Podcast #14: Indoctrination Redux, Indiscriminate Profanity, and the Sport of Soccer

17 November 2, 2014 by

14_FinalIn this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, Jason and Christian decide their friendship wasn’t tested enough during the previous episode’s debate about indoctrination and go for round two. Jason admits that he is wrong, but this sentence is totally out of context. Christian informs Jason about some negative feedback from a non-drunk current pastor, and they also lament the fact that only 23 people like the podcast. Christian is asked by a listener what led him to become an Agnostic, and in fine Agnostic fashion talks about what didn’t push him into it instead of what did. Jason can’t figure out which of his many biebers to discuss and finally lands on one that gives him an excuse to say the “f-word” over and over again. Christian is biebered by insecure, American sports fans who insist on putting down soccer, which causes Jason and him to become insecure, American soccer fans who put down other sports.

Also, Jason challenges anyone in the world to an arm wrestling contest.

17 Comments (click here to leave a comment)

  2. I thought this was one of the best motherfucking ones yet. It’s amazing how you two motherfuckers get along so motherfucking well, despite your occasional motherfucking disagreements. And I respect the motherfucking epistemological motherfucking humility exhibited by both of you.

  3. “Bow down to her if you want, bow to her. Bow to the Queen of Slime, the Queen of Filth, the Queen of Putrescence. Boo. Boo. Rubbish. Filth. Slime. Muck. Boo. Boo. Boo!”

  4. Christian, I will admit that what you and others who grew up in CC were more than likely “indoctrinated”, and that would be why you are coming at it that way. I do agree with Jason, with how you were taught might be completely questioned.
    However, I think that when we teach our children (under 8) we do not do that with anything other than, “this is the way you do it.”. As the child grows and matures we get more into the thinking for themselves (which was really how I was raised, and so when I came to faith at 14, it was more due to reasons, and when I discovered CC and came to CCBC, it was from a different viewpoint than you and others did. This might also be the reason for the differences we have discussed in the Alum group as well.

    WOW, how did shaving the area come up??!!

    Well oops, I have read and do read things from all manner of writers, Pink, and Lloyd-Jones, and did so while actually in CCBC (and I believed that I was encouraged to – my interpretation of what I heard from teachers, and pastors). Maybe I am not really CC as some would call it, as I think independently, and I do not, “tow the factory line”.

    Christian, I would admit that based upon what you have shared, I would agree that you were indoctrinated, however I would not agree with your other assertions.

    Negative feedback? Send them to me… 60 seconds to determine whether or not to continue?

    How I see it in regards to Presidential issues, we as a country see the vitriol for the opposition ever since Clinton (it might have been there prior, but I wasn’t in the country). I saw it with Clinton to a lesser degree, than Bush and Obama (who I only saw either support, or complete hatred).

    Christian, you should know that I am with you on football (not American football), I have had folks who believe that it is “too slow”, however, I think that baseball is a slower game than football.

    I think you might have figured the actual issue as to how football is not respected in the US.

  5. I think taking fear out of teaching as much as is possible is a key to avoiding indoctrination. That’s going to be more difficult with religious instruction (for most religions) because there are usually horrible consequences if you don’t believe what you are taught. Jason thinks that’s “begging the question” because if hell is real, then there should be fear of it. Of course, the problem with that from my point of view, is that other religions all think their version of hell is real as well, so the same type of teaching is going to raise Christians and Muslims and in extreme cases abortion clinic bombers and Jihadists. As much as some Christians would like to present Christianity in a more “positive” light, it just can’t be done if any version of hell is real, and so you’re going to be “indoctrinating.” Perhaps that is just what needs to happen though if one believes hell to be real.

    I’m glad we have soccer to agree on, James! 🙂

  6. “As much as some Christians would like to present Christianity in a more “positive” light, it just can’t be done if any version of hell is real, and so you’re going to be “indoctrinating.””

    This is the crux of the debate for me.

    I spent over twenty years in the church, loving Jesus and his people. There were many, many positives. But once I’d reached the point where I couldn’t rationally accept much of what I’d spent my entire life believing in, the one thing that kept me from completely walking away was that pseudo-organic belief in hell. It took a long time for me to finally extricate those tangled fingers of fear from my mind.

    Calvary Chapel. Come for the love. Stay for the hell.

  9. The great postmodern delusion- there is no objective atonement that will allow us to escape our subjectivity. Therefore, the objective Gospel is irrelevant and we can be indifferent about it. Let’s just concentrate on loving our neighbors and becoming more moral. After all, by their fruits you shall know them. A tale of two paradigms with others vying for attention too- Mark the imputationist Protestant and Nick the infusionist Catholic. I am not expecting anything but to be ignored but since the comments are open, why not respond? What is the Gospel and can it be known are still the most important questions, me’s thinks. Hell is irrelevant to me. Why worry about it. If the Gospel is irrelevant lets just get drunk and screw.

    mark: It’s guilt, and not merely punishment, which is transferred to Christ. Christ is punished, because He really was guilty. Christ was really guilty, because of the legal transfer of the guilt of the elect. He bore their sins, and thus was under the law and death, according to Romans 6. He bore the sins of the elect in His body on the tree, according to I Peter 2:24, which is why the justified elect have died to sin and live to righteousness. No maybe or might about it. His death to sin is the elect’s death to sin.

    Nick: I think this calls for caution here. Christ was only “really guilty” in light of imputation of guilt to Him, He was not “really guilty” in that His OWN record showed guilt (which is due to sin). As for being “dead to sin,” this has nothing to do with imputation, being “dead to sin” only comes about by an inner transformation, that’s clearly Rom 6’s theme.

    Mark: so was Christ transformed inwardly from sin? Romans 6 is about Christ being under law, under sin, under death, and then not!

    Mark: no, it isn’t. It’s two states, two legal indicatives. You are begging the question. In Him means the legal imputation. In Him does not mean regeneration or transformation. The in Him is very important, but it doesn’t mean what you assume it does. There is a new creation. There is an old creation. One is in either one or the other. The text is not about an indvidual being a new creature.

    Nick: Where does “in Him” mean a legal imputation, especially from the context? The only thing “new creation” can mean is transformation, otherwise the term makes no sense. If you grant this about the concept of “new creation”, then imputation doesnt belong in this context.

    Mark: I don’t grant it. Christ was not transformed. His death did not transform Christ. His death changed His legal status. The justified elect are placed into His death, which changes their legal status. You are just repeating yourself. But unless you want to say that Christ was a sinner not by imputation, and that Christ was inwardly transformed, then your answer won’t work.

    Mark: Context: verse 14 is about the death of Christ, which death is the death of all for whom He died. This is not transformation language, so why assume that verse 17 is transformation language just because it has the word creation in it?

    Nick: Every verse doesn’t require transformation language, but even taking this verse 14, nothing demands it one way or the other. You’d have to read this as a purely legal transaction rather than a transforming one, yet it is absurd to limit Christ’s death as merely external to us rather than having a true effect in us. I don’t see how “new creation” can mean anything short of a transformation.

    Mark: So what is the significance of the second goat in Leviticus 16? Without any shedding of blood, you can still have fellowship? No death necessary. I say you need to consider both goats together, but you are not even reflecting on the second goat separately.

    Nick: There is significance to the other goat, I never suggested otherwise, I simply am saying ONLY the scapegoat is given those instructions of confessing sin over it. I never said shedding blood or death were irrelevant, just that you cannot read it as a transfer of death penalty.

    Mark: Transfer of guilt first, then the penalty/punishment. At least try to understand what I am claiming. It would be unjust for God to punish Christ without first imoputing the guilt of the elect to Christ.

    Mark: You should not simply brush off Romans 3:20–”For by works of the law no humans will be justified in his sight.” Whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are still under the law, so that every mouth will be stopped

    Nick: The “works of the Law” is what Paul is condemning, that is the commands of the Torah, not the same as any and all good works.

    Mark: Do you think the tree is good by water and/or infusion? and if you say that neither the word infusion or the word imputation is in the text, then answer me the first question: how is the tree good? Christ was good, and did good. Sinners are ungodly. Even if you managed by daily sacramental hocuspocus to change a sinner, that would not take away what the sinner did before, nor would it keep the good tree good.
    Nick: The tree example cannot be pushed too far, because Christians can still sin, and you certainly wouldn’t call a sin “good fruit.”

    Mark: But the text says either no good fruit or no bad fruit. Or do you think Jesus Christ is going too far?

    Nick: I believe the tree becomes good/alive by infusion, just as John 15 and Rom 11 speak of branches being lifeless without being attached to Christ the Vine.

    Mark: Romans 10:3 For being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to those who believe the gospel.

    Nick: That is mixing contexts, the people Paul is talking about are not Christians, thus their works (even if externally good) are not the same as Christian good works. You are falsely contrasting Christian good works with Christ’s works, though the Bible repeatedly puts the final judgement based on the former.

    Mark: If your last sentence is true, then what Christ did is at the last irrelevant. Galatians 2;:21 if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ died for no purpose. I agree that anybody who is trusting their own (even internal or non-Mosaic) righteousness is not a Christian. This is true both for Jews and also for those who profess to be Christian, but who will not submit themselves to Christ’s righteousness. They say to themselves, when the day comes, it will not be Christ’s outside righteousness, but my righteousness Christ helped me to have….

  10. I was buying the soccer argument and was about ready to consider it a real sport until Jason piped in with the ” the French are better than us at it”

  12. Entertaining blog/site. Really enjoying the various views and how it challenges me to examine what I believe.
    I’m just a tad below you as I am a drunk ex-church member. Used to think I had a solid grip on theology and then the test of time did a number on me. Did the CC circuit ( was friends with Rich Gosweiler ) and had many close friends graduate under his watch. Went on to greener pastures and went and got reformed. Even had Horton himself come to our home fellowship in Dana Point a few times.
    Nowadays – laying low with the family doing what I can to make sense of this mortal coil. I was friends with Jason on FB until he booted me out and that was a blow to my ego. I was like ( yeah, I just used that term ) screw you chump – you’re a freakin kook. Why did I even bother turning you on to Spotify? Did you see the Clash at the Hollywood Palladium? No you didn’t because you were probably riding your big wheel then and blowing all the other kids high by telling them this is just a cheap plastic toy with a fixed gear – they are not anything like a Schwinn Stingray. Never did care for Aliso Creek Pres anyway.

    Whew – glad that’s off my chest. Cheers.

  13. This Jason character sounds like a real piece of work!

    Rich Gosweiler was director of Calvary Chapel Bible College just before I went there. He was booted the semester before.

    Thanks for listening, Brian, and for sharing…and Jason obviously needs to clean up his act. 😉

  14. Oh my – that means you had to endure Larry Taylor? It has been said if you don’t have anything good to say about someone then don’t say anything.

    Screw that – Larry Taylor was a huge Bieber to me and to many close friends that were up there when he took over.

    Anyway, I was wrestling with CC and their scene – when he came along to replace Rich it solidified my hunch that CC was way off the mark.

    Did you know Johnny Girard? Still my close bud.

  17. You guys!! I can’t get this file to work! I’ll try tonight on my podcast app at the gym, but I feel like I’m skipping a chapter in a book!

Related Posts