The World and Everything in It: September 15, 2025

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

JENNY ROUGH: Good morning!

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is working to demystify the Supreme Court.

BARRETT: So I think when people find out about the court’s work, it’s usually at the end of the process, it’s usually when you see the headlines saying this is what the court decided.

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

Also today the Monday Moneybeat, David Bahnsen on what terrorists understand about the power of American capital markets and free enterprise.

And the WORLD History Book, the man who modeled the American presidency.

ELLIS: I will say that no president in American history did not want to be president more than George Washington.

ROUGH: It’s Monday, September 15th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Jenny Rough.

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

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

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Charlie Kirk suspect, rhetoric » The man suspected of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk is not cooperating with authorities. But those who know him are providing information to investigators, among them, the suspect’s romantic partner.

That according to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who told NBC’s Meet the Press:

COX:  We do know that, uh, that the, the roommate that we had originally talked about, we can confirm that that roommate is, uh, is uh, a, a boyfriend who is transitioning from male to female. So we know that piece.

He stressed that the roommate knew nothing about the attack and was shocked by the news.

Cox said they also know that the 22-year-old suspect is on the left, politically.

Meantime, many GOP leaders are calling for accountability for those publicly celebrating Kirk’s assassination. Sen. Katie Britt:

BRITT:  If you are out there and you are celebrating the political assassination of a man who is exercising his free speech you should be held accountable. You should be fired, and that is the beginning and the end of it. Full stop.

And some have faced consequences for remarks their employers found unacceptable. Among them, Matthew Dowd, the now former MSNBC political analyst, fired for remarks surrounding the assassination.

Romania Russian drones » Romania is the latest country to report a Russian drone in its airspace.

Officials say the Romanian military scrambled F-16 jets as a Russian drone was tracked over southeastern Romania for nearly an hour before exiting. Fighter pilots had permission to shoot it down, but they held their fire over fears of potential damage or injuries on the ground.

The incident comes amid a wave of similar airspace intrusions into NATO countries. And NATO’s top general Alexus Grynkewich said over the weekend that efforts are underway to bolster NATO’s defenses on its eastern flank.

GRYNKEWICH:  It will take some time, uh, for us to bring everything together with the new contributions that have been coming in, and we'll continue to work on this and refine, uh, the design of the operation moving forward.

NATO is calling the mission to beef up defenses Eastern Sentry. Leaders say it will mark a permanent upgrade.

McCaul to leave Congress » Republican Congressman Michael McCaul says he worries that Russia's escalations in eastern Europe could lead to World War III. He talked about recent drone incursions into Poland’s airspace in an interview with ABC’s This Week.

MCCAUL:  I think, uh, Putin is testing the resolve of nato. Uh, he wants to see how NATO reacts, how Poland reacts. Uh, the good news is Poland had a great response. They shot ‘em down.

The longtime GOP hawk also announced he'd retire from Congress at the end of his term next year. McCaul is one of his party's strongest voices on national defense. He is a former chairman of Homeland Security and Foreign Relations Committees.

Rubio in Middle East » Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in Israel today wrapping up a two-day trip.

President Trump dispatched Rubio to Jerusalem, to signal ironclad support for Israel. That comes in the wake of surprise airstrikes targeting Hamas officials in Qatar's Capital, Doha last week that sparked a furious backlash from U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to reporters alongside Rubio.

NETANYAHU:  Marco Rubio and his wife, uh, Janet. Uh, I think his visit here is a testament to the durability, the strength of the, uh, Israeli American Alliance. It's as strong and as durable as the stones of the Western Wall that we just touched.

Visiting the Western Wall, Rubio and Netanyahu prayed together, then toured recently excavated historic tunnel space just beneath. A State Department official called it a tradition that began in the first Trump administration, reaffirming America's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital.

Rubio’s visit is a show of support for Israel, but not Israel’s strike in Qatar. President Trump said he was “very unhappy” about the operation.

MUSIC: [Monkeys theme song]

Bobby Hart obituary » Bobby Hart, who co-wrote some of the Monkees' biggest hits, has died. He was 86.

Along with Tommy Bryce, he was a key part of the Monkees' multimedia empire.

They wrote the Monkees' theme song and the hits "Last Train to Clarksville" and "I'm Not Your Steppin' Stone."

Hart also helped write tunes such as “Hurt So Bad,” for Little Anthony and the Imperials.

I'm Kent Covington.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is working to demystify the Supreme Court. Plus the Monday moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Monday September, 15th. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It.

Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: And I’m Jenny Rough. Time now for Legal Docket.

Threats against Supreme Court justices are not theoretical. In 2022, a man was arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home in an assassination plot.

EICHER: Back in 2020, in a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court, Senator Chuck Schumer had fiery words for Justices Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

SCHUMER: I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.

Schumer had to walk back those words. Even President Trump has taken repeated swipes at federal judges, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to publicly defend the independence of the courts.

ROUGH: And now, Justice Amy Coney Barrett is telling us what that climate looks like up close. This is from a recent interview with Norah O’Donnell of CBS:

BARRETT: When I became the, let’s say, not so proud owner of a bulletproof vest, one of my boys saw it and said, ‘Wow, is that what I think it is? That is so cool. Can I try it on?’ Thinking this is a parenting moment that I wasn’t quite prepared for. I said, ‘Sure, go ahead,’ and he puts it on. And then he looked up at me and he said, ‘Wait, why do you have a bulletproof vest?’

EICHER: That startling moment gives us the frame for today’s Legal Docket: the danger of our times, and the courage required to serve. From threats outside their homes to rising public rhetoric, the justices work in an environment more volatile than ever.

ROUGH: On Friday, Justice Barrett spoke at her alma mater, the University of Notre Dame just days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. She stressed the importance of civil discussion. She said political violence is no way to run a society.

Justice Barrett is on a mission to help us listen to one another, even in spirited debates.

It’s one of the points she makes in her new book, Listening to the Law. At her book tour kickoff at the Lincoln Center in New York City about two weeks ago, journalist Bari Weiss asked Barrett whether she thought we were in a constitutional crisis.

BARRETT: On Friday, Justice Barrett spoke at her alma mater, the University of Notre Dame … just days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. She stressed the importance of civil discussion. She said political violence is no way to run a society.
Justice Barrett is on a mission to help us listen to one another … even in spirited debates.
It’s one of the points she makes in her new book, Listening to the Law. At her book tour kickoff at the Lincoln Center in New York City about two weeks ago … journalist Bari Weiss asked Barrett whether she thought we were in a constitutional crisis.

Justice Barrett frequently quotes her mentor, the justice she clerked for, the late Antonin Scalia:

BARRETT: He used to say, ‘I attack ideas, I don’t attack people.’

Justice Barrett says she understands that to the public, the work of judging can seem mysterious, because so much of it happens outside the public eye.

This is from a conversation at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California last week.

BARRETT: So I think when people find out about the court’s work, it’s usually at the end of the process, it’s usually when you see the headlines saying this is what the court decided. But really the case would have started at the Court anyway, months and months before that. We get about 4000 of what are called petitions for certiorari every year, and those are requests that the court take a case.

EICHER: Of the 4,000, the court takes only about 60 of them.

BARRETT: We don’t take cases just because lower courts, we think they might have gotten it wrong.

The 60 they take for full review end up on the merits docket.

Usually that’s because lower courts in different regions have come to conflicting conclusions on the same federal question, and the justices need to establish a uniform national rule.

Justice Barrett has also addressed the hot-button topic of the emergency docket:

BARRETT: These are cases that are still pending in the lower courts. … When we weigh in on that, we’re not definitely resolving the question.

ROUGH: So let’s hear more about the inside workings of the Supreme Court.

Once a case is accepted, the justices dig into the briefs, the relevant cases, and the statutes. Barrett says it’s still old school research inside the court—even though outside, lawyers are already using AI tools to prepare.

BARRETT:I have it on good authority that some lawyers who practice before us have prepared for oral argument by asking AI … Well, what questions might Justice Barrett ask in this case? … And scarily, apparently, sometimes the AI predictions pan out and those questions actually do get asked.

After arguments, the nine justices huddle and decide the case.

BARRETT: When we meet in the conference room, it’s only the nine of us. There are no assistants. There are no law clerks. … The door is shut.

The chief justice speaks first, the newest justice last. That order gives senior members more sway. But it also lets those at the end shape their comments to address points of disagreement.

When they disagree, and they do, they stay civil. No raised voices, no dividing the court into “left” and “right.

BARRETT: Judges wear black robes. … We’re not wearing red or blue robes. We don’t sit on the bench on the left and on the right. It’s not like Congress.

After the conference, the justices await the Chief Justice’s “assignment memo,” naming who will write which opinion.

EICHER: Justice Barrett’s book also talks about the endurance of the U.S. Constitution. The average constitution around the world is replaced every 20 years. So why has ours lasted?

BARRETT: One is its brevity. It’s pretty short.

Small enough to fit in a pocket, but written down so our rights are clear. At the same time, it’s also bare bones—leaving room for regulations and statutes easier to change.

BARRETT: So we really kind of keep it to the basics in our Constitution and then we put most things into the democratic process of contemporary process.

She does admit a constitutional flaw that preserved slavery, for example. But she says its built-in amendment process allows correction. Over the years thousands of such corrections have been proposed—roughly 12-thousand amendments. But just 27 have been ratified.

ROUGH: In the final section of her book, she addresses her own work, the role of judges.

BARRETT: We’re there to interpret the law, not decide cases with an eye toward political reaction, popular reaction. … And I think the way that the court can conduct itself is to try to assure the American people that what the court is really doing is law, not politics.

One of the stories Barrett tells is about the Boston Marathon bomber. Barrett personally doesn’t believe in the death penalty. But when the case came before the Court, she sided with the majority to uphold it, because the law compelled that result.

She says it can be easy for judges to slant the law toward their own preferences. To keep herself in check, here’s her approach:

BARRETT: What I try to do is, when I’m deciding a case, and let’s say it’s a question on Congress’ authority to do x. And I don’t really like x. To try to make sure that I’m not biased on the constitutional question because of the particulars of the policy. I will imagine Congress having done y, something I do like, and what do I think about the constitutional question then. It’s kind of a way to make sure I’m keeping myself honest.

Much of this comes down to judicial philosophy. Mariel Brookins, who clerked for Barrett when she was on a federal appeals court, explains her old boss’s approach. Barrett is an originalist.

BROOKINS: Originalism says the meaning of the constitution is knowable and fixed. The meaning is what a member of the public, at the time of ratification, would’ve thought that the constitution meant.

On the other end of the spectrum:

BROOKINS: You’ve got living constitutionalism. And that’s this idea that we don’t want to be ruled by a dead hand. What the founders thought shouldn’t be that heavy on us today. And the constitution is vague enough and adaptable enough that it can flex over time with the changing society.

But is there a moral or ethical reason for judges to adhere to originalism versus living constitutionalism? Or are they just different visions of how the law ought to work, no “right,” no “wrong?”

Here’s how Brookins begins to think about it.

BROOKINS: I would say that for many Christians, on many political topics, the Bible does not just hand us an answer and say you must go in this direction. And I think that is largely true for methods of constitutional interpretation.

And yet, she says it’s helpful to think about why a method makes sense—to work out the principles behind it.

BROOKINS: And so a lot of the way I read the Constitution aligns with the way that I read the Bible where it’s got a fixed meaning. We can’t do anything that we want to, to stretch the text. We should be looking for the truest version of it, and not to kind of be stretching and pulling it. And I think that makes a lot of sense in the constitutional interpretation space, especially, because we have a branch of government designed to change the text, and we have a method for changing that text. And so … the goal should be … what is the fixed, best meaning of the Constitution? … We shouldn’t be changing it at the whims of society because it’s intended to be a longstanding governing document.

For Brookins, Barrett’s commitment to originalism mirrors her approach to faith: both of them grounded in fixed meaning. Justice Barrett and her husband, Jesse, are raising seven kids, making Barrett the first sitting justice with school-age children. Her ability to lean fully into all her vocations is why Brookins wanted to work for Barrett.

BROOKINS: I wanted the opportunity to be a practicing lawyer and be a mom. … I was just looking for role models and people who had pulled it off.  I watched how disciplined and how diligent she was with her time throughout that entire clerkship. And I realized she is so respected because … her attention to detail is incredible.

EICHER: That discipline, Brookins says, is courage lived out not just in big moments, but in daily faithfulness. And despite threats, and the bulletproof vest, Barrett has never considered walking away.

CBS: Has that ever caused you to think about leaving the court?

BARRETT: No, no.

ROUGH: Despite the danger, Justice Barrett remains as committed to public service as she is to her family.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bahnsen Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you.

BAHNSEN: Good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, David, as we talked about this before we came on the air this morning, the fact that last week, a terrible political assassination rightly overshadowed even our 9/11 remembrances, so let’s circle back to it now, because I thought you had some important thoughts on what the hijackers on that day seemed to understand that maybe we don’t understand well enough, and that is the centrality of the American free enterprise system, and the heartbeat of that strength which is our capital markets. Say more about why you think that’s so.

BAHNSEN:Yeah, you know, there has been a tradition of talking badly about financial markets. You know, that Wall Street is easy to demonize. And I don’t just mean the obvious things of bad actors on Wall Street who should be demonized. I mean the existence of our banking systems is often presented in a pejorative light throughout American history, and class warfare around this picked up in certain parts of the 20th century.

And I would argue it is a really underappreciated part of what drove the target selection of the 9/11 jihadists—that their very self-conscious disdain for American markets and desire to strike a blow at the symbolism of America’s financial markets was behind their selection of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan at the heart of Wall Street, the heart of the financial district.

And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is still at Guantanamo Bay, who was the operational mastermind of 9/11, said so in interrogation. He laid this out very clearly. And it was very consistent with things that Osama bin Laden himself had said in advance of 9/11, and then again after 9/11 when he released a video to Al Jazeera.

My point that I would make is not just to further delve into the evil of what the jihadists did on 9/11, but it’s to point out that we have a huge need to defend America’s capital markets for the same reason that the enemies of America have a reason to destroy America’s capital markets.

Okay? These are different sides to a coin here. If you hate America, you want to destroy our financial system that funds entrepreneurialism, that helps transfer capital, that helps grow capital, that gives us an ecosystem to take our ideas—and before you get to execution you have to have capital between our ideation and our execution. Capital, whether it’s venture capital in Silicon Valley, private equity, commercial banking, access to loans, and all of the sophistication that goes around these financial markets—these drive so much of our prosperity, drive so much of our unique, exceptional execution in our free enterprise system.

Why the jihadists hate it, I understand. Why Americans don’t love it more, I don’t understand. And this is the point I was making in Dividend Café that I think is very important for WORLD listeners to understand. Our capital markets are a byproduct of our exceptionalism, and you cannot have capitalism without capital markets.

EICHER: Would you take it a step further and say that there really is a worldview clash here? This Islamist ideology is really anti-capital markets. But the Biblical worldview is at the heart of free enterprise¡ so wouldn’t you say that the economic sophistication we enjoy today does grow out of a Biblical framework?

BAHNSEN: Well, there’s absolutely no question, and that sophistication of those capital markets has obviously evolved a great deal since biblical times. But that we want honest weights and measures, and that there is a sense of capital that underlies transactions is a part of the modernized economy.

The principles are extremely biblical, and they come out of the dignity of the individual. Our desire for an aspirational society, for people to produce goods and services and to do so at scale, to meet more human needs, deliver on more human wants—these are all a necessary byproduct of a creational theology.

Where capital fits in in a more contemporary setting is underappreciated. There isn’t going to be an elaborate exegesis of convertible debt securities in the Book of Leviticus, for example. But the principles that I’m talking about are extremely biblical. And the fact that just like with medicine, by the way—the Bible doesn’t speak to the particulars of complex heart valves, but it does speak to the sanctity of life, right?

And that’s what I’m getting at: we have tools and equipment available to drive human flourishing. And yet because some people have gotten richer than others, we’re demonizing these things. Because some people are jealous and covetous, which is the Tenth Commandment itself, we’ve made a sort of meme out of disdaining Wall Street. That was fine for the jihadists because that’s consistent with their worldview. It’s not consistent with our worldview, Nick.

EICHER: Really looking forward to delving more into some of these theological questions tonight in Houston. But before we go, I do want to turn back to, again, 9/11 and how quickly the markets recovered and showed this sort of resilience in the face of tragedy. But looking at today’s environment, David, of debt strain and global instability and political division—and boy, did we get a dose of that last week—do you see the same resilience built into our markets today?

BAHNSEN: Well, I mean, it’s interesting that a couple of the most dramatic market occurrences we’ve had even since 9/11—other than the Great Financial Crisis—we’ve seen even quicker recovery.

You think back to the world being shut down when you and I began doing this podcast together in March of 2020. I came on Moneybeat to talk about the market swooning. Two weeks later the market had hit its bottom. Two weeks. And it took a long time for the world to reopen, for the economy to recover, but the markets had bottomed by late March of that same month.

The Liberation Day swoon with the trade war a number of months ago—you know, dropping 5,000 points in four days and then a recovery, and now sitting here at new market highs. Markets have a recovery function that is unbelievable.

It’s largely driven by what markets themselves are, which are discounting mechanisms, pricing what they believe about the future, not what was in the news yesterday, but what we believe will be in the news a year from now. And that was a lesson out of 9/11 markets.

And it was in an earlier stage in my career, but the reality is people would say on September 12th or September 16th or what have you, “People aren’t gonna fly again. America’s way of life is gonna change.” Markets felt differently. And people do resume their lives. They do go on to produce new things, new solutions, solve other issues that we didn’t even know about.

It’s kind of surreal to think about the fact that when 9/11 happened and the market was tanking, there were other things to deal with even before that horrific terror attack. In markets, we were still dealing with the hangover of the technology bubble having burst, and we went into a minor recession.

And there were some of those things going on. But Nick, the fact of the matter is, we didn’t even have the cloud. We didn’t have social media. We didn’t have the iPhone. Google—Google wasn’t even a public company yet. You know, I’m not that old, and you know, that’s how quickly human progress can happen. God made us really capable co-creators with him.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner and Chief Investment Officer at The Bahnsen Group. He writes regularly for WORLD Opinions, and at dividend-cafe.com. David, thanks. And safe travels down to Houston, I’ll try to do the same, and Lord willing, see you tonight.

BAHNSEN: Looking forward to it, Nick.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Today is Monday, September 15th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Jenny Rough.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Up next, the WORLD History Book.

Long before monuments bore his name, George Washington’s leadership carved the very office of the presidency into history.

WORLD’s Emma Eicher reports.

EMMA EICHER: On September 17th, 1787, George Washington signs his own name to a newly adopted Constitution, the first man to do so after months of intense debate. Here’s biographer Walter Isaacson in The First American documentary.

WALTER ISAACSON: There’s something very deep about understanding the people who founded our country, because they’re the ones who imprinted our DNA. They’re the ones who said, ‘Here are our values.’

Founding Fathers and state delegates fall in line behind him to add their own signatures.

ISAACSON: And we’ve become the greatest Republic in the history of the earth, and it’s because of the values that they imparted to us.

Washington presides over the Constitutional Convention, drafting a new charter over the course of several months. He hopes this might be his last act of public service. He’s tired after seven years of the Revolutionary War and just wants to tend to his farm.

Gay Hart Gaines is a former vice regent for the historic site of Washington’s home, Mount Vernon.

GAY HART GAINES: He didn’t want to do it. And they begged him, because they knew they needed his gravitas when he entered the room, that he was the hero, and with him in the room it might happen. And finally he said, ‘I’ll do it, but only if we succeed.’

When the Convention wraps up, Washington prepares to head home. But his friends won’t let him go just yet. They ask him to make one more sacrifice to be President of a young United States.

Joseph Ellis is a historian specializing in the American founding.

JOSEPH ELLIS: I would say that no president in American history did not want to be president more than George Washington. He didn’t think of the presidency as the capstone to his career, he thought of it as an epilogue. And if he could’ve gotten out of doing it, he would have.

Washington spends the next 8 years building a new government from the ground up. Literally. It’s up to Washington to define what the presidential office should look like and where it should be located.

In 1790, Congress gives Washington the power to find a permanent home for the federal government. Maryland and Virginia give land for the eventual capital of the United States.

At first, it’s called Columbia. But in 1791, city officials rename it in George Washington’s honor.

Jane Hampton Cook is an author and former White House staffer.

JANE COOK: The Constitution was vague enough on how the executive should be organized, so Washington put pillars into the building.

On September 18th, 1793, crowds gather for a parade—complete with two brass bands—going from the White House construction site to the Capitol Building site. In a ceremony, Washington lays the cornerstone for the Capitol Building with an inscribed silver plate underneath.

That silver plate has never been found, and 232 years later, the current Architect of the Capitol is still looking for it.

Washington travels often to oversee construction in D.C. But the buildings are largely unfinished by the time Washington drafts his farewell address on September 17th, 1796. It’s the end of his second term, and even though citizens beg him for a third, he refuses.

H.W. Brands is an American historian.

H.W. BRANDS: Washington could have remained in office as long as he wanted, but by voluntarily stepping down, and this at a time when the Constitution did not require that, he said, ‘Two is enough.” And this set a precedent for presidents right down to the 20th century.

Washington’s presidency is marked by his own principles and spiritual beliefs. He’s a lifelong Anglican, but encourages religious tolerance during his presidency. And in his Farewell Address, he emphasizes the importance of religion.

Here’s Newt Gingrich, a former American politician and professor of history.

NEWT GINGRICH: He writes, ‘Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.’

Washington warns against dividing into political parties which would pit Americans against each other. And he discourages partisanship, fearing it would cause a spirit of revenge.

In March of 1797, Washington returns to his farm, Mount Vernon. By day he oversees the plantation, and by night he and his wife Martha entertain guests.

Washington updates his will by the end of 1799, not knowing his life will soon be over. One of the most notable provisions is that all his slaves he owned at Mount Vernon will be freed after Martha’s death.

Edward Lengel is an author and military historian.

EDWARD LENGEL: He is more important for us in the 21st century as an example than he was perhaps at any time since was alive.

On December 14th, Washington unexpectedly passes away from an illness at 67 years-old. And to this day, his legacy endures as the founder of the capital, and then as the Father of America.

LENGEL: I think Americans need him now as a unifying force of what it means to serve, what it means to sacrifice for the nation.

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

ROUGH: All audio from the documentary The First American, produced by the Gingrich Foundation and Peace River company.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Tomorrow: a call for tech companies to step up and start protecting the vulnerable who use their services. And, a midweek film review, as Collin Garbarino takes a look at Downton Abbey: the Grand Finale. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Jenny Rough.

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

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

Jesus said, “I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” —John 12:46, 47

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.