Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Could Medieval Women Preach? Stop Using Paul Against Women Pt 3

Could Medieval Women Preach? Stop Using Paul Against Women Pt 3

Last updated on: January 24, 2018 at 2:57 am by Beth Allison Barr

Could Medieval Women Preach? Stop Using Paul Against Women Pt 3 2018-01-23T23:25:49-04:00 Beth Allison Barr

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Two days ago, John Piper answered the question of a male seminary student at Desiring God. The student, Scott, identified as a complementarian and wanted to know if John Piper thought it was okay for women to teach at seminaries. John Piper said no. Because only men can be pastors, women cannot be appropriate “pastor-mentors” for aspiring male students. “The issue is whether women should be models, mentors, and teachers for those preparing for a role that is biblically designed for spiritual men.” Women teaching at seminaries is not only inconsistent, according to John Piper, but “out of step with the Scriptures.”

None of this is surprising. As a female professor myself who has frequently taught male students aspiring to pastoral vocations, I can’t help but feel sorry for Scott’s female professors at his “orthodox but interdenominational school.” I figure part of the reason the student asked the question was because he is unhappy being taught by women.

What really interests me about this exchange on Desiring God, however, is neither John Piper’s answer (which is expected) nor the complementarian student’s unease with female professors (which is also expected). What interests me is the foundation of John Piper’s argument. As he states,” I am going to answer this question as best I can on the assumption that the Bible teaches that churches should be led by a team of spiritual, humble, biblically qualifed men (1 Timothy 2:12). In other words, I’m going to base my argument about the seminary on the assumption of complementarianism, which I think is not merely an assumption but a well-founded historic understanding of scripture.”

Complementarianism, the idea that the Bible (eternally?) ascribes leadership roles to men and support roles to women, is not just a modern theory but a “well-founded historic understanding of scripture.” The implications of John Piper’s statement suggest that complementarianism is the most natural interpretation of scripture and is built on a long history of understanding scripture in this way.

John Piper is only partially right. Yes, there is a long history of limiting women in the church. But how Paul’s teachings about women have been interpreted and applied is not as consistent as John Piper would like us to believe.

I have been arguing in my last two posts that Paul hasn’t always been used to exclude women from leadership roles. If we step back from our modern and very-Western approach to scripture, we find a less uniform approach to Paul’s writings about women as well as a less uniform application. We also find a broader emphasis on other scripture about women which does not support complementarianism–such as Jesus’ remarkable attention to women (we will get to this later). As a historian, I can only argue from evidence. It is true that historical evidence suggests broad continuity in how male authority figures have attempted to limit and subordinate women within the Christian church. Patriarchy prevails in Christian history, including in medieval Christianity.

But, again, this is only part of the story. It is also true that the reasons behind female subordination have changed over time. In the medieval church, women were excluded from priestly roles. Theologians like Thomas Aquinas argued that women’s natural condition made them subordinate to men (sort of similar to modern complementarianism…). At the same time, Junia (as we saw in my last post) was translated in the late medieval and early modern world as a female apostle. Mary Magdalene was also regarded as a female apostle and preacher (see my early post The Medieval Counsel of Biblical Womanhood). Clearly female leadership was okay. Indeed, medieval theology allowed for God’s grace to help women overcome their natural condition (as emphasized by Aquinas) and in some instances exercise authority over men (female prophets). By the twentieth century, however, Mary Magdalene had mostly lost her preacher status and even Junia was mostly being translated as a masculine name. Female leadership in the church was less accepted as a possibility in the modern world (again, see my last post). So while it is true that, from the medieval through modern church, there has been consistency in limiting female access to leadership roles, it is also true that the ways in which women have been limited, and the degree to which they have been limited, have not been consistent.

I argue that these inconsistencies matter. They suggest that limitations placed on women exist outside of scripture and change according to culture. Women are always limited. I will never argue that medieval Christianity was a golden age for women because it wasn’t. But examining the differences between how medieval and modern Christians articulated limits on women helps us understand how attitudes toward women may be less biblically based and more culturally derived. Instead of using scripture to drive interpretation, interpretation of scripture is often driven by culture. As many scholars have put it, the tail wags the dog instead of the other way around.

Let me give you a medieval example of attitudes towards female leadership. It is from British Library MS Harley 31, a collection of anti-Wycliffite texts from late medieval England as discussed and partially transcribed by Alcuin Blamires and C.W. Marx in a Journal of Medieval Latin article.

Walter Brut, an educated man in late fourteenth-century England, argued that women could publicly teach men. They could preach and perform the duties of a priest.

Brut argued from the evidence of church history. Devout virgins, he said, “have steadfastly preached the word of God and have converted many men while priests dared not speak a word.” He argued from the evidence of church tradition. According to medieval Catholicism, women could perform baptisms in emergency situations. Brut expanded on this. If it was okay for women to baptize, then why couldn’t women perform other sacraments, especially when priests were unavailable? Brut also argued from Paul. He recognized that Paul did not “permit” women to teach or exercise authority over men. But, as Alcuin Blamires and C.W. Marx have pointed out in their article “Women Not to Preach: A Disputation in British Library MS Harley 31,” Brut also observes that “Paul did not actually state that women are not able to teach, or to exercise that authority.” Paul simply did not “permit” women in that instance. It was not a forever ban.

Medieval women, at least according to Walter Brut, should not be barred from teaching men or exercising authority over men in all circumstances. Indeed, as we have already seen, he argued that women can preach. Women can also perform the sacraments.

Before you get too excited, however, I have to tell you what happened to Brut. He was tried for heresy before the bishop of Hereford between 1391 and 1393. Which, unfortunately, tells us something.

But his defense of female authority in the medieval church also tells us something. First, it tells us that–just as some Christians have always interpreted Pauline texts as limiting women–some Christians throughout church history have consistently argued the opposite. There really are other ways to understand Paul’s writings about women; other ways which are also “well-founded historic understandings of scripture.” Opposition to female subordination did not originate in 1960s feminism.

Second, Brut’s defense of women helps us better understand the later medieval reasons for limiting female leadership. The larger text which contain’s Walter Brut’s trial argues that women cannot preach, but it isn’t because women are divinely ordained to follow male leadership. It is not because the female condition is naturally subordinate (as Aquinas argued). It is because of “historical difference,” as medieval scholar Eliana Corbari explains. The text “did not postulate an essential difference between women and men which excluded women from the office of preaching unless their weaker intellect was overcome by grace, but argued that women were allowed to preach in particular historical situations.” Corbari admits this still resulted in medieval women mostly excluded from preaching. But, “an argument from mutable history rather than immutable laws of nature allows for the possibility of change.” There was room in medieval theology for female preachers.

This is really interesting. It also shows a stark difference between how John Piper limited women in his recent post, and how medieval Christians as found in the text highlighting Walter Brut limited women. John Piper argues that women’s inability to teach in seminaries has nothing to do with their expertise and capability. As he states, “The issue, as always, is not the competence of women teachers or intelligence or knowledge or pedagogical skill….The issue here at the seminary level is largely the nature of the seminary teaching office.” Women, according to John Piper, by nature cannot teach men; nor can women overcome this limitation. The crux for John Piper is the limits of the female condition. Women are essentially different from men, and their difference is always rooted in subordination.

Neither Walter Brut nor those refuting his argument limited women in this way. Mary and Martha preached with full authority, and this was fine. As Corbari writes, no “essential difference” prohibited medieval women from being preachers. Most scholastic theologians allowed at least for “the public role of the scriptural prophetesses.” For medieval Christians like Walter Brut, Paul’s words for “women to be silent” and not “exercise authority over men” were true. But rather than timeless truths, they were products of historical circumstances.

Historical continuity is important. But historical differences matter too.

Stay tuned for next time as we explore how Paul’s words for women were applied in late medieval English sermons, followed by a longer reading list before we turn to Paul in a global context.

Beth Allison Barr

medieval Christianity

women

John Piper

medieval christianity

Paul

Preaching

women

Previous Post

January 23, 2018

An Open Letter to Anyone with $75 Million to Give to Christian Colleges

Next Post

January 25, 2018 Remembering the Holocaust — and the Victims Who Documented It

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe guest post Guest Post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to Hebrews, for what purpose did Jesus taste death?

Select your answer to see how you score.

For Israel For his disciples For the righteous For everyone