The World and Everything in It: October 23, 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!

A disputed story about the late missionary Elisabeth Elliot raises a question about responsible journalism and pure speculation.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Culture Friday with John Stonestreet.

Also today, a sci-fi film that leaves room for the sovereignty of God.

GRAHAM: Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky?

And later: three books that shaped a leader’s understanding of leadership. George Grant has Quest—for October.

BROWN: It’s Friday, October 23rd. 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: Virginia state senator charged » One of Virginia’s most powerful Democrats faces federal charges, accused of running an illegal marijuana business.

State Senator Louise Lucas chairs the Senate’s budget committee.

US Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the case Thursday.

BLANCHE: The charges listed in the indictment reflect the alleged behavior of a public servant who put her own financial interests before the people she was elected to serve

Lucas faces five charges, including conspiring to sell marijuana and launder the proceeds.

Six others are charged, including her two daughters and a grandson.

Prosecutors say Lucas used her political power to shield the operation.

FBI Director Kash Patel told reporters:

PATEL: The purpose of her enterprise included trafficking large quantities of illegal marijuana, creating generational wealth for members and associates of her criminal enterprise, recycling drug proceeds to expand the operation that she launched and created, and steering marijuana licenses to entities in which members held financial interests

The state senator says the case is politically motivated. But Blanche says the investigation began before President Trump returned to office.

Lucas says she—her words “will not be intimidated.”

Blanche on Omar raid » Meantime, Democratic U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has said much the same in response to a federal investigation looking into potential immigration fraud. Omar has said she will not be intimated and asserts that the timing of federal agents raiding her Washington home was political, just ahead of midterm elections.

But Attorney General Blanche spoke to the timing, telling reporters Thursday:

BLANCHE:  That is a covert operation. It's a search warrant. And, and when you-- anytime you apply for a search warrant, one of the factors under the rules is why it needs to happen on a pr- uh, pursuant to a search warrant and not a subpoena, and why it has to happen on that day and not some other day. And as the magistrate judge found, there w- we needed to do it then

Blanche did not expound on why the search needed to happen when it did.

Judge orders Trump to sit for deposition in BBC suit » President Trump must answer questions under oath in his lawsuit against the BBC or risk having the case thrown out. WORLD’s Kristen Flavin reports.

KRISTEN FLAVIN: A federal judge Thursday gave Trump until December 11th to testify, though that deadline could still be extended.

Trump is seeking 10 billion dollars after suing over a BBC documentary that spliced together separate parts of his January 6th, 2021 speech.

The British broadcaster has acknowledged the edit wrongly made it sound as though Trump directly called for violence. It apologized but denies defaming him.

The BBC’s lawyers say Trump canceled an October 16th deposition, citing matters of national importance. They told the judge he campaigned that day instead.

The judge also allowed access to some records from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club membership application totals and fees. The BBC says those records could help test Trump’s claims that his reputation suffered.

For WORLD, I’m Kristen Flavin.

Rush to patch websites » Serious online security flaws just revealed this week could let hackers break into websites on a massive scale. That's because the software at the heart of the issue helps power roughly 70% of the world’s websites.

Now, the race is on to fix it.

The flaws affect software called PHP.

Researchers used artificial intelligence to help uncover the danger. And fixes came out Wednesday, but operators still need to install them.

U.S. officials are warning that vulnerable sites should go offline if they can’t be updated immediately.

White House press secretary search » Former White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is advising President Trump in the search for a new press secretary, after her successor lasted less than a week. WORLD’s Harrison Watters reports from Washington.

ZACHARIA: Good morning! (reporters respond “good morning”)

HARRISON WATTERS: It was only Tuesday of last week when Katie Zacharia made her debut in the White House press room.

ZACHARIA: I am so honored to work for President Trump and the American people.

WATTERS: But by the weekend, she was off the job, setting a new record for shortest tenure in the role after President Trump asked her to reconsider the position.

Karoline Leavitt said, as it turned out, the job was not a good fit for Zacharia.

LEAVITT: It takes a lot of preparation, and sometimes you don’t know how someone will perform until they go out there…

WATTERS: Zacharia described herself as a lawyer. But she faced tough questions about that because, despite having a law degree, she never passed the bar exam or became licensed to practice law.

Karoline Leavitt left the administration in August, but has continued to serve as an outside consultant. She said there are many qualified candidates for the job.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Harrison Watters in Washington.

Latest Russian attack » In Ukraine:

SOUND: [Explosion]

Explosions sounded in Kyiv as Russian strikes damaged subway infrastructure in the capital city, killing one person and wounding more than 20.

Meantime, the Kremlin says Russian air defenses intercepted more than 800 drones fired by Ukraine at targets in Moscow and other cities.

All of that comes after Vladimir Putin agreed “in principle” this week for his negotiators to resume peace talks with Ukraine and the U.S, though no date is set for those discussions.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: John Stonestreet joins us for Culture Friday. Plus, a sci-fi film that leaves room for the sovereignty of God.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It from WORLD Radio, celebrating 15 years. Today is October 23rd.

Thank you for making us part of your morning routine. Good morning, I’m Nick Eicher.

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

It’s Culture Friday, John Stonestreet. John Stonestreet is here. He’s president of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint Podcast. Good morning, John.

JOHN STONESTREET: Good morning.

BROWN: Well, John, there is an article making the rounds about Elisabeth Elliot, the late Christian missionary, author, and speaker. I hate to bring it up because it strikes me as especially unfair, but it’s out there, and now it’s in the New York Times. But the piece raises questions about a relationship between Elisabeth Elliot and another woman decades ago. The account is disputed, and Elliot isn’t here to answer, nor is the other woman. And just a personal note, I’ve kept a prayer journal for 30 years, half my life, and I would be horrified to have the worst or most confusing moments in those journals pulled out for public examination.

And I say all that to ask this: When does pursuit of the truth become speculation at the expense of someone else?

STONESTREET: Well, this particular article was speculation at the expense of someone else. It was unverified. It was something that was based on insinuation and innuendo, and I do think the practice itself of publishing a piece like this is very, very odd.

It’s particularly odd for an evangelical publication. I think those that claim to play by biblical standards one day and journalistic standards the next day, and don’t see any conflict between those two is the problem we have in a lot of evangelical institutions right now, because we live in a culture that has particular rules within different disciplines. Think, for example, if you’re a historian, the rules of history are that you have to seek all horizontal explanations for the events that you’re trying to talk about. You can’t insinuate that God exists, or that God is leading in a particular way, or that God entered into the account in some sort of miraculous way. Well, I get that that’s the rule of secular historians because secular historians play by the rules of secularism.

The question is, can Christians do that, or should Christians play by a different rule? And I think in the accounting of this story, we saw the conflict between the rules of journalism and the rules of being a Christian. There are rules, for example, that we have in terms of telling the truth about someone. There are rules that we have in terms of not slandering. There are rules that we have about what’s considered slander. I know that in our day and age, insinuations about sexual attractions aren’t considered to be slander; they’re considered to be breaking news. But that’s not the case when it comes to Holy Scripture. Scripture talks about how believers should talk about other believers, and that insinuations of sexual perversions are nothing short of slander.

So even if this was published as it was in a journalistic air, it doesn’t make it any less slander. It was flat-out slander. And what good is it doing anyone? It’s not doing us any good.

At the very least, the whole idea that if we find out that this evangelical heroine had some perverted sexual attractions, you know what we saw in her life of refusal to live by those attractions. What we saw is that even though if she had these attractions, she must have been quote unquote born this way. She was able to actually live in marriages, tough marriages, and actually show fidelity and faithfulness.

I think it actually undermines the whole narrative of LGBT life that you have to actually follow your attractions no matter what. She’s proof that you actually don’t, and you can actually have children, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Look, this article did no good. This article betrayed the fact that this evangelical publication doesn’t play by evangelical rules. Hasn’t for a while, but that’s another conversation for another time. But this was slander. It was just slander. You can call it whatever you want, but it was slander.

EICHER: Hey, John. Different gear here. National Review writer Abigail Anthony thinks we may be seeing the return of something that we saw that we wish we hadn’t seen, but something we did see from 2020.

She’s calling it woke 2.0. Now I’m going to offer new woke, like new Coke, although woke classic, if you’re old enough, wasn’t any good either. But Anthony in National Review points to three specific controversies to make her argument. The first is the Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism and falsifying credentials. The second thing is the Cornell Seven case, and the third is the Lindsey Clancy murder trial. Obviously, very different stories, but the National Review piece notices a similar woke classic pattern: inconvenient facts just waved away, institutions lining up behind an ideological narrative, and crucially, the punishment of those who challenge it. So, did you see this? Do you see this? Is this new woke, or did the original just never really lose its fizz, so to speak.

STONESTREET: Right. I mean, I think it was AOC, right, who talked about woke 1.0 as if a woke 2.0 was coming. And if this author sees that it is here, she’s probably not wrong. But a lot of people actually ask this question when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threw out that woke 1.0 as being what did she say? She said it was kind of that got crazy kind of thing—crazy, right and then a lot of people asked, I think, the legitimate follow-up question which is, well, how is woke 2.0 a new woke or whatever you’re going to call how is it going to be fundamentally different than woke 1.0. And of course we didn’t get an answer to that yet, but this argument I think that is made in National Review shows that these are the same fundamental premises: identity politics. Someone is deemed to be the good guy or the bad guy in this story based on self-identification, based on claiming victimhood status, and then there’s this gaslighting that we should all play by these rules that we should all know upfront, even though the grounding of these rules is in question to say the very least.

So I would just encourage everyone: you don’t have to play along. You don’t have to play along to these rules. You can say out loud what it is, and we had in the time frame between woke point 1.0 or old woke and new woke or 2.0.

We had plenty of examples that the threats that you will be run out of public society, that you will be canceled, those things have lost a lot of their bite, and I think that we can stand up to those. And so I hope we don’t play by those rules. And of course we have to understand what the rules are, and at the same time, have to understand what the biblical categories are that we need to evaluate individuals. So we maintain and preserve human dignity across the board.

That we don’t have special status based on these ideological categories. That there’s a sense of moral accountability to which we all both are responsible, and to which we all fail, and the possibility and potential of redemption and forgiveness, which is what makes the gospel the gospel. So I don’t want to give up any of those things, and I don’t think we need to give up any of those things as we look at our own lives, our own hearts, but also some of these big stories.

BROWN: Hey John, real quick, I want to talk about one of those examples. Cornell, two weeks ago, Katie McCoy addressed the issue and made the point that consent just doesn’t work as a sexual ethic. Well, since the story has broken, we’re starting to see more campus rules, written consent pledges, sober monitors, restrictions on fraternity activities. So imagine, John, or should I say, Dr. Stonestreet, you are a university president. And well, thanks for that promotion. I’m not a doctor, but no, I think something has gone wrong. Actually, here.

So go along with me for a second. You’ve got serious allegations to look into as a university president. Students to protect, accused students to protect too. How do you do that? Rules like I just described, or something.

STONESTREET: Isn’t it interesting that you have this culture on university campuses that’s been built around this understanding of no sexual restraint, the idea of sexual experimentation, the expectation, really, if you go back not that long ago, less than a decade, certainly, that there were fears about this, the hookup culture and what that meant. And we had think pieces in the Atlantic and the New York Times, even celebrating this as a way of experimenting sexually, and that people should be able to do that, and where that has led us is to consent pledges, sober monitors, and the cancelation of all fraternities, and for the rest of the year at Cornell.

In other words, this poorly defined understanding of freedom has led to the restrictions on freedom, more restrictions, restrictions that you see here that you wouldn’t see in the same way at many campuses that have moral expectations of their students. Think about many Christian colleges going into this. Isn’t that the irony of freedom? And Os Guinness, of course, talks about the difference between freedom from and freedom for. And if you live only in terms of freedom from, like, don’t tell me what to do, let me do whatever I want, let me behave whatever I want, as long as I don’t hurt anyone else. That’s the quickest way to tyranny because you become a slave to yourself.

And Chuck Colson often talked about the conscience or the constable that if you can’t actually govern yourself, you actually have to be governed from the outside, and all of that informs what I would do as a university president, which I will not be, and I have no interest whatsoever in being a university president. I don’t know of another job that has to meet the expectations of a more diverse set of constituents than a university president, so I’m not interested in that job. Please don’t call me for any of that, because my goodness.

But I will say, Katie is exactly right about consent being just a failed moral framework. There’s just no way that it can navigate this, and we see that in the Cornell case itself, where there are even in New York law, an inability to adjudicate the cases if both parties are inebriated, right? I mean, that’s actually in the law.

So you don’t have consent as a big enough idea to navigate these sorts of behaviors. You know what does help is clarifying that there are moral expectations ahead of time, what those moral expectations are, and holding people to an honor code, to sign on themselves to this is the how I’m going to behave, and it can’t just be morality understood in terms of don’t cross these fences, it’s got to be morality understood in heading a direction.

I remember 25 years ago as a young intern in a youth group talking about the concept of purity, and this incredibly smart student that I had said, “Purity is making yourself presentable to God,” and I thought, man, that is a beautiful big definition of purity because it’s not purity as don’t cross these lines. It’s purity as heading towards God, and honor codes that tell students to head towards justice, head towards purity, head towards honoring one another’s inherent human dignity, are that are based on absolutes and that clearly have a no and that clearly have a defined set of categories. Those are big enough ideas to which you can hold students accountable because they’ve placed themselves under those categories going in, that’s the only way this works.

I don’t know if I want to say this. For example, I think Hillsdale College right now is an example of this. Students buy into an honor code. The rules are far shorter. The list of rules is far shorter than the honor code. This is the kind of people we want you to be. And I’m not saying that there’s never any problems on that campus because, of course, there are, because there’s people there. But that’s the understanding you got to bring into it to begin with. I’ll end with the story.

STONESTREET: It’s a story with far less consequence than this Cornell story, which is absolutely horrible and horrific. And now we’re adjudicating this only on legal lines, and when the behavior of everyone involved was absolutely despicable, and shows the lack of character and the lack of moral framework in the institution and these students, and it’s just horrific to begin with.

But years ago, I was asked to be a part of a tech committee at the Christian College at which I was working, and I was invited to one meeting and never invited back to any other meetings. Now, whether that was an administrative oversight or not, I don’t know. But this was the early days of the internet, where students were having access to campus-wide networks, and what are we going to do to keep students away from porn? And every decision, and every part of that conversation was built around how do we keep them away, keep them away, keep them away. It was never how do we help them understand and govern themselves as part of this whole process. So I asked the question, what are we going to do to teach about pornography and the harms of pornography and sexual wholeness and how this impacts sexual wholeness? And it was like a record scratch in the room. Maybe that was a better administrative detail for another committee that I wasn’t a part of. But the tech committee certainly had no interest in dealing with this, and I was never invited back.

And I thought it was a moral shortcoming. Why? Because we’re dealing with people. The fundamental entity here are not rules that ought not be broken. They’re people who are made in the image of God and thus morally accountable. And the question always is formation. But if you abandon the moral categories, if you abandon the definition of what it means to be human, and if you abandon the task of moral formation, which higher education has done across the board in so many different situations, I don’t know where else you go from here.

EICHER: Myrna, I knew that hypo about a university president was going to get a reaction. Now, for a guy who doesn’t want to be a university president, he’s making the case. But I’m sure glad that John is where John is.

BROWN: All right, John Stonestreet is president of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint Podcast. Thank you, John.

EICHER: See you next week.

STONESTREET: Thank you both.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Friday, October 23rd. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. I’m Myrna Brown.

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

Coming next on The World and Everything in It: Two very different visions of an alien encounter.

Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day started streaming this month. It imagines what happens when humanity finds out we’re not alone. But how does it compare with an earlier alien-invasion film that asks a rather different question?

BROWN: WORLD reviewer Steve Limkeman considers Disclosure Day alongside M. Night Shyamalan’s film Signs.

STEVE LIMKEMAN: I could watch a hundred different stories of humans discovering that aliens exist and never tire of the experience. I find the premise electric with the tension of unknown, potential dangers. No film tells it better than M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs. The suspense is masterfully built up as the aliens remain hidden in the shadows. They rustle through tall, dense stalks of corn, and they’re heard dimly through the tenuous grip of a family listening earnestly to an old baby monitor. The looming threat is perfectly ominous.

SERGEANT CUNNINGHAM: It’s called probing. It’s a military procedure. You send out a reconnaissance group, very small. Check things out. Not to engage but to evaluate the situation. Evaluate the level of danger. Make sure things are all clear.

MERRILL: Clear for what?

CUNNINGHAM: For the rest of them.

What makes Signs really compelling is its setting: a rural farmhouse and a down-to-earth family who lives there. The farm is surrounded by cornfields, providing an eerie sense of isolation and magnifying how small we feel in light of whatever might be out there. Graham Hess is a widower still mourning the loss of his wife. He lives on the farm with his two children and his brother Merrill. When crop circles appear near their home early one morning, the brothers express a healthy skepticism about who might be prowling around their property at night.

MERRILL: Excluding the possibility that a female Scandinavian Olympian was running around outside our house last night, what else might be a possibility?

OFFICER PASKI: I’m not done asking questions. And I don’t appreciate sarcasm.

Mounting evidence points to something strange at work. But Graham and Merrill do their best to reassure the children that they have nothing to be afraid of. Actors Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix deliver some of their most endearing performances as the steadfast father and the supportive uncle. Their love for the young kids amidst the alarming developments they face charmingly connects us to the whole Hess family.

MERRILL: This crop stuff is about a bunch of nerds who never had a girlfriend in their lives. They’re like 30, and they work up little codes together, and they analyze Greek mythology, and they make up secret societies where other guys who never had girlfriends before can join in…

BO: Why can’t they get girlfriends?

When we finally do get a good look at the aliens, their aesthetic leaves something to be desired. But a pulse-pounding score more than makes up for the aged visual effects. We’re kept on the edge of our seats as the Hess family uncovers more and more undeniable proof that they’re in imminent danger. The film’s editing carries the narrative effectively. It alternates between lingering on moments of uncertainty and racing through pivotal dramatic scenes.

MORGAN: There are lights in over 274 cities. They think it’ll be 400 within the hour. They’re appearing at or within one mile of crop signs.

MERRILL: They were for navigation. They made a map. They’re gonna be within a mile of us.

As exciting as the alien encounters are, the narrative heart of the story is found in Graham’s loss of faith. He had been a priest for years in the community. But after his wife’s sudden tragic death, he abandoned his faith, believing God couldn’t possibly exist. Or if he did, he didn’t care for Graham. As the Hess family sits down to what might be their last meal, Graham’s son suggests they pray first.

GRAHAM: I am not wasting one more minute of my life on prayer. Not one more minute. Understood? Now we are going to enjoy this meal. No one can stop us from enjoying this meal, so enjoy it!

But extraordinary events and his brother’s persistent hope cause Graham to reevaluate. When Graham and Merrill are confronted with the worst-case scenario of an alien invasion, the brothers have a provocative conversation about the ramifications of the UFOs they’re seeing on TV.

GRAHAM: So what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Is it possible there are no coincidences?

So in turn, what we have to ask movies about alien encounters is what kind of movie are you? Spielberg’s Disclosure Day gives all the power of providence into the hands of the aliens. They are the ones coordinating events to overcome the threat of a fearful humanity. In Signs, Graham ultimately sees the way in which God has orchestrated everything in his life to create the opportunity for him to defend his family from an alien attack. And that fills me with hope.

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.

Time now for Quest: conversations with thoughtful leaders about three books that have shaped their thinking.

George Grant joins us now for this month’s discussion.

GEORGE GRANT: Today I'm speaking with author, pastor, professor, and my friend John Currie. John, you not only serve as a local church pastor, but you teach seminary students about pastoral leadership and preaching. So how have books, the books that you've read, shaped your life, your preaching, and your teaching?

JOHN CURRIE: Well, George, thank you. Very good to be with you. One of my favorite books, the one that I think has influenced me perhaps the most is Calvin's Institutes. And not only for the theological vision that Calvin gives to us, but actually his methodology and how he handles the scripture. And as you study Calvin, his concern for the text, and then his pastoral impulse and why he does what he does with the text, that has been one of the books that's actually shaped my approach to how I think through a text and the purpose and how I deliver that kind of a text.

GRANT: A lot of people are intimidated when they come to the Institutes. How should a first time reader of the Institutes approach a book like that?

CURRIE: Well, first of all, I think you have to take time in it. It's like having a conversation with a trusted pastor but from another time. As someone has said, seek first to understand, then be understood.

And I think with a work like Calvin or any of the other great Reformed theologians, you kind of have to understand their cadence, their syntax, how they put things together. So the first thing that I would say is take time just to read through it, just to really get to know how he expresses himself.If you can find a good biography, a reliable biography on the author, it helps you understand their concerns. It helps you understand their context, helps you understand the way they approach things.

GRANT: All right, we could probably spend our entire time talking about the Institutes, but let's go on to a second book that has influenced you and in what ways has it influenced you, resonating in your life and your work? What's the second book?

CURRIE: Martin Lloyd Jones's Preaching and Preachers. I think it was Lloyd Jones that first gave me the sense that there's such a thing as a preacher, and that preaching has a nature to it. And it's not just an exercise in rhetoric. And I think Lloyd Jones was perhaps the first, and maybe the most formative, to give me a sense of what preaching is and who the preacher is.

GRANT: All right, third book. What's another book that has shaped you and how does it add to your story?

CURRIE: Well, it's a little bit out of the genre of the biblical, theological or systematic, but it's along the lines of something we've talked about already, the line of biography. Something that has been very formative for me are biographies of Reagan. President Ronald Reagan. One in particular I would focus on. I've loved his autobiography, An American Life. I think that was my introduction. But then Peggy Noonan's book, When Character Was King. When Character Was King …

GRANT: What a great book.

CURRIE: It is really really formative. And how it has helped me is she makes this comment in the book, that the reason Reagan was who he was and was able to achieve what he achieved was that he had a clear moral compass. Another of his biographers says the reason he was the greatest communicator was he really was who he was. He was the same man in the Oval Office as he was behind the podium.

GRANT: All right, now let's tie all three of these books together. How do they together sort of shape your life, your thinking? What's the thread that connects them all?

CURRIE: That's a great question, George. And I think the thread that connects them all is leadership, particularly pastoral leadership, through communication by a leader who can be an example. I think that's common to all of them. You know, Calvin is the great theologian, but he was a prolific preacher, and he was putting his life on the line for what he was teaching and writing and preaching. And of course the same's true of Lloyd Jones. He was so active. In fact, I think he probably wore himself out two or three times with his activity. I think the common thread is that these were all men who were leading in a cause. And they were leading by communication, but they were exemplifying what they were leading in. It was not just an exercise in rhetoric.

GRANT: John Currie is the senior pastor of Proclamation Presbyterian Church and is the president’s professor and Broekhuizen professor of pastoral theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. His latest book, The Pastor as Leader, is published by Crossway.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Now it’s time to name the crew who helped with this week’s programs:

Mary Reichard, David Bahnsen, Mary Muncy, Lauren Smyth, Liz Lykins, Cal Thomas, Hunter Baker, Juliana Chan Erikson, Janie B. Cheaney, Lauren Canterberry, Arsenio Orteza, Daniel Darling, Will Hoogendyk, John Stonestreet, Steve Limkeman, and George Grant.

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

And thanks to the technical production team: Benj Eicher, Carl Peetz and Josh Goniea.

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.

This is episode 3515 of The World and Everything in It, from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says, “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. “Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.” —1 Peter 5:8-9

Find a Bible-believing church and be an encouragement to your brothers and sisters in Christ this weekend.

And Lord willing, we’ll meet you back here 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.