1. Genres
The Bible, like any other text, is written according to certain historical and literary categories. To deny this is to deny the very historicity of the Bible itself (something that neither liberals nor conservatives are willing to do). The Bible is filled with all sorts of genres from all sorts of historical periods -- letters, laws, wisdom, apocalyptic, prophecy, story, parable. Recognizing what sort of biblical genre you're reading is absolutely imperative for what I think is a "literal" reading. We don't expect parables to relay historical information, or proverbs to read as if they're legal texts.
Recognizing the various ancient genres of our ancient Bible is greatly aided by our ability to compare and contrast the Bible with similar writings from the ancient world, i.e., by "calibrating" the Bible against ancient analogs and thus learning to adopt ancient expectations for interpreting biblical literature rather than imposing alien, modern conventions of reading. This is something I've insisted on with students over the years. In our Old Testament classes, we've read Old Testament Parallels. In our New Testament classes, we've read texts from the Background of the New Testament as well as those texts that "didn't make it into the New Testament". So, Genesis 1-11 is best understood when compared to other ancient origins texts rather than expecting something along the lines of modern science; the Gospels are best understood alongside of ancient Greco-Roman "biographies" rather than contemporary biographies.
2. Christological
It's a misreading of the Old Testament to think it "predicts" Jesus. It doesn't. Instead, the writers of the New Testament, after Jesus' resurrection, read their Scripture in light of Jesus -- and took account of the surprise they found in him and what that surprise taught them about God. The faith of the New Testament writers is that Christ is deeply connected to Israel's story while at the same time grappling with this surprise, counterintuitive development of the Gospel -- that in the crucifixion and resurrection, we have encountered God. This led the New Testament writers (especially Paul and the Gospel writers) to cite the Old Testament well over 300 times (connecting the gospel to Israel's story) and in doing so significantly re-read, i.e., transpose, Israel's story to account for the surprise ending.
Think Galatians 4 or Romans 4 here. The tendency was toward "midrashic" (creative) readings of the Old Testament in light of Jesus himself.
This is why -- as many readers of the Bible already know -- New Testament writers take Old Testament quotes and use them out of context. The Gospel requires this reframing of Israel's stories in ways that found trajectory more from the Prophets than from the Torah.
3. Incarnational
Because I read the Scriptures in light of Jesus, I think the Scriptures have a goal -- the great mystery that is the heart of the Christian confession. In Jesus Christ, we have met God. This incarnational mystery is the analog by which I embrace Scripture as both human and divine. Scripture is both "God's word" and displays all sorts of mundane properties, cultural infusions, and simple human imitations of any text, ancient or modern.
To insist that Scripture is somehow less human is an affront to the incarnation, because Scripture's authority is a derived authority from Jesus himself.
An incarnational model of scripture accounts better for the Bible's own properties than do various inerrantist models, which at some point all need to tame or corral biblical phenomena that do not sit well with certain doctrinal needs. Like placing the book of Job under the same cover as Deuteronomy 28 -- just to give one example.
4. Ecumenical
I use this word in the broadest sense possible. Wisdom and insight for interpreting the Bible can and does come from anyone, not limited to Christians alone, or Protestants alone, and most definitely not to particular tribes within Protestantism. I learned years ago not to limit the voices from whom I can learn simply because we might disagree about what the Bible means in any particular place. I've heard genuine insights from Roman Catholics and Orthodox (especially), from agnostics and atheists, and even from mainline Protestants as well as other free-church traditions.
What's more, there are insights to be had from places we might not even normally think to look, like the world around us. It is God's world, after all.
5. Pilgrimage
This ancient Christian metaphor for living as a Christian in the world is perhaps one of the best metaphors I've ever heard for reading Scripture itself. My understanding of the Bible is always provisional. I can't reduce the Bible to my propositions about the Bible. Which is to say, the Bible isn't a source of history or science or even doctrine. The Bible is the story of a people-with-God who are continually on that journey toward the Promised Land.
Given how personal and provisional all our knowledge is, we should expect our views to change over time. If they don't, we're not walking with the Living God. We've reduced God to the words on the page. (This works for Muslims, but not for Christians.)
I don't think like I did in seminary (thank God!). Nor do I think my ideas are free from refinement and reflection now. As I walk with God into the future, I expect to understand more, not the same. Some of my ideas will necessarily change and be abandoned. Not because I was wrong, but because I'm the one who's doing the knowing, not God. In walking with God, my understanding deepens. Which sometimes means I'll be reevaluating things.
Pilgrimage, in other words, is the practice of humility in biblical interpretation. Walking with God has made me less needy to have all the answers. I no long have this need to be certain about the Bible. But it also means I'm less prone to put up walls. I'm more willing to discuss, explore, and change than I am to defend, proclaim, and conquer.