Mental health and religion: Why men need God now more than ever



American men have been suffering in silence through an unprecedented mental health and suicide crisis — while women’s rights have taken center stage.

Carrie Sheffield, senior policy analyst for Independent Women’s Voice, believes it’s high time this changes.

“Nationwide, we are experiencing the highest suicide rate, the highest depression rate, ever in recorded American history. And unfortunately, men are hit hardest when it comes to suicide,” Sheffield tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight,” adding that 80% of suicides are committed by men.

“More than 90% of occupational deaths on the job are men. We don’t talk about this. The life span on average of men is far shorter than for women, and so we don’t talk about men. All the left loves to do is to demonize men,” she explains.

However, Sheffield believes there’s an answer for the men suffering in silence.


“Coming to faith, being in faith practice, religious community, religion. This is extremely tied with strong mental health, lower suicide, low substance abuse, and so it was an encouragement to men because men are far more likely to be atheist and agnostic,” Sheffield explains.

“Why aren’t people talking about what men would need in terms of mental health?” Peterson asks.

“In general, I think our culture has become divorced from truth,” Sheffield says. “Postmodern society is truth is whatever the wind is telling us. Whatever is trendy, whatever is hot, whatever is buzzy, and when our society falls away from that, it’s no wonder that then you fall into this situation.”

“I’ve experienced it myself as a recovered agnostic, where if you don’t believe in an eternal truth or purpose, then your mental health suffers. And so, I think for a lot of men, as the quote-unquote ‘feminist movement’ demonized men and tried to sever them from their purpose, which is to serve God, to serve people,” she continues.

“Part of that is this idea that a man could be a provider or a protector or create a family,” she says. “The feminist movement was trying to undermine all of that.”

However, there’s some good news.

“I looked at a headline that came out, I think, last week, and Bible sales are actually up 22% in America,” Savage comments.

“The Bible sales, the 22% increase, which is phenomenal, that you mentioned, this is being driven by first-time Bible-buyers,” Sheffield says. “They’re discovering it by themselves, they’re being, in some ways, pioneers in their own family. And it’s being led by young men.”

“And so that’s a glimmer of hope,” she adds.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Survey: Homeschool And Christian School Graduates Far More Likely To Keep Their Faith

Public education is erasing America's future by killing the Christian beliefs that inspire parenthood.

Does 'Bonhoeffer' promote Christian nationalism? The truth behind the controversy



Angel Studios recently released the new film "Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin." Having taught Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s thought in classes in the past and having read from his "Letters and Papers in Prison" at my sister’s wedding and other public events, I was excited about Bonhoeffer’s entry into theaters. The film’s trailer was extremely well-done, so I did what I could to post it on social media and to encourage people to go.

Then, something happened that surprised me.

When I posted about Bonhoeffer, I could count on two things happening. There would be a comment expressing concern about “Christian nationalism.” And there would be a link shared leading to a letter signed by many members of Bonhoeffer’s family expressing their grave reservations.

I observed this dynamic on more than one occasion, which led me to wonder whether there was some kind of orchestrated opposition to the film and its message. Having seen "Bonhoeffer" and being a scholar of politics and religion, I can comment on the phenomenon from a position of knowledge.

Why the apparent counter-campaign seemingly designed to reduce enthusiasm for the film and perhaps dissuading some portion of the potential audience from seeing it?

I think the answer is quite straightforward and centers on Eric Metaxas.

Metaxas, formerly a "VeggieTales" writer and creator of the "Socrates in the City" series of conversations in New York City, exploded into prominence with the publication of "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" in 2009. The biography unexpectedly became a massive bestseller of the type that even finds its way into airport bookstores. While there was some protest from scholars that the book portrayed Bonhoeffer as something much more like an American evangelical than the German associate of Karl Barth he was, the negative reaction was minimal compared to the generally wholesome presentation of the man to a public that didn’t know him well.

Everything changed when Metaxas became a vocal Donald Trump supporter in his writings and on his radio show.

Bonhoeffer’s resistance to the Nazis makes him a hero of the church.

Many evangelicals (especially elite evangelicals) have struggled with the Trump question over the years. Russell Moore and David French came down inalterably opposed to Trump, while Metaxas endorsed him enthusiastically. Before Trump, all three men would have been part of the same nexus of conservative evangelicals.

For many, Metaxas’ support of Trump has tainted his association with Bonhoeffer. While Metaxas has not been part of the team producing the film about the German theologian, he has promoted it. I would suggest, then, that the effort made to gather up a letter of protest from members of the Bonhoeffer family and to gin up worries that Bonhoeffer has been made out as a symbol of Christian nationalism is really based on anger with Metaxas and the success he made writing about him.

Metaxas, on this view, is unworthy to be associated with Bonhoeffer.

But what about the film, itself, and its portrayal of Bonhoeffer? Is this some nasty job of warping one of the German heroes of resistance to Hitler into a champion of Christian nationalism? Does the photo of Bonhoeffer with a gun on posters translate him into a vigilante?

The answers to both of these questions are no. I would argue that the resistance to the film has been unfair and that it deserves to be evaluated on its own merits.

Who is the Bonhoeffer of the film? He is who we understand Bonhoeffer to have been. He was a German from a prominent family who studied theology, including at New York’s storied Union Theological Seminary, and ultimately became a great champion of the resistance to Hitler’s work in transforming the German church into something alien to orthodox Christianity.

All of this is clear in the film and is portrayed, so as to give Christians a role model. The incredible surrender of the German church to Hitler’s new Aryanized “German Christianity” is a matter of record. It took incredible courage to push in a different direction, but Bonhoeffer did (as did Martin Niemoller, also portrayed in the film).

Is he a Christian nationalist or even feasible in any way as a Christian nationalist? Not if what one means by Christian nationalism is a politically warped gospel. This Bonhoeffer is the one who fights for the church to be true to the transcendent God and not the various immanent ones we conjure up for ourselves.

There is a second point that is notable. Bonhoeffer is a hero because he fought for the church to refuse to bend the knee to Hitler out of a right recognition of Christ as Lord.

But tied in with that is the question of whether Bonhoeffer was involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler. Certainly, he did try to infiltrate the government. He served in the Abwehr, a military intelligence unit in Nazi Germany, as a double agent. The film portrays him smuggling Jews into Switzerland but, more importantly, wrestling with the decision to kill Hitler.

This is a key point.

Bonhoeffer’s resistance to the Nazis makes him a hero of the church. His involvement in a plot to assassinate Hitler is a more difficult question. It is not easy to make out a case for a Christian to take part in such an operation. There are various threads of Christian thought that can be explored and considered, but that is part of what makes the film worth recommending. The Bonhoeffer of the movie wrestles with the disaster that has befallen his country and its people.

While it is a tremendous challenge to paint the picture of one of the 20th century’s most notable lives and various compromises that must be made, "Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin." succeeds in its task. Those who already know the story will find it alternately encouraging and challenging. Those who don’t will see a moving portrayal of the struggle men and women of conscience faced in the crisis of Nazi Germany.

This Bonhoeffer is not perfect, but he is a role model worthy of emulation. He loves music, people (of all races), and God, and he is willing to give his life for what he believes. The people who fired shots of concern over this film missed the mark.

What does Jordan Peterson understand that pastors are missing?



The American church should be embarrassed that Jordan Peterson ate its lunch. And it's not just Peterson; an armada of other influencers have done the same.

Peterson’s success should be especially galling because his work is frequently about the Bible.

One of Peterson's original claims to fame was a series of lectures he gave on Genesis in which hundreds of thousands of mostly young men watched even though they could be two hours per episode. He just released his own Bible commentary book, "We Who Wrestle with God." Earlier this year, he did a national tour on that theme, selling out theaters around the country. Here in Indianapolis, he sold out a 2,500-seat auditorium with a minimum ticket price of over $100. The audience, in effect, paid to hear him give a sermon on Genesis.

People are willing to pay Jordan Peterson to preach to them.

Strangely, the church doesn’t seem to be all that interested in understanding the Jordan Peterson phenomenon, much less the rest of the men’s influencer archipelago ranging from the healthy (like former Navy SEAL Jocko Willink) to the dubious (like the infamous Andrew Tate). It has continued with legacy strategies that appeal to some but are clearly not as effective as what online influencers are doing.

Some of the appeal of online influencers is understandable. There’s a sort of edgy, transgressive, “bro” vibe. Some of what is being sold here, such as pickup artistry, are things the church should flat-out reject regardless of how big the market for it might be.

But there’s a lot more to it than that.

They come across as being on men’s side. They don’t see men as the problem to be fixed.

Online influencers are willing to provide politically incorrect information too many traditional authorities won’t touch. They’ll note that women initiate the vast majority of divorces — about 70% of them — something you’ll rarely, if ever, hear a pastor mention. They’ll talk about hypergamy, or the fact that women prefer to date and marry up, or at least not down. They also have a curiosity about the world, which is one of the keys to the success of Joe Rogan’s podcast.

They also give a tremendous amount of practical advice that you can use in your life. This obviously includes tips on making women like you but also diet and exercise advice, business advice, and more.

Again, not all of it is accurate, but a lot of it is very useful. I’ve learned a lot from some of these people myself.

Above all, they come across as being on men’s side. They don’t see men as the problem to be fixed. They do more than deliver hectoring “Man up!” lectures.

Instead, while they often challenge men to step up, they are cheerleaders as well. And they treat men’s own hopes, dreams, aspirations, and plans as important — not as things that must be entirely sacrificed or given up in order to serve someone else’s agenda.

While many of these folks are playful, others treat life with more seriousness than many traditional authorities seem to.

Jocko Willink’s idea of “extreme ownership” is a good example. Or the way Jordan Peterson treats scripture as having something vital to say about the human condition. The evangelical magazine Christianity Today, in reviewing his book, said, “Christian readers should learn from Peterson’s boldness, his disposition of awe and docility before the sacred page.”

For those of us who are convinced that Christianity is true, it’s incumbent on us to understand why so many people are turning elsewhere looking for answers in life. And we must find a way to articulate the truth in a way they find more compelling than what’s on offer from online influencers.

When a theologian's damning prediction comes true almost 100 years early



Anti-Christian antagonists love to define Christians by what they think Christianity stands against. But Christians must define themselves by what they stand for.

Now is an especially important time to remember this axiom.

As Americans celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday last week, its geopolitical cousins in Britain crossed the Rubicon and embraced death, legalizing so-called "assisted suicide" in England and Wales. Now, Britons over 18 who have been diagnosed with a "terminal illness" and supposedly have fewer than six months to live can receive approval from two physicians and a judge to self-administer fatal drugs.

Supporters of assisted suicide argue it is a compassionate means of ending suffering. One British lawmaker, Peter Prinsley of the Labour Party, claimed in support of the bill, "We are shortening death, not life, for our patients. This is not life or death; this is death or death."

(Let it not be lost on the reader that this justification serves to lessen the now-deceased's burden on Britain's welfare state and its National Health Service.)

The death culture that celebrates "assisted suicide" has succeeded in Western culture because we have eroded, in the view of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler Jr., "moral absolutes [that] rest on explicitly Christian foundations."

In a world that increasingly prescribes death for the undesirables — the unborn, the sick, the elderly — Christians must hold true to their core value of protecting life.

In this context, the most important moral absolute is that each and every human being is intrinsically valuable because humans are the Imago Dei, created in the image and likeness of God, the author of life.

"A society that honors this foundational truth could not contemplate the subversion of human life and human dignity by assisted suicide. A society that denies this essential truth will eventually rationalize anything, given time and motivation," Mohler observes.

When the moral absolute of the Imago Dei is discarded, no longer does a terminally ill person have value, and no longer do humans limit the power of giving and taking life to God. In such cultures, the state becomes like God, determining whose live is valuable and whose life is worth preserving.

In 2012, theologian Stanley Hauerwas offered a prediction about Christians and the culture of death that turned out to be extremely prescient.

He said:

I say in a hundred years, if Christians are known as a strange group of people who don’t kill their children and don’t kill the elderly, we will have done a great thing. I mean, that may not sound like much, but I think it is the ultimate politic. I mean, if we can just be a disciplined enough community, who through the worship of God has discovered that we are ready to be hospitable to new life and life that is suffering, then, as a matter of fact, that is a political alternative that otherwise the world will not have.

This, of course, is something that Christians have always done.

Christians cared for the widows and the orphans. Christians cared for the sick. Christians cared for the unwanted children. Christians cared for those whom society deemed as burdens. Christians essentially invented the hospital. Christianity accommodates all human life because every life is inherently valuable.

In a world that increasingly prescribes death for the undesirables — the unborn, the sick, the elderly — Christians must hold true to their core value of protecting life. Put simply: Caring for the vulnerable and protecting life is who Christians are; it's core to the Christian identity.

Christianity's institutionalized charity transformed the ancient world, and it can renew ours.

In a culture that celebrates death, Christians must be the strange group of people who stand for life — no matter the cost.

May Christians continue to be — as they have always been — in the words of Hauerwas, "the political alternative" this world otherwise does not have.

To succeed, Trump's Middle East policy must address Israel's Armenia problem



Now that Donald Trump has successfully mounted his political comeback and is set to become the 47th president of the United States, we can finally look forward to seeing how he’ll handle his long list of agenda items for his upcoming administration: inflation, immigration, energy, crime.

He’s got his hands full.

Both Israel and Turkey are aligned when it comes to sending money and arms to Azerbaijan for the express purpose of whittling the already-tiny Republic of Armenia down to nothing.

But for now, let’s focus on his foreign policy — particularly how he’s going to tackle the increasingly complicated situation developing in Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

Good guys vs. bad guys

Trump has come out firmly in support of Israel in the state’s crusade against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and the rest of Iran’s proxy terrorist network. But the rhetoric that’s come from both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu oversimplifies the situation.

America and Israel are the good guys.

Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah are the bad guys.

That’s been the framing of the situation from GOP establishmentarians. Simple, yet effective.

But it’s nowhere near as simple as that, and Trump’s recent moves have actually complicated his commitment to that framing as well.

You see, the Middle East is, in reality, a smorgasbord of shifting, overlapping, crisscrossing alliances. And that’s because there is so much ethnic and religious diversity within this pocket of the world.

No Muslim monolith

Contrary to common Western perception, the Middle East is not one big, brown, Muslim monolith. The Turks are not the Sunni Arabs, who aren’t the Shiite Persians, who aren’t the Christian Armenians, who aren’t the somewhat secular, somewhat Islamic Azeris, who aren’t the Maronite Lebanese, who aren’t the Coptic Egyptians.

Each one of these groups vary drastically from one another in ethnicity, culture, and religion. And therefore, there’s no clear-cut demarcation in the Middle East when it comes to political alliances. Or at least, there’s not a simple “good guys vs. bad guys” heuristic that can be used to assess the situation.

And yet, that’s the framing American foreign policy and media sticks with: "The Middle East is full of Muslim bad guys (who are all the same), and we need to protect the lone Judeo-Christian oasis of democracy in the Middle East."

Our once and future president did something recently that slightly undermined the legitimacy of that framing.

Trump gets Armenia-pilled

In the days leading up to his election, Trump announced his commitment to aiding Christians in the Middle East who had been victims of Islamic persecution. Specifically, he was referring to the 120,000 Armenians who had been ethnically cleansed from their historic homeland of Artsakh by Azerbaijan.

He even went so far as calling the patriarch of the Armenian Apostolic Church, his holiness Aram I, about mobilizing an Armenian restoration of Artsakh.

From where I’m sitting, this is a clear result of Trump having surrounded himself with advisors like Robert F Kennedy Jr., Vivek Ramaswamy, and Tulsi Gabbard, all of whom have all made statements signaling their support for Armenia against its various regional antagonists.

But the simple act of signaling a commitment to aiding the Christian Armenians actually creates a flurry of complications for the Trump administration.

And it all has to do with the love triangle between the U.S., Israel, and Turkey.

Aiding Azerbaijan

As the entire world knows, Israel launched a war in Gaza after the brutal October 7 attacks by Hamas.

What much of the world doesn’t know is that at the time of the attacks, Israel was already embroiled in a different conflict, aiding (along with the U.S. State Department) in its ethnic cleansing campaign against the Armenian enclave of Artsakh.

And just one week after the October 7 attacks, a shipment of arms left Tel Aviv headed toward Baku, Azerbaijan.

And Israel has not relented. In the midst of all the bombs Israel has dropped on both Gaza and Lebanon, it (along with Turkey) continues to send state-of-the-art weaponry to Azerbaijan, most recently on September 24.

If you’ve kept up with the news, you also know that there’s been a fair bit of saber-rattling between Turkey and Israel, as Turkish President Erdogan has been raising tensions with Israel for its offensive against Hamas, recently going so far as hailing the ICC decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders as “courageous” and hosting Hamas in Turkey after the terrorist group was booted from Qatar.

It certainly seems like the Islamic Turks are egging on a war with Israel from the outside.

But how much of this is theater?

After all, Israel relies on Turkey and Azerbaijan for 40% of its oil via the BTC Pipeline (which begins in Baku and ends in Ceyhan, Turkey).

And, as I already mentioned, both Israel and Turkey are aligned when it comes to sending money and arms to Azerbaijan for the express purpose of whittling the already-tiny Republic of Armenia down to nothing.

But that still doesn’t cover the total extent of Israel’s antagonistic relationship with Armenians.

Jerusalem land-grab?

You see, the state of Israel isn’t just home to Jews and Muslims. It’s home to about 187,000 Christians, some 5,000 of whom are Armenian. In Jerusalem, the Old City has historically been divided into four quarters: the Christian quarter, Jewish quarter, Muslim quarter, and the Armenian quarter.

While this Armenian community dates back to the 4th century, it has recently found itself under siege by a shadowy Israeli corporation called Xana Capital. In dispute is the "Cow's Garden," the last large, open space in Jerusalem's Old City. In 2021, the Armenian patriarchate agreed to a secret 98-year lease of the land — which comprises 25% of the Armenian quarter, to a Jewish-Australian developer.

Calling the lease illegal, the community has been fighting to invalidate it in court. Meanwhile, the Grayzone reports that Xana Capital has employed Israeli settlers to intimidate Armenians into vacating the land.

The point I’m making is that the framing of the Israel-Palestine conflict since the 10/7 attacks has been that Israel has been in a fight for its survival against the bloodthirsty Muslims and therefore needs as much aid and support from the U.S. as it can muster.

But there's one glaring flaw in that narrative: Israel’s direct involvement in the downfall of the Armenian state and diaspora.

To recap:

Israel has been sending arms to Azerbaijan, before, during, and after October 7.

Israel is currently confiscating the historic Armenian quarter of Jerusalem.

All of this is happening in the midst of its crusade against Hamas and Hezbollah.

My question is: When is the United States going to prioritize Christians in the Middle East priority over the other two Abrahamic faiths? We’re a Christian country, right?

Help wanted

This is why Trump’s pre-election commitments to Christians in the Middle East is a complicated matter. It’s not as simple as “Muslims bad, Israel good.”

As I mentioned, Trump seems to be stacking his cabinet with pro-Armenia advocates (RFK Jr., Vivek, Tulsi, even Marco Rubio). But he’s also got plenty of pro-Israel people (Elise Stefanik, Kristi Noem, Lee Zeldin, Mike Huckabee, Susie Wiles, Pete Hegseth, and, yes, even Marco Rubio) in the mix. Not to mention the pro-Turkey Dr. Oz as head of Medicare and Medicaid.

So for now, it looks like it’ll be a bumpy ride.

In a post-election interview with Tucker Carlson, RFK, Jr. recounted the time he witnessed Trump draw from memory an accurate map of the Middle East, including troop strength of each country. It’s apparent from this one exchange that Trump has a sharp understanding of the geopolitical and strategic military dynamics of the Middle East.

This means he also knows that stability in the region can never be taken for granted. I would urge him to look at the movements happening between Israel, Turkey, and Azerbaijan and take stock of the Pan-Turanic vision being cooked up by these parties.

If he’s serious about helping the Christians of the Middle East, there’s no getting around it.

Debunking a famous Christian phrase — and why that's good news for your faith



I don’t remember the first time I heard someone say, “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship,” but I do remember I heard it sometime during my high school years. I graduated high school in 2001, and the saying had already made its way to my ears in south Texas. I don’t know how much earlier it had been circulated.

For the longest time, I loved that expression. I remember repeating it to others, and I’m fairly sure it showed up in early sermons that I preached.

“Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship.” It rang true to me because I was aware, even in my teenage years, of how suspicious many people were about organized religion. The expression basically said to people, “God wants a relationship with you through Christ. That’s what Christianity is all about.”

But false dichotomies are a real thing — and that expression is one of them.

I think the expression “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship” is meant to be helpful and not dismissive of anything true. Those who use the expression are probably trying to cut through the negative impressions that some people have about religious practices and duties. They’re trying to show Christianity’s distinctiveness as something based on God’s grace rather than man’s works. And they’re trying to emphasize the good news that God has graciously pursued sinners through a redemptive plan that culminates in his son’s perfect atoning sacrifice. In Christ, we have a relationship with God that is characterized by pardon and life and peace.

But before you believe someone who says Christianity isn’t a religion, what’s the definition of a religion?

Defining terms is key in every discussion. And if someone is framing a “religion” as something that is inherently false and works-based, then Christianity isn’t that. But the definition of a religion is broader, more general.

Following Jesus is not some nebulous and vague notion that people can do no matter what they believe or how they live.

A religion is a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices. These beliefs pertain to all manner of things, like whether there is a god and what the meaning of life is and whether anything happens after death.

Christianity is a religion because holy scripture identifies the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of Christians.

If someone says, “Christianity is about a relationship with God,” we should ask follow-up questions. What is this God like? What does a relationship with him entail? How is a relationship with God established? Where did Christianity come from? Why wasn’t this desirable relationship with God something we already had? What should be my response to this relationship?

Once we start asking and answering these questions, we’ve entered the realm of what Christians believe. And beliefs are integral to a religion.

Christianity also has practices. There are things like praying and fasting and giving and singing. There is assembling as God’s people for corporate worship. There is the Great Commission, in which Christ has called for his disciples to make disciples of the nations.

Following Jesus is not some nebulous and vague notion that people can do no matter what they believe or how they live. Christianity is a religion. We aren’t helping people when we distort what Christianity is.

And Christianity is also the good news about God’s merciful rescue of sinners — his unbreakable union with them by grace and through faith and in Christ. Praise God that Christianity has relational news! But God also has a relationship with non-believers — a relationship of enmity. Rebels against God are pursuing a hostile relationship with him. What sinners need is a new and reconciled relationship with God.

Christianity declares the good news of Christ being the way, the truth, and the life for sinners (John 14:6).

Don’t be reluctant to claim and explain that Christianity is a religion and a relationship. Rather than doing away with the term “religion,” we should incorporate the terms “true” and “false.” The Christian message is about true religion, true worship, true life. The man-made and works-based religions of the world are false because there is no other god but the living God who has revealed himself in Christ Jesus.

As we help people understand what it means to trust and follow Jesus, we should want to avoid speaking in a way that over-individualizes discipleship. After all, some people have a spiritual allergy to gathering together, submitting to authority, and living obediently. They like a “me and Jesus” version of Christianity because it costs them nothing, and they can maintain life as they see fit while claiming to be “spiritual but not religious.”

When we say that “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship,” we unwittingly play into the problem of individualization that plagues the lives of many professing Christians.

Does Christianity teach about God’s new relationship with sinners through faith in Christ? Yes. But is Christianity still a religion? Of course. In fact, it is true religion. It is the true worship of and obedience to the living God. And it involves the understanding that Christ has redeemed a people from the nations for his glory. He has laid down his life for his bride, the Church.

When we help people understand what it means to trust and follow Jesus, we need to be sure we’re honoring what scripture teaches about discipleship. We are to follow Jesus with the people of Jesus.

This essay was originally published at Dr. Mitchell Chase's Substack, "Biblical Theology."

Missy Robertson receives Moms for America award, and TRUMP shows up for her POWERFUL Jesus speech



Moms for America is a nonprofit, grassroots organization with over 500,000 members spread across all 50 states that aims to “activate, empower, and mobilize moms to promote and advance freedom in our homes, communities and through our vote.”

The organization recently awarded Missy Robertson with a Mothers of Influence Award for using her platforms to promote morality and virtue.

During her powerful acceptance speech at the 4th annual Mothers of Influence and Champion of Freedom Awards, which was hosted at Mar-a-Lago on November 22, Missy and Jase were surprised to see none other than Donald Trump in the crowd.

Jase recounts the incredible experience.

“I was the most underdressed person there,” Jase admits, adding that he was surprised to see that what was just a start-up organization seven years ago has since evolved into a “who’s who.”

“This place was packed. It was all these people you see on TV,” he tells Al.

As for Trump’s unexpected appearance, Jase says that he just happened to come in from playing golf at the exact moment Missy was scheduled to give her speech.

Jase explains that the people coordinating the event initially weren’t sure what to do when they got the call that Trump was on his way in. But before they could make a decision about potentially moving Missy’s speech, the announcer introduced her and she was ushered on stage, knowing the president would be in the crowd.

“Missy told me, she said, ‘When that happened, I just felt a peace come over me,”’ says Jase, who knows that the mysterious timing “wasn’t an accident.”

“So she starts giving this speech that was focused on Jesus, and she got to Acts chapter 17” — which Jase explains is a powerful passage in which Paul preaches the gospel message of salvation through Jesus Christ — and “right as she got to that point ... I looked up and saw the president looking at my wife,” Jase recounts.

When Missy’s speech concluded, “Every person in that room (and there were hundreds) who loves Jesus descended on me and my wife, and there were songs, prayers, tears,” he says. “This is not an accident. This needed to happen.”

“I’ve never been as proud of my wife as I was in that moment.”

To hear the rest of the incredible story, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Cowboys, Billionaires, And Pastors Break Tough Ground To Build Great Books Colleges

Parents, teachers, philanthropists, and students aren’t waiting for American higher education to fix itself. They’re pioneering new colleges and universities now.

'Moral Stain': Black Church Coalition Demands MSNBC Suspend Al Sharpton Over Undisclosed Kamala Harris Campaign Payments

A black church organization is calling on MSNBC to suspend and investigate host Al Sharpton over donations his organization took from Kamala Harris's campaign.

The post 'Moral Stain': Black Church Coalition Demands MSNBC Suspend Al Sharpton Over Undisclosed Kamala Harris Campaign Payments appeared first on .