Against LSM's Allegorizing

[UntoHim]

Welcome to the forum RollingStone!

And a hearty welcome back to my friend kisstheson (or "smooch the Savior" as I think you were called in that parody somebody once did)

Leave it to another provocative piece by professor Tomes to get the juices running again! I've been in communication with Nigel about writing an in depth piece concerning 1 Corinthians 15:45 & 2 Corinthians 3:17, even providing him with a boatload of ammunition, but he won't indulge me. He better reconsider quick before I take on the task myself - Yikes...what a train wreck that could be! For the few of you out there who aren't already P.O'd at me that will probably put you over the edge for sure.

Hey Harold, buddy, friend, chief contrarian...

Allegorizing is used to develop mass hysteria like that seen at the Salem witch trials.
Allegorizing allows the imagination to go wild, and to appear to be based upon scripture when it ain't.

So ALL allegorizing leads to mass hysteria? Really? Like that seen at the Salem witch trials? What about the allegorizing that was done by the Lord Jesus...did that lead to mass hysteria or to witch trials? Of course not. Did the allegorizing done by the apostle Paul lead to mass hysteria or to witch trials? Of course not. The mass hysteria and witch trials were/are the production of sinful men totally apart from the instruction and inspiration of God and His Word.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey Harold, buddy, friend, chief contrarian...
So ALL allegorizing leads to mass hysteria? Really? Like that seen at the Salem witch trials? What about the allegorizing that was done by the Lord Jesus...did that lead to mass hysteria or to witch trials? Of course not. Did the allegorizing done by the apostle Paul lead to mass hysteria or to witch trials? Of course not. The mass hysteria and witch trials were/are the production of sinful men totally apart from the instruction and inspiration of God and His Word.

Now now buddy, friend, brother, defender of the faith, please don't tell me you are defending Lee's misuse of allegory of the Bible.

And I know you're not defending the Catholic Church's misuse and abuse of allegorizing of the Bible during the long dark ages.

You read Nigel's opus on misuse of allegory. And you know that difference between allegory in scripture, and allegorizing of scripture, where it isn't found in scripture.

As far as the mass hysteria remark, how can you deny it, that the local church was a type of mass hysteria?

You act like I wasn't there. But I was. I remember all the crazy public calling on the lord in the streets between meetings at conferences. I remember driving from west Detroit to downtown Detroit, for work, calling all the way there and back. And going to a conference from the C. in Ft. Lauderdale to Atlanta, having to call on the lord every time we passed a "call box" along the freeway. I remember even some meetings where all we did was call on the lord ; and the shouting and screaming that drove the neighbors crazy.

That was a type of mass hysteria. Maybe people weren't literally hung like at the Salem witch trials, but many were hung out to dry.

See it for what it was bro UnToHim. It was too a type of mass hysteria.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

As far as the mass hysteria remark, how can you deny it, that the local church was a type of mass hysteria?

You act like I wasn't there. But I was. I remember all the crazy public calling on the lord in the streets between meetings at conferences.

I don't see how WL's misuse of allegorizing scripture could lead to mass hysteria by calling on the name of the Lord. First of all, his abuse of allegorizing scripture, at worst, could be accounted for excessive fear holding us in bondage. This hysteria talk should probably be in a new thread.

The excesses of "calling" were more due to superstitions about entering the Lord's presence, and I attribute most of that to the 60's, with a youthful culture very conducive to craziness of all forms, coupled with drug-damaged emotional instabilities. I knew one brother who was in NoCal and he actually climbed into a dumpster to scream louder. We have to understand these strange events in the context of the day. Young people were far more "trusting" in those days and willing to "experiment" with every new thing that came from Calif. I knew other Christians who suddenly left all to move to some west coast commune after getting saved. All kinds of weird stuff happened, both within and without the Recovery. Campuses were filled with Nam-protesters and the ghettos were filled with burnt out projects. Wild times, yes, but the Spirit of God had a way to bring many young people to genuine salvation. Thank the Lord for that!

I screamed and shouted too, wearing gospel robes with the saints on marches, yelling at people to repent, and for a while the Lord was in it. Eventually, it became time to move on, and grow up.

[awareness]

Good post bro Ohio.....

.

[zeek]

I don't see how WL's misuse of allegorizing scripture could lead to mass hysteria by calling on the name of the Lord.

I don't either. Metaphorical interpretation is unavoidable to some extent. If anyone thinks WL's interpretation was wrong or evoked bad behavior then show us what it was. Blanket condemnation of allegorizing is stupid. Even guys who censured it, like Martin Luther, used it sometimes. Metaphorical concepts permeate language. Biblical literalism as applied by fundamentalists presents problems of its own. Besides, Lee's teaching regarding calling on the Lord didn't involve allegory. It was strictly literal. Did we get hysterical about it? Yes. But that must have been due to factors other than allegory.

[Ohio]

Good post here Zeek.

Very troublesome to me has been how WL and the Blendeds allegorized stories like Noah and Ham for self-serving coverups of criminal and unrighteous actions at LSM. Since WL was allegorized as today's Noah, his every failure was to be covered and not seen or made public. All the saints and workers at LSM were continually threatened with the curses of Ham lest any should open their mouth. Thus all the Recovery was gripped in fear, that even the knowledge of "death" could inflict them with God's wrath.

Warnings from scripture were coupled with TC's attitude which pervaded the GLA, basically "whether my spiritual father makes a mistake or not is none of my business." I don't believe any of the serious topics of this forum could be reduced to the level of mere "mistakes." Because of policies like this in the Recovery, one Cleveland area sister, who was never warned of the dangers of working with "The Office," ended up molested by PL. The policy of "I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing" sounds real fine and spiritual until people start getting hurt.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good post here Zeek.

Very troublesome to me has been how WL and the Blendeds allegorized stories like Noah and Ham for self-serving coverups of criminal and unrighteous actions at LSM. Since WL was allegorized as today's Noah, his every failure was to be covered and not seen or made public. All the saints and workers at LSM were continually threatened with the curses of Ham lest any should open their mouth. Thus all the Recovery was gripped in fear, that even the knowledge of "death" could inflict them with God's wrath.

Warnings from scripture were coupled with TC's attitude which pervaded the GLA, basically "whether my spiritual father makes a mistake or not is none of my business." I don't believe any of the serious topics of this forum could be reduced to the level of mere "mistakes." Because of policies like this in the Recovery, one Cleveland area sister, who was never warned of the dangers of working with "The Office," ended up molested by PL. The policy of "I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing" sounds real fine and spiritual until people start getting hurt.

Well let's see. That isn't really an allegorical interpretation. It's applying a story about covering Noah's nakedness as an ethical principle. The question arises, how far can you carry the principle? If Noah had committed murder would it have been a good thing to cover it up? Noah's "sin" was only against himself i.e. to his own shame. He didn't harm anybody else. The story doesn't claim that covering up Noah's offense would be ethically defensible if he had commited it against a person other then himself. Therefore, if the Noah story involves a principle, it should not be used to justify covering up a leader's sins when those sins are against someone other then himself.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't either. Metaphorical interpretation is unavoidable to some extent. If anyone thinks WL's interpretation was wrong or evoked bad behavior then show us what it was. Blanket condemnation of allegorizing is stupid. Even guys who censured it, like Martin Luther, used it sometimes. Metaphorical concepts permeate language. Biblical literalism as applied by fundamentalists presents problems of its own. Besides, Lee's teaching regarding calling on the Lord didn't involve allegory. It was strictly literal. Did we get hysterical about it? Yes. But that must have been due to factors other than allegory.

This discussion is very confusing because the term "allegorizing" seems to be impossible to define. First, everyone admits that some parts of the Bible are to be understood allegorically. So it is fundamentally sound to look at many parts of the Bible as allegories. Second, it is also clear that even history can be seen allegorically as based on Paul's word in Galatians concerning Hagar.

What does happen is Christian teachers can go off the deep end with allegories seeing everything as an allegory. For example, WL was very big on what numbers in the Bible mean. I always felt that was extremely tenuous, and they bring out a good example of "the five husbands of the Samaritan woman". What do these 5 husbands represent in contrast to the man she is now with who is not her husband?

If you were to create a spectrum and put OBW on one end, I would certainly be on the other side of the midpoint of that spectrum on this. I see no harm in trying to determine what the 5 husbands are, and I feel it can be a profitable exercise in a kind of creative study of the word.

But as Awareness has pointed out, there are many unstable loonies in Christendom and this practice, taken in excess is like a drug. And like Ohio has pointed out, these allegories were used to create non NT teachings so justify covering up gross sins. And as Nigel pointed out this practice of allegorizing everything can be used to discourage saints from getting into the word and also enabling Christian leaders to abuse the flock.

So I think the thing to realize is that in the end, if the teaching originates from and is based on some allegory, it is a teaching without a solid foundation.

[kisstheson]

You make some really good points in your post, dear brother ZNPaaneah. Back in the section of dear brother Nigel's article entitled "Some Caveats", a good working definition of "allegorizing" was provided (emphasis mine in the quotation below):

"One scholar defines, 'allegorizing [as] the interpretive practice of turning into allegory what was not intended to be allegory.'”

Allegorizing is "the interpretive practice of turning into allegory what was not intended to be allegory." I find that to be a very helpful definition because it simultaneously allows an allegorical interpretation of portions of Scripture which were originally written as allegories while it also causes me to be cautious about allegorizing the historical accounts and the plain teachings recorded in the Bible.

There is the one lone use of the Greek word for "allegory" in Galatians 4:24, so the point seems to be that allegorizing historical passages and plain teachings should be kept to a minimum. In 1 Cor. 10:6 & 11, Paul makes it very clear that the historical accounts of the children of Israel in the desert were written as warnings for us, for our instruction. Warnings and instruction are the types of things we want to draw from the Bible's historical accounts and plain teachings. These warnings and instructions should be readily discerned by all who love God and fear Him. May we turn and become like little children in all simplicity, not looking to an elite "Allegorizer of the Age" to provide us a steady stream of hidden esoteric teachings. As Nigel's article clearly mentions and as you also pointed out, a too heavy use of allegorizing allows for the introduction of many ungodly teachings and practices amongst God's people.

I really like your closing words: "So I think the thing to realize is that in the end, if the teaching originates from and is based on some allegory, it is a teaching without a solid foundation." Amen and amen!

Dear Lord, save us from going beyond what is written. Save us from desiring special teachings that puff us up and make us feel superior to our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Save us from all man-made systems of error. Dear Lord, have mercy on us all.

Much love to you all in Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Allegorizing is "the interpretive practice of turning into allegory what was not intended to be allegory." I find that to be a very helpful definition because it simultaneously allows an allegorical interpretation of portions of Scripture which were originally written as allegories while it also causes me to be cautious about allegorizing the historical accounts and the plain teachings recorded in the Bible.

There is the one lone use of the Greek word for "allegory" in Galatians 4:24, so the point seems to be that allegorizing historical passages and plain teachings should be kept to a minimum.

Yes, I saw this definition but I am not a fan of it. First, who decides what was and was not intended to be an allegory? If I was the one that said that Hagar was an allegory of the Old Covenant OBW would have been all over me saying that is conjecture, yet Paul said it, and it is now part of the NT. So what I would say is that the allegory has to be consistent with the plain word. We know from the word we have two covenants, and we know from various places that these covenants are compared to a covenant God has with his people as a husband would have with his bride. So although the reference in Galatians is quite remarkable, it is very much consistent with the plain word of God. So to my mind I don't feel anyone has the authority to say what was and was not intended to be an allegory. But you do have the authority to say what is and is not supported by the truth.

Also, you can say that Paul's limited use of this approach suggests that we also should use it sparingly. But that is a conjecture. What is fact is that Paul's use of this approach and its subsequent canonization gives this approach credibility.

Personally, I think that when you try to allegorize it forces you to look at many passages, teachings, etc. You have to look at each verse, consider it, try to put together a puzzle, and maybe realize your approach is not working, so lets try something new. So to me the process is really quite beneficial in helping you read the word and perhaps get a different view. You need to realize that 90% of what you do will need to be discarded, but 100% of the time spent is profitable. When I was younger I did this a lot, as I have aged I have lost my interest in doing this.

For example, what about the 12 precious stones in the NJ? Do you think that they might be allegorical and shed light on the concept of Christians being transformed into the image and glory of God? I remember when I had only been in the LRC for about 2 years I asked a professor at Rice this, I gave him the list of the 12 stones and asked him what he could tell me about the way in which they were metamorphosed / formed. His response was that this list "covered the entire gamut of the way in which precious stones form". He was not a Christian, and I don't think he recognized the list, but I found that to be a very interesting comment. So I did a very detailed study of the precious stones, I think at one point I wrote a 30 page report on them (could have been longer, I don't really remember) that was given to WL.

I will say this, some of the things I learned about these stones really blew me away. I don't want to get off track, but Emerald is considered the most valuable and beautiful of all the precious stones, next to an emerald in the NJ is a Sardonyx, a semiprecious stone that looks like an oreo cookie (a layer of white sandwiched between two layers of black onyx). When I first looked at that stone I laughed, how could this stone stand next to an Emerald. Well it took some searching but I discovered how that stone was able to stand. Now that study was all allegory, but I treasure it. Another stone, Chrysolite, was at one point my favorite stone. It is the only stone in the NJ that suffers heat and pressure on the same scale as a diamond, but it has a secret. So when I was in Irving on the stone crew I put the sign of Chrysolite on all of our planters.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What does happen is Christian teachers can go off the deep end with allegories seeing everything as an allegory. For example, WL was very big on what numbers in the Bible mean. I always felt that was extremely tenuous, and they bring out a good example of "the five husbands of the Samaritan woman". What do these 5 husbands represent in contrast to the man she is now with who is not her husband?

First, no offense in characterizing our perspectives.

I consider that in reading scripture, we have primarily what is written. The plain words. If they are clearly something like a parable or fiction provided to make a point, then there is quite possibly something to alegorize. And at some level it has been done for us. Not that the solution is clearly given, but the direction as to its place as meaning more than simply the raw narrative. But few argue over where those are.

But if we come to the Samaritan woman, we can see so much that is simply the narrative. Yes, there is a little bit of nuance when they get into things like the "place" to worship and Jesus basically says it is not about place. That is the kind of statement that seems out of place — at least at first. But when we get to the 5 husbands, there is a point. She is a serial marryer. She is just committing adultery in stages.

Yet I would not have much problem with a preacher who wanted to spring from the 5 husbands to, say, 5 ways that we ignore God, or whatever. But these are always couched in terms of using one thing — 5 husbands — as a springboard to something else. They don't try to make the 5 into something concrete as if suggested by the narrative. That is where I would draw a line.

Anyone trying to say that there is anything suggested in the narrative as a meaning for each of the 5 husbands immediately gets my antennas up. How is there anything metaphorical here suggesting 5 specific things? Where did these come from? Where is he going with this? And why is he trying to make it out to be certain when it is not?

Now if we were talking about reading the Song of Songs, then my thoughts are quite different. I'm sure that there are things that some people get of of that book that probably are not there. But at least you come to it with the understanding that it is intended to be metaphorical. Rich in inference and meaning that is not directly stated.

I do not deny that we may find rich meaning in other places beyond what is simply written. But if the first place we should be looking is to what is there. Not what it not. Allegorizing what is not provided as allegory needs many caveats. Saying "the 5 husbands means" and then rattling off 5 different specific things is not supported, or supportable, based on what is there to read. On the other hand, to say, "we could treat these 5 husbands as . . ." can provide a springboard to something that is admittedly not within the passage, but is useful in Christian living and may be found in other, unrelated passages.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I see no harm in trying to determine what the 5 husbands are

But how do you propose to determine what the 5 husbands are? On what basis do you conclude that you have found the 5 and have linked them to this passage?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But as Awareness has pointed out, there are many unstable loonies in Christendom and this practice, taken in excess is like a drug.

And this is more than true. The scary thing is that there are many who do not appear to be "unstable loonies" who are busy doing the same thing. Go to work and look around you. There is probably someone literally on drugs who does not exhibit any signs. There are functioning alcoholics. But, in reference to the allegory addicts, they are just as errant as the unstable loonies.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, no offense in characterizing our perspectives...

Reading this post I was in shock that we have found common ground on which we agree, perhaps totally.

As to the question of what value it is to try and figure out what these 5 husbands are it is like a Biblical brain teaser. At MIT and other schools they give problems to students that have no solution, or at least have not been solved. Personally I have always thought that the Samaritan woman with her 5 husbands and one that is not has a nice correlation with the ook of Ecclesiastes. So, as you suggested, if I do hit on this I use it to jump to Ecclesiastes.