It is easy to believe what the Bible says is what the Bible says. As in, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” Not so fast, and for a whole bunch of reasons.

For instance,

• the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were written 40 years or more after Jesus died. John was written still later, about 60 years after Jesus’ death. They were written down from stories they remembered about Jesus that had been passed down from the original disciples and others who followed the Way of Jesus.
• We do not have the original manuscripts. What we do have is copies of copies of copies of copies.
• They were written in an ancient form of Greek called Koine Greek, which apparently disappeared around 300 AD, and which is not as easy to translate as one might think. Words had different meanings to them than they have to us.
• “Love” is an example. They Greeks had several words to describe nuances of “love” whereas we have but one, which is generally accepted as romantic love. Not so in Koine Greek. Jesus did not romantically love (eros) but sacrificially loved (agape).
• Another example: their word for “faith” is not only a noun, but also an active verb, as in “to faith.”
• They had different verb tenses that are lost on us in English.
• They had a word for singular “you”, and another one for the plural “you” which can be troublesome in our Age of the Individual.
• There are a couple of mystery words. One of them is in the Lord’s Prayer. Epiousios is translated “daily”, as in “give us this day our DAILY bread (Luke 11:8, NRSV), but that word is not found elsewhere in the Bible. Nor is it found in other classical Greek literature. The only example scholars have been able to find of this word is in a bill of lading. The usual words translated “daily” are kath hemeran. “Daily” seem to fit, but we really don’t know what epiousios means.
• The manuscripts were written in all capital letters without spaces and punctuation creating yet another problem for translators.

A friend loaned my wife a book the other day on the importance of punctuation: Eats Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss. (You get a different message if you put in commas.) She cites an example of punctuation in the Bible. Jesus is on the cross between two robbers who were also being crucified. One of the robbers says to him, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us.” The other criminal rebukes him, and says to Jesus, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus response is, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23: 39-43, NRSV). Sounds like Jesus is saying to this second robber that he will be resurrected with Jesus. Truly good news for him and for us. But move that pesky comma, which was not in the original manuscript, remember, and this is what your get: “Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.” The robber (and us) still has a promise of being with Jesus in Paradise. But when? Today? Or sometime in the future? Lynne Truss points out that huge doctrinal differences hang on the placing of this comma. and Indeed they do. Move the comma and you have room for purgatory. Move the comma, and you have room for the Hebrew understanding of resurrection of the dead. Move the comma, and you have room for a theology of the last days. A whole lot depends on the placement of one pesky comma. Frankly, I like not having the comma there at all and leaving room for some mystery. But that is just me.

Bottom line: when we read Scripture, we need to read it with some humility and not assume what is being written is black and white. There is a whole lot of shades of gray. But then that is what faith is all about, isn’t it?

One of the things I want to do in this blog is throw out some emergence Christianity thoughts and, hopefully, get some comments back. One that has popped up a couple of times recently is atonement. A year or so ago, I read Tony Jones’ book A Better Atonement, available only as an ebook. It is very good, an easy read, and I highly recommend it.

An important thing to recognize is that atonement is a theory not a doctrine. That means that the “church” has not ruled one theory is right while all others is wrong (a doctrine) like original sin. So we are “allowed” to accept one theory that seems right to us, or even change our perspective from time to time based on our experience. I’d love to blog on original sin one of the days soon.

Here are some of the categories Tony Jones offers:

1. Penal Substitution (Anselm, 1097). Jesus must be punished in substitution for God’s wrath, paying the penalty for all of us. This is likely the dominant theory in our churches.

2. Substitution without penalty. Jesus substitutes for us to satisfy God’s wrath, but there is no penalty to pay.

3. Union with God. This one is from Orthodox Christianity (which did not accept Augustine and the Doctrine of Original Sin). The work of atonement is an invitation into an eternal, loving relationship with the Trinity.

4. Ransom Captive (Origen). Satan controls our freedom, so we are in captivity to Satan. God offers the Son as a ransom for us, but Jesus is resurrected to trick Satan.

5. Christus Victor (Gustav Aulen). Crucifixion is an act of divine love as a victory over sin and death, and a defeat of Satan. Humanity is liberated to live lives of love.

6. Moral Exemplar (Abelard). In the Old Testament God tried to get people to lead upright lives through the Law, the sacrificial system and the Prophets. It failed. Jesus came as the perfect example of life and sacrifice. In Jesus’ death we are inspired to lead better lives. Free will is at the core of this theory.

7. The Last Scapegoat. In the Old Testament, a goat or sheep was loaded with the sins of the people and sent out into the wilderness as an act of atonement. In this theory, God, himself, becomes the scapegoat.

8. God’s solidarity for us (Moltmann). God is in the midst of our godlessness and/or godforsakenness. We experience with God, finding God in the midst of our chaos, disasters, crises, etc.

I have been a Lutheran for almost 35 years now (some would say all my life, but I didn’t know it). In 1986 I was ordained as a Lutheran pastor and have served Lutheran congregations for 27 years in Washington State and Arizona. Then, in 2009, while just beginning to serve a Lutheran congregation in Willcox AZ, I met an Episcopal priest who was an assistant to the bishop of Arizona (Canon to the Ordinary, for those who speak Episcopalian). Shortly thereafter, he introduced me to the bishop who invited me to become vicar at a small congregation in Benson AZ. Sounded like an adventure to me, so I said yes! But what was I now? Not just a Lutheran anymore. Not just an Episcopalian, either. I was both. I thought about being a Lutherpalian, but that wouldn’t fit on a license plate. Epilute would. So there you have it. I have been one of a very few special people who claim both Lutheran and Episcopal as their home and enjoy the best of both worlds. And the only one in Arizona with a license plate that proclaims me as an “Epilute”.