Here is a tentative proposal for improving clause 2 of the Jerusalem Document. The word 'tentative' should be underlined, twice!
"The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading, and attentive to sound principles of interpretation consistent with the Thirty-Nine Articles."
I am trying here to say something about the fact that 'interpretation' is required when we read the Bible, while acknowledging, in as few as words as possible ("sound principles"), the vast field of possibilities the subject of 'interpretation' introduces. That the sound principles of interpretation utilised might be consistent with the Thirty Nine Articles is on the one hand unremarkably Anglican and on the other hand fairly conservative, noting that the Thirty Nine Articles particularly emphasise an approach to the Bible in which one part is not expounded 'repugnant' to another.
Any thoughts from readers?