Against LSM's Allegorizing

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Igzy, you must be on shaky ground to invoke Freud.

Obviously, the matter of allegorizing can be taken to extremes in either direction. I suppose each one of us has to find his own "allegory comfort zone" within acceptable limits. When the Reformers came along, the situation with Rome was so out of control that serious Biblical literalism was called for by the Spirit and was indeed justified. Perhaps our exodus from the "Allegorizer of the Age" warrants similar measures for a season. This is an area where WL just refused to accept any balance, taking allegorizing to new heights, or should I say new depths.

If WL had only allegorized scripture for the edifying of others, then perhaps we would not be having this discussion, but his motives included the extremes of self-exaltation. Where scriptures were silent, he allegorized in a vain attempt to connect his own personal ministry with the divine record. In this regard, his early days with the Brethren were not an asset to him.

Tomes' paper says allegorizing is "redundant," and page 6 says, "Hence scholars assert that allegory’s “role, hermeneutically speaking, is parasitic,” it extracts its significance from the rest of the Bible, yet contributes nothing in return. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this assertion. Certain points in scripture are stressed redundantly for emphasis, using plain words, types, pictures, prophecies, etc. Allegorizing, thus, enhances the message in richer terms. I should think that the strictest of literalism would preclude the church from even the singing of songs and writing of commentaries.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Tomes' paper says allegorizing is "redundant," and page 6 says, "Hence scholars assert that allegory’s “role, hermeneutically speaking, is parasitic,” it extracts its significance from the rest of the Bible, yet contributes nothing in return. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this assertion. Certain points in scripture are stressed redundantly for emphasis, using plain words, types, pictures, prophecies, etc. Allegorizing, thus, enhances the message in richer terms. I should think that the strictest of literalism would preclude the church from even the singing of songs and writing of commentaries.

Yes, this is something else I find poorly defined or expressed. I would agree that Allegories role is not to add meaning but to extract it from the rest of the Bible. I disagree that this is "parasitic. Instead I would say that a good allegory, or a good parable can convey a lot of truth in a very brief way. For example, you could ask a bunch of rabbi's to define "who my neighbor is" or you could ask a bunch of lawyers or scribes to do this. I doubt any of them could come up with a more elegant, concise and helpful definition as the Lord did in His parable of the Good Samaritan.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, this is something else I find poorly defined or expressed. I would agree that Allegories role is not to add meaning but to extract it from the rest of the Bible. I disagree that this is "parasitic. Instead I would say that a good allegory, or a good parable can convey a lot of truth in a very brief way. For example, you could ask a bunch of rabbi's to define "who my neighbor is" or you could ask a bunch of lawyers or scribes to do this. I doubt any of them could come up with a more elegant, concise and helpful definition as the Lord did in His parable of the Good Samaritan.

I think that the tendency to be looking for allegory rather than looking at the narrative and eventually realizing that there is an allegory involved is where it gets parasitic. If we come to scripture holding to a few pet themes for which we scour scripture trying to find any faint resemblance to the pattern so we can declare an allegory or metaphor in play, then we are being parasitic. We may point to other scripture in the process. But if there is really nothing in the source scripture to link to the secondary scripture, then the forcing of an allegory or metaphor on it to make that link to the secondary scripture is parasitic relative to the first scripture. It takes from what is in that scripture and gives it to another. It deflects and ignores the meaning of the first scripture.

This was one of Lee's greatest sources of error. He did not seem to have much care for the primary narrative in so many parts of the OT. If he could find any way to layer on "Christ and the church," "the ground of the church," "God's economy," or whatever, that was all it was about. Conclusions from his reading of the NT we used to reformulate OT passages into allegories of the NT for the purpose of underpinning the importance of his NT position. For example, he pushes the ground of the church, using the presumed metaphor of Jerusalem as being the church and the synagogues being Christianity. But you don't automatically arrive at the conclusion that there was something errant in synagogues unless you start with the presumption that it is somehow an anomaly based on an overlay of "the right place" that ends with a doctrine of church ground.

My complaint is not that we should not sometimes take opportunities to teach more than is in a particular passage. It is in the insistence that the thing added is because of some special link hidden between the lines, or in the shadows of its metaphorical meaning when there is no such meaning. Better to admit no link but say you are going somewhere else anyway. It at least gives the reader/listener an opportunity to assess the secondary statements on their own rather than trying to make the two fit together as if written to be so. This is Lee's error. And his falsehood.

It is true that a good parable or good allegory can provide a lot of truth. But that does not suggest that there are a lot of parables or allegories in the whole of scripture. Surely there are some. But so many of the ones that Lee found just weren't there. He went searching for patterns to force into an allegory to support a position. That is parasitic. It takes from scripture and the only thing it gives back is the waste product it pushes out the back end. Synagogues go in, and out the back comes a declaration that scripture abhors them like Lee abhors Christianity. But scripture never abhorred synagogues. That is the excrement of a false allegory. It took away from scripture and gave nothing scriptural in return.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Tomes' paper says allegorizing is "redundant," and page 6 says, "Hence scholars assert that allegory’s “role, hermeneutically speaking, is parasitic,” it extracts its significance from the rest of the Bible, yet contributes nothing in return. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this assertion. Certain points in scripture are stressed redundantly for emphasis, using plain words, types, pictures, prophecies, etc. Allegorizing, thus, enhances the message in richer terms. I should think that the strictest of literalism would preclude the church from even the singing of songs and writing of commentaries.

I agree with this.

I think common sense tells us to emphasize the literal and let allegory take a secondary role of support and perhaps enhancement.

Lee seemed to almost think allegory was more important than the literal. Much of the strangeness of the LRC swings on these "hidden" teachings. (e.g. Noah and his sons, Miriam, Saul being the anointed, plastering leper's houses, one trumpet, fine flour "mingled" with oil, and on and on.)

Lee seemed to think there was a "hidden" message in the Bible which was for a few select "faithful" ones to understand. Of course, his movement was right in the middle of that select company.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree with this.

I think common sense tells us to emphasize the literal and let allegory take a secondary role of support and perhaps enhancement.

Lee seemed to almost think allegory was more important than the literal. Much of the strangeness of the LRC swings on these "hidden" teachings. (e.g. Noah and his sons, Miriam, Saul being the anointed, plastering leper's houses, one trumpet, fine flour "mingled" with oil, and on and on.)

Lee seemed to think there was a "hidden" message in the Bible which was for a few select "faithful" ones to understand. Of course, his movement was right in the middle of that select company.

I may be wrong, having not actually discussed this with Nigel, but it seems to me that the background, or in LC'ese the "black-ground," of this paper by Nigel is the LSM training sessions which were held in various locations in greater Toronto by Minoru Chen and others, in which techniques were discussed with dissident locals how to "tear down the house," i.e. the church in Toronto using allegorical nonsense from the book of Leviticus.

Not to change the subject, but it really surprises me that TC has never publicly distanced himself from WL, the source of all "disgusting" allegory at LSM, especially those that address the so-called quarantines, both past and present. I have to believe that this is no more than "playing politics" for personal gain. Because of his abrasive straight-forward attitude, most of TC's most ardent followers, at least in my "neck of the woods," boasted for decades that he alone was above politics, all the time pointing out the flaws of those hovering around Anaheim. There is no way TC can maintain the old paradigm of "good WL, bad blended," and still maintain credibility, at least in the GLA. Perhaps this is why many leaders have distanced themselves, or have become like the "ostrich."