Saturday 4 January 2020

Rise up


“Graffiti is always a political act,” writes Zack Gingrich-Gaylord, “whether overtly or accidentally.  The very nature of vandalism requires some kind of confrontation between a disruptive actor and established structures of the status quo.”  He goes on to say: “A pithy piece of political graffiti by Banksy observes that ‘society gets the [kind of] vandalism it deserves.’  In other words, graffiti is a sort of canary in the coal mine of social health…”
  One of my favourite pieces of this art form – attributed variously to Banksy himself, and to the Australian Meek – depicts a homeless men sitting against the brick wall, begging cup in front of him, and holding a sign that reads, “Keep your coins – I want change”.
  In my mind, this work links to a biblical story of a beggar in a doorway, pleading for alms.  The story is told in the New Testament book of Acts, but when I was a kid, I learned the story through the medium of song.  It went like this:
                Peter and John went to pray.
                They met a lame man on the way.
He asked for alms and held out his palms,
And this is what Peter did say:

Silver and gold have I none,
But such as I have give I you;
In the name of Jesus Christ
Of Nazareth, rise up and walk.

He went walking and leaping and praising God,
Walking and leaping and praising God.
In the name of Jesus Christ
Of Nazareth, rise up and walk.”

  I’ll refer to the full text from Acts 3:1-10 shortly, for some details, but most of the important stuff is contained in this good, old-fashioned Sunday-school chorus.  In fact, those songs were our bible as young kids.  Those and flannel-graph.
  Just some observations about songs.  They have a way of connecting.  They communicate and pass on stories or truths in ways that connect with us (maybe something to do with the senses and synapses in our brains).  They also unite people – around a cause, in cases like a national anthem or sporting chant, a battle cry or a protest shout.
  And, as it goes, I want to argue that this whole story is revolutionary, is about protest.  It’s about an uprising that subverts or overturns the status quo and the prevailing systems and structures.  And it’s about change from the ground up (literally and metaphorically), a real grassroots movement.  Look at Peter’s command to the lame man: “Rise up…” (This is where it’s good to have that old song, and the older English translations of the Bible on which it was based, like the King James Version).
  If you think I’m stretching it a bit here, let’s read around that.  We’re told in Acts 3:2 that the man (who was lame from birth) would be laid at the temple gate daily to beg for alms.  A couple of points here: almsgiving was an established and expected part of Jewish life; and, it was ‘working’ for this man, otherwise he wouldn’t still be there, coming back.  He’d be either dead or begging elsewhere.
  But when Peter and John came that way, they knew they had to do something.  What though?  They didn’t have silver or gold to give him.  And I wonder, if they had, would they have given it to him?  Or whether they recognised that this man didn’t need coins.  He needed change.  A total transformation of his status, his situation, and the system at play around him.  After Peter’s words, the playing field is suddenly levelled, so this man could now join in, going inside the temple (for the first time, I presume) and finally enjoying self-determination , mobility (physical and potentially social), agency and ability to contribute.
  Particularly powerful is Acts 3:7, where Peter “took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.”  Peter literally gave him a hand up, not a handout (to borrow the tagline from The Big Issue).  Peter didn’t carry the man, he just gave him a lift, a kickstart.  The man suddenly found his feet, and used them.
  Christians sometimes talk about being a voice for the voiceless.  But maybe it’s better to help the ‘voiceless’ find their own voice.  Stand with them, echo their cries by all means.  What we need to show most of all, though, is not ‘charity’, but solidarity.  Not paternalism, but ‘fraternity’.
  Revolution has long been a feature of Judeo-Christian tradition.  Hundreds of years before Jesus and his radical movement, the great writing prophets of the Hebrew scriptures called for social justice, for levelling of playing fields and upsetting of apple carts.  And this incident in Acts 3 takes me back to something Isaiah had said (Isaiah 35).  Speaking of the return of the redeemed to Zion (i.e. the exiled people of Israel-Judah coming home to Jerusalem), he says: “Strengthen the weak hands and make firm the feeble knees” (35:3).  It’s in the same territory as feet and ankles being made strong, isn’t it (Acts 3:7)?  Isaiah goes on: “then the lame shall leap like a deer [walking and leaping?]” (35:6)…. “And the ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to Zion with singing” (35:10; cf “and he entered the temple with them… praising God”, Acts 3:8).  This episode in Acts is a demonstration that God is ending the exile, that God’s kingdom is becoming manifest in the world.  And by definition, that means revolution: an overthrowing of the established and prevailing order.
  Let’s not kid ourselves.  Jesus was partial to a bit of protest and revolution.  Remember when Jesus entered the temple, a few weeks before this incident, on Palm Sunday?  He ruffled feathers and turned the tables on those who were profiting from a corrupt status quo (doves and pigeons were the offering of the poor at the temple, and this had become a market, capitalising on them).
  That act of defiance was a precursor to Jesus’ greatest moment of resistance.  It came a few days later, as he was brutalised, de-humanised and crucified.  And, despite living a life of love and goodness, Jesus refused to resist that great evil and injustice.  Instead, he absorbed it, and in so doing, he rose above and against the inhumanity of it all.  Interestingly, his death was reported in all 3 Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to have occurred at 3 in the afternoon, the ninth hour of the day.  And that’s also the time of day that this story in Acts takes place (3:1), at the hour of prayer.
  Time is significant in this story, actually.  First of all, there’s the double use of the Greek word hora (‘hour’) in verse 1.  Then there’s a repetition of the related word horaios (translated ‘beautiful’ in vv 2 & 10).  That relates to the temple gate called Beautiful, which many scholars have tried to identify.  It’s not referred to by that name in any other extant texts.  It has been linked with a large gate used by many pilgrims – which would be an ideal location for a beggar.  However, I am much more interested in the name, not the whereabouts, of this gate.  It’s called ‘Beautiful’, but the Greek word literally means ‘apt’ or ‘timely’.  And that is really fitting in this story.  We talk about a window of opportunity, and in a similar way, I think this was a gate of timeliness.  The Greek word horaios occurs in the LXX (Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) in Isaiah 52:7, which says: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace…” How timely.  How fitting.  They’re a sight for sore eyes, we might say.  And now is the time for Peter, for the beggar, for God, for the people around.
  The great rabbi Hillel the Elder has been attributed with the saying, “If not you, who?  If not now, when?”  It’s probably a misquote, but this Hillel had some influence on Jesus – perhaps not directly, as he died when Jesus was a boy, but his teachings were spread by his ‘school’.  Whether Hillel said it or not, it’s still very stirring.  It’s a call to action.
  Add to that another call: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk…” This is a call to revolution.  The call to disrupt the established order is a divine call.  Peter invokes the name of Jesus.  And it works.  It seems to me that Jesus is about change.  Jesus wants change.  He wants us to rise up and turn the tables, subvert the system in favour of the kingdom – or (as Brian McLaren has called it) the revolution – of God…

No comments: