Three Tiers
This author is much exercised about a 'three-tiered universe' which he believes he finds described in the Bible. He does not explain
what he means by a 'three-tiered universe.' Perhaps he is envisioning a flat-earth system like that described in the apocryphal Book of
Enoch, or in dissenting Christian authors such as Lactantius or Theophilus:
"Wherefore, also, the prophet mentioned that the creation of the heavens
first of all took place, as a kind of roof, saying: “At the first God created
the heavens” — that is, that by means of the “first” principle the heavens
were made, as we have already shown. And by “earth” he means the ground
and foundation, as by “the deep” he means the multitude of waters; and
“darkness” he speaks of, on account of the heaven which God made covering
the waters and the earth like a lid." (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book
II, Chapter 13).
Theophilus envisions the world-system as a stock-pot covered by heaven
as by a lid. I describe these authors as "dissenting" because
it is more common to find Christian authors employing the terminology of
Ptolemaic astronomy. Ptolemaic astronomy, much beloved by Thomas Aquinas, features a round earth.
This complex system, beloved still by Martin Luther and John Calvin, features not 'three
tiers' but a multiplicity of spheres.
This author believes he finds his 'three tiers' in Biblical passages such as Acts 1:9:
- "Luke, writing in the Acts of the Apostles (1:1ff.), give us the only account of the event called
the ascension. It is not an easy narrative to comprehend. The literal details of the ascension are nonsensical to modern ears: Jesus
rising off the ground and disappearing into the sky like a space rocket in slow motion. This account assumed that we lived in a universe
of three tiers in which heaven was the upper tier. No space-age man or woman can possibly believe this. Literally it did not happen! It
could not happen! If a literal cosmic ascension is an important part of the Christian story, then the whole Christian enterprise is called
into serious question, for such an anti-intellectual religion will not long survive in this technical, scientific age."
- (This Hebrew Lord, John Shelby Spong, p. 90.)
|
|
This author seems to believe that the space program has produced new information
as to the disposition and locale of near-by heavenly bodies, which is not
the case at all. His 'three-tier' universe must be an astronomical construct,
if it can be disconfirmed by astronomical ("space-age") observation.
This reader cannot find a 'three-tier universe' in Luke's words:
"Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken
up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight." (Acts 1:9).
Certainly there is no difficulty in understanding Luke's account. No artist
who wished to portray the scene has ever found difficulty in so doing.
Perhaps the way to find Bishop Spong's 'three tiers' in this passage is
to make Luke's "up" ['ep' of 'epairo'] absolute rather than relative to local observers, in this case the eye-witnesses
observing the event. To Bishop Spong, who denies the physical resurrection,
the bodily ascension of the Lord presents a contradiction to his ideas,
but it is unclear what "space-age" observation ever led him to
deny the Lord's physical rising from the tomb.
The Bible teaches, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must
worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24). Extension in space characterizes
matter not spirit. But becoming incarnate was the Lord's own choice and
cannot be understood to mean God can no longer be God. The Lord's nail-scarred
body does demand some locale; but as tenants huddled upon a small patch
of a vast domain, it is presumptuous of us to demand all parts of the whole
to be either open to our inspection or available for our comprehension.
A common way atheists have of finding 'errors' in the Bible is to understand
directional signals as if they related to an observer stationed outside
the word system. The observer is visualized standing outside, looking upon
the world as if he were holding a snow-globe in his hand. In fact modern
speakers only rarely take this view, and ancient ones almost never; it
is thus an anachronism. By this means common-place things modern speakers
also say: 'the sun rose at 6:10 a.m.,' 'what a pretty sunset,' are taken
as descriptions offered by the observer standing outside the world system,
in which case they are false, because the sun does not rise at the same
time in China as in Canada, nor is it the sun which is setting but the
earth which is rotating. However, from the actually existent observer's
frame of reference, the language is perfectly accurate and would not be
spoken differently by an astronomer.
To find 'three tiers' in what Luke says, you have to reason like so: a
newspaper reader in Sydney, Australia objects when he reads, 'The space-shuttle
Challenger went up into the sky and then disintegrated.' 'Shouldn't that
read, went down!' he thunders, reasoning that the direction in which the space-shuttle
Challenger actually went approximates to a straight line from his sternum
down between his feet. However, no actual reader of the Sydney papers would
absolutize in this way his own frame of reference, nor would he demand
the passage be rephrased from the perspective of our asphyxiated outside
observer of the world system. When the newspaper reporter said that the
space-shuttle went "up," he meant local observers were obliged
to crane their necks back to keep it in sight. Was this not also what Luke
meant when he said "up"? Without absolutizing Luke's "up,"
there are no 'three tiers' in view.
If the author assumes Luke is visualizing the Lord as hopping on the bus
and going home, this is his assumption, not the assumption of the author
who quotes Stephen repeating, "Heaven is My throne, and earth is My
footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the LORD, or what is
the place of My rest?" (Acts 7:49). The visible heavens are a special
revelation of God's glory owing more to their beauty than to their locale:
"And since the glory of his power and wisdom shine more brightly above,
heaven is often called his palace. Yet in the first place, wherever you
cast your eyes, there is no spot in the universe wherein you cannot discern
at least some sparks of his glory. You cannot in one glance survey this
most vast and beautiful system of the universe, in its wide expanse, without
being completely overwhelmed by the boundless force of its brightness...this
skillful ordering of the universe is for us a sort of mirror in which we
can contemplate God, who is otherwise invisible." (John Calvin, Institutes
of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter V, 1).
Sparrow's Fall
The Bible teaches that no sparrow falls without the Father:
"Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them
falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will." (Matthew 10:29).
This concept of God's personal and intimate involvement in this-wordly
events causes Bishop Spong particular indignation. He perceives traditional
religion to foster concepts of a "manipulative, invasive, this-world-oriented
deity who governed the intimate details of people's lives from a position
just beyond the sky." (Here I Stand, John Shelby Spong, p. 68). Though
the thought is not commonly phrased in such offended language, the God
of the Bible may aptly be called "invasive:"
"Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?
If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold,
You are there." (Psalm 139:7-8).
This author and his friends have moved beyond the "simple assumptions"
of "premodern" religion, which "still spoke of God as a
personal being, supernatural in power, who invaded history periodically
in a variety of miraculous ways." (Here I Stand, John Shelby Spong,
p. 85). His indignation rises to a high pitch when considering a child's
death: "In a sermon in my second year at St. Joseph's, I called the
God who would will the death of an innocent child nothing but a demon who
ought to be destroyed." (Here I Stand, John Shelby Spong, p. 88).
But the death of an innocent child must at least fall within the permissive
will of the God who said, "Now see that I, even I, am He, and there
is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; nor
is there any who can deliver from My hand." (Deuteronomy 32:39). While
parents in the face of these circumstances may be unable to fathom God's
will, denying His reality and power is a remedy that deepens the wound.
Bishop Spong, perceiving the traditional view as a security blanket, wants to rip off the bandage: "This was not a sentimental,
childish, and dependent view of God as the heavenly parent who knew best, who intervened often and watched over each of us in guarding,
protective ways. That God I was prepared to jettison." (Here I Stand, John Shelby Spong, p. 89).
The Virgin Mary
- "A God who can be seen in the limp form of a convicted criminal dying
alone on a cross at Calvary can surely also be seen in an illegitimate
baby boy born through the aggressive and selfish act of a man sexually
violating a teenage girl."
- (Born of a Woman, John Shelby Spong, p. 185.)
|
|
Bishop Spong's speculations on this topic revive the old slanders of the Talmud. It is strange to reflect
that Muslims hold Mary in more honor than today's Episcopalians:
"She said, 'How shall I have a son, when man hath never touched me?
and I am not unchaste.' He said: 'So shall it be. Thy Lord hath said:
'Easy is this with me;' and we will make him a sign to mankind, and a mercy
from us. For it is a thing decreed." (Koran, Sura 19:20-21)
