“Broad Stroking” Deception

I recently wrote an article on the number one complaint we receive here at www.BaptistDeception.com which is that IFB churches are “Independent” of and from other IFB churches and therefore are not a denomination or group of churches.  You can read more about that here and I would recommend doing so before you proceed with this article if you haven’t already.

So it’s only fitting that I should write an article about a VERY close second most frequent complaint, that of painting a picture of the IFB using broad strokes, or for those of you who might not understand that analogy, overgeneralizing.

This is really nothing more than at attempt at misdirection, which the IFB is notorious for – great job of being consistent at least.  You see, people in the IFB, in continuity with their desire to be “independent”, want people to think that they are somehow better than everyone else.  So the natural progression is to next complain that we are overgeneralizing the IFB in our attempts to provide the truth to those who seek it.  This allows the typical IFBer to make judgments from afar, never stopping long enough to evaluate their own unique situation to see if what we write here is true.  I would venture a guess that the emotional underpinnings of this are either extreme denial or being too deeply enmeshed in their IFB church that they are unable to see it.

Whatever the reason, it’s my hope that this post will serve as an intercept of sorts so that maybe I will get fewer emails complaining that I’m making sweeping generalizations.

Before I proceed, I’d like to define the fallacy of sweeping generalizations.  Overgeneralizing is actually a logical fallacy and is a common debate tactic.  Simply put, the fallacy of sweeping generalizations is applying a general statement too broadly.  Now on the surface that might seem like what we’re doing here, but upon careful inspection we can see a couple major differences.

First, and probably biggest, is that this concept of sweeping generalizations (also known as Hasty Generalizations) is often confused with Inductive Reasoning – which is what we’re doing.

Inductive reasoning is the ability to generalize from repeated experiences or observations. The soundness of an inductive generalization can usually be determined by asking the following questions:

1. Do we have a sufficient number of instances to draw a conclusion?
2. Is the breadth of the conclusion drawn supported by the evidence?
3. Are the terms of the conclusion consistent with the terms of the evidence?

Fallacies typically result if any of these questions can be answered in the negative.  In the case of this site, all three can be answered in the affirmative.  True, I do not PERSONALLY have sufficient number of instances to draw a conclusion, however, combining my personal repeated experiences with my repeated observations of other people’s repeated experiences and I’m able to vastly broaden the “sufficient number of instances”.  This is due in part to the consistent testimonies of others who have experiences that are very similar – and even the exact same – as me.  This tells me that my experiences are not isolated events.  The testimonies of others also allow us to make conclusions based on a wider evidence trail and anyone reading through the site can see that the terms of the conclusion are consistent with the terms of the evidence.  Please allow me to repeat… We are performing Inductive Reasoning here NOT Hasty Generalizations.

Second, I’m not applying a general statement to the IFB – which is required to commit the fallacy of sweeping generalizations.  I’m actually talking about some very specific beliefs, teachings, traditions, behaviors, etc. that are unique to the IFB.  This by itself negates that idea that we are making the fallacy of hasty generalizations.

The issues I present in this site are specific errors of doctrine, teaching and exegesis that are toxic to the Christian and to Christianity. I am telling people the specific things that are wrong in the IFB church which are things that most, if not all, IFB churches teach/preach. I am warning folks about the errors that are specific to that “brand” of church. Yes, there are individuals that run the different churches, but they are still teaching/preaching the SAME message – the teachings of the IFB.

I’d like to illustrate this second problem with the idea that we are making sweeping generalizations with an analogy.  Let’s pretend for a moment that this site is about McDonald’s. I give specific errors that McDonald’s makes and I caution people to be careful about the food McDonald’s serves because it is high in saturated fats and salt content and eating at McDonald’s has been shown to increase the risk of obesity and diabetes. I share my experience and educate people on how McDonald’s gets their food, processes their meat and preserves their vegetables. Did I have to experience EVERY McDonald’s in the world to know this? Of course not, that would be near impossible. Since almost every McDonald’s does business and cooks their food the same way, after all it is a franchise, what I’ve discovered about them can be easily “generalized” to almost all other McDonald’s. That doesn’t mean I’m making the fallacy of sweeping generalizations. That just means that caution is warranted since most McDonald’s perform their food preparation/service in much the same way. If those things don’t concern you then by all means feel free to eat at McDonald’s. However, to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, those things are “deal breakers” for eating at McDonald’s. The same is true for the IFB.

Make sense?