For Christian ethicist Oliver O’Donovan, God’s revelation in the gospel is the basis and primary authority of a Christian ethics, and the means Christians can discern the truths about the natural world through the work done in the resurrection of Christ. In other words, the renewed order, revealed through the resurrection of Christ, allows us to be aware and understand fully the created order. He defends an objective and realized-eschatological approach to Christian ethics, including his approach to human sexuality. This allows him to claim a clear distinctive differentiation between the creator and the creature. Something that marks the creation order with a teleological characteristic, including human sexuality. In that regard, the best way to understand the sexes would be from an ontological perspective: that is, with the mediation of love being a male is being able to unite structurally with a female, while being a female is being able to unite structurally with a male. This ontological complementarian approach would be an essential part of what it means to be human and being created as sexual beings. With this reasoning, O’Donovan gives physicality a prominent place in his sexual ethics without downplaying the spiritual dimension of humanity brought by the gospel. This also allows O’Donovan to explain the reason of the existence of both the male and female, the reasons distortions in the sexes might exist, and the reason why a revised and non-reductionist view understanding of human sexuality is needed. Under his view, the sexes, which were originally made by God, are later reproduced through a natural process of procreation (being begotten/born) and not via an artificial making process.O’Donovan finds in this differentiation an important implication for Christian ethics. Being begotten/born would be associated with a natural process of formation, while being made would be part of modifying something via an unnatural means, or throughout an artificial way. In other words, the fact that the male or female can be beget/born means they are the result of the order of creation. Under this reasoning, then God would be the real agent who created human beings both as male and female out of nothing. The current procreation process is just part of the sustaining of the natural kingdom. A significant ethical implication of O’Donovan’s thought would be that the sexes can only morally continue the process started by God through the procreation pre-established process. Out of this establishment, a moral conflict would arise.
The question of the roles of the sexes seems to be approached by O’Donovan following his ontological complementarian vision: the biological sex plays a fundamental role in the formation of both the male and the female, including their responsibilities in society and the church.Despite being critical of the traditional notions of natural law promoted mainly by the mainstream Christian tradition, O’Donovan does not reject completely the importance of the created order or natural law. Instead, the created order is just the beginning for him. There’s more than the understanding of the world with the lens of natural law. Rather than discarding what people can learn from the intersection of human sexuality and the creational moral norms, O’Donovan opens the door for adding new perspectives to better comprehend better human sexuality.
Perhaps what I found most interesting with his proposal is that sexuality from a natural perspective does not necessarily mean understanding it from an ateleological, naturalistic and reductionistic point of view. This has important implications for theological anthropology. A renewed notion of the natural world includes what human reason offers plus what is added or changed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. This renewed natural world is not unrealized, but part of the renewed work done by God through the resurrection of Christ.
Applying this to human sexuality, O’Donovan offers a three-fold framework where a theological-sexual anthropology can rest: the notion of commonality and equality, the concept of diversity and structure, and the notion of mutual fellowship. Considering these three aspects, we can say that the sexes share a common human nature and each sex is not superior/inferior to another because both were made in the image of God. The existence of diversity and structure in the created order is not negative per se because not all social orders are a product of the sinful nature. There are social structures such as husband/wife, sister/brother, for instance, that glorify God’s creation. And mutual fellowship happens in the church’s context and is an essential part.
Overall, the complementarian dimension of the sexes is shown not only in the biological aspect of sexuality but also in the rest of the social dimensions. In the church is where both sexes are formed, conforming the will of God and his likeness. There’s no only space for husband/wife but also boyfriend/girlfriend, girl/boy, adult/young, single/married, etc. Besides the marital union, the church has become analogous to family where the now others can become part of it as well. Even more, O’Donovan’s framework clearly creates room for those who reject a binary view of sexuality male/female, even that room is limited. Perhaps within the community of the church these people might find be transformed in light of the gospel.