Christianity inherited from its biblical bases a powerful ambiguity on the macrocosm-term “world” and the microcosm-term “flesh.” Those terms, therefore, must always be seen in both that macro/micro relationship and that ambiguous understanding.

The ambiguity there depends on whether “world” and “flesh” are seen in terms of divine gift or human abuse. To see that accurate and important ambiguity in just one biblical book, use a concordance and look up both words in the gospel of John. (Then keep looking throughout the Bible.)

If you take “world”—and I am picking more or less at random--on the one hand, “world” means the goodness of our earth as God’s beloved creation. What could possible render the world more sacred than the famous declaration that “God so loved the world” in John 3:16? Or the next verse: “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

On the other hand, "world" is used like this: “He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him” (1:10). Or again: “Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out” (12:31).

What is at stake in that difference? In an earlier posting, I quoted from the parabolic encounter between Jesus and Pilate in John 18:36. That parabolic interchange distinguished world-as-good (Kingdom of God) from world-as-bad (Kingdom of Rome) in terms of its basis in violence or non-violence.

Now, “flesh”—and again I am picking more or less at random--We see that “the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth” (1:14). Or again: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (6:51).

On the other hand: “What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit” (3:6). Again: “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (6:63).

What is at stake in that difference? The flesh is sacred when it is held in dialectic with the spirit (and, of course, vice versa)—when, that is, each can be distinguished but not separated (like two sides of a coin). Any breach in that dialectic—of flesh without spirit or spirit without flesh—will render each sinful rather than sacred. But, actually, in our current popular media sex is neither sacred nor sinful—just silly.