So I have not actually read any Dallas Willard to date, but I believe it was him in some form or another who implored modern-day evangelicals to be smart. In addition to being a very good person, Jesus was very smart. As such, I implore us Christians to be smarter about our faith.
I recently read this article off NPR, following a link on Al Mohler's twitter: http://ow.ly/1rvS1
Of course there are many things to rile up Christians in this article. If it isn't obvious by now, Brian McLaren is a heretic, the 'New kind of Christianity' he promotes isn't Christianity at all, and I (at least) feel extremely uncomfortable calling him an evangelical. But here's the quote in this article that really got me thinking:
"We also know that — particularly within the evangelical community — the younger you are, the less likely you are to take the Bible literally, to believe that the Bible is the inerrant 'word of God,' as compared to a book of moral precepts."
This quote gets under my skin for two main reasons: it uses the word 'inerrancy' without defining it and makes the statement that you either have to take the Bible literally or not literally at all. The only 'history' this quote takes into account is that of the world either being 6,000 years old or the earth being much older.
In beginning to address both issues, I would argue that the Bible was never meant to be a science textbook. The Bible addresses the What and the Why of Creation, for example, but its overarching goal is not to describe the 'scientific how'. That being said, if Christians must subscribe to a definition of inerrancy that holds the Bible to be a science textbook, count me out. I think we should instead hold to the Bible as inerrant in that its divine inspiration prevents errors (*this is a much longer discussion in and of itself, of course). At the same time, the Bible is most assuredly MORE than a book of 'moral precepts.' It is the divinely inspired Word of God, showing us God working in fallen humanity to bring about redemption through Jesus Christ.
Similarly, in addressing the question of the literal nature of the Bible, we must ask, is the younger generation the first that opposes this scientific, cut and dry literacy of the Bible? Or, at least, are we the first generation that wishes to use the word 'allegorical' alongside 'literal'? The answer, my friends, to my great delight, is no. In fact, it is only post-enlightenment that Christians have come to view the Bible in this cut and dry literal manner. Most pre-enlightenment Christian thinkers held to allegorical interpretations of Scriptures alongside its literal nature. For example, Gregory of Nazianzus, came up with all sorts of allegorical interpretations of Job (some of them admittedly a bit far-fetched), but, yes, held that the story of Job literally occurred. In this way, we see that we have a great heritage of Christian thinkers that, yes, literally believed that God created the world, but, no, did not do it in six literal days. It's allowing for both an allegorical interpretation and multiple levels of fulfillment of prophecy, for example, that allowed reformed thinkers to postulate amillennialism, a view of the end times that is extremely Biblical, but allows for great compassion, anticipation, and action in the hear-and-now.
I could go on for a while, but will simply say: let's not limit our understanding of Christianity to what happens now, what happened in Bible times, and when God created the world. Let's look at how earlier Christian thinkers and theologians approached Christianity and the Bible. And, yes, they did disagree over many theological things. And...science and Christianity are not two opposites. My friends, to deny microevolution, for example, is like chopping off your leg and insisting you can walk. Just as many great Christian thinkers, such as Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, allowed their scientific discoveries to complement the Bible, let us strive to do the same.
