Controversies in the Church: Different views on the authority of Scripture

The church in this world has a number of divisions, and one of the underlying causes is that there are different views on the authority of Scripture. The extremes can range from thinking vast parts are mythology or self-serving histories (and therefore without authority) to thinking every word is quite literally verbatim from God and therefore inerrant. 

How are we to navigate this field with respect for the Scriptures, respect for the facts, and respect for people who hold different places on that spectrum of views? Is there room for gentleness and reconciliation? (If not, it's our job to create those if we can.) 

"If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31)

Some of the most commonly-advanced proofs for the authority of Scripture are quotes taken from Scripture itself. But that leads to a circular argument in which something is used as its own proof. It might reinforce the beliefs of those who already believe it, but it cannot move someone who does not already believe it. 

"Every charge should be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." (Matthew 18:16 among others)

There is also some basic disagreement about which side bears the burden of proof. Does the received faith get the benefit of the doubt, or the burden of proof? The answer to that question frames the entire discussion differently: Which side is the accuser, which is the accused? Is Scripture presumed innocent in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, or presumed faulty and must re-establish itself one point at a time? What about accusations against various parts of Scripture: Do they require any burden of proof, or is any accusation presumed to be legitimate? The secular view, which seeks the de-legitimization of the faithful view, it seems that any accusation is presumed to be legitimate. Does that hold within the church as well? 

"Test everything; hold on to that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

I think the reason the different Christian camps are still able to have some dialog is because of the amount of historical or corroborating evidence for various things in Scripture, the number of things that are in fact verifiable or testable. 

In everyday life, we test information against other information, test one belief against another belief, in our human quest for the best and the truest. Scripture encourages this; reason encourages this; experience encourages this. 

How exactly do we test things? 

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other side comes and questions him. (Proverbs 18:17)

Here we come to a bigger obstacle: that people of different views rarely speak to each other. Even more rarely do they seek to understand each other. It is perhaps human nature that we are eager for others to understand us, and less eager to understand why someone might disagree with us. Regardless of where the presumption of innocence lies between worldviews, always to each person their own view seems the one that bears the presumption of innocence and reasonableness. 

Before we can reconcile with each other, we must first desire to understand each other.