The World and Everything in It — April 24, 2020

MEGAN BASHAM, HOST: Good morning!

A new hit show takes us back to the battle over the Equal Rights Amendment.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And on Culture Friday, we’ll talk to theologian and women’s studies professor Katie McCoy about the show. And about what the Bible has to say about God’s design for men and women.

Also today, your listener feedback.

BASHAM: It’s Friday, April 24th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Megan Basham.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

BASHAM: Up next, Kent Covington has today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: House approves nearly $500 billion dollars of additional coronavirus aid » Congress delivered almost $500 billion of additional coronavirus aid on Thursday. 

The scene inside the House chamber was anything but typical. The room was at times eerily quiet as lawmakers shuffled in and out in small groups wearing face masks as they cast their votes. But in the end, almost everyone voted the same way.

AUDIO: On this vote, the yays are 388. The nays are 5, with 1 present. The bill is passed. 

About half of the money, $250 billion will go to refuel the now empty Paycheck Protection Plan program for small businesses. 

Republicans had pushed for a simple bill to replenish the program immediately and address other needs after that.

But Democrats negotiated additional funds and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders improved the bill. 

PELOSI: $100 billion for hospitals and testing, quite a remarkable feat.

But House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy accused Democrats of causing a costly one-week delay. He noted another week of dire unemployment numbers.

MCCARTHY: How many of those 4.4 million would have not have gotten a pink slip last week? 

The bill will also set aside $60 billion to focus on development in urban and rural areas ignored by many lenders. And there’s another $60 billion for loans and grants through the Small Business Administration’s disaster aid program.

The Senate approved the bill earlier this week, and President Trump has said he will sign it into law. 

Report: HHS secretary waited weeks to brief Trump on virus, downplayed threat » A new report suggests that the secretary of Health and Human services “waited for weeks” to brief President Trump on the coronavirus threat and downplayed the risks. WORLD’s Anna Johansen reports. 

ANNA JOHANSEN, REPORTER: The Wall Street Journal reports that in the early stages of the coronavirus spread in the United States, HHS Secretary Alex Azar told the president that everything was under control. 

The Journal cites interviews with more than two dozen administration officials. It reported that “Azar waited for weeks to brief the president on the threat, oversold his agency’s progress in the early days, and didn’t coordinate effectively across the healthcare divisions under his purview.”

Eight days after officials announced the first coronavirus case in the United States, the president met with top officials, including Azar. He reportedly told Trump testing was ramping up fast, that this was—quote—“the fastest we’ve ever created a test,” and that more than a million tests would be ready within weeks.

But that was not the case. The CDC started shipping tests the following week, but then discovered a flaw, forcing it to recall them. 

The Journal said shortly after the White House declared a national emergency, the president largely sidelined Azar and put Vice President Mike Pence in charge of leading the response. 

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Anna Johansen.

NY antibody study suggests millions of New Yorkers may have been infected by the coronavirus » New evidence suggests that millions of New York residents may have already had the coronavirus. 

Governor Andrew Cuomo said the state conducted an antibody test of about 3,000 people…

CUOMO: 13.9 percent tested positive for having the antibodies. What does that mean? It means these are people who were infected and who developed the antibodies to fight the infection. 

That could mean that more than 2 million New Yorkers may have carried the virus at some point in time. 

Cuomo cautioned that the data was preliminary. Participants were hastily recruited at shopping centers and grocery stores, which meant they were healthy enough to be out in public.

The New York study follows recent antibody studies in California. Testing in Santa Clara County around San Jose revealed that about 3 or 4 percent of residents had coronavirus antibodies. Another study in Los Angeles County came up with roughly the same results. 

But all of the studies indicated that far more people may have been infected than officials previously realized. 

Iranian general issues threat against U.S. Navy vessels » The leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responded Thursday to a threat issued by President Trump a day earlier. WORLD’s Kristen Flavin has more. 

KRISTEN FLAVIN, REPORTER: Iranian Gen. Hossein Salami warned that his forces “will answer any action by a decisive, effective, and quick counteraction.”

That followed Trump’s announcement that he has ordered Navy ships to fire on any Iranian military boats that threaten or sail dangerously close to American vessels. 

The Navy said last week that 11 Iranian gunboats had carried out “dangerous and harassing approaches” to American Navy and Coast Guard vessels in the Persian Gulf. 

Salami said “We have ordered our naval units” that if—quoting here—“units from the naval force of America’s terrorist army wants to jeopardize our” vessels … they must target those (American) warships or naval units.”

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Kristen Flavin. 

Burrow top pick in NFL Draft » Sports competition may be on hold for now, but millions tuned in for last night’s NFL Draft. Top overall pick was no surprise—the man who led LSU to a perfect 15-and-0 national championship earlier this year. 

GAME SOUND: Burrow’s got time, launching for the endzone, Joe Burrow, touchdown!

The Cincinnati Bengals took Heisman Trophy winner Joe Burrow. 

For the first time, the draft was held virtually, with hundreds of video feeds linked up for the event. The draft continues with rounds 2 and 3 today.

I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: the new cable drama about a well-known conservative activist.

Plus, your listener feedback.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER: It’s Friday the 24th of April, 2020. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Nick Eicher.

MEGAN BASHAM: And I’m Megan Basham. We’re switching our Friday recipe here a bit, and we’ll start with a film review that will help set up Culture Friday, which will follow.

So first up, a conservative icon gets the Hollywood treatment.

You know, it’s a curious thing about casting a dynamic performer to play a larger-than-life personality. Even if the portrayal is meant to be unflattering, it can still create a powerful lure. That’s the case with Oscar-winner Cate Blanchett playing Phyllis Schlafly in the hit FX drama, Mrs. America.

CLIP: If it makes it through the Senate the insurance industry will be the least of the casualties. The left will demand taxpayer-funded abortions, state-run daycare centers, women in foxholes. Sounds a lot like the Kremlin’s agenda. The problem is everyone from Kennedy to Wallace seems to be for it and there’s no organized opposition. Well, nobody wants to vote against an amendment that has the words “equal rights” in the title. Which is exactly why they put it in the title. Which is exactly why we keep losing to them.

Rated TV-MA for language, the show, which is also streaming on Hulu, currently ranks as one of Rotten Tomatoes most popular and best-reviewed. It follows the rise of the Equal Rights Amendment and its eventual defeat thanks to Schlafly and her army of homemakers. 

The show depicts feminists like Bella Abzug and Betty Friedan as fiery, intellectual, and even glamorous in their crusade. Rose Byrne as Gloria Steinem is especially attractive, boasting the willowy loveliness of a Hollywood starlet. 

Steinem shuns positions of power. She cares more about the cause than raising her personal profile. And makes time in her busy schedule to listen as a young fan talk about her shame over having an abortion. Most especially, Steinem resists capitalizing on her good looks, even for the sake of the movement.

CLIP: The candidate’s recognized that we’re a real political force. Even McGovern’s agreed to sit down with us. But we need a face. A pretty face. … I don’t want people listening to me just because I have a pretty face. I would love it if people would listen to me because I have a pretty face. Then I wouldn’t have to shout. Who cares why they’re listening. They’re listening.

It’s a little hard to square this self-effacing depiction with the real Steinem who’s rarely slow to attach herself to news stories.

Schlafly, by contrast, gamely slaps on a bikini for a fashion show fundraiser. She rules her organization, which she at one point tries to name after herself, with a perfectly manicured iron fist. And she sweeps aside any upstart housewife who might try to usurp her position. Ambitious and grasping, she callously jokes about feminism as the refuge of spinsters within earshot of her unmarried middle-aged sister, then ignores her wide eyes of pain.

CLIP: I mean after all their hero is Gloria Steinem, a single, childless woman nearing 40, but she’s the sort of miserable, pathetic woman they aspire to be. She wants some kind of constitutional cure for her personal problems. And perhaps that’s why the liberationists are trying to sow the seeds of discontent among we happily married women. They want us to join them in some new sisterhood of frustrated togetherness because none of them can find a man who wants to marry them. 

Schlafly’s family have made it clear that Mrs. America’s creators made no effort to consult them or anyone who knew Schlafly well. But even as the script crafts a fictional Schlafly to suit desired ends, inconsistencies shine through. To wit, it seems a bit laughable to depict a woman with six children as unresponsive to her husband’s affection.

But the real disconnect comes when the show sneers at Schlafly’s dire warnings that the feminist movement will lead to a genderless society of women in foxholes.

CLIP: Now the Equal Rights Amendment will positively make women subject to the draft on an equal basis with the men. They’ve got to the point where they truly believe that men and women are the same.Which will mean goodby Girl Scouts and hello unisex bathrooms. 

The ERA doesn’t say men and women are the same. It says that they’re entitled to equal protection under the law. What, did you drag her out of the dustbins of the Goldwater campaign so you could hide under her skirt? She found me. You promised you weren’t gonna fight us on this. I changed my mind. 

As we all know at this moment, boys are competing in women’s sports and using their locker rooms and restrooms. Last year, a federal judge ruled the males-only military draft unconstitutional. And, just a few weeks ago, a U.S. military commission recommended making women eligible for the draft.

An even half-way perceptive viewer must ask themselves in what way Schlafly’s concerns have proved overblown. Even more though, she shines as the original anti-establishment force within the Republican Party. 

When nearly every man on her side of the political aisle was happy to give feminists their amendment, she forced them to begrudgingly pay attention to the concerns of average moms and wives.

CLIP: We might lose Illinois. What? I thought we had the votes? We had the votes, but then this group showed up with bread and suddenly we didn’t have the votes. What group? Housewives with bread and baked, you know, homemade. What kind of bread? What does it matter what kind? I’m curious. Can we get Ginny Chapman back on the phone? Find out what kind of bread it was. Is that all it takes to get a man to change his vote? Well, there was also jam.

Complex and compelling, Mrs. America can’t conceal the charisma of a singular figure who gave voice to tens of millions of forgotten women.

NICK EICHER: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: Culture Friday.

MEGAN BASHAM: While Mrs. America is earning rave reviews and already generating awards buzz, a few left-leaning outlets aren’t fans. They feel, even with plenty of inaccuracies, it still makes Phyllis Schlafly too compelling.

NPR’s reviewer seemed annoyed FX created the show at all, grumbling, “With everything else going on in the world, now I gotta spend almost nine hours of my life thinking about Phyllis Schlafly?”

Buzzfeed complained that “the liberal imagination seemingly can only understand conservative white women as failed white liberal feminists.”

We now welcome Katie McCoy, assistant professor of theology in women’s studies at Southwestern Seminary. 

Professor McCoy, thanks for being here!

KATIE MCCOY, GUEST: Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

BASHAM: So while there’s little I would agree with in those reviews, that Buzzfeed quote struck me as insightful. Because there was something in their depiction that turned Schlafly into a tragic and then, to me, sympathetic figure. 

What was your reaction?

MCCOY: Well, my first reaction was it’s a lot easier to portray her as a victim than a villain. And the way they portrayed her was this woman who’s trying to maneuver with this delicate dance around misogyny and marital oppression, things that her family and especially her biographer just condemned and said that this does not at all portray the truth. And so it’s interesting that they had to, in order to make her sympathetic, they couldn’t really villainize her. That would sort of almost invalidate the power she had. But instead they made her a victim, but rather a power-hungry victim at that.

EICHER: Now, I’d like to return that NPR comment that Megan read just a minute ago asking why we need to think about Phyllis Schlafly. Or that it’s a waste of time to do so.

But I’ve got a clip here—real life this time, not the show—that gets to her political instincts, again, agree or disagree with them. She was out front early for Trump, and he returns the favor, speaking at the Values Voter Summit in 2016:

TRUMP: By the way Phyllis endorsed me a long time ago when it wasn’t necessarily something that was so easy to do.

I think we should keep in mind, mainstream Republicans like Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush back in the day were quite happy back then to pass the ERA, which was Mrs. Schlafly’s big issue. So maybe it should come as no surprise that Schlafly would be more of an anti-establishment Republican than an establishment Republican.. 

But the Trump endorsement, the point is, it didn’t come without cost: Half the board of her organization, Eagle Forum, resigned when she endorsed him. 

Again, whatever you think of what she did, she did have the courage of her convictions. 

Professor, in addition to teaching women’s studies, you also describe yourself as a political news junkie. 

So how would you characterize Schlafly’s influence?

MCCOY: You know, at the height of second wave feminism in the 1970s, the dominant cultural narrative was that women were either liberated feminists or you were just brainwashed. You had not yet been liberated. So you were either decrying marriage and motherhood and family as this sort of tool of women’s oppression in culture or you were just an accomplice in your own oppression. Or, worse, you were a traitor. 

And Phyllis Schlafly really gave voice to the women who they didn’t fit either of those imposed categories. So, here’s a woman who was articulate and intelligent and educated and politically savvy, and she showed how those strengths could harmonize with pro-family, pro-life convictions. And I think she was really a forerunner and a trailblazer for a lot of women who wanted to combine both the scholarly, the deep-thinking, the critical thinking, but then also apply it to the values that they deeply held. And one of the fallacies out there especially in the 70s and second wave feminism was that if you were educated and an intelligent woman, you must have been a feminist. Because why else, what other category could a woman belong to if she was “empowered.” So, she really was in some ways representing the third category for women to follow.

EICHER: When I was in college, Phyllis Schlafly was active in the area where I went to school, in Southern Illinois. And I got myself stuck into this interdisciplinary class that I had to take in order to graduate. So I’m a senior and I’m going into these classes. And it was “Women in Society,” team taught by three really hard-core feminists at my state university. And I made the suggestion, “hey, you know, I can get in touch with Phyllis Schlafly and she can come over here and do a little debate for the class.”

MCCOY: Oh, I bet they loved that!

EICHER: They didn’t love it at all and they said, “No,” and I remember this from that long ago, “Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t speak for women. So why would we have her address a class on women’s issues?” That’s what they said.

MCCOY: That illustrates something that we see even today. Feminism likes to portray itself as this is the ideology of women’s choice. Well, it’s really only the ideology of women’s choice if you make their choices, if you’ve had their collective experience. And so one of the things that Phyllis Schlafly did, it’s the same thing that we’re having to do today is say that women are far more individualistic than just fitting into these broad cultural categories and kind of the groupthink that feminism wants women to fall into.

EICHER: Let me turn now to the related subject of complementarianism. 

For those not familiar with the term I’ll define it quickly and perhaps a little crudely. Complementarian theology holds that God designed men and women with different natures to fulfill distinct roles. 

Whereas egalitarians hold that God has not given men and women distinct roles and their callings, whether within the home or church, are interchangable.

John Piper is one of the most prominent proponents of complementarianism. And last week a video went viral in which he argues it isn’t to blame for abuse of women within the church. 

Here’s a bit of that:

PIPER: Egalitarianism can only say to husbands who tend to be abusive, Christians shouldn’t do that. You don’t treat other people that way. But egalitarians can’t say, there is a unique call upon manhood to be protective.

I think complementarians have the higher ground here when it comes to opposing abuse because we not only say humans don’t treat humans that way, but men don’t treat women that way. It’s written on your soul, man.

BASHAM: Now, this idea that there are greater degrees of accountability is certainly Biblical. James 3, for example, tells us God is going to judge teachers more strictly.

Yet it seems like a lot of the negative reaction can be summed up by one blogger who said, “Your gender doesn’t matter because God calls Christians to love others.”

Mercer University Professor Susan Codone, who’s written for outlets like the Washington Post about abuse within the church, tweeted, “[Complementarianism] may not ‘feed’ abuse, but it can provide cover.” 

What’s your response to that Professor McCoy?

MCCOY: First, we always have to separate a theory or a viewpoint from how that theory or viewpoint has been used or misused or abused. So, abuse itself, it occurs within contexts that are not complementarian. We can find examples of that because the real issue is it’s a problem of the heart. And the heart will use whatever excuse or social context it might be able to to justify sin. Now, have some taken this complementarian view of gender and applied it in terms of, I would say, in terms of a power dynamic? And that’s where I think it goes wrong. And, indeed, some have. And I think that’s a misuse and a misapplication of scripture. So, when I see gender differences through the lens of a relationship first and then if you like the term roles, I’ll tell you I’m not terribly a fan of that. I think it’s something you can sort of put on and off like a coat or a part that you play. But when I see it more in terms of relationship, then we see the commands in what we would call the gender passages of scripture through this lens of a man’s responsibility, not so much a woman’s role. We see it through accountability more than a woman’s role. And I think it’s important we make that shift in the dialogue especially as we consider the question of complementarianism and abuse.

One more thing, this also speaks to the tweet, the person who said gender doesn’t matter. Our gender is an aspect of how we image God. And we bring everything that we are to God’s service, so we serve him as male or female. And we bear his image in our maleness and our femaleness if we bring that to our relationships. So, there again, Christianity is a very relational faith and it expresses that characteristic within the relationships that people have with each other.

EICHER: I’m hearing another criticism out there, professor, that Pastor Piper and others complementarians are wrong theologically. It’s not that they’re wrong theologically, they say, but that they’re distracting the church from fighting abuse. 

Example: author and former managing editor at Christianity Today, Katelyn Beaty, said, “In the video, [Piper’s] not passionate against abusers. He’s passionate against people who malign complementarianism.”

To be fair to Piper: He believes complementarianism is a biblical concept that should prevent abuse, so shouldn’t he passionately, to quote Titus, give instruction in sound doctrine and rebuke those who contradict it?

In short: Can’t it be both?

MCCOY: Well, I’m so glad you brought up that question, the statement you refer to. It highlights just how quickly and easily we can end up framing this whole issue into this kind of unfair either-or. He was addressing the allegation that his interpretation of scripture was the source and sponsor of abuse. So, I think we need to take a step back and look at that. These are two different questions. These are two completely different issues. So, imagine if a doctor went on TV and she’s arguing that some particular treatment did not cause cancer and then imagine all kinds of people dismissing her argument because she wasn’t angry enough about cancer. It doesn’t follow. I think one of the unfortunate things, too, is in this conversation we end up reducing someone and their ministry to our hot take on those two-minute videos, things like that. We end up making these assessments about someone. And someone like a Pastor Piper with whom I may have plenty of disagreements, but here’s a man who is finishing his ministry, a very large and influential ministry, free from scandal. And wouldn’t we all like more stories like that happening in the church today. So I think we need to be honoring him along with other pastors who are finishing their lives well.

To answer your question, it isn’t just that we can be both, we must be both. In fact, if we’re not both, we are doing a disservice to our own faith.

EICHER: Katie McCoy, assistant professor of theology in women’s studies at Southwestern Seminary in Texas. Thank you, Katie, for being with us!

MCCOY: Thank you. It was great to be with you all!

NICK EICHER: Police in Taiwan responded to the scene of an accident earlier this month. The victim complained that an unidentified male suspect recklessly rammed into his Tesla.

The officers then questioned the male suspect and administered a breathalyzer.

The suspect passed the test. 

But I think you’d expect that a five-year-old wasn’t drunk. 

Yes, a five year old on a bike—that’s who crashed into the Tesla.

Police say their hands are tied: it’s standard operating procedure. All motorists and bicyclists have to submit to breathalyzers to check blood-alcohol levels after accidents.

But police officials in Taipei said in the future, officers will be able to use discretion when dealing with little tykes who crash their bikes.

It’s The World and Everything in It.

MEGAN BASHAM: Today is Friday, April 24th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Megan Basham.

NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Next up, your listener feedback.

And can I just say, we got a lot of it over the last month! Many, many of you sent us emails or audio recordings or called in to our listener feedback line. And we really appreciate it!

BASHAM: We do. And as you might expect, many of you had comments related to our coronavirus coverage. Listener Lisa Kendall recorded her message on the voice memo app on her smartphone.

KENDALL: It’s so wonderful to have something normal in this weird time. And you guys do great work. It is precious to hear the news of the day with an eternal perspective. Thanks again for all you do to bring light and truth to difficult issues.

As they say at Chick-fil-A, our pleasure. 

EICHER: Jen Letowski listens in Matthews, North Carolina. She was really taken with Jenny Lind Schmitt’s story about people sewing face masks for healthcare workers. And she called into our feedback line to tell us it prompted her to go and do likewise.

LETOWSKI: So I just wanted to let you know that I got out my sewing machine and I’ve been stitching away this afternoon. So I want to thank you for encouraging me and challenging me to get involved in my area and do something profitable in the COVID-19 outbreak.

Hey, I love hearing stories like that! 

Listener Amber Wredberg emailed us to comment on Anna Johansen’s report about coronavirus survivors. She said it was refreshing

to hear something encouraging and unsensational in regard to the virus, and it served as a much-needed reality-check. 

She said she’s been wondering 

why we aren’t hearing more about the survivors, since the multitude of them is growing. Thanks for breaking the trend!

BASHAM: We also got a lot of feedback this month on our Culture Friday conversation with Pastor John Piper. Tana Walker called it “riveting.” Bo Deane said it was “very thought provoking and well done.”

EICHER: Next we have some constructive criticism from Jamee Wetzel concerning our news story about conflict between the president and his infectious-disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci. She wrote in to say she thought we’d gotten “sucked into covering something that was not substantial.” Yep, sometimes that happens, and thanks for pointing it out in such a kind way.

BASHAM: OK, back to our feedback line. Fritz Longabaugh from Rochester, New York, called in to thank us for The Olasky Interview.

LONGABAUGH: That last with Justin Gibony, just what I needed. I’m a pro-life Democrat and feel pretty politically homeless as I think many people do these days. It was really refreshing to have you first of all interview a thoughtful black political leader, but also one who is really biblical in his approach and I just want to say thank you. You consistently win my gratitude and my, and my donations. Keep it up!

EICHER: Next, we’ve got some feedback for you, Megan. Leta Powell listens in New Mexico, where she recorded this audio message while taking a walk.

POWELL: Thank you for all the great reviews for TV shows and movies. Thank you for the times when you tell us where we can find them, on what platform. And please, whenever that information is available, if you would let us know where we can find the great movies that you review and recommend, so that we know where to go to watch them. Thank you so much!

BASHAM: That is a great reminder Leta. I’ll do my best!

EICHER: This next comment, well, I know Mary Reichard’s listening. She’ll appreciate this. Listener Jacques Pye emailed to tell us how much he loves her Legal Docket each week. Before he started listening, he viewed the Supreme Court as a veiled entity that made decisions from afar. But now, he writes that he has a much-better,

more informed appreciation of [the court]. 

He’s come to see each of the justices

as a real person, with a voice, with feelings, and with convictions. 

Although at times, he says, he may disagree with a particular justice, he now finds himself 

disagreeing with a person, not a robe.

BASHAM: I like the way he put that.  Let’s give listener Doug Woodford the last word today. He lives in Spokane, Washington, and works as a cargo plane pilot. You might have heard him on one of our recent prerolls. He also loves Legal Docket.

WOODFORD: On my cargo airline layover on Monday, I listened to The World and Everything in It on an exercise walk across the bridge from Jeffersonville, Indiana, to Louisville, Kentucky—6 feet apart from the other walkers, of course. It was poignant to hear Mary’s Legal Docket regarding the case of alleged First Amendment violations by Louisville’s mayor. Upon reaching the Kentucky side of the bridge, overlooking Louisville, I prayed for the mayor, the judge, the lawyers, the city, the state, and our country, to listen to God’s voice during this pandemic. Thank you for giving us specificity for prayer in each of your podcasts.

EICHER: Thanks for that encouraging word, Doug. And thank you for your prayers. And that’s Listener Feedback for this month!

NICK EICHER: Putting together The World and Everything in It is a team sport. And we have a team of all-stars: 

Joel Belz, Paul Butler, Kent Covington, Kristen Flavin, Katie Gaultney, George Grant, Anna Johansen, Leigh Jones, Trillia Newbell, Onize Ohikere, Bonnie Pritchett, Mary Reichard, Sarah Schweinsberg, and Cal Thomas.

For production assistance to help us keep socially distant, special thanks to: Tommy Bates, Eddie Miller, and Patricia Rodriguez for their assistance on our story on school-lunch delivery. Robby Gray, Maddi Miller, and Hannah Saunders on newspapers hit hard by the pandemic.

And to Katie McCoy and David Bahnsen for setting up home studios and recording with us from home.

MEGAN BASHAM: Johnny Franklin and Carl Peetz stay up late to get the program to you early. J.C. Derrick is managing editor and Marvin Olasky is editor-in-chief.

Jeremiah reminds you to pray to the Lord on behalf of the city you live in. And seek its welfare. Because its welfare is your welfare.

I hope you’ll have a great day today, and that you’ll worship this weekend in spirit and in truth. We’ll talk to you Monday!

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.