The past few weeks have caused me to think a great deal about gender relations in both the Church and the world in general. The catalyst for this thinking has been the controversy that surrounds a Christian author and friend of mine, Aimee Byrd. Her writing has provoked something of a war within a small subset of the conservative, Reformed Evangelical community in North America. (I say Reformed Evangelical because it extends beyond those who are members of explicitly defined Reformed denominations to those who are more broadly evangelical but nevertheless adhere to certain points of Reformed theology.)

Perhaps the most explosive aspect of this debate has been the revelation of a series of comments in a Facebook group known as the Geneva Commons, many of which seemed to carry a distinctly misogynistic tone. I have no doubt that this matter will be taken up within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the denomination to which Byrd and many prominent members of the Geneva Commons group belong. I am therefore not attempting to litigate that situation here. Rather, I mention it as one of the events which has caused me to consider the place of women within the Church.

The other has been the back-and-forth articles between Aimee Byrd and Denny Burk, the current president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. They have debated a number of issues, but underlying them all is the question of whether or what kind of clearly defined notions of manhood and womanhood exist in scripture and how those ought to be applied in our 21^st century context. Again, my purpose is not to declare a winner, but to provide the backdrop for the following considerations.

I am the author of a series of historical fiction novels about the life of Empress Matilda of England, also known as Empress Maud. She lived in the 12^th century and was the granddaughter of William the Conqueror. She also happened to be the first woman to make a claim to the throne of England in her own right. As you can imagine, this made her a controversial figure, even in a day before social media existed. I began working on the third and final novel again recently, and I found myself considering how people in that era understood manhood and womanhood, whether biblical or otherwise. I have also been reminded of a classic example of how misogynistic prejudice can influence our judgments.

Did Manhood and Womanhood Exist?

Western European Christians in the 12^th century, the ideological forbears of the majority of North American Christians today, spent little time considering the matter of biological sex. It was not a primary locus (topic) of systematic theology. It did not often appear in exegesis of the biblical text or recorded sermons of the time, at least not at a rate anything like what we see today.

However, this does not mean that Christians of that time had no popular notions of what it meant to be a man or woman. Rather, the lack of discussion can be mostly attributed to the fact that those Christians were living long before the sexual revolution and the three waves of feminism often identified by modern scholars. Not only that, but they lived before modern notions of sexual identity, individualism, and equality had taken root. The philosophical shifts of the past few hundred years that have led to our present-day debates were simply not part of the intellectual framework of those living in the 12^th century.

Even so, they did have ideas about manhood and womanhood. These ideas were heavily shaped by the times in which they lived. Only a small minority of people in the 12^th century could read and write in any language, let alone the universal scholarly language of the day: Latin. Additionally, exposure to new information was limited by the fact that few of the modern forms of communication we take for granted existed. If you wanted to get an idea out, you had to either physically go to a place and proclaim it vocally or copy it down by hand and send it to other people who would subsequently have to make any further copies manually. It therefore took far longer for anyone to receive news, and due to the amount of work involved in creating a book (and the money required to buy one), most people ended up learning very little at all about subjects we now readily discuss.

The majority of Western Europeans, therefore, gained their understandings of what a man or woman should be from the practical experiences of everyday life along with bits of scripture and theology they may have heard proclaimed by a preacher, whether that be their own parish priest or some sort of traveling cleric. (The great orders of friars who would travel throughout medieval Europe preaching were still in the future at this point.) One aspect of theology that was becoming all the rage at the time and which the average person would probably be familiar with was Marian devotion. Even as Christ served as the ultimate example of what a man should be, so the Virgin Mary was the woman par excellence.

Here I must mention another important aspect of 12^th century Western European society: the considerable proportion of the population that belonged to celibate monastic orders. It would be difficult for me to estimate what percentage of the total population belonged to these orders, but among the upper nobility, it may have been as high as a quarter of all persons, both male and female. As the monasteries and cathedral schools were the best educators of the time period, an academic aristocracy was created in which monks were the primary theologians, historians, and philosophers.

Therefore, any philosophizing on the topic of sex was mainly performed by a small group of celibate men, the majority of whom spent their time around other celibate men. There may have been somewhat of an “out of sight, out of mind” quality to the literature they produced when it came to females. Not only did they pen comparatively few works on the roles of men and women in society and the Church, but they also wrote less on the topics of marriage and parenthood that take up such a large section of today’s Christian bookstores. This is not to say that they never wrote about these subjects. The degree of emphasis was simply not the same.

But the lack of discussion about male-female companionship, whether marital or otherwise, was not simply due to the fact that monastic writers didn’t spend much time around women. There was also a clear sense throughout Western European society that the sexual ideal for any person, whether male or female, was celibacy and spiritual contemplation, not marriage and domestic life. It was readily acknowledged that marriage and childbearing were necessary, and they were certainly not demonized, but neither were they seen as the ultimate ideal. There was even a sense in which those who were capable of living out the ideal served as stand-ins for those who could not do so due to the necessities of allowing human society to continue.

Given that so much of the present debate over sex and gender in the Church revolves around marital roles, this general lack of discussion about marriage in the theological literature of the time period clearly creates an important divergence. It can safely be said that where marital relationships existed (and keep in mind that many marriages among the peasant class were not actually solemnized legally or spiritually but represented what we would now call a common law situation), it was understood that the wife was in some way meant to submit to her husband. However, the ways this played out in that society were not necessarily what you might expect.

How Sex Differences Affected Experience

In some ways, the Western Europe of the 12^th century was intensely patriarchal. Great households were headed by lords who were in feudal relationships with those under them. Marriages among the nobility were not generally romantic in the sense that we understand that word today, but were complicated arrangements carried out after a series of financial and even political negotiations. The wife’s primary purposes were seen to be the bearing of children and maintenance of the household, and few women received anything like a modern education.

However, if we look a bit closer we see that there was a massive divide between the experience of the nobility and that of the peasant class. I have already mentioned that marriages among the poor might not be recognized by either the Church or the state. It should also be stated that a very small percentage of the population owned land and controlled households. Those on the other end of the feudal relationship either worked the land that belonged to their lord or engaged in some trade that was meant to benefit that lord. Only a minority of the population existed outside of these feudal relationships, engaging in independent trades.

The average woman was therefore very different from a noble woman. She would work along with her husband and capable children to maintain the farm. This is why talk of women working “outside the home” doesn’t translate well to the twelfth century, because few people of either sex worked outside the home if “home” is taken to mean the estate on which they happened to dwell. Even those who lived towns and ran shops usually lived above those shops, and businesses tended to involve the contributions of the entire family in some way.

This does not mean that women did not dedicate time to caring for children. Indeed, they surely spent more time doing this than their husbands. However, children in general did not receive as much hands-on attention as they do now because absent modern technological advances, there was far too much work to be done for anyone to devote 100% of their time to caring for a child. From dawn to dusk, the medieval peasant was hard at work, taking a single break to eat a meal.

Noble ladies, who surely represented less than 5% of the total female population and maybe no more than 1%, led very different lives. Yes, they oversaw the upkeep of the household, but they did this by commanding a group of servants, the chief of whom was known as the steward. While they were certainly responsible for bearing children, they were not chiefly responsible for raising them. The most elite often used wet nurses rather breastfeeding themselves, and they certainly made use of what we would now call nannies. Daughters were likely to spend more time with their mothers, learning to stitch and weave as well as gaining an appreciation for dancing, music, and social niceties. Perhaps they would be taught to speak another language, but only the most educated women made a habit of writing.

Sons would be entrusted at an age around maybe 8-10 to one of two occupations: knighthood or religion. Their mothers would play no role in this part of their education and might seldom see them. Noble men who were knights could expect to spend much of their time hunting and engaging in physical sports meant to prepare them for the exercise of war. The highest ranking nobles would often attend upon the king and travel with him throughout the kingdom.

When it came to actual sexual activity, something of historic Christian orthodoxy was recognizable in theory, but in practice it was not always enforced. Not only fornication and homosexuality, but even certain forms of marital intimacy were shunned by the Church. It has been estimated that with all the days the medieval Church warned married couples not to engage in intercourse, only about half the year was left over for procreation.

While adultery was certainly condemned in the churches, it was exceedingly common among the nobility. King Henry I of England had about two dozen acknowledged children out of wedlock, and most lesser nobles could expect to have at least one or two such offspring. This is to say nothing of those that went unacknowledged. Adultery among men was rarely called out by the Church, though for a woman it may have resulted in greater social stigma. Rape was common as was marital abuse, but once again, the Church in general made few efforts to confront it.

A category of homosexual persons was not recognized in the way it is now. It was well-known that some people enjoyed engaging in what would have been considered very perverted sexual activities, but this was not seen as a permanent identity into which one was born. No doubt, many people experienced same-sex attraction but never mentioned it. Prostitution was often grudgingly tolerated by the Church, as were certain debauched festivals. Occasional morality campaigns would briefly put an end to such things, but in general there was a “look the other way” attitude.

What about personal appearance? Cross dressing was the kind of thing, much like adultery or homosexual behavior, that was likely to be ignored if you were an unimportant nobody but could be used by your political rivals to bring you down if you happened to frequent the highest social circles. Even then, such charges were rare, partly because the clothing of most men and women was not hugely different. Peasants might have one or two garments they wore all the time, undoubtedly composed of simple fabric and muted colors, as this was the least expensive. Both men and women tended to cover their heads in some way, as they spent much time out of doors and were not able to care for their hair the way we are today.

The upper class had greater differentiation between male and female clothing, but they wouldn’t have necessarily associated the same colors with masculinity and feminity that we do now. The ability to have your clothes dyed a certain color was mostly a sign of wealth. For the same reason, both sexes were likely to wear lavish jewels if they could. Noble lords and ladies also wore head coverings, though far more elaborate than those of the peasant classes. Some of them also allowed portions of their hair to show, if not the entirety.

This last point is where there was indeed some controversy in the 12^th century. I have come across multiple reports of preachers railing against men with long hair. However, the charge was not that these men were attempting to be feminine, but rather that they were vain.

When it comes to pastimes, noble men certainly did engage in physical pursuits such as hunting, jousting, archery, and riding. Noble ladies did spend much of their time working at a loom. But contrary to 21^st century expectations, the men wrote all the love poetry and courtly romances. Some aspects of the chivalry present at the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine would likely appear feminine to us today.

Women also were not completely exempted from the exercise of power. Queens often served as regents for absent husbands or young sons. Women were able to inherit vast estates and prominent titles if they had no legitimate brothers or if they married advantageously. A few nuns, such as Hildegard von Bingen, became quite famous and were looked to as spiritual authorities. Hildegard even went on a preaching tour. And while female rulers were certainly not the norm, a lack of male heirs did occasionally pave the way for someone like Queen Melisende of Jerusalem to hold power over kingdoms.

Gender Roles and the Church

But what of the Church? Certainly, the priesthood was limited to males then even as it is now. I mentioned certain exceptional women like Hildegard who received the church’s blessing to teach because they were believed to receive visions from God. However, this was far from the norm. Spiritual writings by females were generally of a devotional or mystical nature. They did not engage in the kind of higher theology occurring in the cathedral schools and eventual universities. Considering that very few women were literate, this is not surprising.

During church services, men and women were typically segregated. There was hardly anything that we would recognize as a Bible study or parachurch ministry, and thus there were no debates about how females should be involved in such things. Even if a woman received a good private education (a rarity), her ministry to the church generally took place through charitable work and patronage of religious institutions, while her private spiritual devotion often revolved around going through the Book of Hours.

In summary, there were no people writing great treatises on manhood and womanhood in the 12^th century, but that does not mean that they had no concept of these things or no source of identity as males and females. Sadly, one of the most important sources of male and female identity mentioned in scripture—that both sexes are created in the image of God—was often neglected or outright debated by theologians.

Artistotle had written that women were essentially malformed men, and as his writings were translated into Latin and became all the rage in the latter half of the 12^th century, this idea also gained credence, eventually making its way into the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas the following century. There was little concept of what the purpose of women was beyond the blatantly obvious observation that they were the ones who bore the children. Then again, there was little idea about what made men unique beside the fact that they were the ones who went off to war.

What Misogyny Looked Like Then and Now

Misogyny was certainly present in 12^th century Western European society, though we might be kidding ourselves to think that we have greatly improved on our forbears in this area, partly because many people misunderstand how misogyny tends to manifest itself. For the conclusion of this article, I present a classic case of misogyny in literature that I have previously highlighted elsewhere.

Some assume that a misogynist will act hatefully toward all women, but that is not usually the case. Those women that cause a misogynist no annoyance rarely come in for his or her hatred. Rather, it is when a misogynist disagrees with or is otherwise perturbed by a woman that we begin to notice the misogyny, for the misogynist critiques a woman more severely than a man and in ways that cut to her identity as a woman.

Here is that example I promised you: a selection of texts which are found close together in the Gesta Stephani, usually translates as the Deeds of Stephen. The Stephen in question is King Stephen of England, the very man who fought a civil war with Empress Matilda for the right to rule the kingdom. It was written by an anonymous monk who was clearly more sympathetic to Stephen than his female rival.

First consider how the author speaks of Empress Matilda around the time that she gained control of the kingdom.

• “Then she, on being raised with such splendor and distinction to this pre-eminent position, began to be arbitrary, or rather headstrong, in all that she did.”
• “…she no longer relied on their advice, as she should have, and had promised them, but arranged everything as she herself thought fit and according to her own arbitrary will.”
• She “was mightily puffed up and exalted in spirit”
• “…she sent for the richest men and demanded from them a huge sum of money, not with unassuming gentleness, but with a voice of authority.”
• She had “a grim look, her forehead wrinkled into a frown, every trace of a woman’s gentleness removed from her face, blazed into unbearable fury…”[1]

Notice throughout how Matilda is said to be arrogant for presuming to act upon her own authority, despite the fact that she was at this time acknowledged as sovereign queen by the majority of the kingdom. Also observe how this criticism becomes quite personal and goes after her feminity as much as anything. She does not have the “unassuming gentleness” expected of a woman and “every trace of a woman’s gentleness” is “removed from her face”.

Now see how another Matilda, the wife of the temporarily deposed King Stephen, is described just a few lines later: “Just about this time too the queen, a woman of subtlety and a man’s resolution, sent envoys to the countess and made earnest entreaty for her husband’s release…”[2] Here acting against type, more like a man than a woman, is seen as a good thing. The difference between the two Matildas is not that one acted feminine and one did not, but one was on the side the author favored and the other was not. This is clearly why he interprets the facts in such a manner. When the empress seizes authority and acts decisively, she is arrogant. When the queen consort does it, she has a wonderfully manly resolution.

That this author not only judged by such a double standard but also attacked the empress in such a personal manner, questioning her as a woman and not only as a ruler or politician, is a classic example of sexism, which is a slightly nicer way of saying misogyny. Again, misogynysts do not typically proclaim their hate of their own wives and daughters. They are nice enough to women who agree with them and follow the party line. It is when a woman disagrees with them that they unleash their wrath, often becoming obsessive in the way they focus their criticism, quickly jumping to personal attacks rather than simply analyzing her views and actions from a logical or biblical perspective.

In this area, I am sorry to say that the 21^st century has not improved much on the 12^th. Misogynysts still use the same play book. While there are many more opportunities for women now than there were in that time, coming in large part from advances in technology and the rise in education among the entire population, the human heart has not really changed. Those with power still fear to lose it, and we can still act viciously toward those who are not like us. Take your warning, then, from the 12^th century, and let’s make the 21^st better.

The first two novels in the Chronicle of Maud series are available in paper and electronic form on Amazon.com. You can read more about these novels at the official website.

---

[1] Anonymous. Gesta Stephani, ed. and trans. K.R. Potter (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 121-123.

[2] Ibid, 123.