Abstract
In his first book, Gender as love, Felipe do Vale uses his theology training to explore the challenging topic of gender carefully. As this was the subject of his PhD dissertation, his book demonstrates his extensive research on gender and its relevance to today's church.
Do Vale asserts two unhelpful bifurcations in how gender is viewed. The first is the bifurcation between essentialism and social construction. This is an unsettled question about which one best explains gender. The second is the bifurcation between theologians who do not feel equipped with scripture to address the topic and those who use outside sources, and theologians who keep gender an arm's distance away, as they do not feel equipped to handle the topic accurately. Do Vale seeks to show that how one appropriates their gender is shown in what they love.
The book is broken up into three major parts. First, the author seeks to give a theological foundation to gender by looking at it in today's context and laying out the social construction views of gender so that the reader can understand this view, what it looks like, and objections to it. In the book's second part, do Vale seeks to construct his case for his view of gender, using both cultural and theological grounding, along with discussing Augustine's perception of love. He then lays out his claim of gender as love at the end of these chapters. In the third section, he seeks to look at gender through the lens of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. Do Vale intends to provide a theologian's account of gender, including what makes gender and how is it shaped.
In Chapter 1, do Vale sets the stage for how gender is treated in theological discussions. He states two problems with how gender is viewed. First, it is recognized as a social construct or an essence (biology). He claims the social constructivist view is preferred, even though many theologians are not passionate about it. The debate between social construct and essence has a long way to go before it is settled.
The second problem is how theologians have chosen to address gender, either at arm's distance away because they don’t feel equipped or pull in methods to study, which have not helped clarify the issues at hand. He further lays out the question that the book seeks to answer: “What is gender? . . . Is there a connection between the possession of a certain kind of body and the cultural roles, assumptions, and traits we associate with gender, and if so, what is the nature of that connection?” (p. 24).
Chapter 2 explores the predominant claim that gender is a social construct. Do Vale does not support the social construct view for theologians. However, he does not support essentialism as the only alternative. He acknowledges that even between social constructionists, there are variations of gender accounts. One thing he states they all agree on is that gender traits, as portrayed in the past, have been oppressive and limiting. After stating its foundation, using authors who have done extensive research on the topic, Do Vale argues that the position of gender as a social construct still excludes people from that gender, making it inadequate. In addition, he sees the social construct view as one that makes some genders “morally unevaluable” (p. 54).
Chapter 3 is used to lay out the metaphysics of gender through the work of two gender theorists. Do Vale sets his ontology of gender upon these four theses: gender is an essence, gender is complex, gender theory/theology must cultivate justice and gender identity is related to how one “organize[s] social goods pertaining to their sexed bodies” (p. 75). He identifies the works of Charlotte Witt and Mari Mikkola as helpful in expanding the terms of gender. Do Vale ends the chapter with a quick definition of gender: “the appropriation of cultural goods about the sexed body using which the sexed body is socially manifested” (p. 110).
In Chapter 4, Do Vale purports that one's gender identity is found in what one loves. He uses the work of Augustine to remind us that love is one of the shaping forces of who we are. Our loves shape our identity. Do Vale sought to provide a theological framework for identity and what it means to have one. He claims that to understand gender, one needs a theology of human identity and how they are formed “in relation to created natures and to social goods” (p. 115). He reminds us that God has designed us to find our rest in Him and love Him above all else. The problem arises when we enjoy what we should use and use what we should enjoy.
Chapter 5 sets forth Do Vale's main theological proposal of gender as love. He uses the work of Sarah Coakley to set forth a case that gender desire includes the desire for other goods and is not just the same as sexual desire. However, he reflects that Coakley's discussion on gender as a desire is unclear and contains some inconsistencies. He suggests replacing desire with Augustine's reflection on love as an alternative. When our loves are rightly aligned, we are sanctified, and “loving wrongly makes us into dominators of the beloved” (p. 161). Do Vale states that “gender is the appropriation of social goods pertaining to the sexed body . . . [and that] They then become gendered goods, the loving of which shapes our identity” (p. 175).
In Chapter 6, Do Vale sets out to look at gender through the lens of creation. He states, “Epistemic restraint is more important than metaphysical revision when it comes to the pursuit of justice for individuals who have experienced construals of creation as tools for oppression” (p. 179). He seeks to show that the divine economy is not aligned in its view of universal traits and assumed natural traits from creation. Do Vale takes the time to share the work of Susannah Cornwall and Megan DeFranza later to identify that they reject his doctrine of creation as being “good with regard to proper function and that it must act as the beginning of an integrated economy” (p. 199). He does commend them for the way they have brought intersex/DSD individuals into the gender discussion. Do Vale's view is to be “epistemically restrained, not metaphysically revisionist” (p. 202).
Do Vale uses Chapter 7 to discuss then how sin has distorted gender, how grace has redeemed it, and how it will be consummated in God's timing. He starts by identifying the shame that comes from sin's distortion of gender. He uses sexual assault or rape and the ensuing shame to build his case. He uses Augustine's reflection on sexual assault to explain this in the context of Roman culture. Do Vale uses John Barclay's work to clarify that grace is a gift given regardless of one's perceived worth. It is through the work of Christ that our worth is based, and this is the basis of our redemption. We are reminded that our worth/esteem's only foundation is our relationship with Christ. The author then uses Galatians 3:28 for the consummation of things to come, sharing a growing theological acceptance of the hope that in eschatology, there will be no distinction of sex or gender.
The author has not clearly proven his claim that we are to understand gender as love. Yes, we are to love rightly, but that gender is love, which is still somewhat fuzzy. When he discusses “gendered goods that we love, then form our gender identities” (p. 238), it seems to be missing definitions in my mind. What does he mean by gendered goods? Some examples here would have been helpful.
In addition, he concludes that “gender is a matter of moral evaluation” (p. 238), which aligns with the social construct he supports but then goes on to say that “better yet, it is a matter of Christian discipleship” (p. 238). I am a proponent of Christian discipleship, but I feel that this is a new idea thrown in at the end of a conclusive chapter and needs further discussion to develop it more fully.
It would have been helpful to have taken the ending conclusive chapter and made that an introductory chapter. It might have given a firmer foundation to the reader as to where the author was coming from. I often questioned where he was going with an idea, and it was not until pages later that I could see where he landed on a perspective.
Do Vale uses the work of both secular and theological scholars in the field to share a thorough background and build a foundation for the current thinking on gender. This is a challenging task. Many of the scholars he discusses are ones he does not necessarily agree with, so I appreciate his ability to share their views and show where he may differ and why.
Perhaps it was my misperception, but I found Do Vale's book to take some work to read. The chapters are long and weighty. Although the content was valuable, it sometimes felt cumbersome to read through. As a reminder, it is an academic publication, reflected in the tone and substance.
I recommend that theologians wrestling with the weight of the gender topic read Do Vale's work. The scholars cited and arguments made will provide a good foundation for someone looking to study gender further within a theological context.