RSS

3 “I”s

27 Jan

In the years since my enlightenment I’ve occasionally referred to what I call the 3 “I”s of American fundogelicalism: Isolation Insulation, Inoculation and Infiltration. This post is a response to Astasia’s suggestion that I take this idea out of an obscure comment thread and write a (nearly equally obscure) post about it.

1. Isolation Insulation is the process by which fundogelical churches segregate the sheeple from the outside world. A few examples of the vast array of services and activities they offer to accomplish this are:

  • Providing social activities for every demographic group
  • Operating Christian schools and colleges
  • Developing curricula to support home schooling
  • Sponsoring sports teams and, sometimes, entire leagues
  • Producing and distributing media (books, movies, music, etc.) that reinforce fundogelicalism
  • Running summer camps

The idea is to meet all social, educational and spiritual needs within the fellowship so that fundogelicals never have to rely on support or resources from non-fundogelicals. Many fundogelicals encourage their sheeple to frequent businesses and professional practices owned and operated by Christians, and even publish directories to guide the sheeple in selecting businesses to patronize. God forbid that fundogelicals would ever mix with – and perhaps be influenced corrupted by – non-Christians for any reason (except prosyletization, under rigidly choreographed circumstances)! After all, if you were a fundogelical, would you want an infidel plumber fixing your clogged drain? I think not!

2. Inoculation = indoctrination + apologetics. To use a sports analogy, think of indoctrination as the “offensive” play during which the fundogelical team has the ball and the opportunity to score points. Indoctrination points are scored by filling minds with dogma. Apologetics, then, is the “defensive” play during which the fundogelical team protects itself and tries to prevent non-fundogelical influences from scoring. The process here is to reinforce the dogma by teaching the faithful approved responses to challenges to their dogma. Indoctrination starts as early as possible;  apologetics training comes after some indoctrination has been implanted quite firmly. Many fundogelicals seem to cruise through life on an indoctrination-rich regimen that includes little apologetics training.  In fact, too much apologetics training may backfire if the faithful start examining questions and stock responses too carefully, especially if they go to non-fundogelical resources for additional information. Thus, the ideal inoculation regimen is heavier on indoctrination than apologetics, but a “healthy” regimen includes both.

3. Infiltration is the process by which fundogelicals seek to dominate a society. This dominance was taken for granted throughout much of American history. More recently, however (the past 30 years or so), expanding acceptance of pluralistic, liberal and inclusive ideals has prompted fundogelicals to take aggressive action to maintain social and, especially, political hegemony in the USA. School board decisions regarding Christmas pageants, Ten Commandments posters, science, social studies and sex education curricula, etc., have not been accidental or isolated. They have been part of a deliberate strategy to dominate public education and permeate public school content with fundogelical ideas and ideals (see Ralph Reed’s Active Faith for a thorough explanation of the genesis and implementation of this tactic). Sponsorship of repressive initiatives like Proposition 8, and ongoing opposition to abortion and stem cell research are additional examples of ways in which fundogelicals seek to impose their values on American society. Infiltration is particularly important to fundogelicalism because, if successful, then inoculation could be confined largely to indoctrination (apologetics could become a mere academic exercise rather than a survival tactic), and isolation insulation wouldn’t be necessary at all.

Non-Christians should remember that the primary reason fundogelicals seek to infiltrate American society is because they see anything less than a Christ-dominated society as a threat to their own spiritual survival. They’re playing for eternal consequences: they want desperately to get into heaven and stay out of hell. Non-Christians don’t need to adopt quite that long-range a plan, but we need to remember that the 3 “I”s of fundogelicalism are connected to both fundogelicals’ highest aspirations and their deepest fears. Their stakes are high – eternal life. Ours are higher – the lives, the only ones we’ll ever get, that we have right now.

– the chaplain

Advertisement
 
15 Comments

Posted by on January 27, 2011 in religion, society

 

15 Responses to 3 “I”s

  1. Ebonmuse

    January 27, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Wow. That “Shepherd’s Guide” thing is amazing – I had no idea there were directories like that. It really speaks volumes about the lengths evangelicals will go to to construct a hermetically-sealed-off parallel world where they only need to interact with people of the same faith as themselves. Still, this cuts both ways: can we infidels use it as a listing of businesses to avoid?

     
  2. desertscope

    January 27, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    I wonder if they consciously lifted this from the playbook of the Mormons, for whom it has worked so well.

    When I was in Army, Mormons were dramatically overrepresented in my field. Apparently the language training was desirable for future use in missionary work. But except for official and semi-official functions, they kept themselves completely segregated. It was very odd.

     
  3. the chaplain

    January 28, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Ebonmuse:

    …can we infidels use it as a listing of businesses to avoid?

    I don’t see myself avoiding a business because of the management’s religious position. I patronize businesses because they offer satisfactory goods and services, period. To me, part of living in a pluralistic, democratic society is accepting differences and not discriminating against people for stupid reasons; in a business context, religion is a stupid reason to discriminate.

    des:

    I wonder if they consciously lifted this from the playbook of the Mormons…?

    Given the Christians’ historical penchant for borrowing stealing from others, you may be on to something here.

     
  4. Cyc

    January 29, 2011 at 12:20 am

    I was surprised as well Ebonmuse. But then again it makes sense. I was living with a family for a while and was going through the process of training their horses (as well as them on how to manage them…people who are afraid of their horses should not own them). They were boarding them on this one families land who were very deep into the end-times evangelicalism. They were very much about only going through other businesses who were of the faith. It had some very negative affects on their children. I remember when I would go over there I would end up spending some time with them as they were desperate for any attention. I was able to get away with this through the guise of teaching them how to take care of their Iguana. That poor thing was doing poorly when I got there but by the end I had made it a leash and it was quite sociable. Wow, I get side-tracked a bit…sorry.

     
    • Sarge

      January 29, 2011 at 9:08 am

      Odd juxtaposition…
      The guy I trained and showed horses for was the second actual, avowed atheist I ever met. Introduced me to some others, and taught me how to swim in the rather dangerous waters of a “Christian Nation” and not get too badly mauled by the sharks.

      I suppose it isn’t odd that persons seek out others of a like outlook, and many use their belief system as a badge, fraternal letters.

      And yet, their “Brother/Sisterhood” thing has some, shall we say, issues.

      Last year I was playing for a local “Christian Professionan Women” luncheon, and heard some complaint afterwards. It seemed that some ‘inappropriate’ persons who, while they may have been ‘christian’, and were, indeed, women were present, they were not “professional women”. This was not to be tolerated.
      Ah! Becoming “One In Christ” must be soooo great…

      I confess myself to have wondered about this: are there ‘talented amature’ women? Mere dabblers? Acting women? (well, on the last part, one HEARS things…)

       
  5. Astasia

    January 29, 2011 at 10:02 am

    I really love this (like I mentioned before), because it just seems to be such a comprehensive summary of what the fundamental evangelical Christian leadership plans. I can almost see them using these same exact 3 “I”s in order to teach those new to leadership how to successfully maintain domination in people’s lives and minds.

    And given these efforts, it makes it all the more amazing that some people are able to escape. I know ‘cult’ might be going a little far…but I can’t help but feel like a lot of these churches are borderline.

     
  6. the chaplain

    January 29, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Cyc:
    I’m not too bad with animals, but I have a black thumb with plants. Got any suggestions?

    Sarge:
    Unity in Christ often is not a beautiful thing. Belonging is all well and good – as long as the brothers and sisters stay in their places.

    Astasia:
    The boundaries between fellowships and cults are often hard to see. I think many fellowships reside very close to the borders.

     
  7. Ahab

    January 29, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Let me ask you this. Using these strategies, do you feel that fundamentalists have been able to successfully isolate their members from mainstream society, or infiltrate mainstream society with any success?

     
    • the chaplain

      January 29, 2011 at 1:52 pm

      Ahab:
      North American fundies have mixed success at isolating and inoculating their members these days. Many who are born into the flock remain in the fold all their lives, and others join the flock as adults, but, overall, the number of people leaving the fold is rising. The growth of mega-churches comes primarily from sheep-stealing from other churches and is more a matter of shifting assets than creating new growth. Congregations across most denominations are getting older. North American churches, on the whole, are losing members – either to competing shepherds or death – and being forced to either amalgamate or close their doors. These trends show that isolation and inoculation are not as effective as fundies wish they were. This is why infiltration is necessary.

      Notwithstanding slowly diminishing membership in their churches, American fundies are infiltrating American government and public policy more effectively than they ought to be. Some examples:

      • *There was a time when Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and their ilk would have been laughed out of the public eye. These days, both of them hold or have held significant elected offices and are being named, seriously by some, as prospective presidential candidates.
      • *The fact that Roe v. Wade continues to be controversial nearly 4 decades after its passage attests to the effectiveness of fundies in continuing to make their voices heard in the public sphere.
      • *The fact that more than half of all Americans don’t accept evolution as a basic scientific fact attests to fundogelicals’ success at corrupting public school curriculum.

      If fundies can successfully infiltrate society with their bullshit dogma and values, it won’t matter that isolation and inoculation aren’t working very well right now. A theocracy – which would be the result of successful infiltration – would make isolation and inoculation much easier. In the short-term. In the long-term, capitalism and globalism may be the greatest threats to theocracy. As long as Americans want to maintain our current lifestyle and make and spend money at obscene rates, we will have to trade with others outside of our borders. Inevitably, ideas would be exchanged along with goods. Total isolation would be impossible, which means inoculation would always be imperfect and the infiltration of non-theocratic ideals back into a theocratic state would always be a real concern to the dogmatic.

       
  8. RBH

    January 29, 2011 at 11:18 am

    I’m reminded of a guy I talked with once, an evolution-rejecting fundie. When I offered to loan him Francis Collins’ “Language of God” telling him Collins was an evangelical who accepted evolution. The guy turned down my offer of the loan saying “I don’t need to read anything I don’t agree with.” The guy was his own best jailer.

     
    • Ahab

      January 29, 2011 at 12:05 pm

      There’s no ignorance like willful ignorance. Refusing to even listen to alternative ideas guarantees that he’ll never grow.

       
      • the chaplain

        January 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm

        Refusing to even listen to alternative ideas guarantees that he’ll never grow.

        People like him don’t want to grow. They’re too busy struggling to secure their place in the Promised Land to care about growth in this one.

         
  9. Sabio Lantz

    January 31, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    Loved this. Recently in my community a church group is renting our elementary school. The community (in part) is fighting, but we see all these principles you mention in action.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers