Coffee’s Snob Factor

There’s a real snob factor that is inherit in coffee shops. For one, there’s the use of Italian names for drinks- cappuccino and latte- where it would just be simpler to say, “espresso with foamed milk” or “espresso with steamed milk.” Even with simple coffee there can be a real snobbery- some people ask for flavored coffees while others lift their noses to them, preferring to find a favorite blend or geographical location. Some coffee companies even use Italian words to denote their sizes- correcting you when you say, “medium” instead of their word.

Why all the snobbery? I think it gives these simple drinks an exotic flair. With these terms and other snobbery, you are drawn into a special circle. Once you are drawn into the circle, not only is the drink something out-of-the-ordinary, but you are as well.

The affect of all this is an ingroup-outgroup mentality. People who have mastered the coffee shop lingo are in the know; they are part of an elite group of people who know what they are ordering. Consequently, they can now look down on the “others” who don’t know the difference between a latte or cappuccino, drink flavored coffee, or use proletariat English to order their desired size of drink.

This is self-justification in the raw. Once you have become part of this ingroup of specialty coffee drinkers you are able to think of yourself as better than those on the outside. You have built yourself a coffee-righteousness that proves you are better than others.

I wonder if this is what the debate over the New Perspective of Paul is about. You see, there is a current theological debate over what Paul meant when he talked about “righteousness by faith.” The traditional understanding of this statement is that Jesus not only died for our unrighteousness (so we could be forgiven) but that his righteousness was credited to our record (so we could be accepted by God). This New Perspective says that Paul really meant that “righteousness by faith” is about the acceptability of Gentiles into God’s people along with Israel.

I am not so sure you can make this distinction so strongly. First of all, the scholars I have read state clearly that they don’t want to remove “sin” and “forgiveness” from Paul’s writings- it’s just not his major focus. Second, their point is how the Gentiles would be accepted into God’s people. They say that the Gentiles are not accepted by obeying the Jewish laws and traditions, but by faith in Christ.

This is not much different than the traditional understanding of “righteousness by faith.” Instead of describing the acceptability to a group, the traditional perspective is talking about acceptability to God. But isn’t God’s acceptance tantamount to acceptance into the group of God’s people. In other words, the issue is how God can accept you into his group.

Leaving aside the disagreement over imputation (and other things), we have found some common ground here. Whereas in Paul’s day the debate was over what made a Gentile acceptable to be part of God’s ingroup- today it could be what makes a coffee drinker accepted into the coffee-snob group. In either case people were holding people to incorrect standards to acceptability. The only real acceptance came from Christ. No one can create their own standard to allow one to be better than anyone else. If we are acceptable, it is only because of Jesus.