Dialog:  (Walking up to the podium, Michael trips over a Bible and initiates this conversation:  )
 Michael:  Excuse me, Does this Bible belong to you?
 Steve:  Who me?  Oh, I don't think so.
 Michael:  Well, It was just lying here.  Does it look familiar?
 Steve:  yeah, now that you mention it.  I think it belongs to Jerry Falwell.
 Michael:  Naw, this is an NIV.  Jerry uses a King James.
 Steve:  Well, could it be Jimmy Baker's?  I think he uses an NIV now and then.
 Michael:  Maybe. . . .  but he doesn't come to church here.
 Steve:  Right.  Uh, why don't you put it in the lost and found, maybe someone will claim it.
 Michael:  Hey, It's got your name in it.  (hand it to him, walk to the pulpit)
  Steve:  Well, I'll be.  That does look like my handwriting.

That man, seemingly normal to the casusal observer, is suffering from a condition that threatens the spiritual health of this community.  It's called Angst-scriptura, and in the next few minutes I'd like to familiarize you with the condition--its symptons, its cause, and its treatment.   I'll do so by reading a few excerpts from the paper I'm preparing for the New England Journal of Eternal Medicine.   Angst-scriptura is a localized, population-specific malady.  It afflicts primarily liberal Christians living in the Bible-belt region.  Characteristically, the condition lies dormant, then flares up due to certain environmental stimuli, such as watching the 700 Club or listening to the local Christian Radio station.  Its symptoms are one or more of the following:

1) a gnawing fear that the Bible really is on their side,
2) glazing of the eyes on hearing Psalm 23, John 14: 6, or other oft-quoted passages
3) a burning sensation caused by proof-texting,
4) cold chills at the phrase 'inspired, infallible Word of God', and
5) an irrational fear of invoking Biblical authority for  anything.

The afflicted have been known to seek out graduates of liberal seminaries for help . . . and in many cases this does ease the condition.  However, if left untreated Angst-scriptura causes spiritual disorientation, and terminal theological wishi-washiness.
What then, causes Angst-scriptura?  Its roots are environmental.  I will illustrate by giving a typical case history:  Menno Yoder-Stoltzfus.  Menno is a 33 year old social worker and peace activist.  He lives with his wife Kathy Yoder-Stolzfus in a renovated row house in the "wrong section of town."  Menno grew up on a Lancaster county farm; his family was active in the local Mennonite church.  As a child, Menno attended Good News club, and summer Bible school  In adolescence, he went LMH.  On Monday nights Menno went to Youth For Christ meetings, and weekends he was active on the Bible quiz team.  Menno's life changed dramatically, soon after he began attending EMC.  During his fours years of college Menno questioned everything.  To compound matters, he met Kathy Yoder who was also questioning everything.   Attracted by their common questions and shared idealism, Menno and Kathy decided to marry.  The two graduated with BA's, and faiths much different from their parents.

In spite of the fact that Menno swore he would never return to his home community (he claimed he would sooner move to the North Pole), he networked himself a counseling job in Lancaster city.  He currently attends a Muppie church where he feels quite comfortable, except when his parents visit.

 Menno's is the classic case of Angst-scriptura, brought on by the internal conflict of having a liberal conscious superimposed on a conservative sub-conscious. . . or if you will:  He's got an AMBS brain and a Calvary Hour conscience.
Consequently, Menno distrusts people who claim to have the answers, while secretly wishing he had a few more of his own.  He's rejected his parents approach to scripture, but hasn't totally decided what his ownh personal approach is.  He thinks his current set of tenets would have got him excommunicated at his home church, and feels alternately pleased and guilty about it.
He gives a respectable scriptural argument for women in leadership, outlawing capital punishment and toleration of homosexuals, but he knows where all the opposing scripture passages are and they bug him.

On his worst days, Menno is ready to mail his Bible to Jerry Falwell, and replace it with a copy of "Lake Wobegon Days."
I could spend more time telling you about Menno and Angst Scriptura, but I think you get the idea.  We recognize the symptoms.  There's probably a little bit of Menno Yoder-Stoltzfus in each of us.  So, by far the most important question of the morning is 'how Angst-scriptura sufferers reclaim the scriptures?  How can they overcome that dis-ease about interpretation?  If you came to me for help, I would tell you the following things:

 First, know your foundation.  Your anabaptist heritage is unique and valuable.  When it comes to Biblical interpretation, you can't play the Mennonite game by Scofield rules.  More than 400 years ago the anabaptists said, all scripture must be read in the light of the New Testament.  For them the New Testament was a higher authority than the Old.  For the conclusions they reached using this approach, they were burned at the stake.  With that in mind, it shouldn't surprise us in the least that we have fundamental disagreements with the Biblicists who start with the assumption that all Scripture is to be equally weighted.  For example, when confronted with the fact of Old Testament wars, and Jesus teachings on non-resistance and enemy-loving, anabaptists say Jesus is giving us a higher revelation, and the Biblicists say Jesus is talking about personal relationships, not international confrontations.  Different assumptions lead to different conclusions. . . Know your foundation.

Still at the foundation level . . . Biblicists (By the way, I chose Biblicists for a label because its one they would like) . . . Biblicists emphasize doctrine, and since Jesus wasn't given to making doctrinal statements they turn to Paul.  Anabaptists emphasize Jesus life and teachings, and living the life of a disciple. . . . we turn to the Gospels.  This was hit home to me when I attended a Nazarene Church in Columbia City, IN.  We were attracted by the warmth and friendliness of the people there, a great strength of the Nazarene Church.   But in six months of attending there, the only sermon from the Gospels I heard was about Peter, who sank in the waters of the Sea of Galilee because of his lack of faith.

 That just doesn't happen in the Mennonite Church, even in the most conservative.  In the realm of Biblical interpretation, a doctrinal approach leads you to a totally different place than a non-doctrinal one.  To demonstrate:  When in I Timothy 2,  Paul says the he doesn't permit women to teach or have authority over a man, the Biblicist will tell you that this is a point of doctrine, that it is of no less authority than if Jesus Christ himself had said it.  For an anabaptist it's not so easy, because you have to start back at the touchstone, which is Jesus Christ.  What did the life and teachings of Jesus have to say about roles of women.  That means you've got to do a lot of reading.  And when you get done, you'll find that Jesus didn't say much about how women were to act.  He didn't say they were to be silent, or that they weren't to teach.  He did manage to break a lot the social taboos regarding women and in general treated them like kingdom members.  But, more importantly Jesus did say some things about gifts.  Jesus said we'd better use the gifts that God has given us.  And I dare say that I have seen women with the gifts of preaching, and teaching, and interpretation of Scripture.  Which leads me to say that Paul's advice to Timothy was pragmatic advice in a Patriarchal society, but not a holy law for all ages.  I repeat, Know your Foundation:  Jesus Christ--his life and teachings.  Start and finish your search for truth with him.

Second point, be innovative in your approach to Biblical interpretation.  The Biblicist has basically one approach and that is a literal one.  The Biblicist's stated goal in Biblical interpretation then, is to find the single, pristine, and true meaning of a particular passage.  Now, lest I be misunderstood, I will say here that literal interpretation is an important tool in any Bible student's methodology.  But by itself, literal interpretation is better suited to Biology Texts than the Bible.  In a biology text no one expects allegory, or for the literal meaning to be shaded by adjacent passages, or affected by the cultural context;  In a biology text no one expects the Krebb's cycle to be different on p. 43 than it is on p. 36, and after you use it for ten years, you get a new up-to-date one.

The Bible, however, isn't a biology text, it is literature--holy, inspired literature.  And literature isn't and never was meant to be read just literally.  I read George Orwell's Animal Farm when I was in 7th grade, and I thought it was a funny story about farm animals who took over the farm.  Sort of like what happens in Porky Pig cartoons.  That's a fairly acurate literal reading of the text, but I doubt if George Orwell would have called it the definitive reading.  Animal Farm is an allegory of the Russian revolution--the literal meaning is subservient to the allegorical meaning.  The Bible should be approached as if it had multiple levels of meaning.  You may not find them everywhere, but I think it would be a mistake not to look.    Now, you might think looking for multiple levels of meaning in the Bible is some new-fangled, left-wing artifice for undermining its literal meaning, but it's not.  Six hundred years ago the Italian poet Dante Alighieri wrote this advice on the interpretation of his work, Divine Comedy using an example from scripture:

". . . For the first meaning is that which one derives from the things signified by the letter.  The first is called "literal" and the second "allegorical," or "mystical."  So that this method of exposition may be clearer, one may consider it in these lines:  "When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from people of strange language, Judah was his sanctuary and Israel his dominion  (Psalm 114: 1-2).  If we look only at the letter, this signifies that the children of Israel went out of Egypt in the time of Moses;  if we look at the allegory, it signifies our redemption through Christ; if we look at the moral sense, it signifies the turning of the soul from the sorrow and misery of sin to a state of grace;  if we look at the anagogical (or mystical) sense, it signifies the passage of the blessed soul from the slavery of this corruption to the freedom of eternal glory."

I bet he would preach sermon that would make your head spin, particularly since it would be in Italian.   My point here is not trying to bewilder anyone with the complexity of the intrepretive task.  On the contrary, I want to see people free to explore the richness of the Biblical text, using a whole range of approaches.  There's always more there than you thought.

If you're like me, though,  reading for allegorical meanings probably doesn't come naturally.  But just for the fun of it, sometime read the Israelites' conquest of the promised land as an allegory of the individual's battle for victory over sin. Or try looking for types of Christ in the Old Testament--Medieval theologians found scores of them.

Set yourself free.  Laura Mueller told us to imagine we're are back in Bible times. . . do it. . . do it while you're reading the text.  But also, imagine that the Bible was written in the 1980's--where would Jesus come?  Who would be his disciples?  housewives? factory workers? central american farmers?  Who would the Romans be? who would the pharisees be?  Fundamentalists?  Muppies?  I bet there wouldn't be nearly as much fishing imagery.  Would God still tell us to redistribute the wealth in the Jubilee year?  Would Jesus videotape his teachings for future generations?  The possibilities are endless, and provocative.

This little methodology sampler would be imcomplete without mentioning Story Theology.  Story Theology is one of the prevalent and most exciting lines of thinking coming out of our Mennonite Seminaries today.   I think of it as sort of back to nature approach to the Bible.  It's premise as I understand it is that the Bible is best thought of not as a rule book or book of doctrines, but as a collection of stories of God's revelation to his chosen people Israelites.  The goal for Bible reading then becomes "What is God saying to us today through these stories."

I've barely scratched the surface of all the tools and approaches to interpretation, but since there is a time frame for this talk I'll simply refer you to your friendly neighborhood literature prof or theologian for more ideas.  Get lots of tools and use them creatively.  Be innovative in your approach to scripture.

Finally, point three for those of you taking notes, believe God wants to speak to you through Scripture.  Believe it.  That's not to say God isn't trying to speak to you in other ways, He will if you'll listen.  But God does want you to find His truth in the Bible.   I've discussed some of the more controversial points of this sermon with fundamentally-inclined Christians, and needless to say we didn't agree.  From their vantage point, it looks like I'm trying to explain away the parts of the Bible I don't agree with, watering down the faith.   I contend that the result is just the opposite.  Take a Christ-centered approach to your Bible reading, and you will be enlightened, enlivened and challenged. . . and you'll banish thoughts of mailing your Bible to Jerry Falwell forever.  Amen.