Unconscious Bias and Women In Church Leadership
In my denomination, both egalitarian and complementarian views regarding women in eldership coexist. Each local church is tasked with determining its stance and practice through a structured process. This position has proven to be difficult, as it represents one of the more contentious issues our denomination has faced.
The church I pastored had decided many years ago to adopt an egalitarian stance and then voted to have women serve as elders soon after the denomination agreed to do this. However, many congregants were unaware of the denomination’s restriction on women serving as elders since women actively served as leaders and teachers even though they didn’t serve as elders. I would suggest that many in our church had a bias toward an egalitarian view of leadership.
A colleague who pastored a complementarian church, reached out to discuss this matter. During our conversation, he revealed that he and his board held strong complementarian views. He also felt that our church had a cultural bias. I inquired, “Other than yourself, how many of your board members could make a biblical case for their view?” He candidly responded, “Actually, none. They just believe it is the biblical position.” I suggested that his congregants might also have an unconscious cultural bias rather than a well-thought-out position.
This exchange underscores the reality that most individuals possess an implicit bias towards either complementarianism or egalitarianism. Even those who present biblical arguments often interpret the Scriptures through a lens shaped by their inherent biases. It is a challenge to remain impartial.
In Sway: Unraveling Unconscious Bias, Pragya Agarwal, studies the impact of implicit bias. While not all bias is harmful, Agarwal focuses on how it can create prejudice and discrimination.[1] Implicit biases are those that exist with conscious knowledge and influence our attitudes, actions, and reactions without our awareness.[2]
The challenge with implicit bias is that it’s not easily detected therefore, it can rear its head in unexpected moments. She notes, “Unconscious bias is also problematic to capture and accurately pinpoint because it is hidden and can often be in complete contrast to what we consider our beliefs and associations to be.”[3] Unconscious bias is in what Daniel Kahneman would call System 1 thinking. In this quick-thinking neuro-process, Kahneman notes, “Errors of intuitive thought are often difficult to prevent.”[4] Therefore, in the above complementarian/egalitarian example, our unconscious bias leads us to make significant decisions affecting the crucial roles of male and female leaders in the church.
This is not just true in the church. Even though attitudes toward women have changed drastically, the evidence reveals that gender bias persists in all sectors, particularly in leadership. She writes, “Women are being rewarded and celebrated for their competence but not for their leadership.”[5]
In Chapter 7, Agarwal examines the implicit biases toward women by both men and women. She writes, “Gender stereotypes are formed very early on and are pervasive and continue to create inequalities between men and women.”[6] Here are some of the ways in which implicit bias has been revealed through various studies:
- Women talk more than men. An often-quoted statistic asserts that women speak 20,000 words per day while men speak 7,000 words per day. A study comparing the speech of boys and girls found this to be a myth.[7]
- Men are born leaders. Women are perceived as being too soft to be good leaders but when they exhibit more masculine tendencies they are perceived as being too aggressive. [8]
- Men are better at STEM-related disciplines. Women are stereotyped as less competent and therefore are often steered toward other disciplines and passed over for positions in the workplace.[9]
- Men have a higher pain tolerance. It is often believed that because men are more stoic, they have a higher level of pain tolerance. It is also believed that women tend to overreact, and so their reports of pain and illness are not taken as seriously.[10]
It was clear from the book that implicit bias regarding women still exists and that it largely diminishes women. It is not a matter to take lightly or joked about in our churches.
What are the ways in which our biases are perpetuated?
- Echo Chambers: Regardless of our bias, we can surround ourselves with only those voices who confirm our bias. The collective bias of a church community can reinforce a particular view.
- Selective Interpretation: We select passages that seem to agree with our bias, but we stay away from passages that challenge our position.
- Reinforcing Cultural Stereotypes Rather Than Kingdom Values: We reinforce cultural stereotypes rather than challenging them. The Scripture challenges us to see through different sets of lenses rather than reinforcing our biases. We should look for a different way rather than aligning with what has been culturally established.
Knowing that we all have implicit biases that might cause harm to others, how might we approach these gender-based issues with care regardless of our position?
De-biasing our churches
First, exercise System 2 thinking. Agarwal writes, “Taking our time with important decisions can help us de-automatize. This means that we do not fall back on our unconscious biases, but instead activate our logical and rational thinking and actively bust any biases that can affect our decisions.”[11] Some of our churches have held lengthy processes of study and discernment in which they look at the issue from various perspectives in a posture of listening and prayer.
Secondly, become aware of how we have been shaped. Agarwal encourages, “Being aware of how our own implicit biases are shaped by our own upbringing and our life experiences can help us minimise these in our roles as parents, carers, friends and educators.”[12] Prior to a period of study and discernment, my own bias was toward a more complementarian view because of cultural influences at the time and in the church. Confessing our own bias is often helpful. Some of our churches have held times of confession and repentance for attitudes and behaviours that stemmed from bias rather than a kingdom-orientation.
Thirdly, create a humble community. Agarwal encourages a community that dares to hold one another accountable and have empathy. She writes, “Accountability and empathy together can help to create more thoughtful and inclusive communication across all the divides of race, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.”[13] Men and women gathered in small groups where they have honest conversations, pray together, study the bible, and submit to one another out of honour toward Jesus is the kind of community where healthy relationships between men and women can take shape.
Conclusion
As you might be able to tell, I lean toward a more egalitarian view. I believe that women and men serve the church based on character and gifting rather than gender. I also work respectfully with churches that hold a complementarian view. However, I resist the labels because neither view can capture the mystery of mutuality expressed in passages like Genesis 1-2 and Ephesians 5.21-35. Regardless of our views, it would be healthy to admit that we don’t fully understand the mystery of male/female relationships and that we have implicit biases on many issues. It would also be healthy to de-bias our churches of these important matters, examining our belief and praxis in ways that lead to environments in which women and men can flourish together.
[1] Pragya Agarwal, Sway: Unravelling Unconscious Bias, Bloomsbury Sigma Series (New York: Bloomsbury Sigma, 2020), Kindle, 10.
[2] Agarwal, 10.
[3] Agarwal, 15.
[4] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Toronto: Anchor Canada, 2013), 28.
[5] Agarwal, 366.
[6] Agarwal, Sway, 189.
[7] Agarwal, 196.
[8] Agarwal, 196.
[9] Agarwal, 220.
[10] Agarwal, 223.
[11] Agarwal, 381.
[12] Agarwal, 381.
[13] Agarwal, 382.
About the Author
Graham English
I was born in Cape Town, South Africa 30 minutes from Table Mountain, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. My family immigrated to Vancouver, Canada where I spent my teen years, met Wendy, and got married. We now live on the Canadian prairies in northern Alberta. I think God has a sense of humour. I'm a follower of Jesus, work in leadership and church development, love my family and walk a lot.17 responses to “Unconscious Bias and Women In Church Leadership”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Graham,
Great job laying out the biases of complementarianism and egalitarianism. Within the denomination how do the two camps interact with each other? Do these perceptions cause churches to have a bias against the other on more issues than simply women in leadership?
Adam, there are always the extremes that tend to polarize. Most of our people fit into the middle of the bell curve. They have opinions but are respectful and more moderate.
Other issues might pop up around the interpretation of Scripture that lead to views on things like creation. However, these are not predominant.
Hi Graham,
Thank you for your post. Based on Agarwal’s book, which topic was most relevant to you and why?
Hi Shela, as mentioned in the blog, I found her chapter on gender bias to be fascinating. I found it interesting that, while we have come a long way as a society, women are still not recognized for their leadership ability.
Secondly, I am fascinated by bias in technology. My son-in-law works in robotics so it made me wonder how he might be working his bias into the things that he is designing.
Thank you, Graham, for this well-thought-out post and your position on women in church leadership. In what ways can congregants be involved in breaking down this and similar cultural biases found in churches?
Kari, I think congregants should respectfully request to have conversations, within their polity, about matters of gender, race, or other issues where implicit bias might exist.
It would also be helpful if leaders were willing to call out implicit bias on some of these matters.
A church that is not willing to have respectful conversations would send a warning signal to me about the health of the leadership in a church. At the same time, I recognize that there is a right time and a wrong time to have certain conversations.
Hi Graham, I really appreciated your acknowledgment that we would benefit from admitting we don’t fully understand the mystery of the male-female relationship. That humility felt both honest and refreshing. I was also struck by the examples you shared of churches holding times of confession and repentance for attitudes and behaviors rooted in bias rather than a kingdom-centered perspective. I’d love to hear more—what did those moments actually look like in practice? And where have you seen the most significant change as a result?
Elysse, here are some of the ways our churches have handled this…
1. The leadership of a church walked through a weekend where they named multiple issues that were recurring sin patterns. They named these and confessed them and then shared them with the congregation.
2. A church holds a yearly “Solemn Assembly”. In is a week of prayer in which confession and repentance are encouraged. Sin is named and forgiveness is sought.
3. A church walks through a process of discernment and realizes that they have diminished women and indigenous people. They ask public forgiveness and go on a learning journey over a couple of years to understand those they’ve marginalized and how they might join into God’s work of redemption.
Graham, thank you for your thoughtful and nuanced reflection on Sway and how implicit bias shapes the church’s approach to gender roles. I appreciate your willingness to navigate the complexities of complementarian and egalitarian views. Given the challenges of addressing unconscious bias in church communities, how can church leaders best foster an environment of genuine, open dialogue where complementarian and egalitarian perspectives can be discussed without reinforcing existing biases? How can we encourage humility and empathy in these conversations, especially in congregations with deeply held beliefs about gender roles?
Those are great questions, Chad.
1. I believe that leaders should be willing to name unconscious bias in areas such as gender, race etc. And in a gracious spirit call people toward the gospel. Paul does this in his letters where there are tensions between Jews and Gentiles. I love how he does this in Romans 12-14.
2. Open dialogue begins respectfully, humbly and courageously. Too many leaders have either been silent about issues or have joked about gender roles, without respectfully and directly addressing them.
Providing a context, process, and boundaries for good discussion is helpful. I have learned a lot from reflecting on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The church provides opportunity for both sides to present their perspectives, they listen to what Scripture has to say, and they listen to what the Holy Spirit has to say. This listening environment, provided the church with a unifying, God-honouring way forward.
3. Humility and empathy are character matters. I have seen leaders prayerfully call their people to this kind of behaviour in the way they set the context. “In this space, we are going to be kind, curious, humble, open-minded, kind…In this space we will not welcome anger, outbursts, pride, diminishing one other etc.”
I know this doesn’t cover all of the bases but I do believe that we can enter into the chaos, have respectful dialogue and walk out loving one another.
Chad, this church prepared their congregation extremely well for the dialogue by providing them with good resources. They dialogued and decided in a way that unified the church.
https://www.southviewchurch.com/men-women-in-ministry/
Hi Graham, I appreciate your focus on the stereotypes that Agarwal discussed in her book. I also appreciated your comment about recognizing our own biases. My NPO relates to women in nonprofit orgs rising to leadership roles. Yet something got me thinking if women also perpetuate those stereotypes as well. I am curious if you have seen that regarding church leadership as well.
Definitely, Diane. I know that there are women who are more comfortable with traditional roles. That’s ok, if that’s what they want. What concerns me is that women can sometimes impose this on other women.
Hey Graham, Thank you for sharing. I concur there is an immediate need to de-bias our churches as we can be the most judgmental at times. We die on irrelevant hills periodically but this issue is paramount.
Knowing the bias that is present in this matter, how to you engage in conversations on these sensitive matters knowing that there already are pre existing biases before a conversation even takes place?
Daren, thanks for your comments. I agree that we need to de-bias the church. It might be a life-long project. However, I think it’s worth talking about these issues that are often thorny.
I have come to the conclusion that we don’t dialogue well in our churches. We preach and teach, but there never seems to be an opportunity to talk, discuss, dialogue and even disagree.
Perhaps, debiasing the church begins with naming the things we have implicit bias on and then teaching people to dialogue in respectful ways that begins with the confession that we don’t know everything and need to learn.
Hi Graham – thanks for your post on this very important topic. How did your previously held biases come to your awareness? When talking to your colleague who pastored a complementarian church, how did you encourage him to see beyond his biases?
Honestly, I don’t think I did it very well that day.
However, I try to share my own journey with others, I share the outcomes we saw in our congregation and address some of the fears people have, that are not grounded in reality.