Poem: "Shangra Lah" (In the Wake of Sri Lanka & Christchurch)

Sri Lanka sounds so exotic
Christchurch is too sacred to say
The only bloodshed I know is in
Cochise County and this ratty paperback about Khe Sanh
So I'll give an exotic name to the space under my bed
When I hide there, from your bombs and bullets,
I'll feel cultured in the dark
I'll feel far away, part of a UN assembly to solve it all
I'll call it Shangra Lah; that's what I'll call
the dark under my bed
I'm the US Ambassador to Shangra Lah
It sounds so exotic, someplace they find rare pearls
I must have heard it in a song
or another worn out war book with outdated maps
I'll be in Shangra Lah when you need me
If you want my thoughts on Peru or the President
you'll have to wait - I'm on diplomatic business,
deep in the dark of Shangra Lah.

-Bud Sturguess,
April 24, 2019

Poem: "Peckerwood Hill"

You don't know much yet -
you don't know laws or judges, priests or rites
You don't even know the words to "Hey Jude"
But today, today is your birthday
Conceived by cousins and poorly sculpted
by the cosmos

The doctors -
Oppenheimer, Kevorkian, and a nurse from Buchenwald,
they've all taken the oath -
welcome you to the world
and do what love will never have a chance to do -
they stop your heart

They won't send you, what they can't use of you,
expendable outlaw,
to Peckerwood Hill -
that crowded concrete orchard in Texas
full of executed killers and three-strike scoundrels
who wasted away in the infirmary
Their brothers ceased to speak their names
the day the verdict came down,
the day the warrant was signed
So to Peckerwood Hill they went
unclaimed, unloved, unnamed,
to await the Resurrection and a brand new trial

But you, birthday boy,
Peckerwood Hill is not for you
That's for human beings,
forgotten, discarded as they were
You're less, so you'll be put somewhere less
Dissected, photographed
Maybe a jar of formaldehyde is the best they'll do for you

Today is your birthday and I cannot promise you a thing
No fairy tales, no fables, no lullabies
Not even a crowded garden of rocks called Peckerwood Hill -
that's only for us killers and thieves

-by Bud Sturguess

Matter of Record: Tim Keller Quote Used in My Book

Uh-oh... today I saw this Timothy Keller quote on Twitter:
"The church is not a museum for pristine saints, but a hospital ward for broken sinners."
I wrote something extremely similar to this in one of my books, Sheep Named Spike. I've never read Tim Keller's books, so I'm thinking maybe I saw it quoted somewhere else and it stayed in my subconscious. The first version of my book was published in 2015, and I'm guessing Mr. Keller wrote that statement before then (though I haven't checked). How embarrassing for me. Buuuuuut I know he won't sue me because 1 Corinthians 6 forbids Christians from suing other Christians! HA! YEET!
Anyway, I'm posting this for what it's worth, in the rare event my book ever takes off, to acknowledge my accidental plagiarism. My apologies to Mr. Keller, and kudos for writing such a poignant statement!

-Bud Sturguess
January 18, 2019

Stop Saying "If You Don't Vote, You Don't Get To Complain"

An argument often used to persuade people to vote is the cliche, "If you don't vote, you don't get to complain!"
Though voting is a great thing that should surely be embraced and exercised, this expression is not the way to win over a cynic, for three reasons:

1. The expression doesn't reflect a love of democracy - only a love of complaining.

2. It tells the potential political proselyte that voting inherently leads to disappointment and, again, complaining. It makes them wonder, "if my vote helps anything, why am I being told I'm sure to be disillusioned and complain?"

3. Sometimes, it makes no sense to complain even if you did vote. For example, in 2012 I voted for President Obama. Later, I was very much against his decision to militarily involve the US in Syria. But, how could I complain? I helped put him in office. My vote helped keep him in the job!

Voting is a right we mustn't take for granted. But, like fear mongering or guilt tripping, some tactics we use to promote that right do more harm than good. Some talking points don't make much sense: we've repeated them so often without really thinking about them. If voting is so important - and it is - our efforts to persuade others to take part in the process mustn't be anchored by angry, shopworn expressions.

* - My vote for Obama only contributed to his re-election in theory - the popular vote doesn't matter much in Presidential elections as long as the Electoral College exists.

Why I'm Going To Name My Son Charles Manson

It's no revelation that parents live vicariously through their children. One of the ways they do so that we don't often realize is in the process of naming the child. I think many parents want to give their child a name they wish they'd been given, or at least one less boring than theirs. This is how the planet has wound up with girls named Whisper Wildflower Smith and their brother TroyAikmanFordTundra Jones. Some parents get more inventive and make up a name, giving us the abundance of MacKinzileighs and Brylaylees in the world. And, sometimes, parents have a sadistic streak and want to punish the fetus with a "traditional" name spelled woefully "uniquely" so that the child will grow up with the burden of constantly correcting people: Khourtni, K'Leigh and Thhommass have my sympathy.

(Take this with a grain of salt, as my name is Bud Sturguess, which I've often said sounds like the name of a backwoods worm salesman who runs a secret polygamist cult in his basement.) 

Speaking of parents punishing their children, I've said many times that in His grace God often won't punish us for our sins, but we have no qualms about making others pay for them, This is best exemplified in parents who abandon, neglect and abuse their children, or pass them from relative to relative, guardian to guardian, leaving the child prone for more mistreatment and abuse. In an overwhelming amount of cases, the child grows up feeling unloved and unimportant, and therefore sees the world and everything in it as lacking love or importance, or not being worthy of such. Just the way they were shaped to think by abusive wretches.

This is the case with many notorious criminals and killers in our world. There's no shortage of infamous names associated with depravity and violence whose upbringings were marred by neglect, sexual abuse, and a wealth of other things to which no child should be subject.

A man who often talked about how much he loved children and bemoaned the world's treatment of them - though usually as a dodge to answer questions about his crimes - was Charles Manson, perhaps the most recognizable name in American murder history. There was no doubt Charles Manson was a madman, a remorseless and deluded man who killed and ordered others to kill out of a desire for control over others, and a warped vengeance and hatred for the world he felt had shunned him.

But Charles Manson, murderer and cult leader as he became, was once a child. And like a vast number of adults who develop bloody world views like his, his childhood was rank with abuse and neglect. He was even called "No Name" by his mother, a teenage prostitute, before being given the name Charles, and the surname Manson, after a man to whom his mother was briefly married (who his biological father was remains a definitively unresolved question). In any case, the elder Manson soon disappeared from the young Charles' life. When he was in the custody of his mother, who was in and out of jail, they lived in run-down motel rooms with her male acquaintances, all of them heavy drinkers, until she decided she'd had enough of Charles and allowed him in the hands of a school for boys. When Charles was twelve, he ran away from the school, back to his mother, but she didn't want him. His teenage life was thereafter filled with crimes from petty theft to auto theft. As an adolescent he told the wardens of these jails that he didn't want to leave, feeling there was nothing and no one for him outside the prison walls. As he entered adulthood, Charles Manson's crimes became more and more serious, his jail sentences lengthier and lengthier. 

We know how that life of crime culminated to its bloodiest and most shocking heights in 1969.

It would be presumptuous of me to claim that if Charles Manson had had a stable upbringing he'd have never become the person he became. After all, Ted Bundy had a relatively normal childhood. But there is no doubt that treating a child in such a loveless and cold manner shapes his or her view of the world, and of themselves, and Manson's own words in his many crazed and furious interviews reflect this. Even if he hadn't become the leader of a murderous cult, there's no doubt Charles Manson was shaped for a life of crime. 

The blame doesn't lie with his mother - only with Charles. But his mother did punish her child for her sins. Charles Manson never had a chance in this world from the day he was born. 

When King David of Israel committed adultery with Bathsheba and subsequently conspired to have her husband killed, the name of the prophet who uncovered his sin and rebuked him was Nathan. When we read the genealogies of David and of Jesus, we see that one of David's sons was named Nathan. I can't help but think that each time David called Nathan's name, he was stung by the memory of what he'd done, of the life he destroyed by his lust and selfishness. The name must have been a heavy reminder for the king. Painful, even. And that's not always a bad thing.

So, despite not being great with kids, and despite being unable to produce any of my own due to a particularly hellacious game of Twister in 2013, I've resolved to name my son, if I ever have one, Charles Manson Sturguess (pending wife approval - I suppose I'll need to find one of those, too).
I want to be reminded every time I call his name, every time I tell him to get down off of the furniture, every time I tell him I'm proud of him, every time I tell him I'm disappointed in him, every time I tell him he can be a great man someday, that I have a responsibility to give this kid a chance. To give him everything he needs to survive, but also everything he needs to thrive, to be reminded he's loved, cherished, and irreplaceable. I want to remember the Charles Manson who had none of these things, so that it will never leave my heart to treasure my Charles Manson.

I'm not one who believes in teaching children they're inherently "amazing." I would teach my child that he or she (Charlotte Manson, I suppose) is one of a kind and show them they're loved abundantly, but until they cure Alzheimer's or invent some innovative longer-lasting urinal cake, I won't teach them they're "amazing" by simply being themselves. But even if Charles Manson Sturguess grows up to be a garbageman - which is a noble profession, so drop your elitism - and no astronaut or world leader, I hope that I will have done my best to teach him even in his humble position that he is loved. That he is valued by God, by his parents, by others around him. That Jesus gave His life for him. I hope that I will have done my best to teach him that no matter how bland or average he may see himself, there is only one of him - God made only one Charles Manson Sturguess, just as He made only one Charles Manson. I hope that the name given to him will remind me to encourage and teach him to teach him to use his life, no matter how drab or how fascinating it may be, to make wise choices, to use his breath and time for good and not for evil.

If it takes naming him Charles Manson to remind myself in the most heated and frustrated moments of parenting that I'm responsible for loving, cherishing, and shaping this human being, so be it. Maybe someday your neighborhood garbageman will be Charlie Sturguess. Or, maybe the fifty-fifth President of the United States will be remembered in history books as Charles M. Sturguess (glossing over the Manson part for the same reason Barack Obama never went by Barack Hussein Obama).

In either case, in either profession, I hope to give him the chance that so many never had. And may his name remind me of those who weren't given the chance. And if I never have a son, may God lead me to do more for children who are in the same position Charles Milles Manson was when he too was just a lonesome, loveless child.

Christians, Stop Apologizing For Hell

I've often told the story of the Bible verse that freed me from the wrong kind of apologetics. That is, the idea that if I explained the more difficult parts of the Bible in just the right way, or depicted them in just the right light, a skeptic or non-believer would accept those things in the Christian doctrine that are, even for many Christians, hard to accept. The verse was Genesis 38:7 - "But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him."
A simple and unassuming verse. Unassuming except for the part where God kills a guy. But there it was, in plain black and white, with no footnote added, no theological context to remind the reader of God's sovereignty and right to give and take life, no information on the degree or manner of Er's wickedness to try and make God seem more justified in taking his life. It was simple: "The Lord killed him."

Somehow, this verse reminded me that God does not need a dullard like me to defend Him, explain Him, or try to make Him look right - He's God and He is above such requirements. He is above the need for human approval or justification; this is why Jesus tells the Pharisees who were indignant at the praise the people were giving to Him, "I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out" (Luke 19:40). I don't mean "defense" in the same sense as Peter does when he instructs us to give a defense for our faith - a reason we believe, a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). I mean this in the sense that for years I thought my articulation and logic would lead people to Christ; and what I was essentially thinking was, the only way to God was through Christ, but the only way to Christ was through me and my awesome apologetics and speeches.

I think that as Christians we sometimes feel a need to explain certain parts of the Bible in a way to make them seem less abrasive, less uncomfortable. The doctrine of eternal damnation for non-believers is one of the hardest, saddest truths we face as believers in God's holy Word. No Christian should desire for anyone to go to hell, and that should therefore be one of the reasons we must strive to show love and share the good news of Christ before the Judgment: "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15). What kind of hatred could a believer have to not share the Gospel that leads to eternal life? Why would we want anyone to spend eternity without God's love and presence? That's what hell is, after all. The permanent absence of God is worse than the fire.

So, many times we find ourselves using this shopworn expression to try and explain God's actions as if they were wrong, or at least suspect. We say:
"God doesn't send people to hell - people choose to go to hell when they deny Him."

In essence, this is basically true. People choose to deny Christ, and in doing so mark themselves for eternity without Him. But when we say this, we gloss over the sovereignty of God. We try and sugarcoat the fact that, being an omnipotent and perfect Creator, He is the only Being with the right to save or to damn, to kill or to give life.
This morning I happened to be reading about the destruction of Jericho in the book of Joshua. A verse even more troubling that God's sudden destruction of Judah's wicked son made me groan and think, "Lord, You're not making this easy on me." The verse was: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword." This verse is not unique in the Old Testament, as many times in ancient Israel's various wars, this was standard protocol.

Yeah, I know.

But I don't need to apologize for God (and I'm not talking about the practice of apologetics). My God is sovereign and perfect, with the right to direct life and death for His Creations. I could go into detail about how, under the New Covenant of Jesus, God's wrath has been satisfied through His sacrifice on the cross. I could make winding and longwinded explanations about the Mosaic Law and how it's been fulfilled through Jesus, so there's no more need for stoning adulterers and adulteresses to death. I could use semantics and theological terms to explain why, if God's wrath was satisfied through Christ, there is still a hell and not everyone will go to heaven. But if I did so with the thought that it would lead a person to accept Him, I would only be fooling myself and, worse, trying to paint a picture of a God that I like, rather than accepting His sovereign judgments, no matter how difficult they may be to accept sometimes (many times).

Hell is a real place. I don't want anyone to go there, but I know they will. I would have thrown up had I seen the bloody destruction of Jericho. But if I want to accept God as He is - and He is perfect - I must accept that He has the divine right to ordain such gutwrenching things. And I must remember that He played by the rules you and I face, suffering on the cross the wrath shown to Jericho so that a New Covenant could be made, a peace could be made, that you and I would have the chance to know Him. And knowing Him, we know more than an angry God, but a God with such depth, mercy, kindness, and love, all of it wrapped in an unbreakable holiness: mercy, kindness, and love we often think is absent when we read of the things He did in ancient times - and will do at another foreordained time.

And, after all, who would want to lower themselves to only worship a god they can understand?

Christians, Discuss: Is Unrepentant Porn Addiction Grounds For Divorce?

In recent years, as porn has become more and more of an epidemic, the Church has made no bones about the destructiveness of pornography and its effects on the covenant of marriage, and has strove to educate and help those tangled in such addictions and backsliding. But one thing I seldom hear addressed is the adultery factor in such situations. Jesus says in Matthew chapter 5, when describing how sin begins in the heart, "I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." He goes on to elaborate on the seriousness of the things that lead us to sin and the need for us to be rid of them: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

(Let it be noted that in some translations, the word "sin" is substituted or footnoted as "offend" or "stumble." I don't know how significant that is, but I want to be as precise as I can in such a complicated issue.)

We know that lust is essential in pornography. Each time we gaze at a man or woman in the throes of the glorification of what is against God's purpose for sex, we delight in that rebellion, and we lust. So I would feel safe to say that if a married person indulges in pornographic material, they're committing adultery. 

Jesus says in a short discourse on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19: "I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." 

Here's where it's important for me to be precise again: in some translations, "sexual immorality" (which porn certainly is) is rendered: "fornication." We know that porn and the self-abuse of the Holy Spirit's temple (i.e. our bodies) are adultery and lust, but it's not the physical act of fornication. Or, is that what Jesus even means when He says "fornication?" Is He referring back to His words on lust being adultery, and that there is no difference, spiritually, between physically having sex with someone not your spouse, and delighting in watching the act on a computer?

The Spirit writes through the author of the book of Hebrews: "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4).

Unquestionably, the subject of grace and forgiveness must enter into any marriage. It's been said that the keys to a good marriage are to 1. repent well and 2. forgive well. But what if the spouse engaged in their destructive behavior remains unrepentant? What if they've failed to show fruits of repentance? We know that forgiveness is key in any relationship a Christian has, be it with their spouse, friends, family, strangers, their congregation. We're called to forgive and show mercy. But it's important to remember that forgiving someone doesn't:

- obligate you to trust the person who has hurt you.

- require you to minimize, make excuses for, or ignore their bad choices.

If we continually allow others to hurt us, we eventually become bitter and paranoid, rendering ourselves unable to show love or positive influence to others in Christ's name. Those around us who habitually hurt us can drag us down with their destructive behaviors, and leave us callous and uncaring. This undoubtedly affects our faith. In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul quotes an expression of his day: "Do not be deceived. Evil company corrupts good habits." Which brings us back to Jesus' words:

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

This brings us to God's instructions through Paul, also in 1 Corinthians. In chapter 5, Paul discusses the challenge of living godly lives in a world that does not agree with or believe in our values and standards, a world that even holds those views in contempt. Are Christians to avoid contact with non-believers, i.e. those "outside" Christ's Church? No, Paul says, for we would have to leave the world. We are called to be in the world, but not of the world; there must be a distinction between a man or woman of Christ and a man or woman of miscellany. To be "holy" is to be "set apart." Rather, Paul states that it is Christians, or those who are called Christians, who engage in unrepentant sin with which we are to have no association: "I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner - not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person."

Does this associating with unrepentant Christians, and Biblical command against it, extend into the marriage? Especially if we know the unrepentant spouse's evil habits can corrupt the other's attempts to live a godly life?

There's also the question of how porn affects one's ability to show intimacy and affection to their spouse. The thing with porn is, it's fantasy for the viewer: they can have sex with, do anything with anyone they want, and still only be concerned with giving pleasure to themselves. In actual sex, one must be concerned with the sexual desires of the other person. Porn addiction renders this not a privilege that God has given to married couples, but a tiresome chore: the porn user is prone to become less interested in pleasing their spouse because it interferes with their fantasies. It's too difficult to please two people when your mind has become focused on pleasing only one's self. This is in contradiction to Biblical words to a husband and wife:

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).

However, Paul says next, "I say this as a concession, not as a commandment."

What does he mean? Which parts of the above are his "concession?" All of it? What is he "conceding?" Does it refer to his express desire that less Christians during the time were married? We know from reading his epistles that he found it a good idea to refrain from marriage - and therefore taking on the responsibilities of marriage - in a time when Christians were being slaughtered by Rome and other persecutors. Is that what he means? 

And later in the same chapter, "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife." Further, referring to those who became Christians while already married, with the other spouse being still an unbeliever: "But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?"

What then? Do the latter four verses apply when the issue is unrepentant sexual immorality and not unbelief? 

The issue of divorce seems - at first - cut and dry to many of us when the problem is sexual immorality. But we know that marriage is discussed many times and in many ways, some of them complex, some of them to be taken at face value, under the New Covenant. And I should probably elaborate that when I say "New Covenant," I'm not exactly strictly referring to the New Testament, but to the commands and instructions that exist for those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. I'm not negating the Old Testament - only emphasizing it be read in context with the entire Bible, a Book whose climax is the New Covenant under Jesus.

So, what do you Christians out there think? Is divorce an option for Christians when all attempts at getting the spouse to seek help for porn addiction have been exhausted? Are two Christians stuck with each other "'til death," even if one is capable of destroying the other's walk with God? Are permanent separations an option over legal divorce? Is there any difference between the two, Biblically? Are we focusing too much on semantics? What about the effects on children in the marriage?

What do you think when you read the Scripture? And, more importantly, do you begin your Scripture reading with prayer for discernment? That God would open your heart's understanding? That He would blow away any preconceived opinions you may have that may not be in line with His Word?

"Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law.

I am a stranger in the earth; do not hide Your commandments from me.

My soul breaks with longing for Your judgments at all times."

-Psalm 119:18-20

"Tonight our bed is cold, lost in the darkness of our love

God have mercy on a man who doubts what he's sure of."

-Bruce Springsteen