“Would God That All the Lord’s People Were Prophets”: Liberation Theology and Scholars as Prophets for the Oppressed

8/7/2019 Would God That All the Lords People Were Prophets: Liberation Theology and Scholars as Prophets for the Oppre

1/14

1

Would God That All the Lords People Were Prophets:Liberation Theology and Scholars as Prophets for the Oppressed

Loyd Ericson Claremont Graduate University

April 2011Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology, BYU

This conference poses the question: Does philosophy and disciplined theological

reflection have a place in a [prophetic] church? In my paper I will turn this question around and

argue that the very place for philosophy, theology, and other scholarly pursuits is in an active

prophetic roleto be prophets to (not for) the Church and the world on behalf of the oppressed.

This is a prophetic role as understood in the tradition of liberation theology that differs from that

held by those sustained in the Church as prophets, seers, and revelators. While the latter is

authoritative for the Church by virtue of priesthood hierarchical authority, the former has no

ecclesiastical authority.

The paper will consist of five parts: a synopsis of liberation theologyprimarily from the

perspective of Latin American liberation theologiansand the role of prophets and prophecy in

liberation theology; a look at extra-hierarchical prophets in the scriptures, with an emphasis on

Samuel the Lamanite in the Book of Mormon; an expanded definition of this distinct prophetic

role and its relationship to the authoritative prophets of the Church; an overview of modern-day

extra-hierarchical prophets within and without the Church; and finally, a call for further

prophetic voices from philosophers, theologians, and scholars in the Church.

In the preface to Mysterium Liberationis, a collection of essays on Latin American

liberation theology, Jon Sobrino writes that the purpose of theology is to give a voice to the

voiceless, to combat lies and injustice, and to foster truth and community.1 Growing out of the

mid-twentieth century, liberation theology arose as a result of theologians in Latin America,


2/14

2

primarily Catholic, asking what it is that Christ and Christianity had to do with the gross

systemic poverty and injustice plaguing their countries. As Roberto Oliveros writes,

As we turn to the world of the Latin American popular masses and open our eyes

to see those masses, we find ourselves face to face with the results of centuries ofinstitutionalized injustice. Millions upon millions of persons are subjected to an inhuman,

demeaning poverty. We run up against this unjust poverty with every step we take, andthe collision deeply shakes the hearts of Christians of goodwill. . . .

[Like Moses and Egypt] . . . the brutal facts of the slavery and poverty of the Latin

American masses has been decisive in our reflection upon reality in the light of the Godof Jesus Christ. . . . In order to proclaim and live the Good News of the Reign of God, we

must acquire a new consciousness of the being and the task of the church. . . .

What seminal experience and intuition has given the rise to the theology ofliberation? Purely and simply, the daily experience of the unjust poverty in which

millions of our fellow Latin Americans are obliged to live. In and from this experience

emerges the shattering word of the God of Moses and of Jesus: this situation is not thewill of that God.2

Taking literally Jesuss announcement that he is the anointed one to bring good news to the

poor, . . . to proclaim release to the captives . . . , [and] to let the oppressed go free (Luke

4:18)as well as his declaration that the primary recipients of his good news were the poor,

hungered, injusticed, and meekliberation theology contends that the gross reality of poverty

and oppression requires that we understand the Christian message through a hermeneutic of,

what Gustavo Gutierrez termed, the preferential option for the poor. This means that all

aspects of Christ, the Gospel, and Christianity need to be understood in how it addresses the

plight of the poorincluding Jesuss life, the Cross, and resurrection, soteriology, ecclesiology,

evangelization, scripture, sacraments and community. In approaching the question of sin, Ignacio

Ellacuria writes:

We must ask in all seriousness what the sin of the world is today, or in what forms the sin

of the world appears today; this sin is different from personal sins but is often

conditioned by them and continues or prolongs them. . . .If we look at the reality of the world as a whole from the perspective of faith, we

see that the sin of the world is sharply expressed today in what must be called unjust


3/14

3

poverty. Poverty and injustice appear today as the great negation of Gods will and as theannihilation of the desired presence of God among human beings.3

If unjust poverty is the sin of the world, then Christ, who came to save us from the sins of the

world, is foremost concerned with liberating captives (the poor) from unjust poverty. Salvation,

thus, is salvation from temporal suffering and oppression.

Like Christ, sin, and salvation, prophecy (or what it means to be a prophet) must also be

interpreted through this hermeneutic of poverty and oppression. According to Ellacura,

Prophecy is understood [in liberation theology] to be the critical contrasting of the proclamation

of the fullness of the Kingdom of God with a definitive historical situation.4 In other words,

prophecy primarily consists of pointing out where our current situation fails to meet the divine

standards of justice and equality. Thus, in light of the preferential option for the poor, the

greatest contrast between the idealized Reign or Kingdom of God (what Ellacuria calls

Christian utopia) and the current historical (or real) situation is seen in the plight of the

economically oppressed. For Latter-day Saints, a similar contrast between Gods ideal Christian

utopia and historic poverty is made explicit in LDS scripture where Enochs Zion utopia in the

Book of Moses is such that there was no poor among them (Moses 7:18) and the Nephite

utopia in the Book of Mormon is a state in which there were no rich and poor, bond and free (4

Ne. 1:3). Simply put, prophecy declares that the reality of poverty marks a failure of humanity to

realize the equality that God demands. (Compare this to D&C 49:20, which states that it is not

given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in

sin.)

It is with this understanding of prophecy that Gilberto da Silva Gorgulho, writes that the

most radical prophecy [in the Hebrew Bible] . . . is uttered as defense of the rural population and

of the rights of the poor.5 This radical prophecy is exemplified in nearly all of the writings of


4/14

4

the Hebrew prophets, who placed liberation and salvation of the poor foremost in their

prophesies. It was embodied through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. And it is expected

of Christians today who take up the Cross and prophesy and act in behalf of the poor and

oppressed. Just as Joseph Smith taught that the spirit of prophecy was the testimony of Christ,

liberation theology adds that a testimony of Christ is a testimony to help the poor, suffering, and

oppressed. As such, prophecy plays a crucial role in liberation theology in both past scriptural

events and current prophetic voices and action. It is for this reason that Gorgulho writes that

followers of Christ are to be people of prophets. In an affirmation of continuing revelation

from Godsomething that Latter-day Saints affirmhe notes that the Book of Revelation does

not mark the end of prophecy and revelationas understood by much of Christianitybut is

instead loved by liberation theologians because it is a book whose purpose is to encourage and

maintain the prophetical praxis of the new peoplethis priestly, royal, prophetic people. The

meaning of the life of the Church . . . proceeds from the need to prophesy again (Rev. 10:11). It

is in prophetical witness that this people finds its living liberty.6

This prophetic roleas making explicit where our situation of poverty and suffering

differs from the divine idealis repeatedly found throughout all of the scriptures. According to

John Dominic Crosson, Biblical prophecy was not just about speaking before, about fore-

telling the future, but about speaking for God, especially as an indictment against those who

failed to observe the covenant of distributive justice at the heart of Israels Torah.7

While there

was no church in the Hebrew Bibleand I think it is fair to say that there was no corporate

church in the New Testament eitherit is important to note that many of the prophets in

scripture existed outside the leading priesthood equivalent of our contemporary Church

hierarchy. In other words, despite their lack of priesthood stewardship, they were nevertheless


5/14

5

divinely called to be prophets to the Israelites. For example, the Hebrew prophet Amos described

his own prophetic calling as a lay person. He said, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's

son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit: And the LORD took me as I

followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel (Amos

7:14-15). This is not to say that priest and prophet were mutually exclusive categoriesfor

example, Ezekiel seems to have been a leading priest when he spoke as a prophet to the

Israelites. Rather, what this does show is that in the Bible, the prophetic role is not strictly

limited to the leading priesthood hierarchy, and includes, at times, womensuch as Deborah,

Miriam, Esther, and Anna in the New Testament.

Not only were many of these prophets not a part of the leading priesthood, but they were

also often critical of the chief and high priests, lambasting them at times for corruption and for

supporting the elite upper classs oppression and neglecting of the poor. For example, Jeremiah

(who was actually born into the priestly lineage) criticized those ordained to run the temple,

declaring that they were turning the Temple into a den of thieves by supposing that their work in

the temple justified their neglect of the poor and oppressed. Jeremiah tells them that they are

under condemnation until they truly act justly one with another, [and] do not oppress the alien,

the orphan, and the widow (Jer. 7:5-6). It should be noted howeverand this is importantthat

in most cases, while they might have been critical of the leading priests, they recognized and did

not critique the authority that these men held to perform the ordinances and rituals of the temple.

For Latter-day Saints the place for extra-hierarchical prophets is also affirmed in the

Book of Mormon. In fact, the first prophet of the Book of Mormon, Lehi, was a contemporary of

Jeremiah, but unlike the latter, was not descended from the priestly lineage. Later in the Book of

Mormon, Abinadiwho was clearly not recognized as one of the leading priests of Lehi-


6/14

6

Nephicriticizes Noah and his priests for their abominations, which included amassing wealth

by oppressing the poor. And yet after Abinadis death, it was one of Noahs wicked priests,

Alma, who after repenting of those sins, was still recognized as one with authority to baptize

those who accepted Abinadis message, eventually taking on a role of both priest and prophet for

all of the Nephites.

Another extra-hierarchical prophet in the Book of Mormon is Samuel the Lamanite.

Unlike Abinadi, who spoke against a corrupt priesthood leadership, Samuels prophesying came

when Nephi (the son of Helaman) was a righteous priest and leader who had, years earlier, been

given the power to seal others to heaven. And yet, although the Nephites in Zarahemla had a

righteous prophet-priest to lead them, a prophet clearly outside their recognized leadershipa

Lamanite stranger evenwas sent to prophecy against the Nephites.

While the recorded portion of Samuels prophesying does not make an explicit reference

to the status of the poor, his preaching outlines several points pertinent to both liberation

theology and a place for extra-hierarchical prophets today. First, Samuels condemnation of the

Nephites begins with a criticism of their accumulation of wealth and treasures. This is pertinent

in one regard, as it highlights the belief among liberation theologians that, while preference

might be given to the poor, liberation theologyChristian liberationis universal. Ellacuria

writes,

In another sense, we are speaking of a universal liberation. It is an integralliberation expressed not only in terms of economic or political problems, but also a

universal liberation. The poor must be liberated from their poverty, but the rich must also

be liberated from their wealth; the oppressed must be liberated from their condition ofdomination, and the oppressors from their dominant condition. And so on.8

Just as the poor must have means to live in order to be free, the addictions of wealth and power

not only bind those who might have the means to help, but those addictions strengthen the


7/14

7

structures and systems that are the source of poverty and oppression. As Ellacuria puts it:

Enticed by the allure of wealth, of wealthy persons and peoples, one loses the marks of ones

own identity. To seek ones own identity in the imperfect appropriation of these foreign models

leads to dependencies and mimicries that impede ones own self-creation.9

While alone, it might be interpreted as a mere condemnation of pride and dependency on

riches, in the context of the scriptural (and especially Nephite) prophetic tradition and Mormons

description of the historical situation preceding Samuels prophecy in Helaman 4 and 6, it

becomes clear that the condemnation is directly tied to the plight of the poor and oppressed. Of

the Nephites wealth, Mormon writes that the pride of those . . . who professed to belong to the

church of God was due to the exceeding riches brought on by their oppression to the poor,

withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting

their humble brethren upon the cheek (Hel. 4:12). Mormon further notes that the Nephite

leaders did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and

the meek, and the humble followers of God (Hel 6:39).

Second, Samuel points out that the Nephitesthose who professed to belong to the

church of Godwere inverting the prophetic role. Rather than understanding prophets as those

who brought attention to the poor and oppressed and pointed out the failure of Gods children to

reach for the Christian utopia of equality, the Nephites instead hailed as prophets those who

supported their economic inequality and oppressive pride, showering them with gold, silver,

clothing, and substance. According to Samuel:

If a prophet come among you [the Nephites] and declareth unto you the word of the Lord,

which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all

manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is asinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil. But behold, if a man shall

come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer;

yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes,


8/14

8

and do whatsoever your heart desireth--and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye willreceive him, and say that he is a prophet. Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of

your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him

with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is

well, then ye will not find fault with him. (Hel. 13:25-28)

Third, both fulfillments of Samuels key prophetic fore-tellings of Christ (concerning his

birth and death) were followed by peace (3 Ne. 1:23) and utopia (4 Ne. 1:2-3). According to

Ellacuria, prophecy has a necessary relationship to Christian utopia, not just in the contrasts

between the current historical situation and the idealized utopia, but also in that prophecy

foretells the consequences of accepting and living, or denying and setting aside, the prophetic

message. Prophecy comes with the promise of utopia: the promise that acceptance will enact the

transformation from the present historical reality to a historicizing of Christian utopia, and the

contrary promise that a failure of acceptance results in a deepening of the status quo. Thus, as

Ellacuria puts it, prophecy, which initiates this contrasting, is able to predict the future and go

toward itassuming indeed that there is the general vision of the Kingdom previously alluded

to, which Gods revelation has been making known to humanityin various ways.10In Samuels

prophecy we not only see his prophecies concerning the continued desire and attachment to

riches bringing upon self-destruction, but in the narrative of the Book of Mormon we also see a

fulfillment of his prophecies that accepting the Christian message can bring peace and

historicized utopia and that denying that message results in self-destruction. Thus, Samuels

prophecy, in the context of the Book of Mormon, both makes the prophetic claim and testifies of

its truthfulness.

Fourth, as I pointed out earlier, Samuel was not the Nephites ordained hierarchical

priesthood leader. In fact, it seems that no background information is known about Samuel at all,

other than that he was a Lamanite and a foreigner. Instead it is Nephi the son of Helaman who is


9/14


10/14


11/14

11

situation can and must extend beyond the economically oppressed. In pushing for a broadening

of the conception of the poor, Clodovis Boff writes that

Liberation theology is the theology of the liberation of the oppressedthe liberation of

their whole person, body, and souland all the oppressedthe poor, the subjugated,those who suffer discrimination, and so on. We cannot attend exclusively to the purely

socioeconomic aspect of oppressionthe aspect of poverty itselfhowever basic anddetermining it might be. We must also look at the other levels of social oppression: racial

. . . , ethnic . . . , and sexual.12

Just as the Book of Mormon teaches that the Lord denieth none that come unto him, black and

white, bond and free, male and female; and he remebereth the heathen; and all are alike unto

God, both Jew and Gentile (2 Ne. 26:33), the prophetic call of liberation theology is to bring to

attention where our historical situation differs from these divine idealswhere others are

discriminated against because of race, economics, gender, sexuality, religion, and ethnicity. (And

I would even add where the land is environmentally threatened.) Thus doing theology and

prophesying are one in the same, in that they mean something real and palpable in the life of

the poor, discriminated, and oppressed.

Let me be clear when I say that one certainly need not be a philosopher, theologian, or

scholar to play this prophetic role (as most prophets in the scriptures certainly were not).

However, liberation theology has shown that philosophers, theologians, and scholars can have

certain skills, talents, and knowledge that enable them to be both acutely aware of the oppressive

structures in the world and able to communicate these problems to others. Philosophers can use

theories and models provided by Rawls, Marx, Smith, Kant, Badiouand the list goes onto

offer social critiques and promote resolutions. Theologians can mine the scriptures and

authoritative revelations to provide theological bases for awareness, social change, and new

revelation. Sociologists, historians, and students of gender, race, sexuality, violence, economics,


12/14

12

science, and the environment can use their knowledge and talents to be prophets bringing to light

the contrasts between Zion and our present situation. While not having authority to speakforthe

Church, in each of these, extra-hierarchical prophets are able to convey to the Church and to the

world important revelations that remove veils often hiding and obscuring oppressive and

discriminatory structures. In doing so, they supplement (and perhaps even, at times, prompt)

traditional prophets who authoritatively lead the Church.

In just over the last century, modern-day prophets such as Susan B. Anthony, Betty

Friedan, Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Ghandi, Bishop Oscar Romero, and Mother Teresea

stand out as extra-hierarchical (and extra-Mormon) prophets who have both revealed

discriminating and oppressive contrasts between the Kingdom of God and our historical

situation, and made important steps in helping the world come closer to a Christian utopia.

Within Mormonism, there has also been extra-hierarchical prophetsmodern day Samuel the

Lamanites, standing on the wall and bringing the contrasts to lightwho have used their talents

to inject a prophetic voice into our awareness. Some of the many examples include Hugh Nibley

(or more recently Grant Hardy and Jim Faulconer), who have used their understanding of

scripture, history, and culture to highlight economic disparity and environmental degradation;

Eugene England, who added a prominent voice for those who might suffer from war and

violence; Armand Mauss and Lester Bush, who documented racial struggle and problems of the

priesthood ban; and Lavina Anderson, Margaret Toscano, and Claudia Bushman, who began to

reveal the struggles of women in a predominantly patriarchal Church and culture.

Because of the hierarchical structure of the Church and the rhetorical tradition of

referring to the president of the Church as the Prophet, Mormons often fall into the confusion

of thinking that there can only be one prophet in the world at a time (forgetting that there are at


13/14

13

least fifteen men sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators). A different extra-hierarchical

understanding of prophets, as those who bring to light the oppressive and discriminating

structures of the world, enables space for new prophetic voices to enter our theological and social

discoursea place for non-authoritative, but nevertheless divine, prophecies to extend beyond

the traditional boundaries of stewardship and help build the Kingdom of God by

revealing/unveiling structures that oppress and discriminate against Gods children. Instead of

just being a people with a prophet, liberation theology has shown us that we can and must be

people of prophets.

Last Sunday in general conference, Bishop H. David Burton prophetically spoke about

our need to help those in need. He said,

No matter how many temples we build, no matter how large our membershipgrows, no matter how positively we are perceived in the eyes of the worldshould we

fail in this great core commandment to succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang

down, and strengthen the feeble knees,or turn our hearts from those who suffer and

mourn, we are under condemnation and cannot please the Lord.

Does philosophy and disciplined theological reflection have a place in a [prophetic]

church? Yes. As liberation theology has taught, we have a duty as philosophers and theologians

to raise a prophetic voice in behalf of those who are seeking liberty from the bondages of

poverty, discrimination, alienation, and oppression. As with Moses, when told that others were

prophesying, we need not side with Joshua with the view of forbidding them. Instead we can and

must join with Moses in declaring, Would God that all the Lords people were prophets (Num.

11:26-29).

1Jon Sobrino, Preface, xi.

2Robert Oliveros, History of Liberation Theology, 4; emphasis added.

3Ignacio Ellacuria, The Historicity of Christian Salvation, 278.

4Ignacio Ellacuria, Utopia and Prophecy in Latin America, 292.

5Gilberto Da Silva Gorgulho, Biblical Hermeneutics, 137.

6Ibid., 146.


14/14

14

7John Dominic Crosson, God and Empire: Jesus Againt Rome, Then and Now(New York: HarperOne 2007), 74.

8Ellacuria, The Historicity of Christian Salvation, 285.

9Ellacuria, Utopia and Prophecy in Latin America, 311.

10Ellacuria, Utopia and Prophecy in Latin America, 292.

11Jon Sobrino, Spirituality and the Following of Jesus, 678-79.

12

Clodovis Boff, Epistemology and Method of the Theology of Liberation, 77.

Documents

“Would God That All the Lord’s People Were Prophets”: Liberation Theology and Scholars as Prophets for the Oppressed