The World and Everything in It: May 20, 2024

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like me. I'm Julie Raikes, and I listen in Rochester Hills, Michigan. My sister Kristin introduced me to the program and I love talking with family and friends about the stories I hear. I hope you enjoy today's program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! The Supreme Court is trying to figure out how to make sure bankrupt companies and the insurance companies that love them meet their obligations.

FREDERICK: Every day insurers do not have to pay on their claims is a good day for the insurers…

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

Also the Monday Moneybeat. Today, trade tariffs and who pays. Economist David Bahnsen will be along to explain.

Later, the WORLD History book: the life and faith of a minister in England whose compassionate work won the praise of Charles Dickens.

JOHN PIPER: Over his lifetime he cared for 10,024 orphans…

REICHARD: It’s Monday, May 20th. 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: Time now for the news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Trump NRA » The battle for the White House is heating up with the first Biden-Trump debate now just a little more than a month away.

Donald Trump over the weekend took the stage at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association in Texas.

TRUMP:  The survival of our Second Amendment is very much on the ballot. You know what they want to do? They're going to, oh, if they get in, our country's gonna be destroyed in so many ways, but the second Amendment will be, it's under siege. 

Trump urged NRA members to get out and vote this year.

Trump VP » Meantime, speculation continues to swirl around his possible running mate. Several rumored top candidates have joined him at recent campaign events, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, but the senator said Sunday …

RUBIO:  I haven't spoken to anybody in the campaign. The only people that have spoken to me about vice president, for the most part, are members of the media. 

Other VP contenders have been serving as Trump surrogates in the media. Sen. Tim Scott said the former president can’t wait to debate Biden.

SCOTT: He knows he can expose the lies of Joe Biden, starting with inflation, moving to the border and talking about crime. 

And North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum added:

BURGUM: I think the nation has concerns about his capacity, not just during an hour and a half debate, but every President Trump is strong, Joe Biden is weak, and it doesn't matter what the topic is.

Others believed to be on the VP shortlist include Governor Kristi Noem and House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik.

Biden again calls for cease-fire, two-state at Moorehouse » President Biden, meanwhile, was in a major battleground state yesterday. He delivered the commencement address at the historically black Morehouse College in Atlanta.

BIDEN: What is democracy? If black men are being killed in the street, what is democracy? Betrayal of broken promises still leave black communities behind.

The Biden campaign is ramping up its outreach to black constituents as his support among black voters has softened since he was elected in 2020.

The president also said he supports peaceful campus protests over the war in Gaza.

BIDEN:  It's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That's why I've called for an immediate ceasefire.

There were scattered demonstrations at Morehouse, but the ceremony was not disrupted.

Russian attacks in Ukraine » New Russian attacks killed at least 11 people in Ukraine’s war-ravaged northeast on Sunday.

In the Kharkiv region, officials said Russian strikes killed six people and wounded almost 30 others. One resident told the Associated Press …

RESIDENT: Everything fell on us immediately. We lay watching TV. All the windows, everything flew at us at once.

Ukraine said it destroyed over 30 Russian drones.

ZELENSKYY: [Speaking Ukrainian]

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Ukrainian forces are on surer footing in the Kharkiv region going forward.

ZELENSKYY: [Speaking Ukrainian]

He said as Moscow’s forces pushed harder into the Kharkiv region, just as in 2022, they were counting on a quick advance. But instead, “The occupier is losing its infantry and equipment.”

SOUND: [Tree cutting]

Houston death toll » Many Houston area residents are breaking out chainsaws to clear fallen trees from their driveways and yards.

That after severe storms last week that killed at least seven people and knocked out power to hundreds of thousands of homes.

RESIDENT:  It's been a madhouse out here. Um, you know, we don't have any power, no hot water. Um, it's been really crazy. Nature definitely did his thing out here.

Texas State Representative Gene Woo said it’s important for area residents to look out for one another.

WOO:  Please go check on your neighbors, whether they have power or whether they don't have power. Please knock on their door, check on them, make sure they're okay.

Officials say they were able to restore power last night to most of the hundreds of thousands of people who were still in the dark and without air conditioning amid hot and humid weather.

Iran copter crash » The president and foreign minister of Iran are presumed dead after their helicopter crashed Sunday in a mountainous area in northwestern Iran.

President Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, and seven others were returning from a visit to the border with Azerbaijan when the chopper reportedly went down in dense fog.

After hours of searching, Iranian state television said last night that there was “no sign of life” seen at the crash site.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Supreme Court arguments on this week’s Legal Docket. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 20th day of May, 2024. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

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

We’re getting down to crunch time, with just weeks remaining in the Supreme Court term. And so today we need to catch up on more disputes still pending.

This first one is a big deal, although you might not think so when I tell you what’s involved, namely bankruptcy law and the involvement of insurance companies.

But consider the opioid crisis and the drug companies to blame. If any find themselves bankrupted by judgments, it’ll be a key question how the companies that insure them compensate the victims. Same thing for power companies responsible for sparking wildfires. Even the Johnson and Johnson talcum-powder settlement may be affected.

Our first case today stems from the legal claims of thousands of people who say exposure to asbestos caused them cancer.

EICHER: Here, two manufacturers of asbestos products filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. That’s the type of bankruptcy that permits a debtor to reorganize, pay off creditors, and still stay in business.

The manufacturers both have insurance policies with a company called Truck Insurance Exchange. Truck is financially responsible to pay the claims, and the bankruptcy court oversees the process.

REICHARD: The problem is, that according to Truck the insurer, this plan doesn’t have the necessary safeguards to root out claims that might be fraudulent. And without them that would greatly increase its risk of greater cost.

So, Truck objected.

But lower courts said it couldn’t object. It lacked legal standing. They said it wasn’t what bankruptcy law calls a “party of interest.”

So Truck took the case to the high court.

Here’s Allyson Ho, lawyer for Truck:

ALLYSON HO: If anyone is a party in interest entitled to be heard in this Chapter 11 case, it’s the insurer, Truck, who will pay virtually every dollar the debtors owe the asbestos claimants.

EICHER: But lawyer for the manufacturers point to a legal doctrine called “insurance neutrality.” The law says “neutrality” means insurers ought not to be able to challenge bankruptcy plans. That is, so long as the plan changes none of the obligations insurers had originally.

The manufacturers’ lawyer is Kevin Marshall:

KEVIN MARSHALL: It’s good to keep in mind if we’re going to be talking about the policy concerns that bankruptcy is not just about getting everybody to the table. It's also about having an efficient and expeditious proceeding that makes it possible to resolve what is ultimately a question about the debtor and its creditors or in some cases its shareholders.

The justices didn’t seem to buy his argument, though. Justice Amy Coney Barrett:

JUSTICE BARRETT: Why do you want Truck to not even be heard? What is your motivation to be fighting this so hard?

MARSHALL: We have a deal with the creditors. We think it’s a valid deal and a good deal, and we want to be done with bankruptcy. Truck is coming in to try to blow up the deal that we have.

REICHARD: Then came the lawyer representing the asbestos victims. His clients voted for this plan, and they want their money. Lawyer David Frederick:

DAVID FREDERICK: Delay is profit-maximizing. Every day insurers do not have to pay on their claims is a good day for the insurers, and so they have every incentive to tell their lawyers: Go in and object to everything because that will delay the process.

The justices’ questions lead me to think Truck Insurance will be deemed an interested party and allowed to intervene with the bankruptcy plan.

That will be a big change if it happens.

EICHER: Okay, on to oral argument number two. This one is almost purely about why some people hesitate to fight city hall. It asks: what happens when the government retaliates against citizens for exercising their rights?

The question presented involves the doctrine of qualified immunity. This is a frequent flier at the high court, so this case is another chance to curb government officials from using it as a shield when they want to put their critics behind bars.

Let’s start with some relevant facts: Sylvia Gonzalez lives near San Antonio in a town called Castle Hill, Texas. She ran for a seat on her local city council in 2019 and won.

Her constituents told her they disapproved of the city manager because he wasn’t handling things, like pot-hole filled streets.

So she spearheaded a petition drive to remove him.

REICHARD: This has been going on awhile. I talked with her lawyer back in 2022, Ben Field with the Institute for Justice.

Here’s what he told me about the facts:

BEN FIELD: The city manager was tightly connected to the mayor, and to the prosecutor, and they concocted this elaborate conspiracy to target Sylvia for her speech. And what they ended up doing is they took a law that is really about targeting people who use a false driver's license or something like that. And they applied it to her saying that when she accidentally picked up her own petition at a city council meeting, that she was absconding with a government file.

Now, the facts about her intent in moving the petition are in some dispute.

But that’s not the issue here.

Let’s rewind a few years earlier when things were moving fast. After she picked up the fateful petition, police arrested her and jailed her briefly. Eventually, another prosecutor dropped the charges, but she was so upset that she quit her council seat.

Gonzalez sued the mayor, the police chief, and a detective he’d appointed for retaliatory arrest.

But she lost in lower courts that pointed to the doctrine of qualified immunity, a Supreme Court precedent from 1982. That doctrine says government workers are shielded from lawsuits in most cases.

EICHER: Now she’s at the Supreme Court. And beyond qualified immunity there’s one other important precedent in the mix, a decision from five years ago:

That’s Nieves v Bartlett. It affirmed that if an officer has probable cause to arrest a person for a crime, that person cannot sue the officer on grounds that the real reason was retaliation.

JUSTICE ROBERTS: But there is an exception.

Chief Justice John Roberts …

JUSTICE ROBERTS: There are many things people can be arrested for, but almost never are, like jaywalking. If you are jaywalking and say something a policeman doesn’t like or are wearing a shirt with a message he doesn’t like and he arrests you, he may have perfectly clear probable cause, no doubt about it you were jaywalking. But we do not think it would be sufficiently protective of the First Amendment to say that probable cause in a case like that defeats a retaliatory arrest claim. We think if you can show that people mostly aren’t arrested for what you were doing, even though it is against the law, you can proceed with your First Amendment claim.

Gonzalez lawyer Anya Bidwell argued that exception applies to her client:

ANYA BIDWELL: Picture the thin-skinned bureaucrat scouring for a crime to pin on his critics.

Political retaliation is dangerous. First Amendment has to mean something. Mayors should not be allowed to launder animus through warrants. Common law understood that. We respectfully ask that this court understand that too.

REICHARD: Not only that, but other officers looked into this and found nothing to warrant an arrest. That’s why a later prosecutor dismissed the charges.

For the other side, the lawyer representing city officials Lisa Blatt:

LISA BLATT: Throughout history, probable cause has foreclosed retaliatory arrest suits. Nieves created one narrow exception for warrantless arrests, where officers typically look away or give warnings or tickets. This court should not blow up that exception.

EICHER: But Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out the enormous scope of modern criminal law, making virtually everyone a potential criminal given a zealous-enough prosecutor.

Listen to this exchange with Blatt:

JUSTICE GORSUCH: How many --how many statutes are there on the books these days, many of which are hardly ever enforced? Last I read, there were over 300,000 federal crimes --

BLATT: Mm-hmm.

GORSUCH: --counting statutes and regulations. I can't imagine how many there are at the state and local level. And you're saying they can all sit there unused, except for one person who alleges that I was the only person in America who's ever been prosecuted for this because I dared express a view protected by the First Amendment and that's not actionable?

BLATT: Well, I'm going to --if --if --I'm going to try to convince you otherwise, but I have to try to do that.

GORSUCH: Yeah. I’d like…good luck. (laughter)

BLATT: Well let me just try this, Justice Gorsuch …

REICHARD: Several justices expressed interest in knowing what Blatt thinks happens if Gonzalez is allowed to sue for retaliatory arrest.

BLATT: I mean, I really would advise every criminal to put a political bumper sticker on their car and (laughter)

… thereby never allowing an officer to make an arrest without worrying he or she will get sued.

It’s good to get a laugh from the justices, but that doesn’t always translate into victory.

EICHER: So much for the Seinfeld school of law.

OK, final case today, this one about the kind of proof needed to show criminal intent: the important element of what lawyers call mens rea, the guilty mind.

Here are the facts. An American citizen named Delilah Diaz drove from Mexico to California. At the San Ysidro Port of Entry, she rolled down her car window. The border agent reported a “crunching” sound, that prompted an investigation and ultimate discovery of nearly 60 pounds of meth hidden in the door panels.

Diaz said it was her boyfriend’s car and then claimed she knew nothing about it. Still, she was arrested and charged for violating the Controlled Substances Act.

REICHARD: Here’s where mens rea comes into play:

The Controlled Substances Act requires the government to prove that Diaz knew she was transporting drugs. To try to do that, the government brought in an expert. He said that usually drug couriers know they’re transporting drugs, and traffickers don’t trust big quantities of illegal drugs to unknowing couriers.

But that’s what Diaz objects to: a general observation attributed specifically to her. Her lawyer Jeffrey Fisher:

JEFFREY FISHER: Our rule is simple. If you talk about “the” defendant herself, or a class of people including the defendant, you’re covered by Rule 704(b). Here’s the class of people, Agent Flood is quite specific, people carrying large quantities of drugs across the border. That’s the class. The defendant here is unquestionably a member of that class. And so his testimony is about the defendant.

…therefore, inferring criminal intent, mens rea, on nothing more than an expert’s opinion that Diaz is part of a class.

The government didn’t provide other evidence of her specific knowledge. The jury must make an independent determination about that. Fisher cites the Federal Rules of Evidence that restrict experts from commenting on whether a criminal defendant has knowledge of the drugs.

Yet Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t sure it really makes any difference when it comes down to it:

JUSTICE KAGAN: If you say that, I don’t really understand what the point of your rule is. I mean, it just suggests that all the expert has to do is, you know, tweak the way he says something and the exact same testimony can come in.

EICHER: Justice Samuel Alito thought other rules could handle the situation here, without having to infer anything from expert testimony alone.

Still, the lawyer for the government had a warning for the court. Assistant to the Solicitor General Matthew Guarnieri:

MATTHEW GUARNIERI: P 56 Agent Flood’s testimony did not violate Rule 704(b) for the simple reason that he did not express any opinion at all about whether Petitioner herself knew about the drugs hidden in her car. Indeed, he did not mention Petitioner a single time in his entire testimony.

P 57 and whatever the court says in this case will also govern future expert testimony offered by the defense on issues like insanity or battered women’s syndrome.

REICHARD: …as well as the hundreds of charges brought every year against people who bring illegal drugs into this country and then claim ignorance. It’s the most common defense. But, of course, it doesn’t mean she’s like everybody else.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

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

It’s time to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. He’s head of the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group and he’s here now.

David, good morning!

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

EICHER: New tariffs on China. That seems to be the economic story of the week. President Biden doubling down on a policy of the former president, President Trump, who imposed tariffs on China during his term in office. Biden in this case hitting Chinese EVs, electric vehicles.

The New York Times proclaiming the end of an era for cheap Chinese goods, saying Biden’s move is an effort to protect strategic manufacturing sectors from low-cost competition predicting consumers might not like it.

Big story, isn’t it?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I think there's actually a few different stories and some of them are sort of political. You know, it's hard to say that it's a big story, that he put 100% tariff on something that United States doesn't really import much, which is Chinese made electric vehicles. They're trying to do more, and use the backdoor of finishing the manufacturing in Mexico to avoid some of the tariff. But I think the big story is, you know, first of all, just anecdotally, on the environmental side, I don't know how President Biden can claim that the world is about to end and we must do anything possible to get to net zero, and then say, oh, but I'm going to put 100% tariff on someone making electric vehicles. There's a conflicting message in there that I suspect may hurt him a little bit politically with younger people.

But what I think is fascinating about this politically, is President Biden has been incredibly critical of President Trump for his tariffs. And at this point, that criticism is off the table. You basically have two candidates, they're running on the basis of higher taxes of things coming into the country. And President Biden has made the case before, and I happen to think he was right, that these tariffs are paid by American consumers. And he can't make that case now, when he himself has done it. It wasn't merely on electric vehicles, it also touched batteries, and solar panels. So it's obviously part of the overall dynamic with China.

I don't agree with The New York Times that the era of cheap Chinese goods is over in the sense that these tariffs were going after a specific industry, a specific sector. But I think the concept of trying to protect an American industry using tariffs, which is essentially, in my estimation, and having studied this for many, many years, it's hurting an American consumer to try to help a different American producer. And in this case, it gets more complicated by the fact that you're targeting another country who is an adversary of the U.S., but you're targeting them, and then putting the cost on to Americans.

So President Biden has done something that from environmental to the past criticism of President Trump, to the overall economic policy itself to his dynamic with China on about four different levels, I think he's cornered himself in and this is going to be problematic for him.

EICHER: One of the arguments business makes against a foreign tariff policy, David—and one that you mentioned a moment ago—is that the cost of the tariff is ultimately borne by the consumer. not the business. But with that argument alone. Why does the business care?

BAHNSEN: Because the consumer will buy less. In other words, if you're gonna put an extra 50% cost on, you can say, Okay, well, I'm gonna pass it on to the consumer, but you're also not going to get the sales, the sales will go elsewhere. And so you end up, you know, hurting the overall marketplace. A lot of times with protective tariffs, the idea is some country is cheating, they're subsidizing an industry and they call that cheating. And so we have to put a tariff on to offset the fact that the American manufacturer can't compete. For 20 something years, the argument has been Chinese wages are lower, American wages can't go that low, so, they're cheating. So if we put a tariff on it, it will result in a more even playing field, the American product will have a fair price point relative to the Chinese import. And of course, the issue there is what you now have is two products that cost more and so who hurts there? Perhaps the business isn't the one hurting. At that point it is clearly the consumer.

But to your overall point, businesses oppose tariffs because if it's going to put a some price increase into the system, it's going to lower margins and it's going to damage their overall marketplace, and consumers vote with their wallet.

EICHER: I know you’re very much opposed to the tariffs—regardless of who levies them, Biden or Trump—but what is the argument for them, especially when, as in this case, China’s government subsidizes this stuff and undercuts American companies—or even intellectual-property theft, or human-rights concerns? Dig into that a bit.

BAHNSEN: Well, look, the argument that is made by some that I think is well intended, but is a little misunderstanding history, is that the Founding Fathers advocated for tariffs and Alexander Hamilton believed in it. So why shouldn't we let either President Trump if you're on that side of the political aisle, or President Biden, if you're on that side of the aisle, because they're both on the same side of this issue now? Why should we let them do it if it was good enough for the founding fathers? But of course, the difference then was tariffs were being done as a means of funding government. Now, they're being done as a means of picking one sector over another, picking one economic actor over another. And we didn't have a federal income tax. So they were using a tariff as a means of funding government.

Today, we have a means of funding government that some of us would consider rather substantial, called an income tax system. So the tariff becomes an "and" tax, not an "or" tax. And I think that that's a major difference. And when it's being done, as what we call a protective tariff, that we're trying to protect jobs in Ohio versus another country, then that's an argument to be had. But the question is, does that even work? And there's absolutely no evidence that it does. That when, you know, this comes down to what we call the Law of Comparative Advantage.

There are some countries that have a lower cost structure that are going to be able to manufacture things cheaper, they have different natural resources that some countries do not have. And taking advantage of different country’s relative comparative advantages, is what Adam Smith based his entire anti mercantilism on. And so I do not believe in what we call industrial policy. But the reason I don't is not because I disagree with the arguments about human rights and intellectual property theft. Those arguments I agree with, I just believe they can be dealt with in a far more clear way.

EICHER: I think for this week’s “defining terms” it seems there’s an entire glossary of terms around tariffs and foreign trade, but you mentioned “industrial policy.” So talk more specifically about what that is and define “industrial policy” for us this week.

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I used the term a moment ago, "industrial policy." And that is directly connected. Industrial policy is a term for the United States using tariffs, and using restrictions on commerce with foreign countries or foreign companies to try to impact positively some domestic company or domestic industry. And what's called protective tariff, which the word tariff just literally means tax, a tax on products coming in the country from another country. That's what the term protective tariff refers to. And so if you're an American company that does a lot of trade all over the world, you find tariffs very problematic. And if you are a local company that doesn't do any business around the world, then you would like to see a tariff potentially helping your business.

But the thing we have to remember is it's not ever just the tariff, like, oh, let's do industrial policy that's going to help America by implementing a tariff. Well, then the other country retaliates, and so then there's a whole trickle down effect from that. But then the bigger thing I want to say about industrial policy, and I'm beyond, at this point, merely defining the term, but I'm editorializing. What you really do with industrial policy is you enable bad behavior, because you don't ever get to the heart of the matter. Maybe - just maybe - some companies were moving activities offshore because they were being taxed too much or regulated too much. But when we go to industrial policy to say, hey, let's put tariffs so that it will protect these industries, you're never getting to the heart of the matter. You don't need to put tariffs on Mexico or China or Canada. Why don't you just tax this company less to begin with?

And so I'm using that analogy as a very simple kind of summary. But I think that that's really what industrial policy is, is using the federal government to try to set up a policy framework to benefit particular companies or sectors and in so doing, you get an awful lot of unintended consequences.

EICHER: Ok, David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group.

Check out David’s latest book Full Time: Work and the Meaning of Life at fulltimebook.com.

Have a great week, David!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, May 20th. 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, the WORLD History Book. This week in 1832, a German Christian named George Müller moves to Bristol, England with a unique goal.

Here’s WORLD associate correspondent Caleb Welde.

WELDE: Friday, May 25th, 1832. George and Mary Müller step into a city gripped by industrial revolution and fear. Word in the street is that the Cholera epidemic has reached Britain. Müller’s wife is five-months pregnant with their first child.

George Müller has agreed to help pastor two, non-denominational chapels in the city. Two years before coming to Bristol, Müller renounced his salary. It was the same year he married. He opted instead to live off donations placed in a box at the back of his old church. John Piper wrote about Müller in his 2018 book, 21 Servants of Sovereign Joy. Audio from Desiring God:

JOHN PIPER: Never asked people for money again. He knew this was not mandated in the Bible. Paul clearly asked people for money.

Müller’s goal  was to display the character of God. Here's a section from his autobiography, read by Kim Rassmussen.

GEORGE MÜLLER: [KIM RASSMUSSEN] I long to have something to point my brethren to, as a visible proof, that our God and Father is the same faithful God as ever He was…

As the Müllers try to settle in, the pandemic worsens. On August 29th the British government forbids public gatherings to stop the spread, but with eternity on the horizon, Müllers’ congregations swell. Though he regularly visits cholera patients, he never contracts the disease. 

Two years later (1834), Müller embarks on a new project.

PIPER: The Scripture Knowledge Institute for Home and Abroad. It had five, what he called objects—we'd call them ministries—which sprung out from his church: schools for children and adults, 2) Bible distribution, 3) missionary support—he was a great supporter of Hudson Taylor, 4) tract and book distribution—and the most famous one, number five) in his words, “to board and clothe and scripturally educate destitute children who have lost both parents by death.

Roughly 40% of England’s workforce are children. They generally begin work around the age of nine, though some orphans start as early as five.

PIPER: There were accomodations in all of Britain for 3600 orphans. There were twice that many children under eight in prison in 1834 in England.

Müller and his wife begin inviting homeless children into their home. By 1836, they’re housing thirty girls. He begins renting additional houses on his street to house boys and infants.

The number grows to a hundred and thirty by 1845, and the neighbors start to complain. Müller begins praying for a place to expand, and finds seven acres outside town. There’d even be space for vegetable gardens!

By 1855, more than seven hundred children are on a waiting list to get into the orphanage.

Two years later, Charles Dickens—author of the famous orphan tale Oliver Twist—hears about Müeller’s work and publishes a lengthy article praising the work.

Dickens’ article also mentions “Brother Müller’s” goals for establishing orphan houses. His chief aim?

MÜLLER: [RASSMUSSEN] That God may be glorified, should He be pleased to furnish me with the means, on it's being seen that it is not a vain thing to trust in Him, and that thus the faith of His children may be strengthened.

His second priority was the spiritual welfare of the children, followed by their physical welfare.

Through all of this, Müller refuses to ask for money, sort of. By now, Müller is publishing detailed reports of his requests to God and how he sees God providing. They circulate throughout the world to tens of thousands of people.

In 1870, the orphanage expands again making space for more than two thousand children.

Müller's wife becomes ill that same year. The doctor says it’s rheumatic fever.

MÜLLER: [RASSMUSSEN] The last portion which I read to my precious wife was this: The Lord God is a sun and shield. The Lord gives grace and glory. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly.

The next year, Müller passes the reins of the orphanage to his son-in-law and remarries. He’d read the entire Bible  about a hundred times by this point.

MÜLLER: [RASSMUSSEN] Above all things, see to it that your souls are happy in the Lord. Other things may press upon you the Lord's work may even have urgent claims upon your attention, but I deliberately repeat, it is of supreme and paramount importance that you should seek above all things to have your souls happy in God Himself. Day by day, seek to make this the most important business of your life. The secret of all true effectual service is joy in God.

At 70, he begins traveling to encourage missionaries. According to his biographer, Müeller speaks to more than three million people in forty-two countries.

PIPER: He did all of this while preaching every Sunday when he was in town at his church from 1830 to 1898…

Müller died at ninety-two, outliving his daughter and second wife. By then he’d read the Bible almost two hundred times and helped more than ten thousand orphans. Müller also recorded more than ten thousand specific answers to prayer, yet, always insisted, he did not  have a special gift of faith.

MÜLLER: [RASSMUSSEN] Think not, dear reader, that I have the gift of faith. The faith which I am enabled to exercise, is altogether God’s own gift. He alone supports it. He alone can increase it. Moment by moment I depend on Him for it. And if I were only one moment left to myself, my faith would utterly fail.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Caleb Welde.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: More on President Biden’s tariffs on China. We’ll have a report on the political factors. And, the plight of outfitters in the Texas panhandle. 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: Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. —Galatians 6:1, 2

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.