Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

The World and Everything in It: November 20, 2023


WORLD Radio - The World and Everything in It: November 20, 2023

On Legal Docket, how the right to bear arms relates to restraining orders; on the Monday Moneybeat, listener questions about state debt, presidential influence on the economy, and the housing market; and on the World History Book, the story behind “It Is Well With My Soul.” Plus, the Monday morning news

The U.S Supreme Court is seen on Wednesday in Washington DC. Associated Press Photo/Mariam Zuhaib

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like me. My name is Shelley Brinley. I'm from Okawa, Washington, and my favorite segment on the show is Legal Docket. I hope you enjoy today's program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! Can authorities legally keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers? The Supreme Court considers the argument.

PRELOGAR: A woman who lives in a house with a domestic abuser is five times more likely to be murdered if he has access to a gun.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket. Also today the Monday Moneybeat. We’ll do listener questions today.

And the WORLD History Book. 150 years ago, a fatal shipwreck inspires a popular hymn.

RASSMUSSEN: Whatever my lot, thou has taught me to say, it is well. It is well with my soul.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, November 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: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Rosalynn Carter » Tributes are pouring in for former first lady Rosalynn Carter, who died Sunday at the age of 96.

Former President George W. Bush called her a woman of dignity and strength who “set a wonderful example of loyalty and fidelity.”

Current first lady Jill Biden spoke of Rosalynn during a speech on Sunday.

JILL BIDEN: She was well known for her efforts on mental health and caregiving and women’s rights.

And former First Lady Melania Trump said, “We will always remember her servant’s heart.”

Rosalyn — and former President Jimmy Carter — were well known for their charitable work, including with the homebuilding charity Habitat for Humanity. She’s heard here at an event in 2017.

ROSALYNN CARTER: It is never a sacrifice to be a part of Habitat. It’s always a blessing.

The former president, now 99 years old, remains in hospice care in ailing health.

The couple were married for 77 years.

Gaza / Israel » In Gaza, medics rushed to evacuate 31 “very sick” premature babies from the Al-Shifa hospital moving them to safety in Egypt.

Mohammed Zaqut is director-general of hospitals in Gaza.

ZAQUT: [Speaking Arabic]

He said the babies have suffered greatly with conditions deteriorating fast. He said even water used for their formula was contaminated causing vomiting, diarrhea, and infections.

Israeli military spokesman Peter Lerner said they’ve been trying to evacuate high-risk patients from the area for days, but relief organizations didn’t deem it possible amid the war.

LERNER: So I would say yes, the situation, it is a war zone. It's a reality that Hamas chose the battleground.

Israel’s army said Sunday that it has strong evidence supporting its claims that Hamas maintains a sprawling command post inside and under Al-Shifa.

The army reportedly found a 60-yard tunnel under the hospital complex. It said the tunnel included a blast-proof door and a firing hole that could be used by snipers.

Israel says it also has evidence that Hamas militants killed a female Israeli soldier inside the hospital and that they held hostages there who were abducted from Israel.

Drone attack on Kyiv » Meantime, in Ukraine’s capital city, a swarm of Russian drones attacked Kyiv for two straight nights.

Officials say air defense systems shot down at least fifteen of the roughly 20 drones which struck from multiple directions.

The attack damaged some buildings suffered, but initial reports showed no casualties or damage to critical targets.

SOUND: [Anti-corruption protesters]

Meanwhile in the streets of Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities protesters marched against government corruption this past weekend.

One organizer accused government officials of mismanaging funds:

PROTESTER: We just want our government to spend more money for our army in the war time. We just don't want to spend money on some absolute crazy things.

The European Union has required further anti-corruption measures from the Ukrainian government before it can join the EU.

Abbott endorses Trump » Former President Donald Trump just picked up a big endorsement during a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border.

GREG ABBOTT: We need Donald J. Trump back as our president of the United States of America.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbot heard there near the border town of McAllen, Texas on Sunday alongside the former president.

DONALD TRUMP: We had the most secure border in our history. Now we have the most unsecure border in our history — I believe, really, of the world.

Abbott agreed with that assessment, saying another Trump presidency would make his job “much easier.”

Border traffic has reached record highs in recent years. Officials have reported more than 6 million migrant encounters at the southern border since President Biden took office.

Presidential polling » Polls show voters greatly prefer Trump’s handling of the border over Biden’s. But the numbers still suggest a general election rematch would be a tossup. WORLD’s Josh Schumacher has more.

JOSH SCHUMACHER: An average of recent polls pitting Trump against Biden still show a very close race. Trump is up one-and-half points over Biden. That’s within the margin of error in those polls.

The numbers show a hypothetical matchup between Gov. Ron Desantis and Biden as a virtual tie.

The only Republican soundly beating President Biden in polling data is former governor and ambassador Nikki Haley. Two recent polls have her up double-digits over the incumbent.

For WORLD, I’m Josh Schumacher.

Holiday week weather » Holiday travel could be perilous in parts of the United States this week.

Peter Mullinax with the National Weather Service cautions:

PETER MULLINAX: The expected weather pattern leading up through Thanksgiving is likely to feature one of wet weather, wintery weather, pretty much a sloppy, unsettled pattern throughout the eastern US.

Severe weather is possible in the south with heavy rain in the eastern U.S. And snow and ice could blanket parts of the northeast.

Mullinax says check the forecast if you’re planning to travel in the mid or northern Atlantic regions tomorrow.

And I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead, a big gun rights case on the Legal Docket. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Monday morning, November 20th and you’re listening to The World and Everything in It from WORLD Radio. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket. Today we’ll cover the biggest Second Amendment case so far this term: United States versus Rahimi.

This is one of those cases where you may find yourself rooting for the principle and only half-heartedly, if at all, for the plaintiff.

Here are the facts in this case: Zackey Rahimi is the son of an immigrant family from Afghanistan who settled in Texas when he was a child. He’s 23 years old now with a documented history of assault, random shootings, and drug dealing.

In 2020, the mother of Rahimi’s child got a restraining order against him under federal law, 18 USC section 9-22. That meant Rahimi was barred from possessing firearms while it was in effect.

EICHER: But Rahimi paid no heed and kept firing off guns in public. He now sits in jail, awaiting trial on multiple criminal counts.

Note well. He’s accused but not convicted. He’s been found guilty, actually, of nothing. And to take away his guns with no conviction, he argues, violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The Biden administration disagrees. Its lawyer, Elizabeth Prelogar:

ELIZABETH PRELOGAR: Guns and domestic abuse are a deadly combination. As this Court has said, all too often the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.

She said that’s why section 9-22 targets only the most dangerous domestic abusers, and even then only after a court determines a person is a threat to an intimate partner.

And prohibiting gun ownership, she argued, is rooted in American history. All the way back to the Revolutionary War when Loyalists refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States:

PRELOGAR: That principle is firmly grounded in the Second Amendment's history and tradition. Throughout our nation's history, legislatures have disarmed those who have committed serious criminal conduct or whose access to guns poses a danger. For example, Loyalists, rebels, minors, individuals with mental illness, felons, and drug addicts.

EICHER: Rahimi is like those people, she argued. And therefore section 9-22 is consistent with a landmark Second Amendment decision from last year called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruen. That decision said when the government seeks to restrict gun rights, any restriction must be rooted in U.S. history and tradition.

REICHARD: But Rahimi argues a mere protective order is too thin of a reed upon which to revoke a constitutional right.

It’s one thing to look at history. But that history also includes later case law that clarifies earlier law. His lawyer, James Wright:

JAMES WRIGHT: Now the danger with any kind of historical inquiry is like the person looking down a well. So it feels like what the government is doing is looking down the dark well of American history and seeing only a reflection of itself in the 20th and 21st Century and saying that's what history shows. When Congress enacted Section 922(g)(8) in 1994, it acted without the benefit of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, so we shouldn't be surprised that they missed the mark. They made a one-sided proceeding that is short a complete proxy for a total denial of a fundamental and individual constitutional right.

In other words, Congress passed section 9-22 without full information that came from later, clarifying case law.

Both sides got tough questions. Here’s an exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts and lawyer Wright:

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: You don’t have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?

WRIGHT: Your Honor, I would want to know what ‘dangerous person’ means at the moment.

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, it means someone who’s shooting, you know, at people. That’s a good start. (laughter)

EICHER: Nobody is saying Rahimi should have a gun, but lawyer Wright reiterated: suspending constitutional rights requires due process, and that’s a good bit more than what’s required to win mere orders of protection.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson homed in on what the “history and traditions” test in Bruen really means.

JUSTICE JACKSON: I'm a little troubled by having a history and traditions test that also requires some sort of culling of the history so that only certain people's history counts.

Meaning, the history of people considered full citizens during the Founding Era of America. That didn’t include blacks and Native Americans.

Lawyer Wright for Rahimi answered that. He said that those who understood they were bound by the Second Amendment were the ones considered full citizens back then.

Justice Jackson pushed back:

JUSTICE JACKSON: But you seem to be suggesting and this is going back to a question that Justice Kagan asked that what we're looking for is Reconstruction Era sources, I suppose, that applied to the regulation of white Protestant men related to domestic violence. Is that sort of the level that we are focused on when we’re trying to find a history and tradition?

REICHARD: Wright clarified that it’s Founding Era, not Reconstruction Era that is the basis of analysis:

WRIGHT: And -- and -- and it has got to be the people, someone who would have been understood to be part of the people, a rights-holding citizen of the United States.

Prelogar for the government defended section 9-22, pointing to how legislatures have authority to decide when access to firearms will create untenable risk and authority to predict who is law abiding and responsible.

But Chief Justice Roberts wondered just what does “law abiding” and “responsible” mean?

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Responsibility is a very broad concept. I mean, not taking your recycling to the curb on Thursdays. I mean, if you're -- if it's a serious problem, you're -- it's irresponsible. Setting a bad example, you know, by yelling at a basketball game in a particular way. It seems to me that the problem with responsibility is that it's extremely broad, and what -- what seems responsible to some -- irresponsible to some people might seem like, well, that's not a big deal to others.

EICHER: Preloger answered that court precedent has narrowed the concept. Responsibility is tied to the special instances of danger presented by access to firearms.

Overall, things weren’t going well for Rahimi’s lawyer. Listen to Justice Elena Kagan:

JUSTICE KAGAN: You know, 200 some years ago, the problem of domestic violence was conceived very differently. People had a different understanding of the harm. 

I feel like you’re running away from your argument, you know, because the implications of your argument are just so untenable that you have to say no, that's not really my argument.

REICHARD: Prelogar for the government in rebuttal gave it her best:

PRELOGAR: Once the Court corrects the misinterpretation of Bruen, then I think the constitutional principle is clear. You can disarm dangerous persons. And under that principle, Section 922(g)(8) is an easy case. It's an easy case for three reasons. First, it requires an individualized finding of dangerousness.

And a finding of dangerousness in a state court proceeding is enough.

Second, presuming that state protective orders are fundamentally unreliable would prove disruptive for the state courts that are on the front lines trying to protect victims of domestic violence.

PRELOGAR: And the third reason why Section 922(g)(8) should be an easy case is because it does guard against a profound harm. A woman who lives in a house with a domestic abuser is five times more likely to be murdered if he has access to a gun. And it's not just the harms in the home. It extends to the public and to police officers as well. I was struck by the data showing that domestic violence calls are the most dangerous type of call for a police officer to respond to in this country. And for those officers who die in the line of duty, virtually all of them are murdered with handguns.

I counted seven justices who seemed likely to rein in Bruen. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito could see a way the law might violate the Constitution, but even their questions seemed to cast doubt on Rahimi’s argument.

There is another gun case on the docket this term. The question there is the legality of a regulation against bump stocks that allow for rapid firing of semi-automatic weapons.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Alright, time now to talk business markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David is head of the wealth management firm, the Bahnsen group. He is here now, David, good morning.

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

EICHER: Well, I've collected some listener questions, David, which we have not done in quite a while, we've had so much news, it seems, we needed to cover. But three questions I have selected, I think we'll get at some issues we have not talked about, and approach others in a fresh way, like this one, the first one, which I'll read from Ryan Smith of Clinton, Utah. He writes, “David has commented and written about the Feds debt impact on economic productivity and growth, but I haven't read or heard a discussion on state economic policies, and the impact of state debt on fueling our overall economic growth and productivity. So what contributes more to driving our economy, the Federal Reserve, or the policies and debt of our 50 states?”

BAHNSEN: Yeah, really, it's a wonderful question, because too many people do only focus on the federal debt. And when you're talking about the state debt, you are talking about real debt that has to be paid and can also only be paid by the collection of tax revenue, which is to say, by the extraction of revenue from the private sector. Now, one thing that needs to be said is states do technically have a little bit more variability in how they can collect revenue than the feds do, because there are state consumption taxes, and there are state property taxes. And for certain projects, there might even be revenue fees, meaning like a bridge that a state runs that they charge tolls for the users. Those by the way, you know, I think are better forms of collecting revenue than by taking from someone's income. But nevertheless, the primary source of state funding is certainly state tax collection. And in both the cases of state and federal, collecting taxes means you're extracting money out of the private sector, where I happen to believe it's more rationally and productively allocated. The caveat, though, is that the state debts are a fraction, teeny tiny fraction of the federal debt. And so while the numbers and the principles and the concepts all work the same, there isn't a market governor that holds down how much debt they can run. The exception to this and it's such a long setup to get to the real—I kind of buried the lede, I suppose, is unfunded pension liabilities. States can run and do run—in the case of California, for example—hundreds of billions of dollars of unfunded pension liabilities. Now, again, hundreds of billions up against 32 trillion nationally, maybe it still isn't that big of a number. And that's one state where there's plenty of other states that don't even have an unfunded pension liability. But all that to say that I believe the principles work the same, we ought to be very focused on state viability. But what I will say about this beautiful system of government we have in our country, is that for those worried about what that will mean to future services, to future governance, people have the ability to say, I don't think the funding, and the fiscal management of this state is going very well. And I like it at another state. And we have the ability to move across borders, and one can relocate as many have from California to Tennessee, or from New York to Florida. Or people can say I don't mind the state fiscal picture. And I like being in New York better. I happen to be a person who lives in both of these states. And so there's a lot of freedom in our form of government to make those choices, but at least we have those choices.

EICHER: Alright, I like question two here David, because you've touched on this indirectly a few times over the past many months. But given the political year that's coming up, this one seems especially relevant. The Reverend Kevin Slemp of Berea, Kentucky writes, “One hears of the Biden economy or the Trump economy. But how much influence does a president actually have on the economy when a president for example, does try to affect the economy, how long does it take for his actions actually, to take effect? In short, do presidents get more credit or more blame than they deserve for the economic health of the country?”

BAHNSEN: Well, I'm you know, Nick, you probably know that I love this question, because I have addressed it quite a bit and he is 100% correct. I should point out and I think he's implying this himself in the question, the association of the presidential administration is pure marketing and branding, and sometimes media laziness and sometimes political choice, but it's never accurate. In other words, if we were to look at a four year period of a given president and say, How would you define this four year period, it would never be the case ever, that the biggest thing that happened in that four year period was directly related to the presidential administration we happen to have been in. There would be things inevitably, that happen, like I would be incredibly comfortable talking about this four year period that with the Biden administration, with some aspect of Biden policies and the ramification on the economy, but when people say that the “Trump economy” was more influenced by COVID, or by Trump policy, obviously, extraneous circumstances, a great financial crisis in 2008, the COVID moment and 2020, there's different circumstances. But the bigger piece, and I think WORLD listeners really deserve to understand this, if you were going to pick some element of public policy to associate with a period of economic administration, the central bank would be a far more significant one. If you show me a president who does X, Y, and Z, while a Fed is tightening, or a president does A, B, and C, while Fed is loosening, I promise, the tightening and loosening of monetary policy is going to be more important than the X, Y, and Z and the A, B, and C of that respective president. So it's the nature of the beast, we have a very messianic view of politics in our country. And not only do we have an elevated view of politics, we have an imperial view of the presidency. And so it's natural that we want to view more people got jobs this month, the president must be doing something right. More people lost jobs, the president must be doing something wrong. Both things are almost laughably absurd.

EICHER: Alright, final listener question, David. This is Heather Moriarty of Spokane, Washington. She writes, “We've heard of the potential for a reverse market crash in the housing market. Could you clarify what this means, and give your thoughts on the potential?”

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I think that what it's a reference to is this idea of market prices not crashing, and yet mortgage rates still going higher. And so that's what is really kind of the case in terms of a new buyer now. You could have borrowed money at two and a half percent a few years ago, but you were paying a high price. And then in theory, if you now were going to borrow money at 8% but paying a lower price, because the market adjusted then you would be, you know, somewhat offset. And yet in this current state, you get the worst of both worlds. Prices haven't crashed, and yet, the mortgage rates have gone significantly higher. Now, of course, the issue with this is that many phenomena are unsustainable. Right now, you do not have market prices not going lower, and mortgage rates still higher, because that's simply how it's going to be. You have sellers that don't need to sell. When housing prices crash, it's very rare, first of all, but when it happens, it's because of a significant amount of forced selling. And I think this is a wonderful thing that we don't have forced selling and that what we don't have forced selling because we don't have a ton of people losing their jobs. And because most people who own a home have equity in the home, which is the polar opposite of 2008, with the massive amount of people who have bought homes with either no money down or very low money down. So people don't walk away from their homes and become forced sellers when there's a lot of protective equity. But if what they mean by a reverse housing market crash is prices skyrocketing higher. It's not related to the lack of offset from high borrowing cost. I certainly see no scenario whatsoever by which from current levels, house prices could skyrocket higher. But the concern generally is you already had high prices used to have very low supply. And then you have high borrowing cost that has the sort of net impact of what this phrase means. That's what she's referring to. I think it's what has been playing out. You have transactions that have totally collapsed, there's very few people buying or selling homes right now. And that's because it's too expensive for buyers, and the sellers don't have any forced impetus to be selling. And I think that one of these things breaks at some point one way or the other. But I don't think you're getting talking about a crash. And I certainly don't think you're talking about a huge reverse crash to the upside simply because of affordability. There are not enough qualified buyers that can afford where we are now, let alone going much higher.

EICHER:  Alright. David Bahnsen is founder managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bahnsen Group. You can keep up with David at his personal website, that is bahnsen.com. His Weekly Dividend Cafe, you'll find that at dividendcafe.com. David, I hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, November 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. The story behind a beloved hymn that assures believers wherever tragedy goes, so does the grace of God…even when the hymn writer himself eventually departs from orthodoxy.

Here’s WORLD Radio intern, Emma Perley:

EMMA PERLEY, INTERN: November 21st, 1873 is a chilly day. Anna Spafford and her four daughters gaze over the waters of the Atlantic on board the Ville du Havre, an enormous French ocean liner.

The Spaffords are bound for Paris to attend a rally for close friend and evangelist Dwight L. Moody. But Anna’s husband Horatio stays behind to take care of business. Two years before, the family watched as their property investments turned to ash in the Great Chicago Fire.

Once a prosperous lawyer, Horatio finds himself destitute. Despite the loss, Horatio and his wife Anna hold fast to their deep faith in God. Here’s Pastor David Jeremiah teaching about the Spafford family in a 2016 sermon.

JEREMIAH: All across town, people were wandering homeless and hungry, and the Staffords were deeply involved in doing what they could do to help families in distress.

Anna and their daughters —Annie, Maggie, Bessie, and Tanetta—are excited for the trip to Paris…away from their struggles. But at around 2 a.m. on the morning of November 22nd, the girls are jolted awake by a thunderous noise.

An English ship, the Loch Earn, rams into the Ville du Havre without warning. Panicked passengers clamber into lifeboats while the masts crash to the deck.

Anna clutches two year old Tanetta, and Annie looks up at her mother. She says, “Don’t be afraid. The sea is His and He made it.” The ship splits in two, and the girls are thrown into an icy whirlpool.

JEREMIAH: Their ship sunk within 20 minutes. Only 47 people were rescued from the ship. Anna was pulled from the water unconscious, she'd been found floating on a piece of debris.

Back in Chicago, Horatio waits for a letter from his family with growing dread. Finally, on December 1st, he receives a message from Anna.

JEREMIAH: Saved alone. What should I do?

Horatio immediately sets sail to join Anna in Paris. As his ship passes over the very spot where Ville du Havre sank, he looks out over the calm ocean waves with tears in his eyes. Audio here from voice actor Kim Rasmussen.

RASMUSSEN AS HORATIO SPAFFORD: When sorrows like sea billows roll. Whatever my lot, thou has taught me to say, it is well. It is well with my soul.

Horatio sends these words back to friend and composer Philip Bliss in Chicago. And Bliss composes a hymn to the lyrics, naming the tune, Ville du Havre in remembrance. It becomes Bliss’s most popular and influential hymn, even 150 years later.


That’s where most retellings of this story end. But there’s more.

Horatio and Anna return to Chicago and begin a women’s ministry under Moody’s direction. Anna has two more children, Bertha and Horatio. But in February of 1881, both catch scarlet fever. Little Horatio dies of the illness at four years old. Here’s pastor David Jeremiah once again:

JEREMIAH: Inexplicably, the family's church took the view that these tragedies were surely the punishment of a wrathful God upon this family for some unspecified sin that they had apparently committed.

The Spaffords begin holding charismatic prayer meetings in their home. And they claim to have powers allowing them to heal sick members and even resurrect the dead. Eventually, their church asks the Spaffords to leave. So Horatio and Anna pack their bags.

JEREMIAH: In 1881, they decided that they would leave America and begin a new life in Jerusalem.

In Jerusalem, they establish a settlement with other families, calling themselves the Overcomers. They claim that they are waiting for Jesus’s second coming, and he will return in seven years.

RASMUSSEN AS HORATIO SPAFFORD: And, Lord, haste the day when the faith shall be sight, The clouds be rolled back as a scroll…

Horatio adds a fourth verse to his hymn, It Is Well With My Soul. While it still echoes scripture, it has a different meaning for the Overcomers.

RASMUSSEN AS HORATIO SPAFFORD: …“Even so—it is well with my soul.”

Horatio becomes more spiritualistic and unorthodox in Jerusalem. He denies that there will be eternal punishment for sinners—insisting that God will save everyone, even Satan. And he preaches that churches are institutions of sin. Here’s an excerpt from one of his sermons:

RASMUSSEN AS SPAFFORD: God has showed us that “the Church” in all its parts is destitute of spiritual power. Theirs are false teachings. God has chosen the Overcomers instead of the organized church as the new “holy and peculiar people” to be “the Bride made one with Him and one another.”

Later, Horatio is bedridden with malaria. Some scholars attribute his unorthodox proclamations to a side effect caused by malaria medication. In 1888, Horatio falls into a coma. And soon dies. In WORLD commentator Janie Cheaney’s 2019 column, It is well .., she writes that while all was not well with the Spafford family, Cheaney maintains that the hymn is still an edifying song for believers today.

JANIE B CHEANEY: We can’t know for certain the final state of Horatio Spafford’s soul, but we can know the effect of his words. Like any work of art, they became a tool in God’s hand, to confirm truth or deny it. His sheep hear His voice, however it reaches them. For that, “Praise the Lord, O my soul.”


That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Emma Perley.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Electric vehicles are all the rage with environmentalists these days, but what about the impact of mining the minerals needed to build them? And, a story about the family traditions involved in making real apple butter, not the fake stuff. 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 Apostle Paul wrote: “Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever.” —Ephesians 3:20

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.


Please wait while we load the latest comments...