The views expressed in this article are of the author only and do not necessarily represent those of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
Gender as Love: A Theological Account of Human Identity, Embodied Desire, and Our Social Worlds
Felipe do Vale
Baker Academic (2023). 259 pp.
In Gender as Love, systematic theologian Felipe do Vale offers a theologically rich engagement with one of the most pressing cultural flashpoints of our day. Taking cues from the theological work of Augustine, Irenaeus, John Webster, and Sarah Coakley, do Vale argues that “since our identities are defined by our objects of love, our gendered identities are defines by our objects of gendered love” (p. 24). The particularly Augustinian shape of the claim will be immediately apparent. Less immediately clear may be what exactly do Vale means by a gendered object of love. As do Vale unpacks this thesis, readers will find new and helpful resources for engaging this complex topic in a distinctly Christian and gospel-driven way.
Before outlining his constructive proposal (summarized by the thesis statement quoted above), do Vale offers two introductory chapters. The first is on theological method, wherein he situates his study among contemporary theological discussions of gender. Appropriating Webster’s “theological theology,” do Vale writes that “Theological anthropology . . . is to have as its focus the ways in which the gospel casts light on what it means to be and to flourish as a human . . . To think theologically about human personhood (and gender) is to see the ways in which they are implicated by the divine economy” (p. 19).
In his second chapter, do Vale argues against the prevailing view in modern gender theory, namely that gender is (merely) a social construct, as argued influentially by Judith Butler and others. Do Vale’s two main critiques of this view are that 1) the theory makes it impossible to say anything about men, women, or gender as such and 2) that the theory precludes genders from being morally evaluable. This chapter is theoretically dense and will likely prove (helpfully!) challenging for readers unfamiliar with this scholarly landscape. For this reason, I imagine myself returning to this section in particular as an entrée into gender critical scholarship for future ministry and writing. For pastors and biblical and theological scholars looking for succinct but not watered-down introduction to these debates—including the oft repeated dictum of the distinction between “sex” and “gender”—this chapter alone may be worth the price of this book.
In chapter 3, do Vale engages in a discussion of the ontology of gender and outlines his four central theses of his theological account. These are:
Gender is an essence, though this is not reducible or identical with biological determinism or biological essentialism.
The complexity of gender, the noetic effects of sin, and the current conditions of oppression complicate our epistemic access to gender’s essence, All the same, we can be assured that issues surrounding gender will be rectified in the eschaton.
Any theory or theology of gender must be consistent with and supportive of the cultivation of justice.
Gender is concerned with selves or identity and with the way selves organize social goods pertaining to their sexed bodies.
Having critiqued the social constructionist view of gender in the previous chapter, do Vale here spends significant time criticizing the opposite view of biological essentialism. He seeks to balance these views, writing:
Christian must realize that statements about human beings and their genders are always indexed to the particular time they occupy in the (divine) economy . . . Gendered creation is not something to be shrugged off or eradicated, as the theological implications of gender skepticism suggest, but it would be overly ambitious to say that we can return to the garden as though sin had never entered the picture. Christians confess a redemption ultimately fulfilled in the eschaton, where what it means to be women and men will be seen and experienced in the way it ought to be. (pp. 98–99)
The epistemic humility of do Vale’s account is, in my view, one of Gender as Love’s greatest strengths. As noted in thesis 2, the noetic effects of sin further obscure our understanding of gender, a point do Vale says is often missed by biological essentialists. One might counter that divine revelation in the biblical text fills up what may be lacking in our rational ability to give a full account of what it means to be a man or a woman (or, for that matter, a eunuch). However, a critical point for do Vale is that the biblical text has precious little to say about how men and women ought to live as men and women. Or, at least, it has very little to say that is not culturally situated (p. 168).
Christians have often wanted to claim that an objective reality undergirds gender and sexuality, one that, we presume, can be appealed to on clear biblical grounds. Do Vale gives a qualified yes and no on this point. Christians and pastors would do well to grapple with do Vale’s arguments here, as well as be responsible in our teaching ministries about what the biblical text does and does not say. A value of do Vale’s treatment in Gender as Love is that he takes seriously the gender critical discourse of our day while engaging in a theological construction of gender that moves beyond mere biblical proof-texting from the scant data available.
In chapters 4 and 5, do Vale situates his account of gender in light of Augustine’s account of humanity. Gender relates intimately to our essential and our social identity (which, importantly, cannot be separated). Identity, argues do Vale via Augustine, is not merely a matter of biology; it is a matter of loves. We are what we love, and we are gendered. So, how does love form our gender. Here do Vale also engages (with substantial appreciation) Sarah Coakley’s definition of gender as desire. However, he argues that love is a better operative word than desire because “love is that specific kind of desire that takes into account our cares and what is important to us, thereby forming our identities” (p. 160)—gender being a key part of our human identity. “[G]ender is love, for love makes us who we are” (p. 161). Do Vale also argues that Coakley’s account places too much stock on sexual desire/ love, writing that “[g]ender cannot be reduced to sexual love . . . it must involve the rich array of cultural goods we encounter in ordinary experience” (p. 162). Our gender, he writes, “is an office of love when we love various things in virtue of our sexed bodies” (p. 162).
Do Vale’s account offers a way for Christians to engage the conceptuality of gender, appreciating its cultural situatedness, complexity, and even mystery. Theological accounts of gender do not build the concept from the ground up, do Vale argues (p. 165). In this sense, for Christians, gender is less constructed than it is received from our cultural context. However, it is not enough to merely describe gender disinterestedly. For do Vale, the gospel “provides the moral guidance necessary for the right evaluation of goods loved in virtue of sex, for very often these goods are loved wrongly or should not be loved at all as a gendered good” (p. 166). The gospel and the kingdom are the interpretive keys to a right understanding of the gendered societies and gendered bodies in which we find ourselves. Do Vale writes, “in whatever culture or society a Christian finds herself, as a member of the heavenly city she must constantly adjudicate the objects of gendered love found in her society in accordance with their consistency with her love for God” (p. 169).
A criticism of do Vale’s approach could be that it is too reactive and not constructive enough. Is it right to say that Christians must, in a sense, passively wait to see what gendered ideas and norms arise in their given culture before evaluating them in light of the gospel? Is the gospel merely an editor of gendered scripts provided by the culture? Or does the kingdom of God itself provide a certain type of script for gender from the “top down”? This, of course, intersects with long standing debates about Christ and the gospel’s relation to culture, and it is worth noting that how a Christian engages the concept of gender theologically may come down to how she thinks of that relationship.
In the final two chapters of the book, do Vale applies his model of gender by tracing it through the doctrine of creation and a few case studies. This includes extended discussion on both intersex identities and sexual assault/rape, which he argues is the paradigmatic expression of disordered gendered love as a libido dominandi, the “lust for domination.”
Gender as Love provides an up-to-date and culturally relevant account of gender rooted in the Christian theological tradition. It is very much a work of academic theology that will challenge critical readers—i.e. it is unlikely to be accessible for lay people or church small groups. That said, it will offer many rewards and helpful insights to Pastor Theologians hoping to expand their understanding of the nuances of this important topic for Christian discipleship and cultural engagement in the twenty-first century.
Zach Wagner (MA, Wheaton College) is the Director of Programs at the Center for Pastor Theologians and a DPhil candidate at the University of Oxford. He is a member of the St. Basil Fellowship of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
