Parallel Readings

Peter Rollins observes something that I’ve seen noted elsewhere:

“The moral, of course, is that what we think the text really ‘says’ depends not just on what we read but on the lens we use to interpret what we read. Fundamentalism is only a plausible way of reading religious texts when one accepts a scientific, foundational, common sense realist ontology. Which is, not insignificantly, the same lens employed by those popular writers today who reject the bible as a dangerous, deceptive, anti-Enlightenment, anti-scientific diatribe.”

Thoughts? Is this the preferred way to read the Bible? I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that it’s more problematic than anything.