Book Review: Oliver O’Donovan, Begotten or Made?

My two-year-old daughter has officially entered the “why?” phase. She has a knack for responding to even the clearest, most rational explanations with, “but why?”

But I was prepared for this phase—thanks to years serving in youth ministry. My curious students often responded to biblical teaching with “but why?” questions, especially when we covered hot-button topics. “But why are there only two genders?” “But why shouldn’t people change their gender?” “But why can’t a woman choose to end her pregnancy?” At the end of the day, their instincts were positively Berean: “where does the Bible say that?”

Rapid technological innovation has made all kinds of interventions on our bodies possible. In turn, these generate “but why?” questions—questions to which pastors must have ready answers. Often, a prooftext will suffice. But not always. Sometimes, pastors must draw from deeper wells. They must not go beyond or against God’s word, but they must go deeper into it. They must not rely on reason independent of God’s word, but they must expound its inner logic.

Oliver O’Donovan models this approach in his insightful work, “Begotten or Made?” He demonstrates moral reasoning that brings Christian doctrine to bear on many of today’s moral conundrums, especially related to gender, sexuality, procreation, and human nature. What makes him worthy of imitation? He navigates our complex ethical landscape by contemplating the Triune God of the gospel.

The title, “Begotten or Made?” alludes to the Nicene Creed, in which we confess that the “one Lord Jesus Christ” was “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” O’Donovan applies the distinction between begetting and making to bioethical questions. Begetting is giving existence according to what we are, not what we will. Making is giving existence according to what we will, not what we are.

O’Donovan’s point is not that begetting is good and making is evil. After all, in creation, God himself makes. His point, rather, is that in our post-Enlightenment cultural climate, the category of begetting has disappeared from our conceptual toolboxes. Meanwhile, making “is the conceptual matrix by which we understand all human activity” (17). And our version of making has a decidedly negative cast. Whereas begetting is an activity marked by resignation to nature, making seeks to control nature. Begetting receives the created order as a gift, while making views the created order as a problem to solve. Begetting recognizes the limits of human control, while making rejects all limits.

When making dominates our worldview, technology transgresses the boundaries set by human nature. When making is the glass through which we view everything, technological overreach moves from possibility to preference to imperative.

Once, gender was a given. Now, it is a blank slate awaiting our construction, which we accomplish either by compliance with our default settings or hormonal medications and surgery.

Once, children were gifts. Now, comprehensive genetic testing allows us to peer into their futures and determine whether we want to receive them. If not, pregnancy can be cured by a procedure.

Once, infertility was a cross to be borne. Now, it can be overcome, but only by placing procreation in the scientist’s omnipotent hands, leaving us to wonder what a parent even is (58).

Has making overshadowed begetting in your conceptual toolkit? What terms tend to govern your congregation’s thinking? How should Christians respond when “but why?” questions inevitably come?

“Begotten or Made?” shows a way for Christians to think theologically about pressing moral matters. Its example may stimulate deeper moral reflection that will prepare the church for the “but why?” questions of tomorrow. At the very least, it may help you be a faithful brother, sister, or shepherd today. Take up and read!