@MonicaCellio This kind of answer will rarely attract many upvotes because it is narrow in it's appeal. I personally found it helpful and interesting so it got mine, as did your answer, which will be helpful to a much broader audience I think. my take on this is that there is a place for both. The question is fine, and although a good question...

... lends itself to a single great answer by definition, in practice there will often be several answers with some value. You know my views of the 'doctrine in answers' already: that it is a false dichotomy. Your answer is also doctrinal to my reading. i broadly agree with the comment @joseph made:

though perhaps not with the tone.

@JackDouglas I'd appreciate it if you'd point out what you think is doctrinal in my answer (especially since my reading leads to a conclusion other than the one I would prefer).

@MonicaCellio Implicit in your answer (I think) are the ideas that the text has consistency (the same word used elsewhere can help with the meaning of it here), that the text is speaking to our reasoning minds ("the text seems to be saying..."), that the 'plain' meaning is important (others might argue that 'hidden' meanings are more important). These are all doctrines you and I have in common, but it is good to recognize them as part of our framework nonetheless I think.

@JackDouglas If text isn't consistent (or at least we can't start there), then understanding would seem to boil down to "received tradition", which has got to be way more doctrinal than reasoning. Are you suggesting that all interpretation is inherently doctrinal? Does that apply when interpreting non-biblical texts, e.g. are you saying there's no way to read Homer or Shakespeare or Tolkein except through a literary-doctrinal lens? (If not, what's the difference?)