Podcast #13: Repeat After Me. Indoctrination. Indoctrination. Indoctrination.

46 October 26, 2014 by

finalIn this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, Jason and Christian celebrate the podcast’s 13th episode with a shot of chocolate cake, followed up with a recap of Christian’s trip to Hollywood and Jason’s week getting to know his co-workers: Bow Tie, Old Spice, Senator, et al. After a momentary lapse into what is possibly a quite sexist discussion and a post-mortem analysis of Christian’s inexplicable loss in the “Best Name” category for his chili, Jason and Christian take on a caller question about indoctrination, which leads to a heated discussion over what constitutes indoctrination and whether or not religious people are guiltier of it than non-religious people. After making up, Christian is biebered by redundancy and Christian is biebered by redundancy, while Jason goes full car salesman and is biebered by anyone who thinks their trade-in actually has an objective value.

If you enjoy the podcast, please consider leaving us a review on iTunes!

P.S. We’re aware of the annoying tapping on the mic during the chili segment. And we’re sorry. Very sorry. It won’t happen again.

Chocolate Cake Shot Recipe
3/4 oz Frangelico (hazelnut liquer)
3/4 oz Vanilla Vodka (regular vodka will work as well)
Sugar
A Lemon Wedge

Frost the edge of your glass with sugar and pour in the mixture. Lick the sugar off the glass, shoot the contents, and bite on the lemon. It will taste like chocolate cake.

46 Comments (click here to leave a comment)

  2. Here’s a comment someone left over on Facebook that echoes what I was trying to say. If only I had been more sober… 😉

    Education is about enlightenment and includes the possibility of honest questioning and the presentation of at least the existence of multiple points of view.

    Indoctrination is about fear and control, generally precludes the ability to reject the teaching or even ask questions about it, and information is presented as absolute truth with other points of view either completely ignored or taught for the sole purpose of debunking them.

    Can the line between the two be blurry sometimes? Yes. But typically those who believe that their own point of view is the absolute truth handed down from God fall into the latter category more often.

  3. Just a FYI, during the “CHILF” segment, you are touching/poking something, and it is resonating through the mic (re-listen to it, it sounds like a car with WAY too much bass)

  4. I’m very aware. It drove me nuts during editing. Nothing I could have done about it except remove the segment…which I almost did. From now on, I’m recording with headphones on no matter how dumb Jason thinks I look.

  5. Oh, seriously you don’t do the podcast wearing headphones? Tell Jason that it is required for quality control (or if you had a sound engineer who is doing the recording while wearing phones).

    BTW Christian, most parents would say that based on your definition, kids should be indoctrinated concerning how they act towards others – they should always be polite to others, and have good manners.

  6. It seems to be that it’s mostly religious people who are resistant to the idea of recognizing a difference between teaching and indoctrinating. Gee, I wonder why that is…

  7. You guys rule!! I am wondering if
    You guys partied as pastors.. I would say yes! You guys seem honest and got shutdown from Calvary fast, like bad tenants… is there more too it?

  8. I agree with you about Naomi Klein, Jason. She is a very appealing woman. I once watched John Cusack almost droll all over her while she was interviewing him. It was almost embarrassing. I think they were talking about her book, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, if I am remembering correctly. It might be on youtube. I should probably look for it. Maybe I will and post it later.

  9. You guys talk about hell all the time. You do realize, don’t you, that there are many differing views on that subject? I personally cannot fathom that God would take pleasure in torturing people with eternal punishment. I don’t think the Scriptures clearly teach that either. Many have done convincing studies on the subject. So, it does not necessarily follow that those who believe in election also believe in eternal torture for the non-elect. However, that is a long argument that needs a book to do justice to the subject. Just sayin!!

  11. We have a podcast where we talk about it as a main topic. Obviously, i dont believe in hell, but even from a biblical point of view, I think the traditional view is rubbish.

  12. Thanks, Jimmy! I had some wine at Jason’s wedding. That’s about the extent of our partying as pastors. Disappointing, I know. (I have made up for lost time though.) 🙂

  13. As a layman, Thanks for the reply, it makes my day!! Ya you guys are square and honest!! Diogenes might be proud? If not who cares he’s long gone! Why catholic JSon? Are you just trying to get all the christain stuff out of your system!!

  15. I have not listened to that one yet. I do agree with you, Chrisitan, that the traditional view of hell is rubbish. It is all about producing fear and control. I am all about honest dialog about what the
    Gospel is- with any question anyone might have about it. From what I gather you think the Gospel is rubbish too- at least the traditional view. I have found that what people think the traditional view of the Gospel is might be a false Gospel. So, in my opinion, you cannot talk enough about what the Gospel is. There are many misconceptions and misinterpretations about it. And I always take into consideration that I might be wrong about it too.

  16. I do agree with Klein’s view of economics. I don’t like the Chicago school and most libertarians believe in Chicago school economics. Some even say that it is the biblical view. I still am not convinced from either the Reconstructionists or those coming from a Gordon Clark perspective about economics. And those at oldlife are also mostly Chicago school whether they realize it or not. Erik is also Chicago school via Sowell and would not mind if all the homeless were forced into districts where no one had to deal with them and then nuked or dealt with by chemical weapons. My bad again, I am putting words in his mouth. I live down by the river in a van. I try to stay away from where the magistrates want to gather all the homeless.

  19. The above essay only discusses the Scriptural view man- below are the other two dominant views:

    1) The materialistic view- “Materialism is the view that everything, including life, including human life, is matter plus energy-atoms, gravity, radiation, electromagnetism, and whatever other arcane particles or forces have been discovered or posited by physicists. There is no “spirit”, no supernatural, no “life” that lies outside matter plus energy, no “soul.”
    The materialist says: This body is me, all of me, and when I die I am no more.”
    2) The Platonic or dualistic view- “In platonism, matter exists, but it is not nearly as important as the unseen world of the spirit. Indeed, matter stands opposed to spirit. Beyond the material world perceived by the senses are God, spirit, and the soul. The material world is in constant flux which tends towards disorder and degeneration, while the spiritual world is firm and pure. Man is a combination of matter and soul; he is an immortal soul inhabiting a mortal, dying, deteriorating body. The combination of body and soul is full of tension: the soul pulls upward, toward God, beauty, and good, while the body pulls downward, toward food, comfort, sex and physical gratification. Human life, in platonism, is a struggle of the two temporarily conjoined components of man, body and soul. A good man is simply a man whose soul is winning, while a bad man is a man controlled by his physical appetites. At death, the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body to migrate either to heaven or, as for reincarnationists, to some other body. The platonist says: This body is not me, it’s only a shell, and when I die I’ll be free of it.”

  21. Your podcasts are one more reason why I’m super pissed that teleporters haven’t been invented yet. During every single podcast I sit here at my desk and talk to you both as if you can hear me. Sigh. This last one, especially, I was wishing I could go back in time and space to be in the room with you two so I could interject.
    I think my initial frustration was the lack of agreement on what the term indoctrination means. It’s really not that open to interpretation. No matter what your resource is, the definition of indoctrination doesn’t waiver, however, in order to not be completely redundant in this thread, I’ll refer back to what Christian posted above from Facebook and say that I agree with that summation completely.
    I believe one of the key struggles between Christian and Jason on this topic is the difference in how they were raised. If I understand correctly, Jason was not raised in Calvary (I believe he said this in the podcast) and did not experience the level of indoctrination that Christian or I did. The simplest way I can break it down is by referring to the film, “The Village.” If you haven’t seen it, I’m not going to try and describe it in great detail here, but the general premise is based around a community of people living within specific geographic confines who are forbidden to go outside said confines. The only reason they’re given for this rule revolves around some nebulous monsters who live outside the walls of the village. No one questions it. They accept the “wisdom” of their leadership without challenge. At least until someone actually does challenge it and goes beyond the boundary lines, but you’ll have to watch the movie to find out what happens.

    THIS is what it’s like to grow up within a faith that indoctrinates their children. I was raised to believe that Jesus was THE WAY, THE TRUTH and THE LIFE and you did not question that. I was raised to believe the Bible was the inerrant word of God and you did not question that. I was raised to believe anyone outside of this belief system was eternally damned to hell and you did not question that. If you did question, you were met with distress from your parents or your youth leadership or your peers. Your mom would start calling down the prayer chain of her Joyful Life group. You get stopped outside the church sanctuary by a stranger and told you’re being prayed for. Your youth pastor takes you out for coffee so they can find out “what’s going on in your life.” THAT’s what happens when you start edging toward the boundary lines of the Christian “village.” The irony is if you grew up at Calvary Chapel, you were led to believe that your Christianity is intellectual. You study Greek. You study Hebrew. You study Aramaic. You refer to Matthew Henry’s commentaries when you do bible studies because you’re just that much of a spiritual bad ass. You know fancy Greek terminology. You explain to your non-Calvary friends what “inductive bible study” means. You read “Kingdom of the Cults” so you can be “educated” on what other faiths believe. You have the illusion of being a free thinker, as long as you stay within the confines of the village. But I would submit that the ability to view things objectively is a little handicapped when the alleged eternal damnation of your soul is at stake. When there is no way to question what you believe without fear having a critical role, you are not being educated, you are being controlled.

    Maybe I’m being obtuse, but I believe the inherent differences between education and indoctrination are fairly obvious. And for those of us who have experienced indoctrination first hand, we know the damage it does and the effort it takes to undo that damage. Yes, the lines of indoctrination and education may be blurred from time to time, but those are anomalies, rare occasions. If your knowledge of indoctrination is merely a priori, then I suppose I can understand a less impassioned view of it. But if your knowledge is a posteriori, then you know the harm it truly causes and cannot abide it. For the record, I don’t have any personal vendetta against Calvary Chapel. I would say the same thing about any belief system that incorporates indoctrination. Using my own experience just seemed a more effective way to illustrate my point.

    And by the way, I know terms like “a priori” and “a posteriori” because I was raised in Calvary Chapel and I’m all, like, intellectual and shit.

  22. I got a kick out of reading that post, Heather. You are a bad ass. I was not raised in a home where biblical indoctrination took place. However, I did attend Calvary like churches for 19 years and had to endure a few inquisitions while going through severe marital difficulties. It did not end good but my point is I think I can relate to what bad indoctrination entails. I got to keep coming back to this site- this is edgy again. Like Modern Reformation magazine or the Wittenberg Door when they first started publishing.

  23. I appreciate the kind words. It’s rare for me to take the time to write my thoughts out like that, and I’m not even close to satisfied. I see some errors I wish I could fix, but hopefully my bad assery makes up for them.

  24. Heather, I agree that Christian and I were approaching the issue from two different perspectives. I was searching for a principled difference between a religious person teaching his kids religious things as true (like Jesus rose again), and a secular person teaching his kids secular things as true (like don’t be racist), a difference which I never found. On the other hand, Christian was approaching the issue through the lens of his experiences, which I never shared (thankfully).

    For my part, I do think it’s a bit question-begging to label as “indoctrination” beliefs that include things like hell or fear, since the assumption in the labeling is that those beliefs are false (since if hell were real, and if God eternally tortured people for doubts or bad theology, warning your kids against that would make perfect sense). So yes, Christian parenting involves indoctrination when that paradigm is judged from within another one. Which is the definition of begging the question.

    Also, I don’t blame my pal for his hatred of (what he calls) indoctrination, since it sounds pretty insidious and damaging. I’m glad I wasn’t subjected to what you guys had to endure.

  25. I think the ultimate difference is found in the why. Any time eternal damnation is thrown into the life lesson, it kind of negates any other arguments or rationale behind the choice being made. Parents teach their kids not to be racist because they don’t want them to be assholes, not because they don’t want them to go to hell. When you’re a kid the fear of being an asshole doesn’t really play too much into your decision making skills, however the rationale behind why you shouldn’t be an asshole makes pretty good sense. On the opposite end of the spectrum, when you’re a kid growing up in evangelical Christianity, the fear of hell is pretty much the be all, end all of why you believe. Sure, there’s lots of other flowery things in there involving love and joy and peace, but as a kid you’re not really making that connection. Your why is based on a very simple, fear-based concept.

    But yes, all of this is only valid if you’re coming from the premise that there is no absolute truth found in a faith-based religion. And that’s honestly the reason why I don’t hold (much) bitterness toward my being raised at Calvary. I know what the intent of my parents was. I know the intent of the bulk of the people in the church. I know what my intent was. I mean if you really believe in hell, then by default it must be a part of your argument, your reason why. I get that. And it’s why, even though I’ve been out of the church for almost 15 years now, I will still defend people in the church, because I know their intentions are good. Misguided and so potentially dangerous, but good.

    I appreciate your thoughtful response and I capital L love you guys back.

  26. If hell is real, then it should scare the shit out of everyone who is raised believing in it. Maybe that’s just what Christianity is supposed to do.

  27. That’s honestly one of the reasons why I couldn’t be a part of the church anymore. I felt like a hypocrite for no longer being terrified of it and no longer being terrified that anyone else I loved was going there. There were many factors to the unraveling of my faith, but ironically, the high standard that I held for myself as a believer was ultimately the undoing of my belief.

  28. For my part, I think that religious activity and belief should be motivated by positive forces like love of neighbor. I think a case can be made from the Bible for this. And if someone is either personally or evangelistically motivated solely by threat or fear, then something went wrong somewhere (most likely in his indoctrination as a child).

  29. Yes, my friend, but even IF those are the positive motivations (which I absolutely believe exist biblically), you can’t make a completely objective decision based on those positive motivations because hell is still muddying the waters. My parents didn’t draw me into a relationship with Christ using the threat of hell as the main talking point, but hell inevitably becomes what grips you as a child. It took me years to leave the church, because at my core THAT one single belief still had such a terrifying hold on me.

    But I think we’re going to go round and round with this because we’re coming from two different belief systems (now). I don’t feel like I’m saying exactly what’s in my head and I think you and I would actually find a lot of common ground, just not when it comes to the innocuous nature by which you want to classify indoctrination.

  30. LOL at your bit about ads. As I’m listening, the most prominent ad on the side says, “Will you boldly proclaim you’re a Christian? Sign the pledge now.”

  31. Ha! Well, only click on it if you want to. 😉

    I saw one the other day with a bunch of busty Asian women that was some kind of mature Asian dating web site. I sure wish we had better control over those ads…

  32. Heather says: “There were many factors to the unraveling of my faith, but ironically, the high standard that I held for myself as a believer was ultimately the undoing of my belief.”

    John Y: That is a very insightful remark. Do you mind elaborating more about that? I don’t think I have ever heard anyone actually admit that or see that as a reason for the “unraveling” of their faith. I left the church also for 10 years after faithfully attending for those 19 years I mentioned earlier. I thought I had failed beyond a point of return because I failed to make our marriage work. That is another long story but to make it shorter we tried to make it work and even went through marriage counseling for about a year and a half. The church was a very close knit church we attended too and I was very close to the Pastor and his family. I could keep up with him theologically while he was attending Calvin seminary in Grand Rapids, MI so it was a very big deal at the church when our marriage disintegrated. I ended up starting to drink a lot to deal with it and things got progressively worse from there. I was also imbibing a lot on Theonomist and Reconstructionist literature during that time and that made matters worse. It was not until I read Michael Horton’s, PUTTING AMAZING BACK INTO GRACE, that I slowly started making my way back into the church again. Lots more to the story but I am trying to be brief and to the point; with my point being that I think I get what you are saying when you say that “the high standard that I held for myself as a believer was ultimately the undoing of my belief.” Fortunately, I am confident now that the attitude I had can be reconciled and dealt with. It did take time and help from others to get there. At least that is where I ended up and I try to see that and understand that our journeys are all different.

  34. I have to see this “Used Cars” movie. I keep seeing references to it. I had never heard of it before Jason started working at a car dealership.

  35. I did not read all the comments that closely so I am not sure if the Drain-o remark was aimed at me.
    Plus, I am not sure what it means. Was it a line in one of those movies you mentioned? You should quit pickin on me, Erik- if it was aimed at me. I am just a homeless guy livin down by the river in a van- there is no reason for anyone to listen to anything I have to say anyways. You might drive me back to drinkin and druggin and then I could say, Erik made me do it. Erik has already compared me to Pilkington:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzPe8STuNg

  38. That’s a relief, Christian. It is difficult to get out of the, “it’s all about me”, syndrome. I have watched that video over 5 times now and I still almost fall out of my chair laughing. Glad you liked it.

  39. “I think what you’re describing is a caricature.” (Jason)
    Bingo. Your whole argument, Christian, was based on an anger-tinged bigotry.

  40. Robert, not only are you misquoting Jason, but you’re taking his quote out of context. First of all, the quote was “I think what you’re describing is a bit of a caricature.” The context was in my summary of catechizing someone as being simply a “repeat after me” exercise.

    If you’re going to say that my entire argument against indoctrination is based on an “anger-tinged bigotry,” I don’t think you’re going to be able to use Jason as your human shield. You’re going to have to do it yourself.

  41. This sounds oddly familiar. When Jason challenged you you also responded with some irrelevant bit of nit-picking.

    The bigotry wasn’t in your argument against indoctrination. It was in the caricature you insisted on of religious belief (and hence instruction) as, by definition, blind and unquestioning assent and in your obstinate failure to consider (don’t question what you’ve been taught!) Jason’s rather simple (and, really, undeniable) point that every child is indoctrinated into whatever culture they find themselves in. Relatedly, you insist that religious indoctrination is somehow special and especially pernicious in our culture. Come make that argument again when our people are invading countries, killing children, and laying down their own lives for Christ rather than for “freedom” and “progress.”

  42. We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not you trying to make it look like Jason would agree with your assessment of my “whole argument” as being based on “anger-tinged bigotry” is an “irrelevant bit of nitpicking.” I have a feeling he wouldn’t take too kindly to it, nor consider it nit-picking.

    It wasn’t a caricature. What I described is a real thing people including myself have experienced. However, I don’t believe it applies to all religious people, nor do I think that it’s necessarily more pernicious in our culture than it is in other cultures. I also acknowledged that the anti-religious are guilty of it as well.

    I’m really not sure where you’re getting your caricature of me, and I don’t understand you’re last sentence at all. Feel free to elaborate, but I’m not sure it’s going to help your argument.

  44. 1) Christian, you have voiced annihilationist perspectives several times whenever Hell-speak comes up. It seems that we may actually share that this is what can actually and reasonably be derived from the Canon and that Hell-culture as we know it is mostly extra-Biblical. I hope you both speak about your personal evolutions on these ideas. Christian, did you walk as a believer for very long with annihilationist views, or did agnosticism set in rapidly enough at that point that you were apathetic towards it? 2) Both you and Jason traveled down the Calvinist road [and I hope neither of you claimed only 3 or 5 points, that would be wimpy! jk]. One of my pet ideas is that Bible Infallibility/Inerrancy is the mother of Calvinism. I don’t buy either. For both of you, were you trying to maintain a belief in Infallibility of [Protestant] Scripture while trying to justify certain inconsistencies that lead you to Calvinism? Take this Big Fatty, for example: Paul says we are elected, his epistle is in the Bible, the Bible is infallible, therefore….. 3) Jason, what is your current perspective on Inerrancy/infallibility? If it is what I imagine is a RC perspective, then [I’m positive I’m ignorant here] do you struggle with papal infallibility?

  45. Brian,

    1, I was a conditionalist for the last few years of when I would have called myself a Christian. It seemed to make the most sense from a biblical point of view, and once I saw it that way, it was hard to see it in the traditional sense anymore. The traditional view began to look more and more ridiculous.

    2. We were asked to leave Calvary Chapel because we held on to all “five points.” I think you’re idea is probably a good one, but it could also apply to so many other systems of theologies as well.

  46. Have your kids stated a belief system? My 13 year old declared she was agnostic last week. I was not prepared for it this early and it has really thrown me. I was so indoctrinated like you – I almost felt like I failed when she told me. Because I have been going against my indoctrination to not repeat the indoctrination. Therefore, I actually had a pang of whoa! Did I screw up?? Just wondering if I am the only one! 🙂

Related Posts