Messianic Jewish congregation Shema Yisrael's answers to teachings of the Hebrew Roots Movement (First Fruits of Zion)

 

To read their FAQ page directly visit the website: Shema Yisrael FAQ

Below are excerpts from Messianic Jewish congregation Shema Yisrael's website that are of particular relevance to countering the false teachings of the Hebrew Roots Movement and the organization within it, the First Fruits of Zion

Question: You wrote that Jews and Gentiles are not required to live in the same way. Do you believe they have a different calling and can live a different lifestyle? 

Answer: Messianic Jews and people from the nations share the same calling – we are invited to live forever in the New Jerusalem with the Three-In-One God and the sons and daughters of God and the good angels. However, Messianic Jews and the people from the nations are not required to live the same way. One example: circumcision. The Jewish people, including Messianic Jews, are required to circumcise their boys on the eighth day as part of our responsibility to the covenant made with Abraham. Gentile Christians are not required to do that. I encourage Messianic Jews to maintain a distinct Jewish identity, which is based, in part, on practices found in the Torah, and pass that identity on to their children. On the other hand, I don’t pressure Gentiles to live like Jewish people living under the Sinai-Covenant.

Question: Will God punish me if I choose to live a Jewish lifestyle like Jesus did? If I choose to live a Jewish lifestyle, I’m not renouncing Him or converting, am I? 

Answer: Your motivation for wanting to live a Jewish lifestyle is crucial. If you’re doing so because you believe that it’s obligatory and God requires you to keep all the laws of the Sinai Covenant that can be kept (and many of the laws can’t be kept since the temple was destroyed and the sacrifices stopped), you are guilty of the false teaching known as Legalism. That means you are sinning and you are in spiritual danger and you may be punished. However, if you choose to live a Jewish lifestyle, not because you believe that God demands it but because you find it meaningful, you should be OK. You can choose to live a Jewish lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean that you have converted or that you are Jewish. In my synagogue, we have Asians, African-Americans, people from a European background and others who serve the Lord within a Jewish lifestyle, but that doesn’t make them “Jewish.” One warning: don’t allow your interest in a Jewish lifestyle to be the focal point of your faith. I have seen many become so absorbed with Jewish roots and Jewish practices that Yeshua gets crowded out. This might sound strange, but Christianity is about Christ. Messiah is our focus. He is our living Head whom we need to be closely connected to and in touch with and empowered by. We need to carry on His mission of world evangelism. A spiritual diet where Jewish identity is the main course and Yeshua is a side dish is a formula for spiritual starvation.

Question: I’m trying to figure out what religion I am. I was raised Christian but think the Jews have some good points; and in my search to find my religion, I was drawn to you. How can there be something in between Christianity and Judaism? From what I was taught, you either believe Jesus is the Son of God or you don’t. Why do you believe what you do? If I am mostly Christian, but think Jesus was just a blessed man chosen by God to perform miracles, would that make me a Messianic Jew? 

Answer: In a way, there is something between Judaism and Christianity. Messianic Judaism is that bridge between those two religions. Why do we believe what we do? On the website, read the teachings under “Apologetics” along with What Is Messianic Judaism?  You ask if you are mostly Christian, but think Jesus was just a blessed man chosen by God to perform miracles, would that make you a Messianic Jew? The answer is that believing that Jesus was only a man, even a blessed man who did miracles, is not enough to make anyone a Christian or a Messianic Jew. A genuine Christian is someone who understands that Yeshua is the Messiah and the Son of God, that He came into this world through the incarnation, lived a perfect life, died on the cross to make atonement for our sins, was buried and resurrected and is alive now. When a person understands these things and makes a commitment to become loyal to Yeshua, he becomes a Christian. I pray that happens to you. A Messianic Jew is someone who is Jewish and knows who Yeshua is and has transferred his loyalties to Him. If you are not Jewish, you can’t become a Messianic Jew.

Question: Do you believe in the Trinity? 

Answer: Yes. God is three distinct Persons (not modes or manifestations or ways of revealing Himself). The Father, Son and Spirit share the same divine nature. Being the Son of the Father does not mean that God the Father created the Son, or that the Son was in some way given birth by the Father or is younger than the Father. It means the exact opposite! Just as a human son shares the nature of his human father, the Son shares the same nature as His Father. The Son of God is deity, divine, eternal, uncreated, with life within Himself, sharing all the essential attributes of God with His Father. The Son is equal to the Father in divine nature, however the Father is superior to the Son in position and authority. The Son acknowledges that the Father is superior in position when He calls Him Father and God. The Son sits at the right hand of the Father. The Father sits on the main throne of Heaven, in the place of highest authority. The Son never sends the Father. The Father sends the Son. The Son never commands the Father. The Father commands the Son and the Son always obeys the Father. The Son is the Executor of the Father. Father speaks the word and the Son carries out the word of the Father. An easy way to understand the relationship of the Father and the Son: a distinction of persons; an equality of nature; a hierarchy of authority – the Father being greater in authority than the Son. The Father and the Son – two distinct Persons sharing the same divine nature; sharing the same Spirit (the Spirit is also a distinct Person, although without a body) with the Son submitting to the authority of the Father. That is what the Word of God reveals. That’s what true believers from the earliest times have believed. That’s what true believers still believe.

Question: I understand that I will never be made righteous by the Law, but should Christians be obedient to any part of it because it is good? Does it have a place in the Gentile Christian’s life? 

Answer: One way to understand the Torah is as Israel’s constitution. However, not all 613 laws in the Torah are meant to apply to everybody. There are laws that only apply to priests. For example, the High Priest couldn’t marry a divorced woman or a widow, whereas a regular Israeli could. There are laws that only apply to the king (like writing his own copy of the Torah). There are laws that apply to men and not to women, and vice-versa. Most of the laws directly apply to the Jewish people, but not the Gentiles. All of us are to “fulfill the Law,” but the requirements of the Law are different.

So what relationship does the Gentile Christian have to the 613 laws of the Torah? The book of Acts records that Messiah’s Emissaries (the Apostles) and the Elders of Messiah’s Holy Community met to decide this very issue. This meeting, recorded in Acts 15, is often referred to as “the First Jerusalem Council.” According to the binding decision issued by the Emissaries and Elders, guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, apart from saving faith in Messiah Yeshua, only four things are obligatory for Gentile Christians to observe (see Acts 15, especially verses 19-20, 28-29). I would also include obedience to the Moral Law – laws such as not murdering, not stealing, and not committing adultery. These are moral laws which God has written on everyone’s heart (see Romans 2:14-15).

If someone wants to observe a Biblical holiday or custom, there is the freedom to do so, but there is no obligation to do so. We have the freedom to celebrate the Passover and the Jewish holidays, but also the freedom not to. If someone says, “Messiah is my Passover and I don’t need to celebrate a Passover Seder” – fine. If someone else says, “I want to celebrate the Passover and better remember Messiah my Passover Lamb” – that’s fine too.

However, that being said, there are many principles for godly living that may be applied from the Torah to the life of the Christian. Torah means “teaching” or “instruction,” and it still serves as a teaching guide for Messiah’s Holy Community of Jews and Gentiles (the Church). For example, should a Christian have a tattoo? The New Testament is silent on the subject, but the Torah teaches us God’s will on this practice (see Leviticus 19:28).

Summarizing the Gentiles’ relationship to the Torah, I would say that all that is necessary for Gentiles is to have faith in Messiah Yeshua. That alone saves us. Then there are the four basic requirements in Acts 15. Then there are the moral requirements of the Law that are already written on everyone’s heart. Anything beyond these requirements is optional.

Question: I understand that the First Jerusalem Council didn’t demand that the new Gentile Believers keep all of the commandments right away, but doesn’t Acts 15:21 teach that as these new Believers matured, they should learn Torah at their own pace, and become more Torah observant? 

Answer: There is a better way to understand Acts 15:21. Acts 15 records the decision of Messiah’s Emissaries (the Apostles) and the Elders of Messiah’s Holy Community (the Church) regarding the relationship of Gentile Christians to the 613 laws of the Torah. In Messianic circles, this meeting is often referred to as “the First Jerusalem Council.” According to the binding decision issued by the Emissaries and Elders, guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, apart from saving faith in Messiah Yeshua, only four things are obligatory for Gentile Believers to observe (see Acts 15, especially verses 19-20, 28-29). It was understood that obedience to the Moral Law – laws such as not murdering, not stealing, and not committing adultery, which God has written on everyone’s heart, were also included (see Romans 2:14-15). After these four requirements were given, in the very next verse (15:21), Ya’akov (James) said: For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath. James, the Messiah’s brother and the head of Messiah’s Community in Jerusalem, was not saying that Gentile Believers should start off slow, with just the four requirements previously mentioned, and then move on to more Torah observance, and learn about Torah observance from those in the synagogue. No, Ya’akov was summarizing the Council’s position and making the very same point, but in another way – that all 613 commandments are not required of the Gentile Believers – only those four things mentioned (along with the moral laws that God has written on everyone’s heart), and that this is what Moses taught, and what the synagogues teach. Even today, non-Messianic synagogues teach the same thing – that Gentiles don’t need to become Jews, or follow all 613 commandments, in order to be right with God.

Question: I am a Gentile believer in Yeshua and I have a question about Torah observance. Would it be wrong to follow Torah if I am not a Jew? I believe that salvation is only though faith in Yeshua and not by works of the Law, but I have been feeling convicted to follow the Law. I know it won’t make me more holy or save me, but I don’t know what to do. 

Answer: While it is not wrong for a Gentile to follow the Torah, after observing many people trying to do that for a number of years, my opinion is that it’s not spiritually profitable. It’s trading one lifestyle for another. And it can be dangerous. Why? I have seen people lose focus. Their focus becomes Sinai-Covenant observances, rituals and ceremonies, and not Yeshua and the Gospel. Yeshua gets crowded out and “Torah observance” becomes the focus. As they get deeper and deeper into it, they get more and more legalistic, and they get disconnected from the rest of the Church. I have known some who have denied Yeshua altogether. Keep in mind that the Sinai Covenant is a broken covenant, and there is no way to live a true “Torah-observant” life.

Question: Why has the Church rejected God’s laws and substituted pagan practices? Doesn’t that make the Church pagan? 

Answer: No, the Church is not pagan, although there are a few pagan practices that should be eliminated. The early Gentile Christian leaders understood that salvation came through faith in Messiah alone, and that Yeshua was sufficient for them. They also understood that they didn’t need to adopt a Jewish lifestyle to be part of the people of God. They understood the decision of the First Jerusalem Council, that Gentile Believers were not obligated to observe Jewish customs and days. Apart from faith in Messiah Yeshua, only four observances were considered obligatory for Gentile Believers (see Acts 15, especially verses 19-20 and 28-29), along with obedience to the Moral Law – laws such as not murdering, not stealing or committing adultery – laws which God has already written on everyone’s heart. They understood the admonition of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles: “as any man called already circumcised? Let him not be uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised … Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called (1 Corinthians 7:18, 20). Jewish people don’t need to stop living the lifestyle and calling to which God has called us, nor do Gentiles need to start living as Jews. The early Gentile Christian leaders understood that the best way to reach their own people with the Good News about the Jewish Messiah was to frame that message within the context of their cultures. So, instead of eradicating certain pagan practices, they felt the Kingdom of God would be better served by introducing and integrating Messiah into those practices.

Sermon Video: The Fall: Temptation and Rebellion, Genesis 3:1-6

When consider the Fall, the more important thing the text of Genesis is not how it happened, but why.  The why is straight-forward: autonomy.  Adam and Eve could have remained as they were, serving God in sacred space in a priestly function as our representatives, they could have continued to receive from God life and wisdom, but they chose instead a faux-independence on the false premise that things would be better if they went their own way.

Every generation since Adam and Eve has confirmed this choice, humanity continues to choose autonomy over obedience, the path of death and self-destruction over the path of submission that leads to life.

I preached Romans 12:1-2 last July, contrary to what Daniel Lancaster (Torah Club) thinks, it doesn't have anything to do with Jesus' followers making up for being unable to offer animal sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem

 

"sacrifices can't be offered today," remember that line

When you see beginner level mistakes in the interpretation of scripture happen repeatedly in published materials from an author or organization, it makes you wonder how such a thing could happen.  Then again, in this case, the oddball interpretation serves a larger purpose because it needs to connect to a theory that the author really wants to be true: The Law of Moses is still 100% in effect and one day the entire Temple sacrificial system will be reinstated exactly as written in the Torah.

If you as an individual or an organization need the Law of Moses to be eternal, and you want to make it look like scripture supports this thesis, there are going to be a lot of passages that get twisted into shapes the Church won't recognize.  In Lesson 24 of the Beginning of Wisdom, Romans 12:1-2 gets that treatment.

In Romans 12:1-2, the Apostle Paul explains the proper Christian response to God's merciful and glorious will as laid forth in the doxology that ended chapter 11.  In 12:1-2 Paul utilizes the metaphorical imagery of the Mosaic sacrificial system to point to something better: the living sacrifice of service and worship that we can make to God.

To serve his purposes, Lancaster declares that the Greek word latreia, which is typically translated into English in this context as "worship", "refers specifically to the sacrificial services."  This isn't true, and it is easy to see why.  Yes, the Apostle Paul is using the imagery of the sacrificial system to make his point, a common rhetorical technique of building on the familiar (as the non-Jews among his readers would also be familiar with sacrifices made in the Greco-Roman religious rites as virtually all Ancient Near Eastern civilizations utilized such sacrifices) to point to what the New Covenant has replaced that familiar thing with.  Rather than animal sacrifices carried out by priests, the familiar pattern, the New Covenant requires our very lives.  Not in human blood-spilling sacrifices, but as a living rejection of our own self-centeredness in favor of being servants of God.  The emphasis on the living sacrifice is a point of discontinuity with the Mosaic system, not continuity, Lancaster is proclaiming the opposite of what Paul's metaphor is intended to convey.

Contrary to Lancaster, Paul isn't using this imagery because the Roman followers of Jesus lived too far away from Jerusalem to offer up animal sacrifices there.  He states a whole litany of various sacrifices that these followers of Jesus are supposedly obligated to keep.  That's eisegesis, Lancaster is reading into the text what he wants to find there.  The evidence is lacking in the NT or in Early Church writings that Jesus' followers in the Church had any interest in participating in the Mosaic system that continued to function in Jerusalem until its destruction in 70 AD.  Nowhere does Paul, or any other NT author, write about how Gentile Christians need to travel to Jerusalem, how they ought to celebrate the Festivals, keep the Sabbath, or keep Kosher.  The Jerusalem Council specifically rejects any such mandate {Yes, FFOZ also flips that text around to proclaim that it means the opposite of Luke's intention}.  As my exhaustive study of every relevant passage in the book of Acts demonstrates so clearly, the Early Church was not under the tutelage of the synagogues, they were not learning how to live like Jews, it just wasn't happening. {The evidence from Luke's history of that first generation is one of hostility not cooperation, new beginnings and new solutions, not continuation of old forms.  Read the analysis for yourself and see.}

What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?

As Lancaster shows here in lesson 24 (and goes much further in lesson 25), FFOZ believes and teaches that the Mosaic system is still firmly in effect, that the only reason that Jesus' followers are not obliged this very day to travel to Jerusalem to participate in sacrifices there is that the Temple itself was destroyed.  They envision that when the Temple is rebuilt, the Law of Moses will resume in full force for everyone, nothing will have changed because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ with respect to the Law's obligations upon God's people, now including Gentile believers in Jesus.  In the future, they believe, everyone will fully keep the unchanging Torah.

In the end, Jesus has provided his followers with something far better than the Law of Moses.  The Law had provisions that kept the people away from God's presence: foreigners, women, lepers, eunuchs, and more were kept at a distance from God's presence within the Holy of Holies.  Even Jewish men could not directly approach God, only the priests could enter the inner areas of the Temple, and only the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, bringing with him blood for the Ark, could see God's visible glory in that place... But the curtain tore in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51) when Jesus breathed his last.  What had kept humanity away from God, our unpaid-for sins, was gone; gone forever.  Instead of fear and trembling, instead of extremely limited access and layers of separation between God and his people, because of Jesus we can approach the Father directly, we can cry out, "Abba!"  The only priest we will ever need to stand between us and God is our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ.

Until the Incarnation brought about Jesus' death and resurrection, an entire system was needed to allow God's presence to be among a stubborn and sinful people.  That system never took away sins (at least Lancaster stresses this point several times), it only held God's wrath at bay lest his people be destroyed before he could show them his coming mercy.

But that age has ended, thanks be to God.  It served its purpose in God's will, but that purpose has been surpassed by one that is far greater.  Now all the world's people can approach God, all equal before the throne of grace because all have come to it by grace through faith in Jesus.

Dear followers of Jesus, your "worship" offered to God is not a substitution for a sacrifice in the Temple that would otherwise be required of you, it is not an obligation laid upon your shoulders, it is a heartfelt act of gratitude because Jesus has set you free, free to serve the Living God.

For the sake of comparison, here is my sermon from July of 2023 on Romans 12:1-2

When the Torah Club lesson mistranslates and misquotes an Early Church celebration of the Lord's Day to make it sound pro-Sabbath keeping instead

 

Everybody makes mistakes, myself included.  But when you publish a book, shouldn't there be an editor who asks if the quote you are using means what you think it means?  In lesson 22-23 of the Beginning of Wisdom, Daniel Lancaster quotes an anonymous work of the Early Church (probably from the 4th century) known as the Apostolic Constitutions.  The quote is used by Lancaster to illustrate the supposed high view of the early disciples of Jesus for the Sabbath.  There's just one problem, while they did indeed respect the Sabbath as something that had been important to God's work with Israel, the actual context of the quote is an entire extended paragraph about the superiority of the New Covenant in Christ, including that of the Lord's Day (resurrection day, Sunday) over the Old Covenant and the Sabbath.

How can this quote be used for the purpose to which the Torah Club material puts it?  Easy enough, part of it is mistranslated, something FFOZ does all the time with, "my translation" uses and explanatory brackets inserted into the text, or as in this case, with blatant word substitution.  Here we have the original Greek nomos (presumably, any ancient editions have been lost, our oldest surviving manuscript of it is from the 12th century; the text's history is actually fairly complex), which means law, casually replaced by Lancaster with Torah.  I've pointed out this liberty taken with the NT text (a far more serious charge) over and over again in FFOZ publications.  Whenever it is advantageous to their argument, Torah is inserted into NT quotes, often when the author's context makes it clear that it isn't the Law of Moses that he's writing about.

The second way in which this quote is abused is by leaving out what comes before it, including the very next sentence, which dramatically undermines what Lancaster is trying to say.  Let's look at an English translation of the entire 36th chapter of book 7 (All emphasis below is mine):

XXXVI. O Lord Almighty Thou hast created the world by Christ, and hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that on that day Thou hast made us rest from our works, for the meditation upon Thy laws. Thou hast also appointed festivals for the rejoicing of our souls, that we might come into the remembrance of that wisdom which was created by Thee; how He submitted to be made of a woman on our account; (2) He appeared in life, and demonstrated Himself in His baptism; how He that appeared is both God and man; He suffered for us by Thy permission, and died, and rose again by Thy power: on which account we solemnly assemble to celebrate the feast of the resurrection on the Lord's day, and rejoice on account of Him who has conquered death, and has brought life and immortality to light. For by Him Thou hast brought home the Gentiles to Thyself for a peculiar people, the true Israel beloved of God, and seeing God. For Thou O Lord, broughtest our fathers out of the land of Egypt, and didst deliver them out of the iron furnace, from clay and brick-making, and didst redeem them out of the hands of Pharaoh, and of those under him, and didst lead them through the sea as through dry land, and didst bear their manners in the wilderness, and bestow on them all sorts of good things. Thou didst give them the law or decalogue, which was pronounced by Thy voice and written with Thy hand. Thou didst enjoin the observation of the Sabbath, not affording them an occasion of idleness, but an opportunity of piety, for their knowledge of Thy power, and the prohibition of evils; having limited them as within an holy circuit for the sake of doctrine, for the rejoicing upon the seventh period. On this account was there appointed one week, and seven weeks, and the seventh month, and the seventh year, and the revolution of these, the jubilee, which is the fiftieth year for remission, that men might have no occasion to pretend ignorance. (3) On this account He permitted men every Sabbath to rest, that so no one might be willing to send one word out of his mouth in anger on the day of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise to God for the blessings He has bestowed upon men. All which the Lord's day excels, (4) and shows the Mediator Himself, the Provider, the Lawgiver, the Cause of the resurrection, the First-born of the whole creation, God the Word, and man, who was born of Mary alone, without a man, who lived holily, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose again from the dead. So that the Lord's day commands us to offer unto Thee, O Lord, thanksgiving for all. (5) For this is the grace afforded by Thee, which on account of its greatness has obscured all other blessings.

The compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions is writing about, or quoting someone else who had previously written about, the respect that the Early Church felt for the Sabbath because of its connection to Creation and the Exodus, but at the same time he emphasized that the Lord's Day, that is Resurrection Day, i.e. Sunday, had become the day on which Jesus' followers gathered to worship because what Jesus had accomplished in the Incarnation, Cross, and Empty Tomb, was so great that it "excels" what had been done before, and "obscured" all previous blessings of God.

Why, then, do Christians worship on Sunday, is it because we hate the Sabbath and all things Jewish?  Nonsense, that's a ridiculous Straw Man.  We do so because even though God's work through Israel before Jesus was awe inspiring and worthy of praise, his work through Jesus and in Jesus puts all of it in the shade.  The Incarnation is a greater visitation of God than Mt. Sinai, and the New Covenant which is open to all the world's people is a greater outpouring of grace than the Law of Moses. 

The difficult truth about the role of women that was lost in the outrage for/against Harrison Butker's speech

 

It was entirely predictable that NFL kicker Harrison Butker's commencement address would be condemned in most blue circles and lauded in red ones.  The click-bait outrage fueled Culture War industry needs new topics on a daily basis, and this one is a near-perfect Rorschach Test that allows both sides to see what they hope to see in it.  For example:

Chiefs' Harrison Butker 'said nothing wrong' during faith-based commencement speech, religious group says - Fox News

vs.

Backlash over NFL player Harrison Butker’s commencement speech has reached a new level - CNN

To read the full text of the speech: Full Text: Harrison Butker of Kansas City Chiefs Graduation Speech - National Catholic Register

While Harrison Butker said a lot of things in his speech about politics, COVID19, and the Catholic Church (especially the Traditional Latin Mass), some of which was good and true but parts of which were conspiracy-theory driven and dangerous, it was his address directly to the graduating women that caught the attention of most:

For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I'm on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I'm beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker...

I say all of this to you because I have seen it firsthand how much happier someone can be when they disregard the outside noise and move closer and closer to God's will in their life. Isabelle's dream of having a career might not have come true, but if you asked her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud, without hesitation, and say, “Heck, No.”

Here is the difficult truth that Butker didn't mention in his speech: For most young women in America today, there is no choice between being a homemaker and having a career.  Most won't get to choose because they will have to work throughout the years in which they may or may not be also fulfilling the role of mother.  Economic realities are, in fact, realities.  

When I was growing up I was blessed to have a mother who was, mostly, able to be at home before we went to school and when we came back home.  My mom, Kathy, worked a few odd-jobs during those years, but it was mostly running day-care out of our home that helped to pay the bills.  My dad, Walt, worked hard for over 40 years at Amway, working his way up the ladder and teaching himself the math that his high school education didn't include.  I'm exceedingly proud of the hard work and dedication of both my dad and my mom during the decades when my brother, sister, and I were growing up.  We were blessed to have both of our parents so involved in our daily lives.  

That was then, it was tight for us with my dad's income as the primary, supplemented by what my mom could earn, but the economic situation for most of my generation-X, and certainly the generations after, has gotten more difficult.

The reality is, most of the women hearing Harrison Butker's speech will need to work full-time, or close to it, if their future family has any real chance of owning a home and paying the bills.  It won't be about choosing the "vocation" of being a homemaker, but the juggling of multiple roles and responsibilities, something women have known about for centuries.

The stay-at-home mom may be an ideal among Christian conservatives {and not just Catholics, see: Why does John MacArthur think it is ok to tell Beth Moore to 'Go home'? - blog post 10/19}, but the economic choices facing would-be mothers and fathers don't care if you root for the blue team or the red team.

I'll let a story from my own life and marriage to Nicole be the last thought here: When we were first married in 2001, my wife worked full-time as a teacher (first at Saranac High School, then Pewamo-Westphalia, both in MI).  That continued for the first 9 years of our marriage.  It wasn't because she wanted to work full-time, but because even with my own multiple jobs added to the mix we struggled to pay our modest mortgage each month, and in fact had a significant debt-load to climb out from under when we moved to PA in 2012.  We both worked hard, but we were spinning our wheels financially.  To make matters worse, from 2010-2012 we didn't have any health insurance.  I was working multiple jobs but none of them had benefits.  I know that this story will sound familiar to a lot of people.

It may come as no surprise, then, that our daughter Clara wasn't born until 2015, after our financial situation had improved significantly (and when we had health insurance).  If God had blessed us sooner with a child, we would have celebrated and praised that blessing, but Nicole would have been forced to return to work as soon as she was physically able after that child was born.  I know many women who have done just that, returning full-time to the work force within a few weeks of giving birth.  I can't begin to imagine how difficult that must be physically and emotionally, they're amazing.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if the "ideal" family in Harrison Butker's view has a stay-at-home mom to the millions of families for whom that "ideal" can never be a reality.

Let us remember to support and encourage the young mothers and fathers in our own churches and communities who are trying to juggle all of the roles and responsibilities that reality has tossed at them.