When asked to define time, Augustine remarked that he knew what it was until someone asked him to define it. One could say the identical of the term gender in contemporary debate. Although there isn’t any lack of debate about gender, rarely is the term clearly defined.
In his book Gender as Love: A Theological Account of Human Identity, Embodied Desire, and Our Social Worlds, theologian Fellipe do Vale goals to bring greater clarity to the concept of gender. In doing so, he refuses the binary framing that casts it as a matter of either pure biology or pure social construction. Instead, he draws on an Augustinian theology of affection to argue that gender refers to a “bundle” of human loves and social goods that shape how we manifest our female and male bodies.
Further, do Vale clarifies that affirming the essential reality of gender doesn’t entail affirming an exhaustive and fully cohesive understanding of it, partly because our knowledge is formed by our narrative context. That is, our place within the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation affects each the lived reality of gender and our capability to know the fullness of what it signifies.
Between the essentialists and the constructivists
Do Vale’s critique and constructive proposal unfolds in three sections. In the primary, he draws on the late theologian John Webster, arguing for a “theologically theological anthropology” that comprehends gender inside biblical and theological sources reasonably than merely constructing on or reacting to the prevailing claims of philosophy and sociology. Having laid this foundation, he engages the dominant view of gender today—namely, that we construct it in keeping with personal desires and social conventions reasonably than inheriting it as a hard and fast reality rooted in biology.
As do Vale argues, this “constructivist” argument fails for 2 reasons. First, this position finally ends up dissolving any meaningful reference to men or women as such. If the meaning of woman and man varies from culture to culture, then we lose any ability to talk or act (politically or ethically) just about these categories. Second, if this position is correct, we cannot meaningfully evaluate any particular cultural practice related to gender. Without some type of ontological anchor, judgments of higher or worse, just or unjust, lack any solid footing. The gender-skeptical position of the constructivists thus results in problematic ethical conclusions.
In the second section, do Vale presents his constructive proposal on gender. Against the constructivists, he argues that gender is an essence, though not merely of a biological nature. He contends that, taken together, the complexity of gender, the consequences of the Fall on sinful minds, and the moral effects of injustice preclude anyone from having fun with full and direct access to the essence of gender. Given the consequences of sin, he argues, any theology of gender must cultivate justice within the here and now, as we await a perfected understanding of gender on the earth to return.
Drawing on Augustine, do Vale presents a theology of human love wherein “human identity is a bundle of many loves, and included in that bundle are the complex social identities that we bear, like gender.” This lays the groundwork for his central claim that gender is love—or, more specifically, to invoke his technical language, that gender is the love of certain goods, including social goods, by which the sexed body is socially manifested.
This complex reality is neither merely biological (per some essentialists) nor strictly cultural (per constructivists). Rather, gender is a method inherently cultural beings make sense of the givenness of the world, including the maleness and femaleness of bodies.
In the book’s third and final section, do Vale delves further into the complex relationship between gender and the biblical storyline. In the context of creation, he acknowledges the pain and suffering of intersex individuals and others born with sexual irregularities. But he cautions against the theological moves made by thinkers like Susannah Cornwall and Megan DeFranza who, he contends, suggest a type of Gnostic redemption from the categories of creation, not from sin and its effects.
In his section on the Fall, do Vale explores sexual assault as a signal instance of warped gender expression, noting that it warps the oppressor whilst it transgresses the dignity and value of the victim. Finally, he articulates a vision of redemption and consummation that, reasonably than erasing who we’re as female and male, restructures our disordered loves and purges false distinctions of superiority and inferiority attached to gender. Seen on this light, the church’s central task will not be to present an exhaustive theory of gender but to model patience and charm as we await the consummation of all things, gender included.
Clarity and confusion
Gender as Lovehas numerous strengths. Do Vale rightly resists the simplistic binary of nature and culture that stands beneath the social constructionist view of gender. And he charitably but clearly points out the metaphysical and ethical deficiencies that prevent this view from speaking or acting coherently.
Furthermore, do Vale helpfully distinguishes between ontology and epistemology, clarifying that each reality and our knowledge of it are affected by our position throughout the biblical story. This gives us confidence within the enduring, transcultural reality of gender while encouraging humility in our efforts to define and understand it inside particular cultures.
Yet do Vale’s work, while helpful in some respects, does have shortfalls. On the one hand, I appreciate his emphasis on a type of pragmatic realism about gender norms. He is correct, I think, that the church’s most pressing need will not be to discover some timeless set of gender norms but reasonably to have interaction discerningly with the gender expressions that exist inside our particular cultures.
All cultures have identified certain social goods in gendered ways, a few of that are more defensible than others. Our first task is to explain these social goods accurately, determining what they mean for the culture in query—and the way they’re gendered (as in Paul’s reference to women wearing veils in 1 Corinthians 11). Without first laying this descriptive foundation, we cannot engage in any type of moral or theological reflection. Within each cultural context, though, we must press on to ask: How should we, as Christian ladies and men in this culture, love these goods in relation to our female and male bodies?
And that is where I’m unsure whether do Vale’s proposal brings greater clarity to the confusions around gender today. He does affirm the biological distinctions between men and girls, and he’s insightful in describing how individuals come to a way of gender identity. But even here some ambiguity creeps in.
Do Vale agrees, on the outset of the book, that the differences between female and male are differences in kind reasonably than degree, in that there are particular properties that outline one as male or female exclusively. Later on, nevertheless, he’s unwilling to specify any of those properties, which seems to imply that gender is something that transcends them. If we are able to’t state any definitive properties of being male or female, how can we hope to even approximate them this side of heaven?
How does one make prescriptive judgments about being properly masculine or feminine? Do Vale speaks of rightly ordered gendered goods as getting used for the flourishing of humanity. And he speaks of disordered gendered loves as being unjust, harmful, and oriented toward dominating others. But this definition supplies no concrete criteria for determining what’s just or unjust, or what counts as flourishing reasonably than harm. In today’s cultural context, justice language (“oppression,” “harm,” “unjust”) can rival gender language in its occasional lack of conceptual clarity. Thus, do Vale’s combination of gender and justice language raises as many questions because it answers.
In an identical vein, it’s unclear how do Vale’s ideas can assist us sort through complex questions of transgender identities or gender roles. For example, does a person’s love of certain gendered goods entail belonging to that gender? If, for example, a person (an individual with a male sexed body) loves the products related to femininity in contemporary American culture, is that person’s gender identity female regardless that his sexed body is male? From a purely descriptive angle, do Vale’s answer would look like yes.
To be clear, I’m in no way sure do Vale actually desires to draw this conclusion. I recognize that his book is a highly technical treatment of gender and theology, but its value might have been enhanced by more clearly spelling out the sensible implications and judgments entailed in certain contested areas.
On the entire, though, do Vale’s work is a helpful and fascinating resource for many who need to take a deep dive into contemporary gender theory and theological engagement with it. He ought to be commended for affirming a transparent theological grounding for gender, offering a helpful Augustinian framework for relating gender to human loves, and reminding us to view passing gender controversies—necessary as they’re—in the sunshine of God’s ongoing work of redemption.
Branson Parler is director of theological education and professor of theology at The Foundry. He is the creator of Every Body’s Story: 6 Myths About Sex and the Gospel Truth About Marriage and Singleness.
