The World and Everything in It: December 16, 2024

PREROLL: Good morning, it’s David Bahnsen.

As someone who’s passionate about both free-market economics and a Biblical worldview, I believe strongly in the principle of voluntary exchange.

So, here’s my simple proposition: If you’ve found value in the work of WORLD, I’d invite you to consider supporting its Year-End Giving Drive.

Your gift helps WORLD continue providing journalism grounded in facts and Biblical truth.

Just visit WNG.org/yearendgift—that’s WNG.org/yearendgift.

Every gift matters. Thanks for investing in independent reporting that serves us all.

I’ll be back in about 20 minutes, talk to you then!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

It’s been nearly 80 years since the Holocaust and survivors and heirs still seek property returned. At the Supreme Court, one argument was it’s not traceable.

KAGAN: Doesn’t this provide a roadmap to any country that wants to expropriate property?  Just sell the property, put it in your treasury, insulate yourself for all time?

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat.

And later the WORLD History Book today, the life and faith of an early American education pioneer.

BALLENGER: He didn't think that you necessarily had to have a school to be well educated.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, December 16th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

REICHARD: Up next, Mark Mellinger with today’s news.

MARK MELLINGER, NEWS ANCHOR: Syrian Christians return to church » Across Syria, churches opened for Sunday services for the first time since the overthrow of totalitarian leader Bashar al-Assad.

Christians worshiping in Damascus expressed hope that a new government more supportive of religious minorities will be formed soon. To help move that along, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen says it’s time for countries like the U.S. to roll back sanctions on Syria.

PEDERSEN: The change that (indecipherable) all seen after the fall of the Assad regime has just been immense.

U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken hasn’t pledged to take that step, but says he has been in contact with the rebel group that ousted Assad called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, for short.

HTS is a former Al Qaeda affiliate that the U.S. still designates as a terrorist organization, leading Senator Lindsey Graham to urge caution as he warned NBC’s Meet the Press of a potential ISIS resurgence…

GRAHAM: There are 50,000 ISIS fighters under the control of Kurdish allies of the United States in northeastern Syria. It is in our national security interest they do not break out of jail and reestablish the Caliphate.

The U.S. military is in Syria conducting counterterrorism operations.

Russia now deploying N. Korean troops into combat vs. Ukraine » Russia is reportedly escalating its war on Ukraine by deploying soldiers from its ally North Korea into the fighting.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Russia has pressed a significant number of North Korean soldiers into service during assaults on Ukraine in Russia’s Kursk region.

Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Oksana Markarova, is showing resolve, telling CBS’s Face the Nation…

MARKAROVA: It’s difficult, of course, to see the reinforcements from this axis of evil. But it will not change anything for us.

Ukraine’s military says friendly fire from North Korean troops has accidentally killed eight Russian soldiers in the conflict.

Over the weekend, Ukraine carried out several drone strikes and set fire to a major Russian oil terminal all in response to a major Russian aerial attack late last week.

Israel closes Irish embassy, Netanyahu talks w/Trump » That’s Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, describing what he calls a very warm phone call with President-elect Trump.

Netanyahu says the two leaders discussed the need to complete Israel’s victory over Hamas, as well as the efforts to free the estimated 100 people still held hostage in Gaza, including seven Americans.

Also over the weekend, Israel announced it’s closing its embassy in Ireland, accusing the Irish government of holding extreme anti-Israel policies. Relations between the two countries have deteriorated during the war in Gaza.

Ireland has gone on record saying it would support a Palestinian state, but Ireland’s prime minister says the country is not anti-Israel.

Drones: Congress has local control legislation in the works » Elected officials in both major parties are calling for action to identify and stop those mysterious drones flying over New York, New Jersey, and other places in the eastern U.S.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer…

SCHUMER: I am going to help pass and I’m going to co-sponsor legislation that will combat these drones in a better way by allowing local police departments and state police departments to help the Feds in sighting these drones.

Right now, the federal Department of Homeland Security’s authority to incapacitate drones is limited. The bill before the Senate would expand that authority, and give state and local agencies new abilities to track, disrupt, disable, or seize drones.

Schumer also wants the federal government to use recently declassified radio wave technology to better spot and identify drones.

For now, national security investigators say it doesn’t look like the drones are a public safety threat or from a foreign country, but aren’t saying much more.

Cyclone in Mayotte likely kills hundreds » There are fears Cyclone Chido has killed several hundred, and maybe thousands, of people in the French territory of Mayotte. That’s according to the territory’s top leader.

Mayotte is in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Africa. Leaders say Chido flattened neighborhoods this weekend, and is the worst cyclone to hit the territory in 90 years.

The cyclone also struck and caused major damage in Mozambique Sunday, where UNICEF spokesman Guy Taylor says…

TAYLOR: We’re also worried about the longer term impacts: children potentially being cut off from learning for weeks on end, people unable to get access to health care, and the potential spread of water-borne diseases.

First responders from another nearby French territory have rushed to the scene in Mayotte. They’re equipped with tons of supplies and working to restore electricity and access to drinking water.

U.S. winter storms bring snow, ice, tornado » A weekend of wild weather in the western U.S. brought ice, snow, and even San Francisco’s first-ever tornado warning.

National Weather Service meteorologist Dalton Behringer says there’s evidence an EF-1 tornado hit the town of Scotts Valley, California, about 70 miles from San Francisco. He reports…

BEHRINGER: A few cars were tossed in the roadway, overturned in parking lots, and quite a bit of tree damage and some damage to the infrastructure there on the roadway through Scotts Valley.

The storm system brought heavy snow to the mountaintops in the Sierra Nevada. Crews even had to shut down an icy 80-mile stretch of I-80 from Applegate, California to the Nevada line near Reno Saturday.

I'm Mark Mellinger.

Straight ahead: 80 years later, Holocaust survivors and heirs… still trying to get property returned. And later, the faith story… of a figure in America’s founding better known for his way with words.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 16th day of

December. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

In a moment we will analyze a case that arises, out of the Holocaust.

But first:

JENNY ROUGH: Mary, I am so sad about Bill.

REICHARD: A conversation with my legal-affairs colleague Jenny Rough…

EICHER: We all got together on Friday after we heard the news.

REICHARD: Very sad news: the death of William Hennessey Junior.

You may not know his voice or his face or even his name. But you’d probably recognize his sketches.

If you think of Legal Docket as your ears at the Supreme Court, Bill Hennessey would’ve been your eyes.

Cameras aren’t allowed at the court, but Hennessey was there as the courtroom sketch artist.

EICHER: Hennessey had a massive heart attack last week, and died on his 67th birthday.

Mary and Jenny interviewed Bill Hennessey two years ago, and if you missed the replay of their lengthy special report we ran over the weekend, you might want to go back and listen. It should be in your podcast feed.

Let’s jump back into our conversation.

ROUGH: I was at the court the other day just last week and I saw his chair with his name on it and it was empty. And he's always at the court, and I remember thinking: I wonder where he is? And then the news came out that afternoon.

EICHER: Ever since you all met him and we did that piece, I pay closer attention to courtroom sketches, and his were so strong. I could always pick his stuff out from others. Like, oh, there’s a Bill Hennessy.

REICHARD: He truly was an original and we saw him in his art studio there in Virginia. We had such a pleasant time. We’d driven over there together and he was so pleasant and so kind and so welcoming. So , Jenny, what’s something that you remember from our time with him?

ROUGH: Yeah, when you say kind, I mean, that is the word that just immediately comes to mind, but he lived out in Ashburn, Virginia, in this gorgeous house on Goose Creek, you know, the Virginia countryside and his art studio had all these huge windows and he had everything organized, you know, he had his Supreme Court sketches and his arraignment sketches and trials and sentences. And he would just pull them out and he would start talking about the case. 
I mean, he remembered everything….

REICHARD: One of the things that I remember, it was some time after we had visited him in his art studio. You and I, Jenny, were at the Supreme Court. Oral arguments hadn't started yet, and I was seated next to Bill, so I was fascinated.
I was kind of looking over his shoulder. I said hi, but he barely looked up and he didn't acknowledge us because he was so intent on sketching the courtrooms, you know, the curtains, the furniture, all that stuff before the justices even took their seats and I realized that I had interrupted him so I just went about my business. But here's something about Bill that I think says something about him and his personality. Later after the arguments had concluded, he came up to us in the lobby and he said to me, “Oh my goodness, it's you and Jenny. Of course I remember who you are. I was just, you know, so focused on my sketch.” I said “Hey, no apology needed. I interrupted you.” So that's the kind of man Bill Hennessy was. He was concerned about the seeming little things. Relationship things.

ROUGH: Well, when you say, when you talk about sitting next to him at the Supreme Court, so I will never forget the first time I met him. It was 2019 and it was the first Monday in October, so it's opening day of the Supreme Court's new term. And in the press gallery, you know, you don't get to pick your seat.
 You're basically told where to sit, and that day I was placed right next to Bill Hennessy, the way that you were placed next to him when you were there. And I, it was the same thing, I was looking over his shoulder and peppering him with questions about his work and he patiently answered all of them. 
And I just, I knew from the moment I met him I'm like we have to interview this guy. And then three years later we did! (laughs)

REICHARD: So glad about that! And it wasn’t only his kindness; I was struck by his adherence to the truth in his artwork. I want to play a clip from him, from our interview. Listen to what he says about that:

HENNESSY: I try to stay out of the politics of it. I really do. Including the way I draw and what I draw. I just try to be objective. That’s my goal. So it’s a challenge to try to capture the moment and be accurate. Accuracy is one thing I’ve, certainly been drilled into me over the years is, you know, there’s this etiquette, this ethical responsibility as an artist is just like a journalist: you gotta get it right and don’t embellish and don’t get it wrong. And if you didn’t see it, don’t draw it.

I have to add…there’s a photo I have with him standing together. When I looked at it the other day, I couldn’t help but think: Here are two people who would both have heart attacks two years later. One of us would make it through and the other would not. I'm so grateful to be here, for to live is Christ. Sad for Bill, of course, but to die is gain.

Well, we carry on now to the argument heard two weeks ago in the case Republic of Hungary versus Simon. It’s similar to previous cases we’ve covered over the years…

This case arises from the Holocaust in Hungary.

First a brief history

EICHER: During three months in 1944, Hungary murdered more than half a million Jews. The Hungarian government collaborated with the Nazis, and declared that valuables owned by Jews were now property of the government.

Officials went house to house confiscating property.

REICHARD: When it became clear that the Allies would win the war, Hungarian officials with brutal efficiency put thousands of Jews into cattle cars destined for death camps. The numbers are mind-boggling: four times per day, the government put 3,000-5,000 Jews into cattle cars, where 90% were murdered upon arrival at the camps.

EICHER: In all, two-thirds of the Jewish population of Hungary were wiped out. The one-third that survived and the heirs of some of them want to recover what rightly belongs to them—and that led them to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lead plaintiff is Rosalie Simon, now age 93. She and the others sued Hungary and the national railway MAV. They did so under an exception to the general rule that foreign nations are immune from lawsuits in American courts.

Their lawyer Shay Dvoretzky:

DVORETSKY: When Hungary and MAV liquidated respondents’ property, they exchanged that property for money. And when money is commingled, a withdrawal from commingled funds is in exchange for earlier deposits. So, when Hungary used commingled funds to pay interest and buy equipment in the United States, it put into the United States property that had been exchanged for the expropriated property.

Think of it as depositing a $100 bill in the bank and withdrawing it a year later. It’s not going to be the exact same physical bill, and that’s completely unimportant, but it’s the exact same amount.

Dvoretzky argued the passage of time cannot erase what Hungary did during the Holocaust.

What it did with the confiscated property is a sufficient commercial connection to the US. And thus it still fits under the exception to the general rule that you can’t sue a foreign country.

So his clients should be permitted to move ahead with the lawsuit.

REICHARD: Hungary, of course, disagrees. Lawyer Joshua Glasgow representing:

GLASGOW: Simply showing that funds entered into the general revenues of an entire nation that contained billions of dollars followed by untold numbers of transactions following that deposit simply isn’t consistent” with the plain text.

…the plain text of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the federal law in question.

Hungary insists that there is no way to trace assets seized nearly 80 years ago and connect those to anything today.

Lawyer Glasgow argued it’d be foolish to expand a narrow exception.

Justice Elena Kagan pushed back, worrying that nations would just insulate themselves:

KAGAN: Doesn’t this provide a roadmap to any country that wants to expropriate property? Other words, just sell the property, put it in your national treasury, and insulate yourself from all claims for all time?

EICHER: Chief Justice John Roberts continued that line of questioning with Dvoretzky for the survivors, worried about throwing the door open to lots of lawsuits:

ROBERTS: At the end of the day you’re really just asking us to throw out the general rule that sovereigns can’t be sued for appropriations of this sort. I mean, once you say commingling counts, well, then, everything’s pretty much fair game.

REICHARD: The question flashing around the court was whether there had to be a direct exchange of expropriated property for assets, or just a commingling of those expropriated assets with general funds.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also seemed to lean in Hungary’s direction, worrying about diplomatic consequences of allowing the case to proceed:

KAVANAUGH: No other country in the world has an expropriation exception to begin with, right? ……It’s a big deal to hail a foreign country into U.S. court.

EICHER: Justice Samuel Alito was concerned about the notion of reciprocal lawsuits—and a bit surprised. He’s questioning Sopan Joshi, the Biden administration lawyer supporting Hungary’s argument.

ALITO: --I don't understand your argument about retaliation. You think that if lawsuits are brought in the United States based on the expropriation, let's say, of the property of U.S. nationals abroad, then foreign countries are going to entertain suits based on the expropriation in this country of the property of their nationals? Is the United States going around expropriating the property of foreign nationals?

JOSHI: I --I hope we're not.

To be clear, Joshi wasn’t arguing Hungary did nothing wrong. He’s arguing that American courts aren’t the right place to pursue this particular stolen property and see it returned to the rightful owners.

This case has bounced around for years, and even made it to the high court once already. The justices sent it back to the lower courts for more review. But when a federal appeals court ruled for the families, Hungary appealed to the Supreme Court.

REICHARD: The justices’ questions showed they are concerned about the broader implications however they decide. Implications for international diplomacy, for principles of sovereign immunity, and for the pursuit of justice for Holocaust survivors.

However the court resolves the question of whether the survivors can proceed with their case, it won’t settle the issue over the stolen goods. 

A broad ruling risks global relations, while a narrower one could allow nations to evade responsibility.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group. He is here now. Good morning to you, David.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, good morning to you. Good to be with you.

EICHER: I did enjoy your Dividend Cafe newsletter this weekend and you suggested there that financial deregulation could be as big a story in 2025 as the debate over the Trump tax cut. Talk about why you think that is.

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I think it’s a very important topic because I think that there is a broad sense in which the concept of financial regulation sounds like a really good thing to a society that is still reasonably close to and certainly remembering of the 2008 crisis.

If what we meant by financial regulation was not having things happen systemically that threatened to bring down our financial system, there’s very few people who would be opposed to that.

When we talk about financial deregulation, we talk about two categories.

One is eliminating silly things that are counterproductive, unhelpful. This week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, finally passing a federal restriction geared towards limiting the overdraft fees that banks are allowed to charge.

Now, one would think that this is not exactly what the CFPB was set to do to try to eliminate various things that are systemic and could bring down our whole system and having federal rules about the fees that a bank can charge would be kind of outside their mandate and maybe just a little bit small-ball, silly.

However, there’s actually a much bigger issue here. We’ve talked about it in the past with credit card interest. All they have to do is say, “Well, if we’re going to have people overcharging accounts, creating administrative burden, not to mention taking use of our capital for a period of time, you know, what we used to refer to as writing bad checks. It just happens to be at ATM level, then we’re going to close accounts.”

So, there is just a counterproductive sense to that kind of stuff, but that is really secondary to what the bigger issue is that I’m referring to, which is how much we’re allowed to do in our financial sector to drive growth. There is a level at which capital can be recklessly deployed at banks and there is a level at which it is so conservatively restrained that there is not enough liquidity in our financial system to drive new investment. I believe that by having a more sensible growth-oriented approach to regulation, there is a major opportunity in the new administration to do things more sensibly and reasonably, and of course not recklessly.

EICHER: One of those regulators is the Federal Trade Commission and we learned about chairman Lina Khan’s replacement, Andrew Ferguson. Now he’s on the commission so he won’t have to go through confirmation to be elevated to chairman of the SEC, with Khan going out. But I assume you see this as very good news from a free-market standpoint.

BAHNSEN: I think you said he was currently in the SEC. He’s currently in the FTC, he’s being named chairman, and that’s why he doesn’t need confirmation.

So, there were two appointments that we could be talking about here. Paul Atkins at SEC, who has been an SEC commissioner before and now has been named to be chairman.

That’s the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has oversight of a lot of issues related to financial markets.

Lina Khan is currently the head of the Federal Trade Commission and President-elect Trump named Andrew Ferguson to take that position. Ferguson is a really big proponent of free markets, and of a corporate America that is going to have to deal with the pain of its own bad decisions, not using federal regulation to try to keep it from hurting itself.

Now it is trying to use it to protect consumers. It’s trying to use it to protect one actor from another actor, but not use regulation to try to protect what the government believes could be a bad deal. That’s just totally outside the bounds of what the FTC was created for.

And so I think his role with FTC is to protect free exchange, and I’ve been very impressed with the things that I’ve seen from Andrew Ferguson—and far more than not only what we have now at Lina Khan but some of the people I was concerned could be considered in that role.

EICHER: David, this is something we talked about last week, just a few days ago here on the program. But I’ve been curious what you’d say about it: some of the commentary around health insurance that veers into kind of justification of violent criminality, the killing of the insurance CEO. A surprising amount of the commentary, both from the left and some corners of the right are saying we need to have a conversation about healthcare costs. I think you could shed some light on this story, help us have a better understanding, would you like to talk about that?

BAHNSEN: I do very much. You know, Nick, let me first say that I would prefer to not have to address what health insurance as an industry ought to do in the aftermath of one of its leading executives being assassinated. Because I don’t think that murderers get to provoke national conversations through acts of murder and violence. So, I was a little dismayed this week by the CEO of United Healthcare penning an op-ed to talk about, you know, “let’s look at the industry and what can be done better and so forth.”

It may have been wonderful ideas and it may be a great sentiment, but there is almost a sense which it feels like quasi-capitulation to assassins.

To the extent that the health insurance industry is a very legitimate part of the U.S. economy and it’s always open to scrutiny and critique, then I’ll do that, but this murderer didn’t deserve the right to provoke it.

I’m sure everybody is hearing my point.

The health insurance industry is basically a governmental industry. The amount of regulation around the legislation that exist at a federal level is insurmountable.

I mean, we have given, especially after the Affordable Care Act, a monumental amount of control to the federal government. Now, there are some who will say, “well, then, why don’t we just close the loop and go all the way?” Because right now I think you have almost the worst of all worlds where it’s a private insurance industry, but it’s quasi-private because of that deep regulatory apparatus and legislative requirement. Some might just say, “OK, fine, nationalized healthcare, go to a single payer like other countries.”

I most certainly don’t support that.

Nick, at the end of the day here’s the bottom line for everyone to understand. They do not make money by not insuring people. They make money by insuring people. So you want more people in the risk pool and in the economics of it.

If you do not pay out claims that are black-and-white legitimate, then you’re breaking the law and you’re going to get sued and you’re going to lose, OK? If it’s not black and white, it’s gray area, you do not keep business by declining payments and giving people ample incentive to move to other carriers.

But what we’re really talking about our claims that are denied or a level of a claim that is paid that upsets people because their policy doesn’t cover it and they wish it covered it or they wish it covered more of it.

And I understand entirely that people want sometimes what can be very very expensive coverage for their loved ones, and sometimes certain levels are not covered. Now that has to do with what the basic level of the policy is.

But our society never had the conversation, and Obamacare enabled us to not have to have it about how we want to view health care.

Is it something that is a right and we’re somehow going to force people to provide it without compensation or without market forces around their compensation? Or do we believe it’s something that we want to make available in the public square subject to market forces (like everything else we do) and allow competition and quality?

I think the demonization of the people that are providing the payment for this is allowing us to not understand that the insurance around health care is not the same thing as the cost of the health care that they’re not even privy to. They don’t even see it. There’s so much opacity around this that it’s totally distorted the conversation.

That’s not because of the insurance industry. That’s because of the governmental involvement in the health-care industry. It’s made this a very complicated topic and we’re not making progress.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David’s Dividend Café is available to you for free at dividendcafe.com. David, thanks, enjoyed it. Hope you have a great week, talk next week!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Monday, December 16th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Up next, the WORLD History Book. On this day in 1785, Noah Webster—the original American dictionary guy—so he’s good with words he sits down to write a letter to George Washington.

REICHARD: Webster is twenty-seven. In his letter, Webster invites himself to live at Mount Vernon with Washington and his family. Who does that?

EICHER: Apparently, Noah Webster. Washington is just one of dozens of the most powerful people in the Colonies he’s surrounding himself with. Here’s WORLD correspondent Caleb Welde with the rest of Webster’s story.

CALEB WLEDE: Noah Webster likes to push it, but is this too far? He says in his letter, “Sir, I can start objections even on your part…” But he nevertheless asks Washington if he can live at Mt. Vernon … to pursue his own writing, and to tutor Mrs. Washington’s grandkids.

The letter is not totally out of the blue– Webster has already had dinner with the General twice at Mt Vernon.

UNGER: He got on his horse, rode to Mt Vernon, and had the chutzpah to knock on George Washington’s door.

Biographer Harlow Unger there for a 1999 “Book TV” program.

UNGER: He didn’t know Washington, but he showed him a letter from president of Yale, and from the governor Trumble of Connecticut, and then he showed Washington this book.

The book was a small spelling and grammar book written by Webster. Webster makes the case that if people are going to independently govern themselves, they need to be educated. Beth Ballenger is founder of the Noah Webster Educational Foundation.

BALLENGER: He didn't think that you necessarily had to have a school to be well educated.

Webster tells Washington his self-teaching book will help unify America. Washington actually agrees to Webster’s request to live at Mt. Vernon on the condition Webster will also be his full-time secretary. Webster writes back saying, in so many words, that he has too many other priorities, and is actually too busy.

So who is this twenty-seven year old– and what’s driving him? He grew up on a farm in Connecticut, yet, got into Yale at sixteen with the help of a family pastor friend. That’s where he made his first connections. He’s been upwardly mobile ever since.

By the time the Constitutional Convention rolls around, he knows, at least by acquaintance– two thirds of the delegates at the Convention. His trick is to get the last famous guy to write a letter of introduction to the next famous guy. He seems to especially enjoy Benjamin Franklin– who is becoming a sort of mentor. Washington and Madison come to his house to talk during the convention.

BALLENGER: But not only that, he would visit the taverns. Webster would visit the taverns where he knew the delegates would be dining and discussing and would contribute to the discussion as well.

He also meets Rebecca Greenleaf that year in Philadelphia. They fall in love quickly. After three months, he tells her that her friendship and esteem are his “only happiness.” family is also very well connected, and they marry in 1789.

Webster spends the next two decades studying law, traveling for speaking tours, writing and continuing what we might call networking today.

BALLENGER: When he lived in Connecticut, he was a congressman. He was in the legislature. He was actually a peace officer, and he served on the Chamber of Commerce. He was an extremely active man.

Then, a seismic shift, a year shy of his fiftieth birthday. Across New England, there's revival meetings going on in homes and churches. Webster doesn’t like them. He says it’s emotionalism. He believes in “rational religion.”

WEBSTER: My wife, however, was friendly to these meetings…

His family starts regularly attending the meetings. Webster’s religion has been very self-focused up to this point. His beliefs very much mirror Benjamin Franklin’s.

WEBSTER: I had doubts respecting some of the doctrines of the Christian faith, such as regeneration, election, salvation by free grace, the atonement and the divinity of Christ.

His “reliance,” in his own words, are in good works “as the means of salvation.” He begins examining doctrines more closely with a pastor. A battle rages on.

WEBSTER: I continued some weeks in this situation, utterly unable to quiet my own mind.

Then, in his words, one day he wakes up.

WEBSTER: I closed my books, yielded to the influence, which could not be resisted or mistaken, and led by a spontaneous impulse to repentance, prayer, and entire submission and surrender of myself to my maker and redeemer.

Now he says he believes, “reliance on our own talents or powers is a fatal error, springing from natural pride and opposition to God.”

WEBSTER: I am particularly affected by a sense of my ingratitude to the Being who made me, and without whose constant agency I cannot draw a breath, who has showered upon me a profusion of temporal blessings and provided a Savior for my immortal soul.

He begins to “relish” many parts of the Bible which had made no sense to him before. He’s especially taken with, or by, the Holy Spirit.

WEBSTER: I cannot think without trembling on what my condition would have been had God withdrawn the blessed influences of His Spirit, the moment I manifested opposition to it, as he justly might have done, and given me over to hardness of heart and blindness of mind.

As for Rebecca…

WEBSTER: You may easily conceive how much she was affected, the first time she met her husband and children at the Communion.

Most people know Webster for his dictionary. He’d just begun the project when God saved him. He doesn’t just dive right into defining things. He begins by brushing up on his college Latin, Hebrew, and Greek then on French and German. Then he dives into Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Welsh, and Persian. He learns twenty or more.

Picture him, in the upstairs of the family home, standing at a semi-circle desk. Twenty or thirty dictionaries and grammar books in various languages all within arms reach.

BALLENGER: He would take one word at a time and go straight around that horseshoe shaped table, studying it, and his definitions show where his heart is, because often times he would use scripture.

From his definition of grace:

WEBSTER: Appropriately, the free, unmerited love and favor of God, the spring and source of all the benefits men receive from him. “And if by grace, then it is no more of works.” Romans 11:6.

He stays at it for twenty-one years. When he’s done, he has written seventy thousand entries. 

Here’s part of his definition for, “fortitude.”

WEBSTER: That strength or firmness of mind or soul which enables a person to encounter danger with coolness and courage, or to bear pain or adversity without murmuring, depression or despondency.

Webster has also been making notes in his King James Bible these two decades where he sees words and grammar that people don’t use anymore. Five years after the Dictionary, he publishes a revised version. He writes in the preface he thinks the Bible should be read, and understood, in the common language.

Webster brings a stack of these Bibles to his and Rebecca’s fiftieth wedding anniversary celebration. Webster knows it’ll be the last time they’re all together. At the end of the night, the eighty-four year old calls the meeting to order. He kneels, and everyone follows his example. Webster asks God to bless the family– his children, and his children’s children “to the last generation”. Then he gives each of them a Bible with their name inside. He tells his daughter after…

WEBSTER: It was the happiest day of my life, to see us all together, so many walking in the Truth.

He closes the night singing “Blessed be the Tie the Binds,” surrounded not by the rich and powerful, but by a devoted family, worshiping God.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. My thanks to voice actor Kim Rasmussen. I’m Caleb Welde

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: life for Christians in Syria after the fall of the Assad regime. We have a report.

And, we’ll meet a handful of holiday baristas keeping customers hydrated, caffeinated, and in a festive mood.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says: “For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” —James 3:16-18

Go now in grace and peace.

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.