For the Reformed Among Us

I came across these great pint glasses the other day and thought I would pass it along to our readers. They can be purchased here and would make a wonderful gift for Adam (or me).

If You're Really Reformed.....

Shane Lems has an excellent post over at The Reformed Reader, which in many ways piggy-backs upon my last post. He writes:

In other words, Christian liberty (as with all true liberty!) has boundaries. Christian liberty is tempered with love for neighbor (think of him/her before our liberty) and self-denial (we don’t need to indulge in this liberty). If Christian liberty is not tempered with love for neighbor and self-denial, it is more like a high school fad (i.e. the brand of jeans you wear) than a Christian ethic.

The Unprofessional Beer Review: Beer Face-Off!

In the first corner, we have Three Philosophers. This beer is a belgian-style ale mixed with cherry-Lambic. In the other corner, we have Mikkeller. Mikkeller is an oatmeal stout brewed with coffee. Some might say that comparing these two beers in a head-to-head face-off is not only unfair, but is like comparing apples to oranges. Well to them I say, "This is the Unprofessional Beer Review. Since when have we cared about proper beer etiquette or fairness!?"

On to Three Philosophers. Interestingly enough, for me, this beer starts off with an unfair advantage because Belgian Ales happen to be my favorite type of beer. First impressions are quite strong. An excellent cream-colored head and dark amber color. The beer is not heavily filtered and is well-balanced; this is a good ale. The thing which really sets this beer apart, however, is its prominent cherry flavor. This is due to the fact that the beer is 98% belgian ale and 2% cherry-Lambic. With an alcohol content of 9.8%, I was surprised that the alcohol taste was not at all prominent; it was very balanced. Overall, my impression of this beer is that it is delicious, with a tremendous twist on the traditional belgian ale.

Next up is Mikkeller. This is an intimidatingly dark beer. It is darker and thicker than Guinness; seriously. The head is thick and dark. The smell is sweet and strong with a clear coffee smell. The taste is immediately delicious; not a hint of bitterness like I find with Guinness. There is no aftertaste. The coffee taste is as prevalent as is the smell. The oatmeal influence in the brew is very faint, but it is present.

It's a bit unfair to choose between these two beers since they are each meant to be something far different from the other. In this face-off, however, I am choosing Mikkeller if nothing else than for the reason that it is so dramatically interesting. I'm sure there are seasoned beer drinkers who have been there and done that in relation to beers like this, but Mikkeller is something so interesting that I have to hand it the fight. Each drink tastes different from the last, and for such variety, Mikkeller wins!

[For the record, this conclusion was shared unanimously between myself and three others who were involved in the fellowshipping and beer tasting as well.]

The Unprofessional Beer Review: Orval Trappist Ale

Orval monastery is the only Trappist monastery in the world which brews only one beer, and that alone makes it stand out. Hailing from Belgium, the beer is triple fermented, with the final stage of fermentation taking place in the bottle itself. I am also told that if I were patient enough to wait for it, the beer would become smoother if I let it sit in the dark for around a year before pouring it. I'm far too impatient for that.

The abbey was founded in 1070 by Benedictines from Calabria. Over the years it has been destroyed and rebuilt during Charlamagne (12th Century), during the French Revolution, and finally revamped during the 1920s and 30s. In addition to Orval Trappist Ale, the monastery also sells crusty brown breads and two cheeses in its gift shop. Orval is a widely regarded trappist ale. One reviewer writes of Orval, "No other beer can be said to match the character of Orval." Quite a claim. Does it stack up?

In my opinion, this beer is Amazing. Quite simply, amazing. This is the most delicious, satisfying, and complex beer I have personally ever tasted. True, the fact that it sells for just over $6 a bottle might skew my perception a bit, but I am being quite honest when I say that I love it, and that everyone should buy a bottle of this at least once. I may never be able to drink Newcastle again, after having Orval.

Pouring is a wonderful experience. As it slides down the edge of the glass into the bottom, the rather dense and thick head on the brew rises almost in perfect proportion to the volume in the bottom of the glass. To give you an idea how long the head on the glass has lasted, I poured my glass over 20 minutes ago, and there is still a 1/4" head remaining, and it appears to be there for good. Most ales lose their head after a few minutes, but not Orval.

The brew has a very distinct orange color which comes by way of the abbey's uniquely specified mixture of three malts, Bavarian Hallertau and Yugoslavian Styrian Goldings hops, yeast, and finally, white candy sugar is added in the kettle. A most delicious aftertaste without the slightest hint of bitterness, Orval is clean tasting, but far from simplistic.

It is, quite simply, my new favorite beer. (One may argue that my favorite beer is whichever one I happen to be holding at the moment.) Now, I also have a bottle of Chimay Blue waiting for me, but I may wait awhile before trying it. I want to let Orval have its week on the beer throne.

Jesus the Connoisseur: He Got That Party Kickin'

I am surrounded by people (this is absolutely true) who dismiss Jesus' making wine at the wedding of Cana as evidence of Jesus' approval of alcohol consumption, because they says that Jesus did not make alcohol, but rather, grape juice. On what basis do they deny the alcohol content of Jesus' brew? Their rationale ties into the statement of the man running the party. After trying Jesus' impressive batch of wine, this is what he says:

"Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now."

Now, the rationale follows thusly:
A: Jesus made 120 gallons of wine, and if it was alcoholic, he would have been aiding in people getting drunk, because 120 gallons is a whole lot of drinkin'.
B: The "good wine" is non-alcoholic, because non-alcoholic tastes better than alcoholic.
C: Some argue that to make fermented wine would be no miracle at all, because new wine was harder to come by (since juice fermented quickly in the heat).

Well, in response to argument A, the moderationist agrees that Jesus would not have helped people get drunk, and so - assuming the wine really was alcoholic - there is no reason to suppose this was a small wedding. In fact, it must have been either very large, or Jesus intended to waste a massive quantity of drink. In either case, there is no reason to believe that Jesus was making wine for a small gathering.

In response to argument B, Jesus is in strong disagreement with the notion that non-alcoholic wine is thought to be the better wine. In Luke 5:39, Jesus declares that "No man also having drunk old [wine] straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." Clearly, if the headmaster of the wedding thought Jesus' wine was better, his taste would be strange and out of step if he actually preferred new wine instead of old wine. And let me also say, he would not be much of wine connoisseur today, either. In fact, they probably wouldn't let him be a contributing writer for Wine Enthusiast magazine. Maybe he could be editor for Grape Juice Quarterly, but I hear their circulation is very small (not a whole lot of demand for grape juice enthusiasts, I suppose).

Finally, I can only say in response to argument C that turning water into alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine still looks like a miracle to me. After all, water doesn't just turn into a pinot noir on it's own.

Get over it, people: the Lord God Himself made 120 gallons of good, moderate drinking.

PS: Yes, I did have to look up the correct spelling of "Connoisseur."

The Unprofessional Beer Review: Calvinus Bière Artisanale Blonde Bio

A gift from one of my church elders upon his return from Geneva, Switzerland, this beer not only sports the image of Reformed Theology's elder statesman, but it bears instructions that it is to be consumed at "4° - 6° C even outside the hours of devotion." I don't want to hype this beer up too much, but I was a bit timid about trying it, considering how it was brought by hand from the Fatherland and it has the image of Calvin on it. But I had a home-grilled hamburger for dinner, and decided this was the right moment to break open this intimidating brew.

The initial appearance of the beer, once poured, is golden and cloudy with a nice half-inch head on it. Calvinus is lightly carbonated with small bubbles throughout. I didn't care too much for the smell of it, to be honest, but I was pleasantly surprised by the sweetness of it. There are strong hints of citrus and barley; I almost felt there was too much of a sweet/citrusy presence, really, but it also seems to have a lot of complex flavors going on that I am simply too inexperienced to identify. The aftertaste was very faint, and not at all bothersome. I remember remarking to my wife after drinking it that it didn't leave a stinky funk in my mouth like Guinness tends to do. All in all, it is very easy to drink and an extraordinary refreshment after a long day of hard work.

Writing about it makes me want to drink the second bottle I have saved, but alas, I'm saving that one until the world collapses around me or until Jesus returns and decides to have dinner with me before blowing everything up.

How To Drink Like a Christian: Part 2 (The Danger of Drunkenness)

“The excess of drunkenness is compared to the danger of the sea, in which when the body has once been sunken like a ship, it descends to the depths of turpitude, overwhelmed in the mighty billows of wine; and the helmsman, the human mind, is tossed about on the surge of drunkenness, which swells aloft; and buried in the trough of the sea, is blinded by the darkness of the tempest, having drifted away from the haven of truth, till, dashing on the rocks beneath the sea, it perishes, driven by itself into voluptuous indulgences.” -Clement of Alexandria

"Some of the domestic evils of drunkenness are houses without windows, gardens without fences, fields without tillage, barns without roofs, children without clothing, principles, morals or manners." -Benjamin Franklin

"I drink too much. Way too much. I gave a urine sample, there was an olive in it." -Rodney Dangerfield

It is a common misconception that the Puritans, when they came to America, were teetotalers. It just isn’t true, because along with food and families, they also brought another necessity to lift their spirits and promote joyfulness before the Lord: wine and beer. In fact, the Puritans loaded more beer than water onto the Mayflower before they cast off for the New World.(1) “Local brewing began almost as soon as the colonists were safely ashore." Considering the (mostly unfair) reputation Puritans have gained as being moral tightwads, some may be surprised to know that the old Puritans were moderationists. Consider the words of Increase Mather: “Drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan; the wine is from God, but the drunkard is from the Devil.”

This quote stands somewhat in contrast to the words of an old pastor of mine who once called wine “the nectar of the devil,” and “the devil’s poison.” Whereas Mather pointed to drunkenness as the work of the devil, prohibitionists such as my old pastor (as I touched on in the last post) identify the substance itself as the evil to be cleansed and avoided.

In truth, there are real dangers associated with alcohol (as with any and all of God's gifts). These dangers are at the forefront of most prohibitionist arguments, but this need not be the case. Drunkenness happens when someone drinks more alcohol than they ought to, but when self-control is exercised, this is something that simply will not happen.

The Bible is full of warnings against the abuse of alcohol. John Piper nicely sums up the Bible's warnings against abusing alcohol:

[P]riests were prohibited from drinking wine or strong drink while serving the tent of God (Leviticus 10:9). Part of the Nazirite vow was total abstinence (Numbers 6:3). The Proverbs warn against the dangers of strong drink: "Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; and whoever is led astray by it is not wise" (20:1). "Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of the eyes? Those who tarry long over wine, those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your mind utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. 'They struck me,' you will say, 'but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I will seek another drink'" (23:29–35). "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink; lest they drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights of all the afflicted" (31:4, 5). The prophets also attacked the abuse of strong drink: "Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink, who tarry late into the evening till wine inflames them" (Isaiah 5:11). And in the New Testament Paul repeatedly denounces drunkenness as a work of the flesh (Ephesians 5:18; Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:7). And it appears that Timothy had committed himself to total abstinence for a while, because Paul had to urge him, "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach" (1 Timothy 5:23).

Piper then sums up the Bible's position (in part, anyway) by stating that "The least we can infer from all this is that while drinking is not always viewed as wrong, its dangers and harmfulness were such as to call forth numerous warnings, and in some cases (priestly service, Nazirite vow, Timothy's apostolic efforts) abstinence was seen as commendable. Drunkenness is always wrong."

Now, anyone who knows Piper's position knows that he takes further steps than some by opting not to drink for four reasons: "First, I choose not to drink because of my conscience. The second reason is that alcohol is a mind-altering drug. The third reason why I choose total abstinence is that alcohol is addictive. The fourth reason I choose total abstinence is to make a social statement." I do not follow Piper in his cautious approach, but I also do no condemn him for it. He has his reasons for abstaining, and for him, it would be a violation of his own conscience (and therefore a sin) to drink.

I do, however, take issue with people in Piper's position when they take their conviction and turn it into a command (which Piper, himself, does not do), condemning individuals for partaking of something which is not sinful simply because they choose to exercise caution. Nothing made Jesus angrier (except, perhaps, selling trinkets in church) than when religious leaders made up laws for God's people to follow.

In sum, it should be obvious that though alcohol is given to man as a good and a source of happiness, its abuse leads to drunkenness, which is a great evil and is forbidden.

PS: Read this story. I pretty much base all of my arguments for the morality of alcohol on this one story. (Just kidding.)

Next Time: The Blessing of Alcohol and Its Uses



Postscript:

Is this man drunk, or merely slain in the spirit? That's a serious question too, by the way, because I really can't tell the difference.

(1) Royce, James E. Alcohol Problems: A Comprehensive Survey. New York: Free Press, 1981, 38.

How To Drink Like A Christian: Part 1 (Positively Biblical)

Virtually all Christian denominations agree that drunkenness is a sin. For most of the existence of the Christian church, however (until, perhaps, the 18th century), alcohol has been understood as a gift of God which – like any of His good and glorious gifts – can be abused. Martin Luther responded to those who believed drinking alcohol to be a sin because it can be abused with his own argument. If alcohol’s abuse is an argument for its sinfulness, then this approach, he reasoned, should be applied in other areas. For example, he asked, how many women have led to the downfall of men? Or how many feasts have led to gluttony and obesity? If we followed the logic of prohibitionists, Luther said, then all the women would be dead and our food would all be gone! Surely, he suggested, there must be a better way of understanding the Bible's teachings regarding alcohol.

To begin with, we should be clear that there are many biblical passages which speak of alcohol in a negative way – but as I will demonstrate in later posts, these amount to helpful cautions against excess rather than outright prohibitions (assuming Scripture speaks consistently with itself, which I strongly believe). Now, I almost always find that my end of the conversation with prohibitionists normally ends up being very defensive, as they have a lot of verses they think seal the deal once and for all regarding God’s hatred for alcohol. So since I rarely get the chance, I am going to turn the tables and offer my reasons why things are not so clear cut. The Bible does have positive things to say about alcohol, and I’m sure I’m leaving out a lot of references, but this is a blog after all, and not a book. Perhaps my fellow readers will comment and add to these:

-Deuteronomy 14:26 says that it is a good thing to drink wine and beer as something to enjoy in God’s presence. “Then you may spend the money however you wish for cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or whatever you desire. You and your household may eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and enjoy it.”

-Job 1:13 refers to Job’s godly family as drinking wine.

-In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek (a type of Christ) gave wine to Abraham.

-Psalm 104:14-15 says that God made wine. “He provides grass for the cattle, and crops for people to cultivate, so they can produce food from the ground, as well as wine that makes people feel so good, and so they can have oil to make their faces shine, as well as food that sustains people’s lives.”

-Proverbs 3:10 speaks of wine as part of God’s blessing of abundance.

-Isaiah 25:6 speaks of God as preparing a feast with “aged wine” (clearly not simply grape juice, right?).

-There are several places where God punishes people by taking their wine away (Jer 48:33; Lam 2:12; Hos 2:9; Joel 1:10; Hag 2:16).

-Jesus told many offensive stories and parables where wine or wineskins or vineyards were involved (for the prohibitionist, wouldn’t this be like if Jesus made a point by using employees at the local strip club as part of his illustration?) At one point, Jesus paints God as the vinedresser in one of his parables. If this were such a sinful substance (even granting that a “substance” could actually be evil in and of itself), why would Jesus so closely associate himself and his Father with it?

-In Romans 14:21, the Apostle Paul cautions believers against drinking freely around weaker brethren who may have more scruples regarding the dos and don’ts of the Christian life. This only makes sense if Paul is telling drinking believers to drink in private and not around the weaker brethren. Also, it only makes sense if the wine being consumed is alcoholic, since, to my knowledge, non-alcoholic drinks don’t offend anyone’s sensibilities.

According to Keith Matthison, “Prohibitionism errs by confusing the Christian virtues of temperance and moderation with abstinence and prohibition and by locating the evil in the object that is abused rather in the heart and deeds of the abuser.” In the early church, this was part of the struggle against heretical Gnosticism, because the Gnostics identified substances such as alcohol as evil and therefore took water at communion instead of wine.

This should be of particular interest, because at its root, prohibitionism’s good intentions lead it to a place where it essentially calling a substance evil. Consider, again, the Apostle’s statement that “nothing is evil in and of itself,” or Jesus’ declaration that “it is not that which goes into a man which makes him unclean, but that which comes out of him.” Prohibitionism stands in direct contrast to the biblical idea that substances are not in and of themselves evil. Essentially, all sin can be traced to an abuse of some gift of God’s, be it lust (an abuse of the gift of sex), gluttony (an abuse of God’s gift of food), theft (an abuse of personal property and freedom), or murder (an abuse of self-defense). The list could go on and on, I’m sure. Alcohol is also a gift from God, and was given to man for his happiness, just like all of God's other gifts. As Luther pointed out, if we abolished all dangerous gifts, we would have a world without women or food, wouldn't we?

I would write more, but I’m going to go have a pint, now. But let me be clear: only one pint, which segues us into our next post.

Next Time: The Danger of Drunkenness

Does Grape Juice Offend You?

I am on the verge of doing some hardcore studying regarding the ethics of alcohol in the Christian life, and the Bible's teaching on whether alcohol is alright. This will probably manifest itself in the form of (hopefully) in-depth blog-posts here at Bring the Books. What I wanted to do today was comment on what I believe is an extremely potent argument that Christians are permitted to drink alcoholic wine. As iron sharpens iron, perhaps some input could help me to understand if I should be as confident about the clarity and strength of this verse as I am. Let me try this Aquinas-style.

Assertion: The Bible always condemns the consumption of alcohol. When it does seem to make a positive reference regarding alcohol, it is actually referencing a non-alcoholic drink such as grape juice.

On the Contrary: As the apostle says in Romans 14:21, "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." The context of this verse is that Paul is talking about Christian freedom. Earlier, in verse 14, Paul sets forth that "there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." The context is that Paul says that love for our brethren is more important than the exercise of our freedom and liberties. The crucial factor I want to examine is the curious inclusion of drinking wine along with eating meat in verse 21. If the prohibitionist perspective is accurate, and alcohol is always wrong (except, as some allow, for medicinal purposes), what is to be thought of Paul's statement that we should not drink wine if it offends or causes to stumble?

The traditional response is to say that this reference to wine here is to the "best wine," or the freshest off of the vine - unfermented wine (aka grapejuice). However, pretty serious contextual problems arise if we understand Paul as here referring to unfermented wine; most notably the fact that grape juice does not offend anyone. I repeat: there is nobody on the face of the planet who becomes offended by seeing someone drink grape juice. My 2 year old drinks grape juice, I drink grape juice, even prohibitionists drink grape juice. It is literally an unoffendable substance. It is more controversial to drink bottled water in some circles than it is to drink grape juice.

Let me counter by suggesting that in the context of Paul's day, it makes a lot more sense to understand him as referring to real alcohol and meat as two examples of things which are permissible and yet offensive to some.

Let me only add as a postscript that there may be some who say that since alcohol offends so many Christians, (regardless whether it is okay in and of itself) then everyone should abstain completely. Paul, however, does not feel this way, according to verse 22: "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God." We are to enjoy the liberty of conscience while at the same time publicly abstaining from them because there are well-meaning teetotaler's out there. You're welcome, teetotalers.

Next time: "How To Drink Like a Christian"

The Unprofessional Beer Review: Bass Ale

I wanted to be cool and hip like Parker and Stellman, so I wanted to post a blog like them. This is the best I can do, what can I say; I am a theological egghead. I am no good at the culture stuff, but boy do I long to be.

I thought the best thing for me to do was post a beer review, after all, I am reformed and I love beer. The most natural choice for my beer review is the greatest beer on the planet (now, keep in mind, I have only had about 20 different kinds of beer), Bass Ale.

Anyone who knows me, knows this is my favorite beer. Near my home in Clinton, MS there is a grocery store that has a build your own six pack (you know pick any six beers you want). Every time I go and build a six pack, I inevitably walk out with at least four Bass Ale. What can I say, I love this beer.

A bit about the history of Bass Ale; this beer is brewed in England by Bass & Co Brewery, which was established by William Bass in 1777. They are most famous for their pale ale (which is the one I like). Bass was one of the original FT 30 companies on the London Stock Exchange when the listing was established in 1935. Business was up and the beer was moving because of its great taste.

Now about the beer itself; when it is poured it is a clear reddish amber with a modest tan head that dispels quickly. You want your imperial pint glass filled to the brim with nothing but the good stuff, and that’s how this beer is designed. The aroma is mostly the sweet malt. Bass is a well balanced beer, plenty of flavor, and a clear after taste. Those sweet caramel malts register first, then the hops give it just a touch of a bitter ending, barely worth mentioning. The flavor coats your mouth for awhile. You don’t forget what you’ve drank after the swallow. It’s light or barely medium bodied, but the taste sticks around.

If you are looking for a fairly inexpensive beer that will go great with dinner or as an after dinner snack, this is the beer for you. But you must make me a promise if you are going to drink this beer, you must drink it to the glory of God. “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

The Unprofessional Beer Review: La Fin Du Monde

"So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31

Here at Bring the Books, we not only feel that we should eat to the glory of God, but we also feel that the things we drink should be to His glory, as well. This morning, I had orange juice and coffee, but that's not interesting. What is interesting, though, is what I had this evening with the men in my "accountability group" which meets (seemingly) on a bi-annual basis. And so begins what I hope will be a new tradition here at Bring the Books: The Unprofessional Beer Review.

Now, drinking beer has a rich history in Reformed circles. Martin Luther was known to throw a few back in his day, and how boring would monastic life have been living under the Roman Catholic regime if it hadn't been for beer? It's a rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway: very boring.

In fact, I recall one of our professors sitting in class making an extraordinary attempt to paint the image of Martin Luther, beads of sweat on his forehead as he tried to understand Romans. Part of our professor's word-image of Luther was the image of this irreverent, farting genius, dividing Christendom; all the while holding this half-empty Steiner with a few notches carved into the handle. It was in this moment that I looked around at my Reformed friends in class and thought, "There is nothing un-Christian about drinking beer." I realized that this is a rich and long-held tradition which has only recently (in the last two hundred years, the same time frame for the rise of dispensationalism, coincidentally) come under the scrutiny of the tea-totalers.*

And so, we here at Bring the Books are taking back beer for Jesus. And tonight, I want to make my first toast to a glorious drink called La Fin Du Monde, which is french for "The End of the World." And might I say, dear friends, that if the world was ending tonight, this is the drink you would want clutched under one arm with your Bible in the other. A light triple-fermented beer, this is a light ale which I greatly enjoyed. It is light without a strong or obnoxious aftertaste. Bottled in Canada, we now have just one more reason to keep our finger away from the button and aim those nukes back at Antarctica where they belong. At 9% alcohol, I was the first one at my mens' group tonight confessing my sins and opening my heart for all my accountability partners to see.

Of course, we here at Bring the Books do not condone drunkenness, so I cannot emphasize enough that the 1 1/2 Pint bottle is meant to be shared in Christian fellowship. Remember: drinking alone is not only sad, but if you finish off the whole bottle, you will be in violation of Scriptural prohibitions against drunkenness. (Unless you're a lightweight like Josh Walker, in which case you should only have about a thimble-full.) After having half the bottle, not only was I feeling good, but I still had enough faculties about me to recite the pledge of allegiance, recite the alphabet backwards, and walk in a straight line, but I was even able to present compelling reasons why Christians should abandon this whole trendy global warming bandwagon.

Overall, in my unprofessional opinion, I rate La Fin Du Monde a solid 8.0 on a scale of 1 to 10, and I highly recommend it for the purposes of fellowshipping with fellow believers. The bottle is big enough for sharing, and the flavor is very light and delicious with hardly any aftertaste (I'm not a big fan of aftertastes). You've done it again, Canada. You've done it again!

*[Sorry, tea-totalers, but this simply is not an article defending alcohol. Maybe I'll write one in the future if a lot of abolitionists cry out against it, but this beer review is not the place where that's going to happen. I may write an article defending the occasional use of tobacco (which I have been made aware is apparently talked about all over Scripture!) for the purposes of Christian fellowship, but this is, again, neither the time nor the place for that.]