The week comes to an end with this strong piece by Robert Bertram in A Time for Confessing.
This systematic demoralizing of people at the very base of their existence, hence their ultimate destruction, is met by Augustana's classic reply: "...we do not become good in God's sight by our works, but...it is only through faith in Christ that we obtain grace for Christ's sake." With this radical re-valuing of sinners solely on the strength of their faith, which renders them valuable because of the One it trusts, the most basic disparity between oppressors and oppressed is effectively undercut not just between one ethnic or sexual group and another, but the most insuperable inequality of all - the gap between the righteous and the ungodly, the good and the bad.
Bertram makes a valuable statement for us. Each of us - baptized in Christ, Jesus - are rendered "valuable because of the One" we trust. No other criteria stands before this. No other criteria diminishes this foundation that is Christ, Jesus, who is eternally for us. When we sing "for all the saints who from their labors rest," it is not merely about those who have recently died. It is for all of us who, need not labor in order to be embraced by the fullness of God's Reign. We can rest in God alone and begin our lives within and through that resting place. From this place there is still law...it is the law of love. No other law can transform and renew and enliven the people of God. It is the power to wipe away all the tears that our divisions and judgments and fears and anxieties have whipped up in order to keep us from being the image of God in the world. Here is an equality that undoes all the gaps...all the gaps.
Connection: Rest, be loved, and know that you are free to be the beloved that you are in God's Reign that is already at hand.
When we are a divided people, O God, you Reign showers down upon us that we may see one another with new eyes and begin to live within the freedom of your love that opens us up to your future. We give you thanks and for the rest you have provided for us. Amen.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thursday 29 January 2009
Today's piece is introduced by post yesterday's quote from Robert Bertram.
What was then at stake, in other words, in the struggle between "slavery" and "freedom" was the question of people's ultimate worth; what value of their own, if any, entitles them to life rather than death? And what assurance have they of being so valued? Such questions had assumed particular poignancy in that "time for confessing" because the dominant system of secular-religious authority, as the confessors encountered it, was oppressive most of all in how it ascribed value, ultimate value, preferentially to some persons rather than others on the strength of their religious and moral performance.
As a consequence, the Augustana protests, "poor consciences were driven to rely on their own efforts, and all sorts of works were undertaken. Some were driven by their conscience into monasteries in the hope that they might merit grace through monastic life. Others devised other works for the purpose of earning grace and making satisfaction for sins. Many of them discovered that they did not obtain peace by such means."
I had a dear friend who was always looking to be accepted within the bounds of the church...and accepted for who he was - not how he acted and how well he treated others. He was a saint within the arms of our Lord whose love of the church and other saints and his pursuit of justice and mercy, kindness and forgiveness was admired by me and those around him. But, he was quite literally living in exile within his own community. Everyone found him to be loving and kind and yet few if any people knew that he was gay. That...was not to be shared...nor could it be. What showed to others was the life he would say came from the Christ who loved him. But he lived within a church closet because he knew that if he came out - even to some of his best friends - it all would be over and he would be seen with different eyes - critical, judging, frightened eyes. One time he talked about the distress under which he lived. He so much believed in the grace of God but when he had attempted to become vulnerable he found that the church was more about earning grace than freely announcing the gracious Reign of God. I no longer have this saint within my life - only the memories of his baptismal smile.
Connection: Too many people live in self-imposed monasteries because the fullness of their lives are not welcome. And yet, it is not self-imposed...it is really because they live under constant threat within an community of people whose life is to be Good News.
By you loving hand, O God, you welcome us and hold us tight within your eternal grasp. Without that bond with us, it would be so easy to slip away and be lost in the tempests of the time. You make us whole and free and beloved. You encourage our lives. Amen.
What was then at stake, in other words, in the struggle between "slavery" and "freedom" was the question of people's ultimate worth; what value of their own, if any, entitles them to life rather than death? And what assurance have they of being so valued? Such questions had assumed particular poignancy in that "time for confessing" because the dominant system of secular-religious authority, as the confessors encountered it, was oppressive most of all in how it ascribed value, ultimate value, preferentially to some persons rather than others on the strength of their religious and moral performance.
As a consequence, the Augustana protests, "poor consciences were driven to rely on their own efforts, and all sorts of works were undertaken. Some were driven by their conscience into monasteries in the hope that they might merit grace through monastic life. Others devised other works for the purpose of earning grace and making satisfaction for sins. Many of them discovered that they did not obtain peace by such means."
I had a dear friend who was always looking to be accepted within the bounds of the church...and accepted for who he was - not how he acted and how well he treated others. He was a saint within the arms of our Lord whose love of the church and other saints and his pursuit of justice and mercy, kindness and forgiveness was admired by me and those around him. But, he was quite literally living in exile within his own community. Everyone found him to be loving and kind and yet few if any people knew that he was gay. That...was not to be shared...nor could it be. What showed to others was the life he would say came from the Christ who loved him. But he lived within a church closet because he knew that if he came out - even to some of his best friends - it all would be over and he would be seen with different eyes - critical, judging, frightened eyes. One time he talked about the distress under which he lived. He so much believed in the grace of God but when he had attempted to become vulnerable he found that the church was more about earning grace than freely announcing the gracious Reign of God. I no longer have this saint within my life - only the memories of his baptismal smile.
Connection: Too many people live in self-imposed monasteries because the fullness of their lives are not welcome. And yet, it is not self-imposed...it is really because they live under constant threat within an community of people whose life is to be Good News.
By you loving hand, O God, you welcome us and hold us tight within your eternal grasp. Without that bond with us, it would be so easy to slip away and be lost in the tempests of the time. You make us whole and free and beloved. You encourage our lives. Amen.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Again from Robert Bertram in "Confessing as Appealing for/to the Oppressed" in A Time for Confessing.
What was then at stake, in other words, in the struggle between "slavery" and "freedom" was the question of people's ultimate worth; what value of their own, if any, entitles them to life rather than death? And what assurance have they of being so valued? Such questions had assumed particular poignancy in that "time for confessing" because the dominant system of secular-religious authority, as the confessors encountered it, was oppressive most of all in how it ascribed value, ultimate value, preferentially to some persons rather than others on the strength of their religious and moral performance.
What was then at stake, in other words, in the struggle between "slavery" and "freedom" was the question of people's ultimate worth; what value of their own, if any, entitles them to life rather than death? And what assurance have they of being so valued? Such questions had assumed particular poignancy in that "time for confessing" because the dominant system of secular-religious authority, as the confessors encountered it, was oppressive most of all in how it ascribed value, ultimate value, preferentially to some persons rather than others on the strength of their religious and moral performance.
There must be great concern among us when some people are more valued than others. Another way of saying this is even more contrary to the good news of the Reign of God, that is, some people are to be valued less than others. Less in such a way that they are denied full participation within the body of Christ simply because of their gender identity and/or the people they love and to whom they are attracted. For in this case, they are considered less in their being. Even if they would live within the same relational guidelines and boundaries, they are not valued on par with others. On many fronts within the church GLBT saints are not considered saints and their value - their ultimate value - is dismissed...unless, of course, they can turn around and "act" differently. Usually the oppressive powers would say "be" different. They forget that no one can be different. A GLBT saint is all that s/he is to be - a whole person beloved of God and a follower of Jesus. This is not an issue of morality. When we talk of morality, then we can put all of us into the same boat and say "this" or "that" is how we live with the Reign of God. Unfortunately, too few will speak as though we are all saints without qualification. When we waffle in such a way, we become a part of the oppressive structure that is involved in the destruction of life - we become proponents of death not the life we have been handed in Christ.
Connection: There really are people who are dying under the oppression of cheap theology that will not stand only on what is necessary.
Lord of Life, we call on your power of love to be the spirit of our life together. Nurture in us the vision of your Reign that sees the wideness of your grace and the fullness of your mercy. Amen.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tuesday 27 January 2009
For the rest of this week we will look at Robert Bertram's thoughts on 'Confessing as Appealing for/to the Oppressed."
The oppressed with whom the Augsburg confessional movement identified are those whom "Christ has set free," as Paul says, "for freedom," and who therefore should "not submit again to a yoke of slavery," to be oppressed all over again by "false brethren secretly brought in...to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Augustana's liberationist emphasis was centered around its plea for sola fide, that is, that what justifies sinners before God is entirely their faith in Christ independently of the good work their faith does.
Interesting that it notes that the oppressed are those whom "Christ has set free"...."for freedom." That not only serves to remind us of the expansiveness of the authority of the Reign of God in Christ, Jesus, it is the identifying banner that is wrapped around us when the cross of Christ is traced on our foreheads after we have been buried with Christ and raised to new life in our baptism. So as one is in the ranks of the baptized saints within God's Reign, not one of us should therefore be made to live under another rule or measure. Our measurement is secured in Christ. We have taken part in all that is necessary - baptism in Christ, Jesus. We are already the beloved of God and that is our status for life. But too often there are those who would like to utter the ever-present "yeah...but." It is one way to control who gathers among us and who is able to be involved in all the work that is handed to us within God's Reign that has come near. Rather than 'by faith alone' we too often find that a "yeah...but" clause is introduced in order to keep some outside the gathering of saints where freedom is to reign for all. It is no wonder that those GLBT saints who have gone through the rite of dying and rising with Christ and are mark with the cross of Christ - forever - and live within the realm of that grace, find that the reality within the church is one of oppression - exclusion - mandated by those who are to make sure that the freedom of Christ Reigns among us all.
Connection: Ask yourself if you see yourself as being free in Christ. What does that do for you each day? What life does that place in your hands? Then again, imagine not having that freedom made real for you - imagine still being under the slavery of that which is not necessary and yet it is used as just that?!
Come, O Light of Life, and guide along the way of your gracious Reign. Keep us from being anxious and afraid in the midst of the freedom you pour upon us. Amen.
The oppressed with whom the Augsburg confessional movement identified are those whom "Christ has set free," as Paul says, "for freedom," and who therefore should "not submit again to a yoke of slavery," to be oppressed all over again by "false brethren secretly brought in...to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Augustana's liberationist emphasis was centered around its plea for sola fide, that is, that what justifies sinners before God is entirely their faith in Christ independently of the good work their faith does.
Interesting that it notes that the oppressed are those whom "Christ has set free"...."for freedom." That not only serves to remind us of the expansiveness of the authority of the Reign of God in Christ, Jesus, it is the identifying banner that is wrapped around us when the cross of Christ is traced on our foreheads after we have been buried with Christ and raised to new life in our baptism. So as one is in the ranks of the baptized saints within God's Reign, not one of us should therefore be made to live under another rule or measure. Our measurement is secured in Christ. We have taken part in all that is necessary - baptism in Christ, Jesus. We are already the beloved of God and that is our status for life. But too often there are those who would like to utter the ever-present "yeah...but." It is one way to control who gathers among us and who is able to be involved in all the work that is handed to us within God's Reign that has come near. Rather than 'by faith alone' we too often find that a "yeah...but" clause is introduced in order to keep some outside the gathering of saints where freedom is to reign for all. It is no wonder that those GLBT saints who have gone through the rite of dying and rising with Christ and are mark with the cross of Christ - forever - and live within the realm of that grace, find that the reality within the church is one of oppression - exclusion - mandated by those who are to make sure that the freedom of Christ Reigns among us all.
Connection: Ask yourself if you see yourself as being free in Christ. What does that do for you each day? What life does that place in your hands? Then again, imagine not having that freedom made real for you - imagine still being under the slavery of that which is not necessary and yet it is used as just that?!
Come, O Light of Life, and guide along the way of your gracious Reign. Keep us from being anxious and afraid in the midst of the freedom you pour upon us. Amen.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Monday 26 January 2009
This post was meant for last Friday...so we begin the week with more from Robert Bertram.
...the confessors in the Augsburg tradition were not confining their protest to what ecclesiastical authorities merely said or did not say, but also to the consequences in praxis of what they did, and of what their victims suffered them to do. If what they exacted from the church was the operational equivalent of saying, "Submission to our brand of authority is 'necessary for righteousness,' necessary for being truly acceptability in the church, or else," then regardless of these authorities' reassuring rhetoric, the practice in question was being "forcibly imposed on the church as necessary and as though its omission were wrong and sinful." Then "the door has been opened for idolatry, and ultimately the commandments of human beings will be put...not only on a par with God's commandments but even above them." And what the concordists here mean by "God's commandments" is the one gospel-and-sacraments, which is all the authority Christ ever gave the church for its wholeness, that being "enough" - satis. Anything more than that, once it becomes "necessary" for the church to be church, is less than the gospel or, as Paul said, is "another gospel" altogether, and needs to be exposed as such.
We must always be willing to look at how what we do is shaped by our words. When we make something more than the "one gospel-and sacraments" necessary for one to be a part of the gather of the body of Christ, we are not shaping our community around the likes of this Christ. We become a "Christ-Plus" church. This is not the church of the followers of Jesus. It becomes the church of conditions that is willing to step back from the gospel and set itself up around other concerns and issues that are fastened onto the body. Some might say that the "issue of GLBT" saints in the church is something that a group is trying to add onto the gospel. No...not at all. Rather, I would suggest that those who would define complete participation in the life of the church is one that precludes GLBT saints from this participation is something that steps away from the gospel and declares that the gospel is not enough. What we do with GLBT saints in the church is the same work that is done in any witch hunt or scapegoating. Rather than welcome without adding conditions...we too often spend too much of our time living within a conditional community. What often is said to this kind of unconditional gospel community is that it is one that has abandoned the law. Nonsense. We expect a gospel life from all who are pulled into the life of the gracious Lord of all.
Connection: What does it hurt us if our arms are open? Some say we look to soft. Others may say they are experiencing that grace upon grace that they have heard but only now see.
Shower us with your grace, O God, and when our hearts are open to your Reign, let no other word take control of our lives. Lead on O God Eternal. Amen.
...the confessors in the Augsburg tradition were not confining their protest to what ecclesiastical authorities merely said or did not say, but also to the consequences in praxis of what they did, and of what their victims suffered them to do. If what they exacted from the church was the operational equivalent of saying, "Submission to our brand of authority is 'necessary for righteousness,' necessary for being truly acceptability in the church, or else," then regardless of these authorities' reassuring rhetoric, the practice in question was being "forcibly imposed on the church as necessary and as though its omission were wrong and sinful." Then "the door has been opened for idolatry, and ultimately the commandments of human beings will be put...not only on a par with God's commandments but even above them." And what the concordists here mean by "God's commandments" is the one gospel-and-sacraments, which is all the authority Christ ever gave the church for its wholeness, that being "enough" - satis. Anything more than that, once it becomes "necessary" for the church to be church, is less than the gospel or, as Paul said, is "another gospel" altogether, and needs to be exposed as such.
We must always be willing to look at how what we do is shaped by our words. When we make something more than the "one gospel-and sacraments" necessary for one to be a part of the gather of the body of Christ, we are not shaping our community around the likes of this Christ. We become a "Christ-Plus" church. This is not the church of the followers of Jesus. It becomes the church of conditions that is willing to step back from the gospel and set itself up around other concerns and issues that are fastened onto the body. Some might say that the "issue of GLBT" saints in the church is something that a group is trying to add onto the gospel. No...not at all. Rather, I would suggest that those who would define complete participation in the life of the church is one that precludes GLBT saints from this participation is something that steps away from the gospel and declares that the gospel is not enough. What we do with GLBT saints in the church is the same work that is done in any witch hunt or scapegoating. Rather than welcome without adding conditions...we too often spend too much of our time living within a conditional community. What often is said to this kind of unconditional gospel community is that it is one that has abandoned the law. Nonsense. We expect a gospel life from all who are pulled into the life of the gracious Lord of all.
Connection: What does it hurt us if our arms are open? Some say we look to soft. Others may say they are experiencing that grace upon grace that they have heard but only now see.
Shower us with your grace, O God, and when our hearts are open to your Reign, let no other word take control of our lives. Lead on O God Eternal. Amen.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Thursday 22 January 2009
The longer I continue to comment on Robert Bertram's look at the Lutheran Confessions and how I see the way we act toward GLBT saints in the church I know that it may not sound very "devotional." It is my understanding, though, that as we contemplate the faith, we do so devotionally - with reflection and contemplation on words and actions. So let's go again.
What God still does command, however, and what even in his New Covenant is never optional is what he has commanded through his "Word of God," through the historical Jesus Christ, namely, "the fresh teaching of the holy Good News." That "teaching and all that pertains to it, according to the Word of God," that teaching of the Good News "in all its articulations, including "the right use of the sacraments," depends for its very truth - for how truly good its news is - on how truly it is spoken, yes, but also on how truly it is acted out in churchly praxis.
That is why Paul, who ordinarily could take or leave circumcision, made a point of acting out publicly his refusal to circumcise Titus, all for "the truth of the gospel." For "the false apostles...wanted to impose such things on consciences as necessary" (Gal. 2:4,5). When something so doctrinally neutral as an adiaphoron changes, as it often has, from being the gospel's servant to being the gospel's partner to being the gospel rival to being the gospel's undoing, just when in that subtle shift does the reversal occur? Answer: when this adiaphoron assumes the importance of being "necessary."
Long quote...but I wanted to get to this last sentence. One's sexuality has become a "necessary" concern in the church and it has nothing to do with the gospel. I say that with the conviction that ones sexuality is a part of one's very being. Anyone of us can abuse who we are as sexual people. That, I would suggest, is what we must focus on when looking at the responsibilities we give to people in the church. If one is straight or gay, we are each held to the same standard. When two people choose to be committed to one another because they are attracted to each other and love one another, they are called into a blessed relationship that is to reflect the character of the Reign of God. The fact that a person is gay and in a relationship that reflects this character we are blessed as a church when that person is also called into the ordained ministry. To say his/her same-gender commitment and love precludes this person from serving is like placing something extra on their heads and claiming it has to be with the gospel. It has nothing to do with the gospel. It is something that we do not need to place as a necessary part of our life together. It is...I think...adiaphora - a discretionary church practice that we have - for whatever the reasons - made a necessary part of the life of the church.
Connection: We are always a people who are invited into the graciousness of God's Reign as was made know in Jesus and continues to be made known through the witness of those who follow Jesus. I find that this grace - when placed before all else - has a tendency to alter the way the day moves along its way for us.
Be our light and our way, O God, for we wander here and there and are often unwilling to stop and rest in this light of your Reign. Amen.
What God still does command, however, and what even in his New Covenant is never optional is what he has commanded through his "Word of God," through the historical Jesus Christ, namely, "the fresh teaching of the holy Good News." That "teaching and all that pertains to it, according to the Word of God," that teaching of the Good News "in all its articulations, including "the right use of the sacraments," depends for its very truth - for how truly good its news is - on how truly it is spoken, yes, but also on how truly it is acted out in churchly praxis.
That is why Paul, who ordinarily could take or leave circumcision, made a point of acting out publicly his refusal to circumcise Titus, all for "the truth of the gospel." For "the false apostles...wanted to impose such things on consciences as necessary" (Gal. 2:4,5). When something so doctrinally neutral as an adiaphoron changes, as it often has, from being the gospel's servant to being the gospel's partner to being the gospel rival to being the gospel's undoing, just when in that subtle shift does the reversal occur? Answer: when this adiaphoron assumes the importance of being "necessary."
Long quote...but I wanted to get to this last sentence. One's sexuality has become a "necessary" concern in the church and it has nothing to do with the gospel. I say that with the conviction that ones sexuality is a part of one's very being. Anyone of us can abuse who we are as sexual people. That, I would suggest, is what we must focus on when looking at the responsibilities we give to people in the church. If one is straight or gay, we are each held to the same standard. When two people choose to be committed to one another because they are attracted to each other and love one another, they are called into a blessed relationship that is to reflect the character of the Reign of God. The fact that a person is gay and in a relationship that reflects this character we are blessed as a church when that person is also called into the ordained ministry. To say his/her same-gender commitment and love precludes this person from serving is like placing something extra on their heads and claiming it has to be with the gospel. It has nothing to do with the gospel. It is something that we do not need to place as a necessary part of our life together. It is...I think...adiaphora - a discretionary church practice that we have - for whatever the reasons - made a necessary part of the life of the church.
Connection: We are always a people who are invited into the graciousness of God's Reign as was made know in Jesus and continues to be made known through the witness of those who follow Jesus. I find that this grace - when placed before all else - has a tendency to alter the way the day moves along its way for us.
Be our light and our way, O God, for we wander here and there and are often unwilling to stop and rest in this light of your Reign. Amen.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Wednesday 21 January 2009
A bit more on adiaphora - Robert Bertram.
As for adiaphora, they are defined as those discretionary church practices which are "neither commanded nor forbidden by God," or "in the Word of God." Offhand, that may give the misimpression that adiaphora are whatever is neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture, so that if Scripture did command a particular practice, that practice would still be mandatory and not an adiaphora at all.
But no, the Formula of Concord's term, "Word of God," should not in this case simply be equated with Scripture. For in Scripture God did explicitly command such practices as circumcision, the Sabbath, even women's head coverings. Yet all of these, no matter how biblical, the Formula, like the Augustana, freely regards as no longer binding but discretionary, or even as "the precepts of men".
We all have a way to be selective listeners. We all do that - even with Scripture. It is today's note about adiaphora that makes me take another look at how we make some things binding and then let loose of others. As we look at some of the images from the Hebrew Scriptures and take note of the world view from several thousand years ago and how we look differently at that which was so much a part of why people did what they did and what they expected from what they did. We quite literally have take some of those images and we do not believe them. The heavens as a ceiling with holes in it...the underground as a place of the dead, doesn't get much play today - if any. Yes, I suppose you can have that kind of world/universe view today and be a part of the celebration of the Good News. But...it is not a necessary view that we must hold to be in the church. Such is the case with our battles around homosexuality. Our view of things have changed. Yes, some may think that gay and lesbian relationships are "unnatural" and therefore against God's will, but not all must believe that and it cannot be used like a law that would preclude people from complete incorporation in the life of the body of Christ. There are those scholars from may disciplines that would argue that the view presented in Scripture is not dealing with much of what we are looking at today and there would be others who would even say that the passages in Scripture do not condemn homosexuality but use it as part of a larger argument - for which we could use some other activities more universal to all of us. So...what can we say is a "discretionary church practice?" And what does that mean for the shape of the church among us?
As for adiaphora, they are defined as those discretionary church practices which are "neither commanded nor forbidden by God," or "in the Word of God." Offhand, that may give the misimpression that adiaphora are whatever is neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture, so that if Scripture did command a particular practice, that practice would still be mandatory and not an adiaphora at all.
But no, the Formula of Concord's term, "Word of God," should not in this case simply be equated with Scripture. For in Scripture God did explicitly command such practices as circumcision, the Sabbath, even women's head coverings. Yet all of these, no matter how biblical, the Formula, like the Augustana, freely regards as no longer binding but discretionary, or even as "the precepts of men".
We all have a way to be selective listeners. We all do that - even with Scripture. It is today's note about adiaphora that makes me take another look at how we make some things binding and then let loose of others. As we look at some of the images from the Hebrew Scriptures and take note of the world view from several thousand years ago and how we look differently at that which was so much a part of why people did what they did and what they expected from what they did. We quite literally have take some of those images and we do not believe them. The heavens as a ceiling with holes in it...the underground as a place of the dead, doesn't get much play today - if any. Yes, I suppose you can have that kind of world/universe view today and be a part of the celebration of the Good News. But...it is not a necessary view that we must hold to be in the church. Such is the case with our battles around homosexuality. Our view of things have changed. Yes, some may think that gay and lesbian relationships are "unnatural" and therefore against God's will, but not all must believe that and it cannot be used like a law that would preclude people from complete incorporation in the life of the body of Christ. There are those scholars from may disciplines that would argue that the view presented in Scripture is not dealing with much of what we are looking at today and there would be others who would even say that the passages in Scripture do not condemn homosexuality but use it as part of a larger argument - for which we could use some other activities more universal to all of us. So...what can we say is a "discretionary church practice?" And what does that mean for the shape of the church among us?
Connection: We continue to move along into a new day. Unfortunately, we do not allow some of the parts of our lives to move along in time and be shaped anew. This is especially the case in regard to things we label "religious." In the meantime, we deny ourselves the opportunity to be the loving presence the Scriptures unveil without hesitation.
When you call us to follow, O God, we follow you in our time and we follow you with hearts that are open to how your Spirit breaks open each day and uses the gifts of your saints to re-view all things in accordance with your Good News. Continue to grant us courage and wisdom as we prayerfully consider the life of the body of Christ among us. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)