In fact, I have spoke to several home brewers who, while familiar with the terms, have no clue what they mean, or how to properly use a hydrometer.  I know I didn’t some years ago!  So, let’s clear it up.

What is gravity when we talk about beer (and other liquids)?  Specifically, what is specific gravity?  Simply put, it is the density of water:  a measurement of the density of water.   Just like there is a scale to determine key temperatures of water (120 degrees Fahrenheit/ 100 degrees centigrade) there is a scale for density.  The specific gravity of water at a given temperature is (i.e 60 degrees)  1.000.

Obviously beer is not just water, and neither is pre-beer (or wort, un-fermented sugar water).  If a brewer is making beer, starts with water (1.000 on the scale) and adds sugar extracted from malted barley, the specific gravity of the water (now a solution) will rise.  But how does one know how dense this new solution (wort) is?  That’s where the hydrometer comes in.

I once spent half a summer in Hawaii.  I spent nearly everyday in the Pacific, surfing, swimming, snorkeling, and practicing my underwater dance routine.  After 6 weeks of bliss, I headed home.  With an overnight layover in LA, I took a dip in the hotel pool.  Unaccustomed to swimming in water that lack salt, I sank like lead.  Why?  The Pacific ocean was more dense than regular H20 and had provided my body with buoyancy.  A hydrometer is like my body, only much less sexy.  It is placed in a solution like wort, and, depending on the density of the solution it will float lower or higher.  There is a scale on the hydrometer that the brewer observes.  If the surface of the wort crosses the 1.040 mark on the hydrometer, the brewer knows that his/her beer has a potential for 5.1% alcohol after fermentation.

But a beer never ferments back to 1.000, and thank God…that would be one nasty beer.  There would be no residual sweetness left to balance out the bitter hops.  So after fermentation the brewer takes a second reading.  Why a second reading?  Well, fermentation is basically the consumption of sugar by yeast with alcohol as a byproduct.  After fermentation, the wort gets closer to density (gravity) that the water was before sugar was dissolved in it.  Let’s suppose the wort fermented down to 1.010.  The brewer can see that there is approximately 1.030 of alcohol in the brew (3.6% ABV).  A more detailed formula is used by many:  1.040 – 1.030 =.03 X 129 = 3.87% ABV?  Ive met a couple of home brewers (and one mead enthusiast) who assumed that the first reading of the hydrometer equaled the final ABV of the product.  The mead brewer (who brewed his stuff ridiculously sweet) was sorely disappointed to learn that his mead wasn’t as boozy as he’d assumed.

Make sense?  I hope so.  I tried to make this simple and easy to understand, knowing full well that I could write a chapter on measurements of alcohol in beer, scales, tools used, etc.   Cheers!

(Oh yeah…if you know anything about the first picture in this article, you will know that the brewers behind that beast must have had a really big hydrometer.  I wonder if it’s true what they say about brewers with big hydrometers….)

Let me preface why I am writing this article.  A little while ago my wife and I found a babysitter for our five children and decided to meet some friends for dinner.  Since we only go out a handful of times throughout the year we chose  a slightly upscale four star jazz restaurant that I had heard had a good beer selection.

Upon opening the menu, I realized that while the dig offered over a hundred martinis, the best brew I could order was a Stone Pale Ale.  What a let down!  Not that there is anything wrong with a Stone Pale Ale (it is quite refreshing!), just on this rare outing I was hoping to have my mind blown by the selection and order something elusive.

After ordering the beer, the waiter dropped the bottles off at the table.  No glass.  I asked him for a glass and he returned with two pint glasses and a look of irritation.  I looked over, and horror of all horrors, the guy was slaughtering the pour on my wife’s ale,  gently caressing the flowing of the beer along the edge of the glass, so that when he was finished, there was absolutely no head in the glass.  It looked like Kool Aid.

He grabbed my glass and hastily, and without thinking, snatched it back and said, “I prefer to pour my own.”  My wife and buddy at the table gave me an odd look, so I quickly explained that the waiter had poured the beer incorrectly, and that I like to pour my beer so as to achieve a certain result.  Unfortunately I didn’t realize the waiter was right behind me.  While I meant no harm, he took offense and gave me horrible service the rest of the night and even rejected my coupon.  (Yes, I went to a fancy restaurant with a coupon).

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, how should you pour a beer?  My experience behooves a response.

While this subject is open to opinion and preference, I think the average beer geek would agree that a formidable one inch head is a desirable trait, as it unleashes the aroma of the beer, which in turn enhances the flavor.  There is a rampant myth out there that our waiter’s pour is the desired pour, and a big head is a nuisance.

In the video at the end of this clip, I’ll demonstrate how to pour a Stone Pale Ale into a pint glass.  I must insert, that this method, while representative of the majority of the beers bought and consumed is not a one size fit all glove.  Imagine pouring a sugary and highly carbonated beer into  warm pint glass using the method below!  Beer and froth would quickly over flow the glass.

Pouring a beer requires adaptation and observance of what is happening inside the glass so that a desired level of head remains after the pour.  You won’t always get a good, as the style of beer may inhibit it.  Bell’s Expedition Extra Stout comes to mind.  The less carbonated a beer, the less prone to head formation a beer is, typically.

If the beer is foaming out of control, slow your beer or take a break.  If the beer is putting up a fight and refusing head formation, lift up the bottle and aim the stream toward the center.

This is how I pour a beer.  It may not be the only way, but I think it’s a great method.  Enjoy the quick video below:

This is a favorite element of beer, not only making it quite drinkable (speaking here of the light and refreshing feel in one’s mouth) but enhancing the aroma and flavor.  But how is beer carbonated?  Like many things in life, consumers often take this for granted.  A few curious beer drinkers have asked me–being a home brewer–how I carbonate my beer.  Most are clueless. One individual guessed that I added carbonated water to my fermented wort.  This isn’t the case. Typically, there are two methods for carbonation:  forced and natural.

Forced carbonation inserts the CO2 into the beer.  The beer is place into a sealed (or soon to be sealed) container and carbonation is rapidly added.  Under high pressure, the CO2 is absorbed into the beer. This is actually the preferred method for most breweries, as the turn around time for a finished beer is quicker, and the bottle contains little to no sediment, as the beer has been pasteurized and yeast removed from the liquid.

Natural carbonation allows yeast to remain in the beer.  Sugar is then added to the beer in its container and then sealed. Fermentation kicks off again as the yeast eats the new sugar addition.  When yeast ferments, it releases CO2 which is then absorbed into the liquid?  So which is better?  How are they different?

For the greater part of my tenure as a home brewer I relied on natural carbonation, as I didn’t have a kegging system to force carbonate my beer; I would rather spend my money on beer ingredients than the costly upgrade to kegging equipment.  This past Christmas, my dad surprised my with kegging equipment and the opportunity for forced carbonation.  As an experiment, I brewed two nearly identical batched of beer and carbonated them differently for comparison.

There is a marked difference.

The force carbonated beer looks better.  The bottom of the bottle boasts no sediment, and the beer pours crystal clear.  It looks like it was pulled right out of a sixpack from your typical craft brewery.  It pours with a decent head and bubbles cling to the inside of the glass.  Lacing is minimal.

The beer carbonated ye old naturale method has a thin layer of yeast on the bottom.  The head is thicker and more billowy with more peaks and valleys, and it has longer retention with more lacing.  There are fewer bubbles sticking to the glass (both dishwasher cleaned) and the bubbles are tinier.  In the mouth, the beer feels smoother than the force carbonated beer, and more effervescent; perhaps more champagne like, though both feel as they have the same level of carbonation.  The beer that was carbonated induces more belching.

Flavor?  Yes, there is a difference.

The beer that was carbonated naturally has a slight yeast bite.  It is a bit more bready; an attribute many homebrewers avoid.  I myself enjoy it.  The naturally fruity (no fruit was used in the making of this beer) qualities of the Belgian yeast strain are much more prominent and there is an overall level of complexity not attained to by the beer that was carbonated by force.

Admittedly, I am just scratching the surface of this complex topic, but so far, I prefer natural carbonation (sometimes referred to as refermentation).  I intend on repeating this experiment repeatedly and am aware that there are more complex and specialized pieces of equipment for better forced carbonation, and also realize that my beer that was force carbonated had not been rid of residual yeast.

Home brewers and pro brewers, what are your thoughts?  Non brewers who just love beer, what are your thoughts?

Besides elevating beer in the epicurean world as a from a low brow beverage to a fine and delicious imbibement packed with culture and history, Michael Jackson quite literally defined what beer is (The World Guide To Beer)

There is no need for me to rehash a biography of Jackson since 1) that is not the gist of this post and 2) it has already been done (in fact Wikipedia does a decent job, as does BeerHunter.com).   Simply put, I found another reason to be fond of Jackson.  I recently stumbled across a clip of Jackson on Late Night with Conan O’brien, and found it quite worthy of repeating.

The nature of beer is nicely summed up in the unpretentious, jovial, and passionate Jackson.  It is clear that while there is no aristocratic/snobby air about him, he is quite concerned with his conviction of the superiority of beer.  Since I never was given the chance to meet the man (who was tops on my list!), this clip will have to suffice.  I think that this clip answers the question “Who Was Michael Jackson” better than most encyclopedia abstracts.  Enjoy!

Not always.

While those who favor craft beer often deride the big brewers for skimping on grain and using fillers such as rice and corn to achieve alcohol and thinner bodies, fillers can be used to ad wonderful characteristic to beer.  Belgian candy sugar, for example, can be used to up the ABV of a beer while keeping the body thin (sugar from malt thicken the body of the beer) and adding some delicious caramel flavors.  The result is a very smooth beer that goes down easily.

As a home brewer who has a affinity these styles of beer, I frequently find myself loading up on Belgian candy sugar at my local brew shop.  Two things irk me as I throw the one pound packages in my cart.  First, is the price.  One half pound costs $4.99.  Second, I realize that someone else made the candy sugar.  one of the many enjoyable aspect of home brewing is the sense of ownership you feel as you sip on one of your creations.  Each step of the process that I can take away from a manufacturer, the better I feel about my brew.

Recently I designed an imperial recipe that called for $50 worth of grain.  Ouch!  In addition, it called for 3 pounds of Belgian candy sugar.  With my wallet wincing, I decided that the additional $15 from the Belgian candy sugar was just too much.  So I decided to make my own.

Believe it or not, Belgian candy sugar is easy to make, and cost a fraction of the cost of the finished store product.  In fact, I made 4lbs of the sweet stuff for only three bucks!  Here is the simple procedure:

First I made a thick syrup using 4lbs of  sugar and hot water.  I didn’t measure my water, just added until I could see that the sugar was dissolved.  I wanted a darker finished product, and thus needed a longer boil, so it was on the thinner side.  I added a little bit of citric acid too, which makes the candy more fermentable.  Then I brought the temp up to about 250 degrees. I kept it at this temperature for about an hour by adding water when the temp seemed to be spiking (which happened frequently as the water in the solution evaporated).  When the solution got dark brown/red, I let the temperature rise to about 275 degrees, pulled it of the burner, poured it onto some wax paper, and stuck it in the freezer.

I was very pleased with the results.  It tasted great, with orange and caramel notes, and looked beautiful!  The true test of quality was the presentation to the candy expert, my six year old son.  As he snuck a few pieces when I “wasn’t looking” I knew I had passed.  The only thing I will do differently in the future is avoid using wax paper.  Where the paper was creased the candy enveloped it and I had to run the candy under hot water to remove it.  A greased or Teflon pan may be a better choice.

Dissolving my creation in a pot of bubbling wort (soon to be beer!) was a joy…and so was saving $13!  I would heartily recommend to the advanced home brewing sacrificing a couple of hours to put on his/her chef hat and undertake this culinary adventure…your home brew will thank you for it!

This is part one of a two part series, and unlike the soon to be posted part two, this is going to be short and simple, and entirely unscientific.  Part two will deal with the categories that beer reviews typically cover, and thus will be more methodical.  Until then, the thesis of this article can be summed up in one statement:

Do Not Be A Lemming

Lemmings are the arctic rodent fabled to commit mass suicide by jumping off of sea cliffs.  The metaphor, of course is that of “don’t follow the herd.”

Following the herd is inescapable in many senses and necessary in some cases.  For example, if it came out that a brewer used urine as an ingredient in their beer, I do believe it would be wise for the common consumer to follow the herd and abstain from drinking such a foul brew.

In the case of the craft beer industry, being a lemming can only be insulting to the brewer.  Consider Joe “The Neophyte” Beer Geek.  Joe has recently discovered craft beer.  He purchases a bottle of Imperial Stout by Fake Brewery.  Joe wants to write a review on his blog after drinking.  Joe doesn’t want to appear stupid, so he goes to a beer rating website to see what the community thought.  The community said the beer was an A+ and was very, very hoppy.  Joe drinks the beer and writes and A+ hoppy review.  The beer was an Imperial stout.  Joe had accidentally read the review for Fake Brewery’s Imperial IPA.  Not only does Joe REALLY look stupid, he tainted his own perception of the beer, and did the brewery a disservice by tasting mass opinion rather than just sitting down and enjoying the beer, a brewer’s primary objection, I reckon.

So next time you review a beer, I would suggest, and some may reasonably disagree, not to read any reviews before hand.  Some beers, Westvleteran for example, are so renowned as being “the best in class,” avoiding prior reviews will be futile.  In such cases, be yourself!  If you liked the beer, say you liked it.  If the beer made you cringe, write that it made you cringe…just don’t be a Lemming!

After I write a review, I typically check out the community reviews and it never fails, that while there may be slight variation in rating, it seems that everyone tastes the same fruits and same spices.  I have to wonder if each review ends up just being a variation of the one prior.  If you taste gin (see this review) in your beer and know one else did doesn’t mean there was not a gin quality.  If you taste green olives (see this review) in your beer, write that down, even if sounds absurd.

Subjectivity is the only way to wholly embrace not only the enjoyment of beer, but the reviewing process.  Just be yourself.

Having learned of this book through a notable beer blogger, Simply Beer, I knew I had to have it.  Having casually mentioned to my wife that it was on my radar, she somehow remembered this book with a brutally long title and made my day this past Monday.  Aren’t I a lucky guy?

The Essential Reference of Domestic Brewers and Their Bottled Brands is the brain child of Micheal S. Kuderka, whose purpose in creating this reference book was “to be the industry recognized resource for information on all domestic beer and brands…”  And let me tell you, he is is doing a great job.

This book is exceedingly exhaustive, easy to navigate, full of helpful charts and figure, and just what it aims to be:  a great resource.  The book walks the beer business man and the simple beer geek, like myself, through the domestic beer world starting with and alphabetical listing of breweries, followed by pages of color and bitterness charts, beer style index, state availability, geographic brewery index, commentary, supply charts, and full brewery portfolios.  I do feel that in further editions, the book will add to the content, but already it is brimming with necessary information.

There are a few things immediately found appealing:

-Layout:  The book is easy to navigate, unlike some beer resource websites
-Overall look:  Not cheesy.  Dignified and classy, like beer itself
-Internet Companion:  With purchase comes access to the online companion, updated monthly.
-Accuracy:  Do you know how many errors I have found on a couple of online beer resources?

Perhaps the biggest selling point of this book is the fact that it is a book.  As a society, we have been dumbed down to the point of dependence on technology.  We used to memorize important phone numbers, now we rely on the address book in our phone.  We used to go to the library for research, now we rely on google, which is quite often incorrect.  In order to pass publishing, a book must withstand scrutiny that Wikipedia does not.  And besides, the experience of flipping the paper page far surpases clicking the “next” button at the bottom of the webpage.

I do not see how the more developed conniseur of beer can escape purchasing this book, and I encourage any read to purcahse the book, which can be found at the company’s website. The company’s mission is not dissimilar from many of ours, “To help more people discover great beer!”  Either way, I do think in the near future, this resource will enhance my beer reviews.

I rarely–let me rephrase–I’ve never written on religious topics on the site.  Nate has posted a couple of things, but we don’t want to make this a Christian beer website.  Nate and I both happen to be Christians, but our website loyalties are strictly beer.  Of course, we were being quite literal when we called the site thankheavenforbeer.  Be that as it may, I would like to write an article about whether or not it is actually sinful to drink beer.  I realize this is a niche article and not everybody will appreciate, like, or even understand what all the fuss is about.  Fortunately, there is a plenty of other unaffected, at least as far as “religion” is concerned, stuff on the site.  Feel free to read on or go to another article.

Why am I even bothering to write this?  Well, the answer is simple.  I’ve seen multiple times that people have searched the exact terminology “Is drinking beer sinful?” or “Is drinking sinful?” and I want to be a vanguard against neo-prohibitionist logic.  In some sense, I know very well that tortured soul who is asking this question, and I feel an obligation to answer him or her. I’ve asked this question and have found a reasonable answer, so I feel that I need to share it with anyone who is asking.

Tell me this: why do we blog?  Is it to hear ourselves talk or are we all doing this very thing?  Aren’t we assuming that people are seeking advice, instructions, answers, filling curiosities, seeking a community, wanting helpful replies and a myriad of other things when they get on the internet?  It’s not inconsequential that the names of google and the like are called “search engines.”  Isn’t that what a lot of being on the internet is about?  So, in quite another sense, I am not simply aware of the tortured soul…I’m hoping to instruct it.

Our concerns in life run the gambit of the deadly serious to the inane.  However, this question is somewhat serious to me.  You may have to excuse me, this one time, when I don’t have the same sort of levity that I normally do.  Also, as Polonius says in Hamlet, “Since brevity is the soul of wit, brief let me be.”  Actually, I plain to expatiate on this one (normally, I try to keep articles under 500-600 words).

To answer the question in brief, drinking (in and of itself) is not sinful.  I doubt many people will take issue with me when I say that drinking alcohol to excess is at least unwise (I’m avoiding the terminology of sinful here intentionally).  That is to say, our bodies tell us that it was unwise when we have headaches and hangovers. I would even go so far as to say that drinking and driving with the consequence that we injure or kill someone is, whatever terminology you want to substitute here, sinful.  Courts and legislature deem it to be criminal, and therefore, impose penalties on such individuals.  Call it mere convention, but the very name penitentiary implies that we are performing penance for acts that are deemed “sinful,” which is to say perpetrators are wrong and improper in an act toward someone or something.

Be that as it may, let’s assume that the real question is actually, and I believe this is the marrow of the question, “Is drinking any alcoholic beverage fundamentally a sinful act?”  Put another way, “Is alcohol inherently sinful?”  This, I believe, is really the core question.  Why would someone ask this question?  Most of the time, I think some well-meaning individuals say that it is sinful.  Fortunately, their listeners have the faculty to question this assessment, hence they search for the answer to whether or not it is. The well-meaning individual quotes a few bible verses, some statistics, their pastors, some other “authority,” some reason why it was a necessity then and not now, and call it a day.  Simply stated, they build a cumulative case on slight grounds and find more evidence to amass in order to take others captive to their convictions about alcohol.  As Paul says in Galatians, they came to spy on our freedom in Christ.

Okay, let’s take a couple bible verses first.  ”Wine is a mocker, beer is a brawler.”  This Proverb is an oft quoted verse used to bolster the case against alcohol.  ”See, the bible is against drinking.”  Let’s read the rest of the verse, which says, “And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.”  Notice that drinking too much is the imperative section of the verse.  Moreover, too much drinking is relegated to a lack of wisdom, not sin.  Whatever else one may say, the beginning of Proverbs states its primary concern is not with sin but with wisdom.  One need only read the first few verses in order to ascertain this fact.  More specifically, the concern of Proverbs has to do with the context of wise court behavior (as in royal court).  More often than not, the point being made is for what might be called Aristotle’s “Golden Mean.”  That is to say that excess, greed (appetite or otherwise), and impulsive action is unwise.

In fact, ostensibly the same writer of Proverbs says in the Song of Songs 1:2 that “love is better than wine.” Of course, love is the primary concern, but the foundational assertion is based on the presumption wine is in of itself good to the point that it takes on a superlative quality.  The same author who “prohibited” its use in Proverbs extols its virtue in Song of Songs?  Is the bible wrong on this or has there been a misunderstanding?  I doubt that the person who says alcohol is wrong would say that bible must be wrong on this account.

What about not drinking as a cultural expedient?  ”Too much violence and loose living is associated with drinking,” some might say.  It’s true enough that some people can’t handle drinking.  It’s true enough that people wreck cars.  Some people have, let’s say, lowered inhibitions.  Many regretful mornings have happened when someone wakes up next to a stranger.  There are various grounds for not drinking too much.

Still, I can’t help but point out that we are not talking about the same thing.  The frequent, singular appeal often made by teetotalers has connections by one of two means.  One, they point to excess. I feel that I’ve dealt with the first of the two pretty thoroughly.  Two, they point to guilt by association.  Do I mean like Jesus associating himself with “tax collectors and sinner”?  I suppose I do.  The problem with the second is that surface judgments are rarely accurate.  (Also, the same person who would get on someone’s case about guilt by association might tell you something like, “God looks at the heart.”  Apparently it’s not all cases and all times.)

Here is my solution.  Fatty food is associated with obesity and heart disease. Heart issues are the number one killer in America.  My idea is to abstain from fatty food totally.  One step further, no food anymore; look at what it’s doing to some people.  Frequency doesn’t matter, portion doesn’t matter, and the health of the person eating doesn’t matter.  I’m just going to assume that everyone eats fatty foods excessively, will become fat, and will someday have a heart attack.  Furthermore, anybody I see at McDonald’s (or anybody who knows someone who eats there) has an obvious obesity and eating problem. How could it be otherwise?

I’m simply pointing out that it’s amazing what we choose to find “sinful.”  Actually, alcohol has some very well known health benefits, and maybe we could consider those as well.  Many of we Christians could rail against our own excesses of eating, etc., before castigating someone who sips a beer.

“They needed it back then but we don’t now.”  I’ve heard this one before.  Essentially, the argument runs along the lines of wine was safer than water.  It draws any enjoyment out of the drinking and relegates it to simply a matter of necessity.  Interestingly though, there will be wine in heaven.  Jesus said so explicitly.  I guess heaven’s water system is not quite as good as the one we’ve got here.  Seriously though, we will presumably not need to eat or drink in heaven to stay alive.  Yet, in scripture’s depiction of heaven, we will be doing both.  Why?  I think this is the bible’s way of pointing out that some things were made for our enjoyment and satisfaction.  The sheer joy of a good meal or good glass of wine seems to be of paramount importance to heaven.  That it to say, that God wants us to enjoy what he has (at least in the bible’s view) given us by inspiring the creation of culinary and viniary (I made this word up) delight.  More than this, it is interesting that people will make the argument about how beer was needed for safer living and then ignore the science that underscores the positive health effects of beer/wine.

I subscribe to (again, I think I coined this term) a theology of abundance.  I’ve stated before that beer was probably discovered by accident.  One major reason for this was excess grain.  Here is a link to my theoretical reconstruction.  The people were blessed with more than they could eat, so extra grain was used for different purposes.  Beer and or wine was discovered incidentally and without knowledge of the positive health effects.  The process for beer and wine (especially wine) was cultivated once its pleasing taste, effects, and qualities were accidentally discovered…perhaps divinely revealed is better terminology.

“The wine was weak, weaker, or not wine at all.”  Have you heard this one?  It’s amazing how many characters in scripture get drunk on something that doesn’t exist or is substantially weaker.  Granted, they were unwise to drink excessively and do what they did.  But their stories, like Proverbs, serve as a warning and not a prohibition. Admittedly, there were better and worse wines (like today), maybe even some weaker wines, but wine is weak because it is short on the grapes or it is watered down.  It’s not that strong wine couldn’t be made.  In fact, Jesus himself made the best (superlative) wine at the wedding feast in Galilee even after the guests had too much to drink.  Did Jesus sin by making and distributing wine to intoxicated people?  I suppose some people might stake their entire Christology on whether or not Jesus made, drank, and enjoyed real actual wine.  Absurd.  Perhaps our morality is not quite what the scriptures are on this one.  I also want to add that any discussion on the Greek word oinos meaning anything other than truly fermented drink is absurd.  Only ignorance drives this assumption.  Furthermore, Jesus stated the danger of putting new wine into old wineskin, presumably because of the expansion during fermentation.  The pressure of this weak, non-alcoholic, watered-down wine was such that it could bust animals skins, which are very tough, by the way.

Much more could be said about church history and the fact that the majority of it (even the pious!) has concluded that drinking is okay.  In fact, it took the American Puritan ethic to deny and destroy the beauty of church history on this issue (one of the unfortunate consequences of the degradation of concern for church history bequeathed by Luther; I’m Protestant, so don’t get me wrong when I say that and the point is not about the factious church anyway).

BUT DON’T DRINK IF YOU ARE AN ALCOHOLIC!!!!

In conclusion, I could have turned this into a 200 page book, so I’m not being real systematic about method, taking every verse into account, etc.  What I am doing is offering some thoughts on why I think people who believe that drinking is sinful are fundamentally misled in this misgivings.  I understand if your aunt Flo was an alcoholic and died of liver disease.  My own aunt died a few months ago due to severe alcoholism.  But I want to say to all of you who are searching the terms mentioned at the beginning of the post, you were right to ask the question.

Let me ask a question, too.  Is sin often excess and corruption of that which was made to be enjoyed?  Isn’t one major understanding of sin is a perversion of something God made to be good?  I would argue yes on both accounts.  All the more, I can say to you that sinful drinking is excessive drinking, if you want the biblical perspective.  I’m not a Buddhist, Muslim, or any other religion, so I won’t presume to answer the question from their doctrinal perspective.  I can certainly answer it from the perspective of a Christian, beer lover, and beer writer.  In my mind the unequivocal answer to your question is a resounding, “No!”

1. Ichnusa (Sardinian Lager)
2. Spaten Lager (German)
3. Duvel (Belgian Golden)
4. Ayinger Brau-Weisse (German Wheat)
5. Jever (German Pilsner)
6. Samuel Smith’s Pale Ale (English)
7. Chapeau Framboise (Belgian Lambic)
8. Victenaar Flemish Sour (Belgian-Flanders)
9. Saison (Belgian)
10. Rochefort 8 (Belgian Trappist)
11. Crooked Tree IPA (U.S.)
12. Victory Hop Devil (U.S.)
13. Chouffe Belgian Trippel IPA (Belgian)
14. Tilburg Dutch Ale (Holland)
15. Double Bock (homebrew)
16. Belhaven Wee Heavy (Scottish)
17. Brasserie Ciel Du Scotch Ale w/maple syrup (Quebec, Canada)
18. Minschof Schwarz (German Black Lager)
19. Sineboychoff Porter (Denmark)
20. BBC Dark Star Porter (U.S.)
21. Meantime London Porter (England)
22. Old Fog Horn Barley-wine Anchor (U.S.)
23. Rigdeway Insanely Bad Elf (England)
24. Schlenterla Marzen (German Smoked Lager)
25. Lost Coast 8 Ball Stout (U.S.)
26. Flaky Boy Oatmeal Stout (homebrew)
27. Milk me for all I’m worth Stout (homebrew)
28. Old Rasputin (Russian Imperial Stout, U.S.)
29. Dark Lord (Russian Imperial Stout, U.S.)

The beer list is in the order of drinking.  In retrospect, I might have switched the order on a couple, but the basic structure was pretty good.  We drank from lighter to darker, or weaker to stronger.  I intentionally had beers purchased with a wide variety and number in mind, which is represented by the wide spectrum.  Were all of the beers a hit?  No one spit anything out, but it is likely that some of the tasters need a while before they will try some of the beers again.  However, the social side of the party was terrific and the beer a really big hit.

I truly love when people are willing and excited to try new stuff, especially when that stuff is beer.  The beer may have been about $140.00 (which is actually getting out of the thing cheaply) but the pricelessness of introducing people the the breadth and depth of beer is worth every penny.  Among the most common statements made at the party was the surprise people expressed at the complexities of beer.  I even converted some people who hold wine tastings to the idea that beer was at least as complex as their beloved drink (that was a victory for wine’s ugly cousin).

If you really love beer, you ought to consider holding a tasting.  You might be shocked at the amount of joy you get out of spending money on beer and giving the lion’s share away.  If you swing it right, you can get people to chip in on the deal.  My hope was that people were there to chime in and give some notes, opinions, or highlights of the night, which is why I’m not including tasting notes.  I’m also hoping to do another tasting (and spending some money on beer) as soon as possible.  I dare say that beer tastes best when had with the rest.

Here is how to organize the tasting:

The first thing that must be done is to have a guest list.  Who wants to come?  Who would appreciate the beers?  Whose mind do you want to expand?  Answer the above questions, get a date in mind, and invite the most people you can (assuming they don’t have a scheduling conflict).  Part of this whole affair is being or finding a host for the tasting.

Now that you have a people guest list, you need a beer guest list.  The second thing to do is consider what beers you will feature.  I go with a wide variety of styles to increase their exposure to people.  If you don’t know your styles, here is a link to our series on different styles of beer.  What you spend depends on your invitees.  Don’t go bananas (thanks for the spelling help Gwen Stephani) on spending, but don’t be a cheapskate, either.  If you want people to have a pleasant experience, you’ll have to shell out some bones.  I was lucky enough to have friends who were willing to contribute to the cause, so it was a much better price.  We did 29 beers, but you don’t have to do that many.

The third thing you’ll have to do is set up some pairings (if you want to match beer and food) and palate cleansers (wafers or crackers work well).  Have some food and water for people to drink.  We happened to have some steak, chicken, brats, fruits, chocolate covered coffee beans, and deer summer sausage.  Again, this was based on the generosity of our host, Jerry, which is why we had so much food. You’ll also need some adequate cups, glasses, or whatever you want to pour into.  Make sure you have a way to rinse out the old to put in the new.

The last thing you’ll need to do is actually taste.  I stood and spoke about the beer either before or during drinking.  DO NOT TELL THEM WHAT TO TASTE!!!  The way I handled the tasting was to tell the drinkers what we were tasting, not what to taste.  I talked about porter as a style and gave some history.  Don’t suck the fun out by telling them to taste 4 grams of Belgian candy sugar or whatever you’ve perceived in your wisdom.  I also brought some note cards along, so people could make notes.  You could also set up 8X11 sheets with beer facts and leave room for notes.  There are multiple approaches to this tasting.

Remember this thing is about fun and beer education.  Beer Neo-Nazism should not be what people gain from the experience.  Share your passion and zeal, but don’t be a Zealot.  Here is a link to our beervangelism article (it might give some perspective).

P.S.  I’m looking into trying to lead beer tastings as a part-time job.  If you know anyone who would be interested in having a party like this, please point them my direction.  We are currently living in Pasadena, California, and I would love to establish something here.  But I will be in Indiana on a couple of occasions during the year, so please pass the word on to someone who might like this.  Trust me: there is a lot to be learned.

Kolsch, as a style, was initially made in Cologne, Germany. The official name wasn’t given until the early half of the 20th century, and much attempt has been made to protect it, such as only calling a Kolsch from Cologne by that name. Some non-Cologne breweries skirt the issue by simply calling their versions Kolsch-style beers. Whatever works!

As far as what a Kolsch actually is, it is technically considered an ale because it uses top fermenting yeast and is kept warmer during primary fermentation temperatures. Subsequently, it undergoes lagering for a period of time after primary fermentation. Because of the specific yeasts used and the lagering time, Kolsch beers are about the closest ales get to the cleanness and character of lager beers. This is why many people consider Kolsch a good summer beer.

In comparison to traditional (read “authentic”) versions of Pilsners, Kolsch is just shy on the bitterness level and has what some people describe as champagne-type qualities. It is a refreshing and semi-dry style of beer that is worth giving a try, especially on a hot spring or summer day. Enjoy a Kolsch, ladies and germs.