The World and Everything in It: June 27, 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.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Good morning!

A decade of same-sex marriage, Trump goes off script (or does he?), and the surprising victory of a socialist in the Big Apple.

NICK EICHER, HOST: John Stonestreet is standing by for Culture Friday.

Also, today Brad Pitt’s latest film, a car-racing movie meant to inspire, but our reviewer’s not so sure.

SONNY: Listen, he’s cocky. He’s arrogant. He’s got a lot to learn.

RUBEN: You were cocky. You were arrogant. And you had a lot to learn.

And your listener feedback for the month of June.

BROWN: It’s Friday, June 27th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

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

BROWN: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: SCOTUS Planned Parenthood funds » The Supreme Court has ruled that states can legally cut off Medicaid funding to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.

In a 6–3 decision, the justices sided with South Carolina’s health department, which had barred the abortion giant from receiving taxpayer funds. The court said Medicaid laws do not give patients the right to sue if their preferred provider is excluded.

Pro-life advocates in South Carolina hope the ruling pushes Planned Parenthood to close altogether.

Valerie Berry, with A Moment of Hope in Columbia:

BERRY: Almost everything that Planned Parenthood does is cheaper somewhere else, even if you’re paying out of pocket.

She says the number of women visiting the clinic has dropped since the state upheld its pro-life law.

Several other states have similar policies regarding Medicaid funding, including Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas.

Big Beautiful Bill latest » At the White House, President Trump held an event Thursday to rally support for his so-called “one big beautiful bill.” The president said the legislation would, among other things, lock in tax cuts passed back in 2017.

TRUMP:  We're gonna stop the largest tax hike and we're gonna do that in history.

Debate was expected to begin today, but the bill isn’t ready. House conservatives are blasting the Senate—saying they won’t accept a watered-down version of the bill after the House already passed it.

But White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said with this kind of bill, it’s always a bumpy ride at the end.

HASSETT:  We respect that process and we have high confidence that the majority leader is going to deliver a bill, uh, that can pass the Senate and pass the house, and that on the 4th of July, or even before President Trump is gonna sign the Big Beautiful Bill.

The Senate parliamentarian rejected key sections aimed at limiting Medicaid costs. Those included a provision to block illegal immigrants from accessing Medicare and Medicaid. That ruling partially forced Republicans back to the drawing board.

Latest in Iran damage intel, debate » The Trump administration and defense officials offered new details on Thursday about last weekend’s airstrikes targeting key nuclear facilities in Iran.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine discussed the so-called ‘bunker buster’ bombs dropped on Iran’s underground Fordow facility.

CAINE:  The primary kill mechanism in the mission space was a mix of over pressure and blast ripping through the open tunnels and destroying critical hardware. The majority of the damage we assessed based on our extensive modeling was a blast layer combined with the impulse extending from the shock.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth blasted a recent media report suggesting the strikes may have only set Iran’s nuclear program back by a matter of months. That report cited a leaked preliminary assessment by one intelligence agency. Hegseth said of that assessment:

HEGSETH: It admits itself in writing that it requires weeks to accumulate the necessary data to make such an assessment. It's preliminary. It points out that it has not been coordinated with the intelligence community at all. There is low confidence in this particular report.

But senators yesterday emerged from a classified briefing with mixed reactions...mostly along party lines. GOP Senator Tom Cotton:

COTTON: I think it's safe to say that we have struck a major blow alongside our friends in Israel against Iran's nuclear program.

But Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal says he's not convinced.

BLUMENTHAL: My personal view, based on what I heard, is Iran continues to be a threat.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe Thursday both backed the conclusion that Iran's nuclear program was severely harmed. Israeli intelligence also backs that assessment.

And Rafael Grossi, the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency has said he believes Iran’s nuclear program was “set back significantly.”

Iranian leaders speak out ahead of meeting with U.S.  » Meantime, an Israel-Iran ceasefire is holding, but Tehran is still waging a PR battle.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei spoke ahead of scheduled talks between U.S. and Iranian officials next week.

BAEHAEI:  We have to make sure that, uh, whether the other parties are really serious when they're talking about diplomacy or it is again part of their, um, tactics to make more problem for the region and for my country.

He called the U.S. airstrikes a “horrible blow” to diplomacy and international law.

Looking to project strength at home, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei made his first public statements yesterday since the start of the ceasefire. He declared:

KHAMENEI (translated):  The Islamic Republic delivered a hard slap to America's face by attacking one of its key bases in the region. Al Udeid Air Base and inflicted damage.

But analysts largely regarded the missile strike against the Al Udeid AirBase in Qatar as a token response to the U.S. airstrikes. There were no casualties or significant damage.

Stocks surge » Wall Street is hoping to keep a winning streak going today after stocks surged to the edge of another record on Thursday. WORLD’s Benjamin Eicher has more.

BENJAMIN EICHER: The S&P 500 rose eight-tenths (8/10) of 1% yesterday and finished just a half of percentage point below its all-time closing high, set back in February.

The Dow Jones Industrial rallied NINE-tenths (9/10) of 1%, and the Nasdaq gained a full percentage point.

McCormick helped lead the market after the seller of cooking spices delivered a better-than-expected profit report.

Treasury yields fell after a few stronger-than-expected reports on the U.S. economy, including a drop in jobless claims … and an increase in orders for long-lasting goods.

Stock markets in Europe and Asia ended the day with mixed results.

For WORLD, I’m Benjamin Eicher.

I'm Kent Covington. 

Straight ahead: Culture Friday with John Stonestreet. Plus, comments and suggestions from you on Listener Feedback.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: It’s Friday the 27th of June.

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s Culture Friday and joining us now is John Stonestreet. He is president of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint podcast. Good morning to you.

JOHN STONESTREET: Good morning!

EICHER: Well, here we are—Friday morning—and in just a few hours, we expect the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the final decisions of its term. One of those may be the most culturally significant: a case that will decide whether parents have a right to opt their young children out of public school instruction they believe is harmful—in particular, lessons on sexuality and gender identity.

This comes just one day after the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges—that’s another Supreme Court decision … this one redefining marriage nationwide. Ten years later, we’re now asking whether parents even have the right to guide how and when their children encounter these contested moral ideas.

John, it seems like there’s a straight line between Obergefell and the parental-rights decision the court will announce today. What are your reflections on this cultural and legal moment?

STONESTREET: Well, it’s interesting on a number of levels. I think the two are absolutely related, and I’ll tell you why in just a second. But I also think that it’s important to remember what the decision actually was—not only that it mandated same-sex marriage on all of the United States, including 30-some states that had defined marriage otherwise as between a man and a woman, as civilizations had always defined it, including civilizations that had no influence whatsoever from a Judeo-Christian morality.

So what has Obergefell wrought? Justice Kennedy told us at the time that the real reason that we needed to have same-sex marriage is because we were a more tolerant, more moral, more accepting and loving people, because marriage in and of itself was not inherently connected to procreation. That’s an argument that’s now been extended in many ways, but it was instead an argument that was primarily about adult happiness.

So what we were told is that Obergefell would then extend the definition of marriage to include this other relational arrangement. But the net result has been—by extending it, it redefined it. And it redefined it by making irrelevant the number two. The only reason that the number two is important in a marriage is because we’re talking about man and woman—man and woman who, as Jesus put it, could become one flesh. That’s not a Christian reality, that’s just a reality. In other words, it’s a procreative union.

That’s why every county clerk and every state law wanted to know if the man and the woman were, you know, related in any way, if they were of certain age before issuing a marriage license. But if there is no inherent connection between marriage and procreation, then the number two becomes irrelevant. If we’re talking about two men or two women, there’s no reason we can’t be talking about three or four or a mixture of the two, because it’s not inherently connected.

What we have seen downstream from Obergefell was that the redefining of marriage meant the redefining of family. And then what happened really quickly—even though we were promised that this decision had nothing to do with procreation or children or parenting, but was just really about adult happiness—is that all these couples that were in this new arrangement of adult happiness then demanded children.

Now how is this connected to this case about whether parents have the right to remove their children from teaching that they consider to be explicit or obscene or inappropriate for them? Well, listen—if you start saying that not only does love make a marriage, but love makes a family, and therefore what we’ve seen now—biology is irrelevant and quote-unquote “love” makes parents—well then, it’s basically who loves and who cares for our kids more.

Then the state inserts itself in that conversation and says that the will of the parents is actually less important than the will of the state. And those family bonds between mom and dad and child—what G.K. Chesterton called that triangle of truisms—has been dramatically weakened, both in law and in the cultural imagination, from Obergefell.

So there was a whole bunch of upstream things to this law, and there’s been a whole lot of downstream things from this law. Obergefell has radically changed our understanding of the relationship between moms, dads, and kids, and introduced all kinds of other parties in the middle of it. And it hasn’t—obviously—hasn’t been good for kids.

EICHER: Well, John, I think we’ve got to talk about this—it really was, in some ways, the story of the week. The U.S. launched a surprising and forceful strike on Iran over the weekend, and by Tuesday, we had a ceasefire. We’ll see in time how effective the operation really was, but clearly, it had an effect.

But alongside that military action, another story caught fire—culturally. And that was President Trump’s reaction to the ceasefire. Speaking in front of Marine One, just hours after ordering the strike, he dropped a bomb of a different kind—an F-bomb. Not in private, not off-mic, but on camera, deliberately, and unapologetically.

Now, some people will say it’s “just a word,” but I can’t recall ever hearing a sitting president use that language publicly and proudly. He said it, turned, and walked away—like a mic-drop moment. What do you make of that?

STONESTREET: Yeah, I think it’s a little bit different than the Hot Mic moment for President Biden. This was just brazen. It was direct. It was clearly out of frustration. And you know, I guess—as one of my colleagues said it—you never really have to worry what he’s thinking, do you? He just kind of says it out loud. That’s the case. “Coy” is not an adjective that you would use for the man.

But also—listen—it should shock our sensibilities. And I think it’s something that we have so many people telling us that it shouldn’t—that tells us something about the state of our culture. We’re a much more coarse culture. It is not unusual now to hear that word dropped consistently. You don’t have, for example, the networks censored by the federal government. You’ve got Netflix and Hulu and all of these workarounds.

So, you know, series that are otherwise the same as you would have watched on network television 10 years ago are full of these sorts of language bombs. You also hear it out in public all the time. You go to a sporting event, you hear it all the time. Now, some of this is not new, but it’s all a lot worse than it was five or 10 or 15 years ago.

Words matter, and especially within a Christian worldview, words matter—that word in particular. And the reason that word in particular matters is because it’s referring to something in reality that is a sacred, good gift from God. And when that act is actually corrupted in real life, we know that it brings great harm and great damage.

Because the center of the Christian worldview is that words created the world—God’s words, first and foremost—and we’re made in His image, and our words have incredible power. When we denigrate something that’s sacred—whether in deed or in word—then it will have consequences. And I think we’re a way worse culture because we accept that sort of coarse language.

I don’t think that’s the same thing as being prudish. I don’t think it’s the same thing as being old-fashioned or traditional. There’s a time and a place. There’s a professionalism. And this wasn’t it. And it does say an awful lot, I think, when you have that coming from, you know, kind of the dominant American spokesperson. There’s better ways to communicate. And I wish he would have used those better ways.

BROWN: John, the political world is still digesting what just happened in New York City. Zohran Mamdani—a 33-year-old self-described democratic socialist—he’s won the Democratic primary for mayor, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. That makes Mamdani the odds-on favorite to become the next mayor of America’s largest city.

And this was no fluke. He went from near-zero in the polls to a decisive win. He was powered by a massive grassroots ground game and endorsements from progressives like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. His platform? Hard left, all the way. Here’s his pitch:

MAMDANI: I’ll freeze the rent for millions of tenants, make buses fast and free, and deliver universal child care. And before you ask, I’ll pay for it by taxing the rich.

Some are calling this a litmus test for the future of the Democratic Party. Others see it as part of a broader political and cultural realignment. So, John—what do you make of Mamdani’s win? And what might it mean beyond New York?

STONESTREET: Oh, this is an enormous story, if you ask me. I think it’s incredible that in the city where 9/11 took place—now, less than 25 years later, after Muslims perpetrated that disaster on New York City—a Muslim is now the leading candidate for mayor in that same city. That is a stunning development that says an awful lot.

I was incredibly concerned when you hear his explanation—and really justification and rationalization—for the chant “Globalize the Intifada,” basically giving you the critical theory answer that it really is just a cry of the oppressed and it should be justified.

So now, in that city where 9/11 happened—but you also have a city with a disproportionately high population of Jewish citizens—and you have then someone rationalizing or justifying a call for genocide against those people. He might be able to dismiss it, but I think it’s highly concerning.

Because where it leaves us is in the significance and importance of worldview. You mentioned: self-described socialist here. Clearly he’s referring to kind of a critical theory sort of framework that he’s applying to clear hate speech and a call for genocide. So that means at best—at best—he is a woke socialist.

At worst, he’s one of those candidates that have dominated London politics for the last decade or so: Muslim candidates that move into the city and start doing things to increase ties, create space for radical Muslims, penalize any critiques of Islam whatsoever, criminalize it in the name of hate speech and speech codes.

So that’s what we have to, I think, really watch out for—is what kind of candidate here are we talking about? Are we talking about a westernized, progressivized, woke-ized Muslim candidate? Are we talking about someone who’s deeply committed to Muslim tenets? You know, that’s the thing—it’s the promise of free buses and free childcare and free city-run grocery stores that are basically subsidized—yes, that is a far-left socialist strategy. It’s also an Islamic strategy. It’s also—when you see, you know, basically Muslims move into a city and deal with poverty—it all becomes state-controlled, and then it becomes redistributed.

I think it shows us that worldview matters, and which worldview we’re talking about remains unclear—but it’ll matter. What’s the answer to that question?

BROWN: John Stonestreet, president of the Colson center and host of the Breakpoint podcast, thanks again, John.

STONESTREET: Thank you both.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Friday, June 27th.

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

Good morning. I’m Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Coming up on The World and Everything in It, fast cars, flawed character.

Brad Pitt hits the gas in a new summer film that blends high-speed thrills with a familiar storyline. He plays an aging speedster trying to rescue a failing Formula One team. But at what cost? Here’s WORLD arts and culture editor Collin Garbarino.

COLLIN GARBARINO: In F1, Brad Pitt stars as Sonny Hayes, a veteran racer willing to drive any kind of car in any kind of race. But despite his skill behind the wheel, he’s been out of formula racing for 30 years. Then his old friend Ruben, played by Javier Bardem, shows up asking for a favor. Ruben owns a struggling Formula One team called Apex GP, and he wants Sonny to drive for him. Ruben’s desperate. If he doesn’t win one of the next nine races, his board will force him to sell the team.

SONNY: You’ve got an entire assembly line worth of kids raised on the simulator.

RUBEN: No, I don’t have time for some kid to learn how to come in tenth. I don’t.

SONNY: Well, you don’t just walk off the street and pilot a rocket.

RUBEN: Yes, you can if you’ve done it before.

Not everyone at Apex is happy to see Sonny. Damson Idris plays the team’s No. 1 driver, Joshua Pearce. Joshua’s confidence is already shaky due to Apex’s poor performance. And having the coolly confident Sonny strutting about the garage further unnerves him. A rivalry quickly develops between the talented rookie and the battle-tested veteran.

JOSHUA: When was the last time you won a race?

SONNY: Sunday. Daytona.

JOSHUA: Oh. I’m sorry. I meant Formula One.

SONNY: Oh. I’m sorry. Then same as you.

[laughter]

F1’s central conflict revolves around this intergenerational rivalry. Sonny and Joshua must learn to trust each other and work as a team to give Apex a win.

KATE: What’s the difference between Joshua Pearce and Sonny Hayes?

JOSHUA: A lot of decades.

SONNY: Hard won experience.

JOSHUA: Of living in a van?

SONNY: Says the guy who still lives with his mom.

This basic plot in which a grizzled veteran shows a young kid the ropes might remind you of 2022’s Top Gun: Maverick. There’s a good reason for that. The two films share the same creative team. Moreover, like Top Gun: Maverick, F1 is technically splendid, and the film is best seen on an IMAX screen. You can almost feel the g-forces as the cars race around corners at ludicrous speeds.

Much of the filming took place during the 2023 Formula One season, and the movie is filled with glimpses of real racing teams and cameos of top racers like Lewis Hamilton and Max VerStappen. Racing fans will also appreciate the scenes filmed in authentic F1 training and design centers. Innovative cameras capture Pitt and Idris doing their own driving behind the wheels of the modified formula cars.

Some folks might appreciate that this film gets a little technical about the importance of tire condition and the intricacies of Formula One’s rules. But diehard racing fans will wonder why no one questions whether Sonny has the FIA Super License needed for competition.

RUBEN: I’m sorry, Ruben, for demolishing not one, but both of your lovely cars… for coming back into your life, only to destroy it. Is this your revenge for Monaco?

SONNY: Yeah, I waited 30 years and came all this way to humiliate myself on global television.

Despite an abundance of PG-13 language, the film is fun to watch. But honestly the story doesn’t contain many surprises. It sticks to the same formula—no pun intended—used by just about every other racing movie. Have you seen Ford v. Ferrari, Gran Turismo, or even Pixar’s Cars? If so, you more or less know what to expect. However, the film struggles to find the prerequisite bad guy. There’s no grudges or rivalries with the other teams. Perhaps none of those real life racers wanted to be depicted as jerks. Instead, the movie’s tension comes from within the team.

SONNY: Listen, he’s cocky. He’s arrogant. He’s got a lot to learn.

RUBEN: You were cocky. You were arrogant. And you had a lot to learn.

SONNY: I’m not here to hold anyone’s hand. I’m here to race.

RUBEN: No you’re not, Sonny. You’re here to give me a heart attack.

There’s nothing wrong with the theme of developing teamwork to achieve a goal. But F1 has some dubious morality… and I’m not even talking about Sonny’s love affair with the team’s female technical director. Winning is so important to Sonny that he’s willing to race dirty. At times he employs a brilliant and creative strategy, but it’s still dirty. The film also glorifies the pursuit of personal passion at the expense of others. We’re meant to admire Sonny’s single mindedness, but essentially he’s left home and family behind for the sake of racing. The movie thinks it’s being inspiring, but in the end I felt a little sad watching an old man sacrifice relationships to chase fleeting feelings.

I’m Collin Garbarino.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Friday, June 27th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown. Up next. listener feedback for the month of June we start things off with Sally Brogy from Whitinsville, Massachusetts. She sends these comments on Culture Friday from last week.

SALLY BROGY: In the Culture Friday segment on June 20th, John Stonestreet gave an overview of what Islamic teachings say about the annihilation of nonbelievers. It made me think of my Islamic coworker who seems to be a caring, friendly and well educated great coworker. So I thought that it may be important to make a distinction that in both Christianity and in Islam there are both true believers and cultural believers.

We understand that true believers in the Islamic faith will want to kill and destroy anyone who has not expressed fidelity to Muhammad. However, likely there are many people who call themselves Islamic who are only culturally Islamic. Perhaps my coworker who may not even know these these teachings of the Quran. The contrast between the two faiths still exists. One Faith teaches to kill the nonbelievers while the other faith wants to save nonbelievers. But I think it's important for us to recognize that some people who say they are Islamic actually may not be Islamic. Of course as Christians we want to love and show love to all people and hopefully get a chance to share the gospel. Thanks very much again. God bless you all.

EICHER: Next, physician Amy Givler. She had a comment on our June 10th story on the California riots.

In the setup to the report I used the phrase “suspected illegals” and that didn’t sit well.

AMY GIVLER: As a physician, my ears perked up because I'm very sensitive to language that labels a human being by a characteristic they have or a behavior they have. In medicine, we call that “person first” language, and “person first” language means that I'm training myself to say the person with diabetes, rather than saying the diabetic or he is struggling with drug addiction, rather than saying he is a drug addict. … When I say that, I was saying basically: he equals drug addict, but he is a person. He is made in the image of God, a human being, and so much more than his drug addiction. So likewise, people who are in the United States illegally are not illegals, because that robs them of their humanity.

Fair point … of course word choice does matter. I did write back to Dr. Givler and part of what I said I’ll share here: namely, that I meant the phrase not as a label but as a journalistic shorthand for “suspected illegal entrants” or “suspected illegal aliens.” The aim was not to dehumanize but to reflect, with word economy, the legal category relevant to the story and the actions ICE was taking.

It was a four-and-a-half-minute report already dense with legal terminology … and we were trying to avoid piling up technical phrases that could bog down the story or make the audio harder to follow.

But that said, her reminder is helpful: we always want to speak with truth and with grace—recognizing the image of God in all people while at the same time accurately describing the issues at hand.

Thank you Dr. Givler for taking the time to raise the point. It’s well-taken.

BROWN: Next, listener Becky Manring appreciated Andrew Walker’s commentary on Christian elites…and she offered this antidote:

BECKY MANRING: Colossians 2:6-7 says, “Therefore, as you received Christ, Jesus, the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.”

There is a shameful lack of rootedness in Christ and His Word in the family of God. And Mr. Walker's assessment, I believe, ties directly to the surveys that The World And Everything in It discussed on Friday, June 13th, from Arizona Christian University's cultural research center. We listeners heard the results that stated only 6% of self-identified Christians actually live and think in ways that align with the Biblical worldview. So really, is it any wonder that Mr. Walker found a dearth of faithfulness in the evangelical elite?

I believe that we need to exhort ourselves with the Word of God, not blog posts. To demand of ourselves to be in churches that preach from actual scripture, not settle for online recordings. To encourage one another, not with memes, but with Bible verses to root us in the Word. And we certainly need to pray that the Holy Spirit will fill our hearts with the mind of Christ to truly walk in Him, we must ring aloud again: Solus Christus, sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, soli, DEO, Gloria to God, be the glory.

A couple more comments from listeners. Next, we head to Dallas, Texas where Michaela Meyer lives. She expresses gratitude for the recent interview with novelist Andrew Klavin.

MICHAELA MEYER: I'm a painter doing an artist residency here through a ministry called Transform Arts… And I just wanted to thank you for your interview with Andrew Klavan and share how it impacted me. As a Christian artist it's been a challenge to navigate the art world because it feels like you always have one foot and two conflicting ideologies. I love Klavan’s emphasis on truth transcending the divide between the sacred and the secular. And the humility it takes to see that God reveals things to non-believers that I—as a Christian—then sees. It has made me more curious and hopeful about the future of our culture, because I believe that God is pouring out His words on a multitude of artists, even if they aren't fully aware of the source of their inspiration. Thank you for all that you do.

EICHER: One more call this morning. This one from Matt Brown who lives in Tucson, Arizona…

MATT BROWN: Just listened to The World and Everything in It today. This is Thursday, June 12, and wanted to say that the segment Myrna Brown did with this woman who's building tiny houses in Alabama represents a “can do attitude” and a proactive approach to this housing crisis that is just absolutely impressive, inspirational.

Kudos to Myrna Brown. And also the segment by Cal Thomas on the Vietnam Saigon orphans that came to the U.S.…deeply, deeply moving. And it's just heartwarming and refreshing to hear stories of that nature that reminds us what we can do and how we can impact and change lives. So thanks so much to Cal Thomas for that segment.

Well, thanks to everyone who wrote and called in this month. It’s good to hear from you. We’re grateful you take the time to share your thoughts with us.

And just as grateful when you share your resources. Those gifts are what keep this program coming to you each day. We're in the home stretch of our June Giving Drive: today, the weekend, and Monday, and then we close the books.

Now, here’s the simple reality: the depth and reach of our reporting travel at the pace your generosity allows. Every gift extends the miles we can go, the interviews we can conduct, the writing and editing hours we can devote to getting each story just so.

BROWN: So if you’ve benefited from The World and Everything in It—or from WORLD’s wider coverage—would you make that known by contributing to our June Giving Drive. Every gift makes a difference ... a few dollars or quite a few dollars, it all comes together to fuel biblically grounded journalism for the year ahead.

WNG.org/JuneGivingDrive is the place to go. And again, thanks for helping us keep truth in front of listeners every day.

EICHER: If you have a comment to share you can email editor@wng.org. You can include an audio file attachment to your email and we’ll consider it for air. You can even phone it in at 202-709-9595.

BROWN: And that’s Listener Feedback for the month of June!

NICK EICHER, HOST: All right, it’s time to name the team who helped make it happen this week:

Mary Reichard, David Bahnsen, Jenny Rough, Bethel McGrew, Emma Eicher, Leo Briceno, Mary Muncy, Amy Lewis, Janie B. Cheaney, Lauren Canterberry, Grace Snell, Cal Thomas, John Stonestreet, and Collin Garbarino.

Thanks also to our breaking news team: Kent Covington, Mark Mellinger, Christina Grube, Travis Kircher, Steve Kloosterman, and Lynde Langdon.

And thanks to the Moonlight Maestros. Benj Eicher and Carl Peetz.

Harrison Watters is Washington producer, Lindsay Mast and Leigh Jones are standing in as feature editors, Paul Butler is executive producer, and Les Sillars our editor-in-chief. I’m Nick Eicher

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

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: “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.” —Psalm 146:3, 4

Your weekly reminder here…go to a Bible-believing church this weekend. The Christian life is to be lived together. Be encouraged, and be an encourager.

And Lord willing, we’ll be right back here with you on Monday. 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.