Well, I did appreciate reading that... LOL. However, I have found that all interpretative lenses fit under one of three umbrellas.
1. the literal-factual approach
a.k.a. fundamentalism. Everything is taken as literally as possible even when the context does not permit this. For example, taking Revelation literally even the book was written as an epistle, a prophecy and an apocalypse (which is anything but literal). although the approach has conservative appeal, it often misses the point of the text. the tendency is to make the Bible only God's word.
2. the critical-metaphorical approach
i.e. Bultmannian approach. everything is questioned (historical criticism) and much of the Bible is taken as metaphor, or as Borg would say "the finger that points to the moon". this has appeal mainly to those who have been damaged by the previous view and hence find fundamentalism acceptable. however, this view taken to the extreme can cause problems where the Bible can mean anything or where it loses meaning all together (what can or should we really believe? anything?) the tendency is to make the Bible only man's word.
3. the historical-grammatical approach
the text speaks for itself. history and grammar are used to come to the meaning of the text. for example, we may apply the JEDP theory to the Torah but at the end of the day what we have is the Torah in completed form which the final redactor produced for a reason. this is the view i hold, as i believe the Bible is as much the word of man as it is the word of God and likewise it is as much the word of God as it is the word of man.