Denominations and Stereotpying

In a "Christianity Today" article the question of stereotyping of certain denominations or theological systems is addressed.

"A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality." (Wikipedia) 

I would add that generally (am I being stereotypical?) it is used in a negative sense.

In Titus chapter one we have an example of stereotyping cited by Paul and he follows it up by an injunction to "rebuke sharply, that they may be sound in the faith".

"One of themselves, even a Prophet of their own, said: The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies."Titus 1:12

Certainly it is obvious that this sort of generalization is damaging.

For all that, sometimes it is interesting and useful to ask what- in a general sense- is the public perception of certain groups. After all if there is any truth in a general perception then that might need addressing, some attitudes or better information maybe necessary to rectify these images.

 And who better to ask about it than Google?  

Apparently Google uses an algorithm to anticipate what you want to search for based on the history of millions of other searches. Within just a few strokes of the keyboard in their search-bar, Google is "magically" offering suggestions as to what it is you are actually searching for. This just may give an insight as to how these groups are perceived. The results are often not flattering as the following example shows:

But then we need to ask the question what lies behind the algorithm that Google uses? Is it completely transparent and unbiased?

Unsuprisingly perhaps, it is not. At least that is the picture painted by the following excerpt from an article on the BBC's Future website:

The article cites the conclusions drawn by a recent United Nations survey testing negative attitudes towards women based on results gleaned by the Google autocomplete menu.

Is Google Autocomplete Evil?

"Yet, like any other search algorithm, autocomplete blends a secret sauce of data points beneath its effortless interface. Your language, location and timing are all major factors in results, as are measures of impact and engagement – not to mention your own browsing history and the “freshness” of any topic. In other words, what autocomplete feeds you is not the full picture, but what Google anticipates you want. It’s not about mere truth; it’s about “relevance”.

This is before you get on to censorship. Understandably, Google suppresses terms likely to encourage illegality or materials unsuitable for all users, together with numerous formulations relating to areas like racial and religious hatred. The company’s list of “potentially inappropriate search queries” is constantly updated.

False premise

None of this should be news to savvy web users. Yet many reactions to the UN Women campaign suggest, to me, a reliance on algorithmic expertise that borders on blind faith."

Interestingly it is the preconceived notion that Google autocomplete is actually set up with a thirst for truth rather than a bias towards "relevance" that has caused many to accept without question its results. Having a better, more accurate understanding of its parameters has meant people are asking healthy questions as to the reliability and relevance of the results to gauge public perceptions.

However, once one realizes that there is a need for some skepticism as to the accuracy of these results- it at least is an interesting and easy exercise to determine -with a certain amount of caution- public attitudes of a range of topics.

John Piper of "Desiring God" ministries seemed to be on the ball as the following article directly addresses the conceptions brought up by Google on Calvinists.

Why are Calvinists so negative?

I love the doctrines of grace with all my heart, and I think they are pride-shattering, humbling, and love-producing doctrines. But I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative.

So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.

I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again.

Another reason for Calvinists could be seen as negative is that when a person comes to see the doctrines of grace in the Bible, he is often amazed that he missed it, and he can sometimes become angry. He can become angry that he grew up in a church or home where they never talked about what is really there in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 2, and Ephesians 2. They never talked about it—they skipped it—and he is angry that he was misled for so long.

That's sad. It's there; it's real; the church did let him down, and there are thousands of churches that ignore the truth and don't teach it. And he has to deal with that.

Another reason Calvinists might be perceived as negative is that they are trying to convince others about the doctrines.

If God gives someone the grace to be humbled and see the truth, and the doctrines are sweet to him, and they break his pride—because God chose him owing to nothing in him. He was awakened from the dead, like being found at the bottom of a lake and God, at the cost of his Son's life, brings him up from the bottom, does CPR, brings him miraculously back to life, and he stands on the beach thrilled with the grace of God—wouldn't he want to persuade people about this?

Do Calvinists want to make everybody else Calvinists? Absolutely we do! But it's not about elitism. It's about having been found by Christ and having the glory of God opened to us in the process of salvation. It's about having the majesty of God opened in all of his saving and redeeming works, wanting to give him all the glory and all the credit, and cherishing the sovereignty and preciousness of grace in our lives. Why wouldn't we want to share this with people?

If it is perceived as elitist, that is partly owing to our sinfulness in the way we go about it, and partly owing to people's unwillingness to see what is really there in the Bible.

I just want to confess my own sins in how I have often spoken, and I hope and pray that I don't have the reputation of being mainly negative, but mainly positive.

I look at my books sometimes when I hear that kind of criticism, and I say, "OK when I'm dead and gone, and all that is left is sermons and books, will my reputation be that? Will it be that I have a whole bunch of books and sermons that are mainly negative, harsh, and elitist?"

Time will tell. I hope not.

©2013 Desiring God Foundation. Used by Permission. By John Piper. ©2013 Desiring God Foundation. Website: desiringGod.org