Drinking is risky business ... duh

Folks who love their liquor will have a harder time pretending that drinking alcohol is anything but stupid, according to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune.

And you don't even have to "get stupid" to be stupid.

While the media went overboard publicizing a few studies claiming that a glass of red wine per day could slightly lessen the chance of heart attack or stroke, massive and persuasive evidence demonstrates that "drinking alcohol -- any form of alcohol, even in moderate amounts -- can pose a serious threat to your health."

Science, in this case, supports common sense.

Drinking alcohol has been shown to contribute to cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, and liver. Even breast cancer and colon cancer have been shown to be related to alcohol use: the more you drink, the greater the likelihood of getting it.

Lots of food products have been taken off the market that have a much smaller chance of contributing to cancer, but you don't mess with the beer, wine, and alcohol lobby. The alcohol industry has managed to get such powerful laws on their side that they are virtually immune to lawsuits, even though everyone with a head knows that they're peddling poison.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention lists alcohol consumption as the third-largest cause of preventable death in the U.S. -- right after smoking and obesity.

Not to mention all the people killed or harmed by drunk drivers or angry people inflamed by alcohol.

Scientists haven't nailed down all the mechanisms for how alcohol kills, but the main culprit seems to be liver damage. The liver is the body's primary defense in clearing the blood of dangerous toxins. Aside from being a dangerous toxin in its own right, alcohol in any amount can cause damage to that all-important filter.

There was a time when churches -- many of them Baptist -- led the temperance movement and were quick to warn others of the dangers of drinking. They weren't even afraid to call a harmful habit "sin."

These days, we're more likely to wink at the social lubricant and emotional crutch, or even use it as a come-on to appear more relevant.

Is that a helpful witness? Christian leaders, perhaps more than anyone, have a responsibility to tell the truth: drinking alcohol may be cool, but it's not smart.

Sponsor switch sparks stress

Oh, the pain of it all. Could I find myself pulling for Junior?

Some readers will immediately recognize my dilemma as NASCAR related. Others might need a bit of interpretation.

I'm a so-so fan of the so-called "stock car" racing series, in which race teams pretend that their virtually identical cars are Fords, Chevys, Dodges or Toyotas while chasing each other around an assortment of tracks scattered across the country.

I used to cheer for Bill Elliott, mainly because he was from Georgia. I didn't like it that he was twice sponsored by beer companies (Coors, when he drove the 09 for his own team, and Budweiser when he drove the number 11 car for Junior Johnson).

When I wrote him once to express concern, he wrote back and said he wasn't excited about it, either, but business was business, and that he often spoke out against drunken driving. Later he switched to McDonald's as his primary sponsor, driving the number 94 car for several years of immense popularity before going to work for Evernham motorsports and driving the number 9 "Dodge Dealers" car. It was easier to cheer for him then.

When Elliott retired from full-time racing and handed the keys to young Kasey Kahne, I started pulling for him to win, though he wrecked so often that I sometimes called him "Krashy Kayne."

After our daughter was killed (in 1994) by a man who was stoned on Bud Ice, I declared I'd never again cheer for anyone sponsored by a beer or liquor company, which put me solidly in the "anti-Junior" camp. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. (commonly known as "Junior") is far-and-away the most popular driver in NASCAR. But, for years he's driven a fire-engine red car emblazoned with the Budweiser logo, which only enhanced his youthful reputation as a hard-drinking party boy.

Junior announced earlier this year that he was leaving his late father's race team to drive for Rick Hendrick's super-successful stable. It soon became evident that neither the number 8 nor the Budweiser sponsorship would follow him.

During the past week it was announced that Junior's new sponsor would be the National Guard and Pepsi, which will use his new number 88 car to promote its Mountain Dew "Amp" energy drink.

Meanwhile (ouch!) it was announced that Budweiser would shift its sponsorship to Kasey Kayne's car in 2008.

No more cheers for you, Kasey.

I don't do "energy drinks," but I down a lot of Diet Mountain Dew and Diet Pepsi (preferably, with lime), and I appreciate the National Guard.

All of which means that in 2008, I could find myself in the really stressful situation of cheering for Junior to win instead of lose.

Then again, this may be the boost I need to let NASCAR go the way of professional football, baseball, and basketball -- and just stop caring about the sport at all.

Time (and sponsors) will tell.

A fundamental love of beer?

Let me begin with a disclaimer: I despise beer, and for a number of reasons, beginning with the fact that our daughter Bethany was killed by a beer-swilling drunken driver. Other innocent people die every day from the same cause. As a boy, I saw what havoc my great uncle's alcohol abuse wrought on my great aunt's face, and I know that millions of spouses and children continue to suffer abuse from people who love alcohol but can't handle it. Some people tell me that nothing tastes better than a cold beer, but its cloying smell and urine-like appearance have no appeal to my senses. In short, my personal view is that I can find no redeeming qualities in beer or any good reason to drink it.

Given that disclaimer, I'm aware that beer has been around since Sumerian times (3rd millennium B.C.), and isn't going away anytime soon. The powerful beer industry is virtually immune from lawsuits, and will continue to recruit new drinkers (and imperil new victims) until Jesus comes.

The question is, when Jesus comes, will he be drinking a beer?

I confess to having a hard time getting comfortable with the whole idea of "theology on tap" -- the movement among many emerging churches to host discussion groups in bars where participants (including the church leaders) have a beer while engaging in conversation about God.

I have no problem with the idea of going where the people are or with hosting a discussion group in a bar or even (to a lesser degree) with participants imbibing a bit in their natural habitat.

What I can't get used to is the image of the pastor downing a Budweiser while discussing baptism.

While many emergent congregations tend to be moderate-to-liberal in theology, I find it surprising that some extremely conservative folk have endorsed the concept of beer-based evangelism, at least when so-said evangelists hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible in other areas.

For example a recent news article about a non-denominational Raleigh church called Vintage 21 revealed that at least one professor from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is a great fan. Though he says the inclusion of beer drinking might not be the wisest choice, given widespread alcohol abuse, theology professor John Hammett told the News & Observer "Overall, I applaud what's going on at Vintage21," and described it as "a healthy church."

The church is acceptable, apparently, because it practices a very conservative approach to biblical interpretation on matters such as the place of women, and won't allow women to serve in the highest leadership positions.

Lucky for them the Bible doesn't mention beer by name, though it has a lot to say about the dangers of drunkenness.

Southeastern, in fact, is planning to join Vintage 21 -- part of the non-denominational Acts 29 network -- in co-sponsoring a "boot camp" for others who want to plant similar churches.

The thing I cannot fathom is the approach that a church can be so culture-friendly that its leaders will sit down with a beer to discuss theology, but won't allow women to sit at the table of church leadership.

There's something theologically cock-eyed about an approach that blithely ignores clear scriptural warnings against becoming a stumbling block to the weak, but holds fast to a few ambiguous texts that appear to limit leadership to men only.

If I could force down a few beers, maybe the conundrum would become clear. In the meantime, to this sober mind, it makes no sense at all.

(Image courtesy of PD Photo.com)