Stanley Porter surveys approaches to theological interpretation by Joel Green, Daniel Treier, Stephen Fowl, and Todd Billings. He finds that across these contributions, there is general dissatisfaction with historical criticism, high esteem for pre-critical interpretation (especially as seen in the ‘rule of faith’), significant regard for the church as interpretative community, acknowledgement of the role of the Holy Spirit, and divided opinion on whether ‘theological interpretation’ is actually a method, and how it relates to general hermeneutics. He finds a lack of hermeneutical clarity and linguistic precision in a number of the works under consideration, and brings to the foreground the question of whether ‘theological interpretation’ is in fact a coherent and sufficient hermeneutical model. His answer is ultimately in the negative.
While expressing sympathy with the movement’s critiques of historical criticism, Porter finds that in practice, proponents are divided on its continuing value for interpretation, and in fact are quite willing to co-opt other non-theological modes of analysis into their interpretative approaches. He finds that the commendation of pre-modern interpretation involves a simplistic grouping together of diverse approaches, which in fact included major interpretative disputes. He is troubled by the attempt to see the church as useful control on interpretative practices, because the church is patently marked by rich diversity. He finds discussions of the role of the Holy Spirit to be lip service rather than offering anything substantial.
Porter concludes that the authors he has surveyed do not promote a robust hermeneutic, although they do each (whether intentionally or not) present somewhat eclectic methods of interpretation. Elsewhere, Porter sharply distinguishes the ‘theological interpretation’ that he has critiqued above from ‘theological hermeneutics,’ which he regards as the philosophically informed attempt to discern a robust hermeneutical model that coheres with the Christian theological tradition. He sees this enterprise as exemplified in the work of Anthony Thiselton.
 Stanley E. Porter, ‘What Exactly is Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and is it Hermeneutically Robust Enough for the Task to Which it has been Appointed?’ in Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm, Horizons in Hermeneutics: A Festschrift in Honor of Anthony C. Thiselton (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013), 234-267.
 Stanley E. Porter, ‘Biblical Hermeneutics and Theological Responsibility,’ in Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm (eds.), The Future of Biblical Interpretation: Responsible Plurality in Biblical Hermeneutics (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2013), 16-35.