| One wonders if Bishop Spong has ever even heard of it; he seems to 
	 know nothing about it. 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 
	  hardly the case. Is he really that ignorant? Can he possibly really believe Sir 
	  Isaac Newton would have learned new things about where the planets are 
	  at by watching space launches on TV? Although he does not ever actually 
	  explain it, Bishop Spong's 'three-tier' universe must be an astronomical construct,
        if it can be disconfirmed by astronomical ("space-age") observation. 
	  How can any thinking reader 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. Which way heaven? One is tempted to respond with the old saw, "No 
		 itinerary to the heavenly city is simpler or fuller than the ready 
		 answer made by an English prelate to a scoffer who asked him the way to 
		 heaven; 'First turn to the right, and keep straight on.'" (Charles 
		 Spurgeon, Treasury of David, Kindle location location 69263). When Luke 
		 describes the Lord's ascension into heaven, nothing could be clearer. 
		 Who could not visualize the event, or even draw a comic strip, based on 
		 his account? Was the event laughable or absurd? It is difficult to see 
		 how. 'But he can't do that.' Why not? He can walk on water. 'But that 
		 isn't the way.' It would have been more edifying if He had dived down 
		 the shaft of the deepest silver mine? One must concede to the scoffers 
		 that heaven isn't a place amongst other places; things work differently 
		 there. The roses never fade, and we never grow old; that is not the way 
		 it works in this place, so it isn't just around the corner. The 
		 itinerary to get there cannot therefore be straightforward and 
		 unproblematic. If the triple decker system is indeed a flat earth,— and what disposes me toward 
	  thinking it is meant to be that is the common experience you will find 
	  in talking to atheists, of 'learning' that everybody prior to Christopher Columbus believed 
	  in a flat earth,— can such a construct be found in the Bible? They say 
	  so. 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 might 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). Bishop Spong does not need to 
	    teach Luke and Stephen, if indeed he even knows, that God is 
	    omnipresent and spiritual. But denying a historic fact lest any draw an 
	    invalid inference from that fact is as nonsensical as anything else in 
	    Bishop Spong's topsy-turvy world. The visible heavens are a special
        revelation of God's glory owing as much to their beauty as 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). What was new in the incarnation was God's taking on flesh. Jesus 
		is "He who came down from heaven" (John 3:13), as God. He returned 
		as the God-man. Here indeed was a new thing, a man gone up to heaven: "In one sense, Christ's return to heaven was to be 
	expected. He Himself said, 'I came forth from the Father, and am 
	come into the world again, I leave the world, and go to the Father' 
	(John 16:28). As the Son of God, He had every right to reside in His 
	eternal glory. What made the ascension theologically special was the 
	entering into glory of the Son of Man. The inspired apostle 
	recognized the significance of this when he applied Psalm 8 directly 
	and uniquely to Christ: 'What is man, that thou art mindful of him? 
	or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little 
	lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor'. . 
	.In the person of Jesus Christ, man achieved heaven. His entrance 
	prepared the way for all His followers. Speaking of Christ's 
	entering within the veil, the most holy place of heaven itself, 
	Hebrews plainly says, 'whither the forerunner is for us entered, 
	even Jesus' (6:20). Christ is the pioneer who has blazed the trail 
	for His people to enter fully into His glory. Heaven is ours because 
	Heaven is Christ's." (Michael P. V. Barrett, Beginning at Moses, 
	Kindle location 1698). Revelation Chapter 4 describes this holy convocation. How is it possible 
	 for wayward, ungodly, recalcitrant men, the twenty-four elders, to live 
	 in the presence of God? Or how will we dwell with Him in the new 
	 heavens and the new earth? Because we have been washed in the blood of 
	 the lamb. How living together is possible for such unlike things as our 
	 unwieldy, material selves and God is difficult to say, but God would 
	 have it so. If Bishop Spong, having put his thinking cap on, has discovered 
	 that it is impossible, he had best keep his discovery to himself. 
 |