The World and Everything in It: May 15, 2026

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!

Today on Culture Friday, the surprise decision to keep mail-order abortion going, as the legal fight plays out.

NICK EICHER, HOST: We’ll talk it over with John Stonestreet.

Also today, the movie that turned fighter pilots into pop-culture icons. It is back in theaters.

CLIP: You two characters are going to Top Gun.

And author and theologian Carl Trueman shares the books that shaped his thinking.

BROWN: It’s Friday, May 15th. 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: Trump China » Air Force One is heading home to Washington this morning, President Trump wrapping up two days of meetings in Beijing with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

The tone was decidedly warm, with Trump receiving a grand red carpet welcome, for which Trump thanked Xi and offered this toast at a state banquet.

TRUMP: I'd now like to raise a glass and propose a toast to the rich and enduring ties between the American and Chinese people. It's a very special relationship, and I wanna thank you again. This has been an amazing period of time. Thank you, President Xi.

But behind the smiles and handshakes, tensions remained.

Xi Jinping warned President Trump that the U.S. and China could clash over Taiwan — saying the relationship hangs on how it's handled. Beijing claims the self-ruled Island is Chinese property.

On Iran, Trump says the Chinese leader pledged that his country won't arm Tehran. The White House says both leaders also agreed Iran can never have a nuclear weapon — and the Strait of Hormuz must stay open.

Trump told Fox News:

TRUMP: But he did offer, he said, "If I can be of any help at all, I would like to be of help." He did say that. And look, y- a- anybody that buys that much oil has obviously got some kind of a relationship with him.

But Beijing offered no specifics on pressuring Iran. China is Iran’s biggest oil customer.

On trade, Trump says China agreed to buy 200 Boeing jets — plus more American soybeans, oil and gas.

Trump invited Xi to visit the White House in September.

Strait of Hormuz latest » Meantime in the Strait of Hormuz, hijackers seized a tanker off the cost of the United Arab Emirates Thursday and steered it toward Iran. WORLD’s Benjamin Eicher has more.

BENJAMIN EICHER: It's the latest flashpoint in the strait, which Iran has kept effectively closed for nearly three months.

A day earlier, an Indian-flagged cargo ship sank off Oman's coast after an attack set it ablaze. Oman's coast guard rescued all 14 crew members.

Iran has not claimed either incident, but Iranian Vice President Mohammadreza Aref said Thursday the strait belongs to Iran and Tehran will not give it up "at any price."

Iran's judiciary asserted Thursday Tehran has the legal right to seize any tanker tied to the U.S.

For WORLD, I’m Benjamin Eicher.

Senate Centcom hearing » And in Washington, America's top Middle East commander pushed back Thursday on reports that Iran's missile force is still mostly intact.

Admiral Brad Cooper — head of U.S. Central Command — testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

A recent New York Times report cited U.S. intelligence saying Tehran held onto about 70 percent of its missiles and mobile launchers from before the war.

COOPER: The numbers that I've seen in open source are not accurate. I think what also, uh, is not taken into consideration, it's more than just the numbers. It's the c- command and control that's been shattered.

Cooper said U.S. and Israeli strikes destroyed 90 percent of Iran's defense industrial base, and Tehran won't rebuild what it's lost for years to come.

COOPER: Most notably, we degraded Iran's ability to project power outside its borders and threaten the region and threaten our interests.

And Cooper added that Iran's terror proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis — no longer get weapons or support from Tehran.

Ukraine latest » In Ukraine:

SOUND: [Overnight attack]

Explosions heard overnight Thursday as officials say Russia hammered Ukraine for a third straight day with drone and missile attacks.

Authorities say at least nine people were killed with dozens injured after Russian attacks demolished an apartment building in Kyiv.

SOUND: [Rescue crews]

By morning, rescuers were removing bodies from the rubble.

ZELENSKYY: [Speaking Ukrainian]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the weapon used in that attack was a KH-101 missile that was manufactured in the second quarter of this year. He accused Russia of circumventing global sanctions in order to make the missile.

SCOTUS abortion drugs » The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday evening kept in place an order that allows companies to continue mailing abortion drugs to women across the country. WORLD’s Lauren Canterberry has more.

LAUREN CANTERBERRY: The Supreme Court voted Thursday to keep mail-order mifepristone in place. The decision came after nearly two weeks of deliberation.

On May 1st, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the FDA's mail-order policy was harming the state of Louisiana and plaintiff Rosalie Markezich, whose ex-boyfriend used the mail to coerce her into an abortion.

Plaintiffs say the policy is a loophole for abusive partners and blocks states from enforcing pro-life laws.

Sarah Zagorski of Americans United for Life:

ZAGORSKI: What's at stake here is a scheme to undermine the Dobbs decision.

CANTERBERRY: Mifepristone makers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro had asked the high court to block the 5th Circuit's order.

But Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying the drug companies thrived before mail-order pills and are now breaking federal law by shipping them directly to women.

The case now heads back to the 5th Circuit, while women and babies remain unprotected.

Reporting for WORLD, I'm Lauren Canterberry.

I'm Kent Covington. 

Coming up, more on that Supreme Court ruling allowing distribution of mail-order abortion drugs. Plus, a cultural phenomenon returns to theaters 40 years later.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Friday the 15th of May.

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

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

It’s Culture Friday.

The Supreme Court handed down an important abortion ruling late yesterday—not on the merits yet. But on the practical reality of post-Dobbs America. The justices, and we don’t know exactly which justices, voted to keep mail-order access to the abortion pill mifepristone in place nationwide. It will continue as litigation continues, the new stay blocking a lower-court ruling that would have restored an in-person dispensing requirement.

EICHER: What makes this case especially significant is that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito issued unusually forceful dissents. They argued that shield laws in blue states, federal FDA policy, and mail-order abortion networks are effectively undermining the Dobbs decision. And doing it by allowing abortion pills to flow into states with laws protecting the lives of the unborn.

John, this is quite a turn of events.

Do you think we are entering the next chapter?

Seems to me this is not about whether abortion is legal nationally. This is about whether pro-life states can even enforce abortion restrictions.

JOHN STONESTREET: No, yeah, I mean, we’re not entering it. We’ve been in it for a while, at least since the FDA took those unusual steps to remove the in-person requirement during COVID and then extended it beyond that.

I think it’s also important to say that Justices Thomas and Alito did not just dissent, and they did not just dissent forcefully. They called the activities of these particular companies… Justice Thomas called it criminal. Justice Alito called it felonious.

So it’s really a remarkable thing. It’s hard to see, on a legal level, how Justices Thomas and Alito are mistaken. They’re identifying clear ways in which this violates settled law, and it does restrict the rights of these states which the Dobbs decision purportedly enforced. It restricts the rights of these states to have the laws that they want within their own states.

This isn’t the end of the matter. Alito pointed specifically to other things that could happen, that should happen, and this doesn’t fully settle the issue. It sent it back to the Fifth Circuit, so we’ll see what happens there.

But it is disappointing, because now a court decision which was rational, made sense legally, all of that has now essentially been effectively overturned. And we know that the Trump administration and the FDA are dragging their feet intentionally, pushing the review out even further, with really no change in sight.

BROWN: Clearly, the administration and more than a few Republican leaders did not want to talk about abortion during the midterms. But guess what? I think we’ll be talking about abortion during the midterms. I don’t see how that’s avoided.

STONESTREET: Well, it’s a good question and so this should mobilize pro-life voters, that this is a political fight. It should mobilize Republican voters that care about this issue. I know that’s not 100 percent certainly at the party level anymore, tragically, but the buy-in from the Democratic lawmakers on this friends-of-the-court brief was so vast and so overwhelming, it proves that this is the number one issue.

I think it also points to something deeper that we’ll see at the midterm elections: the cultural environment in which we live.

It may be, as Professor Robby George has said, that we have to move beyond the legal technicalities of how Roe was decided here and there and really get to arguing this idea that the government has a responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, particularly the rights outlined in the United States Declaration of Independence, beginning with the right to life.

Who counts as a citizen? Who counts as a human being worthy of protection? Of course, we’ve got all the reproductive science on our side of when life begins, and the distinguishing between some humans and other humans as not being valuable persons—that was the source of America’s original “original sin”, and this is our current “original sin”, just in a different form.

EICHER: I want to ask about a friend of yours, John. Courageous young lady who was in your Truth Rising documentary last year. Chloe Cole, known as a detransitioner and a Christian activist, had to postpone this week a speaking event at the University of Washington. She cited threats from far-left activists and concerns about campus security.

She explicitly connected the decision not to speak to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, saying that the atmosphere around controversial political events has changed and that public speaking now carries risks that you simply cannot dismiss as outrage from the online world or theatrics on a campus.

Are we in a different phase now where it’s just normal for controversial speech to be met with realistic, violent threats?

STONESTREET: Yeah, we are.

There’s been a level of anger and intolerance toward people who hold different views than you, and that’s been part of American culture for quite some time. It’s been a part of Christian conservatism.

The difference is that now, from the left, it’s not that these positions are beyond the pale, but people who hold these positions are unworthy of dignity. They’re unworthy of protection. They deserve to be harmed.

I appreciate you calling Chloe a friend. I’d like to think of her that way. I call her a hero of mine because of her courage in following what’s true, and a sister in Christ because of what Jesus did in her heart.

She made it very clear in her video that it’s not the threat that’s keeping her from going there. It’s the inability to arrange security right now in a way to mitigate that threat. She still wants to go, and she wants to go to campus after campus after campus to tell this message, because she knows that ideas matter and bad ideas have victims, and that she was a victim of those bad ideas.

Think about that. The left spent more than a decade critiquing the right for violent speech. Chloe Cole did not cancel her appearance at the University of Washington because she thought that someone might disagree with her. It was because of the threat of violence and the evaluation of security.

That tells you there is a difference. We have enough of a track record of knowing where that kind of violence is coming from. Also, a big subpopulation within the political left that is perpetrating this violence has members of the trans community. It just has to be said.

If you believe that all of reality should change to orient around your deeply held belief, then it’s a small step to believe that if someone refuses to go along, they’re a threat to your reality. Ideologically, it all makes sense how it gets to this point.

There is a difference, and we should know that.

BROWN: As I listen to you talk about speech and anger and hate and all kinds of vile things that come out of people’s mouths, I’m thinking about something that I heard just this week.

The Supreme Court this week struck down a 2023 federal court-ordered Alabama congressional map. Alabama is my state. It’s pretty simple: you can’t discriminate on the basis of race to remedy discrimination on the basis of race. But this brought a completely unhinged reaction from Alabama state rep Juandalyn Givan. Very irresponsible coming from anyone, let alone someone in authority, let alone someone educated well enough to be a lawyer. This is as clean as we could make it—this personal attack on Justice Clarence Thomas:

GIVAN: He is the man who has turned us back into the hands of the Master. Massa! Just this one. Listen. Help me, somebody. Help me understand this black man right here. Help me understand this crazy-[bleep] Uncle Tom. Help me understand this lynchman. I just want something. I’m sorry. Help me.

Just embarrassing, and again, this doesn’t fully capture it. Other than just being stunned by her comments, I really didn’t know how to talk about this on Culture Friday. Then my husband sent me these comments from another lawmaker, Texas representative Wesley Hunt, pushing back on what he calls reinvigorated talk of Jim Crow while at the same time defending America as a Christian nation.

HUNT: As someone who is a direct descendant of a slave, as someone whose great, great grandfather was born on a plantation, I can assure you: Slavery is over. Jim Crow is dead. When I go anywhere, I don’t see any ‘White Only’ signs. I don’t. I promise you. I am a black man who represents a white majority district in Texas.

John, I’ll be very honest with you, I think this goes beyond red versus blue, conservative versus liberal.

STONESTREET: Well, it is.

I’m not for gerrymandering. I’m not for the way it’s been done by either party. I’m not for a political process whenever it gets shrunk down to mere plays of power. Managing a voting district map is extremely difficult, and somebody’s got to do it. I trust the states more than the federal government.

But all that’s political process stuff. What you’re asking is something different, which is the inability to have conversations across any lines without bringing in power analytics.

It tells us we’re all good postmoderns now. That’s the epistemological framing of postmodernism. When taken to its extreme, it becomes critical theory.

I know I’m talking academic language. I guess at some level I’m speaking to those who, during the heyday of people critiquing critical theory in education, said, “Well, critical theory is just a theory.”

No, it’s a theory of everything, and that makes it very different. Critical theory is academic. No one has actually read these books. You don’t have to read these books when critical theory goes from being an academic theory to being a cultural mood taking over entire segments of the population.

What’s unfortunate is that has to take precedence over the actual idea of who Justice Clarence Thomas is, what race he is, what his socioeconomic and racial and cultural background involved. You have to retell his story because it just doesn’t fit the narrative.

He’s been a real gift to our understanding of race. He’s been a real gift to our understanding of jurisprudence and also an understanding of an applied faith in the public square. I’m thankful for him.

There is just a lot of squealing about the gerrymandering issue and the redistricting issue, and unfortunately all those contributions are being drowned out by all the squealing being done around vote maps and districting and so on.

BROWN: John Stonestreet is president of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint podcast. John, thanks!

STONESTREET: Thank you both.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Friday, May 15th.

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.

Before we move on, we want to let you know The World and Everything in It is now on YouTube. It’s the same podcast, audio only, no video, not yet. But if YouTube is where you prefer (or a friend prefers) to get podcasts, well, now you can find us there. Just go to You Tube, search “The World and Everything in It,” hit the “subscribe” bell, and it’ll be there for you. We’ll put a link in the transcript and the show notes to make it a little easier to find and share. So spread the word, you can now find us on YouTube.

Coming next on The World and Everything in It: back to the danger zone.

This week marks the 40th anniversary of the original Top Gun. Both it and its 2022 sequel, Top Gun: Maverick, returned to theaters this week for a limited one-week run.

BROWN: WORLD reviewer Steve Limkeman says the original film endures because it taps into themes of courage, sacrifice, and devotion to a higher calling.

STEVE LIMKEMAN: Soaring back into theaters this week for its 40th anniversary, Top Gun holds a special place in the heart of American cinema. From the moment Kenny Loggins’ “Danger Zone” begins to play, audiences are energized in expectation of fighter pilots Maverick and Goose roaring onto the silver screen.

MAVERICK: I feel the need.

MAVERICK AND GOOSE: The need for speed.

Tom Cruise is captivating as the competitive, highly driven pilot Pete Mitchell, whose call sign is Maverick. Maverick is aptly named. He flies outside the lines, and pushes boundaries mischievously and sometimes dangerously as he seeks to establish his legacy as an ace fighter pilot. Maverick and Goose are a compelling dynamic duo, whether boldly maneuvering through the skies or teaming up to try to impress the prettiest girl in the room.

MAV: She’s lost that loving feeling.

GOOSE: She’s lost… no she hasn’t.

MAV: Yes she has.

GOOSE: She has not lost that…

MAV: Goose, she’s lost it.

GOOSE: Mav. Come on. I hate it when she does that.

The film begins with an heroic rescue of a pilot paralyzed with fear. Despite defying the orders of their commanding officer, Mav & Goose are rewarded with an incredible opportunity only afforded to the top 1% of all naval aviators.

COMMANDER “STINGER”: I gotta do something here. I-I-I still can’t believe it. I gotta give you your dream shot. I’m gonna send you up against the best. You two characters are going to Top Gun. For five weeks, you’re gonna fly against the best fighter pilots in the world.

At the end of this prestigious training, only the best pilot is awarded the Top Gun trophy, and Maverick is determined that it’s already got his name written on it.

COMMANDING OFFICER “VIPER”: That’s pretty arrogant, considering the company you’re in.

MAVERICK: Yes, sir.

VIPER: I like that in a pilot.

Maverick’s arrogance, though initially praised, is expected to be kept in check by rigid submission to authority – something that is made painfully clear to him after he bends the rules to win one of the first contests and then buzzes the air traffic control tower as a victory lap.

VIPER: Lieutenant Mitchell. Top Gun rules of engagement exist for your safety and for that of your team. They are not flexible, nor am I. Either obey them or you’re history. Is that clear?

MAV: Yes, sir!

Top Gun’s discipline of its rogue aviator reflects our need for God’s moral law to restrain our unruly hearts: His commands are given for our spiritual safety. While the prospect of success, prestige and love may take our breath away, it is our devotion to Him that merits heavenly praise – the Lord looks at the heart.

Maverick’s highway to the danger zone features many memorable moments that keep audiences coming back for more, from his playful romance of his flight tactics instructor to his fiery rivalry with Iceman.

MAVERICK: What’s your problem, Kazansky?

ICEMAN: You’re everyone’s problem. That’s because every time you go up in the air, you’re unsafe. I don’t like you because you’re dangerous.

MAVERICK: That’s right. Iceman. I am dangerous.

Though the film tilts toward romantic conquest over courtship and contains some sexual content, the inspirational core of Top Gun is the pilots’ journey toward self-sacrificial brotherhood. Actress Meg Ryan only makes a brief appearance in the film, but her joyful devotion to both Goose as her husband and to Mav as a worthy friend greatly increases the love we have for these characters and the brotherly bond they share.

MAVERICK: You’re the only family I’ve got. I’m not gonna let you down. I promise you.

This foundation of loyalty in service of the highest calling provides a platform for the ultimate test of devotion, displayed on the daring, death-defying frontier of aerial combat.

With a new Top Gun movie in development and a sequel that outshines its beloved predecessor, it’s time to strap into your theatrical cockpit and celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence with this feel-good American classic. May we all rededicate ourselves to serve our communities with steadfast devotion – and have a little fun along the way.

MAVERICK: Mustang, this is Maverick requesting flyby.

MUSTANG: Negative, Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

MAVERICK: [Chuckles]

I’m Steve Limkeman.

NICK EICHER, HOST: 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. It's time now for our occasional feature we're calling Quest, conversations with thoughtful leaders about the books that shaped their thinking. WORLD’s Lindsay Mast joins us with this month’s radio edition.

MAST: Thanks, Myrna. Today we welcome Carl Trueman. Trueman is a professor of biblical and theological studies at Grove City College..a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center…and an author himself, most recently of The Desecration of Man. Carl, good morning.

TRUEMAN: Good morning. Good to see you.

MAST: Good to see you. Carl, let's start just with a bit of backstory here. I'm curious as to when you first realized that books could shape the way you think.

TRUEMAN: Well, I grew up in a home where neither of my parents had been to college, but my dad was very bookish and loved books and taught me to love reading. So I really can't remember the first time I fell in love with reading, but it was probably when I was six or seven and I've been a big reader ever since.

I want to start with your first choice here, Augustine's confessions. I'm curious, what do you think Augustine gets right about human nature that modern thinking gets wrong?

TRUEMAN: He brings out beautifully the role of love, that we're motivated, we're driven by the things that we love. And he also brings out the conflict that human beings feel within the heart. Really, Solzhenitsyn will later comment about the line between good and evil runs through the middle of every human heart. That's Paul's position, that's Augustine's position.

The internal psychological battle that Christians engage in is very important. Where Augustine is very good though is that he realizes you can't stay inside, you have to look outward to God. The whole book is cast as a prayer. So it's this beautiful balance between the internal struggle and the outward resolution of all things in God.

MAST: Why is dependence on God so central to being human?

TRUEMAN: We're made in God's image. It's very clear from Genesis that we are unique among creatures being made in his image. And that image reflects not only the fact that we are his creatures and dependence upon him for our existence and for the guidance we have in this life, but also dependence upon him for things like our ends. We have been created with a certain purpose, made in his image, we are to freely pursue those ends but they are ends that are utterly dependent upon God's creative and sustaining activity of us.

MAST: Well, your next influences are grouped together: Erika Bachiochi’s, The Rights of Women, and O. Carter Snead’s, What It Means To Be Human. What did you find that these writers recover about the body and human dependence?

TRUEMAN: I think what both Erica and Carter do in their books is bring out the fact that our bodies are not problems. They're an integral part of who we are. Erica is engaged in reconfiguring women's rights, not as we typically think of them relative to feminism. A woman's right is the right to overcome the natural functions of her body because the capacity to get pregnant is a disadvantage. Erica is saying no.

Women's rights really need to be seen as legal moves that enable women to fulfill the obligations that their bodies bring. So the ability to be a mother, because motherhood is part of the telos of what it means to be a woman. So she's doing something very clever with women's rights and the rhetoric of women's rights. Carter is bringing out the importance of embodiment for

We call bioethics. He's talking about the importance of gestation, the importance of care for the elderly as our bodies get weak. And at the heart of his thinking is the idea that human beings, we're not autonomous. We are dependent and obliged to each other. What makes us dependent and obliged to each other? By and large, it's our bodies. Why are children dependent upon their parents and parents obliged to children? Because they have tiny little bodies.

and aren't able to look after themselves. And the same applies to elderly people. Why is it that we have an obligation towards elderly people? Because they become weak and frail. And as we were once dependent upon them, so they are now dependent upon us. And our bodies, if you like, their very constitution carries with it moral obligations, moral structure.

MAST: Your last book is The Genesis of Gender by Abigail Favale. Why is teleology or purpose the missing category in so many modern discussions?

TRUEMAN: Yeah, well, the whole idea of end causality, that we're heading towards a certain place was once very important to understanding what it means to be human, but it ceased to be so. When you think about it, end causes shape everything. If I was to leave home today and drive to Pittsburgh, the last place I arrive, Pittsburgh, shapes every move of the wheel I make in the car from the word go. And what Abigail does in that book is argue that we need to understand our bodies as having a teleology, an end. And her argument is really that the woman's body has a teleology that is normatively pointed towards gestation. Now you might think that, so why is that useful? Well, think about it. The question, what is a woman has been so incredibly confusing to so many people. But if you think that a woman is somebody whose body is normatively tailored towards gestation becomes remarkably simple and easy to answer. So much of the confusion in our world lies in the fact that we see our natures, our natural bodies as problems. What Abigail does is say, no, no, our bodies are to be embraced and rejoiced in as who we are. And we're to understand that they have a particular purpose. And it's that particular purpose, that particular final cause that defines what it means to be a man, what it means to be a woman.

MAST: Well, Carl Truman is a professor at Grove City College and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Carl, thank you so much for joining us.

TRUEMAN: Thanks for having me on.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Alright, time now to name the crew who helped out with this week’s programs: 

Mary Reichard, David Bahnsen, Lauren Canterberry, Rachel Coyle, Cal Thomas, Amy Lewis, Hunter Baker, Daniel Suhr, Josh Schumacher, David Closson, Steve Limkeman, John Stonestreet, Carl Trueman, and Josh Goniea.

Thanks also to our breaking news crew: Kent Covington, Steve Kloosterman, Travis Kircher, Daniel Devine, and Christina Grube.

And thanks to the guys who stay up late so your program is ready early: Tech producers Benj Eicher and Carl Peetz.

Harrison Watters is Washington producer, Kristen Flavin is features editor, Emma Eicher is assistant producer, Lindsay Mast is producer. I’m Executive Producer Nick Eicher.

MYRNA BROWN, 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, “Whoever ignores instruction despises himself, but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence.” —Proverbs 15:32

Let the peace of Christ rule in your heart as you worship with your brothers and sisters in Christ, in church this weekend. And Lord willing, we’ll be right back 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.