapprove of warfare and that seems like a liberal position. Of course they don't impose their views on others, just their own children. Instead, they use propaganda and flimsy reasoning on people not in the position to adequately evaluate Witness dogma. They certainly can't evaluate the historical claim that early Christians went door-to-door, handing out scrolls.
They offer this silly definition because Witnesses don't like all the negative connotations that come with the Fundamentalist label. Perhaps if they stopped acting like Fundamentalists, people will stop calling them Fundamentalists.
(By the way, if anyone has access to that older Watchtower discussion on Fundamentalism and would like to post it, that would be great. Like I said before, that Watchtower is from the early '90s.)
