MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!
The Babylon Bee is a really funny satire site. But some people say it should come with a warning.
MEGAN BASHAM, HOST: We’ll talk to Babylon Bee’s editor in chief about that on Culture Friday.
And our editor-in-chief answers your questions about the way we do the things we do.
Plus I’ll review the big winner from Sunday’s Golden Globes.
CLIP: Deliver this to Colonel McKenzie. It is a direct order to call off tomorrow morning’s attack. If you don’t, it will be a massacre.
REICHARD: It’s Friday, January 10th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.
BASHAM: And I’m Megan Basham. Good morning!
REICHARD: Now the news. Here’s Kent Covington.
KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: U.S. officials: “Highly likely” that Iran shot down commercial jetliner » Mounting evidence suggests it was not a mechanical failure that brought down a Boeing jetliner in Tehran late Tuesday. That according to officials from the United States, Canada, and the UK.
All 176 people aboard the plane died in the crash—including at least 63 Canadians. On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he wants answers.
TRUDEAU: We have intelligence from multiple sources, including our allies and our own intelligence. The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile.
The flaming jetliner plunged to the ground shortly after takeoff—just hours after Iran fired a barrage of ballistic missiles at Coalition bases in Iraq.
Iran state news immediately reported that a mechanical problem caused the crash. President Trump said he’s not buying it.
TRUMP: It was flying in a pretty rough neighborhood, and somebody could have made a mistake. Some people say it was mechanical. I personally don’t think that’s even a question.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also said the evidence points to an
“Iranian surface to air missile.”
The Boeing 737 was reportedly only about 3 years old and had recently been serviced. It was not part of the manufacturer’s troubled Max series of jets and has an outstanding safety record. An Iranian official conceded that the pilots never reported a mechanical problem to air traffic control.
House passes symbolic measure to limit president’s war powers » Lawmakers in the House on Thursday passed a symbolic measure to limit President Trump’s authority to take further military action against Iran without the okay from Congress.
AUDIO: The yeas are 224 and nays are 194. The current resolution is adopted.
Democrats have criticized President Trump’s decision to authorize the airstrike that killed an Iranian military commander accused of coordinating terror attacks.
The House measure is not binding, but the White House condemned the vote, saying it sends the wrong message to Iran and emboldens the regime.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine is pushing a similar measure in the Senate. But that effort faces an uphill fight, despite the backing of at least two Republicans.
Pelosi will submit articles of impeachment to Senate “when I’m ready” » House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brushed aside criticism from Republicans and even members of her own party on Thursday for withholding articles of impeachment from the Senate. It’s now been more than three weeks since the House voted to impeach the president. But Pelosi said she won’t hold onto the charges indefinitely.
PELOSI: I’ll send them over when I’m ready, and that will probably be soon.
She said she’s waiting to—quote—“see the arena” and “terms of the engagement” the Senate will use—before sending her House managers to present the articles.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called that unacceptable, and quoted a remark from Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.
MCCARTHY: She said the longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over.
Pelosi has complained that Senate Republicans are rushing to acquittal without a fair trial.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says the speaker has no more say in how the Senate conducts its proceedings than he had in how House Democrats conducted theirs.
British lawmakers approve Brexit bill » Britain has passed a major milestone on the road to Brexit. The House of Commons approved a bill Thursday authorizing the country’s exit from the European Union.
AUDIO: The ayes to the right, 330. The Noes to the left, 231. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it!
The Withdrawal Agreement Bill sets the terms of Britain’s divorce from the 28-nation bloc.
That after Prime Minister Boris Johnson gambled by pushing for an early election and won.
Conservative victories in last month’s vote paved the way for the bill’s passage.
The bill still has to pass through Parliament’s unelected House of Lords, which can delay but not overturn the result in the Commons. But even then, Brexit is far from finished.
After securing its exit from the EU, the two sides will launch into negotiations about their future relationship. The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier said Thursday that the two sides will have to work fast.
BARNIER: The time frame is hugely challenging. Once again, I’ve already said, a new clock, a new clock is ticking.
Britain is scheduled to leave the EU at the end of this month.
Harry and Meghan cutting royal purse strings » But Brexit isn’t the only drama in England right now. Prince Harry created an uproar this week with the surprise announcement that he and his family would step back from royal duties. He and his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex said they plan to become financially independent. And they will focus on their own charity work, and split their time between the UK and North America.
In a statement, Buckingham Palace called the situation “complicated,” and said “Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage.”
Meghan is an American who had a successful acting career before marrying Harry in 2018. The British press has an almost bloodthirsty obsession with the royals and she’s admitted to struggling with the media pressure.
I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: the editor of the Babylon Bee explains what gives satire its sting.
Plus, new research on why Millennials don’t go to church.
This is The World and Everything in It.
MEGAN BASHAM: It’s Friday, January 10th, 2020. Glad to have you along for The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Megan Basham.
MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard. The Golden Globe awards were handed out on Sunday, but thanks to the roasting host Ricky Gervais gave Hollywood, few people are talking about the actual winners.
Here’s one of the comedian’s most scorching jokes:
GERVAIS: Apple roared into the TV game with The Morning Show, a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweatshops in China. Well, you say you’re woke but the companies you work for in China — unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service you’d call your agent, wouldn’t you?
So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.
Gervais kept up the barbs–and you could see that a lot of the celebrities were really not amused. His last joke of the night elicited an especially high number of groans from the crowd:
GERVAIS: Our next presenter starred in Netflix’s ‘Bird Box,’ a movie where people survive by acting like they don’t see a thing. Sort of like working for Harvey Weinstein. You did it! I didn’t, you did it!
We could think of no one better qualified to critique Gervais’s performance than Editor in Chief of the Babylon Bee, Kyle Mann.
He joins us for the first time on The World and Everything in It. Kyle, good morning and welcome!
KYLE MANN, GUEST: Good morning! Thank you for having me.
BASHAM: So, to start with, I’d just like to hear your expert opinion on Gervais’ comedic chops. I know some outlets like the L.A. Times are saying he failed to “read the room.” But if felt to me like he did read the room–the living rooms of the people watching at home!
MANN: Yeah, you know, comedy is not supposed to be mean. It’s not supposed to point out flaws and it’s supposed to be very safe. It’s just supposed to support your worldview. So, on that level, Ricky Gervais definitely failed because he made people uncomfortable and that’s not what comedy’s supposed to be. You’re just supposed to support your worldview, you know, and make you feel better about yourself.
BASHAM: I feel like you’re giving me a Babylon Bee headline in your critique.
MANN: [laughs] Yeah, I mean obviously it’s funny because the left is very supportive of comedy and very supportive of art and creativity until it targets them. And we see this a lot at the Babylon Bee where the left pretends to be huge fans of satire and The Onion and comedians and then when they start targeting the wrong subject, the subject you’re not supposed to talk about, all of a sudden its, well, you’re punching down or you’re attacking the wrong target. We see this all the time. And that seems to me what the criticisms of Ricky Gervais were talking about. Poor celebrities. You’re not supposed to punch down at these multi-millionaires.
BASHAM: That was kind of weird. I did feel like I saw some reactions out there that were like you marginalized groups. And I’m like, “Marginalized? Celebrities?”
REICHARD: Kyle, we tweeted out that you were going to be on the show today. And someone pointed out that Gervais didn’t even bring up politics, except to encourage those who get awards and come on stage not to give political speeches.
Yet some, like a Vanity Fair writer, say this was a right wing performance. What do you have to say to that?
MANN: Yeah, Ricky Gervais is like a hard-core atheist. He’s not—it’s such a weird time we’re living in when we Christians feel more comfortable with the commentary and the comedic performance of someone like Ricky Gervais than the left does. And that’s definitely the time we’re living in where people are—the thing is that everything is political now. And you’re supposed to say these things. You’re supposed to support these causes. You’re supposed to be against these other causes. And if you’re not, it’s the “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” thing that the left has set up. And so if you’re not talking about the right causes or you give any brief criticism of the people who do talk about those causes, then you’re being political.
BASHAM: Now, Kyle we have to point out that Gervais was not the only one stirring up controversy with jokes this week. And to introduce this topic, I’d like to share a little story.
A couple of years ago I posted what I thought was the most hysterical Babylon Bee article on Facebook. The headline was, “John MacArthur Added to the Cast of The View.” And it had this great photo of MacArthur at his most “MacArthur-y-ist” sitting there with Joy Behar and the rest of the View gang.
Well, some very sweet older ladies from my church were SO excited to hear this news! They replied that the show was going to be so much better with him on it and they couldn’t wait to watch! It broke my heart to have to tell them it was just a joke!
Now, critics at CNN, Relevant, and even Christianity Today have said that’s a problem. That the Babylon Bee misleads people and that it’s too hard to distinguish your funny fake news from bad actors who intentionally peddle misinformation. They say you should label each individual article more clearly as satire.
Is that something you would consider?
MANN: Uhhhh. No. [laughter] And anybody who says that it’s too hard to tell that our stuff is satire are big, dumb, stupidheads. No, I’m just kidding. But obviously as long as there’s satire, there’s going to be people who misunderstand it. That’s just the nature of it. That’s happened for hundreds of years. It’s nothing new. And yet now we’re in this era where there’s this big discussion about fake news on the internet. News spreads so quickly now. It spreads outside the circles in which you originally intended to circulate it. Back in the day, satire was done in books and magazines, and it was very hard to spread that because if you handed someone a satire magazine, you said, “Hey this is satire. Check it out. It’s pretty funny.” And everybody got it. And now you share a Facebook article of your favorite Babylon Bee article and your relative doesn’t get it. And even though our audience understands it, there’s a lot of people out there who don’t. And that doesn’t happen with just the Babylon Bee. And that was the big thing that people weren’t understanding when we were being criticized by Relevant and Christianity Today and even CNN is The Onion gets misunderstood far more than we do and Snopes has fact-checked The Onion more times than they’ve fact-checked us because people pass it around and think it’s real. And so does that mean The Onion is bad satire? No, I think it means it’s good satire. I think it means it’s hitting very close to what reality is. And there’s always that fine line: how far is too far? And how do you make sure people understand it? All of our social media pages and our website are very clearly labeled satire. But we’re not going to put in our headline, like, “Here comes a joke. This is a joke.” And then we’re going to tell the joke and then we’re going to say, “You just read a joke.” That ruins the joke. So, that’s just a basic principle of satire humor. You can’t do that. So we’re doing everything we can to make sure people know it’s not real. But sometimes things are going to pass outside the circles we intend.
REICHARD: I saw your Wall Street Journal editorial about Snopes and you had some line like, “Some folks think Snopes is a legit fact finding site.” And so that kind of goes along with what you’re saying, is that no matter what we are reading, we have to be discerning. And there can’t be a warning on every single thing.
MANN: Exactly. And this goes farther than is the Babylon Bee real satire, is it good satire. This goes to a deeper issue of how we consume news, and the fact that people just read headlines and pass it on. That’s not really our fault and yet we do everything we can, we try to signal in the headline that it’s a joke. That’s how humor works. You set it up dryly and then you do a big punchline at the end. And as long as it’s hitting that most of the time, we’re happy. And so, yeah, this is a bigger national discussion about how people consume news.
REICHARD: I have a question I’m just kind of curious about. When the Bee started out, it seemed to me the jokes were mostly about Protestant culture. And then you got more popular, and there’s been a shift then to a wider scope of humor, including plenty of political satire. I’m just curious: what drove that shift?
MANN: Uh, money. [Laughter] I’m just kidding. That was satire. You just heard a joke. But there’s a couple of misconceptions. When we launched the site, we launched with a couple dozen articles and over half of them were political and the other half were Christian culture jokes, some theology jokes. So, the premise on its face, we’ve always been a political site.
We were putting out 2-3 articles a day because it was just me and Adam Ford, the guy who founded the site. It was just he and I working in our garages part-time and that was basically the whole site for a couple years. So, now we’re kind of more of an official operation. I’m running the Babylon Bee full-time. I can pump out six or seven articles a day and if half of them are political, there’s three or four. And guess what people are sharing? They’re sharing our political articles because that’s what people are passionate about right now is current events and politics. So you’re going to see them a lot more often on your feed because people are sharing them more. We still love doing the church culture jokes, the John McArthur jokes, all that stuff. They just don’t get shared as widely.
REICHARD: And finally: what’s your favorite headline? I’ve gotta ask that. What’s your favorite headline?
MANN: My favorite headline at least from early on is when we said John McArthur said he was going to build a wall around his church to keep the charismatics out.
BASHAM: Well, Kyle Mann is the Editor in Chief of the Babylon Bee. Thanks Kyle. Appreciate it. And we’d love to do this again sometime.
MANN: Yeah! I’d love to be on again. Thank you!
MEGAN BASHAM: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: young people losing their religion.
MARY REICHARD: Or are they? We hear a lot about millennials falling away from church. But a new study suggests they may never have had much faith to begin with.
Joining us now to talk about it is Daniel Cox. He researches religion, youth culture, and identity at the American Enterprise Institute.
Good morning, Daniel!
DANIEL COX, GUEST: Good morning!
REICHARD: So it’s no secret that young people, on the whole, are less interested in church than their parents and grandparents. Some researchers have speculated that as these millennials get older they will return to the beliefs their parents taught them when they were children. But you discovered a problem with that assumption. What’s the problem?
COX: Well, right. I think in sociology and a lot of research on religion, there’s this built-in assumption that—and I think it was mostly true for the Baby Boomers—that religion follows a life cycle. So, when you’re young and you’re living under your parents’ roof, you sort of follow their religious trajectory. When you move out and go to college, get your own place, what have you, you drift away from religion a little bit. But then you come back when you start a family—you get married and have kids. And this was, again, broadly true if not perhaps a little exaggerated for Baby Boomers. But for Millennials, many of whom are the children of Baby Boomers, we found that this is less true. And it’s largely because they were less well-connected to religion to begin with.
REICHARD: You found two factors that contributed to less regular religious practice in families. Tell us about those.
COX: Yeah, so there’s a number of changes in sort of family structure and dynamics that matter. The couple that we focused on are divorce rates—which topped out in the early 1980s, right when the oldest Millennials were being born, and we saw that spike was correlated with an increasing number of people being raised outside religion.
The other thing I think that’s really important that’s also increasing is this increase in interfaith families. And people who are raised in interfaith families tend to be less religious.
REICHARD: Your report had some interesting findings about religious engagement in families depending on the age of the children in the family. Can you unpack that a little and tell us what conclusions you drew from those findings?
COX: Yeah, these are fairly preliminary and they’re just correlations. So I’m not saying anything about causality here. But we found that people with very young children—and I have two of those running around my household, a 3-year-old and a 22-month-old—and we found that parents of really young children tend to be less religious whereas parents of children who are a little bit older—5 to 11 or so—tend to be more engaged religiously. And when kids are a little bit older, we find, again, that parents tend to be a little bit less engaged. And that makes intuitive sense where children are sort of making some of their own decisions now and sometimes going to sitting in the pews on Sunday is not top of the priority list.
REICHARD: And it’s hard for parents sometimes to exert their will over kids who are not interested.
COX: Right, and I think there’s been a larger shift in culture where so much of our focus on raising children is about achievement. We want to set them up to be successful academically, scholastically, in sports. And so I think we—now particularly for parents of means—private camps, tutoring, and piano lessons and other types of activities, and these kids are really heavily scheduled and religion sort of falls by the wayside.
REICHARD: So it sounds like we are still talking about a generation that fell away from church and never came back. It’s just the previous generation, not this one. Is that true across the board or did you find demographic differences?
COX: We looked a little bit and we didn’t see huge demographic differences. I mean, what is driving this is really generational. So, I’ll just give you an example. So, overall, around 4 in 10 Americans age 18 to 29 are religiously unaffiliated, but interestingly, about half of those were raised unaffiliated. And the problem there is that they are not then establishing patterns of belief, patterns of behavior and being brought into these religious communities that allow them to retain their connection to religion even if they go through some major life event that may take them away for a bit. And because they’ve never had these sort of strong attachments, it’s really hard for them to return.
REICHARD: Daniel, I’m wondering, how the bringing up, the formative experiences of Millennials differ from how the Boomers grew up.
COX: Among young adults age 18 to 29, only 29 percent said they attended religious services regularly with their family, compared to 52 percent of seniors. Among young adults, only 32 percent said they said grace or prayed with their families regularly. Again, compared to about half of seniors. And when it comes to engagement in institutional religion, we also found that a majority of seniors said that they attended Sunday School or some other religious education program, but only 27 percent—so only about half as many—young adults engaged in religion that way. So we’re seeing really significant differences in that way in the formative experiences of young adults today versus their parents and grandparents. And that has a really critical effect on their religious lives later on.
REICHARD: Daniel Cox researches religion and youth culture at the American Enterprise Institute.
MARY REICHARD: Eye surgeon Dr. Chris Heichel has done thousands of cataract surgeries on people over his career. But last month was a first for him.
A 3-year-old patient named Leslie came in for help.
But it wasn’t the patient’s age that made this procedure different from the others. It was her species.
Leslie is a gorilla from the San Diego Zoo.
A team of veterinarians, anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists from UC San Diego Health convened for the task.
With their help, Dr. Heichel removed the cloudy lens from Leslie’s eye, and replaced it with an artificial lens that should last for the rest of her life.
He said the anatomy of human and gorilla eyes are similar enough that he didn’t have any problems fixing her eye.
And now he can add gorilla cataracts to his business card!
It’s The World and Everything in It.
MARY REICHARD: Today is Friday, January 10th. You’re listening to WORLD Radio and we’re really glad you are! Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.
MEGAN BASHAM: And I’m Megan Basham. Coming next on The World and Everything in It: Some surprise wins at the Golden Globes Sunday catapulted war drama 1917 to the front of the Oscar race for Best Picture.
Rated R for realistic violence and somewhat less realistic language, it tells the harrowing tale of two British soldiers in World War I.
CLIP: It’s a mineshaft. We’ll have to jump. Come on. You’re going to have to jump. Just jump. I can’t, I can’t see. You need to trust me. Jump!
Writer/director Sam Mendes, best known for the recent Bond films, based the script on a family legend. And he dedicates the film to his grandfather, who fought in World War I.
I mention this because 1917 is as much about the stories we tell about war as about this particular war. In what appears to be a single camera take, it follows two soldiers entrusted to deliver a vital message that will hinder the German’s plans for the notorious Operation Alberich.
CLIP: Your orders are to get to the second at Croisilles Wood, one mile southeast of the town of Ecoust. Deliver this to Colonel McKenzie. It is a direct order to call off tomorrow morning’s attack. If you don’t, it will be a massacre. We will lose to battalions, 1,600 men, your brother among them. Do you think you can get there in time? Yes sir.
The story’s origins as a sort of war myth—told and told again over years, perhaps growing and becoming neater and more embellished in the telling—affects the overall tone. As the film goes on, turns in plot feel too contrived to be accurate. But that’s only a drawback if you expect 1917 to function like other great war dramas such as Saving Private Ryan or All Quiet on the Western Front. It seems fairly clear that Mendes’ aim isn’t to give viewers another gritty, realistic experience of what it’s like to actually take part in battle.
Strange as it is to say, there’s a fairytale quality amidst the carnage. Far more than last year’s Tolkien, 1917 had me imagining how actual combat—the sound and sight of it—shaped the greatest fantasy epic modern English has ever known.
As we follow Lance Corporals Schofield and Blake, we hear how the stories of generations are already beginning to take root.
CLIP: Did you hear that story about Wilco? How he lost his ear? I’m not in the mood. Keep your eyes on the trees. Top of the ridge. But he told you it was shrapnel. What was it then? Well, you know his girl’s a hairdresser, right? And he was moaning about the lack of bathing facilities when he wrote to her. anyway, she sends them over this hair oil, smells sweet, like golden syrup. Wilco loves the smell and he doesn’t want to pass it around that he is happened. So, he slathers it all over his bonnet goes to sleep. In the middle of the night he wakes up and a rat is sitting on his shoulder licking the oil off his head. Wilco panics and he jumps up and when he does the rat bites clean through his ear and runs off with it.
This wandering-while-not-exactly-lost culminates in an extended scene that functions as the film’s visual thesis. Schofield drifts along a river as spring blossoms float above him like snow. The shallow he comes to rest in after this idyllic vision, however, is a horror. Pale, bloated casualties—like the faces of the Dead Marshes on the road to Mordor—hem him in on every side. Crawling out of this morass, his attention is caught by a haunting, otherworldly tenor, singing of heaven. He follows it to find silent warriors sitting amongst still trees, contemplating their deaths.
The battles a nation chooses can reveal its character. The tales its people tell about those battles go on revealing it.
MEGAN BASHAM: Today is Friday, January 10th. Already! Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Megan Basham.
MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Ask the Editor, our monthly feature in which our editor in chief Marvin Olasky answers your questions about why we do the things we do here at WORLD.
MARVIN OLASKY, COMMENTATOR: Here are three questions about the good, the bad, and the tough.
Question 1: You said recently that even those who hate Christ pay tribute to Him when they care for the poor. If by paying tribute to Jesus you mean they are glorifying Him, I think you are wrong. That would mean unbelievers can do good works which bring glory to God.
Answer: Good point. By paying tribute, I did not mean glorifying Him. I meant showing the influence of what Christ taught. To use a homely baseball example, say runners are on second and third in the bottom of the ninth. The home team trails by a run. The pitcher gives the batter an intentional walk. He is paying tribute to the batter, but not glorifying him—he’s actually removing the opportunity for the batter to win the game with a hit.
Before Jesus, in the Roman empire, the goal was to honor the strong, not help the weak. Anyone who helps the least of these, including unborn children, including the poor, pays tribute to Christ’s teaching, even if they are not Christians.
Question 2: How do you process the bad reactions you get concerning controversial columns, especially when people miss your point? As a pastor, I know about being misunderstood, but people rarely assault me personally. Are nasty attacks just par for the course?
Answer: Yup, they are par for the course—but sometimes I deserve them, since I hit lots of bogies. When I receive a letter from someone who missed my point, I first review what I wrote: Was I unclear or unbiblical? If I was, I try to learn. If I was not, I’m not bothered—I figure that for everyone who grotesquely misunderstands and complains, 10 people have understood it and nodded quietly.
Besides, I know that all of us, me included, are more ready to complain than to compliment. That leaves me pleased when someone who understands does take the time to write. I don’t take praising letters for granted and assume they are due me. Bad letters make me grateful for good ones.
Here’s a last question, since in a few days we’ll start our 11th World Journalism Institute mid-career course: Do your tough WJI classes train people to become columnists? That’s what I want to be.
Answer: Nope, we train people to become reporters. C.S. Lewis once wrote (Studies in Words), “Most people are obviously far more anxious to express their approval and disapproval of things than to describe them.” Good columns are based on good reporting. Good reporting is based on good describing. That’s what we hope to convey to students.
For WORLD Radio, I’m Marvin Olasky.
MEGAN BASHAM: Well, it’s time to thank all the people who put the program together for you this week. Our thanks to these hardworking folks: Joel Belz, Paul Butler, Kent Covington, Nick Eicher, Kristen Flavin, Kim Henderson, Anna Johansen, Leigh Jones, Onize Ohikere, Bonnie Pritchett, Jenny Rough, Michelle Schlavin, Sarah Schweinsberg, Cal Thomas and Emily Whitten.
MARY REICHARD: Our audio engineers Johnny Franklin and Carl Peetz stay up late to get the program to you early. Managing editor J.C. Derrick and editor-in-chief Marvin Olasky keep us all on track.
And you make it all possible with your support and engagement with us. Thank you!
Hey, if you haven’t heard our new podcast Effective Compassion, make sure you subscribe to it. The first two episodes are available now.
I hope you’ll worship in spirit and in truth this weekend. We’ll talk to you again on Monday!