The following principles are not a straw man argument, but were distilled from the public comments of a present day Christian leader. I have chosen not to directly cite or name the person so that my comments will not be seen as an indictment of that particular individual or that person's Christian group, but that my comments will instead be taken at face value.
Pluralist Principles of Interpreting Scripture:
1. Life contexts give rise to different interpretations and the different weights given to different Scriptural passages; there is no such thing as a neutral reading of Scripture.
True, actually. (And you thought I'd start whalin' on this one!) I read and interpret Scripture from the standpoint of a Christian who has gone through anti-modernist, to modernist, to post-modernist/late-modernist understanding and on past that to whatever that would be. (A popomo reading? A repremo reading?) In any case, I don't read Scripture the same way that St. Paul and St. Matthew wrote it. Oh, and is that such a problem! I don't have the same mind as theirs. Therefore, if I want to claim their authority for my reading, I have to in some way obtain a reading which does reflect their mindset.
2. Disagreements/Contradictions in interpretations are "divergent points of view" and need not undermine the mission of the Church; the key is to preserve the unity of the Church within "divergent points of view".
Here's where I start rolling my eyes. Unity cannot be preserved if two contradictory beliefs are both asserted as the mind of the Church. One cannot maintain Christian unity in the context of those who believe that Jesus is really the Son of God the second Person of the Trinity against those who claim God is not a Trinity and Jesus is just a really, really good Teacher. Or those who believe the Mary was really a virgin when she conceived and bore the Christ, and those who think otherwise. "To diverge" means to go in different directions. It's not clear how one can maintain unity while travelling to opposite horizons. In business that would be a breach of contract. In marriage, we call it divorce. Try telling the officer that your view of the legality of having a meth lab in the back of your pickup "diverges" from his, and you both can head on over the Dunkin' Donuts for coffee.
3. "Different theological perspectives" can be contained within a context of common prayer.
If by different theological perspectives you mean the difference between whether virginity or marriage is the higher calling, okay. Otherwise see my comments on #2 above. You cannot have two Christians in the same worship service reciting the Creed, each believing that which contradicts the other, and claim that you have unity. The point of common prayer is common belief. An atheist has a different theological perspective and can recite the words of the liturgy, but his prayer and the prayer of a devout Christian can hardly be called common.
4. "Truth in Jesus" is larger than any one point of view; therefore the Church must make room for difference in how Scripture is understood.
This is a non sequitor; i.e., really crummy logic. First of all, I'm not sure I buy the "truth in Jesus" line, since, after all, Jesus is the Truth. Arians understood/understand Scripture differently than true Christians, but in so doing they claim that about Jesus which denies who he is. This is not larger truth. It's (gasp) heresy. The Church cannot make room for this difference and still be the Church. Furthermore, this "truth in Jesus" being larger than any one point of view does not mean the Church must make room for different understandings. Rather, it means that we must conform to the Truth that is Jesus if we would understand Scripture aright. If I don't understand Scripture in such a way so as to affirm the reality Jesus embodies, the Church has no business keeping me in its ranks.
5. God's truth, worked out within the Church by the Holy Spirit, is a process of continual unfolding.
But even if we would grant the gentleman's premises, it does not follow that later truth can contradict earlier truth and still be true. It is not the case that at one time it was true that Jesus was the God-man, second Person of the Trinity, but now we know he was just a holy hell-raiser in first century Palestine. It is not the case that at one time it was true that Jesus was born of the Virgin, but now we know that Mary just got pregnant in the normal human way.
Further, even if we continue to grant the gentleman's premises, this only means that we ourselves as human beings are continually working to conform ourselves to the Truth which remains unchanging. This only means that our understanding is unfolding, but only in such a way so as not to deny the Truth which remains true throughout all of the Church's history. We cannot claim to have had our understanding "unfold" if we deny the Truths the Church has proclaimed.
6. Disagreements on Scriptural interpretation may each be "authentic" and "led by the Holy Spirit."
Only if by "authentic" one means "in conformity with the fullness of the Truth the Scripture and the Church proclaims." If my different interpretation contradicts the unchanging Truth, then it is authentic only in the sense of solipsism. Nor does claiming authenticity grant one license for claiming leading by the Holy Spirit. The heretics did that, but the Church rightly rejected their pseudo-Gospel.
7. Labelling another interpretation of Scripture as "wrong" is "dismissing" that interpretation as "not taking the Bible seriously" and "dishonors" the faith of another.
This is smarmy, psycho-babble, self-esteem hooha. Just because I say to Tripp, "Tripp," I say, "your understanding of the Church as an invisible entity with no visible unity located in a single institution is wrong, and not in line with the Scripture," hardly is the same thing as saying, "Tripp! Good heavens, man! Don't you read your Scripture?!" nor the same as saying, "Tripp! Your faith sucks!" Give me a freakin' break. (And that is all that I will say about this principle.)
So to summarize:
There is a mindset we have to reclaim to be able to properly understand Scripture--and oddly enough, it is not early 21st century multicultural pluralism. Church unity can only be maintained (from the human standpoint) if Christians adhere to the same parameters of belief; and prayer will only be common within this same context. Indeed, only if there are shared parameters of belief can there be any mission. The Truth of the Faith is held in full by the Church, and it is up to us Christians to conform ourselves to it. (Or: Truth does not revolve around us. Oddly enough!) Only that reading of Scripture which conforms to the parameters of belief held by the Church can lay claim to authenticity or the leading of the Holy Spirit. And if something isn't true, it's wrong. And if someone is wrong, well, they're just wrong. Not a value judgment, people. Rather, it's a truth judgment.