Against LSM's Allegorizing

[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.

[Cal]

Paul could allegorize because he was an apostle and could write scripture. Allegorizing to produce a new truth that is not echoed in plain scripture is the job of an apostle. Since there haven't been any apostles since the first century that option is closed.

Why can't we be content with what the Bible actually says? Why do we feel the need to read things into it which may or may not be there?

Take the Song of Songs. People including Nee have allegorized the heck out of that. Either Nee or Lee even taught that the shulamite's breasts signified faith and love, and that our faith and love should be equally strong because a woman's breasts should be the same size. (No word on what happened to hope, but never mind.) I mean, whatever....

Why not just take Song of Songs at face value, that God treasures and validates romantic love? Does every word picture have to have a hidden meaning?

[RollingStone]

Ye must be born again to see the kingdom of God KJV in John chapter 3

If everything was taken literally we would be scratching our heads as Nicodemus did when he was thinking how does a man crawl back in his mothers womb.

There are some gentleman in West Virginia that take Mark 16:18, literally! I haven't seen any allegories for that one but I am happy not to take it literal.

It says something about Ye picking up serpents and drinking poison.

I am satisfied to consider the serpents as something to do with or related to demons that are in the preceding verse or not to be afraid of the demons and be brave just as if you are picking up serpents when you cast out demons and speak in tongues.

Even though Paul was bit by one and didn't die Acts 28 3-5

I did try casting a demon out of my wife once and that experience literally was a lot like picking up a snake and drinking poison.

Lord have mercy on us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

Ye must be born again to see the kingdom of God KJV in John chapter 3

If everything was taken literally we would be scratching our heads as Nicodemus did when he was thinking how does a man crawl back in his mothers womb.

There are some gentleman in West Virginia that take Mark 16:18, literally! I haven't seen any allegories for that one but I am happy not to take it literal.

It says something about Ye picking up serpents and drinking poison.

I am satisfied to consider the serpents as something to do with or related to demons that are in the preceding verse or not to be afraid of the demons and be brave just as if you are picking up serpents when you cast out demons and speak in tongues.

Even though Paul was bit by one and didn't die Acts 28 3-5

I did try casting a demon out of my wife once and that experience literally was a lot like picking up a snake and drinking poison.

Lord have mercy on us.

From Mark 16:9 to the end is a later add on to Mark, and does not appear in the early manuscripts....apparently some later scribe didn't like that Mark ended with : "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul could allegorize because he was an apostle and could write scripture. Allegorizing to produce a new truth that is not echoed in plain scripture is the job of an apostle. Since there haven't been any apostles since the first century that option is closed.

Why can't we be content with what the Bible actually says? Why do we feel the need to read things into it which may or may not be there?

Take the Song of Songs. People including Nee have allegorized the heck out of that. Either Nee or Lee even taught that the shulamite's breasts signified faith and love, and that our faith and love should be equally strong because a woman's breasts should be the same size. (No word on what happened to hope, but never mind.) I mean, whatever....

Why not just take Song of Songs at face value, that God treasures and validates romantic love? Does every word picture have to have a hidden meaning?

"Paul could allegorize because He was an apostle and could write scripture". I cannot see any basis for this "truth" anywhere in scripture.

"Allegorizing to produce new truth" -- Paul did not do that, everything he said about Hagar did not produce a new truth. I don't think anyone can do that. Peter said that no verse is of its own interpretation so I don't believe that option of "allegorizing to produce truth" was ever open.

"Lets take the Song of Sons at face value" --

4:1b your hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

Is this a compliment? You have goat hair!? Why mount Gilead? Here is how I allegorize this to make sense for myself:

Mount Gilead is where Jacob and Laban made a contract over Laban's daughters. These two men were "goats". Our hair signifies our being under submission. Anyone could be under submission to the God of the prosperity gospel, but to be under submission to a goat, that is truly beautiful.

4:2 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.

This is even better, what is being said here? This woman's teeth are like sheep right after they have had all their hair shaved off, they have been driven through a river to wash them off, and everyone is trying to find their baby lambs, and by the way, all them have twins?! Are you serious? How can you possibly understand this to look like teeth without allegorizing?

Here is how I understand this verse:

You see someone's teeth when they open their mouth to speak. Take Miss America, cut all her hair off on National TV, and at that moment what do you think will come out of her mouth when she speaks? Will it be a double blessing and no curse? Well, that is true beauty.

I shared this in an English class in Taiwan when I was in the FTTT. One woman asked "what about the Man?" I responded, "the man is Jesus, He gave his life for us, all we do is give our hair (our glory), it will grow back".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Paul could allegorize because He was an apostle and could write scripture". I cannot see any basis for this "truth" anywhere in scripture.

"Allegorizing to produce new truth" -- Paul did not do that, everything he said about Hagar did not produce a new truth. I don't think anyone can do that. Peter said that no verse is of its own interpretation so I don't believe that option of "allegorizing to produce truth" was ever open.

When I say "new truth" I mean something that had not yet been revealed. The NT clearly says there are certain truths that were hidden until NT times. Paul could allegorize Hagar because he saw the truth of the new covenant, which had been hidden.

That doesn't mean the only reason Hagar exists in the Bible was to produce that allegory. Paul, in my opinion, just saw a parallel, and used it to paint a picture. Since he was an apostle his picture became scripture.

You or I could paint pictures, too. But what we write isn't going to become scripture. That's what I meant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Allegorizing to produce new truth" -- Paul did not do that, everything he said about Hagar did not produce a new truth. I don't think anyone can do that. Peter said that no verse is of its own interpretation so I don't believe that option of "allegorizing to produce truth" was ever open.

In an earlier post I mentioned this allegory from Galatians. For Paul to equate the concubine Hagar with earthly Jerusalem was monumental. This was "new truth," if ever there was some, and the Jewish believers were infuriated, no doubt. Yes, the Lord spoke prophetically about the destruction of Jerusalem while on the earth, but I have to believe statements like this by the Apostle caused him to be on the "most wanted" list in Jerusalem. This statement, at least to me, was ten-fold more striking than his stance on circumcision. Had they known this during the Acts 15 summit, the course of history might have been altered.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why can't we be content with what the Bible actually says? Why do we feel the need to read things into it which may or may not be there?

Take the Song of Songs. People including Nee have allegorized the heck out of that. Either Nee or Lee even taught that the shulamite's breasts signified faith and love, and that our faith and love should be equally strong because a woman's breasts should be the same size. (No word on what happened to hope, but never mind.) I mean, whatever....

Why not just take Song of Songs at face value, that God treasures and validates romantic love? Does every word picture have to have a hidden meaning?

Why do we have to have fiction writers, why can't all books be non fiction? Why do we need artists? Why not just take the Shaker's approach, everything is functional and anything more that that is sin, vanity, whatever? Poetry? Does anyone really need that? WL wrote songs and didn't need to use poetry, so why should anyone else? Of course I am being sarcastic, I think that God's ways are higher than ours.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why do we have to have fiction writers, why can't all books be non fiction? Why do we need artists? Why not just take the Shaker's approach, everything is functional and anything more that that is sin, vanity, whatever? Poetry? Does anyone really need that? WL wrote songs and didn't need to use poetry, so why should anyone else? Of course I am being sarcastic, I think that God's ways are higher than ours.

I do have not problem with poetry and symbolism. I have a problem with thinking we can define the meaning of every symbol in the Bible and be certain what each one means. Trying to take every little image in the Song of Songs an wring meaning out of it seems extreme.

You've read some interpretations of songs and poems, the original artists often marvel at what listeners and readers come up with. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Take the Song of Songs. People including Nee have allegorized the heck out of that. Either Nee or Lee even taught that the shulamite's breasts signified faith and love, and that our faith and love should be equally strong because a woman's breasts should be the same size. (No word on what happened to hope, but never mind.) I mean, whatever....

Why not just take Song of Songs at face value, that God treasures and validates romantic love? Does every word picture have to have a hidden meaning?

Song of Songs 4:5 talks of the woman's breasts as two young roes, twins of a deer, feeding among the lilies. This picture is full of hope, lilies don't grow in a drought or a flood, deer don't have twins in a famine. How can anyone look at this picture and feel hopeless?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Song of Songs 4:5 talks of the woman's breasts as two young roes, twins of a deer, feeding among the lilies. This picture is full of hope, lilies don't grow in a drought or a flood, deer don't have twins in a famine. How can anyone look at this picture and feel hopeless?

When I read it I just think of a woman's breasts.

Sorry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Song of Songs 4:5 talks of the woman's breasts as two young roes, twins of a deer, feeding among the lilies. This picture is full of hope, lilies don't grow in a drought or a flood, deer don't have twins in a famine. How can anyone look at this picture and feel hopeless?

Coming back from hiking in the the dog park the other night, I saw two fawns crossing the road ahead of me which appeared quite hopeless.

I guess at the time I had forgot to view them allegorically, and decided to hit my brakes.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Song of Songs 4:5 talks of the woman's breasts as two young roes, twins of a deer, feeding among the lilies. This picture is full of hope, lilies don't grow in a drought or a flood, deer don't have twins in a famine. How can anyone look at this picture and feel hopeless?

I for one never feel hopeless when gazing at "twin roes."

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

Let's celebrate and have a party. :justlurking: