"…Things infinite and indescribable [are] present within [the Word] that are indiscernible by those who possess ideas that are closed. As a consequence…such people accept nothing else than the literal sense, which they interpret to suit their own pre-conceived ideas and own desires, and in so doing they block off access to what lies concealed within the Word.

…As for any ideas they do have, they either rid themselves of them or lock them away. What an idea looks like when it is closed, and what it looks like when open, was also demonstrated; for this is easy to demonstrate in the light of heaven. 

A closed idea appeared looking like a black spot in which nothing else could be seen; but an open idea looked like an area of light in which there was so to speak a fiery glow towards which every particular thing there was directed. The fiery glow represented the Lord, and the things looking towards it represented heaven. It was said that every idea received from the Lord contains an image of the entire heaven, because it comes from Him who is heaven."  (Swedenborg, Secrets of Heaven 6620)

At one point relatively early in our time in Seattle, we were visited by Revive Seattle - a group encouraging a revival of Christian life in the region who desired to have a dialog with us concerning our own approach - to discern whether we could partner in this effort.  Even though in the end we decided it wasn't a good "fit", I still felt the conversation valuable and charitable.  And I also remember the moment where I felt the most tension, which concerned proof-texting (the practice of lining up verses of Scripture to defend certain doctrinal positions).  

I don't remember the specific theological concept that we were seeing differently - but I remember the group's leader saying at one point "but this is what it says" and me responding with "well...that is one way of reading what it says."  

The inability to consider more than one way of interpreting a text led to an impasse in that part of the conversation (together with differences in doctrine which they revealed).  It was a teachable moment...and one I have caught myself thinking about again lately.  With this in mind, I was delighted to discover the following 1923 New Church Life article on the same subject.  I thought it a powerful reminder of what might be termed the "anchor principle" in our own seeking of the Lord in the Word.

Love and Peace,

Ethan     

Interpretations, NCL 1923 (edit)

Generally speaking, people are literal where the letter confirms their view; otherwise their interpretations…[appeal] in some sort to a higher sense of inner meaning. All those of balanced mind realize the absurdities to which mere literalism leads. They also know that, in every case, some interpretation is inevitable, and that there is need of an intelligent understanding of the real meaning.

On the one hand, too severe literalism leads to the narrowest kind of dogmatism; on the other, an unbalanced or unguided interpretation dissipates the genuine meaning.  Traditions are the gathered interpretations of the ages. Their real authority, however, in the last resort, depends upon their justice, and coming ages must of necessity pass this in review. …”Tradition has no place where the Scriptures are plain.” [Johnson, by G. B. Hill. Vol. V, p. 80-81] There can be no inner conviction of truth where the mind is bound by fixed formulas of human devising. 

Each mind must see for itself in light, in that inward light which imparts freedom of thought and total conviction of the truth. Where this exists, there is indeed an attitude of reverence for the interpretations of God-fearing and God-thinking people of former ages but the right and the need of re-interpretation is ever paramount. 

For this, people go back to the sources,-for the basis of their thinking,-that is, to revelation itself. To this there must be constant recurrence for the sake of spiritual rejuvenation. And even so a danger still exists, that loyalty to the fixed formula,-to the external form of statement,-may deaden the spiritual perception of its essence.

Even Divine Revelation may be, and often is, perverted by a too literal, or, on the other hand, a too fanciful interpretation. These two tendencies have arisen wherever there is a sacred book, regarded as of Divine origin and verbally inspired.  Hindus have so interpreted the Veda, [Islam] the Koran, the Jews their Scriptures, as well as the Christians their Bible. The interpretation of revelation is not only unavoidable; it is a continuing need and duty; only so are its precepts kept alive, and adapted to the changing conditions of advancing generations. But is there a sure mode whereby revelation may be interpreted in an enlightened manner? Is there any means of guarding against a distortion of its meaning in one direction or another?

Perversions, of necessity, there will be, but also enlightenment. These things lie in the hearts of people. We confide in the knowledge that the seeker after truth for its own sake finds it in the degree that is needful. Where there are ulterior motives, obscurity arises.

This is the unvarying story of humankind, and of the human mind. The seeker after truth for its own sake finds it sufficient unto their salvation. This is enough, and to the purpose. Truth exists under many aspects; but there is one truth, under whatever guise, and as a part of whatever religion, which always reveals itself with power to the seeking mind; this is the truth which leads to a good life. He that seeks shall find. This is the never-failing law. Thus the real cause of the rectification or perversion of the formulas of revelation lies in the state of the human heart, its motives, its aspirations, its moods - for good or evil.