Well-stated! If the choice is between recognizing (or at least allowing for) some elasticity of interpretation / application or imposing a brittle and calcified (for all time) meaning, the latter does not seem to me like any kind of way to honor a living text. Nor does it (the latter way) appear to be the way that Christ or the early church apostles interacted with the text.
That said, it still seems to me that there are ways of handling the text that can (or should be) ruled out for all time. Such as abusing the text to contort it into the service of power and domination of some over others.
For me, in this matter - I’m finding my basis for trust to be more in people than in sets of texts / systematic theologies. I.e. I attend to some people (whether past or present) more than others just because of what I have seen in their character, and the entire body of things they’ve already pubicly committed to, and more importantly: lived out. Once that is established, it takes a lot for me to break off that trust. I’m willing to give them considerable benefit of the doubt when they say disagreeable things, and to wrestle with what they’ve said - searching for any new understandings or ‘elasticity’ of meaning if you will. So my world-view has become more Person-based than systematic theology-based.