Faith | Freedom | Family

NO HIDING: Finding Faith & Freedom to walk out an authentic relationship with God, His Family, and His Word. Through: Biblical Studies | Stories | Scholarship

Search This Blog

Saturday, February 7, 2026

Walking more humbly. A spiritual discipline for Justice Warriors

  

Walking more humbly.

 

 

A spiritual discipline for Justice Warriors

 

 

By Darrell Wolfe

 

 

 

 

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the course The Theology and Ethics of Martin Luther King, Jr.: ET543

 

Professor Phillip Allen

 

 

Friday, January 30, 2026


 

Sermon – “Walking more humbly… a spiritual discipline for Justice Warriors.”

“He has told you, O mortal, what is good, and what does Yahweh ask from you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8, LEB).[1]

Introduction

I really like to argue. This is not to say that I enjoy the academic pursuit of laying down premises followed by evidence-based conclusions that follow logically from the data. No, I mean I like to post things to my social media pages that will intentionally stir ‘the other side’ to rage and then engage them in my comments section with escalating vitriol and mutual disrespect. For years, my more pastoral friends, my counselor, and my wife all lamented this habit. In my calmer moments, I lament this habit as well. My autistic over-active sense of justice rages against injustices and then I find myself taking extreme positions against the extreme abuses I witness in the world. I’ve made repeated attempts to change. Yet, I find myself falling back into the habit repeatedly. One of the truly great ironies about this habit is that I have changed my own understanding and stances largely through the academic pursuits I first mentioned. The very stances I argue against today, inciting rage-filled rebuke by some of my friends and acquaintances are the stances I used to support while these same friends and acquaintances yelled “Yeah, you tell them!” Why do I engage in this online behavior when my true core-self would rather I not? I have come to learn it is (in part) related to low dopamine from Autism and ADHD, and it is a dopamine seeking behavior. I still wanted to address the atrocities and injustices, but it was time for a change in approach.

Exposition

            Let us start by looking to Micah for guidance. The setting of Micah’s prophetic writing is the northern Kingdom of Isreal just prior to its destruction by the Assyrians (~ 722 BCE).[2] In chapter six, Micah begins a divine court case against Israel, “Arise! Plead our case…” (Micah 6:1),[3] and then he begins to speak for Yahweh with his indictment against his own people. Yahweh, via Micah, reminds Israel how he birthed them as a nation and gave them their code of honor, “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8, LEB). Some of the things Yahweh calls Israel out for are:

·         Rich taking advantage of people and causing violence.

·         Lies are commonplace among people of the nation.

·         Deceitful weights (social and economic coercion of the powerless by the powerful).

·         Aligning their thoughts with evil leaders who should have been examples to avoid.

Micah knew something about extreme injustices committed by people who claimed to be Yahweh’s people. In recent years, and more markedly recent weeks, the United States of America and the US-American White Evangelical Church have been looking an awful lot like the northern Kingdom of Isreal just prior to its destruction. While I want to use the term ‘they’, it is ‘we’. For I was them, and they were me, and we failed to see the heart of Yahweh and the heart of Jesus for social justice, mercy, kindness, understanding, humble approaches to knowledge, and the highest command to love even our enemy. As recent marches, protests, and violence spiked, I found myself lamenting for my part of the cause in the decades leading up to this cultural moment. I grew and changed through deconstruction and reconstruction of my worldview through academic biblical studies; by adopting a humble seeker mindset; and through the patience of professors, professionals, pastors, and new friends.

            In a similar cultural moment, in 1955, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. addressed a crowd of Black-Americans who were angry at the injustices caused against them by the dominant culture, and the most recent injustice of the arrest of Rosa Parks for choosing not to give up her seat to a white passenger. They performed a successful one-day boycott of the public bus system with close to one hundred percent participation from all the black citizens of the city. Following this day of success, the instigators of the boycott determined that one day would not be enough, it was time to organize a movement. In his impromptu speech given in a small church in Alabama, Dr. King inaugurated a new organization and set the tone of the movement going forward by affirming their collective anger at injustice and their responsibility to act in opposition to it while also noting that Jesus said to love your enemies,[4] and he quoted Booker T Washington “Let no man pull you down so low as to make you hate him.”[5] Rather than leading violent protests, which was advocated by some other movements, the people of Montgomery, Alabama sustained a city-wide boycott of the public bus system for one year, leading to multiple wins for the community and culminating in a US Supreme Court decision against segregation. While my over-active sense of justice wanted to take the more violent approach while reading about those days, I am forced to admit that the peaceful protests ultimately won the day.

This week something wonderful happened in my approach to interacting with opposing views. A former colleague reached out to tell me how I had fallen from grace for now supporting the opposing side, and he tried to shout me into submission to his way (my old way) of thinking using name calling and coded language. For a micro-moment, I considered engaging him in the way I always have, both of us feeding each other’s need for a dopamine fix. Then I found there was nothing in me that wanted to pursue this path. I had no pull toward this awful habit.

Meditating on the way of love and Dr. King’s approach snuffed out this flame, at least for this interaction. I wanted an effective strategy that could open the door for authentic exploration. I attempted to lead the conversation into evidence, data, and facts. But rather than simply give that data to an unwilling participant as pearls to be trampled,[6] I challenged him to find data related to his chosen topic. He immediately tried to change the topic, but I refused to follow him to the new topic, insisting instead that he look up the data, evidence, statistics, and facts of the situations around which his chosen topic revolved, and then we could have a discussion. I let him know I would move on to other topics when we fully explored this topic together calmly using data. Ultimately, he was unwilling to engage in data-driven analysis, and the conversation ended with no dopamine fix for either party.

What I walked away with was a sense of peace. I sowed the seeds for peace and the opportunity to grow, learn, and resolve in discussion (not argument). The door remains open without burned bridges or blocked profiles. My goal was to move the conversation toward a productive dialogue that could have given us both an opportunity to widen our perspectives and move toward Justice, Kindness, and a Humble walk with God. It was a good start to a new way of interacting with the world for my part, following Dr. King’s lead.

            In my view, Micah is a clarion call to Yahweh’s heart, and Jesus’s message to love our enemies is a furthering of that goal. Had the northern Kingdom of Israel heeded this call, they may have survived for at least another generation. You cannot stand by and allow the rich to abuse the poor if you are loving your enemies. Dr. King’s approach followed Micah’s direction to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). The boycott, lasting one year, did not incite riots (though they had a model to do this in the white pro-segregation organization they were compared with). They did not burn bridges; rather, Dr. King actively made his audience aware that the goal was reconciliation and not further division. His approach was one of active participation while employing humility in approach. Sadly, this is not the way I (we) often engage with high-tension topics, especially in social media. I find a model for this in my former counselor Bob Hamp, whose posts always account for the pain points both ‘sides’ of a contentious topic may feel while calling both to a higher way of thinking. It is my hope to inspire that way in myself and in my audience.


 

COMMENTARY

            My intended primary audience are (1) fellow arguers – keyboard warriors – those of us who feel the need to shout against injustice, and (2) those of us who came out of the majority white evangelical culture, deconstructed, reconstructed, and now feel passion to see our former friends and acquaintances make the same changes to fight against injustice. As a writer, first and foremost, I will be posting this on my website(s); however, if I ever found the occasion to give a public address, speech, or sermon, I may pull this from my archives and use this material as a jumping off point. When I read Dr. King’s recounting of his impromptu message, and the way he juxtaposed active resistance with loving both the harmed and those causing harm (actively or passively), it challenged me. I saw in him the balance of the two ideals, which he himself said, “With less than fifteen minutes left, I began preparing an outline. In the midst of this, however, I faced a new and sobering dilemma: How could I make a speech that would be militant enough to keep my people aroused to positive action and yet moderate enough to keep this fervor within controllable and Christian bounds?”[7]

As I read this, Micah 6:8 came flooding to mind, and I got to seeing his movement and ethos in terms of Micah’s words. Dr. King actively and consciously stoked the fires of the people to resist injustice (do justice) but he balanced this with loving kindness toward all involved. This approach is one of humility and not pride. Pride did enter the movement at one point, a man felt slighted for having been passed over for a leadership role, and he put out false accusations against the movement. This threatened to quickly derail the cohesion and momentum. Dr. King left his vacation in another state, leaving behind his wife and child, to return home and handle the conflict before it escalated. Here again, Dr. King resisted the injustice while remaining in loving kindness towards the man and those he felt wronged him. This humble approach led the man to repent and healed the rift. Micah 6:8 may be the “how-to” to Jesus’ ethos to “love your enemies”.


 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

King, Martin Luther, Jr. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. HarperOne, 2003.

The Lexham English Bible (LEB), Fourth Edition. Logo Bible Software. Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.). Lexham Press, 2010. http://www.lexhampress.com.

Walton, John H., Victor Harold Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. InterVarsity Press, 2000.

 



[1] The Lexham English Bible (LEB), Fourth Edition, Logo Bible Software, Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.) (Lexham Press, 2010), Micah 6:8, http://www.lexhampress.com.

[2] John H. Walton et al., The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (InterVarsity Press, 2000), sec. Micah: 1:1-16 Judgment Coming to Samaria and Jerusalem.

[3] LEB, Micah 6:1.

[4] Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. (HarperOne, 2003), 436; LEB, Matt 5:43-44; Luke 6:27-35-- ““You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘Hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” (Matthew 5:43–44, LEB); ““But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,” (Luke 6:27, LEB); “But love your enemies, and good, and lend expecting back nothing, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.” (Luke 6:35, LEB).

[5] King, A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., 436.

[6] LEB, Matthew 7:6.

[7] King, A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., 434.



Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o


Sunday, August 24, 2025

Life after death, and the question of evil...

This was a question from a Facebook group, and I ended up writing an answer so long, I thought it was worth posting here too. 

The Question:

So what DOES happen to "souls" when we go to the great beyond? I'm being completely serious. I got confirmed in the Lutheran church, have not been back in 40 some years. I don't know if I even believe there is some mysterious being that is in charge of life and death. All I know is I'm looking for someone to blame and that mysterious being is the one.


My Answer:


The question of the ages. 

Short answer, if we're using the biblical texts as our source, is that it's impossible to say with any certainty. 

Almost every 'doctrine' of Christianity was created (contrived) in the post biblical periods. Very few claims of any Christian movement today would be recognized by any of the biblical authors

Even the biblical authors themselves had very little to say about the non-material world or life after death. They provided very little commentary, and when they did it was shrouded in metaphor and allusion. They did however make a few interesting notes, but first I have to lay the framework for the non-initiated into the Ancient Near East worldview so it makes sense.

They weren't interested in the afterlife much, not in the way moderns think of it. 

They were primarily focused on how to live well in this life. They were also frequently interested in life after "life after death", as NT Wright would describe it. They were interested in The Resurrection, The Day of Yahweh (the Day of the LORD in English translations). 

For the biblical authors, death was the great enemy. It was envisioned as exile from the land of the living. This is what many non-Hebrew readers miss in Genesis 1-11. When it is said that Human (Hebrew adam = human, it's an analogy story) is told that in the day he will eat of the fruit of knowledge he will 'surely die', and then he goes on to live almost a thousand years, English readers get confused. They debate over the term death, the application of it, and the timing. The actual concept the biblical authors were drawing on was plain and simple for anyone saturated in Torah (Gen - Deut) Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, aka OT). 

Human ate and was exiled. 

Exile = Death. 

This story was an analogy to help interpret their experience after being exiled to Babylon, and it was written during the exilic period, not before. 

For the various unnamed poets and scribes throughout Tanakh. This theme of exile was explored in imagery, poetic language, metaphor, etc. To die was to be exiled from the land of the living and go their fathers (ancestors). It was to become a disembodied one (elohim = disembodied being, not strictly god, and it was used of many types of non-embodied entities).

While the biblical authors, from Genesis to Revelation, both in the Hebrew Bible (aka OT) and Greek biblical commentary (aka NT) had very little commentary on the after-life, they were deeply interested in the day when this final enemy, Death personified, was to be defeated, and injustice to be judged in its fullness. 

They looked to a day when Yahweh would descend from his divine space and fully merge with this earthly space. They weren't looking to go to him, they were looking for him to come to us. 

They had many terms, but the most common was The Day of Yahweh (the Day of the LORD in English translations). They imagined a day where the living and the dead would all rise and stand before Yahweh's judgement seat. There, he would punish those who created injustice and reward those who fought for justice. 

*Ironically, in this framework, many modern white evangelicals would fail the test.*

The biblical authors saw pain, death, and injustice as the result of human agency leading to exile Shalom (peaceful life) and eventually from the material world. They blamed agents of injustice (both human and rebel Elohim, disembodied rebel spirit beings) as the sources of all injustice. They looked forward to a day when Humankind's lease on this earth was complete, and Yahweh would return to judge his tenants for how they handled things while he was away. This is the root Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible worldview behind Jesus' analogy of the Land Owner who left his farm to Tenants (Matthew 21:33-41). 

At this point, the 'wicked' those who twisted or perverted justice, would be cast out into... nobody knows. They used a lot of poetic and metaphorical language based on real events in Israel's history. Much of the language is self-contradictory to other language. It all revolves around the theme of "the bad guys get theirs". 

The biblical authors did not see Yahweh as a source of evil, but rather the judge of it and power to defeat it. They saw him as intervening in smaller more localized ways for his people in this present reality, and the future judge of all evil at some undisclosed future date. For them it was an 'already, but not yet' kind of idea. It's happening, but hasn't fully happened. 

Meanwhile, those who fought for The Ways of Yahweh, his justice and his Shalom (peace) would be rewarded by being given entrance into his everlasting kingdom. This was envisioned by a re-embodied experience, not a disembodied one. They weren't looking to leave earth and 'go to heaven when they die'. Not even the very Jewish Rabbi Sha'ul (apostle Paul) was looking for escape from earth. Rather, he was looking forward to the day when his own Rabbi, Yeshua (Jesus) who was the first-born of the dead, with a new body, would return and everyone else would get their new bodies. 

The biblical authors weren't looking to escape earth, they were hoping for a day when earth would be redeemed, death defeated, and everyone would get new bodies free of death, sickness, and pain. 

They called this Day, The Day of the LORD (Yahweh), or The Resurrection. Their vision was of a day when all who ever lived and sought the justice of Yahweh, even if they didn't know him by name, would return to their new bodies and live in peace forever on this earth, but renewed. 

All that to say... there were a few, very few, glimpses into what people thought might be happening for those who were exiled between this life and the resurrection. 

The most clear post-Jesus reference is Paul's statement that 'to be absent from the body is to be present with The Lord'. This hints that Paul understood there to be a consciousness after the death of the body, at least for those on Yahweh's side. Virtually nothing is ever said about those who aren't on his side during this intermediate period between death and The Day. 

Beyond the biblical authors, I can only cite people's varied experiences and ponder what they could mean. Many claims have been made, some more credible than others. 

After my wife died, I saw her and the child who died in her, in a short vision. It was very realistic, but brief. They were happy. I believe I even heard 'god' say a few things to me about her status with him. 

Whether those things were real, or ways my brain was processing grief, is probably open to interpretation. But I experienced them. And they allowed me to let some things go, and move forward with some degree of Shalom, tinged by grief though it was. 

Are any of the things the biblical authors aspired to 'true'? Will there be a great Day of Yahweh? Or were they just metaphors and analogies that an ancient people used to grapple with the injustice of their time? 

I think anyone who claims to be certain beyond any doubt about that is fooling themselves. But most data is just data until its interpreted. This worldview has the most compelling explanatory evidence for my own life experiences and 'strange' events since childhood. 

I think quantum physics has taught us to question what is 'real' at some level. Humans can't perceive many basic things (like UV and Infrared) that some animals and bugs can. 

Some scientists claim that there is mathematical and theoretical evidence to show that higher dimensions are plausible. They would claim these realities aren't 'out there' somewhere but rather right here with us in ways we cannot perceive. 

That's similar to the Ancient Near East worldview. They didn't try to go to gods space, they created spaces where material and non-material could become one, sacred spaces, temples, ziggurats. 

It is compelling that modern scientists are coming up with ideas that mirror an Ancient Near East worldview, the same worldview of the biblical authors, but a very different worldview from the Platonic Greek thinkers who used the biblical authors to create an entirely different creature in the first 300 years A.D. 

So..... what happens? My guess, the biblical authors were on to something, if we stop thinking in literal terms and wrestle with the truths they wrestled with but in modern terms. 

If you want to go further:

Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!
Darrell Wolfe
Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o


Thursday, June 12, 2025

The Divine Council Worldview’s Relationship with Inter-Religious Dialogue, The Divine Council Worldview’s Relationship with Inter-Religious Dialogue

 The Divine Council Worldview’s Relationship with Inter-Religious Dialogue

A reciprocal relational approach to missions.

by

Darrell Wolfe

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the course Living Missiologically: SF503

 

Professor Mareque Ireland

Word Count 3107 (not including works cited or researched lists).

 

Thursday, June 12, 2025

 

Introduction

Lisa Cron, in her TEDx talk “Wired for story”[1], observed that throughout history societies have built themselves on stories. Long before written records, the oral storyteller took a prominent role in cultivating the culture of their tribe and passing down wisdom through stories. Stories remain deeply relevant to us in the modern era. The meta-narratives adopted by White US-American Evangelicals in the last 100 years have led to a host of culture wars culminating in the rise of Christian Nationalism sweeping the nation. In Spring 2025, these worldviews clashed in national protests. The behavior of the US Government that sparked these protests is owed in large part to White US-American Evangelicals taking control of the reigns of power due to the stories and narratives they adopted.

Those stories and narratives were my inheritance, and they left me with a lot of pain and confusion throughout my life, but especially after my late-wife’s passing. In the wake of my world imploding, I began a process of questioning the stories I internalized and asking the question: “Am I more loyal to the doctrines I inherited or to the biblical author’s own intended message?” The process of deconstructing US-American Churchianity and reconstructing the biblical authors worldview led me to a healthier relationship with Jesus, the Bible, and my fellow human Image Bearers. I no longer struggle with cognitive dissonance between my faith and my daily life.

My goal is to explore the meta-narrative of the biblical authors’ worldview, and how it can inform our orthopraxy in the modern era. My specific claim is that an understanding of the biblical authors’ Divine Council Worldview opens a new window into reciprocal relational inter-religious dialogue. To build the framework for this claim, I have laid the following roadmap: 1. I will briefly touch on the importance of our story, our meta-narrative. 2. I will explore the history and importance of Inter-Religious Dialogue 3. I will spend the lion-share of this paper highlighting the biblical authors’ worldview and meta-narrative, which is far different from the one I inherited. 4. I transition to how the biblical authors’ narrative can provide a framework for the modern era. 5. I will explore that worldview in the context of my missional calling.

1.      What kind of story are we living in?

The narratives we adopt and encode are what drive our view of self, view of God, and view of others; these narratives create worldviews that effect our interactions with every realm of our lives. It has often been noted by creatives that stories affect us in ways that rote memorization and teaching of facts cannot. The story we believe we are living changes how we view the world. Brandon Sanderson said, “the mandate of a writer is to get inside the heads of people other than yourself…” and “if they read a story with somebody who sees the world differently than themselves” they can become open to new ways of seeing the world.[2]

Our narratives matter. The biblical texts influence Jesus Follower’s narratives and worldviews; and therefore, our interactions with those who are ‘other’ to our own US-American Evangelical contexts. We must examine our understanding of the biblical narratives, what they tell us about the ‘other’ and how we understand our sense of mission as followers of Rabbi Yeshua. If we are to have meaningful inter-religious and relational dialogue with those who are not yet Jesus Followers, it will require we be wise and harmless, and “consider carefully” how we live among those who are outside our Jesus communities (Mat 10.16; Eph 5.15-17). Drawing a finer point, understanding the Divine Council Worldview of the biblical authors gives us an entry point for reciprocal relational inter-religious dialogue in which we love and respect our dialogue partners.

2.      Inter-Religious Dialogue

Since the opening prologue of the Torah, Yahweh has been at work to restore the nations to himself (Gen 12, the call of Abraham). The rising of Rabbi Yeshua from the grave became a catalyst for an era in which the Gentile nations were invited to return to Yahweh’s embrace. For over two thousand years, communities of Jesus have been planted all over the world. However, those communities exist within contexts, cultures, and pre-existing worldviews. If we are to “love thy neighbor” (Matt 22.39) it will mean respecting the individuals and communities with which we interact. This includes all people, not just fellow Christians. We “must treat people of any faith and no faith with genuine respect”.[3]

As early as the 1970s, religious leaders and scholars debated the importance of Interfaith Dialogue (Vatican II).[4] One conclusion of the scholarly efforts since those early conversations was an “emphasis on neighbor” which means that “we cannot dialogue with, or witness to, people if we from the outset resent their views”.[5] This means we are not preaching at our neighbors in a one-sided monologue; rather, we are in dialogue with our neighbors, learning from each other. Put another way, “Reciprocity is the glue that holds the relational polarities of uniqueness and unity together”.[6] We hold dialogue as our chief aim because “relation is intrinsic to our personhood”.[7]

This means we see people as people, humans, beings created to bear the image of God. When God met the ancient Israelites at Sinai, he had already freed them before entering a formal covenant. Throughout the early years of their developing relationship, God taught them to be his Image Bearers. They were to be a singled-out nation and their calling was to “bear Yahweh’s name among the nations, that is, to represent him well”.[8] If we are to be Image Bearers in our modern era, it is going to mean learning how to read the biblical author’s in their own context and it will mean learning to recognize the presuppositions we bring to the text. When we come to the biblical narratives, we must recognize that we bring our own contexts to our reading. McCaulley highlights this well, “We come from somewhere, and that somewhere has left its mark whether we acknowledge it or not.”[9] We need to understand the story we are being invited into, and how that meta-narrative can inform our own.

3.      What is the biblical story?

Dr. Witherington sets the tone of our study, “A text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean; therefore always study the Bible in light of its original historical, archaeological, literary, theological, ethical contexts”.[10] Walton describes these contexts using the metaphor of a “cultural river” in which the Israelites “floated on the current” of shared cultural narratives and worldviews with the surrounding cultures of their day.[11] By including contemporary literature in addition to a close reading of the biblical texts, we develop a healthier understanding of the story into which we are invited to participate. What story are the biblical authors, in all their variety, inviting us into? How does that story invite us into a shared cultural narrative that crosses eras and cultures? While not exhaustive, we will look at a few examples which provide clues to answer these questions.

The Biblical Authors Meta-Narrative

            The opening prologue to Torah (Gen 1-11, supported by later texts throughout Tankah) tell us that God is the creator of order and the tamer of chaos, that humankind and the lesser gods of the Divine Council partnered to rebel against his rule, and that Yahweh turned the nations over other gods. But chapter 12 begins Yahweh’s plan of redemption of all nations by carving out a nation for himself in Abraham. The Tanakh is an internal critique (Jewish writer to their own Jewish culture) of the ways in which they either worked with Yahweh or rebelled against him. This frequent failure to follow The Way of Yahweh is cited as the chief cause of their suffering and exile(s) as they interacted with the nations.

By the time we get to the New Covenant writers, we see the Messiah, Rabbi Yeshua, step onto the scene to create new hearts in the people and to free them from the ‘powers’ of the lesser gods. This Christus Victor view culminates in the ultimate victory of the Cross and Ascension, creating a new community of The Way of Yeshua. This Way is typified by “love thy neighbor” (Luke 10.27) as demonstrated in the sharing of resources and doing life together (Acts 2). The Apostle Paul (Rabbi Sha’ul) comes on the scene in this community to begin inviting Gentiles (the nations) into the community, and he cites stories throughout the Tanakh in his effort to show them the story they are adopting.

Divine Council Worldview

            To understand my reason for engaging in inter-religious dialogue, I will briefly explain the Divine Council worldview and why it is relevant. The term Divine Council (Deut 32) Worldview has been in Old Testament scholarship for decades and was made popular in lay and the wider academy through the works of Dr. Michael Heiser.[12] Yahweh operates with a council of gods (lesser gods) (Deut 32, Psalms 82 and 89, Job 38, 1 Kings 22, 2 Chron 18). Various texts both within the Tanakh and in literature from second temple Judaism paint a portrait that some of the members of this Divine Council rebelled and this becomes part of the mission of Jesus to restore the order of things. This explains some of Paul’s references to the powers that sometimes baffle western readers.[13]

In this reading of the texts, it becomes clear that Israel adapted their sister culture’s worldviews of a council of gods. An interesting set of charts and comparisons showing the Ugaritic and Hebrew texts shows the early Israelites development of ‘two powers’ in heaven, a visible Yahweh and an invisible Yahweh.[14] Hilderbrand and Sritrakool build on Heiser’s work as they developed their missional approach in Thailand. They critique the way modern western Christians “discount the reality of the gods” which “may be pulling a people away from a more biblical worldview”.[15] They further develop the ways in which the biblical authors, including Jesus and Paul reference the powers, principalities, gods of the nations, and evil influences over humankind. Yet, “Even though humans fell into deception, rebellion and sin, God had a plan to redeem humanity back to their original purpose.”[16] They conclude that this worldview and understanding of the biblical narrative offers a more compelling, meaningful, and resonate message to the culture of Thailand and by extension many cultures in the 10-40 window. They see the nations are invited into a “a new nation that has no boundaries on earth, a kingdom of God. Humans take the place of the sons of God who have been judged by God.”

            By reading the biblical authors in context, we can see the ways in which they adopted and adapted the cultural worldviews of their own cultures (both in the Ancient Near East, and later within the larger framework of Hellenized second temple Judaism). We also see that within this worldview, the nations had their own separate relationship with Yahweh through his lesser Council, and that those relationships were appropriate for them (Deut 32). We then see the mission of Jesus and Paul to invite the nations back into relationship with Yahweh. This view allows us to hold space for religions and worldviews that differ from our own.

4.      What is our narrative today?

Given the arguments above, it is entirely appropriate to accept another cultures or religions relationship with Yahweh on their terms. We can understand that all cultures and religions have attempted to understand the deeper truths of life and they offer wisdom and perspective that we can learn from; likewise, we can offer the wisdom and perspective of our culture and relationship with Rabbi Yeshua. We do not force them to convert; we engage in dialogue and offer an invitation for interested parties to join our communities. God loved the nations and gave his son “in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish but will have eternal life” (John 3.16). If God loved them that much, how could we treat them with disdain, distrust, or as less-than us in any way? Instead, we follow the example of Jesus and Paul and other followers in subversive love of thy enemies (Matt 5.43-48; Luke 6.27-37; Rom 12.14-21; Prov 25.21-22), we love the immigrants and strangers and ‘other’ who come among us (Deut 10.19; 24.17-18; Lev 19.33-34; Jer 7.6; Matt 25.35; Heb 13.2). We gather into communities of Jesus Followers, do life together, share resources, and meet often to discuss the texts of those who came before us (Acts 2). Jesus said that those outside the community would recognize us as his “if you have love for one another” (John 13.34-35). We demonstrate The Way of Jesus, the better way of being human, by our love of God and our love for our fellow human Image Bearers. We cannot love them if we judge them as ‘ignorant heathens’, as many did with a worldview of European colonialism.

5.      What is my mission in my context?

            That is a general argument for why it is important to treat those of other cultures and religions as co-equals in reciprocal relational dialogue; and how the Divine Council worldview creates the space to interact with others in an open-handed approach. Throughout my life I have been driven by a burning desire for ‘true’ things and ‘real’ things. I had experiences in childhood that prevented me from ever denying the existence of an Unseen Realm. This was why Heiser’s work was pivotal in my own reconstruction of a more authentic biblical faith. However, my pursuit for the ‘truth’ has led me into a variety of experiences, church traditions, and methods of reading the Bible. Many of those were helpful, and many of those were harmful. After a particular worldview left me and my children deeply wounded, I set out to understand the biblical authors for myself rather than interpreting through the traditions handed down to me. This sent me to the academic study of the biblical texts and those texts contemporary to the biblical authors. I now fall under the wider heading of “Deconstruction” but also under the heading of “Reconstruction”. I developed a healthier relationship with biblical texts, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Father, and as a result my fellow human Image Bearers.

My anti-tradition approach includes using terms that invite the hearer/reader to think differently about the texts of the biblical authors, as one may have noticed throughout this paper. That ‘irreverent’ approach, as one friend described it, has opened the doors for me to enter into dialogue with a host of people who have rarely had positive interactions with Christians or the Bible (especially not the common White US-American Evangelical brand of Christians). Recently, I met a fellow ‘truth seeker’ at a Buddhist Temple. While we came to the discussion with divergent paths in our deconstruction, the reciprocal relational dialogue has continued to bear fruit since that first meeting. We have learned much from each other.

I often speak with atheists, wiccans, and members of other faiths through happenstance meetings (divine encounters). My most common connections are invariably with a group I call the De-Churched. These are people who have Deconstructed Christianity (or at least Churchianity) but often have not taken a deeper look at the biblical texts or the biblical authors worldview on its own merits. In these, I do not dismiss or deny their experiences and worldviews. Rather, I get curious about what they think, feel, or perceive as ‘true’ in the world. People find themselves saying things like, “I don’t know why I’m even telling you this…” and they go on to explore things with me that they would not feel safe exploring inside the four walls of most churches. The Divine Council Worldview has given me both a wider framework for understanding Yahweh’s work among the nations and the freedom to see how each person’s unique contexts were used by Yahweh to lead them to him. It is my contention that the Divine Council Worldview is one key to developing a healthier relationship with the biblical texts, which opens the opportunity for a healthier relationship with our fellow Image Bearers in all their contexts.

 


 

6.      Works Cited

Cron, Lisa. “Wired for Story: Lisa Cron at TEDxFurmanU.” Ted Talk presented at the TEDxFurmanU. Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina, 4 May 2014.

Heiser, Michael. “The Naked Bible Podcast.” The Naked Bible Podcast, n.d.

_____. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bull. Biblic. Res. 26.2 (2016): 195–22.

_____. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. First edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015.

Hilderbrand, Kelly Michael, and Sutheera Sritrakool. “Developing a Thai Theological and Biblical Understanding of the World: Rethinking Thai Cosmology in Light of Divine Council Theology.” Transformation 38.1 (2021): 63–77.

Imes, Carmen Joy. Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2019.

Jack O. Balswick, Kevin S. Reimer, and Pamela E. King. The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective. Second Edition. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2016.

Janette H. Ok, Osvaldo Padilla, and Amy L. B. Peeler. The New Testament in Color: A Multiethnic Bible Commentary. Edited by Esau McCaulley. IVP Academic, 2024.

Marèque Steele Ireland. “Conversion and the Mutually Transformative Power of Dialogue (Aka Fuller in Dialogue: Engaging the ‘Other’ with Civility).” Theology, News & Notes, Fall 2010.

Pachuau, Lalsangkima. “Witnessing to Christ in a Pluralistic World: Christian Mission among Other Faiths” (2011).

Sanderson, Brandon. “Q&A: Brandon Sanderson on the Importance of Fiction and How Writing Influences His LDS Faith.” Interview by Justin Carmonyv. Q & A Book Launch Interview, 11 November 2017. Deseret News, Deseret Magazine.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context. The Lost World Series Volume 6. Place of publication not identified: Inter-Varsity Press, 2019.

Witherington, Ben. Reading and Understanding the Bible. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press USA, 2015.

“Gentile Gods at the Eschaton: A Reconsideration of Paul’s ‘Principalities and Powers’ in 1 Corinthians 15 on JSTOR,” n.d.

 


 

7.      Works Read and Researched for this Paper

Heiser, Michael S. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26.2 (2016): 195–225.

Hilderbrand, Kelly Michael, and Sutheera Sritrakool. “Developing a Thai Theological and Biblical Understanding of the World: Rethinking Thai Cosmology in Light of Divine Council Theology.” Transformation 38.1 (2021): 63–77.

Mullen, E. Theodore. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Harvard Semitic Monographs no. 24. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980.

Niemandt, Nelus. “TOGETHER TOWARDS NEW LIFE FOR MISSIOLOGY? MISSION AND MISSIOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES 2013 POLICY STATEMENT.” Acta Theologica (2015).

Pachuau, Lalsangkima. “Missiology in a Pluralistic World.” International Review of Mission (2000).

———. “Witnessing to Christ in a Pluralistic World: Christian Mission among Other Faiths” (2011).

Peterson, Ryan S. “The Imago Dei as Human Identity: A Theological Interpretation.” Eisenbrauns, 2016.

Rozko, J. R. “Toward a Mission-Shaped Vision of Theological Formation: Implications of the Missio Dei for Theological Education” (n.d.).

Smith, Anthony D. “Biblical Beliefs in the Shaping of Modern Nations.” Nations and Nationalism 21.3 (2015): 403–22.

Taypin, Rommel. “MISSIOLOGY IN A PLURALISTIC WORLD THE PLACE OF MISSION STUDY IN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION” (n.d.).

Walton, John H. The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context. The Lost World Series Volume 6. Place of publication not identified: Inter-Varsity Press, 2019.

Chapter One Three Models of Creation in the Bible from The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 on JSTOR,” n.d.

Gentile Gods at the Eschaton: A Reconsideration of Paul’s ‘Principalities and Powers’ in 1 Corinthians 15 on JSTOR,” n.d..

The Gods-Complaint: Psalm 82 as a Psalm of Complaint on JSTOR,” n.d.



[1] Cron, Lisa. “Wired for Story: Lisa Cron at TEDxFurmanU.” Ted Talk presented at the TEDxFurmanU. Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina, 4 May 2014.

[2] Brandon Sanderson. “Q&A: Brandon Sanderson on the Importance of Fiction and How Writing Influences His LDS Faith.” Interview by Justin Carmonyv. Q & A Book Launch Interview, 11 November 2017. Deseret News, Deseret Magazine.

[3] Lalsangkima Pachuau, “Witnessing to Christ in a Pluralistic World: Christian Mission among Other Faiths” (2011): 14

[4] Pachuau, “Witnessing to Christ in a Pluralistic World,” 11.

[5] Pachuau, “Witnessing to Christ in a Pluralistic World,” 23.

[6] Jack O. Balswick, Kevin S. Reimer, and Pamela E. King, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, Second Edition. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2016), 39.

[7] Marèque Steele Ireland, “Conversion and the Mutually Transformative Power of Dialogue (Aka Fuller in Dialogue: Engaging the ‘Other’ with Civility),” Theology, News & Notes, Fall 2010.

[8] Carmen Joy Imes, Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2019), 51.

[9] Janette H. Ok, Osvaldo Padilla, and Amy L. B. Peeler, The New Testament in Color: A Multiethnic Bible Commentary, ed. Esau McCaulley (IVP Academic, 2024), xii.

[10] Ben Witherington, Reading and Understanding the Bible (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press USA, 2015).

[11] John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context, The Lost World Series Volume 6 (Place of publication not identified: Inter-Varsity Press, 2019), 88.

[12] Note: the two most common outlets for Heiser’s work are: Michael Heiser, “The Naked Bible Podcast,” The Naked Bible Podcast, n.d.; Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015).

[13] “Gentile Gods at the Eschaton: A Reconsideration of Paul’s ‘Principalities and Powers’ in 1 Corinthians 15 on JSTOR,” n.d., n.This article provides a detailed treatment of Paul’s references specifically within second temple Judaism’s cultural worldview.

[14] Michael S. Heiser, “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism,” Bull. Biblic. Res. 26.2 (2016): 197–98. Note: This builds the case for a god-head within second temple Judaism long before Jesus arrived on the scene.

[15] Kelly Michael Hilderbrand and Sutheera Sritrakool, “Developing a Thai Theological and Biblical Understanding of the World: Rethinking Thai Cosmology in Light of Divine Council Theology,” Transformation 38.1 (2021): 64.

[16] Hilderbrand and Sritrakool, “Developing a Thai Theological and Biblical Understanding of the World,” 66.