Three Views on the Constitutive Role of Institutions and the Transformative Power of Christ

The Constitutive Role of Institutions

In institutional economics, there are, in general, three perspectives regarding the function of institutions in the society and the economy: constraining, enabling, and constituting^1. The first view posits that institutions serve primarily to constrain the destructive behaviour that would otherwise strangle efficiency and growth. The second view responds that institutions enable productive activities that otherwise be impossible. These first two views dominate mainstream thinking.

There is, however, a third view, which, although overshadowed in mainstream economics by the first two views, has firm roots in sociology. This assessment argues that institutions do not only enable and constrain agents: they also constitute them. Whereas the first two views essentially assume that the characteristics of individuals are given, and then evaluate the implications of those characteristics when institutions are taken into account, this third view also takes into account how individuals themselves change due to the presence of institutions, especially with regard to their worldviews (the way they see the world) and expectations (what they think others will do).

The constitutive role of institutions is buttressed by behavioural science, which demonstrates that people do not normally base their decisions on a rational calculus of costs and benefits. Indeed, such calculation would be impossible or prohibitively costly given the overwhelming amount of information that would have to be sifted and analysed, as well as the presence of uncertainty. Instead, people often make decisions through habits, customs, and ‘frames of reference’, which ac t as informational ‘shortcuts’ or ‘lenses’, allowing individuals to adopt a belief or take an action without knowing all the relevant information. The constitutive role of institutions lies in its ability to alter these subjective frames, in turn altering behaviour even if objective situations (along with their structures of information and incentives) are unchanged. In this sense, institutions ‘constitute’ individuals. Thus, destructive behaviour can be avoided and productive opportunities created simply by changing the way that people think.

The Transformative Power of Christ

Nerdy rant over. The other day I was pondering this distinction when it occurred to me that these three views of institutions correlate quite neatly with the prevailing views of Christianity^2. The first view – that institutions constrain destructive behaviour – is analogous to the ‘legalistic’ doctrine, which focusses on the rules and regulations that prohibit certain immoral acts. The incentive to do so is usually fear of condemnation. This perspective is obviously flawed, because we can never earn our own salvation – that is the problem to begin with. With regards to institutions, efficiency can never be fully achieved if agents are still self-seeking ‘at heart’. Furthermore, as is true with institutions, fixating on prohibitive rules can even be counter-productive, because it increases the salience of the (usually material) desires that are intended to be constrained. So the constitutive role is negative – people become more selfish and more concerned about satisfying their own wants.

An equivalent of the second view – that institutions enable productive activities – is also prevalent in Christian circles. Such groups, reacting against the legalistic tradition, sometimes claim that ‘the Law’ is no longer relevant, because Christ has died for ours sins. This liberal, permissive school of thought tends to propogate slogans such as ‘God is Love’ and 'Jesus came to give life abundantly' in isolation, asserting that the church should be inclusive rather than exclusive, and should avoid condemning any particular lifestyle. Proponents claim that the message of Christianity is that we can live a fuller, richer life through Christ, not that our menu of activities is constrained. Although its mantras are true in themselves, this view commits the same mistake as the first view - it fails to address the core problem, namely human nature. In fact, I would go so far as to say that these ‘new possibilities’ are not really accessible unless we are transformed; or, rather, that the new possibility lies precisely in our transformation. Thus, while Paul admitted that "all things are permissible", he insisted that "not all things are profitable".

The third view – that institutions alter behaviour by ‘constituting’ the very fabric of individuals – represents, I think, what the Christian message is really about. The idea is that Christ can transform us: He can take our fallen nature, our sinful desires, our selfish tendencies, and make us more like Him, sinless and selfless. As this occurs, we tend to obey laws out of Love. Note that this process differs from the first two views, but also unites them. The first view is wrong, because the Law is not the ultimate objective – indeed, it utterly elusive unless our hearts are transformed. The second view is wrong, because, as Jesus stated, He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it. In reality, if we are truly full of His love (as emphasised in the second view), we will follow the Law (as emphasised in the first view), but only as a result of Him working in us. So whereas the first view suggests that we should obey rules out of fear, and whereas the second view suggests that we should ignore rules due to Love, this third view suggests that we will obey rules out of Love, as Christ tranfsorms our very being.

Implications
This transformative process, however, cannot be taken for granted. Just as individuals will only be transformed by their surrounding institutions if those institutions make up a significant amount of their lives and livelihoods, so Christ will, in general, only transform us if we let Him. This requires that we "die to self" or "deny our self" or "carry our cross" on a daily basis, constantly surrendering our will to His, as exemplified by Jesus Himself. This requirement of death consequently brings new life, as Christ begins to work through us. Thus, neither of the first two views fully grasp the transformative process: the first focuses exclusively on the 'death to self', neglecting the rebirth and new life that occurs as a result; the second view focuses exclusively on the new life, without comprehending that a type of death is first required.

Furthermore, the transformation does not occur overnight – it a continual process. This implies that, in the meantime, we still need to constantly check our behaviour by the standard of the Law (as emphasised in the first view), and to be constantly reminded of the new life that is available through Christ (as emphasised in the second view). The ultimate objective, however – and, I would propose, the very reason we were created – is to conform ever more to the image in which we were created.  Indeed, although the process is no immediate, it is cumulative and entails a sort of 'snowball effect'. For example, as we spend time with Him – whether it be in His Word, with fellow believers, in prayer, or through acts of worship - the more we will want to do His will, a significant part of which is spending time with Him^3.

Notes
1.  For an overview of these three views, see Chang, H-J. and Evans, P. (2005) 'The Role of Institutions in Economic Change' in De Paula, S. and Dymski, G. A. Reimagining Growth: Towards a Renewal of Development Theory (London: Zed Books), Chapter 5.

2. Note that much of this discussion can be applied to a faith versus works dichotomy
3. I have not discussed the issue of temptation: even if you took somebody with a perfect heart (like Jesus), their flesh could still be tempted. So they may ‘want’ to do something sinful in the fleshly level, but ‘not want’ to do it on the spiritual level.

Reading Rehab

Words and the Word

Words matter. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1-2). It is through the Word of God that we learn about and communicate with God. It is therefore crucial that we are able to understand words in context, otherwise passages are misinterpreted and misapplied. As a general example, without an understanding of the New Testament, and specifically Jesus’ sacrifice, the Old Testament can be confusing. Conversely, without an understanding of the Old Testament, and specifically God’s Law, the meaning of the new Testament is incompletely grasped.

Reading Dysfunction

Everyone has had the experience of reading a sentence, paragraph, page, or perhaps even entire book, only to realise afterwards that they had not absorbed any of it. Their eyes had treated the page as an image, scanning the words mindlessly for nothing in particular. I propose that this symptom is the result of one of two maladies. The first is ‘reading fatigue’, suffered after reading excessively, in terms of either duration or ‘load’ (i.e. difficulty). The second is the exact opposite: a lack of reading, in terms of either duration or load, can induce ‘reading atrophy’.

In a way, I suffered from a curious combination of these two afflictions. At university, I ‘over-read’ as a way to cope with insecurity; unfortunately, this coincided with another coping mechanism, anorexia. When I became severely underweight as a consequence, my mental function was impaired. Upon recovery I was obligated to ‘re-learn’ basic processes such as reading; unfortunately, I was therefore in the undesirable position of being both fatigued and atrophied.

Symptoms and Prevention
Either condition can be very frustrating: even when consciously attempting to ingest the words, the reader may be unable to digest them. Such disruption of the eye-mind connection can occur on various levels. The most severe case would apply when an individual cannot distinguish letters, but sees only meaningless symbols; this would be the case when trying to read in a non-Latin alphabet. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a reader may comprehend whole paragraphs or even chapters, but fail to grasp the ‘key argument’ of the text. The most common case is in between, when a reader can decipher individual words or sentences but is unable to string them together into meaningful passages.

Needless to say, prevention consists of finding the happy medium: exercising your ‘reading muscles’ for sufficient periods of time and with sufficient loads to maintain or enhance them, without overdoing it and inducing counter-productive effects. In terms of treatment, the prescription for fatigue is likewise obvious – rest your reading muscles. As Solomon tells us in Ecclesiastes 12:12, "excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body." If you have been reading dense academic articles or 18^th century manuscripts, try a novel instead. Or, rather than reducing the intensity of your reading, stop reading altogether for a few days. You will probably find that when you pick up a book again, you can tackle it with renewed vigour.

Diagnosis
Atrophy is much more common than fatigue in the modern world, due to the saturation of screens: computers, phones, TVs, and other forms of entertainment tend to make us lazy and impatient in our approach to information. We thus consider text to be an unnecessary evil, placing undue demands on the audience: we not only have to repeatedly move our eyes from one size of the page to the other and even to turn over the page, but we have to conjure sounds, images, and ideas in our minds without the aid of graphics or audio. As a microcosm of atrophy, consider that schoolteachers often complain that students 'forget' basic academic skills over long summer vacations during which they are not sufficiently stimulated.

As a result, society displays a chronic neglect of linguistic comprehension. To keep apace with this systemic deterioration in readership, literature must become less and less demanding on the audience. It is for this reason that books like 'Harry Potter', although written at a child's level of comprehension, are so popular among adults (and is even studied at A-level as a 'contemporary text'). This creates a vicious cycle whereby readers choose texts that fail to challenge their comprehensive ability, which only exacerbates chronic and systemic weakness.

Unfortunately, atrophy is also much more complicated condition than fatigue. Somebody with fatigue may already have a healthy relationship with words, and ‘resting from reading’ is merely a healthy aspect of that relationship (note that this is not always the case: compulsive reading is obviously unhealthy). However, a sufferer of atrophy needs to establish, or re-establish, that relationship, which has been lost to under-use.

The first point to note is that reading impediment is essentially the result of fixating excessively on individual words or phrases to detriment of your understanding of the overall argument. Trying harder to read is therefore futile, because by doing so you will most likely intensify that fixation. In short, you will not be able to see the woods for the trees.

To rectify this obstruction, you have to realise that words are tools to convey a message, and it is the message that is important. They are, in other words, symbols employed by the author to transmit an idea to the audience. When you are reading, remember that the words in front of you do not exist as incidental, impersonal objects; rather, somebody wrote them for a specific reason. To see that reason, you have to use 'peripheral vision' in the same way as appreciating a cluster of stars requires you to look at it without looking at it.

The key, then, is to ‘see through the words’ to access the mind of the author. If the author is to convey her message through words, however, she must invoke some pre-existing idea or sensation, precisely because words are merely vessels or conduits of meaning rather than meaningful in themselves. This is, of course, a chicken and egg problem: to some extent you must share her idea so that you can understand her idea. This is perhaps one reason why knowledge is always incremental, or at least reflective: while most ‘new’ ideas build on existing ones, even ‘revolutionary’ ideas are typically reactions against something that is already conceived.

This problem of ‘meaning transference’ relates to the differentiation between tacit and technical knowledge. Technical knowledge refers to knowledge that can be codified in blueprints and understood universally and identically. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, requires some prior experience with the subject, because it is embedded in the task at hand. I was recently helping my dad with a presentation for his work; I knew what every word meant, but I had only a vague idea about what the presentation was actually about, because the knowledge it was evoking was tacit – shared only by those involved in that field. It is not just that they use ‘jargon’, i.e. words that only make sense to those in the field, but in a way the text itself is jargon, because it refers to tacit ideas that are shared only by a certain group of people.

Healthy digestion occurs when words enter the mind and are quickly translated into meaning; unhealthy digestion occurs when this translation is obstructed. That translation involves an indirect link (through words) between your mind and that of the author. However, without some kind of personal identification, that connection will be lost and words will appear as empty vessels. Hence, 'personalisation' is a crucial feature of re-establishing cogency: your mind must treat the words on the page as somebody's voice rather than as anonymous pictures.

A helpful comparison can be made to music.  Just like text, music attempts to invoke latent emotions, images, or ideas. Words are analogous to individual notes, the whole book representing the score. Words, like notes, do not express the intention of the author or musician in and of themselves – it is only in their orderly combination that this is achieved. Reading words rather than message is like when a child first plays a musical piece, eliciting each note one at a time with no structure or flow to connect them. Moreover, just as musical scores are played in certain keys that will determine which notes are and are not played, and thus the mood of the composition, so writing adheres to a certain register, be it academic, formal, informal, etc. This ‘key’ helps to convey the meaning of the piece by giving a ‘voice’ to the otherwise impersonal words. Other features such as pace and loudness in music, or paragraph structure and punctuation in writing, help to define the message.


Prescriptions
Below is a list of recommendations to address these malfunctions.

First, take notes. Even if you throw them away afterwards, the act of putting the author’s words into your own words allows you to focus on the meaning without fixating on the words.

Second, write down your own ideas. If you write about topics that inherently interest you, you may find that you enjoy words more; because you are thinking about what you want to say, rather than the words themselves (you have practiced the exercise of conveying meaning through words), you will build up the ability to absorb meaning; for both reasons, and because you are the creator of the words, they will be personal and familiar to you.

Third, learn another language. This will help you to reflect on the structure of your own language, and to identify its strengths, weaknesses, and in general, mechanisms, for expression. This forces you to grasp the actual meaning of words rather than just the words themselves, because you are required to transfer that meaning into an altogether different word, and have to figure out the meaning of unknown words through their context, i.e. the meaning of the whole sentence, paragraph, or text. Those idioms and expressions that are not translatable, or combinations of words that have to be reordered into a different syntax, will be especially advantageous, as the translation will be from words to meaning rather than from words to words.  In short, reading in another language is an indispensable exercise for restoring the uptake of the words that you intake. Note that this is the same process that babies go through when they first learn to speak and read.

Fourth, imagine somebody physically lecturing you on the topic that you are reading – preferably somebody that you respect or know well. This will give the words a 'voice' that can be 'heard', so that they will no longer be merely images to be viewed. Similarly, if you follow a blog rather than the news, you will associate the information with a real person rather than consider it as anonymous data.

Fifth, read a book of which you have already seen the movie. This allows for a kind of ‘reverse engineering’: because you already know the message, you can interpret words through the message rather than vice versa. The words will thus already occupy their properly subservient position in textual digestion. It also permits you to apply audio-visual stimuli to the text, which is a crucial facet of personalisation.

Sixth, don’t read the news, at least not only or always. The text is written as concisely and neutrally as possible: there is no personalisation (‘voice’), and it will exacerbate your atrophy because all the work is done for you.

It should be noted that there is a shortcut to restoring comprehension, namely lexiophilia. If you intrinsically enjoy reading, you will be perfectly situated to engage in the effortless, relaxed reading that is required and to avoid fixation on words. Hence, although not necessary, a love of language will assist you immensely in your recovery. To cultivate linguaphilia, try reading poetry, which is essentially a celebration of language that overlaps with its musical cousin. However, linguaphilia is a double-edged sword: if you end up loving words rather than language as a whole, your comprehension of compositions will be further impaired. It is therefore advised that you approach this method with caution and in moderation.

Finally, remember that fatigue is easier when your muscles are smaller, so in a fragile state you must be even more careful not to overdo it.

Conclusion

Words are mirrors of meaning. Reading can be impaired when we got lost in a 'hall of mirrors' that distorts the reflection of meaning in words. Reading rehab consists in focusing on the reflection rather than the mirror.

Production and Consumption

In mainstream Economics, there has been an unjustified deviation away from the study of production (characterised by Adam Smith, Karl Marx, et al) towards the study of consumption, as embodied in terms such as "consumer sovereignty".

I suggest that Mainstream Christianity has committed a similar ploy. It sees faith as consumption, posing the question, "what we can get for the lowest price?". The miracle, in this paradigm, is that the good consumed (salvation) has no price.

However, we are also producers. We are meant to ‘bear fruit’. And isn’t that what God made us for in the first place?

Some of our production involves getting people to consume salvation (of course, only God ‘produces’ salvation; so in this sense it is ‘distribution’). But their consumption should likewise be a conduit for good works. So production is not only a means to consumption; it a crucial part of salvation. Maybe this helps explain why James was so adamant that faith without works is dead.

Interestingly, when everyone wants to consume and no one wants to produce, we have problems. Problems, say, like those which afflict the Modern Church...

Dreams within Dreams

A few months ago, I had a dream within a dream. The contents of the dream are irrelevant. Suffice it to say that in my sub-dream, I became aware that I was dreaming and managed (with some difficulty) to wake myself up from it; upon awakening, I found myself in another dream, although this time I was not aware that I had been dreaming until I woke up properly. After all, I ‘woke up’ lying on the couch.

I was quite excited when I (really) woke up. I had read Descartes and other philosophers of the mind, and I had seen films like the Matrix and Inception where such phenomena are centrepiece. But the experience induced a surge of questions. What if I am still dreaming? How many recursions are there? What if there are an infinite number of recursions? Indeed, in philosophy it is often said that we cannot ‘jump out of our own head’, meaning that we always view the world from our own mind, but at the same time we can self-reflect. 

Although you can never fully escape your own consciousness, you can engage in a potentially infinite number of recursive escapes, by ‘thinking that you are thinking that you are thinking…’ in a similar pattern to what occurs when you face two mirrors towards each other and glimpse an infinite tunnel of reflections – you cannot remove yourself from the picture, because once you do, you can no longer see the optical illusion, but you can still view yourself as if you were another person, e.g. from behind. After all, dreams are just thoughts.

Is it possible to share dreams with other people? I say, of course. We are sharing ‘reality’ with each other now, are we not? We both agree that we are occupying the same time-space continuum. We may not be able to read each other’s minds, but at the end of the day this reality may simply be one recursion of many – so perhaps we are indeed inside each other’s minds. Perhaps this explains why people tend to get the same thoughts at the same time, even when seemingly random. How many times has somebody declared ‘that’s so weird, I was just thinking about that!’?

Is it possible to get trapped in a dream? Several potentialities exist. First, it is plausible that one could be unaware that one was dreaming (as in the first recursion of my dream). In this scenario, we are essentially sleepwalkers, interacting with real life and yet not conscious. In fact, this is quite common, in the form of self-deception. Obsessions often hijack our rationality to the point where we convince ourselves that they do not exist, even to the point of distorting our visual perceptions (for example, of our own bodies). Likewise, people often deceive themselves into thinking that some tragedy has not really occurred; this is what is meant by the phrase ‘being in denial’. Another possibility is that you are unaware that you are dreaming that you are dreaming; but since recursions are infinite, this is an identical case.

A separate case inheres when you are aware that you are dreaming (even if we are unaware that we are dreaming that we are dreaming), as in the second recursion of my dream. This scenario may be relevant to somebody that is aware that they are experiencing irrational thoughts. We may not be able to wake ourselves up from the dream (to overcome the irrationalities) even though we know that we are not fully awake (rational). This is, essentially, Hell, in quite a literal sense. My dad has a gruelling story about a surgery that went wrong – the sedative did not function enough to dull his pain, but only to keep him unable from communicating. That is how I see Hell: when we choose life without God, we are choosing sin (or pain) without grace (or communication). Perhaps it is better represented by the Jewish ‘Sheol’ (see my other post on Sheol).

Interestingly, in the second recursion of my dream, I became aware that I was dreaming because I knew that my perception of familiar faces was distorted. So self-deception usually contains a grain of truth in order to make it believable. Most phobias are fears of things that could potentially be harmful; correspondingly, even irrational, unholy fears are a perversion of the rational, holy fear of God. Indeed, “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10, 111:10) – wisdom, perhaps, to know that you are dreaming. Conversely, the fear of anything else is the beginning of deception. Maybe this is why falsehood features so heavily on God’s ‘hate list’: lying, a deceitful tongue, a false witness, etc.

Indeed, not only our selves, but also Satan practices this form of deception. For example, he quoted scripture to Jesus in order to tempt Him (Matthew 4). In both cases, we have to say, “yes, but…” to restore rationality. Finally, the world – i.e. other people deceived by themselves or Satan – may deceive us. So ‘negative Inceptions’ can be implemented by ourselves, Satan, or the world, by distorting truth. Such deceptions, whether it is “being wise in your own eyes” (Proverbs 3:7; Isaiah 5:21), a temptation to ‘bite the apple’ (Genesis 3), or accusations from dreamers that you are in fact the one dreaming (Christians are often accused of being irrational), are not heavenly wisdom, as Paul often asserted.

Being aware that you are dreaming is not sufficient to wake yourself up: it is notoriously difficult to wake yourself up from a dream (perhaps impossible without Christ) even when you know that you are dreaming (even when you know that you are separated from God). But is it necessary? What about when something (or Somebody) else wakes you up by appealing to your real self as opposed to your dreaming self? For example, if your alarm goes off, or if your mom comes in to tell you it’s time for school, the stimulus is purely exogenous – nothing changes within your dream.

Or does it? Surely we have all had dreams where external stimuli are integrated by our minds into the dream itself, whether they are noises or other sensations. So maybe even when God appeals to our ‘real selves’, for instance by revealing Himself through a vision to somebody with no prior knowledge of Christ, there is an endogenous element of undeceived self-reflection.

God often reveals Himself through dreams. But He also does so through regular thoughts. Not only prophecies, but our daily communication with Him, often occurs through thought, and dreams, which are merely a specific type of thought. I don’t think that is a merely a way of transmitting information. As Descartes acknowledged, we do not have minds, we are minds (C. S. Lewis conveyed this idea using the word ‘soul’ rather than ‘mind’).

Regardless, awareness is undoubtedly a useful tool for waking up. It would be virtually impossible for somebody with a psychological disorder to recover without first admitting that they are unwell. So while somebody who is completely unaware may need to be woken up by an exogenous ‘bump’ (to use Inception’s term), awareness itself might constitute just such an exogenous intervention. This, perhaps, is what is meant by ‘conviction’. And this is why the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit, are so important: we require define revelation to wake us up. Indeed, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17); similarly, “Surely He does nothing before revealing it to His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

So from where does the endogenous bump come? Well, the awareness part derives from the Law, which shows us that we are dreaming (Romans 3:20). It is theoretically possible to wake yourself up through the Law, if you obey it fully. But this is virtually impossible – it requires you to ‘jump outside of yourself’, i.e. to be completely selfless, even though are you are a self.

However, Jesus Christ, by denying Himself, has provided us with a spiritual-physical ‘portal’. Love sums up the Law and the Prophets, and God is love. Perfect love, meanwhile, drives out fear (Galatians 5:14; Matthew 7:12, 22:40; Romans 13:10; 1 John 4:8)! So God's love is what allows us to restore rationality by escaping our dream worlds (John 3:16).

Indeed, the very Word of God went through a nightmare by entering our dream world, fulfilling the prophets and leaving us with the Holy Spirit, which, thank God, is infinitely above our own minds in terms of dream-recursions. The Spirit of God transcends our minds through the Word of God, which “separates joint and marrow, SOUL AND SPIRIT” (Hebrews 4:12; note that the mind is part of the soul). 

We can be “transformed by the renewing of our mind”, and consequently know God’s perfect will (Romans 12:12), only because we have the Holy Spirit. We can walk out of our own personal Sheols, through the hallway and past “many rooms” (John 14:2) to the Throne Room itself. Another way of seeing this is through the imagery of light and darkness: Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12), but the world does not understand it (John 1:5). Because the Word of God is a lump unto our feet and a light unto our path, we can walk in ‘the Everlasting way’ (see my post in walking) even though we are in a world of darkness.

So maybe Heaven is the infinitely recursive state of awareness (light). Although Christ tore the veil, we still do not yet “see face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12). When the New Jerusalem descends from Heaven, it will be perfectly clear (as the Jasper stone; Revelation 21). Indeed, when Jesus returns, He will do away with the dream once and for all, giving the ultimate bump to wake up even those who are dead (incidentally, the Bible refers to these as those who are “sleeping”, whilst Paul uses this same term to refer to unbelievers or those who have deviated from faith). Furthermore, Heaven is more real than our world, because it is eternal. Indeed, dreams elude time, because they can happen in an instance – is it not conceivable that when we wake up from our current dream, we will expand time to a further level?

Christ will, however, not return until all nations have heard the Word of God (Matthew 24:14). So, if we want to be a part of the Great Awakening (or Ultimate Enlightenment), we should be actively trying to wake up others, just like Neo et al do in the Matrix by re-entering the dream world as ‘agents’ of reality.

Why do, and will, some people remain deceived? All I can say is ‘see Romans 3’. The short answer is ‘the Glory of God’, but in all honestly I am not entirely certain. I can only posit that deception is a choice: although you require knowledge to make a decision, if the knowledge itself is a decision then we are left with another infinite recursion. An alternative interpretation may be that “artists use lies to tell the truth”, although I find that version rather distasteful.

In sum, to be an ex-ception to the de-ception, we require the in-ception of Christ. You know what’s weird? I got this “divine wisdom” about dreams, in a dream. I urge you to read Romans 3 with it in mind.

The Word of God as a Health Food

The Word of God is the ultimate health food.

• Its satiety effect is unparalleled (John 4:7-26; Psalm 104; Matthew 4, 5:6)
• It is refreshing (Acts 3:19; Philemon 1:20)
• It is highly nutritious, and promotes physiological growth and development of bones, muscles, and skin (1 Peter 2:1-3; Ezekiel 37:1-4)
• It improves strength and stamina (Isaiah 40: 28-31; Matthew 17:20; 2 Corinthians 12:9; 2 Samuel 22:3; Psalms), especially ‘core strength’ (2 Timothy 2:19)
• It enhances vision (Psalm 119:105, 130), hearing (Romans 10:17) and other senses (Hebrews 4:12, 5:14)
• It is appropriate for people of all ages, genders, and ethnicities (1 Corinthians 3:1-2; John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11)
• It is the ultimate detox (Ephesians 4:17ff), and fortifies your immune system (Ephesians 6:10-17; 2 Samuel 22:3)
• It improves the condition of your heart (Psalm 51, 104: 15)
• It is a ‘whole food’, with no components removed artificially (1 Corinthians 9:16; Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 3:16-7), and ‘organic’, existing in nature and containing no additives or man-made substances (John 1; 2 Timothy 3:16-7; Revelation 22:18; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 Peter 2:1-3; Matthew 7:15-20; 1 Timothy 4:1-5, 6:20-1; 2 John 1:7-11; Romans 1:18-25)
• It is ‘fair trade’ (Isaiah 61:8; Psalm 33:5, 140:12)
• It promotes a positive attitude and demeanour (James, Galatians 5:16ff; Romans 8; Matthew 7:15-20; James 2:14-26)
• It is an Aphrodisiac (1 John 4:7ff; 1 Corinthians 13)
• It is reported to contain telekinetic properties (Matthew 17:20)
• Although some parts are hard to swallow, much of it tastes great (Psalm 119:103; 1 Peter 2:1-3), making it a perfect comfort food (Matthew 5:4)
• It contains the only cure to the most common (in fact universal) genetically transmitted, fatal disease, and thus dramatically lengthens your lifespan (John 3:16, 12:25, 17:3; Matthew 25:46; Luke 18:29-30; Romans 2:17, 6:22; Galatians 6:8-9; Titus 3:7; 1 John 2:24-5; Jude 1:21; 1 John 5:20)
• In fact, it is not only necessary (Deuteronomy 8:3; John 6:63-8; Psalm 119:50; Ezekiel 37:1-14) but sufficient (2 Peter 1:3; 2 Corinthians 12:9) for giving and sustaining life; you can literally live on it (Matthew 4:4)
• It is eternally abundant and freely available (John 3:16, 4:1-26; Revelation 21:6, 22:17)

For best results, consume regularly (John 8:31-2, 14:23-4; ; Joshua 1:8; Acts 20:32), do not mix with other sources (Revelation 22:18; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 Peter 2:1-3; Matthew 7:15-20; 1 Timothy 4:1-5, 6:20-1; 2 John 1:7-11), and avoid processed varieties tainted with additives, even if they appeal to your taste buds (1 and 2 Timothy; Galatians 1:8; Colossians 2:8; 2 Peter 2; Revelation 22:18; Romans 16:17; 1 John 4; 2 Peter 2:1-3).

Spiritual Walking

I Walk, Therefore I Am
One can rarely walk too much. The gentle extension and contraction of one’s legs in an alternating rhythm enriches virtually every aspect of the self. Physically, it recruits largest of the body’s muscles in an undemanding yet active way, proffering an ideally low-intensity form of sustainable cardiovascular exercise. Inducing a lower heart rate than most other activities, a higher percentage of energy expended derives from fat, and with minimal risk of fatigue or need for recovery, you can literally walk to your heart’s content. Mentally, it frees oneself from the plethora of distractions that permeate our modern world and from the blinding minutiae of human thought, whilst simultaneously stimulating the quiescent muse, the gradual passage through quotidian existence providing an optimal pacifier for the restless subconscious. Nietzsche apparently grasped this benefit when he said that “every good thought is conceived while walking”. Furthermore, the physical movement resulting from the subtle instruction of the brain and the sensational feedback thus produced underscore the link between mind and body: I walk, therefore I am.

The Divine Walk
Walking also has a spiritual dimension, which I seek to explore in this blog. Jewish dietary laws depend on what type of ‘hoof’ the animal walks. Human feet in Biblical times were considered unclean for obvious reasons. To walk in front of or on top of somebody therefore represented supremacy (e.g. in Daniel 4:29, Daniel walks "on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon"), and to walk barefoot was symbolic of mourning (2 Samuel 15:30) and humility (Job 12:17, 19). On the other hand, to wash another’s feet was an explicit act of servitude. Satan “roams about” and “walks around” on the earth (Job 1:7). Jesus walked on water and made the lame to walk. Now he “walks among the seven golden lampstands” (Rev 2:1).

Whilst Buddha said that “We ourselves must walk the path”, referring to the absence of any saviour except ours selves, the Christian “walk” represents the polar opposite - carrying one’s cross daily, to crucify the sinful self and so accept Christ’s own sacrifice. The concept of the pilgrimage derives from this spiritual overlap: to symbolically walk in the footsteps of one’s forbearing disciples somehow associates us with them.



Walking with God
Without sin, we walk with God. Before Adam and Eve partook of the Apple, they walked with God. The righteousness of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Noah (Genesis 6:9) brought them back to that state. God promised Israel as the ‘chosen people’ that ‘he would walk among them and be their God’ and that ‘they shall be His people’ (Leviticus 26:12). In this covenant, the land on which the Hebrews walked was the literal fulfilment of God’s promise: He tells His people “Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you” (Genesis 13:17). However, the blessing is conditional on obedience with the Law (Deuteronomy 5:33, 11:22-5). Deuteronomy 23:14 reads “since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you.” When they heeded God’s commandments, the Hebrews crossed the River Jordan and conquered the Promised Land, their footsteps literally bringing down the walls of Jericho (Joshua 6). When they strayed from the Holy Path, they wandered aimlessly in the desert for forty years until the rebellious generation had almost died out (Joshua 5:6).

That covenant is extended to us: He makes us to walk beside quiet waters, and is beside us in the Valley of the Shadow of Death (Psalm 23). He makes our feet “like hinds’ feet” and makes us walk on “high places” (Habakkuk 3:19). When we “pass through the waters”, He will be with us; when through the rivers, they will not overflow us; when through the fire, we will not be scorched, nor will the flame burn us (Isaiah 43:2; Daniel 3:25). When we walk, our steps will not be impeded, nor will we tire, and if we run, we will not stumble, nor grow feint (Proverbs 4:12; Isaiah 40:28-31; Psalm 18:36), so that we “may walk before God in the light of the living” (Psalm 56:13) and eventually walk the Golden streets of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:21).

The Christian Walk
As partakers in the Covenant, we are called to "walk in His ways", meaning to follow His commandments, to fear Him, and to love and serve Him with all our heart and with all our soul (Deuteronomy 8:6; 10:12). So how does a follower of 'The Way' walk? The Bible usually presents walking as a dichotomy between, amongst others: God's commandments, statutes or teachings and sin; light or vision and darkness or blindness; truth and falsehood; humility or fear of God and pride; wisdom and folly; blamelessness or integrity and guilt or shame; His name or our own.

One of the most frequent of such dichotomies is between walking straight and walking sideways or backwards: while you can tell a fool by the way he walks (Ecclesiastes 10:3), "a man of understanding walks straight" (Proverbs 15:21). This distinction corresponds to one between walking 'after the wind' versus 'in the newness of life', and in 'futility of mind' versus Christ's love (Ephesians 4). King Josiah is said to have done "right in the sight of the Lord and walked in all the way of his father David, nor did he turn aside to the right or to the left" (2 Kings 22:1-2); in contrast the Hebrews "did no obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubborness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward" (Jeremiah 7:24). It would seem, therefore, that the temptations of the world can distract us onto perpendicular detours ("the council of the wicked", Psalm 1:1), whilst those of those of the self call us in the opposite direction to the Way. This makes sense when we consider that Satan's ploys are often crafty perversions of the Truth, whilst the Christian calling is directly contrary to the stipulations of the self.

The angelic creatures that appear in the books of Daniel and Revelation and that reside in God's very thrownroom are said to walk unidirectionally. That is also our calling; and I use the word 'calling' literally, for Isaiah 30:22 tells us that "your ears will hear a word behind, you, 'This is the way, walk in it', whenever you turn to the right or to the left". God desires that we should follow His Way; indeed, he created us for the very reason that we may walk in the good works prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10); he leads us in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake (Psalm 23).


Paul urges us to walk according to the Spirit rather than according to the flesh (Romans 8; Galatians 5). Indeed, Galatians 5 is illuminating with regards the metaphor of walking. In that chapter, two different Greek words are used, both of which are translated as "walk". The first refers to the commonly understood definition, whilst the second denotes 'keeping in check'. Regarding the spiritual walk, these two meanings are quasi-synonymous.

Although we should never be in doubt about which way we are walking, thanks to this divine 'Sat Nav', we can choose whether or not to heed its instructions. 2 Corinthians 5 informs us that to walk in the Way requires that we walk according to faith rather than according to sight. The choice between walking in, on the one hand, "darkness" and "sin", and on the other, "fellowship with Him" "fellowship with one another", being cleansed from all sin by the blood of Jesus, is absolute: we must pick one or the other (1 John 1:6-7). Notice that this verse also reveals to us that our walk is not solitary: it involves "fellowship". Although each person is their own walker, we are called to 'walk the extra mile' as servants of each other.

We have addressed how a Follower should walk, but what about the where? Surely a distinction can be made not only between the manner of our walking but also where we choose to do so. In the Gospels, Jesus tells us to enter the Kingdom of Heaven through the "narrow gate", which is also the road 'less travelled by' in the words of Robert Frost. This contrasts to the "wide road" that leads to destruction. On the other hand, the path is a "highway", and an "ancient" one at that (Jeremiah 18:15): it is evident to those who seek it, and moreover never changes. This insight should motivate us to listen to our Sat Nav all the more: we must always ensure that we have not deviated onto "bypaths" of "worthless gods", which cause us to "stumble" (and therefore fall out of the promise of Proverbs 4:12; see above) . This corresponds to "walking in faith" alluded to above: the 'recommended route' may seem roundabout given our immediate objectives, but we know that God's plans for us are full of prosperity and hope (Jeremiah 29:11). The path through the Red Sea would not have existed unless Moses had heeded God's instruction.

To walk after something is to desire or pursue it, and for this reason the concept is often used to describe both loyalty and idolatry, for example the Hebrew's 'adultery' with Baal. Our motivation to walk should therefore be one of love, responding to God's grace. Colossians 2:6 reads "Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him", an similarly Galations 5:25, "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit". Paradoxically, however, to walk in God's Way we must let him 'walk us': for "a man's way is not in himself, Nor is it a man who walks to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23). The Christian walk is not one of personal endeavour, but one of yielding and surrender.


The Journey and the Destination
Although the walks of fools and wise mens' are fundamentally different, the one walking in light and the other in darkness, "one fate befalls them both" (Ecclesiastes 2:14). To walk in the Way should therefore embrace the quotidian, the circadian, and the routine: the journey is the destination. Indeed, one of the great things about walking is that you can multitask when doing it: you can talk, think, eat, pray, listen, etc., while at the same time performing the activity. In fact, many people find walking to be a useful way to stimulate the creative faculties. On the other hand, blessings await those "who walk in the law of the LORD" (Psalm 119:1), and we do have an eternal destination awaiting us: the golden streets of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:21).

How to reconcile the journey and the destination? Isaiah 35:8 prophecies "A highway will be there, a roadway, And it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, But it will be for him who walks that way, And fools will not wander on it". Our destination in Heaven seems to be an eternal (but restful) journey. Meanwhile, our journey on earth contains the destination in Jesus Christ. As Psalm 85:14 reads, "Righteousness will go before Him And will make His footsteps into a way." Jesus is the "highway", and it is not by our own walk that we reach His destination, but by the timeless journey that He made by carrying His cross to calvary.

The Body: Wicked Vessel or Holy Temple?

Introduction
The Biblical message regarding the physical, human body seems, prima facie, contradictory. The body is presented both as a sacred alter that accommodates our relationship with God, and as a sinful hindrance to that very relationship. I seek to dispel this false contradiction by showing the story of the body, which is one that essentially follows that of mankind – creation, fall, and reconciliation. This story is chronological, but is also one that occurs on a daily basis. The spiritual battle is one of reclaiming the original function of the body by accepting the spiritual-physical sacrifice of Jesus Christ, thereby rejecting the perversities that would otherwise contaminate our relationship with God.


The Purpose of the Body
The dualistic philosophy of Gnosticism maintains that everything physical, including our bodies, is evil. In this line of thought, Adam and Eve could not have been 'bodied' people before they sinned, but were rather disembodied, floating souls. But this is not the story of Genesis, which describes how the first humans were created from clay (earth itself), coming to perceive their bodies as evil only once their souls had chosen to sin, thus defiling themselves. In 1 Corinthians 15:46, Paul goes so far as to claim that "it is not the spiritual [body] that is first, but the natural, and then the spiritual."

In fact, it seems plausible that in the beginning, there was no distinction between body, soul and spirit (these can be imperfectly compared, respectively, to the Son, the Father, and the Spirit). God walked with Adam and Eve in a way that seems simultaneously spiritual and physical. Indeed, we are fearfully and wonderfully created in God’s tripartite image, knitted together in our mothers’ wombs (Genesis 1; Psalm 139). Hence, the physical body is inextricably tied to the original purpose that God created mankind – to project His glory. Our bodies are therefore “temples of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). When two people are married, they become “one flesh”, because the physical and spiritual unions are indistinct, fully in tune with that original purpose.


The Gateway of the Soul
As temples, our bodies glorify God not only in their intricate designs, which “speak of His glory”. Equally importantly, they are gateways between our physical and spiritual existences, governing a bilateral flow between our souls and the world around us. On one hand, they are portals into the soul: “the eye is the lamp of the body” and determines whether our body is “full of light” or “full of darkness”. On the other hand, James tells us that the tongue is a gateway from the soul, spouting out both blessings and curses.

The brain is perhaps the most salient example of this bilateral ‘intermediary’ role, because it accommodates the mind, and “the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:6-8).


Conflict with the Soul
This last quote from Romans draws a tripartite distinction between the body (the flesh), the soul (the mind) and the spirit, which appears only to have surfaced after the Fall. The body is not necessarily the flesh: the latter represents the evil infiltration of Sin into our earthly bodies, as well as our souls, and even our spirits. It is for this reason that our bodies are fated for physical death – because the sinful flesh must pay the price of sin. So too, those who have not received the redeeming power of Jesus are spiritually "asleep" (i.e. temporarily dead), and their souls are not experienced the "abundant life" and joy available through Him.

Thus, Paul states that we can only achieve life and peace by recourse to THE Spirit – not A spirit or even OUR spirit. Because sin entails a spiritual death, we cannot rely on the natural coincidence of our spirits (which arguably are dead) with His; rather, we must choose (and by ‘choose’ I refer to the soul, which is what philosophers would identify as ‘the person’) to live by HIS Spirit. In a very real sense, then, if we are truly committing our whole selves to God, our identities become projections of God, which indeed is our original purpose; as it says in 1 Corinthians 6:17, "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him".

The ‘fleshified’ body is therefore in conflict with the Holy Spirit, the two engaged in a tug-of-war for our souls, i.e. our minds, i.e. our wills (think of the cartoon picture of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ consciences sitting on your shoulders). As Paul states, “I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am...So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin” (Romans 7:21-25). And again in Galatians 5: 16-23, “Walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” For this reason, it is essential that we are constantly "renewed by the spirit of our minds", casting off the old self and embracing our continuously ressurrected and renewed beings (Ephesians 4:20-4).

An interesting theme of the above quotations is that our choice, whether to serve the Flesh or the Spirit, whilst continual, is also a long-term commitment, because the two options represents laws, specifically “The law of God” and “the law of sin”. Interesting questions of free will arise here, because Paul does exactly what he claims to desire not to do. However, I would posit that, in light with the second quote, it is still the individual’s choice (“the inner man”) which path she chooses to traverse. There is an element of ‘path dependency’, as subscription to a Law will entail continuous pressure to stay en route. At the same time, even Paul (who is probably ‘walking by the Spirit’), faces constant pressure from the flesh. Hence, to ‘Walk by the Spirit” is both an immediate and a continuous choice, as is yielding to the flesh.

The dynamics of sin further demonstrate the intermediation of the body between physical and spiritual realities. Is it not physical and mental acts of sin that contain spiritual ramifications, which in turn entail the curse of both spiritual and physical death?


The Body of Christ
It may appear from the discussion thus far that the body is condemned to be a ‘Wicked Vessel’, which we must bear until death liberates our souls to pursue the Spirit wholeheartedly. However, if we return to the initial symbol of our bodies as “Temples”, we glean a very different picture. In fact, the Temple neatly follows the story of the body. Created by God, it was used and abused by its inhabitants. The original Temple, moreover, represented ‘the Old Covenant’, which allowed the Jews to access God by observing strict rituals related to circumcision, scripture, dietary laws and ceremonial washing, which dovetail between the physical temple and our bodies as temples. Throughout history, the temple was ransacked, destroyed and rebuilt, caught up in constant struggle between evil and good.

But what did Christ mean when he promised to destroy the Temple and rebuild it again in three days? Clearly, he was referring to His own body. In my opinion, the fact that we bodied people is the very reason that Christ himself had to make himself bodily to save us. In any case, what is clear in the Bible is that the act of sacrifice, which was a perpetual requirement in the Old Covenant, is simultaneously spiritual and physical; ipso facto, Christ’s physical sacrifice is not only symbolic of spiritual salvation but also constitutive of a very physical salvation. Our bodies, as "members of Christ", will therefore be raised accordingly (1 Corinthians 6:15).

The redemption of the body, however, requires a death of the flesh. By destroying the old Temple (breaking His body), and replacing it with a new one (resurrecting His body), we have the possibility of reclaiming the body for its original purpose; that is, to reject the sinful flesh. Christ says that “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh” (John 6:51). The physical act of Communion is representative of this reclamation process. Our bodies were designed for eternity, and not for the Law of Sin that leads to death. Hence Paul tells us that “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:2-4). And again in Galatians 5:24-25, “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law…against [the fruits of the Spirit] there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires…If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.”


Heavenly and Earthly Bodies
The same body might not be identified before and after this process of reclamation. After all, our bodies ‘break’ and ‘resurrect’ all the time, at a cellular level – although our genes remain intact, the cells the currently constitute your body are not the same as those that constituted your body a week ago (let alone at birth), and moreover not the same as those that will do so a week from now (let alone at death). Nevertheless, I do not think that in Heaven we will be merely ‘free from our bodies’; rather, we will possess a “spiritual body” unhampered by the sinful flesh.

The example comes from Jesus, whose body was raised from the dead and ascended to Heaven; and although it was of a different appearance to his initial body (the disciples did not recognise Him), it was not as if His soul 'left' His body - the tomb was empty! His body had been resurrected and transformed! Consider also that our own tri-partite nature (body, soul, and spirit) corresponds to that of God (Son, Father, and Holy Spirit). When Christ (the Body) died for our sins, he was temporarily estranged from the Father (the Soul). After He rose in His spiritual body, he left us the Holy Spirit. According to Paul, a similiar process occurs when our own earthly bodies die. Distinguishing between "heavenly" and "earthly" bodies, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:44-5 that “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, 'The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit'" (1 Corinthians 15:44-5). Whereas our current bodies "bear the image of the man of dust", our resurrected bodies "will bear the image of the man of heaven." (v49). Thus, whereas "sown body" is "perishable", "dishonored", and "weak", the "raised body" is "imperishable", "glorious", and "powerful". (v42-3).

If we were originally created as bodied people (notice I do not phrase it as ‘people with bodies’ but rather ‘bodied people’), why would our eternal destination not involve that original design? We were, after all, created from the clay - from the earth itself. Thus, along with "the whole creation", which "groans and suffers the pains of childbrith", "also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body." Although we are already "new creations in Christ Jesus", the Word is quite clear that at the End of Days we will see a resurrection of the dead (along with the restoration of "all things"), as occurred briefly during Christ's crucifixion when many of "the Saints who had been sleeping" rose from their tombs, and not merely a departure of their souls, even if the new bodies are distinct from the old ones (1 Corinthians 15). It is also interesting to note that the Bible refers to the Church as the "Bride of Christ" (e.g. Ephesians 5), which will one day be united with Him just as a husband and a wife "become one flesh" (Revelation 19). We are then, in quite a literal sense, the "Body of Christ" (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12).

In the meantime, we should remember that Christ came to fulfil the law, not to do away with it; he came to reclaim the holiness of the original design, and not to replace it. Hence, although we may not need to be circumcised, to purify our bodies, or to avoid unclean foods, our bodies are now living sacrifices: “therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (Romans 12:1). Indeed, Paul reminds us, “do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). We must keep our Temples pure – as John the Baptist said, the Son of Man baptises by the Spirit and not with water; but there is still a baptism of sorts. Indeed, to be born again is more literal than normally assumed.

Dying to the self does not, therefore, mean neglecting the body; it means respecting its cycles of death and resurrection (work and rest, wakefulness and sleep, childhood and old age, etc.), rather than constantly living in a state of "life-in-death" (as Samuel Taylor Coleridge describes it in 'the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner'), in which we are always working but never at full capacity, always tired but not getting enough sleep, and growing older but not more mature. Just as the temple speaks of the glory of God, so too do our bodies, which are works of art created in His image. We can consider the Song of Solomon here, which contains almost erotic imagery, showing us that the physical body is part of God's divine design. Of course, we should never become too attached to our current form, keeping in mind that our current bodies are only shadows of our coming selves. It is worth remembering that when Jesus’ disciples were admiring the architecture of the temple, He told them that it would be replaced by Himself - a far more glorious vessel!

Indeed, the eventual resurrection and transformation of our body is part of Christ's covenant. As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:51-56, "Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God,who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

In this vein, we should keep in mind that, whilst we can fully partake of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ in a spiritual sense at this point in time (it is "in our midst"), our eternal destination will be a Kingdom in Heaven that may actually be more tangible - more physical - than our current relationship with God. Just as our souls are saved but still carry a sinful nature, and are living in eternal life but are not yet in Heaven, so too our bodies are redeemed but still diseased and mortal; one day we will be raised from the dead for eternity. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:12, " For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." This new relationship will involve our full being, including a new Heavenly body (and a new 'face'), which will be in line with its original purpose.

The new body must therefore be somehow disassociated from ‘the flesh’, and returned to its original position along with the soul and the spirit, in a unified, integration self, resembling that of the resurrected Christ. 1 John 3:2 tells us that "we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." Paul also weighs in on the subject "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself" (Philippians 3:20).


Conclusion
The body is a complicated theme. To answer the question posed in the title of this post, ‘is the body a Wicked Vessel or a Holy Temple?’, I would favour the latter. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:13, "the body is...for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body." In other words, as John Piper once said, "The Lord is very 'pro-body'". It is the flesh that we must perpetually discard, by invoking Christ’s physical-spiritual sacrifice that reclaimed the body for its original purpose. In the current life, the struggle will be continuous, but when our ‘old temples’ are destroyed, our ‘new temples’ will be perfectly in line with “the inner man”.