I'll give Piper the Benefit of the Doubt...for now

Context is everything. This is one of the fundamental lessons that you learn in seminary. Whether it is trying to determine how to translate a particular clause or understand someone's argument, you have to prioritize context. Consequently, I recognize that what I am about to say arises in response to a snippet of one of John Piper's sermons, which is making its rounds throughout social media. It is, technically speaking, "out of context." However, sometimes you do not need the whole context to respond. This is one of those instances. However, I must say that when you consider the context of Piper--that is this snippet in relationship to his other work--what appears to be erratic and fallacious statements are pacified...at least to some extent.

You can find the snippet of Piper's sermon here, but lets unpack it a little bit.

This snippet starts out by asking the audience to consider how many people truly strive to know God on an intimate level. The principle that he is emphasizing is that a true knowledge of God, personally and intimately, corresponds to the reduction of sin in one's life. He comes full circle and caps his point off with a pithy, but negative, statement about fighting graduate schools sins with a grammar school knowledge of God. In other words, you cannot expect gain the upper hand over sin if you carry with you a superficial knowledge of God. Yet he then offers another statement that, in turn, takes him in another direction. He offers a hypothetical question, and with his answer Piper discloses his conviction that more PhDs in theology commit adultery than average people. How can this be? Piper states that it is because they do not know God. He then quickly moves into a very animated and emotional rant about how reading theology does not translate to a personal and intimate knowledge of God, which essentially ends the clip.

On the one hand, I can certainly sympathize with the principle that a personal and intimate encounter with God directly corresponds with the reduction of sin's potency in one's life. Furthermore, I can get on board with the concept that reading theology, and lots of it, does not ensure that you will have the life-changing encounters with Christ necessary for a vibrant spiritual life. In fact, some of my recent posts have addressed this issue, albeit in directly and from different angles. Academics must remember the priorities of the kingdom as well as the joys involved with serving Christ. What makes me squirm a bit is his "left turn" that ultimately targets PhDs and, at least initially, leads to some suggestions that do more harm than good.

Why does he raise the PhD/adultery connection? If you look, he pauses before he introduces this connection through his hypothetical question. This suggests that there is something feeding this. Does he have some data that suggests an increased tendency of moral failings among academics? Does he know people personally that suffer from such failings? Or, is there something else? Unfortunately, it is difficult to tell. Nevertheless, an inevitable implication is that somehow graduate level education hinders one's ability to have a personal and intimate connection with God, and thus true knowledge of him. If this snippet is indicative of Piper's general position, then it irks me, particularly since it perpetuates a certain set of stereo-types that do intensify the rift between the academy and the pulpit.

But there is more to Piper, and I think that this may be the key to understanding what are otherwise erratic and frustrating comments. In his book Think, Piper offers elements of his personal journey, which includes his own transition from the academy to the pulpit. Furthermore, this book clearly emphasizes that following God requires intellect, balanced by personal encounters and intimacy, but intellect nonetheless. So, ultimately, context appears to be key yet again, and the context is Piper's work as a while. Despite the comments provided in this snippet, which come across baldly, I hesitate to call Piper a classic anti-intellectual.

So, I am going to fight some initial reactions and give the benefit of the doubt to Piper, that he is just trying to make a point by using a scenario that is rhetorically effective. [If you want to hammer home the point that reading about God does not ensure intimately connecting and personally knowing him, then use an academic (someone who makes a living on studying theology) as the perpetrator.] However, he could have made his point more efficiently. The reality is that there is a history of people in the church caricaturing academics as modern day Pharisees. I am not saying ground for this do not exist (for all stereotyping has some root in reality), but there comes a point when one's personal vendettas and/or experiences produce straw-men and thus become disingenuous. The little snippet that is making its way through social media certainly gives the impression that Piper has an ax to grind and is taking shots at PhDs across the board.

I will admit that initially, I was fired up about this clip. However, the more that I watched it and the more that I pondered it, I am not so frustrated. With Piper there is plenty to debate, particularly about what I believe to be his dangerous views on election/predestination. This example appears to be one where he would have avoided a lot of criticism if he just would have made his point more clearly.

Remembering Priorities

This weekend, Ginny and I attended a funeral for one of the sons of Ginny’s coworkers. It was a heartbreaking funeral for a young man, father of one, who died decades before his time.

As they remembered the deceased, one of the speakers was the younger brother who struggles with substance abused and is currently away from home in a discipleship oriented rehab center. His speech was not eloquent, and some may call it simplistic. But it was powerful. I listened to a very candid young man who carries a disastrous history say things like, “The Devil is a liar. He will be nice to you at first, but all he wants to do is kill you.” There was hardly a dry eye in the sanctuary. As I listened to him, I realized something. Paul was spot-on when he said, “I consider them all s@#! that I may gain Christ and be found in him…” (Phil 3:8)

Paul made this declaration in a context that emphasized the ultimate futility of human accomplishments vis-à-vis salvation. As an aspiring academic, it is critical that I hear this as there is a tendency to get caught up in the things of the academy—publications, presentations, or tenor. Indeed, there is nothing inherently wrong with them, and truth be told, I have share in such academic goals. However, I remembered this weekend, as a confessing Christian, such academic goals cannot be the ultimate focus. One’s status among academics is really trivial, particularly in the grand scheme of things. Academics make up a few and represent only a fraction of the Church. What matters most is using divinely endowed gifts and opportunities for the advancement of the kingdom. For academics this means ensuring that our scholarship resonates with masses and edifies the community. This is the priority, and this is the standard.

If it Walks Like a Duck...

Rob Bell is at it again...making evangelicals and conservative Christians squirm while garnering praise from more "progressive Christians." You can read about it here, on a Huffington Post post.

I want to offer some thoughts on the Huffington Post article. I realize that it is an article about an interview. However, I do think that this article gives enough to get at some of the major issues associated with the debate of eccelsial sanction regarding the LGBT lifestyle and part of the essence of Bell's position.

Apparently one of the main angles through which Bell approaches the debate is that of loneliness. The article begins by stating the obvious--any properly adjusted person does not wish to go through life alone. Listen to popular music...watch popular movies...so many of the dominant themes deal with relationships. And I can get on board with this idea--humanity needs and longs for meaningful relationships. Genesis 2 states as much.

"Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner" (2:18; NRSV).

"Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; NRSV).

There are other passages in Scripture that supports these as well. However, it is important to realize something. The implications of these passages is that ultimate relationship fulfillment between human beings is to be found in the opposite sex (Where ultimate relational fulfillment can be found in another discussion for another time.). And here is where the rubber apparently meets the road for Bell. The Bible, with its statements--no matter how explicit--is outdated. By implication, Scripture cannot effectively speak to the progressions of our modern context. It is irrelevant for many situations. For Bell, people, flesh and blood, is the determining factor. Personal experiences carry the day.

Such a posture is not surprising. The reality is that advocates of the LGBT movement must respond to the explicit statements in Scripture that either condemn that lifestyle or suggest that a heterosexual one is the Biblical intention. And one of the most popular ways to respond is to bemoan the antiquity of Scripture. Apparently, this is what Bell is doing. Essentially, "Scripture is too old, too ancient to address the nuances of our contemporary situation." Therefore, in Bell's mind the Church must jettison what is perceived to be the source of its irrelevancy...or at least ignore it.

I find it laughable to say that Scripture--or more precisely, the Church's reliance upon Scripture to respond to the developments of time --will render the Church irrelevant. The Church, with its Scripture, has been one of the most relevant institutions throughout the world for millennia. This is just not going to change. However, I must ask if Bell is trying to communicate something else with his statement, "[T]he church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense..."?

Indeed, there is a socio-historical chasm between the ancient writers and any contemporary situation. The writers did not, and in some instances could not, anticipate the issues that face a modern American context. Therefore, the application of Scripture is rarely easy and simple. We can rarely take Scripture and whimsically and simplistically drop its teaching into a contemporary context. No, the application of Scripture involves the consideration of the Canon's overall testimony, a consideration of how the socio-historical situation affected the composition of the text, how the contemporary situation adds unforeseen variables and nuances, just to name a few. If this is what Bell is trying to communicate, then I can get on board. He just did a terrible job of communicating it. However, to imply or suggest that Scripture is no longer authoritative because it is too old and "just doesn't understand what we know" smacks of heresy.

I use the term heresy intentionally. Bell has been pushing the boundaries of orthodox Christianity for some time now, and this situation presents nothing different. All Bell needs to do is come out and explicitly say a few things and the debate would be over. Nevertheless, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are that it is a duck. At the very least, Bell speaks of a spirituality that has fewer and fewer anchors in orthodox theology. But in my opinion, we just need to place him in the same category of the likes of Joel Osteen--people who carry the Christian title only strategically and massage Scriptural teachings as they see fit.

So what about the LGBT debate? This is an intense and complicated debate. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that in my mind we must begin our theological discourse with the definitive statements offered by Scripture. So, what does Scripture specifically say about humanity's longing for relationships and where is that ultimate fulfillment? And we must do that with a respect for the original intentions. (So, yes. I believe that the writers of Scripture enjoyed a type of revelatory enlightenment that is no longer experienced.).  Armed with these statements, a definitive framework can be created, within which a debate can commence. But make no mistake, if that framework is violated, heresy is imminent. Theological discourse must be grounded in Scripture...not in philosophy, not sociology, not experience, etc. Because Bell misses this point, his theology will always be left wanting.

Why the Historical Adam Debate is Maddening...at least in my opinion

One of my old teammates at IWU posted a linked on his Facebook page the other day. It pertains to William Craig Lane's discussion of the historical Adam debate. WCL is a widely published professor of philosophy and you can find his discussion here. It got me thinking...

As you can infer from this little interchange, the debate around the historical Adam--was he or wasn't he, and if he was, can we somehow prove it?--has enjoyed a certain level of popularity as of late. This is directly linked to the convergence of scientific research and bringing an age scholarly discussion into the realm of popular Church culture. In particular, we can thank Peter Enns' book "The Evolution of Adam" (which is very good by the way) and other European scholars for this. For a teaser, check out these Youtube videos here, and here.

There is a lot riding on this conversation, including how Christians should understand creation and evolution. This is why this discussion creates such passionate responses. Certain people are quick to call others "liberals" (of some sort) if they stray from a certain set of ideas, and others often call certain people "simplistic" or "naive" if they hold to particular conclusions. But instead of piling it on in this post--trying to find the problems with either particular view point--I want to take a textual approach to this discussion, and in doing so I want to explain why I think this debate is particularly frustrating.

...and I totally realize that I am only one voice in a debate that has been and will continue to be hashed out from multiple angles...

From the outset, it is my opinion that the problem is not inherently a scientific one. Rather, I believe that the core issue in the historical Adam debate is Paul's exercising of interpretive principles that make me uncomfortable. And Paul's ideas really force the conversation of a "historical Adam." Let me explain.

One of the first things that you need to do when sitting down to interpret any portion of Scripture is ask "What kind of text is this?" It is a question of genre, and this is critical because we want to know 1) what the text is demanding and trying to communicate and 2) what type of questions to ask of it. Quite simply, it is improper to ask the text to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear. One's ability and willingness to properly classify and respect the genre prevent this. So in the case of those texts in Genesis 1-11, it is widely accepted that this portion of Scripture is an ancient cosmology. It is trying to describe the present order and structure of the universe. By implication, it is also trying to explain how it came into being (...often times when we want to know why something is the way that it is we explain its origins).

However, we have to emphasize the word "ancient" in all of this. You see, we--modern people who live on
this side of the scientific revolution--tend to understand the order and structure of the universe in scientific terms...for obvious reasons. However, science, biology, and other realities were not even in the biblical writer's frame of reference. Furthermore, and we know this from comparative studies, the biblical writers were using the same images, ideas, themes, motifs, etc. as other pagan writers. Thus, the creation accounts were not trying to give specific biological, chronological, or scientific insight into the creation and order of the universe. Rather, they were describing the universe in a frame of reference that was thoroughly ancient near eastern. It is my opinion, therefore, that those people who try to align scientific data (positively or negatively for that matter) with the statements of Genesis are asking the text to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear. [...and I know that there will be people who just flat out disagree with me. But I am just not going there right now.] The intentions of Genesis are more theologically polemical than anything.

If this were the end of things, there would be minimal problems. But we have Paul and his typological argument for Christ's significance (cf. Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). Typology, in its most basic sense, refers to an interpretive method that explains the significance of people, events, and institutions in light of other people, events, and institutions within a framework of history. It has always been a popular method of interpretation within the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it was very popular among the earliest Christians for explaining the implications of Christ. In Paul, Christ and Adam are explained in terms of other...they need each other. But more fundamentally, the typology needs history.

The result is an interesting one. Paul apparently understands Adam of Genesis 1-3 as a historical person, which imports a level of meaning that is not demanded by Genesis as an ancient cosmology. Remember, Israel's cosmology is fundamentally concerned with communicating the revolutionary concept that God Almighty, Yahweh, perfectly created the universe and it was good and orderly. Humanity screwed it up with its selfish endeavors. It is not trying to make specific scientific or historical claims. By implication, the governing rules of Genesis 1-3 allow for the interpretation that Adam and Eve may symbolically portray another reality. So, in my mind the frustration arises not because of the genetic search for the "first man" or "mitochondrial Eve." No...it is frustrating because it appears that we have a pillar of the Church interpreting the text in a way would that would solicit some very negative feedback if he were taking one of my exegesis courses. It is worth repeating, Paul moves beyond what the original writers of Genesis intended, adding another layer of meaning to the plain sense of the sense.

Did Paul get it wrong? Did he misunderstand Genesis 1-3? No, I am not going to say that. Paul was a highly trained Rabbi, and first century rabbinic exegesis was a well established interpretive method during his day (Although, I am nor afraid to admit that I have a hard time tracking elements of it.). Furthermore, Paul was endowed with a certain level of spiritual insight that no longer exists. What I will say is that 1) Paul understood Adam's humanity in light of Christ's, Adam's significance in light of Christ's and 2) the writer of Genesis 1-3 did not intend to make specific anthropological claims...only theological ones. This is the difficulty, and this is what frustrates me.

The Real Work Begins After The Doctorate

Every person who is going through the process of obtaining a Ph. D. and has a serious intention of serving the Church on the other side of the journey will inevitably realize that there is a significant disconnect between the academy and the Church. Scholarship that is praised by members of the academy is often not received well by the masses of the Church. Any Ph. D. programs associated with confessional institutions will do well to 1) recognize this reality and 2) supply the tools to tackle the dynamics that their graduates will undoubtedly face.

I am currently of the opinion that this disconnect arises not so much from ideas, theories, and conclusions that are truly heretical. Rather, the disconnect largely arises from a lack of communication from the part of the Ph. D. and understanding from the members of the Church. And I would go a step further and say that the pendulum of responsibility swings to the Ph. D., particularly since we have chosen to develop our God given abilities and passions for a life of deep study and reflection. I remember being called in to my professor's office after submitting a paper. The conversation essentially boiled down to, "You have good ideas, but you cannot communicate them. Dave, you can have the greatest ideas in the world, but if you cannot communicate them, they are worthless." This lesson resonates with me to this day. One's inability to properly communicate ideas precludes proper understanding.

So what is to be done in the case of the disconnect between the Church and the academy? On the surface, the remedy seems easy enough, doesn't it? With all the education that these Ph. D.s have experienced, you would think that they would be able to communicate things on a level that appeals to the masses, right? Unfortunately, something weird happens when you spend a decade neck-deep in research. You become consumed with "talking the talk," which inevitably leads to tendencies an habits of discussing issues in certain ways. And don't try to resist this, because as the Borg said, "Resistance is futile. You will assimilate."


But let's not quickly move to castigate biblical scholars. All types of specialists will inevitably be consumed with the lingo of their field. Engineers do it. Scientists do it. Financial consultants do it.

Nevertheless, I believe that the key to effectively to bridging the disconnect between the academy and the Church is for the scholar to develop a good method of communication and presentation. Again, I do not believe that the issue centers on the conclusions of biblical scholarship, per se. Rather, it is communicating those conclusions. Quite simply, how does the biblical scholar communicate complex issues that naturally gravitate to a select group of people in a way that ensures wide spread understanding? This is something that Ph. Ds must deal with on the back side of their degree.

The following points are really an initial foray. I am going through this transition as I write and so these ideas are rather fluid, not to mention woefully underdeveloped. Indeed, they may sound simplistic, and even comical to scholars who are more seasoned than I.

First, we must bring everything back to the text of the Bible, explaining clearly how any given conclusion illuminates the message of Scripture. I am a Protestant, and so a large portion of my theological paradigm considers what Scripture has to say on topic, X, Y, or Z. This is not to say that tradition, reason, or experience plays no role. Only that Scripture holds a priority. Moreover, this first task can be teased out a bit.

1. Is the conclusion a diachronic or a synchronic one? If it is diachronic, then its synchronic appeal must be explained. Scripture as you see it is a result of a lengthy and complicated process of composition and development. The realities that lead up to the final form of text--the form of Scripture that people see today--are called "diachronic"  realities. "Synchronic" realities is just a fancy term that corresponds to "diachronic" and essentially refers to the final form of Scripture. In other words, I am saying that conclusions of biblical studies that deal with the historical processes that produced Scripture must be explained in a way that clearly divulges how it impacts one's understanding of the final form of Scripture. For example, how does understanding the development of Judges illuminate the theological points of emphasis created by the final form of the text? Admittedly, this entire idea is hard for someone who has been rooted in the academy for a decade...but it is absolutely essential. Furthermore, its difficulty is increased by the potential spiritual implications. The scholar must know his or her audience and be able to determine if discussions of such complex realities of Scripture will do more harm than good. If it is the former, scholars must be restrained. Just don't go there. Sometimes a scholar's interest in how the historical progression of Judges testifies to Israel's progression of religious consciousness is just not shared with members in our congregations.
2. Is this a "behind the text" reality? If so, you must explain how it illuminates the text. The idea of something being "behind the text" is a weird way of referring to those realities that indirectly affect the text's message or illuminate the nuances of the text's message. They often deal with background issues. Examples include, history, archaeology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Scholars must remember that the ultimate payoff does not reside with these conclusions...however fascinating they may  be. 

Second, we must be able to articulate the theological relevance of our conclusion(s). As I see it, this goal can be obtained most efficiently either through developing principles that can be commonly held and applied, or demonstrating the relevance by an appeal to experience via testimony. What's more, I am inclined to say that this is the crux of the entire situation. If one cannot explain any real-world relevance for any conclusion, then that conclusion essentially will remain in the realm of theory or abstractness, destined to be perceived as unusable by the Church as a whole.

I am describing a journey...a cognitive journey through which every scholar who is seriously interested in serving the Church must go. Yet it is a difficult journey,which is evinced by the dearth of good biblical scholars that can also effectively resonate with the masses. On the one hand, a decade of intense study has unlocked riches that will not and cannot be forgotten by the scholar. On the other hand, we have to remember and re-learn certain things about the Church. What appeals? What resonates? I can honestly say that it is after my getting my degree that my real work has only begun. 

Why Jonah Makes Me Squirm

Anyone who grew up in the Church and went to Sunday school on a regular basis likely knows the story of Jonah. At least they know the story of Jonah’s initial disobedience, the storm, the fish, and Nineveh’s repentance. Interestingly, at least from my recollection, there is not a lot of attention given to chapter 4 of Jonah. But we dare not forget how the book of Jonah ends. Quite simply, the book ends without any real resolution and it presents the prophet…well, in a less than favorable light. Furthermore, the manner in which the book ends demands that anyone who has a history of following God take inventory of themselves and ask, “Am I Jonah?” This is what makes me squirm.

The opening of Jonah presents something of an elusive atmosphere. According to Jonah 1:1, we are merely told that Jonah is the son of Amittai. Jonah does make another appearance in the Old Testament, 2 Kgs 14:23-27, and this actually turns out to be informative. There, one reads how the prophet gave a positive word to Israel during the reign of Jeroboam II. What is critical is that Jeroboam II’s reign represents the point in which the northern kingdom reached its geographic apex. Soon, the Neo-Assyrian Empire would move to suffocate the entire Levant on its way to Egypt, eventually overrunning Israel in the process. In other words, after Jeroboam II, Israel continually shrinks under the pressure of Neo-Assyria.

Yet perhaps the most elusive component to the opening verses of Jonah is why Jonah chooses to run away from his divine appointed task. Think about this for a second. Jonah is a prophet, whose job it is to proclaim God’s word, and we are told in 1:2 that the content of the message will spell doom for Nineveh. Why then does Jonah run the other way? Logic suggests this to be an opportunity that he should have embraced. An opportunity to predict the downfall of one’s historic enemies is, however, rejected emphatically. Was the prophet afraid of the Ninevites or concerned for his well being?

Ultimately, we find that Jonah was afraid all right, but he was afraid of how God was going to respond if the people of Nineveh repented. Jonah declares in 4:2 as a response to the Lord’s decision to relent from his judgment, “O Lord! Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to repent from perishing” (NRSV). You see, Jonah knew that there was a possibility of salvation, and this deeply troubled him. He knew the character of God, which meant the possibility that Nineveh would be spared, and he chose to do what he could to prevent this potential turn of events. This, by itself, is a terrible indictment of the prophet. What is more, Jonah boldly proclaims in 4:3 that he would rather die than see Nineveh survive for one more day.

Jonah goes on to repeat his desire for death two more times in chapter 4, and this recurrence is intertwined with a series of questions and lessons designed to get the prophet and the reader thinking. Firstly, God asks in v. 4, “Is it right for you to be angry?” The text does not offer an audible response, only the prophet’s retreat to outside the city with the intention of seeing what would happen to the city. Such a response smacks of bitterness and childishness. Does Jonah think that if he pouts enough God will change his mind again (cf. 3:10) and bring destruction upon the city? Second, God sends a bush to comfort Jonah, and he then sends a worm to destroy the bush and a scorching wind to torment the prophet. Here we read of the final two occurrences of the prophet’s request to die. In fact, the third, and final, request to die (4:9) represents the concluding words of the prophet. Such a sad, tragic conclusion.

Yet Jonah’s bitter request are not the final words of the book.

Then the Lord said, “You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?”

With these words, we see that the bush symbolizes divine mercies given to us. God is essentially saying, “So, you are concerned solely with the mercies that I give you—without any consideration of my character. You are concerned with the “good” that I give you, and when that goes away you feel that you have been slighted in some way…that I am unfair. You want a one-way street. Yet you get ticked and cry “unfair” when I choose to offer that same grace, mercy, and salvation to people you perceive to be unworthy and beyond salvation merely because of who they are and whence they came. How does that make any sense?”

What is so sobering for me—and this is what makes me squirm—is that Jonah’s sour attitude tends to resonate more with people who have a history of walking with God. Jonah was a prophet who had a history with serving the Lord (cf. 2 Kgs 14). As such, he had formulated assumptions and perceptions—all of which grew out of his experiences. We do the same thing. However, Jonah's problem was that he was not able to let new insights tweak his perception(s) so that they would fall in line with divine intentions. What is more, he fought any recalibration with tenacity.

Ultimately, there are questions that we need to ask ourselves.

1.      Do our assumptions about God and his actions carry the day? Are we so convinced how things should be that we out right reject any spiritual recalibration?

2.      Do we get angry with God when his actions seem to cut against what we believe is right or think is fair?

3.      Do we have a problem with our enemies being offered the same gracious salvation that we have accepted?

If we answer “yes” to any of these questions, then—at some level—we are Jonah.

Reflections on Birthdays...

This week Bailey and Maddox turn 1 and 4 respectively. As such, I have found myself thinking about how much my life has changed over the past 5 years. Here are some of the ways.

• 5 years ago, my mornings were peaceful. I got up when I needed , ate breakfast in relative peace, and felt in no way rushed to get out the door to face the day. I almost always felt refreshed and well-rested. Now, with two daughters, my mornings start by 5 am....5 AM! This is an unholy time...a time that most people (save for the people who work third shift or live at bars) do not think exists. But I have to get up at this time because by 6.30 am Maddox is usually up and ready for her day. She will come running to the office, seemingly unaware that normal people are sleeping at this time, and say something to the effect of "I'm hungry!" And there we have it...the 1.5 hour window for school work leaves me until later that night. But that is not the best of it. You see, at any moment, tears can erupt, and it could be over anything. For example, if there is no purple bear in the vitamin container...tears. If the milk is too cold...tears. If she is too cold...tears. If the clothes are not pink enough...tears. Tread lightly.
• My weekdays have not changed much in 5 years as it is still filled with work. Besides, my tax dollars have to pay for those free Obama phones (...are they still in existence?). What has changed though are the weekends. Boy O Boy. For starters, my daughters fail to understand that Saturday mornings are a time for people to sleep in. Nope...Maddox is normally up by 6.30 am, which means that if I need to get any work done, my day also starts like a weekday (5AM-ish!). The days are fun...but they are exhausting. We have to keep the girls moving because if we do not, they magically age 10 years and realize how incredibly boring parents are. So, chaos and destruction normally ensues if our weekends are not filled with continual excitement. Like I said, exhausting. As for Sundays...oh baby. Magnify the chance for tears by about 10 and then throw in stress between parents and you usually get a powder keg of a Sunday morning commute. 5 years ago, I could actually spend a few moments preparing myself for church. Now, I am lucky to get there with everyone speaking to me and not crying.
• The evenings are also another area where a lot has changed. I used to be able to relax, watch some tv, read, and just go to bed. Now, bedtime become hostage negotiation time. What is the old adage?  In a hostage negotiation, never tell the hostage taker no, at least flat out. 
• "Hey Maddox. If you take a bath and don't play "breaching whales" in the bathtub, I will let you have popcorn before you go to bed." 
• "Daddy, can we read 5 books tonight?" "No." "4?" "No. How bout 2?" *insert tears starting to flow... "Alright...we can read 3. But they must be shorter than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."

• When the girls finally go to bed...my fatigue sets in like a 100 lb weight. I can barely keep my eyes open, but I must because there is more work to do. Many people depend on my tax dollars. I digress. This is a less than efficient time. If I can get 1 hour of good work done, I am happy. Besides, my head usually hits the desk to let me know that it is time for bed. If I do watch tv, I am asleep on the couch, only to be woke by Ginny telling me to go to bed. But don't walk too loudly in the hall. DO NOT WAKE THE SLUMBERING BEASTS. If this happens, that 6 hours of anticipated sleep quickly becomes 4.

Here is the beauty of it all. As I reflect on the differences over the past five years, I would not trade in what I have now for anything. I know...enjoy it.  I love it really...and I love all my girls. Every day memories are made, and at some point I will be considered unclean to my little girls. As if, "Oh no! There is dad. Unclean!" But hey, that is not for about another 10 years.