Monday Morning Music Ministry

9-15-25

Uncountable posts, messages, memes, press releases, and announcements are being offered about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I can contribute little more than, perhaps, a different point of view.

“We have lost Charlie,” say people who knew him, or felt like they did because he was so accessible. An everyday guy, just a bit more spiritual and patriotic, and braver than most of us. At a spontaneous street parade in London (yes, England, where there are chapters of Turning Point UK), crowds chanted his name. My great friend Janet Casserly was there, revisiting her homeland, and when a marcher cried, “We have lost Charlie!” Janet responded – “Charlie Kirk is not lost. We know where he is right now!”

That is what’s different about Christians. Franklin Graham said he did not feel sorry for Charlie: he is with his Savior now. We can feel sorry for Erika and the two little children; we feel sorry for each other that we have lost an advocate and leader; we feel sorry for the nation he was effectively transforming.

But Charlie would scold us. History is replete with martyrs, and we should dedicate ourselves, rather, to the different view that he did not die in vain. That is, we must pick up his torch and flag and charge forward. We have the feeling that he can have a successor, but not really be replaced. Martyrs of conscience through history suffered various fates: Socrates, Tyndale, Luther, Galileo; it was Charlie Kirk’s sad but noble turn.

Among those uncountable responses to his assassination are grief-filled expressions from surprising sources. Aaron Judge, Mahomes, Paul and Ringo, Dylan, many more; some pledging donations to Charlie’s kids for their education. That’s different, even discounting the percentage that spiteful web-liberals insist are fake reports. There have been moments of silence in baseball stadiums and at football games. That’s different. Massive rallies and parade vigils for Charlie across the US and in London, Berlin, Hamburg, Warsaw and other world capitals. That’s different.Even elected officials would not receive such tributes.

I am calling him the familiar “Charlie” because he was an accessible guy, but also because I had a slight association with him, being a guest on his podcast in 2023, one hour, one-on-one. He was affable and remarkably informed about history and every subject we touched, just as he appeared to be in all the web’s video clips.

Regarding those video clips, and this being 2025, many people knew about Charlie primarily through memes and clips – which, this being 2025, generally means “pro” and “anti” spins tailored to the posters’ points of view. Sigh, our contemporary world is different. It was astonishing to see how many edited clips of his back-and-forths on campuses suggested that he was a monster (rather futilely, but haters did their best). Of course I was a follower so people can assume I am biased too – but watching every full session, you can see that Charlie Kirk was patient, respectful, always backing his assertions, and challenging the assumptions of hostile questioners. That grace is different these days.

Another thing that was different was his overarching theme. To be Christian first – for a faith not generic, but devoted to Jesus was his aspiration as he spoke to students. He quoted Founders who believed that a Republic was suited only for a moral people. He quoted the Bible, to support his statements and to persuade his opponents (he did not attend college nor seminary, but was more learned and evangelical than half the professors and clergymen I have encountered). God, family, country – Charlie dusted off that ancient priority and made it live again. Different.

There he sat, minding his own business – or, actually, God’s. For these basic themes, this freelance commentator with no party, no TV platform, no corporate affiliation; only his own educational outreach, helping students to organize clubs. For this, he was hated, reviled, attacked, misrepresented, ridiculed, and censored more than any figure of our generation… including Doanld Trump.

But they killed Charlie. They failed to kill Trump. That is different.

Why? His ideas were common-currency only a few years ago. He was forthright for Christ? Sure: in the face of growing apostasy, Charlie shared the Gospel with more clarity, and possibly more often, than many preachers we have in our churches. The World cannot stand that. But why else?

Charlie Kirk was effective. That was his sin. Turning Point USA has more than a thousand chapters in schools. Charlie is credited with tipping the votes of several states to Trump’s side of the ledger. It is estimated that 44 per cent of Gen Zers changed their party registrations during two recent years, led by Charlie’s efforts.

That was the real difference, explaining his assassination. He was effective. They could not have that. Even “allies”: Enough of fake conservatism, RINO identifications, accommodations with those who hate us, hate the country, hate Christianity. Charlie rekindled a flame that almost had been extinguished. The Left’s hope was that by killing Charlie they would silence us. They need to continue what Michael Savage calls the one-way civil war.

But there are different things happening. The massive, widespread, vehement vigils and protests. Different. The reports of people vowing to leave the Left, to shun its yapping voices. Different. The mood of the country, especially among young people… different. Maybe you have experienced, right up till now, friends who say (in my case, virtually and patronizingly) “Well, Rick, I disagree with you but I still respect what you do about history and cartoons and such” but then defend liars and assassins and subversives… Now I say, “Shut up.” What’s different?

What’s different is that this has become a war. Powerful forces, having attacked our culture and our souls, are now gunning for our heritage and our future; our families and our God-given rights.

“Guns kill,” and you and your buddies say Charlie deserved to be killed because he defended the Second Amendment. Well, guns also are designed to defend, protect, ward off attackers… perhaps against those with crowbars at your back door; perhaps against those with knives on a train; perhaps against someone raping your wife. Perhaps — as argued by those who wrote the Second Amendment — against a government that could confiscate guns and physically take over your life and property.

Get ready. We have targets on our backs. I have suffered – many of us have – for our views. Harassment; jobs lost; and by the way, “you can’t lose a friend you never had.” Do what you can in silence. Example: Charlie’s wife Erika runs her own business in NYC called Proclaim Streetwear. For every sweatshirt they sell, one gets donated to a homeless person living on the street. OOOh, Mrs Fascist, really? Or do your work boldly.

Proclaim Christ, protect your family, stand up for your country while it still exists. To quote Martyn Lloyd-Jones, whom Charlie had quoted: “The way to overcome sin is not to preach morality. It is to preach the Gospel.”

Things are different. Now make a difference.

+ + +

Click: For Charlie…

3-16-15

I have begun reading “A Chronicle Of the Crusades,” a massive 15th-century illuminated manuscript – in translation, believe me – originally titled “Les Passages d’Outremer.” I am interested in history of all eras and all places, so this is not exactly required reading. However, I am also prompted by President Obama’s recent scolding of Christians to “get off their high horses” and realize that many awful acts were committed “in the name of Christ,” citing the crusades of a thousand years ago; and not mentioning atrocities committed by radical Moslems a thousand years ago or – famously – last week either.

It is not mere (and common) self-loathing of Christians and whites to assume that the Crusades were birthed and maintained in Christian brutality, blood lust, and racism. Aggressive educators and supine defenders of our faith have transformed this contention into a “fact of history” – despite its substance being very much in dispute. Rather, historical facts, if they shall become the subtext of our identity and rationale for today’s policies, must be dusted off and honestly viewed.

Christianity had “holy sites,” associated with the person and ministry of Jesus Christ. Islam, a religion founded centuries subsequent to Christianity, determined to seize lands and sites, sometimes desecrating them. Christians sought to restore ownership, if not management, of holy places in the “Holy Land.” Its center of gravity having shifted northward and westward, Christian expeditions were launched to that end. In succeeding campaigns, there were battles, sieges, pillaging, many deaths, and uncountable examples of bravery and brutality on both sides, on all sides.

It is rather useless, and perhaps intentionlly subversive toward a different agenda, to re-ignite those flames of passion. Yet it is being done, and not only by our president. Wars frequently are bad enough in their first incarnations, without declaring and waging them anew. Perhaps the huge book on my lap will teach me some new things, even though, yes, I realize that it was written by Europeans.

I want to pause for a moment, however, over a larger picture – the illuminated manuscript, as it were, of Western Civilization before and after the Crusades, and what once was rightly called Christendom.

People use the phrase “the barbarians are at the gates,” applying it to everything from video games to the corporate history of Nabisco to the threats posed by ISIS. Oddly, there is no consensus on the origin of the tocsin “at the gates!” but it seems that Barbarians, generally, were called such by the cultured civilizations of Athens and Rome based on the invading tribes’ purportedly unintelligible language: an approximation of “ba-ba-ba” morphed into “barbarian.” Today, alarmists use the phrase because they feel threatened by forces attacking the virtual gates of our culture.

Alarmists legitimately can be alarmed by legitimate threats, just as paranoiacs sometimes DO have people stalking them. Nevertheless the dominant thrust of Western Christianity’s contemporary cultural attitude is that the so-called challenges to our traditions and heritage are real… but are not threats.

Cultural rebels are in command. Anarchists and nihilists ironically are setting many of the rules in society. “The end of history” has happened: the postulation of Francis Fukuyama that millennia of the world’s cultural traditions have been up-ended, enabling disaster or, at best, an unknown new system. Just as with Nietzsche’s “God is dead” – when a culture no longer recognizes God, He is dead to that culture’s life. “How shall we then live?” was the question asked by Francis Schaeffer in a monumental study almost 40 years ago. It is a question posed by philosophers since Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle… but never losing its relevance. Or, today, its urgency.

The difference today is the exquisite and apocalyptic precipice upon which we teeter. A death-struggle in the twilight of a once-great civilization. Barbarians are past the gates; they have been welcomed, they live amongst us; they are A-list celebrities.

I am not singling out Hollywood, but our Barbarian culture. We have willingly celebrated barbarism. Sometimes this suicidal syndrome is called anti-intellectualism, but is far deeper, of far more serious consequences. It threatens destruction from which survival is impossible. The contemporary morals and mores of Western Christianity (often masquerading as the new sacraments of “tolerance” and “lifestyle choices”) are nothing more or less than the poisoning of our culture’s well.

Our society’s rejection of God, denial of Christ’s divinity and teachings, and demonization of our Western heritage, is not a minor and enlightened bend in the road of progress. It is a complete U-turn, back to… barbarism.

Hilaire Belloc wrote of the barbarian that he “hopes – and that is the mark of him – that he can have his cake and eat it too. He will consume what civilization has slowly produced after generations of selection and effort, but he will not be at pains to replace such goods, nor indeed has he a comprehension of the virtue that has brought them into being.

“Discipline seems to him irrational, on which account he is ever marveling that civilization should have offended him with priests and soldiers…. In a word, the barbarian is discoverable everywhere in this: that he cannot [build anything]; he can befog and destroy, but he cannot sustain; and of every barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization, exactly this has been true.

“We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh.

“But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles.”

We will revisit this theme, because it has more aspects and should engage us in many ways. But for the moment – to return to those barbarians at the gates of Western Christianity, Western Civilization – the barbarians have overtaken our culture, either incorporating themselves or coldly obliterating us and what we hold precious.

The historian Arnold Toynbee observed that civilizations seldom die from invasions (gates and barbarians notwithstanding) but by suicide. In that sense the ghastly Clash of Civilizations is not so much prompted by Communist states or Islamic terrorists or extremists who work to do us harm. It is the clash of traditional Christianity versus the barbarism of modern Christianity and post-modernism. Western Civilization has lost that clash of values.

+ + +

The Litany of St. James, written in the 4th century, sung by Cynthia Clawson.

Click: Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence

10-6-14

Some years ago I was a guest on a local program somewhere in New England on a National Public Radio station, “The Man and His Music.” Under today’s politically correct strictures, especially on NPR, I suppose the series would be called, “The Person and His/Her Predilections,” or some such nonsense. (Maybe even “His/Her/Its”) Anyway, the premise of the series was to explore a guest’s personality through discussions of musical taste and favorite pieces, in addition to the standard celebrity-interview fare.

We authors or actors or athletes were, naturally, asked to send our choices in advance of the studio interview, and to provide (ancient history, kiddies) cassette tapes of our favorite songs or snippets of music. The hostess was well-versed in music, and could discuss or at least intelligently explore any style of music from any period of history, from Renaissance to jazz.

True to my catholic tastes, as old friends of this column will know, my choices ranged from Baroque to Bluegrass. And at least half the choices, for the two-hour program, were church pieces. Movements from cantatas and masses; traditional hymns; contemporary gospel. The man and his music, right?

It developed that eclecticism was fine for the show, but only so much. Between discussions of my books and travels and hobbies were the musical cut-aways, followed by chats about them. The hostess was glad to discuss the fact I knew several jazzmen who had played with Bix Beiderbecke; and had heard Mozart performed in Salzburg; and that I had been backstage at the Grand Ole Opry. But when my choices were Christian pieces, the conversation turned cold. Invariably we rushed to a new topic.

Not only did those musical clips carry a gospel message, but my discussion – why these pieces were special to me, the putative theme of the series – perforce touched upon what made them special, too, to the composers, performers, and the intended audiences. The stories behind the songs; the messages in the music.

I don’t think it was a particular prejudice of the hostess. Clearly, it reflected the culture at (taxpayer-supported, we constantly are reminded) National Public Radio. But, more, it reflects the culture of contemporary America. The post-modern, post-Christian world.

There is a reason I tie my weekly messages to music. I believe music is the most imaginative language devised by mankind, and always a pulse-reading of the broader culture. My ideas about music are based on those of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They believed that harmony is a somewhat elusive quality that is yet irreducible when achieved: we know it when we hear it. Harmony is to be sought in life as well as in music. Harmony represented the Absolute Truth that Plato knew existed, and whose perfect possession might be impossible for mortals, but whose pursuit is essential for our worthwhile selves. (This philosophical summary three centuries before the birth of Jesus explains why early Christian theologians were called Neo-Platonists.)

Renaissance artists found a “new birth,” artistically, in the arts of the ancients, specifically the Greeks. Sculpture and architecture, principally. Literature followed, though awkwardly; and eventually dance and music, in ideals rather than forms (which were historically obscure until very recently). All through the church age, and finding its apogee in the Renaissance despite an interest in outward Athenian expression, art’s main function was to embody the meanings and purposes of God. Gradually, aided and abetted by political freedoms, the empowerment of the printing press, and a philosophical zeitgeist in the West that morphed from Humanism to Individualism to Selfishness, the rationale for all artistic expression, in all manifestations, changed.

Now, instead of artists striving to please God, they strive to please themselves.

Beginning in music (and speaking very generally) around Beethoven’s time, the artist became more important than his music; the music more important than the One it once served. Beethoven, however, was truly a transitional figure in this discussion; although something of a “tortured soul,” he was a fervent Christian, as were his immediate contemporaries among composers. Hummel, Field, Czerny, and especially Mendelssohn (ironically, a Jew, converted to Lutheran Christianity) were intensely personal in their compositions without rejecting traditional forms, or faith. But the next generation of composers felt it necessary to be rebels in morality as well as in their music. Composers were expected to have troubled personal lives, to bare their souls in their music, and to offer cathartic or excruciating exposures of their selves. Portraits of the artists. Listeners came to assume that artists were tormented. Artistic heroes are encouraged to wallow in personal revelations, the uglier the better.

True in music and painting, it became the norm in all of the arts, and in fact throughout all of society: that the world, our lives, our very civilization, is so rotten and contemptible that we must honor the artists who struggle to express their disdain and their doomed efforts to resist. Honored the most are those who can describe the best what stinks the worst. Of course, then, society honors leaders and politicians who base their programs on similar perceptions of a loathsome society. They can only address the evils (as they see them) of the Old Order with solutions and systems that reject any trace of traditional wisdom.

This explains where we are as a culture, and why we are doomed, I believe. (Really doomed; not the trendy ennui of parlor dyspeptics.) Beyond music, every expression from poetry to politics reflects the fact that we are a people who have cut ourselves off from God. We no longer make decisions – personal or civic, artistic or political – based on God’s Word, on praying for divine guidance, on trusting the faith of our fathers, on seeking to please Him. And – I hope this is obvious – this analysis pertains to all societies and their religions, not only the Christian West. But as a legatee of Western Civilization that crumbles around me, that is what I address today. So should we all.

And I am quite happy to debate which package of factors is the cart and which is the horse. “Art imitates life” is an ancient maxim. Its apposite response (called anti-mimesis) was provided by Oscar Wilde, who maintained that “life imitates art.” But most recently the real challenge – I should say a lucid perception of our world’s post-Christian dilemma – was voiced by the brilliant Russian émigré, the critic Alexander Boot: that among the ruins of Western Civilization that we have come to call home, Art imitates death.

Having ignored, banned, ridiculed, insulted, and rejected God for so long in the post-Christian West, how can we expect otherwise?

+ + +

I could choose a hundred thousand musical pieces, few from the past 150 years, to accompany this essay. I have chosen a video that is in itself a work of art, the DeutscheGrammophon production of the supernal Helene Grimaud playing the second movement of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s Piano Concert Nr 23 in A, K. 488. Close-ups of her technique, her sensitive expressions, and nature scenes. God is glorified.

Click: Mozart Adagio