Augustine on when to go non-literal

Do you agree with this comment I made somewhere?
_______________
Augustine is a good pre-modern interpreter, in my opinion. If the literal meaning of a text (as he perceived it) did not fit with his theology, he shifted into a non-literal interpretation.

Since one of the ways Protestantism argued against Roman Catholicism was by pushing the literal interpretation and since the modern era honed our skills at reading texts in their historical and literary contexts, we have found ourselves increasingly in a conundrum. Here are some of the strategies that have resulted:

• Fundamentalism--act like you're following the rules for reading in context, but find a possible way to interpret the evidence to make it come out your way. 
• Evangelicalism at its best--highlight the distinction between "that time" and "our time," so that you can let the text mean what it meant, but then adjust the application for a different context. Deal with potential issues in your theology rather than playing games with the original meaning of the text. 
• "Liberalism"--let the text say what it said and then dismiss it as wrong 
• Theological interpretation--let the text say what it said literally but reopen the door for more than literal interpretations 

Hebrews and Allegory

I'm finishing up my draft of the study notes on Hebrews for the CEB Study Bible today.  I am once again struck by the author's use of allegorical interpretation and dumbfounded by those interpreters who break out in a rash at the word.  It starts in 7:2-3 with Melchizedek, but the real allegory central is in 9:8-9.

Two parts to the tent.  The first part represents the old covenant and the present age that is waning (perhaps even the created realm), with its multiplicity of sacrifices. The second part represents the new covenant and the world that is coming, a heavenly age based on the one sacrifice of Christ.

I know why some evangelical scholars resist these sorts of interpretations and why "liberal" scholars used to make fun of them.  For evangelicals, they make it clear that inerrancy cannot be formulated exclusively in terms of the literal or plain meaning of the text.  For "liberals," it was their assumption that such interpretations were stupid that made them laugh at them.  For revivalists and charismatics, it's business as usual ;-)

P.S. This is another indication that the fundamentalists and modernists of the early 1900's based their debate on the same assumptions, assumptions that we should question today.