The World and Everything in It: June 10, 2025

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Hey, good morning—Nick Eicher here. Our June Giving Drive is rolling, and the scoreboard already shows points on the board: WORLD Movers have placed a $130-thousand challenge gift to say, “We’re in—join us.” Cast your own vote of confidence for sound, fact-based, biblically grounded journalism at WNG.org/JuneGivingDrive—and thanks for standing with WORLD.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Protests and riots continue in Los Angeles as immigration enforcement ramps up.

HANKINSON: Whether or not you oppose the policy, it is actually the law. The law does require us to enforce the decisions that courts make.

EICHER: Also a special Tuesday edition of Legal Docket with key disability cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And later, life on a remote ranch in New Mexico comes with many challenges not the least of them relational.

PATERSON: There isn’t a lot of Christian fellowship here that I have found. Maybe there is, and I just haven’t found it.

REICHARD: It’s Tuesday, June 10th. 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, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: LA protests/riots » Protests continue in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They’re demanding that ICE leave the city and release those detained during immigration raids.

Officials say the pattern has generally been mostly peaceful demonstrations during the day become aggressive at night, with some agitators and rioters destroying property with Molotov cocktails and clashing with police.

LA Police Chief Jim McDonnell says some have attacked officers with rocks, identified liquids, and commercial grade fireworks.

MCDONNELL:  This violence that I've seen is disgusting. It's escalated now, uh, since the beginning of, uh, this incident. What we saw the first night was, uh, was bad. What we've seen subsequent to that is getting increasingly worse and more violent.

President Trump has authorized deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard troops, in addition to 2,000 guard troops. Approximately 700 active duty Marines have also been ordered to Los Angeles to support the 2,000 National Guard troops already there.

Their mission is to protect federal property and personnel, including ICE agents. By law, they cannot perform arrests or other law enforcement actions.

Newsom v Trump » California Governor Gavin Newsom is suing President Trump for deploying the National Guard to the area.

NEWSOM:   Donald Trump is reckless. He's immoral. Uh, he's taken the illegal and unconstitutional act and federalizing, uh, the National Guard, and he's putting lives at risk.

Newsom claimed—quote—“We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved.”

Local law enforcement says there was a problem from the very beginning. But Newsome says Trump needlessly escalated the situation. But the president fired back:

TRUMP:  He's an incompetent governor. Look at the job he's doing in California. He's destroying one of our great states. And, uh, if I didn't get involved, if we didn't bring the guard in … uh, you had, uh, a disaster happening.

California Attorney General Rob Bonita claims President Trump “trampled” on state’s rights by deploying the guard without consulting the governor.

China-U.S. trade talks » Top trade officials from the U.S. and China met in London on Monday to try and shore up a fragile truce in the trade war and restart stalled negotiations.

President Trump said Monday that he’s optimistic about the talks, adding that he’s looking for greater access to the Chinese marketplace.

TRUMP:  I think we're doing very well. They're over there now. I'm only getting good reports. It's a little early, but they'll, we wanna open up China and if we don't open up China, maybe we won't do anything, but we want to open up China. It'll be a great thing for China. Great thing for the rest of the world.

A Chinese delegation led by Vice Premier He Lifeng sat down with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

The meeting follows President Trump’s phone call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping last week.

Gaza latest / Selfie yacht » A boat carrying Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg and about a dozen others docked in an Israeli port Monday, but that wasn't their original plan.

The boat left Sicily earlier this month bound for Gaza - in an apparent attempt to bypass an Israeli blockade and deliver unauthorized aid to that region. But the Israeli military diverted it to Israel.

SOUND: I[DF boarding Freedom Flotilla ship]

Audio there of the activists aboard the boat just before the vessel was boarded.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition organized the effort.. and released this apparently pre-recorded message from Thunberg:

THUNBERG: If you see this video, we have been intercepted and kidnapped in international waters by the Israeli occupational forces...

But the Israeli Foreign Ministry said no one was kidnapped and all are safe. The ministry said everyone on the boat was offered water, sandwiches, and would soon be released.

Protests against drag queen story time in IL » Protesters spoke out Monday as the Chicago Public Library is hosting a drag queen “Story Time” for young children.

AUDIO:  And reading, having them read in drag is just inappropriate. It's inappropriate and it's gonna be inappropriate. Just because it's pride month does not give you the permission to do it.

The event, targeting children ages 2 through 5 was described as a special story time with music, books, dancing, and a guest reader in drag.

Others demonstrated in support of the event, saying it was about parental freedom.

Church arson sentencing » A federal court in Rhode Island has sentenced a confessed church arsonist to more than six years in federal prison.

Kevin Colantonio confessed in February to setting multiple fires around Shiloh Gospel Temple Ministries in early 2024. The fires were quickly put out, but the Pentecostal church still sustained damages totalling nearly $100,000.

Pastor Eric Perry attended the sentencing last week, and told NBC’s WJAR:

PERRY: He should have got more time. And what happen after three, three years probation? What's going to happen after that? When will he gets out?

Perry said the 36-year-old appeared to have no remorse for his actions, and that the church is planning to ramp up its security.

Colantonio pleaded guilty to malicious damage by fire, obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs, and two counts of assault on a federal officer.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: more on the unrest in Los Angeles. Plus, living off the grid. 

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Tuesday, the 10th of June.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Up first, the riots in LA, they’re continuing for a fourth straight day, while a power struggle plays out between California political leaders and the president.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass:

BASS: I was trying to encourage the administration that if they deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles, it would create a sense of chaos.

EICHER: President Trump considered the chaos was already created, committing to federalizing the guard after protests against immigration enforcement got out of hand.

ARTHUR: ICE arrested 44 individuals, most of whom had criminal records in Los Angeles.

REICHARD: Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies previously served as an immigration judge and advisor to Congress and the White House.

He told our Washington producer Harrison Watters that what started as a targeted action has become much bigger.

ARTUHUR: I think that there are those who oppose Donald Trump generally, and oppose immigration enforcement, who are taking to the streets and engaging in these actions.

EICHER: Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has yet to release details about the number of suspected illegals detained as of Friday. And critics of the policy point to that lack of specificity as adding to the confusion. Jenny Murray heads up the National Immigration Forum.

MURRAY: Did they have a criminal history or not? Were they sensitive populations or not, right, children or not?

Murray says her group would prefer a focus first on migrants with a criminal history beyond illegal border crossing, and she worries ICE may be violating rights.

MURRAY: We don't know yet I think all the facts on the ground, but where maybe some of those things could have been violated, and that's why there might be outrage, right?

REICHARD: Some protestors have been peaceful, but others have not. Simon Hankinson researches immigration policy for the Heritage Foundation.

HANKINSON: In many of these riots, you see the Mexican flag and the Palestinian flag being displayed, and you see the American flag burning.

He says the Biden administration’s lax border enforcement set the stage for the conflict we’re seeing play out in the streets.

HANKINSON: Now that ICE is going back to the job of enforcing immigration laws, there are many who are trying to make it appear as if this is some sort of disgusting historical anomaly. But it's really not.

Add to that self-proclaimed sanctuary cities hamstringing ICE efforts to detain and deport.

HANKINSON: Whether or not you oppose the policy, it is actually the law. The law does require us to enforce the decisions that courts make.

EICHER: Meanwhile, opponents of Trump’s tougher border policies are protesting another move he made that took effect Monday.

He ordered the State Department to place travel restrictions on a dozen countries he maintains fail to meet adequate security and vetting. Another seven countries face limited restrictions.

TRUMP: Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screened those who seek to enter the United States.

REICHARD: Back in 2017, President Trump signed a similar order targeting nations with majority-Muslim populations. That kicked off a legal battle and several revised orders that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts in 2018.

ROBERTS: There is sufficient evidence that the proclamation is reasonably related to an independent national security justification.

Roberts pointed out the travel ban was a legitimate state interest.

ROBERTS: The policy is limited, after all, to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks.

EICHER: Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies says the Trump administration learned from that legal battle.

ARTHUR: The current order stands on pretty good ground. It's, if anything, better factually supported than the earlier order.

President Trump’s first travel ban prohibited all travel from restricted countries no exceptions. His newest one contains a variety of exceptions for categories including lawful permanent residents, athletes, and some persecuted religious minorities.

But Murray at the Immigration Forum says that move could have negative economic repercussions.

MURRAY: If they happen to be hospitality, they'll be worried about both their workers and the tourists that come right to take part in, you know, in their industry and in consuming their goods and services.

But Arthur believes most Americans support the president’s border policies.

ARTHUR : I anticipate that there will be an ongoing conversation about immigration enforcement, but I think that the people who attack the President about immigration enforcement aren't on the same side as the majority of American voters.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: a bonus Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: That’s right. It’s June and the Supreme Court’s term is in the final weeks. We covered five recent decisions yesterday, but we’re back today to catch up on a few more oral arguments: three of them.

First, a case watched closely by disability rights groups, one family’s quest for equal school hours and the fight that took them all the way to the Supreme Court.

ROBERTS: We’ll hear argument today in the case of AJT v Osseo Area Schools.

EICHER: “AJT” is Ava Tharpe, a student with a seizure disorder. In Kentucky, she attended school from noon to 6 p.m. Her seizures were worse in the mornings, so that schedule best accommodated her needs.

But when the family moved to Minnesota, the Osseo school district refused that schedule, reducing her hours of instruction by two hours a day.

Her parents say that cost Ava critical skills.

REICHARD: So they sued. And they won in lower court under a law known by the acronym IDEA. It stands for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. That law provides remedies like tuition reimbursement for private schooling.

But it has no provision for monetary damages, unlike two other disability laws: the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The family sued under those laws as well, but they lost. That’s because where they live in the Eighth Circuit a higher standard of proof is required than in other circuits.

EICHER: Minnesota requires proof of “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment” by the school in refusing the requested accommodation.

Ava’s lawyer Roman Martinez argued that’s not fair. Most Americans only need to show “deliberate indifference,” an easier standard of proof to meet.

MARTINEZ: The district’s new theory violates the text, history, and purpose of both statutes. It contradicts decades of regulations. It defies at least five precedents of this Court and decisions from virtually every circuit. It would also revolutionize disability law, stripping protections from vulnerable victims and gutting the reasonable accommodations needed for equal opportunity.

REICHARD: Martinez pointed out that grown-ups with disabilities don’t face such a high bar. So why should kids?

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about the school’s intent to discriminate:

GORSUCH: The act of discrimination is to treat someone else differently because of their disability. Right? And I would have thought that that might have meant I intend to treat someone differently. It doesn't matter about my further motive. I agree, I --I take that point, bad faith. But why wouldn't that be the test?

MARTINEZ: So, Your Honor...

Martinez explaining intent doesn’t matter here.

MARTINEZ: .... the reason for that is that you can have people discriminated and excluded by reason of their disability even though there's no --there's no intent. And --and so, because you have a disability --

GORSUCH: I see.

MARTINEZ: --you're not able to take advantage of a program.

EICHER: Lawyer Lisa Blatt represented the school district, arguing that lowering the standard of proof would expose schools to massive liability. A decision from 1982 called Monahan set the higher bar for disability discrimination claims in education.

BLATT: And reversing Monahan would expose 46,000 public schools to liability when, for 40 years, they have trained teachers, allocated budgets, and obtained insurance, all in reliance on Monahan. Every good-faith disagreement would risk liability or even the nuclear option, the loss of federal funding, which is over a hundred billion dollars.

REICHARD: She went further, arguing the higher proof bar ought to apply to everyone under federal disability law, not just in education.

That didn’t go over well. Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

SOTOMAYOR: Counsel, it would have been nice to know that we were biting off that big a chunk.

EICHER: Bad as it was … it doesn’t even compare with the uncomfortable exchange between Blatt and Justice Neil Gorsuch. He didn’t care for the way she’d accused Martinez and the DOJ of lying.

GORSUCH: I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied.

BLATT: Okay. Let's pull it up.

GORSUCH: Yeah. I think we're going to have to here, and I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase.

BLATT: At oral argument --

GORSUCH: If I might.

BLATT: --it was incorrect.

GORSUCH: If I --if I –

BLATT: Sure.

GORSUCH: Incorrect is fine.

BLATT: Well, lying --

GORSUCH: People make mistakes.

BLATT: Okay.

GORSUCH: You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying --

BLATT: That's fine.

GORSUCH: Ms. Blatt, if I might finish.

BLATT: Sure.

GORSUCH: Lying is another matter.

REICHARD: Ay, yi, yi!!!! I learned in law school you simply do not address the court in such a flippant way.

Blatt later withdrew the accusation.

Lawyer Martinez for the family wrapped up with an emotional plea:

MARTINEZ: If you accept her arguments, think of all the people who are going to be affected. Think of five-year-old Ehlena Fry with cerebral palsy, who needs the help of her service dog, Wonder. Think about George Lane, the Tennessee man forced to crawl up two flights of stairs in order to have his day in court. Think about Ava, who desperately needs every precious hour of school so she can learn to communicate with her parents.

After nearly 10 years of litigation, Ava is now 19 years old, and still in high school.

The outcome here could reshape the rights of more than 8 million students with disabilities across the country.

EICHER: Next, a case that involves two men who are legally blind. Luke Davis and Julian Vargas tried to check in at a LabCorp clinic using a touchscreen kiosk.

Because of their blindness, they couldn’t manage it without help. They tried to create a class-action to sue LabCorp for violating state and federal disability laws. 

Interesting facts. But the Supreme Court dismissed the case last Thursday with what the court calls a “DIG.” That’s an acronym for Dismissed as Improvidently Granted. No reason given, but Justice Jackson pointed in that direction during argument in this comment to LabCorp’s lawyer:

JACKSON: I guess I'm trying to understand…-your client's responsibility --for the confusion that we are in right now…-I understood that your client argued that the May class definition was too narrow. … And, today, you're saying it's improper or problematic because it's too broad. You know, it's too broad…

REICHARD: Flip-flopping your argument just isn’t a good look for lawyers before the Supreme Court.

Okay, on to our third and final oral argument: FCC v Consumers’ Research. It’s about phone bill fees, the Constitution, and who decides how public money is raised.

The Universal Service Fund is a $10 billion-a-year program created by Congress to ensure phone and internet access for rural hospitals, schools, and poor Americans. It’s funded by mandatory line-item fees on your phone bill.

Critics say those fees are an unconstitutional tax. You’ll hear the lawyers refer to them as USF charges.

MCCOTTER: At its heart, this case is about taxation without representation. Every year Americans pay billions for the universal service fund. The rate has increased ten-fold. The amount collected is now 20 times the size of the FCC's entire annual budget. The government and the FCC now agree, or at least do not dispute, that USF charges are, indeed, taxes;

EICHER: That’s Trent McCotter, attorney for Consumers’ Research advocacy group. Congress gave too much taxing power to the FCC, he argued. Then the FCC turned around and wrongly delegated it to a private company. He went on to list other points of agreement between the parties:

MCCOTTER: Tthat the USF statute sets no objective rule to limit the amount raised; and that Congress has set such rules for every other domestic tax in American history. Those concessions doom their case.The amount of public revenue to raise is a quintessential legislative determination, not some minor detail to be filled in later.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with him, citing the nondelegation doctrine. That restricts Congress’s ability to delegate its legislative power to other branches or entities.

At the Supreme Court, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris defended the program:

HARRIS: Congress dictated how much to charge—only what's sufficient to achieve universal service, so no more than needed to support specified programs.

Justice Samuel Alito pushed back on that, pointing to watchdog findings that are adverse:

ALITO: I mean, they say that the --the GAO couldn't verify the eligibility of 36 percent of those who receive USF benefits? Nearly 80 percent of the Lifeline Program users may -- may be legally ineligible for the benefits they're receiving?

Universal Service Administrative Company. He continued:

ALITO: Why shouldn’t we look at the record of what the FCC has actually done? And if you look at the record here, Isn't it really hard to say anything other than the fact that they just have rubber-stamped whatever the USAC has told them?

Lawyer Harris was ready:

HARRIS: There are four instances in which the FCC has, in fact, said USAC is not doing it right... So there are empirical examples of this not just being a rubber stamp.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson worried about broader consequences of a ruling limiting funding in this case:

JACKSON: …there are a number of different agencies that have similar revenue-generating fees.I know some people call them fees and not taxes. I’ve already established that in my view that doesn’t make a difference..But if we find that this one is unconstitutional, are all of these programs in jeopardy in your view?

HARRIS: Yes.

REICHARD: We’ll have a decision very soon. What’s at stake is not only a funding program, but a constitutional question of how much power Congress can delegate to federal agencies.

And that’s this week’s bonus Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Tuesday, June 10th.

Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Coming next on The World and Everything in It: Ranch life.

What’s it like to live off the grid, deep in cattle country, where the nearest neighbor might be miles away?

WORLD Senior Writer Kim Henderson traveled to a remote ranch in New Mexico to find out.

KIM HENDERSON: If you’re headed to Spur Ranch, fill up your gas tank. The nearest town of any size is about an hour away.

Then prepare for an 8-mile stretch of gravel and gritty New Mexico dirt before you reach the ranch’s main residence.

TOM PATERSON: Here we use the roads very deliberately as fire lines . . .

That’s Spur Ranch Owner Tom Paterson, driving a dusty Honda side by side. Fires and droughts are on his mind this time of year.

We’re in Catron County, the largest county, area-wise, in the state. Here, elk outnumber people 3 to 1.

Tom’s wife, Callie, is ok with that.

CALLIE PATERSON: The elk will come down to water, and so they're, you know, like, maybe 100 of them on our field … It is beautiful to look out, and all you see is God's creation.

TOM: We have deer, javelina, black bear, raccoons, rabbits and all sorts of squirrels. We have many bird species that are here. And oh, and turkey.

And don’t forget cattle.

But because there’s so little rain, vegetation is sparse. That means it takes a great deal of land to support livestock.

CALLIE: What most people do who have cattle in this part of the world is they buy an allotment, which is the right to run cattle on the U.S. Forest Service.

So ranchers have their own land, and they also lease federal land. Lots of it. They’re responsible to maintain it as if it was their own.

CALLIE: We have, like, 117,000 acres of land that needs fences and it needs water for the cattle . . . all that kind of infrastructure that cattle need.

And for Tom, there’s a whole other layer to ranching. He’s also a conservationist.

TOM: I have a fence around it that keeps the cows out, because I'm trying to make sure that we grow a new crop of narrow leaf cottonwood trees in here . . .

Over the decades, he’s worked to build three major soil retention structures on his property. That’s a lauded achievement in New Mexico.

TOM: Genesis 1. That's what God commanded man to do, take care of God's creation.

Tom is native to the area, but he made his mark in Texas as a successful attorney. Still, New Mexico was always on his mind. He and Callie bought this ranch 25 years ago, and they spend as much time here as possible. But living on a remote ranch has its challenges, and not just the four-hour drive to an airport.

It took 7 years to build their lodge-style house, because it was difficult to get materials and workers. They had to dig a well for water and come up with their own electricity.

CALLIE: We have solar panels, a lot of solar panels, but we also have a generator.

Cell service has gotten better recently, but they’re keeping their landline phone.

CALLIE: The key to living here is duplication. Redundancy. If something fails, you want to have a backup . . you never know how long it's going to take for someone to get here to fix it, if you can't fix it.

You don’t make quick trips for groceries, and Amazon doesn’t deliver to your doorstep.

The challenges of remote living aren't just material. There are relational and spiritual difficulties too.

CALLIE: There isn't a lot of Christian fellowship here that I have found. Maybe there is, and I just haven't found it. But, you know, I think that that is hard.

The Patersons have chosen to stay tied to their church in Houston.

CALLIE: Yeah, I mean, I think it's so much different now than it was even when we first started coming just because of the internet and, you know, Zoom and you can connect with people whole lot better than than we could when we first started.

Callie says after a month tucked away at the ranch, she’s eager to see people. To experience face to face communication.

CALLIE: They could be the store clerk, and I want to have this 30-minute conversation with them. And they are not very interested in that, but I am just dying to talk to somebody. So it's funny.

Ranching has its joys, though. The Patersons’ daughters grew up riding horses and looking at a peak known as Dillon Mountain right outside their living room window. Callie delights in cooking for visitors and their ranch hands. Tom looks forward to hard, fulfilling work days like tomorrow, when they’ll be branding new calves.

Having six hundred pounds of ground beef in the freezer—well, that's a perk, too.

And, after all these years, the Patersons believe the silence and solitude that comes with ranch life can be a blessing as well.

CALLIE: His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. And so it's real easy to think we're going the right direction when we may not be . . . . Slowing down, it allows you to hear God's small voice, because otherwise you just get so busy and kind of ignore it.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Kim Henderson in Luna, New Mexico.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Tuesday, June 10th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, how one book reshaped worship and the English speaking world.

On June 9th, 1549, Church of England parishioners heard something revolutionary: a full church service in their own language.

It came from the Book of Common Prayer—a liturgy whose words have echoed through the past nearly 500 years.

ADAM CARRINGTON: The Book of Common Prayer is the work primarily of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Its wording did much to form the English language as we know it. Phrases such as “at death’s door,” “land of the living,” and “the upper hand” all gained widespread usage through the Prayer Book.

Have you ever been to a wedding that began, “Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony”? That phrasing comes straight from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. In fact, nearly every traditional, English-speaking wedding ceremony owes some level of rhetorical debt to the Prayer Book. The same almost could be said for funerals and phrases such as “ashes to ashes, dust to dust.”

More than a masterpiece of English prose, the Prayer Book also exhibited the theology of the Protestant Reformation. First, it showed the primacy of God’s Word for the Church. It's saturated in Scripture. As much as 85% of its text either directly quoted Biblical passages or made allusions to them. Thus, the Prayer Book committed the English church to Paul’s declaration that, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

Second, the flow of Prayer Book services followed Reformational theology. They tread the basic path of the “3 Gs”: guilt, grace, and gratitude. We first admit our sinfulness, our inability of our own effort to please God. Admitting our helplessness, we then hear the gracious Good News of God’s offer of salvation by grace alone through faith alone by the merits of Jesus Christ. Finally, having heard and renewed our trust in God, we respond with gratitude by offering a sacrifice of thanks and praise.

Third, the Prayer Book applied the principle of the priesthood of all believers. It brought the congregation back into active participation throughout worship through reciting prayers, creeds, psalms, and singing. It simplified worship to invite more knowing involvement by the people. Relatedly, the transition from Latin to English also asked parishioners to listen attentively and to consider the Scriptural truth of what they heard.

Beyond its meaning for the English language and the Protestant Reformation, the Prayer Book came out of political beliefs. The “common” in prayer came in part from a belief that God is the Lord of nations. Worshipping together not only built the Church but strengthened communal bonds and virtues necessary for a peaceful and a just society.

In addition, the Prayer Book’s implementation on June 9th was no thoughtless choice. In 1549, June 9th was Whitsunday or Pentecost. The Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 undid the division and confusion of the Tower of Babel.

Pentecost pointed toward a future of renewed unity. This unity would come through the bringing of the gospel to every tribe, tongue, and nation in words they could understand. But it also foretold a time when God’s kingdom will unite all peoples under Christ’s lordship and in the worship of Him. All will make the political confession that Jesus reigns. All will make the theological confession that He, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is the one true God.

Whatever our theological tradition, let us celebrate the impact made by the Book of Common Prayer. Let us celebrate Cranmer’s gift of beautiful words. Let us adhere to the Reformational principles regarding Scripture, grace, faith, and thankfulness. And let us pursue with it the unity that we will have in the New Jerusalem—one of common language, common theology, common political community, and a common prayer—doxology.

I’m Adam Carrington.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: What’s next for DOGE … The Department of Government Efficiency has identified possible funding cuts … Now, the hard part: making them. And, what we can learn as believers from dark and troubling stories. An interview with New York Times bestselling novelist Andrew Klavan. 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: “This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but [Jesus] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.” —Hebrews 7:22-24

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.