Listen online to today’s special Year in Review edition of WORLD’s weekly radio news magazine, The World and Everything in It.  Or download an mp3 of the program and take it with you to listen to as you travel over the holidays. Even better, subscribe to our free podcast and never miss another program.

On this week’s TW&E, we take a closer look at the year in politics, law, economics, news, deaths, sports, and movies. Plus, a commentary about the Facebook Timeline, the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, and much more.

The program is now heard on more than 180 radio stations across the country. Check our station list to find out what time it airs on a station near you.

Here it is: RANTS! and Raves!—your weekly opportunity to sound off about the week past.

Remember the rules:

• A Rave! is something that happened during the past week that you’re pleased about and is signified by the word “Rave!” and/or an appropriately peppy emoticon (see Website Help to learn how to use emoticons, aka “smileys”).
• A Rant! is something that happened during the past week that you’re ticked off about and is signified by the word “Rant!” and/or an appropriately grumpy emoticon.
• You may Rant! about something a person said, did, or wrote, but you may not Rant! about generally disliking a person. IOW, no personal attacks allowed.

Got anything to say about the events of 2011?

Welcome to WORLD’s online community.

This is our weekend open thread, where you, the commenters, get to choose the topics of conversation and politely interact with one another.

Do you and your family have any traditions associated with New Year’s Eve or New Year’s Day? Black-eyed peas anyone?

In my end-of-the-year attempt to build readers’ vocabulary, I wrote Wednesday about exegesis and eisegesis. Today I’d like to distinguish between gnosis (abstract knowledge) and epignosis (knowledge through personal experience). We need both: Epignosis without gnosis might lead us to over-generalize based on a small sampling of life, but gnosis without epignosis leads astray many people with advanced degrees. To be useful, Ph.D.s in psychology need post-docs in streetology, and we can all use diplomas from the School of Hard Knocks.

This has political implications. President Obama seems to have no understanding of how hard it is to run a business, and how he hurts job creation by disparaging the people who create jobs. For that matter, few members of Congress have ever run a business, and it shows. Much of the debate about Obamacare was theoretical, with not enough attention paid to the importance of patient interaction with personal physicians.

Epignosis could also have helped Occupy Wall Street participants, many of whom graduated from college without having learned much about civics. Maybe through the Occupy experience, where people orated at large meetings but an inner ring made decisions at smaller gatherings, some will grasp the complexities of trying to make democracy work. One Occupy organizer, Max Berger, huffed and puffed in The Huffington Post about “the incredible amount of media attention it has garnered.” Maybe he’ll learn how easy it is to gain attention, and how easy to lose it.

But the most important implications are theological. Muslims say Allah is omniscient, but his supposed pronouncements in the Quran show no epignosis. Christians can have confidence in the God we trust because He is truly omniscient, with both gnosis and epignosis. We rejoice at Christmas that God knows our frames because He came to earth and suffered all the indignities of babyhood, and eventually experienced the ultimate in pain when He atoned for our sins.

MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa—Michele Bachmann filled two rooms at Legends Grill on her ambitious 99-county, 10-day swing through the state. Just two hours later, Rick Perry also rolled through Marshalltown for a crowded town hall at Fisher Community Center.

That’s Iowa, five days before a caucus on Tuesday that could make or break several Republican presidential campaigns. Six GOP hopefuls are making their last plea here as time runs out on 2011. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, even ran across Newt Gingrich pulled over in rural northwest Iowa for a bus repair, and they chatted by the roadside in the balmy 40-degree weather. “That’s the way it is in this state,” King said. “You drive down the road and there’s a presidential candidate.”

The latest polls—sometimes shifting in just days—show Mitt Romney and Ron Paul still out front, Rick Santorum and Perry moving up, and Gingrich and Bachmann fighting for traction. “It’s been surprising that so many candidates could make their way to the top of the hill, and how temporary that has been for all of them,” said King. … MORE >>

Read Joel Hannahs’ complete Web Extra report.

There’s praying, and then there’s praying. The first kind is the kind I have done most of—not particularly believing that I will get an answer. The second kind is the kind I will do from now on—believing I have received what I asked for, and that delivery is on the way.

I feel I am on solid ground in this New Year’s resolution. Here is my warrant:

“But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts … must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways” (James 1:6-8).

Besides brother James, I have the backing of other spiritual men closer to our own times, including Norman Grubb (1895-1993), British missionary, author, and founder of what is now the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship in the U.K. and of the present form of Worldwide Evangelism Crusade. In his pamphlet “Touching the Invisible,” he describes the ineffectualness of his team’s early prayer meetings:

“But much of the praying, although sincere, was without strong assurance because so often we were not sure if our requests were according to God’s will. Therefore most requests would be prefaced by such a phrase as ‘If it is Thy will.’ Often we rose from our knees as uncertain in heart about the answer as before we asked. …”

They discovered in Scripture that effective praying was praying according to God’s own mind and heart, and then boldly believing God will answer—and continuing to believe.

Whether we ask for wisdom (James 1) or for any other thing that the Bible says God want us to have, let us learn the habit of praying in a state of expecting an answer. It may help just to say the words to Him outright:

“Lord, I believe that you hear me and that you will answer this prayer in the best way for me and for your glory.”

Welcome to WORLD’s online community.

This is our daily open thread, where you, the commenters, get to choose the topics of conversation and politely interact with one another.

Have a fabulous Friday. It’s the last one you’ll get this year.

This primary season, evangelicals have been thrashing around in the political marketplace looking for a consistent conservative who can restrain the government, revive the economy, and, of course, defeat Barack Obama. Their support has moved from Tim Pawlenty to Michele Bachmann, then to Rick Perry, followed by Herman Cain. After Cain’s departure, many evangelicals broke for Newt Gingrich, and many remain there. But that’s where it gets really interesting. David French at Patheos.com marvels at this alliance. He asks, “If evangelicals choose to reject numerous alternatives and wrap both arms around a serial philandering, hopelessly grandiose politician, then what is our distinctive witness in this process?”

An equally unlikely beneficiary of evangelical backing (or what should be unlikely), but for different reasons, is Ron Paul. The Texas congressman and libertarian icon has been rising in the polls as some jaded Newt supporters have been joining his ardent base of devotees, many of whom are evangelical Christians.

One good reason for evangelicals to support Paul is that he unambiguously advocates a restrictive view of what government should do at a time when the growth and reach of government are out of control. The Bible tells us that God established government for a limited purpose—to punish evil and praise well-doing (Romans 13:1-10; 1 Peter 2:14)—giving other responsibilities to individuals, families, and churches. For two generations or so, beginning with the New Deal, evangelicals had been comfortable with government overstepping these boundaries. But they discovered the biblical beauty of small government when the New Left moved into power in the 1970s and government became aggressively secular and began championing immorality. Today, after the Bush-Obama government blowout, evangelicals are taking the limited role of government even more seriously.

Another strong evangelical case in favor of Ron Paul is his consistent stand in favor of a closely related good: the rule of law and, in particular, constitutionalism. God governs the universe by law. When He called one people from among the nations to be holy, He gave them a law that would have prospered them had they followed it. Christ died to fulfill every jot and tittle of that law. Christians’ support for the rule of law flows from their love for God.

It flows also from their love for neighbor: Equality before the law follows from the Christian view of people as created equally in the image of God and is essential to political equality. The left talks a great deal about equality, but what they establish is the superiority of the governing class (especially unaccountable activist judges and government bureaucrats) and of government-favored groups, like unions and dependents of the welfare state. Ron Paul is a fierce defender of political equality under law.

But when it comes to substantive moral questions, a Ron Paul-directed government would be hands-off. So it is odd that Paul won the Oct. 8 Values Voter Summit straw poll. Perhaps this was on account of his laudable pro-life voting record, a substantive point of agreement between Dr. Paul and conservative evangelicals. Perhaps it is because his strong organization bussed in 600 of the 2,000 participants.

Paul’s opposition to moral legislation betrays his failure to appreciate the government’s divine mandate to punish evil and praise good. Domestically, that’s a mandate to make moral distinctions between good and evil behavior. To restrict what government can punish simply to whatever limits the freedom of others to chart their personal courses has no basis in Scripture, and is more akin to the 17th century liberalism of John Locke or the 19th century utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill.

Biblical government not only secures us in our lives and property so that “we may lead a peaceful and quiet life.” It also actively cultivates a moral environment that facilitates people’s ability to live their lives “godly and dignified in every way” and pass such moral habits along to their children (1 Timothy 2:2). Libertarians like Ron Paul deny this fundamental biblical political principle. As a result, Ron Paul’s America would look more like It’s a Wonderful Life’s Potterville than Bedford Falls. What is worst in us, unchecked and undiscountenanced, would flourish among us, freely chosen but encouraged by those who would exploit their neighbor’s moral weakness for gain.

Internationally, Rep. Paul also underestimates people’s capacity for evil and the government’s responsibility to protect American citizens, as we see in the video clip below from the final GOP debate before the Iowa caucus. He is correct that war making should proceed only from a congressional declaration of war. But he appears to think naively that if we leave the world alone, the world will leave us alone. A biblical guard dog is more watchful than that.

Though Ron Paul is confessedly a believer in Christ, he views his faith as entirely private and unrelated to public policy (see video clip below). It is instead his libertarianism that drives his politics, and so he would withhold most of the substance of the good that God intends for us in government. But Christians are accountable to God to help elevate to office the person who will govern in the godliest manner for purposes that most fully conform to the functions that God has assigned to government.

Is there, or should there ever be, a point when a state is no longer penalized for its discriminatory past?

Not according to the Department of Justice, which last Friday rejected a South Carolina law that would have required voters show a valid photo ID before casting their ballots.

Justice says the law discriminates against minorities. The Obama administration said, “South Carolina’s law didn’t meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting.” Why South Carolina? Because, the Justice Department contends, it’s tasked with approving voting changes in states that have failed in the past to protect the rights of blacks.

Are they serious?

There are two African-Americans representing South Carolina in the U.S. House of Representatives, One is Tim Scott, a freshman Republican. The other is 10-term Rep. James Clyburn, the current assistant Democratic leader. There are numerous minority members of the South Carolina state legislature and Gov. Nikki Haley who is Indian-American.

This is not your grandfather’s South Carolina. This is not the South Carolina of the then-segregationist and Dixiecrat presidential candidate Strom Thurmond. Yesterday’s South Carolina had segregated schools, lunch counters, restrooms, and buses and a dominant Democratic Party. Today’s South Carolina is a modern, integrated, forward-looking, dual-party state.

Democrats, especially, should be sensitive to states and people who have demonstrated that they have changed. It was the Democratic Party of the late 19th century that resisted integration throughout the South, passing Jim Crow laws that frustrated blacks who wanted to vote. Those were Southern Democrats who stood in schoolhouse doors, barring blacks from entering. Today, many members of that same party refuse to allow poor minority students to leave failing government schools as part of the school voucher system because they, apparently, value political contributions from teachers unions more than they value educational achievement.

The South Carolina law that offends the Justice Department anticipated objections that some poor minorities might not have driver’s licenses (and certainly not a passport) because they might not own cars. So the state will provide free voter ID cards with a picture of the voter on it. All someone has to do is prove who he or she claims to be. A birth certificate will do nicely. A utility bill can be used to prove residency.

Not requiring a voter to prove his or her citizenship and residence is a recipe for voter fraud. Democrats like to accuse Republicans of trying to keep minorities from voting because they know most will vote for Democrats. Even if that were true (and it’s debatable) the reverse is probably truer. Some Democrats have allegedly encouraged people to vote who were not eligible, some more than once. Without a valid ID, how can we stop this?

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law has compiled a list of new voter identification laws passed this year. In addition to the one in South Carolina, all require some form of photo identification. Will Justice go after all of them, as well?

According to the Brennan Center, a new law in Kansas, effective Jan. 1, 2012, requires a photo ID, with certain exceptions such as a physical disability that makes it impossible for the person to travel to a government office to acquire one, though they must have “qualified for permanent advance voting status. …”

A new Texas law, which took effect on Sept. 1, requires a photo ID in order to vote, or another form of personal ID card issued by the Department of Public Safety.

Even historically liberal Wisconsin passed a new law this year requiring voters to prove who they are, in most cases with a photo ID.

Gov. Haley and South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson vow to fight the Justice Department ruling. They should. Photo IDs are required when flying on commercial aircraft or cashing a check. That discriminates against no one. Neither does requiring people to prove who they are before voting.

© 2011 Tribune Media Services Inc.

“… God … promised before the ages began, and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted …” (Titus 1:2-3).

“Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you” (1 Peter 5:6).

“And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9).

“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6).

God is meticulous about His timing. As Jesus said to His brothers when they were still clueless about spiritual things: “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here” (John 7:6). Because you and I are sometimes casual or lackadaisical about time, we might unconsciously interpret Scripture in the same worldly way.

God says, “in due season [or, “in due time”] we will reap,” but you and I may filter those words through childhood promises never fulfilled, and the memory of adults carelessly wielding the phrase to get us off their backs: “I’ll take you to Disneyland in due time; now leave me alone and go play.”

It is as if we think God is like a human, giving us the brush. We anthropomorphize Him and imagine that He has only the vaguest idea of the future timing of what He has committed Himself to: Could be in a month, could be in 10 years—who knows?

“The economy will improve in due time,” we breezily affirm, as a way of dismissing the unpleasant subject. Or, “I have $20,000 in college debt, but I’ll pay it off in due time.” Or, “That student is lousy at algebra, but he’ll catch on in due time.” It is the great wastebasket expression for indefinite and iffy fruition of a hoped-for outcome.

We must resist the knee-jerk temptation to interpret any of God’s words according to worldly peccadilloes. When God says He will do something for you “in due time,” it is because He has a very particular and well-thought-out plan, a plan that requires certain steps to be carried out in a certain sequence.

If you have asked God for something in prayer, and you believe your request is according to His stated will, and if you have not yet received it, then believe that it is in the works. It will come and not delay “at the proper time.” It may be that God is waiting on specific things to happen in your life first, and specific responses on your part. He takes us through the desert to test us and see what is in our hearts. And then He lifts us up—not a minute too early or too late, but “at the proper time.”