Showing posts with label Salvation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salvation. Show all posts

Saturday, February 02, 2019

Vulnerable Mission and Mythos vs Logos in the Walled City of Kowloon

Kowloon's walled city, now demolished.

The January 2019 edition of Premier Christianity magazine has an interview with Jackie Pullinger, a Christian whose mission field was the notorious Walled City of Kowloon in Hong Kong. The story of Jackie Pullinger's foray into the dangerous labyrinth of the Walled city is the stuff of living legend. This is heroic Christian mission as Christians love to hear it. An ill-prepared maverick with no ties to an official mission organisation pits themselves against the darkest elements that often lurk in human community and comes through triumphantly. Pullinger's story has some similarities with that of Gladys Alywood.

Christians love this sort of stuff especially as most Christian's "walk with God" is a fairly unexciting affair in comparison. Through the lives of people like Pullinger Christians can live the exciting, adventuress and miraculous Christian life vicariously. Above all, it lends hope for the humdrum lives of many Christians because we hear how, from a most unpromising starting point (Which most rank and file Christians can identity with!), God can confound us by raising up some big new thing. However, therein may lie the rub: Some Christians might think: "Why doesn't God work for me like that? What am I doing wrong? Why is the supernatural missing from my life?". Thus a subliminal sense of guilt can set in under the surface. Sometimes that guilt turns outward into anger and blame against local churches that by-and-large don't show Christians how they too can live these supposedly "super-duper-supernatural" lives.  I have seen this happen.  Anyway, Pullinger's story has been told many times so I need say nothing more of it here


***

In response to a question from the interviewer about how she learnt the local language Pullinger replied as follows:

Pullinger: Well it was a good thing I didn't begin too quickly because I just had time to do a short evangelism course before I got on the ship, and if I'd known Chinese I would have said too much. I thought that preaching the Gospel was explaining how Jesus came to die for your sins and, of course, that's no preaching the Gospel at all....

Interviewer: Why isn't it?

Pullinger: Because that's not necessarily good news to anyone who doesn't know love, who doesn't understand your language, who doesn't follow your logic. So, it was a good thing because I found out that the people there were not listening anyway, they were watching to see how I acted, whether  I really did love them. And if I really did love them, maybe God really did love them.                                                                                                                                                                                     
MY COMMENT: I'll be commenting on this very important inter-cultural question later. Pullinger then goes on to talk about her first Chinese convert who, after his meeting with Jesus, she plied with follow-up literature and information about the faith. She tells us that given Chinese culture this was one of the worse things she could have done: Because in Chinese culture learning is taken so seriously, a lack of academic success is tantamount to being a failed person. Hence Pullinger's first convert was intimidated by all the follow-up books which he mistakenly interpreted as proof that a grasp of all this information was a condition of faith.

Interviewer: Is there a lesson there that Western Christians can be too bookish?  

Pullinger: I think that the Word of God is terribly important but it depends on how you access that. Nowadays when people come to know Jesus, we pray  with them for the gift of tongues  immediately. It's not an optional extra, we say, but the way he'll give you a new language to help you talk to Him....No, it's not a prerequisite. The prerequisite is "Would you like to help pray somebody off drugs?". OK now, can you manage four hours of praying non-stop? Tongues would be a really great help. That's it. It's not the tongues that makes it special, it's just quite hard to keep going in your own language.

MY COMMENT I'll read the foregoing to mean that Pullinger sees tongues as an all but necessity in her kind of work, work which, of course, she will know best about.  So, giving her the benefit of the doubt I assume that she would reply "No" to the rhetorical questions in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30:


Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

After all, one finds that for many Christians who seek an "experience" or "tongues" when they have hands laid on them for the "Baptism of the Spirit", nothing really noticeable happens. In fact you can find Charismatic Christians who will admit this. For example, Tony Higton, a C of E charismatic admits in his book Called to Serve: A Local Church Study Course that when a Christian goes for a "Baptism of the Spirit" there may be no accompanying special experience or tongues to be had. I will be giving another example in my next post. 

I have heard of several cases where the believer is expecting some kind of spiritual down-load or epiphany and nothing happens; sometimes this can challenge their faith if their expectations are crushed. Moreover, some Christians seeking the "Carpet Blessing" (another name for the "Toronto Blessing") have, on occasion, been disappointed to find that they have not been blow over by God's Spirit but instead are simply pushed over by the "priest" administering the blessing. In general the question of whether a Christian seeking an epiphany, perhaps to fix a spiritual existential crisis, actually has some kind of experience or spiritual down-load seems to depend on the personality involved, although the hard-line Charismatics will not likely accept this and are inclined to witch-hunt for "spiritual blockages"  if their expectations of an "experience" are not fulfilled. 




***

There are important things to learn from Pullinger, although there may be some things to unlearn as well. In the West Mythos and Logos (See footnote* for more on Mythos and Logos) expressions of belief sit uneasily with one another. They may try to be friends but the relationship can be tense and stormy. We see hints of this in the interview with Pullinger. 


1. MYTHOS

In my opinion rank and file Western Christians (that is, Western Christians outside the intense academic culture of colleges and universities and those who classify themselves as traditional reformed Christians) are not "bookish" enough about their faith: Today the premium is on an existential faith that seeks satisfaction, validation and authentication through supernatural encounters with the divine. Anything else is likely to be regarded as less than the ideal divine plan. In this context Christian learning tends to be thought of as at best as having an ancillary supporting role and at worse utterly inferior to "Touches of God". However, I must add my usual disclaimer that I am certainly not in the business of offering a blanket and unqualified denial of people's epiphanies, baptisms, touches of God, divine encounters, speaking in tongues, prophecies and what have you: I don't automatically write-off such experiences anymore than I expect my particular spiritual experiences and pilgrimage to be written-off. Proprietary experiences can be very helpful. The stickler is though, that many have a one size fits all philosophy consistent with the gnostic-like tendencies of some parts of fundo-Charismatic Christianity. (See here for more on the Mythos vs Logos divide)


2. LOGOS

Where Pullinger has important lessons for us is on the subject of inter-cultural mission: Her approach looks as though it classifies as what missionary Jim Harries would call Vulnerable mission; that is, mission which is:


a) Determined to meet people where they are at in their culture and properly understand and engage that culture before thoughtlessly spouting formulaic evangelical cliches at them as if those cliche's can somehow magically "speak Christians into existence". Principally the cultural immersion of the Vulnerable Missionary is achieved  by learning the local lingo in its context so that the connotative content of the language is taken on board along with its notational content.

b) Avoids as far as possible destabilising relationships within the local culture with the promise of the introduction of developmental funds and Western resources. This avoidance prevents the missionary being put into the role of a rich benefactor or "bwana", thereby helping to foster authentic relationships rather than locals being tempted to kowtow to their rich missionary patrons. A client-patron relationship probably has the effect of obscuring many cultural oddities from the missionary, as the clients are inclined to curry favor with their rich patrons by keeping up appearances.

For whatever reason it seems that Pullinger naturally followed this "Vulnerable" approach. This form of mission is called "Vulnerable Mission" by Jim Harries because it opens up the missionary to dangers, misunderstandings, isolation and that of becoming a servant learner rather than a leader. Vulnerable mission can also sometimes result in fraught relations with other Western missionaries and their mission organisations, organisations who see their task exclusively in terms of a leading developmental role: i.e. "holistic mission". This is not to say Christians shouldn't be involved helping to develop and industrialise the poorer nations of the majority world.....the purpose of VM, as I see it, is to introduce another method in the missionary toolbox of methods, one which circumvents some of the conundrums caused by holistic mission. VM is mission which reaches the parts that other forms of mission don't. The Vulnerable Missionary needs to be a supreme diplomat. But unfortunately there is potentially an inner contradiction here; Vulnerable Missionaries have to be strong characters and strong characters are not natural diplomats, as I can testify from my own experience. 

We see from Pullinger's account how she inadvertently was prevented from using a one size fits all approach to her mission field. As she makes clear, if she had arrived in Hong Kong with just enough Chinese to think that she understood the language it would have been a disaster. To properly understand a language one needs to understand its cultural context and therefore the connotational content of the local natural language. One cannot learn the connotational content of a language without being immersed in the local context.

Because Pullinger had to learn the local language, effectively on the job, she had to first get to know her people, understand them and above all demonstrate her love for them. She could then share the Gospel in a way that was meaningful to them. Even so, as she admits, it was ignorance over Chinese culture which meant she made at least one mistake from the start. But she knew she had to learn and learn fast!



Footnote: Mythos and Logos

* Mythos: Often indescribable and intuitive, "Mythos" connotes experiences that may be referred to as "sensing God's presence", "touched by God", "empowered by God"  etc. These experiences  are often difficult to analyse and articulate. Sometimes a state of consciousness rather than a demarkable experience the whole thing can be very mysterious. 

Logos: Strong on content, analysis and thinking based experience: Very theologically inclined this articulated content will, in varying degrees, revolve around theology and the Bible,The Word; hence "Logos". This category actually embraces the paranormal, such as healings, tongues and prophecies as these events can be analytically investigated for authenticity.

Thursday, December 06, 2018

Love, Anger, Hell and Monsters from the Id.



In the November edition of Premier Christianity magazine there was an article which, in the context of a reference to reality of hell,  told us that:

In a church in Wimbledon the young pastor said that God essentially saved us from himself, from his own wrath. That was a profound statement.

A monster from the id. He doesn't 
know why he is angry!
The piece I have underlined was separately displayed as a large point size banner elsewhere in the article, perhaps to emphasize it's "profundity". Yes, it is profound, but profoundly wrong. It conveys a vision of a god with a split personality and whose character is so at odds with itself that it is almost as if this god is a Jekyll and Hyde act; a god who loves on the one hand and yet may engage in torturous (eternal) punishments on the other. The loving god is set against the angry god; which one will win? If the Wimbledon pastor is right then you won't like God when he's angry! He can turn into a monster from the id* quite capable of eternally torturing those who upset him!

This vision of God just doesn't ring true; in fact it has the finger prints of flawed human thinking all over it. For as we know, human anger all too often satiates itself through horrific acts of vengeance, acts sometimes carried out in the name of the Almighty. In the thought life of some Christians this is what justice is all about and they construct an image of a god of anger after the model of their own anger. There are humans out there who are quite prepared to consign their enemies to an eternal torture as punishment for their affrontary.

If we remember that human beings are organic complex adaptive systems we can, however, see the glimmer of a biological rationale behind human vengeance behaviour. In the cut and thrust of wild nature predatory attacks may have to be met with anger motivated physical violence for two reasons: Viz: To administer both deterrence and leaning. Pain, needless to say, is a great facilitator of learning - unless you've got a very short memory! Attackers will learn that they face the risk of pain if they attempt an attack and other potential protagonists may also be put-off from attacking if they see punishment meted out. In these primitive connections the organisms dealing out "justice" need not understand why they are acting the way they do; the important feature is that it is an effective survival strategy even though it may be carried out as a mindless reflex action.

 In the more sophisticated contexts of human society formalised punishment rituals will again act as a deterrent and may lead to learning and repentance in the offending protagonists; provided, of course, the principles of fair justice have been followed. But it is hoped that in this less primitive connection there is a grasp of the rationale for punishment and that it isn't just a reflex action. If such punishments succeed in their aim of bringing about a contrite spirit and general reform, punishment then becomes redundant. If just social punishments lead to reformation then the role of punishment is complete; in the socially advanced context punishments aren't reflex actions but are consciously put in place to do themselves out of a job: Punishments, if their goal is achieved, cannot be forever. Even if anger motivates deterrence and punishment, constructive anger looks beyond the satiation of its appetite for violence to the implicit social goals intended to fix the problem in hand. Constructive anger doesn't engage in the violence of punishment for its own sake. In the integrated harmonious soul anger, like other motives such as the appetite, is answerable to a higher executive. But the vision of God presented by the quip in Premier Christianity is hardly one of an integrated harmonious soul - it may be true of humans but it can't be true of God. If the quote above is a sample of a fundamentalist concept of God's wrath then I suggest that such people have a lot to learn from those human beings who use their anger to motivate reformation and problem solving. A need to continue satiating anger via proactive punishment is a sign of a sick mind. 

Even very biological human anger can be directed constructively and need not satiate itself via a reflex action to torture; the latter is an anachronistic response appropriate only in biologically elementary tit-for-tat settings where the reasons for the strategy are unconscious. People who lose an innocent loved one to, say, human negligence or culpability, naturally enough feel very angry at the parties responsible for this loss.  But this anger in some cases at least isn't necessarily satiated by seeking the administration of suffering. Instead the anger may dissipate itself in actions that aim to see restorative justice done rather than punishment for its own sake. Or failing that the offended person may seek to create conditions which help prevent similar tragic events or perhaps support people who find themselves in similar situations. This is how primitive reflex anger can be redirected to become a constructive motive. But admittedly this is much easier said than done: It is all too human for offended anger to express itself instinctively via a socially inappropriate heuristic of uncontrolled tit-for-tat vengeance. But whilst it is clear that an elementary tit-for-tat response is fit for many basic biological connections it hardly seems fitting as a Divine trait! God's anger, I imagine, finds far more constructive expression and is an emotion more harmoniously integrated into his character. Salvation isn't a case of protecting us against God's anger, but it is a work where, I suspect, love and anger act together. My thinking is that salvation is an act where God's wrath has been harmonised with God's love.

Contrary to the quote in Premier Christianity it is, I submit, the absence of God's wrath which we need to be saved from. Whilst the fundamentalist imputes to God a very human concept of anger where propitiation connotes a hellish abyss of God's uncontrolled wrath, I would propose that hell is in fact due to the absence of Divine wrath. Unlike an elementary biological heuristic sophisticated righteous anger proactively seeks restoration and reform. It is the absence of righteous anger and of God subsequently leaving us alone and allowing human behavioural logic to take its course which we must fear most. In hell there is no Divine wrath to motivate a fix. Hell is God not wanting to do anything, presumably because he is leaving alone those who want to be left alone, thereby allowing the logic of human sin to do its stuff. Hell is wanting to be abandoned by God and subsequently being abandoned by God. The consequent loss of righteous wrath opens up the way for humanity's peculiar aptitude to create its own hell. God will not always strive with man. (Genesis 6:3). 

The article in Premier Christianity also includes this statement:

I feel that there are so many churches now that don't talk about hell.

It's a jolly good thing they don't talk about it if their only vision of hell is of a place of proactive endless propitiatory torture. The biological vengeance response is no model for hell. Instinctual vengeance has no concept of reason; it just acts and punishment, eternal or otherwise, is administered simply because it feels "deserved" and no further justification is thought to be needed. It is no surprise that churches are quiet about their concept of hell if they hold such a repugnant medieval vision; the only vision that some fundamentalist Christians can supply. Christians of this ilk are the last people we want to hear talking about hell. In fact if Rico Tice is a sample of a Christian talking about hell then the best they can do is to stay silent.

***

The following picture is a still from the fundamentalist ministry Answers in Genesis' video advertisement for their Ark shaped wooden flood exhibit. It is in fact symbolic of the premise on which the Ark Park is based i.e. divine retribution for those who don't tow the Ken Ham line. Below we see a mother and child getting their "just desserts" in the form of a huge death dealing global tsunami. Rather appropriately the tsunami is shaded in "hulk" green!




* "Monster from the id": a reference to the film "The Forbidden Planet". 

Monday, August 27, 2018

The dangers of rule driven morality.

He may or may not do what is right but he hasn't a
 clue as to why either way; its all rules to obey for him!

In a post entitled "Be Kind to Humankind - Why?" fundamentalist theme park supremo, Ken Ham, comments on "Be Kind to humankind week". The result is that he reveals a concept of morality that to my mind is readily corruptible; in fact if pushed it can lead to the kind of cruelties we are familiar with in religions driven by an uncompromising almost algorithmic interpretation of God's Law; welcome to the world of the "Fundobot"!

Ham's article can be found here:

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2018/08/25/be-kind-to-humankind-but-why/

I reproduce Ham's post in full below. I have highlighted the parts which reveal the rationale behind Ham's morality.


Today is part of what’s considered “Be Kind to Humankind Week.” Each day this week has a special theme of different ways people can show kindness to one another. Some of these include “Sacrifice Our Wants for Others Needs Sunday,” “Forgive Your Foe Friday,” and “Speak Kind Words Saturday.” Now all of these things are good—as is the idea of a week dedicated to consciously deciding to be kind (as we should be all the time)—but why should we be kind to others?
The idea of being “kind” is prevalent in our society with many proclaiming that if we were just more kind to each other, the world would be a much a better place. But why should we be kind in the first place? And who defines kind? Without the ultimate authority of God’s Word, there’s no ultimate reason to be kind. We can invent reasons, such as “because it feels good” or to bring others happiness. But that’s not an ultimate reason—and that kind of reasoning could be used to justify all kinds of actions, some of which are decidedly not kind.
Now, this doesn’t mean atheists, humanists, and others who preach “kindness” can’t be kind. They certainly can be, and often are. But they have no ultimate basis for their kindness or even for a definition of kindness. (oh yes they do! See below -Ed)
And not only that, they are being inconsistent with their “survival of the fittest” evolutionary worldview. In that worldview, kindness is only necessary if it had some sort of survival benefit for the organism. There’s no “kindness for kindness’ sake” (although some animals do seem to exhibit altruistic behaviors, which has stumped evolutionists).
We should be kind (as defined by Scripture) this week and the other fifty-one weeks of the year, because we’ve been commanded to “be kind, to one another” (Ephesians 4:32). And not only that, we should be kind because of the example of tremendous kindness we’ve been shown by our Creator. Despite our rebellion against him, he stepped into history in the person of Jesus Christ to die for our sins and save us. God’s kindness towards us is limitless and will be experienced for eternity by those who trust in him.
So be kind to humankind this week—and consider showing others the ultimate kindness by telling them about the free gift of salvation, generously available to all who will believe because of the kindness of our loving Creator.

From where I'm standing it looks as though Ken, although he asks "why", actually hasn't really grasped the deep reason why we should be kind: The only answer he has is that the moral mandate for kindness comes from what he thinks to be the final and authoritative instruction of God; that is, it's right because God says so. But what if these instructions are wrongly interpreted and the instructee believes that being kind entails things like executing people for gay-sex or stoning adulterous women to death or burning heretics at the stake? Blind robotic obedience to what we fancy to be authoritative instructions and rules has the potential to generate a cruel merciless  "morality".

An authoritarian algorithmic morality is blind to the fundamental rationale behind "kindness". To guide our behaviour there must be something which goes deeper than "We do it or don't do it because (we think) God said we should do it!"; that is an argument from brute authoritarianism (As you might expect of a fundamentalist, authority looms large in Ken's thinking).There is something far more fundamental behind morality than ephemeral human interpretations of God's instructions, interpretations which are so often here today and gone tomorrow.

In this post on Quantum Non-Linearity I sketched out what I propose to be the core basis of all morality: This basis rests on the fact that humans are centres of conscious cognition: Conscious cognition is the core of reality - without it "existence" is an unintelligible concept. Human beings are not mere robotic facades where consciousness is just to be regarded as an illusory conceptual device for dealing with cognitive complexity. The first person perspective is logically fundamental to the cosmos and gives it reality (See the post I have linked to for more details).

From this basis it follows that we are kind to one another because we identify other humans as having a first person experience; that is, they are conscious beings who are capable of experiencing the qualia of joys and hurts. The mandate to be kind is not justified by bland authoritarian instructions but because people are feeling beings who know the first person perspective of pleasure and pain.  Truly kind people are kind not because God commands such or even because God himself is kind, but rather because God has made human beings with conscious cognition and he has put it in our hearts to understand this fact, therefore challenging us to make empathetic and optimum moral decisions when serving others competes with serving self.

Atheists and non-Christians may not believe in a God and may know nothing about Biblical instruction, but nevertheless will understand that other human beings have feelings like themselves*.  They therefore face the moral challenge of treating the feelings of others with consideration even though they may know nothing of the Bible. As it says in Romans 2:14-15

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Atheists, contrary to Ham's claim, do have an  ultimate basis for their kindness and a definition of kindness: namely, consideration for the feelings of others, feelings that they know in their hearts to exist. Although implementing one's consideration for others in complex communities where ramifications are often difficult to work out in full, one's moral starting point is a willingness to give deference to the consciousness of others. Moreover, the kernel of the Biblical law is not a set of instructions; rather it is a state of being, a condition of the heart:

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)

Rule breaking is a symptom, repeat, a symptom of a deeper moral malaise of the heart, a spiritually pathological state of being:

8 If you really keep the royal law  found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:8-13)

The core value of the law is mercy and not merciless following of rules. The context of both of the foregoing passages of scripture is of societal and/or church living. That is, it is all about community and it is community life which tests the state of our hearts toward one another. Perceiving one another as conscious beings rather than robotic facades and acting accordingly is the foundation of morality; it's not about obedience to rules spoken by an omnipotent despot**. As we can see from the above Biblical quotes, all instructions and commands to do good trace back to the Royal Law; that is to love one's neighbour as one self and the reason why we must love our neighbour is because they too have the first person perspective of conscious cognition.

A purely instruction based morality, when allied to the epistemic arrogance of fundamentalism has the potential to proceed with utter certainty and mercilessness without regard to feeling. (Romans 3:10).

The Biblical message is that we have all fallen short of the Royal Law and stand condemned of the disease of sin (Appropriately, the word with the "I" in middle). But there is a way out:

20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,... (Romans 3:20-23)

But....

24 ..... all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:24)

...27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:27-31)

You might think that it is pretty clear from these passages that all who know and call on Christ and have been adopted by God (Acts 2:21, Roman 8: 15) are saved from the bondage of selfishness. But the fundamentalist cannot accept that; for the fundamentalist will make it clear that without following their strict regime of belief and practice your salvation is at best questionable and at worst null and void. If you are not one of them a fundamentalist will want to know why not. Therefore the first reaction of the fundamentalist when faced with Christians beyond the pale of their sect is to seek for subtle unorthodoxies and sins in order to clinch a charge of heresy and discredit an outsider's testimony (See here and here).  They may readily invoke God's grace when it comes to Donald Trump's corruption but that's not for Christians who disagree with them!


Relevant Links:
http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2015/02/vengeance-fundamentalism-turn-or-burn.html
http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2015/07/submission-obedience-and-threat.html
http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2016/05/a-god-of-hell-and-hamnation.html

Footnotes:
* There is a question here about psychopaths: Do they see other humans as anything other than a robotic facade?

** God's instruction is needed when we are unsure as to the ramification of our actions in the complex environment of the community, actions that by diverse means could lead to bad community, even if intended for good.