The World and Everything in It: September 22, 2022

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Good morning!

The midterm elections are six weeks away, today a conversation with a fresh face in Republican politics.

PAUL BUTLER, HOST: Also, we’ll check in with WORLD’s Steve West on the state of Washington’s ban on so called conversion therapy for children.

Plus taking America’s theological temperature.

And commentator Cal Thomas says it’s wise to limit judicial power.

BROWN: It’s Thursday, September 22nd. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

BUTLER: And I’m Paul Butler. Good morning!

BROWN: Now the news with Kent Covington. 

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Zelenskyy UN » World leaders at the UN General Assembly rose from their seats on Wednesday, giving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a long standing ovation.

Russian representatives and their allies, of course, remained uncomfortably seated after Zelenskyy delivered a historic wartime video address from Kyiv.

ZELENSKYY: A crime has been committed against Ukraine and we demand just punishment.

Zelenskyy’s voice heard there, not a translator.

He said Russia’s decision to mobilize some reserve troops showed that Moscow isn’t serious about negotiating an end to the war.

Zelenskyy said after his troops chased Russian forces out of the town of Izium, they found tortured and mutilated Ukrainian soldiers and civilians in mass graves.

ZELENSKYY: We must finally recognize Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

He called for more sanctions against Moscow. He also urged world leaders to strip Russia of its vote in international institutions and take away its U.N. Security Council veto power.

The assembly voted overwhelmingly in March to condemn Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

Biden UN » Hours earlier, President Biden addressed the General Assembly, declaring that Russia has “shamelessly violated the core tenets” of the United Nations.

BIDEN: A permanent member of the UN Security Council invaded its neighbor, attempted to erase a sovereign state from the map.

Biden said reports of Russian abuses against civilians and its efforts to erase Ukraine —quote—“should make your blood run cold."

He condemned Putin’s latest nuclear threats against Europe and the sham votes this week that will proclaim that several Russian occupied regions are now part of Russia.

Biden also highlighted consequences of the invasion for the world's food supply.

Russia call-up » White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan says Putin’s decision to call up reservists displays his desperation.

SULLIVAN: They simply need more personnel and manpower given the success that Ukraine has had on the battlefield.

The Kremlin could mobilize as many as 300,000 reservists as it tries to regain momentum. A Ukrainian counteroffensive recently retook large swaths of territory.

The first such call-up in Russia since World War II also brings the fighting home in a new way for Russians.

Putin’s decree sparked anti-war protests and flights out of Russia have surged.

New York Trump accusations » New York’s attorney general sued former President Trump and his company on Wednesday, alleging fraud. Letitia James told reporters …

JAMES: Mr. Trump and the Trump organization repeatedly manipulated the value of assets to induce banks to lend money to the Trump organization on more favorable terms.

She claims Trump, his children, and his company also gamed the system to pay lower taxes and to get more favorable terms from insurance companies.

James' lawsuit is the culmination of the Democrat’s three-year civil investigation of Trump and the Trump Organization.

James wants Trump and his business to pay at least $250 million in penalties.

Lawyers for Trump say the lawsuit is baseless political grandstanding by James.

Federal Reserve » Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell announced another interest rate hike on Wednesday. The reason, he said, is simple.

POWELL: Inflation is running too high. You don’t need to know much more than that.

The Fed is raising a key interest rate by three-quarters of a point for a third straight time. It’s hiking its benchmark short-term rate, which affects many consumer and business loans, to a range of 3% to 3.25%. That’s the highest level since 2008.

That raises the risk of a steep economic downturn. The White House says the United States can avoid that. But Powell told reporters …

POWELL: We don’t know. No one knows whether this process will lead to a recession - or if so, how significant that recession would be.

He said that will depend on a range of factors.

Technically, by some definitions, the U.S. is already in a recession, but the economy and the job market remain relatively strong for now.

Powell also signaled further rate hikes in the near future.

Existing home sales fall » And as mortgage rates rise, the housing market continues to cool off. WORLD’s Mary Muncy has more.

MARY MUNCY, REPORTER: Sales of existing U.S. homes slowed in August for the seventh month in a row. That as sharply higher mortgage rates make it more expensive to finance a home.

Existing home sales fell four-tenths of a percent (0.4%) last month.

That’s a bigger drop than economists were expecting.

Last week, the average rate on a 30-year home loan rose to just over 6 percent for the first time since 2008.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Mary Muncy.

I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: a political newcomer in the Republican party.

Plus, the status of Washington state’s ban on so-called conversion therapy.

This is The World and Everything in It.

PAUL BUTLER, HOST: It’s Thursday, the 22nd of September, 2022.

You’re listening to WORLD Radio and we’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning, I’m Paul Butler.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown. First up on The World and Everything in It: midterm elections.

Kathy Barnette was a relative newcomer to the political scene in Pennsylvania until this spring. In the final days of her U.S. Senate primary campaign, she shot into the national spotlight.

BUTLER: Barnette lost that race to fellow Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz, he is now up against Democrat John Fetterman for the Senate seat. But Barnette got an inside look at one of this year’s most talked-about Senate races. She recently sat down with WORLD Washington reporter Carolina Lumetta to talk about what she’s learned.

CAROLINA LUMETTA, REPORTER: Kathy Barnette said she never planned on running for political office. She recalled growing up in extreme poverty in Alabama, was the first in her family to graduate college, served in the United States Army Reserves and the National Guard, and homeschooled her children for a few years. She has been a political commentator and published a book on being a black conservative. Nowadays, she’s the spokesperson for the 1776 Action committee in between driving her two high school students to sports practices and taking care of the family chocolate lab. It’s a far different schedule from when she was criss-crossing Pennsylvania just months before, campaigning to be the state’s first female, black senator.

BARNETTE: I am a black woman, married to a black man raising black babies, and is very different when I compare how I grew up and truly in dire straits, relative to how my own children are growing up. I again, I don't recall anyone ever looking at me and saying, Kathy, you're black, you're a woman. You're poor. All the odds are against you. You might as well hang it up, right? I grew up understanding and my family talking about the reality of slavery. I mean, my great, great, great grandmother was a slave, and listening to the news with my grandma with my grandparents every night, just kind of paying attention. And I always felt inclined to just listen to it. So I always have some kind of inclination of being interested in the world around me and how politics shaped that world...

Barnette grew up watching documentaries about how black people were shunned from voting. She recalled excitedly standing in line to vote at age 18, armed with research on all the candidates. She then voted straight-ticket Democrat. But over the course of the next couple years, Barnette said she realized the conservative, Christian values she grew up with were not reflected in the party everyone assumed she should be in.

BARNETTE: I was born into the Democrat party just like I was born into brown skin. No one ever talked about it and no one ever talked about, you know which party you are gonna vote for. It was just what you did. And although I was so excited to finally vote and so excited to take part in this civic opportunity as an American, and I read about the people who were running. And yet, I still walked right in and voted straight Democrat. But now I was on this cusp of this really this new realization of understanding what my values are, and being determined to vote those things responsibly. And of course, I found that to be more so within the Republican Party than the Democrat party.

Barnette learned still more about the Grand ‘Ole Party when she started campaigning, first in 2020 for the U.S. House, and then in 2022 for the U.S. Senate.

BARNETTE: I would often say to people, there is no one coming to save you, right? There's no one coming to rescue us, especially those two years living here in Pennsylvania, where Tom Wolf, the governor, was shutting down businesses, shutting down schools, people being forced to take a job, whether they wanted to or not. And a lot of Republicans looking to the Republican Party, say, Hello, we voted for you to stand up for us, and not seen anyone really stepped forward in a meaningful way.

In the final few weeks of her campaign, media sources often called Barnette an “Ultra-MAGA” candidate, which she confirmed. I asked her then why Trump, the founder of the MAGA movement, did not endorse her.

BARNETTE: I think there's an awakening of people who recognize that, you know, with all the good that Trump did, and he did a tremendous amount of good, I will never knock that. I don't have anything critical to say about the policies he put in place when he was in office. I agreed with all of them. And yet, he has a tremendous amount of influence. My hope is that he matures, and the realization of that influence and use it wisely. I don't believe he, in all cases, has used that influence wisely in making critical endorsements across our country. My hope is that he protects that voice and that influence because it's not a given. It's not a given, he's not our savior. We never aligned with his values. Ultra-Maga to me means gas being $1.89 a gallon. Ultra Maga to me means a secure border, that we know who's coming into our country, that we know where they're going, how they're going to take care of themselves, if they even like us or not. Ultra Maga means my children get to go to school without someone telling them they're a victim because of the color of their skin.

Barnette told me that her faith motivates her political activity.

BARNETTE: I believe that God has a role for America. And all of this I do. This is where my hope primarily comes from, is the fact that I don't believe that this is the end of this great experiment. I heard a couple of our political leaders say America is an idea. America is not just an idea, America has a border. It has some it's the location, look on the map. There it is. And it has these I've mentioned it a couple of times traditional American values that have made us strong. And so I do not believe that it is his hypocrisy, to be able to say, I believe that our strength is in our diversity, and our openness. And I do not believe in a Christian nationalism. But at the exact same time, I do believe that there are some traditional American values that we should hold on to, and preserve and that these things are right, and we should fight for them.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Carolina Lumetta.

BROWN: For a longer version of this interview, check out Carolina’s coverage in her weekly newsletter, The Stew. Visit wng.org/newsletters to sign up.

PAUL BUTLER, HOST: Up next on The World and Everything in It: freedom of speech. Or…not.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: This month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a law in Washington state that bans so-called conversion therapy. That means licensed counselors cannot talk to minors who seek help with gender dysphoria or unwanted same-sex attraction.

BUTLER: For now, the ruling supports bans on speech in the states of Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Steve West recently wrote about this case, and he joins us now to talk about it. He is an attorney and writes about religious liberty issues for WORLD Digital.

BROWN: Good morning, Steve!

STEVE WEST, REPORTER: Wonderful to be with you, Myrna!

BROWN: Well, as we mentioned, more than a half-dozen states have these talk bans on so-called conversion therapy. The state in question here though, is Washington, so what does the law there state?

WEST: This talk ban is very similar to others that both states and local governments have enacted in the last several years. The law classifies conversion therapy as “unprofessional conduct” for any licensed counselor—meaning licensed counselors could face fines up to $5,000 and lose their licenses if they engage in it. That’s a death knell for someone in this profession. There is a religious exemption, but only if you come under the umbrella of a church or Christian ministry.

BROWN: The language being used—conversion therapy—what does it mean?

WEST: That phrase has a scary connotation. It brings up images of shock therapy and aversion therapy–very intrusive practices pushed by the secular mental health profession decades ago. This is purely talk, counseling sought by, in this case, someone under 18. They want help and are seeking it. No one–certainly not Christians–advocate those outdated and intrusive techniques.

BROWN: But what does the law actually say?

WEST: It’s broad. Washington 2018 state law defines conversion therapy as “a regime that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity” and as efforts to “change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex. Nothing–not even talk–is allowed. It treats these feelings and expressions as sacrosanct.

BROWN: So this case began with a legal challenge by marriage and family therapist Brian Tingley. Tell us about that and bring us up to speed.

WEST: Brian Tingley is a licensed, very experienced family therapist and counselor. He brought this lawsuit in May last year with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys to try and get out ahead of this, as he wants to be able to help these young people who are seeking his help. He did not want to wait until the licensing board came after him for helping a minor. He lost in the federal trial court, and he has now lost on appeal to a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Simply put, the court rejected his challenge that the law infringed on his free speech rights. Talking to minors on this topic was conduct, not speech, and so not subject to the First Amendment.

BROWN: Correct me please if I’m wrong, but courts have been divided on this question of whether regulating therapy is regulating speech, right?

WEST: Yes. This ruling–which impacts Hawaii and seven western states–is directly at odds with a 2020 ruling by an Atlanta appeals court–which impacts Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. As an example, in that case Circuit Judge Britt Grant said: “Make no mistake: these regulations are content-based restrictions of speech, not conduct.” That’s pretty clear.

BROWN: Alright, so what’s next for the Tingley case and this legal debate overall?

WEST: It’s not over. Tingley’s attorneys have already indicated they will be filing a petition for rehearing of this case by the full court of 29 judges. Even if they don’t accept the case or rule for or against Tingley, it’s likely that this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court which, one way or another, that court will likely have to resolve this important dispute. It’s just one aspect of a transgenderism discussion that we’ll continue to hear more about in the years ahead as we witness and deal with the fallout of this dangerous trend. In short: There’s more talk to come. I encourage listeners to read Carl Trueman’s recent WORLD Magazine article called “The Twisted Self” to help understand how we got where we are.

BROWN: Steve West writes about religious liberties for WORLD Digital. You can read his work at WNG.org. You can also subscribe to his free weekly newsletter on First Amendment issues, called Liberties. Steve, always good to have you on. Thank you!

WEST: Thanks Myrna.

PAUL BUTLER, HOST: Most of us know the parable about the pearl of great price and we’re all familiar with the account of the Good Samaritan. But what about the story of the good bartender and the lost engagement ring?

It all began when Raquel Aiken lost her engagement ring—a ring from her deceased fiancé. She dropped that ring in the parking lot of a tennis court. And she thought she’d never see it again.

But then a bartender came along. Here’s Dude Olguin. Audio courtesy of Fox 31, Denver.

OLGUIN: I was getting ready to go my third job so really I was just going to my car I happen to look down.

He saw the ring in the mud. And he picked it up.

OLGUIN: You know temptation was to go pawn it or to find a jeweler to tell me more about it but really my faith told me just to hold on to it and wait and listen.

Soon enough, some folks in the bar were talking about a woman who’d lost her engagement ring. That’s when he realized he just might have it.

So then they met up.

AIKEN: There was the ring. And I… immediately was in tears. I couldn’t believe it.

So while Olguin may have technically given Aiken an engagement ring—they insist they’re just friends, but I’m guessing, they’ll be friends for life.

It’s The World and Everything in It.

PAUL BUTLER, HOST: Today is Thursday, September 22nd. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. I’m Paul Butler.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown. Coming next on The World and Everything in It: what we believe.

Since 2014, Ligonier Ministries and LifeWay Research have conducted a biennial survey to gauge American belief—both inside and outside the church. The 35 questions measure what we think about God, salvation, ethics, and the Bible.

BUTLER: This week, those organizations released the latest results of the survey. And Stephen Nichols is here to tell us about it. He’s president of Reformation Bible College, chief academic officer for Ligonier Ministries, and host of the weekly podcast: 5 Minutes in Church History. Good morning Stephen.

STEPHEN NICHOLS: Good morning!

BUTLER; You know, as we begin, let me just ask you this as a church historian, why is this sort of project significant? The measuring of belief?

NICHOLS: You know, we are awash in a sea of polls. Seems like every day we're hearing the results of polls, this poll gets at what ultimately matters…matters of really eternal life and eternal death. So we put this theology of state of theology survey into play back in 2014. So we could see what Americans actually believe and what American evangelicals believe. And we do this as a service for the church. You know, that first rule of speech, Paul, you've got to know your audience, right? So we want to see what do Americans actually believe on key theological issues that are truly of ultimate importance?

BUTLER: Well, it's been two years since we last talked about the state of theology in our country. So let's start with the statistically significant changes since two years ago, or since the survey began.

NICHOLS: Well, one significant area is US adults and their view of the Bible. One of our statements is, “the Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths, but is not literally true.” Back in 2014, when we started the survey, 41 percent of US adults agreed with that statement—that the Bible is not literally true. Well, fast forward to 2020, to eight years later, there has been a steady decline, and we are now at a 12 percent drop. So 53 percent of US adults do not agree that the Bible is true. And in fact, say the Bible is not true.

When we look internally inside the church, a very troubling result comes as we look at evangelicals on this statement: “God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.” This, of course, is getting at the issue of pluralism. Well, back in 2016 48 percent of us evangelicals agreed with that. That's alarming enough. But here’s the trend. Now in 2022, we have 56 percent of evangelicals, that is a strong majority, that are accepting pluralism, which we know is rife in our culture. And this is just an example where our culture has infiltrated the church and has caused there to be compromise on the church. And this is a key issue. We are talking about the heart of the gospel, when we're talking about our standing before God,

BUTLER: I know that one of the other areas that you have focused over these years is how Americans view the issue of homosexuality and what the Bible says about it. What did this year's survey reveal about that?

NICHOLS: Yeah, I think this is important because we're talking about ethics. And we talk about theology and our beliefs, but we also have to talk about the impact of those beliefs and our ethics. So for evangelicals back in 2016, 19 percent of them, so almost 20 percent, agreed that the Bible's condemnation of homosexual behavior doesn't apply today. Fast forward to 2022. And that has dropped 9 percent. And again, I think what we're seeing is the cultural pressures are coming to bear on those who are sitting in the pews. And this cultural movement is indeed impacting the church.

BUTLER: And as we see that other data point about commitment to the Word of God, as that declines, we would kind of expect some of these other issues to have a corresponding change, don't we?

NICHOLS: Oh, absolutely. There's a connection between these two. And when we think just about truth.There too we see trends moving away from even the notion of objective truth. We couple that with trends that are seeing the Bible less and less as the word of God, this is going to play itself out, both in terms of beliefs, and in terms of behaviors, and so sad, but we are seeing those connections and seeing this happen.

BUTLER: All right, so you already mentioned a couple of troubling trends in the data. Are there any other trends that trouble you?

NICHOLS: Yeah, there's one in particular, and as I look at this answer, I literally am confounded by it. But one of our statements is: “Jesus was a great teacher, but He was not God.” So this is a cardinal doctrine, the deity of Christ. This is right at the center of historic Orthodox Christianity.

Well, in 2020 30 percent of US evangelicals actually agreed with that statement. That's bad enough, but two years later, our 2022 results show that 43 percent of US evangelicals agree with the statement that Jesus was not God. I find that especially as a church historian—and one who loves theology—I find that a very troubling for the state of the American church at this current moment.

BUTLER: Well, let me ask this, as we wrap here, up here. What should we do with the study results?

NICHOLS: As we review these survey results, we need to resist the temptation to celebrate decline by any stretch, whether that's in the church or in the culture, what we really need to do is say this is a call for us to put hand to the plow, you know, you begin looking at some of these.

And as we've been discussing, Paul, you're seeing cultural influences on the church here. Well, we can go back to the pages of the New Testament, that was a hostile culture. That was a culture entirely at odds with the Christian faith and the Christian ethic. And we see repeatedly in the New Testament authors, the call to the church, to stand fast, to hold firm. To literally sort of latch on to these traditions to the gospel, that is at the core of our identity.

So I think we need to be reminded of that, in this cultural moment, where we all feel the pressures, we sense the hostility, the religiously unaffiliated, the marginalization of historic Orthodox Christianity, we need to hold firm as a church, we need to commit to discipleship, not assume that people in the pews know these key doctrines.

And then we also need to renew our heart for evangelism. You know, we too, were once lost. We too were once the enemies of God, who thought really badly. And we need to recognize that in our neighbors and we need to be committed to praying for them and to evangelizing them. So I see this as a call to roll up our sleeves, a call to action for the church and for us as American Christians to get in there and recommit ourselves to discipleship and evangelism.

BUTLER: Stephen Nichols is the president of Reformation Bible College and chief academic officer for Ligonier Ministries. Thanks for joining us today.

NICHOLS: My pleasure. Thank you.

BUTLER: We’ll post a link to the State of Theology report in today’s transcript.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Thursday, September 22nd. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

PAUL BUTLER, HOST: And I’m Paul Butler.

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are often accused of legislating from the bench or going beyond their Constitutional powers. Here’s Commentator Cal Thomas on why the framers of the Constitution limited judicial powers–and why those limits are worth protecting.

CAL THOMAS, COMMENTATOR: Supreme Court Justices return to work next month following a tumultuous last session in which the majority issued some very controversial rulings, the most notable being the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.

Liberals in general, and Justice Elena Kagan in particular, are upset by the decisions of the conservative majority.

Justice Kagan recently spoke at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago. Among other things, she said: “When courts become extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that’s when there’s a problem.”

As conservatives see it, what Kagan objects to is precisely what liberal judges have been doing for more than half a century. Conservatives have seen the court as too often making law from the bench that has little or nothing to do with the Constitution.

In truth, the Constitution limits the power of the federal government in order to preserve individual liberty. That’s why the Preamble begins “We the people of the United States,” not you the government. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was on point when he said: “As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.”

Following criticism by then-president Donald Trump about there being judges who reflect the ideology of the presidents who appoint them, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement in rebuttal: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said, “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

If that were true, all judges would have the same view of the Constitution, but clearly in modern times they reflect the view of law—and too often culture—of those who nominate them. That is not always the case with Republican presidents. Earl Warren, John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy were all named by Republican presidents. They also, to one degree or another, voted in ways that delighted Democrats on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

So far as I can tell only one judge named by a Democrat did not completely reflect the views of the president who nominated him. That was John F. Kennedy’s pick of Justice Byron White, who was in the 7-2 minority when Roe was decided in 1973.

If there are not Obama and Clinton judges, how else could they be described?

The Founders intended the Supreme Court to be the least powerful of the three branches of government. That would eventually change when Justice John Marshall ascribed to the Court powers the Framers of the Constitution never intended it to have. In Marbury vs. Madison, Marshall placed the judiciary in a position of primary authority on constitutional law and established judicial review as a fundamental principle and the sole responsibility of the Court.

That would lead to another view held by a later Chief Justice, Charles Evans Hughes, who claimed, “…the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

So the ideological, political and legal war rages on. Welcome back, Justices.

I’m Cal Thomas.

PAUL BUTLER, HOST: On tomorrow’s program: John Stonestreet joins us for Culture Friday.

And, a new streaming series called Andor, a prequel to the Star Wars spin-off film Rogue One. Collin Garbarino has a review.

Plus, Keith Getty’s reflections on Queen Elizabeth.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Paul Butler.

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

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

Jesus said: Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also! (Matt. 6:19-21 ESV)

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.