Theological discussions about the nature of gender sometimes appear to be at an impasse as the “sides” of the conversation often struggle to find common ground. In Gender as Love, Fellipe do Vale enters this contentious dialogue and insightfully paves a way forward. Do Vale observes that many scholars have mistakenly assumed that gender must be either a social construct or an essence. Further, theologians often fail both to take the discussion of gender seriously and to provide a truly theological account of gender (pp. 4–5). In view of this, do Vale’s aim is to correct these unnecessary bifurcations by providing a theological account of gender that “moves beyond the overly simplistic division between social constructs and essences” (p. 9).

There are four concise theses that do Vale defends throughout his work:

1. Gender is an essence, though this is not reducible to or identical with biological determinism or biological essentialism.
2. The complexity of gender, the noetic effects of sin, and the current conditions of systemic oppression complicate our epistemic access to gender essence. All the same, we can be assured that issues surrounding gender will be rectified in the eschaton.
3. Any theory or theology of gender must be consistent with and supportive of the cultivation of justice.
4. Gender is concerned with selves or identity and with the way selves organize social goods pertaining to their sexed bodies. (p. 23)

Part of what makes do Vale’s contribution unique is that he both critiques and commends aspects of each “side” of typical dialogue about gender. Chapter 2, for example, offers a description and evaluation of social constructionist views of gender. Do Vale sympathizes with perspectives that emphasize that there are genuine epistemic difficulties in discerning the traits that constitute the essence of manhood and womanhood, and cautions that universal traits are not necessarily natural traits (p. 32). At the same time, he also argues that the social construction approach is deeply flawed, not only because it inevitably produces “as many genders as contexts that construct them” but because it results in “an incoherence in gender theory and renders particular genders morally unevaluable” (p. 48, [esp. n. 67], emphasis original). In chapter 3, however, do Vale not only introduces his constructive proposal but offers an equally incisive critique of many essentialist views of gender, charging that they often “deflate” notions of cultural gender expression “to the point where they are irrelevant to manhood and womanhood” (p. 74).

A particular strength of do Vale’s approach is his emphasis on the importance of both the body and cultural context in defining gender. He utilizes the work of feminist theorists Charlotte Witt and Mari Mikkola to argue that gender is neither solely cultural nor solely biological. He posits a modest essentialism that emphasizes epistemic humility and recognizes that statements about gender are always situated in a particular context and clouded by sin (pp. 98–99). Do Vale describes gender as “the appropriation of social goods that pertain to our biologically sexed bodies, an appropriation that enables sexed bodies to acquire social meaning” (p. 104).

He begins to lay the theological groundwork for his model of gender by observing that humans acquire social goods according to what they love. The work of Augustine provides do Vale’s foundation for an understanding of human identity that is tied to both natural features and the love of social goods. This enables him to make the case that “human identity is a bundle of many loves, and included in that bundle are the complex social identities we bear, like gender” (p. 114). In fact, because Augustine argues that loved goods and people form the one who loves (p. 132), do Vale concludes that one should not dissuade people from identifying with categories like gender (p. 141).

Chapter 4 provides the central proposal of Gender as Love: “gender is about the formation of identities by means of our love for social goods according to the sexed body” (p. 142). What do Vale means by this is that “gender is ultimately about the organization of goods by which the sexed body is socially manifested, in which the lover identifies with the beloved, shaping who she is” (p. 161). In this model, goods are not inherently gendered; rather they are gendered when people give them a social meaning by loving them as sexed beings (p. 163). Theologies of gender must then descriptively evaluate the gendered goods by making sense of the gendered lives that are already being lived, and then normatively evaluate whether these goods are loved rightly (p. 165). Put more simply, “the point is not to come up with a list of what defines masculinity and femininity but to witness the particular contexts in which we already encounter these positions and bring Christian moral theological tools to bear on them” (p. 168). This aspect of do Vale’s model provides a helpful corrective to many essentialist accounts that can sometimes be overly occupied with which goods are properly masculine or feminine. The task of gender, for do Vale, is then the cultivation of virtue in light of the love of gendered goods. This means that “rightly loved gendered goods are those we recognize as gifts from God, to be used according to the specifications of the gift giver, which is to say for the flourishing of humanity” (p. 169).

A potential weakness of do Vale’s proposal is its lack of specificity. He readily acknowledges this and states that his model is “useful for virtually nothing other than the prevention of gender skepticism; it does not say which social goods are properly masculine or feminine” (p. 170). While this vagueness may frustrate some readers, the humility of do Vale’s approach is commendable and, given the noetic effects of the fall, appropriate. Furthermore, the prevention of a gender skepticism is a worthwhile endeavor given the Christian affirmation of the goodness of male and female in God’s creative design. By providing a theological model of gender that takes seriously the significance of the body and the significance of cultural context and expression, do Vale provides a valuable contribution to theological discussions of gender.

Another strength of Gender as Love is do Vale’s charity and compassion as he explores a difficult topic. He empathetically engages with theologians and gender theorists alike as he seeks to provide greater theological clarity to the discussions at hand. He handles sensitive issues with gentleness, truth, and hope. This is particularly evidenced in the consideration he displays towards those who have experienced distortions of gender.

Part 3 of the book (“Gender in the Story of God”) uses the previously established model to articulate a theological account of gender shaped by the four stages of the biblical narrative: creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. Beginning with creation, do Vale is alert to danger of invoking this doctrine “without recognition of the ways it has been distorted by sin and without seeing eschatology as a surplus to it” (p. 181). Moreover, as a result of the fall, many people do experience tragic and difficult realities, such as intersex conditions, sex discrimination, and sexual violence. Do Vale, therefore, is careful to affirm that a properly theological understanding of gender will prioritize justice and affirm the worth and dignity of all individuals. It will likewise provide hope that while gender will persist in the eschaton, it will also be sanctified and transformed (p. 230).

Throughout the book, do Vale expertly navigates complex philosophical and theological waters and succeeds in providing readers with a compelling theological alternative to the bifurcations that commonly trouble discussions about the nature of gender. As such, Gender as Love makes a rich and valuable contribution to the theological conversation about gender and provides a firm foundation for further dialogue.

---