We're all shocked at the recent stories of child neglect. And it's right that we're shocked - the day we're not shocked will be a terrible day.
But perhaps we should also be shocked at our neglect of Christ.
Since 'In him God has given me so much that heaven can give no more', my gratitude, my affection, my attention towards him should be complete. But it's not. I neglect him. And that's the essence of all my sin. If I gave Jesus my full and complete attention, I would not sin.
But the wonderful vision of Revelation is of Jesus being the focus of all attention because the curse of sin has been removed, 'No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.' From that day on Jesus will never again be neglected.
Fortunately, as we await that great and glorious day, we receive constant mercy and forgiveness from Jesus the Son; teaching and encouragement from the Spirit through the word; and the Father's tender care.
Saturday 29 August 2009
Friday 28 August 2009
More to life?
I read this today:
But do I desire more?
If so, I've made an idol. An idol that cannot speak. Or hear. Or act.
Why would I be so stupid?
In Christ you [God] have given me so much that heaven can give me no more.
But do I desire more?
If so, I've made an idol. An idol that cannot speak. Or hear. Or act.
Why would I be so stupid?
Monday 24 August 2009
Practising what I preach
On Sunday, I said that in our quiet times we should follow the author of Psalm 119, and pray, 'Open my eyes that I might see wonderful things in your Law'. And I said that this meant reading about God's great wonders in the past and seeing how they applied to us today.
So, I've been reading Matthew 27:45-54:
But why does Matthew say that those who were raised were, 'the saints' / 'the holy ones' / 'the sanctified'? Well, the tearing of the temple curtain shows that the old sacrificial system was replaced by the sacrificial death of Jesus. The 'saints' were those who had been 'made holy' under the old system - those who believed and kept God's covenant by confessing their sins and sacrificing an animal as a substitute for themselves - the animal died, they were free. Now, it's not those who sacrifice animals who are made holy, but those who come to Jesus - his is the final sacrifice, the one who brings full and final forgiveness, who makes us holy and enables us to be raised to life with him.
So today I'm encouraged to keep on believing that my hope beyond death is indeed in Jesus Christ. Resurrection isn't 'pie in the sky when you die', but a definite hope based on solid evidence!
So, I've been reading Matthew 27:45-54:
And Jesus again cried out in a loud voice and gave up his spirit. Suddenly the temple curtain was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook and the rocks were split apart and the tombs were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had died were raised, and the came out of the tombs after his resurrection, went into the holy city and appeared to many.Why did Matthew include this? Surely it's to demonstrate that it's the death & resurrection of Jesus that brings about the resurrection of the 'saints' or 'holy ones', and if my eyes are open to 'wonderful things', I will see that this encourages me to trust that Jesus has power over life and death - my life and my death.
But why does Matthew say that those who were raised were, 'the saints' / 'the holy ones' / 'the sanctified'? Well, the tearing of the temple curtain shows that the old sacrificial system was replaced by the sacrificial death of Jesus. The 'saints' were those who had been 'made holy' under the old system - those who believed and kept God's covenant by confessing their sins and sacrificing an animal as a substitute for themselves - the animal died, they were free. Now, it's not those who sacrifice animals who are made holy, but those who come to Jesus - his is the final sacrifice, the one who brings full and final forgiveness, who makes us holy and enables us to be raised to life with him.
So today I'm encouraged to keep on believing that my hope beyond death is indeed in Jesus Christ. Resurrection isn't 'pie in the sky when you die', but a definite hope based on solid evidence!
Sunday 23 August 2009
Back preaching
I really enjoyed preaching again this morning - and what a great Psalm to start afresh with! I'm off to St John's this evening to preach it again; I haven't preached there for about 11 years, so it will be an odd experience (but they still use the lectern I chose!).
I thought that our new arrangements for the Lord's Supper went well this morning, and all the feedback was positive. So unless anyone has any ideas for improvements, we'll do the same next month.
[David P - I hope this post isn't too technical for you!!]
I thought that our new arrangements for the Lord's Supper went well this morning, and all the feedback was positive. So unless anyone has any ideas for improvements, we'll do the same next month.
[David P - I hope this post isn't too technical for you!!]
Wednesday 19 August 2009
Schism
Michael Nazir-Ali, our bishop, has written a bold summary of the crisis in the Anglican Communion in the Washington Times (it's no longer on their website, so I've posted it in full). If you're not sure what it all the fuss is about, this is a concise summary.
Episcopal gay moves risk schism
the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali
The Episcopal Church in the United States has done it again. Having marched out of step with the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion, American Episcopalians have declared their intention to walk even further apart.
The world knows about the ordination of a bishop in a same-sex relationship and the ways in which that has torn the fabric of the communion, as the primates have said, at its deepest level. (This, by the way, is also a classic description of schism.) It also is widely known that people have their same-sex unions "blessed" in many parts of the Episcopal Church and such people also can be candidates for ordination.
All this continues despite the clear teaching of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that it should not.
So what is new? In passing Resolution DO25, the General Convention has openly stated that ordination should be open to those living in same-sex unions, which it also regards as exemplifying "holy love." In a further resolution, CO56, the Episcopal Church has agreed to bring liturgies for blessing same-sex relationships to the next General Convention, in 2012, for final approval.
Why are all of these developments important? Are they not simply a formalizing of what happens anyway, and is the church not just reflecting the culture in which it is set?
Let it be said, straightaway, that this issue is not a second- or lower-order one on which Christians can agree to disagree. It profoundly has to do with how men and women are created together in God's image and together given a common mission in the world. This mission they fulfill in ways that are both distinctive and complementary.
No Bible-believing Christian can say that "men are from Mars and women from Venus." They are not distinct species but have been made for each other in their distinctiveness and complement each other. This is the burden of the earliest chapters of Genesis that are strongly and unambiguously affirmed in the teaching of Jesus himself. As a whole, the Bible's teaching on human sexuality clearly affirms that the proper expression of our sexual nature is within the context of married love. The alternative, for those who have this gift, is dedicated singleness in the fulfillment of God's purposes.
In the pagan world, in which the Bible was written, such a view was vigorously countercultural. Many of Israel's neighbors tolerated both heterosexual and homosexual practices that are rejected by the Bible because they violate the holiness of God, the order of creation and respect for persons.
It is often the case that where the fundamental teaching of the Bible regarding marriage is not upheld, the status of women, in particular, suffers and they are reduced to being either a source for male self-gratification or chattel who maintain the home while men seek gratification elsewhere.
Today also, in the context of permissive cultures, the church has sometimes to take a countercultural stand so that the dignity of persons, made in God's image, is not debased.
As to same-sex attraction, there may be a predisposition toward it, even if we do not know all the reasons for it. That does not mean it must be gratified. Not every desire can or should be given active expression.
There may be relationship issues with a parent or a seeking of the man or the woman "I want to be" in others of the same sex. Those in such situations need to be cared for and to know that God loves them. They need to be helped so they can conform their lives to the stature of the fullness of Christ.
As they are welcomed to church and hear God's word, they will meet with Christ and be transformed by the renewal of their minds, spirits and bodies. They will be nurtured by word and sacrament but also by friendship.
Again and again, people say it is the affirmation of Christian friends, the role model of a wise, perhaps older Christian and the fellowship of the church family that have brought them to a new place in their discipleship.
None of this seems to bother the decision-makers in the Episcopal Church (though it may bother the faithful more than we think). They will have caused a schism despite repeated entreaties by the rest of the communion not to take unilateral action that contravenes the teaching of the Bible, the unanimous teaching of the church down the ages and the understanding of the vast majority of Christians today.
There can be little doubt that the latest moves in the Episcopal Church will further damage the fellowship among Anglicans. There will be more talk of the rupture, impairment of communion and the like. The moves also will further damage ecumenical relations with other churches, such as the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and various evangelical and Pentecostal bodies. Interfaith dialogue, especially with Muslims, also has been adversely affected, with dialogue partners asking how what they have hitherto regarded as a "heavenly religion" can sanction a practice that most religions do not permit.
In all this, those who remain orthodox in faith and morals will need to remember that any disruption of fellowship is for the sake of discipline and the eventual restoration of those who have chosen to go their own way to the common faith and life of the church. It is for this that we must work and pray.
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali is Anglican bishop of Rochester in England. The bishop was born in Pakistan and ministered there as well as in Britain and elsewhere. He has both a Muslim and a Christian family background.
Episcopal gay moves risk schism
the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali
The Episcopal Church in the United States has done it again. Having marched out of step with the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion, American Episcopalians have declared their intention to walk even further apart.
The world knows about the ordination of a bishop in a same-sex relationship and the ways in which that has torn the fabric of the communion, as the primates have said, at its deepest level. (This, by the way, is also a classic description of schism.) It also is widely known that people have their same-sex unions "blessed" in many parts of the Episcopal Church and such people also can be candidates for ordination.
All this continues despite the clear teaching of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that it should not.
So what is new? In passing Resolution DO25, the General Convention has openly stated that ordination should be open to those living in same-sex unions, which it also regards as exemplifying "holy love." In a further resolution, CO56, the Episcopal Church has agreed to bring liturgies for blessing same-sex relationships to the next General Convention, in 2012, for final approval.
Why are all of these developments important? Are they not simply a formalizing of what happens anyway, and is the church not just reflecting the culture in which it is set?
Let it be said, straightaway, that this issue is not a second- or lower-order one on which Christians can agree to disagree. It profoundly has to do with how men and women are created together in God's image and together given a common mission in the world. This mission they fulfill in ways that are both distinctive and complementary.
No Bible-believing Christian can say that "men are from Mars and women from Venus." They are not distinct species but have been made for each other in their distinctiveness and complement each other. This is the burden of the earliest chapters of Genesis that are strongly and unambiguously affirmed in the teaching of Jesus himself. As a whole, the Bible's teaching on human sexuality clearly affirms that the proper expression of our sexual nature is within the context of married love. The alternative, for those who have this gift, is dedicated singleness in the fulfillment of God's purposes.
In the pagan world, in which the Bible was written, such a view was vigorously countercultural. Many of Israel's neighbors tolerated both heterosexual and homosexual practices that are rejected by the Bible because they violate the holiness of God, the order of creation and respect for persons.
It is often the case that where the fundamental teaching of the Bible regarding marriage is not upheld, the status of women, in particular, suffers and they are reduced to being either a source for male self-gratification or chattel who maintain the home while men seek gratification elsewhere.
Today also, in the context of permissive cultures, the church has sometimes to take a countercultural stand so that the dignity of persons, made in God's image, is not debased.
As to same-sex attraction, there may be a predisposition toward it, even if we do not know all the reasons for it. That does not mean it must be gratified. Not every desire can or should be given active expression.
There may be relationship issues with a parent or a seeking of the man or the woman "I want to be" in others of the same sex. Those in such situations need to be cared for and to know that God loves them. They need to be helped so they can conform their lives to the stature of the fullness of Christ.
As they are welcomed to church and hear God's word, they will meet with Christ and be transformed by the renewal of their minds, spirits and bodies. They will be nurtured by word and sacrament but also by friendship.
Again and again, people say it is the affirmation of Christian friends, the role model of a wise, perhaps older Christian and the fellowship of the church family that have brought them to a new place in their discipleship.
None of this seems to bother the decision-makers in the Episcopal Church (though it may bother the faithful more than we think). They will have caused a schism despite repeated entreaties by the rest of the communion not to take unilateral action that contravenes the teaching of the Bible, the unanimous teaching of the church down the ages and the understanding of the vast majority of Christians today.
There can be little doubt that the latest moves in the Episcopal Church will further damage the fellowship among Anglicans. There will be more talk of the rupture, impairment of communion and the like. The moves also will further damage ecumenical relations with other churches, such as the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and various evangelical and Pentecostal bodies. Interfaith dialogue, especially with Muslims, also has been adversely affected, with dialogue partners asking how what they have hitherto regarded as a "heavenly religion" can sanction a practice that most religions do not permit.
In all this, those who remain orthodox in faith and morals will need to remember that any disruption of fellowship is for the sake of discipline and the eventual restoration of those who have chosen to go their own way to the common faith and life of the church. It is for this that we must work and pray.
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali is Anglican bishop of Rochester in England. The bishop was born in Pakistan and ministered there as well as in Britain and elsewhere. He has both a Muslim and a Christian family background.
Monday 17 August 2009
Renovation!
Let me know the need of renovation as well as of forgiveness,
in order to serve and enjoy thee for ever.
'Valley of Vision', p5.
A great day!
Yesterday (Sunday) was a great day!
It was so good to be back home with the St Peter's family after 4 months of sojourning at other churches. I was taken aback by the warmth of welcome and by the enthusiasm of the singing - and it's not as if the hymns were especially well-known.
When I got home, I was reminded of the difference between attending church and leading church. Throughout my sabbatical, I'd come home and get lunch or go out in the garden. But yesterday it was back to normal - I came home and just flopped down exhausted!
But I recuperated quickly, and after lunch laid a concrete base for the water butt (!) before heading off to Cath & Barry's for the footy. What a result! (in case you don't follow these things: Spurs 2 Liverpool 1). What's more there was a fabulous bbq and good conversations.
The latter began when I revealed I was a vicar.
'What do you do all day?'
'Well, I've just been on sabbatical.'
'What did you do?'
'I studied 2nd century Greek New Testament manuscripts.'
And the conversation turned to the evidence for Jesus.
Please, God, may this conversation one day lead to saving faith.
It was so good to be back home with the St Peter's family after 4 months of sojourning at other churches. I was taken aback by the warmth of welcome and by the enthusiasm of the singing - and it's not as if the hymns were especially well-known.
When I got home, I was reminded of the difference between attending church and leading church. Throughout my sabbatical, I'd come home and get lunch or go out in the garden. But yesterday it was back to normal - I came home and just flopped down exhausted!
But I recuperated quickly, and after lunch laid a concrete base for the water butt (!) before heading off to Cath & Barry's for the footy. What a result! (in case you don't follow these things: Spurs 2 Liverpool 1). What's more there was a fabulous bbq and good conversations.
The latter began when I revealed I was a vicar.
'What do you do all day?'
'Well, I've just been on sabbatical.'
'What did you do?'
'I studied 2nd century Greek New Testament manuscripts.'
And the conversation turned to the evidence for Jesus.
Please, God, may this conversation one day lead to saving faith.
Friday 14 August 2009
Back to work!
Well, it's nearly 8 am and I'm at my desk making a list of jobs for today: sermon prep., see Mary in the office, finish the autumn preaching rota, catch up on PCC business & write a Standing & Finance Committee agenda, phone Tom & Ros about their wedding, sort out HAHA service...
I'm glad that I'd always planned to save the beginning of the week to sort out emails, post and do some sermon prep. - it means the desk is not too cluttered this morning.
So... I'd beter get on!
I'm glad that I'd always planned to save the beginning of the week to sort out emails, post and do some sermon prep. - it means the desk is not too cluttered this morning.
So... I'd beter get on!
Wednesday 12 August 2009
Publication draws closer
I received an encouraging email from Tyndale House today. Dirk Jongkind has looked at my paper, suggested a handful of fairly minor amendments, and thinks we can get it published.
Of course today is the last day of my sabbatical (tomorrow will be a day off) - so I've rushed ahead with the changes, and we'll wait and see what happens.
Of course today is the last day of my sabbatical (tomorrow will be a day off) - so I've rushed ahead with the changes, and we'll wait and see what happens.
God the all
Not surprisingly, I'm not the first person to quote this from prayer from "The Valley of Vision: a collection of puritan prayers & devotions":
Deep down, every Christian knows the truth that 'there is no comfort in anything apart from enjoying God and being engaged in his service'. I pray that God would give us the grace & power to make this a reality.
As far as decision making goes, the idea that God would 'decide for me in any affair' fills me with hope that it might be so. For, as Psalm 119 reminds us, 'Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord. Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.'
Finally, the emphasis on our total dependence on God's grace is typical of the puritans, and a wonderful source of assurance.
O God whose will conquers all,A couple of things:
There is no comfort in anything
apart from enjoying thee
and being engaged in thy service;
Thou art All in all, and all enjoyments are what to me
thou makest them, and no more.
I am well pleased with thy will, whatever it is,
or should be in all respects,
And if thou bidst me decide for myself in any affair
I would choose to refer all to thee,
for thou art infinitely wise and cannot do amiss,
as I am in danger of doing.
I rejoice to think that all things are at thy disposal,
and it delights me to leave them there.
Then prayer turns wholly into praise,
and all I can do is to adore and bless thee.
What shall I give thee for all thy benefits?
I am in a strait betwixt two, knowing not what to do;
I long to make some return, but have nothing to offer,
and can only rejoice that thou doest all,
that none in heaven or on earth shares thy honour;
I can of myself do nothing to glorify thy blessed name,
but I can through grace cheerfully surrender soul and body to thee,
I know that thou art the author and finisher of faith,
that the whole work of redemption is thine alone,
that every good work or thought found in me
is the effect of thy power and grace,
that thy sole motive in working in me to will and to do
is for thy good pleasure.
O God, it is amazing that men can talk so much
about man's creaturely power and goodness,
when, if thou didst not hold us back every moment,
we should be devils incarnate.
This, by bitter experience, thou hast taught me concerning myself.
Deep down, every Christian knows the truth that 'there is no comfort in anything apart from enjoying God and being engaged in his service'. I pray that God would give us the grace & power to make this a reality.
As far as decision making goes, the idea that God would 'decide for me in any affair' fills me with hope that it might be so. For, as Psalm 119 reminds us, 'Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord. Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.'
Finally, the emphasis on our total dependence on God's grace is typical of the puritans, and a wonderful source of assurance.
Monday 10 August 2009
The Father loves the Son
John 5:16-30 is a remarkable passage. It is full of deep theology about the relationship between God the Father and God the Son - too much for a blog, but here's one thought for now:
In v26, Jesus says, "as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself." Now we know that God depends on no-one for his life. He is self-existent. But what about the Son? Because we are good credal Chrsitians, we naturally think and say that the Son is also self-existent - that he too has 'life-in-himself', and therefore depends on no-one for his own life.
And yet, Jesus says that the Father has 'granted' life to the Son - the Son is dependent on the Father granting him life.
But the Son's life is also 'life-in-himself' - it is not dependent on somone else, but inherent! How do we square this circle?
The answer must lie outside of time. The Father grants the Son 'life-in-himself' in eternity. So we can't even say that the Father has always and will always grant the Son life - that's using time to define what is outside time. Instead, we must say that the Son's life proceeds from the Father as part of the Trinity's very being - it's more about who God is than what he does.
If you find all this hard to understand, that's because 1) I'm not good at explaining it, and 2) neither you nor I are like the Son to whom God explains everything, 'For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.'
Don Carson explains all this in a brilliant lecture series entitled 'The Spirituality of the Gospel of John'. Each of the 5 lectures is about an hour long, and is aimed at people with some theological education. But you might want to give it a go - if you're brave!
In v26, Jesus says, "as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself." Now we know that God depends on no-one for his life. He is self-existent. But what about the Son? Because we are good credal Chrsitians, we naturally think and say that the Son is also self-existent - that he too has 'life-in-himself', and therefore depends on no-one for his own life.
And yet, Jesus says that the Father has 'granted' life to the Son - the Son is dependent on the Father granting him life.
But the Son's life is also 'life-in-himself' - it is not dependent on somone else, but inherent! How do we square this circle?
The answer must lie outside of time. The Father grants the Son 'life-in-himself' in eternity. So we can't even say that the Father has always and will always grant the Son life - that's using time to define what is outside time. Instead, we must say that the Son's life proceeds from the Father as part of the Trinity's very being - it's more about who God is than what he does.
If you find all this hard to understand, that's because 1) I'm not good at explaining it, and 2) neither you nor I are like the Son to whom God explains everything, 'For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.'
Don Carson explains all this in a brilliant lecture series entitled 'The Spirituality of the Gospel of John'. Each of the 5 lectures is about an hour long, and is aimed at people with some theological education. But you might want to give it a go - if you're brave!
Thursday 6 August 2009
What's God entrusted to me?
It's a good question to be asking!
In the parable, the immediate answer seems to be money (v18). But I think it's fair to cast the net wider. Elsewhere, Jesus talks about giving up our lives to serve him (e.g Luke 9:23-26), so ultimately God has entrusted us with life itself. Our lives are a gift from God, and are therefore only properly used when used in his service.
But what exactly does it mean to serve God? Well, in the next section of Matthew 25, Jesus talks about how we should use our lives in caring for other (sometimes persecuted) Christians - feeding, clothing, being hospitable, caring when sick, visiting when imprisoned for the faith. When we do these things for fellow believers ('these brothers of mine' refers to Christians, not everyone), we do them for God himself. So serving one-another in the church family is serving God, and we all have the necessary 'talent' to do some of these very practical and simple things!
It's also true that we need to be willing to share our knowledge of Jesus in both word and deed - either one without the other is plain hypocrisy.
In the parable, the immediate answer seems to be money (v18). But I think it's fair to cast the net wider. Elsewhere, Jesus talks about giving up our lives to serve him (e.g Luke 9:23-26), so ultimately God has entrusted us with life itself. Our lives are a gift from God, and are therefore only properly used when used in his service.
But what exactly does it mean to serve God? Well, in the next section of Matthew 25, Jesus talks about how we should use our lives in caring for other (sometimes persecuted) Christians - feeding, clothing, being hospitable, caring when sick, visiting when imprisoned for the faith. When we do these things for fellow believers ('these brothers of mine' refers to Christians, not everyone), we do them for God himself. So serving one-another in the church family is serving God, and we all have the necessary 'talent' to do some of these very practical and simple things!
It's also true that we need to be willing to share our knowledge of Jesus in both word and deed - either one without the other is plain hypocrisy.
Tuesday 4 August 2009
Talents
In the parable of the talents (Matt 25) a master, who is going away for a time, entrusts his 'talents' (i.e. money, v18) to three slaves; 5 talents to one, 2 to another and 1 to the final slave. The first two slaves put the money to work (we're not told how) and make 100% return (what wouldn't people give for that today?!!). The slave who had one talent did what was accepted practice in those days, and hid it - buried it. It was safe. Nothing wrong with that, Jesus' hearers would think.
But as ever, Jesus shocks them. He is a wicked and lazy slave. His excuse, that his master was harsh, is no excuse at all. He will be punished for his wickedness.
Now it's that last part - that the slave is punished for fearing his master - that so hard to understand. But the slave's excuse is just that - an excuse. The the other slaves, who have the same master, found ways of putting the talents to work - and they risked more than the final slave! And in any case, as Jesus says, the money could always have been deposited safely in the bank and earned interest without taking a risk(!) (Jews were not allowed to charge fellow Jews interest, but were allowed to charge Gentiles).
So you need to read between the lines a little with this parable to see why Jesus' verdict on the man is not harsh, but just. The slave was making excuses for his laziness. He buried what his master had entrusted to him, and got on with his own life, ignoring his master's wishes. And the final judgement is the final judgement. The first two slaves 'enter into their master's joy', while the final slave is 'cast out into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth'.
What are you doing with what God has entrusted to you?
But as ever, Jesus shocks them. He is a wicked and lazy slave. His excuse, that his master was harsh, is no excuse at all. He will be punished for his wickedness.
Now it's that last part - that the slave is punished for fearing his master - that so hard to understand. But the slave's excuse is just that - an excuse. The the other slaves, who have the same master, found ways of putting the talents to work - and they risked more than the final slave! And in any case, as Jesus says, the money could always have been deposited safely in the bank and earned interest without taking a risk(!) (Jews were not allowed to charge fellow Jews interest, but were allowed to charge Gentiles).
So you need to read between the lines a little with this parable to see why Jesus' verdict on the man is not harsh, but just. The slave was making excuses for his laziness. He buried what his master had entrusted to him, and got on with his own life, ignoring his master's wishes. And the final judgement is the final judgement. The first two slaves 'enter into their master's joy', while the final slave is 'cast out into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth'.
What are you doing with what God has entrusted to you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)