Sweet Tea is a Mark of the True South

In Montgomery, Alabama, a restaurant prides itself in serving out to lunch“Southern cuisine,” as though a word originating in France, the land of quiche, souffle, and Inspector Clouseau should be used to describe black-eyed peas and cornbread.

Cuisine begs to be preceded by haute or Lean and used in the same sentences as symphony and low fat, respectively, none of which seems suitable to a diet with more grease than a politician’s palm.

This particular eatery serves all the customary dishes: collards, fried okra, and cornbread muffins that leave oil slicks that would have Greenpeace burning effigies of the Exxon Valdez outside. The menus have stains, and you can probably find some of yesterday’s special on the flatware. And man, is it good. (The fresh food is even better).

The first time I ate there, my anticipation mounted exponentially as I smelled each sweet potato, country fried steak, and banana pudding. My culinary bubble burst, however, as soon as I asked for sweet tea.

Tea is one of the many things that distinguish South from North, among them goobers, the appropriate use of “y’all”, and politicians (the only real difference being that the accent allow Northern politicians to prevaricate faster).

Additionally, some of our tastes and habits seem peculiar to the Northerner unfamiliar with our ways.

For instance, when Coca-Cola came in nothing but glass bottles, well before the New Coke fiasco gave marketing geeks more than they could ruminate over, we would put salted peanuts in the bottle and imbibe the soda-nut concoction (ambrosia, some would say) with appropriate amounts of lip smacking and references to the oppressive heat.

This practice puzzles, offends, and sometimes nauseates Northerners, achieving almost the same response as a description of scrambled eggs served with pig brains.

I once treated myself, without issuing proper warnings, to this Southern delight (peanuts, not brains) in the presence of a friend from somewhere in Connecticut. I say “somewhere” because that far North, precise location becomes irrelevant. No sooner had she seen the peanuts in my Coke than she began ranting hysterically about some mishap at the bottler, thumbing through the yellow pages for a good plaintiff’s attorney, no doubt hoping I was suffering fiscally compensable mental anguish and emotional distress.

But, I digress.

Without question, the one true test of Southern eating is the tea and how it is served. The rule for proper tea presentation is really quite simple: it should be sweet, plenteous, and with the viscosity to form a pile when poured on the table. I was in my teens before I learned that tea didn’t grow with sugar already in it. I was weaned on sweet tea, and during college exams, could be seen in the library surrounded by books, ingesting Milo’s famous iced tea (a Birmingham institution) via intravenous hookup.

The very fact that one must now request sweet tea specifically is itself an indication of the failing standards of decorum. In the South, “sweet tea” is unnecessary verbiage, a redundancy on par with “red-blooded” and “confiscatory tax.”

When I ordered sweet tea that fateful day in Montgomery, the waitress looked at me and uttered awful words, in slow motion and with cavernous echo effects: We. Only. Have. Unsweet. Tea.

Adding insult to injury, she proclaimed this while gesturing to the artificial sweetener on the table.

I was shocked, astonished, dumbfounded, as if someone had questioned the Holy Trinity, the Constitution, and the Infield Fly Rule.

Frantically I looked back at the menu to see if what I suspected could possibly be true. To my continued amazement, it was. Not only had this restaurant committed the unpardonable beverage sin, it transgressed while serving fried chicken livers.

That someone could serve the cooked innards of a grounded bird, but not sweet tea, is almost unthinkable. Are they trying to be healthy?

And nothing is more insulting to a sweet tea connoisseur than for someone to suggest that artificial sweetener can be substituted for good ol’ granulated sugar (or, in protected markets, corn syrup derivatives).

Everybody knows that you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip, you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube, and you can’t sweeten cold tea.

 

How Would Jesus Govern?

Christians and the societies we populate have debated for centuries the extent to which we should be involved in the political process and in government. The wider culture also debates how much influence Christianity, and religion in general, should influence government, as evidenced by the near universal recitation of the “separation of church and state” mantra.

Despite all this, or because of it, politicians increasingly guilt the populate into either supporting or rejecting proposed government initiatives by telling us what Jesus or the Bible requires us to do.

Christians, too, maintain a vigorous intramural debate over what particular form of government and what sorts of rulers we should prefer. That is, Christians cite the Bible to one another as proof that Christians can’t vote Democrat, or Christians can’t vote Republican, and to resolve questions such as whether we should be conservative or liberal, right or left, capitalist or socialist, as well as to rally support for particular government causes, laws and programs.

Rather than approach this brier patch of issues head on, it might be better for the believer to understand what the Bible might says about goals for governmental  and personal action, and the differences between them. Accordingly, I plan to post a series of articles about how the Bible guides the Christian’s preferences for government, and how those core goals or priorities then affect the various issues we might face.

Operating Assumptions

I will operate under a couple of assumptions. First, I will be speaking to those who agree that the Bible is the Word of God, and is our functional authority for faith and life. Where it speaks to issues of government, or where reasonable inferences can be drawn, our thought and practice should yield to its direction. I hope that those who do not see the Bible this way will nevertheless find the discussion beneficial as a window into the manner in which the typical believer might navigate matters of faith and citizenry.

Second, I assume that we agree that the believer should maintain some level of involvement with the broader culture, specifically government, even if it is merely to wisely steward the privilege of participating in government through voting in an informed fashion.

For those who fear (or hope) that I might advocate for some kind of “Christian rule,” a word of comfort (or correction): it is not necessary that government officials — our “rulers” — be Christian. Neither is it prohibited. To paraphrase the late Justice Antonin Scalia, there is no “Christian way” to govern, or to flip a hamburger.

In fact, I submit that it is terribly difficult for the average Christian voter living in Alabama or Wisconsin to discern, from a distance, the legitimacy of a Washington politician’s profession of faith, or the bona fides of his theological acumen. Those determinations are not off limits for everyone, but they are instead the responsibility of the professing Christian’s local church. It would certainly be relevant, however, if one who desires us to submit to his governance does not submit himself to the local church, for it to make those determinations.

The goal for the Christian voter is not to enter the misty realm of determining whether the ruler is a good Christian, but to assess whether what he proposes is consistent with good government.

In other words, it is not required that a man be a good Christian — or a Christian at all — in order for him to be a good governor. What I hope to demonstrate is that there are, for the Christian citizen-voter, there are other biblical concepts that are better indicators of both good government and good governors.

What I will propose here are preferences — informed by the Bible — that equip the believer to vote and advocate for good government in a godly fashion.

If the Kingdom is here, why do things look the same?

Many non-Christians point to continued suffering in the world as evidence that there is, in fact, no “kingdom” of Christ. How good can the reign of a holy God be when it is attended by oppression, sickness, disaster and continued strife between men? If a “king” has come, shouldn’t we see his throne, his castle, his fortifications and armies?

Unfortunately, many believers look at the world around us and and ask the same question, leading to doubts, insecurity, and a ministry characterized by ineffectiveness and fruitlessness.

Mark 1:14-20 addresses some of those concerns. Even though the arrival of the kingdom is not accompanied by great fanfare (castles and armies and such), it demands radical change in the lives of those who hear of its arrival.

We should recognize several things about the arrival of this kingdom.

First, its Context is Immediate. Jesus says that the “time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand.” Unlike our expressions in which we use “kingdom come” as a distant event (“you could tell him that until kingdom come”), we pray “thy kingdom come” in recognition that the kingdom is both here and is also coming: it is “already, but not yet.”

Second, its Circumstance is Normal. Mark quotes Old Testament prophets to teach that John the Baptizer was the messenger before the Lord/LORD, and that Jesus is the “one greater than” John. But with the arrival of the king, and of the kingdom, Andrew and Simon still have to fish for a living. Men still need to eat. James and John still have to mend broken nets. The earth still yields thorns and thistles from the curse of the Fall (Genesis 3).

Third, its Demands are Comprehensive. The kingdom is at hand, so “repent, and believe the gospel.” When a king has conquered territory and is establishing the reign in his realm, the occupants have a choice: join the new kingdom or rebel and face the consequences.

Fourth, its Effects are Radical. The king issues a call demanding men come: 1) to him — not to a cause or to a principle; 2) to service — to become fishers of men, not to simply know something; and 3) to fellowship — he calls men to follow among others whose names they know, not to a faith that is private or anonymous. And men leave all to follow him. Andrew, Simon, James and John left their business, their family and even those on the payroll in order to follow Jesus.

Are we, too, required to quit work or leave family? Not necessarily. But we should be diligent not to permit mending nets and tending family to prevent us from following him.

The fanfare of the kingdom of Christ is the radical change of nature, the wholesale reorientation of mind and will and emotions that occurs in men when they are exposed to the arrival of the kingdom in the preaching of the gospel, hear the call of Christ, and repent and believe.

It does not matter, then, that the nets are still broken.

Does everything have to be so “biblical”?

Many people who identify themselves as Christ-followers claim to believe the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to us, and, in the words of a famous confession, is the only sure guide as to what God would have us believe about him and what duty he requires of us.

Yet one author has pointed out that the claimed authority of Scripture is much different than the ‘functional authority of the Bible,’ that is, whether Scripture actually governs faith and practice in the life of the church.

Judging by what people say, there is not much functional authority goin’ on out there. Some of the most revealing statements come from church leaders, such as deacons. I collect anecdotes of the things leaders say, and for a long time the winner (loser?) in this area was the following:

I Don’t Want to Disagree with the Scriptures, but…[I will, anyway]

The deacons at a church were discussing the formation of a search committee for pastor, and worldly standards of education and prominence had been governing who the deacons suggested for the committee. One deacon then stood and read the various passages of Scripture teaching that the body is made up of various parts, each one fulfilling a specific role, and suggested that the deacons look to the spiritual qualifications and giftedness of its members to determine who should comprise the search committee. There was no discussion, but another deacon stood and began his defense of the former, traditional option with, “I don’t want to disagree with the Scriptures, but…”

That example has been relegated to position number two by the following:

Does Everything Have to be so Biblical?

The pastor had expressed his objection to the proposed Christmas program, which was more It’s a Wonderful Life than Advent, and a deacon, obviously growing tired of the preacher’s explanations, said “Biblical, biblical, biblical. Does everything this church does have to be so biblical?”

Well, one would hope so…

Four Ways to Renew Your Mind Biblically

As we are putting off sin and putting on righteousness, we should also be renewing our minds according to the pattern of Ephesians 4:22-24. These aren’t sequential steps that are left behind upon completion, but logical steps that are repeated in application.

1. Bible Intake

Bible-reading is one of the “twin pillars” of the Christian life, together with prayer. That Bible reading and prayer are pillars of the Christian walk is certain, but the imagery may not suffice. Two pillars won’t support much, but need at least a third pillar to constitute a proper structure.

Similarly, Bible reading and prayer inevitably lead to at least a third and fourth “pillar” for mind renewal.

Bible intake refers to the various aspects of how we encounter and relate to the Word of God in written form. There are four such aspects: Reading & Hearing; Studying; Meditating; and Memorizing.

Reading & Hearing the Bible is no more complicated than it sounds. When we read we are “hearing” the words in our head, and it is no accident that the heard word is crucial to God’s revealing himself to man. A good practice of Bible intake will include both reading and hearing the Bible, whether we hear as we read aloud, ourselves, or hear others read aloud. This is where Bible reading plans come into play, and involves regular intake of the Word in quantity.

Studying the Bible goes further than simply reading or hearing. This is where the various Bible study methods are employed (e.g., Observation, Interpretation, Application) and outside resources are consulted to help gain a better understanding of the text’s meaning. While Reading & Hearing are for the regular intake of the Word in quantity, Studying is for particular intake of the Word in quality.

Meditating on biblical truth is filling the mind with the truth of God’s word for personal application and change. Thomas Watson remarked that “The reason we come away so cold from reading the Word is because we do not warm ourselves at the fire of meditation.” Terms for meditation in Old Testament include aspects of “growling” and “murmuring”, and is why one commentator refers to biblical meditation as “muttering over” the Word. My grandfather would have called this “chewing the cud,” in homage to the cow, who will chew, swallow, and bring back up to chew some more.

Meditation might include such things as emphasizing different words in the text, writing the text in your own words, praying through the text, and deriving personal applications from the text.

Memorizing the Bible is almost a natural result from Reading, Studying and Meditating on it. In an age of instant access to the Internet and a plethora of Bible sources, memorization is a skill that has fallen on hard times. But as ubiquitous as Bible sources are for us, memorizing still has enormous benefits for us, spiritually.

2. Prayer

If Bible intake is the primary means by which we hear God speaking to us, the primary means of our speaking to him is prayer. The “twin pillars” of Bible intake and Prayer form the facade, or entrance, of our disciplines structure.

Prayer should be natural to the believer, and for that reason times of spontaneous, informal prayer are those with which we are most familiar. But prayer should also include times of planned, intentional prayer. A good practice is to write a list of every person, circumstance, need and concern that naturally comes to mind, and every one that the Bible tells us to pray. This will demonstrate for us that another good tool in prayer is a schedule for regular prayer for all the people and concerns in our lives.

As Jesus’ pattern prayer demonstrates (Matthew 6:9-13), a key function of prayer is to re-orient our thinking and asking to God: “hallowed be your name; your kingdom come, your will be done.” This is mind-renewal at its core.

3. Self-Examination/Reflection

A life worth living is a live worth examining. Or, an unexamined life is not worth living. Someone said something similar, but the important thing is that God has told us in his word to examine ourselves. When we arrive at an understanding, however imperfect, of what God’s word says, the next thing to naturally assess is what it requires, of me.

Journaling is a key aspect of self-examination and reflection because it allow us to review previous conclusions about our reading and study, matters we’ve offered to God in prayer, and areas of needed improvement. If “journaling” is problematic, just make some notes about those things, and review them occasionally.

Whether or not you journal (or keep notes), it is vital to renewing our minds that we compare ourselves to the standard of God that he sets in Scripture.

4. Learning

It might seem redundant to list Learning after Bible intake and Prayer, or contrary to the idea that the Word is our necessary guide for all matters of life and faith. But we recognize that we learn in community with the family of faith, in discipling, in mentoring, and so forth. There are many good and useful books out there, after all.

Additionally, to apply biblical truth to all of life, exercising dominion as in the creation mandate, then we would also learn about aspects of life to which we want to apply it, such as politics, medicine, science, culture and so forth.

In an upcoming post we’ll talk about the Putting On practices of spiritual discipline.

Neighborhoods more Neighborly than Church?

In my hopefully-soon-to-be-former profession [I was formerly a lawyer], I frequently encounter people upset about restrictive covenants.

Restrictive covenants are sets of agreements that homeowners in a particular subdivision or neighborhood abide by as a condition of owning a home there. Most of the restrictions are fairly simple, mostly common sense, and in south Alabama consist mainly of 1) promising not to put your car on blocks in the front yard, and 2) limiting yourself to 3 chickens, 2 goats or some combination thereof but not exceeding a total of 4 non-pet livestock (I can say this – in jest – because I have, at one time or another: had a car on blocks (in the back yard), raised chickens and rabbits, and grown a row garden complete with scarecrows, all only a few blocks from downtown).

People get very exercised about restrictive covenants, whether their apoplexy manifests in bristling at being told they must put white lights on a leafless tree at Christmas, or bristling that their neighbor two streets over did not put white lights on such a tree. We spend inordinate amounts of time and emotional energy stressing about whether the homeowner’s association – charged with enforcing the restrictive covenants – may, in fact, tell one of the members that his choice of landscape plants makes his house resemble a sunflower farm, and whether it should incorporate and purchase liability insurance to protect the ones unfortunate enough to tell a neighbor that his live-in RV, parked on the back patio and hooked in to the neighborhood sewer system, must go.

By significant contrast, it is virtually impossible in most congregations of Christian churches for members to become exercised about anything. Well, almost. But the things over which most congregations get exercised don’t quite seem righteous: someone sat in the wrong pew; preacher drives the wrong make of car; moderator has an “agenda”; teacher doesn’t use the right curriculum; pool hall across the street wants a liquor license.

The Bible has its own set of “restrictive covenants” for those who are truly neighbors, not merely in the geographical sense, but in the spiritual sense; those who have covenanted with each other to live kingdom lives under mutual submission to each other and to God through Christ. These covenants don’t tell us how many pets we can have, how many cars we can drive, or what sorts of decorations are approved. They do tell us that we are part of one another: rebuke one another, exhort one another, encourage one another, reprove one another. And we are not expected act a certain way so that our property values will remain high, but so that the witness of Christ will remain pure, the glory of God remain unblemished, so that we may “present every man complete in Christ” (Colossians 1:28-29).

If we were as concerned to present ourselves a living sacrifice, acceptable to God, as we are to ensure our hedges are trimmed, sidewalks are edged, and appraisals are high, we might see dramatic changes in the proclamation of the word we claim, in the sanctification of the neighbors we love, and in the glorification of the God we serve.

The Computer has Spoken about your Root Beer

One drawback to getting ideas for columns is that inspiration out to lunchusually hits at the most inopportune times. For me, that’s usually while I’m driving somewhere.

Inspiration hits miles from the site of intellectual provocation and I find myself steering with one knee, controlling the gas with the other foot, trying to scribble notes on a chocolate-stained napkin with a pen I salvaged from the legion of biscuit crumbs and bottle caps that seem to always find their way underneath the seats, balancing a Gargantuan Gulp in my lap and attempting to hold a Reese’s cup between my teeth without it melting and drooping onto my shirt.

I look and feel every bit like a piece of modern art, and my notes resemble the incoherent tracks of a beetle suffering muscle spasms after walking through an ink vat.

Not too long ago, I stopped in at one of those icons of immediate gratification, the Qwiki Mart. Aside from selling everything from milk to motor oil at healthy prices, convenience stores certainly throw a wrench into the good intentions of anyone attempting to spell in English.

Having said that, I should confess that certain local establishments have dedicated entire aisles to me in honor of my frequent business there.

I had been craving IBC Root Beer, and somewhere close to the Georgia line decided to stop in for some on the way home. It would have been more fun to cover myself in chicken fat and slap the nearest pit bull on the nose.

There was only one pack of root beer remaining in the cooler, and one of the bottles had been removed. It is, after all, the era of immediate gratification, and the perpetrator likely drank the root beer before making it past the pickled egg jar.

Not to be outdone, I took the pack to the cashier and asked if there were any more in back.

No.

“Well, can you deduct the price of one bottle from the price of the six-pack?

No.

“So, I have to pay the six-pack price for a “five-pack,” so to speak?

Yes.

“Why can’t you charge me for only five?

The computer won’t allow it. Besides, you’re already paying $4.29 for that “courtesy” cup of ice.

After recovering from the unexpected flood of conversation and thinly veiled ridicule so deftly delivered by the attendant, I realized I had inadvertently hit upon the cause of so much post-modern angst prevalent in society.

The. Computer. Won’t. Allow. It.

What has been heralded as a great time-saving device was wreaked havoc upon the ability of typical people to improvise, to accommodate, to make allowances.

Standing in the Kwiki Mart that day, debating petit economics, discovering the practical limits of modern mathematics education, holding four dollars’ worth of ice and hoping I wouldn’t lose three dollars’ worth to “global warming” before reaching the car, I realized that I was a symbol, a type, a representative of all sentient life forms unfamiliar with silicon chips, modems, bytes, bits, RAM, ROM, and not requiring alternating current to exist.

I now live in defiance of Computer, and sit around the house with my abacus, grey matter, pencil and paper, doing in hours what those Online can do in seconds.

Besides, has anyone else stopped to think that labels such as “Internet” and “World Wide Web” all refer to bondage?