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.2 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?
Hi Graham,
Thank you for your post. Based on Agarwal’s book, which topic was most relevant to you and why?