I’m reading a book right now called ‘On the  Passion of Christ.’ It’s a devotional book from a 14th century priest named Thomas Hemerken or Thomas A Kempis. Today’s devotion was about the patience that Jesus expressed while traveling with Judas Iscariot. Thomas points out that Jesus knew that Judas had sold Him for 30 pieces of silver and still he spared him the public humiliation. Jesus even took the passover meal with Judas.

I left my house to go for a walk so I could have some time to dwell on what I had read and to pray over it. I got two doors down and was confronted by two neighborhood dogs who were none too happy to see me. My neighbor across the street bailed me out or I might have been breakfast.

As I returned home I pondered if I should call animal control or talk to the dogs owners. It was at that point that I realized I had a great example of what Christ would do. He would be patient with the owners and overlook the offense.

“A man’s wisdom gives him patience ; it is to his glory to overlook an offense” (Proverbs 19.11).

Situational ethics is the invention of Joseph Fletcher. The basic concept is, “the end justifies the means.” It doesn’t matter what you DO so long as the intended outcome is good. The idea is that if your motives are pure then, the action is immaterial. There is even some biblical backing for this concept. According to 1 Corinthians 4.5, when Jesus returns “He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God” (NIV). God’s praise, according to this verse is in proportion to the motive of the heart and not the action itself.

Let’s take a look at a few moral dilemmas and see how we think we should respond to these. How would someone who believes in situational ethics respond to them?

The Fat Man and the Impending Doom. A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do? What if you are the fat man? What if instead of a fat man, it is a pregnant lady?

The Bomber. A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

Dangerous Promises. A friend confides to you that he has committed a particular crime and you promise never to tell. Discovering that an innocent person has been accused of the crime, you plead with your friend to give himself up. He refuses and reminds you of your promise. What should you do? In general, under what conditions should promises be broken?

There are some advantages to this ethical system. It is consistent with the biblical modal. Jesus taught to abandon legalism and self-righteousness. We are dead to the law according to Paul. Instead, we are judged by our motives. The Bible is not intended to be a list of do’s and don’ts. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4.12). It is alive and is used for wisdom and discernment and not a simple list.

The problem is that situational ethics is only loosely based on the Bible. Situational ethics suggests that we can defy God’s standards if it will produce a virtuous outcome. The Apostle John said, “This is love for God: to obey his commands” (1 John 5.3). If we are not obeying God, then we are not loving Him and Jesus said that to love God is the greatest commandment.

It seems like there should be some sort of balance. If we discard situational ethics entirely, then we become legalistic. On the other hand if we embrace it entirely, then we defy God’s laws. I think Paul gave Timothy some advice on the matter: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2.15). To rightly handle the word of truth is to discern truth from scripture without legalistically holding to the law. We are called to maintain God’s standards and I think that situational ethics, if used conservatively, can help us to understand that.

Dilemmas from: www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm

Situational Ethics info from: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/situation.htm and http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/situational-ethics.htm

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher from the 1700′s. His scholarly studies range in topic, but his work in ethics and philosophy are probably the most notable. Kant’s ethics are deontological, free from natural influence and solely based on the will of man. He designed the ‘categorical imperative’  in order to test whether an act is moral or immoral.

Kantian ethics are deontological. This means that something is considered to be moral because it adheres to a rule. The opposite is teleological ethics, in which something is considered moral because it produces a certain outcome. Deontological ethics allow for some sort of moral authority, whether that is a god or some sort of natural order. Where Kant’s ethics are deontological, he actually considers the natural order to be irrelevant to ethics as natural orders tend to be subjective or potentially subjective in nature, and could thereby be evil (Jensen, 2009).

Since Kant tosses out all natural things, there must be a universal good from which all morality derives. This is the good will. For Kant’s purposes, the good will is the intention to do something simply because it is right to do so. Kant intentionally uses the word will, because it must be done with intent or will to do right in order to be moral. To do something which is right by happenstance and not with direct intent lacks volition and is therefore immoral, regardless of the act. This is actually a potential defect in his reasoning as it removes the ability of someone who is ignorant to the moral argument from making a moral decision since he is not driven to consider his own will (Kant, 2008).

Kant has a system which can be used to determine the morality of an act. This is called the ‘categorical imperative’ or the ‘principle of universalizibility.’ According to the categorical imperative, one must ask, upon considering an action, if one would will the act to become universalized. That is, if you would will that everyone did X, then it would be considered a moral act, according to Kant (2008).

Kant distinguishes between categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative. An imperative is a command. A hypothetical would mean that the outcome of the act is uncertain, whereas a categorical simply is (Jensen, 2009). For example: hypothetically, if you want a cheeseburger then go to a burger joint and buy one. Categorically, at a burger joint, you buy a cheeseburger. The first statement is hypothetical because it does not have a guaranteed outcome. The second statement is categorical because it is intrinsically right that one would buy a cheeseburger at a burger joint.

One of the most common moral arguments is over abortion. Kant would look for the moral authority on the matter using the categorical imperative. He would form a statement such as, ‘abortion is murder.’ He would not say, “if you have an abortion, then you have committed murder” as that is a hypothetical statement. This statement, in and of itself, does not immediately denote immorality until murder is determined to be immoral. So, Kant would then apply the principle of universalizibility. “Would I will that everyone ought to commit murder?” Since no one would, in right mind, will this it can be determined that abortion is immoral.

Kantian ethics can be applied to all sorts of scenarios. The categorical imperative proves useful, and often prudent, in determining the morality of an act. Even though Kant did not attribute morality to God or to any god, he certainly seems to have found a strain of revelation in the midst of reason.

References

Jensen, J. (2009). Questions that matter L. Miller, (Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kant, I. (2008). The metaphysical elements of ethics (T. K. Abbot, Trans.). Rockville, MD: Arc Manor.

For millennia man has pondered over this problem: if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why does evil exist in the world? The problem is referred to as theodicy. Many philosophers and theologians over time have tackled this problem and all have, arguably, fallen short of sound logic in all areas. Many have chosen to diminish the qualities of God in an attempt to derive a logical solution, whereas others have pursued different means of rationalization.

John Stuart Mill denied the omnipotence of God as a way of rationalizing the theodicy. Others have simply denied that we are capable of finding a solution and land on the inscrutability of God’s ways. Still others have attempted to rationalize the problem by viewing evil in a corporate manor from God’s eyes, so as to view humanity as ultimately productive and good in spite of occasions of evil (Jensen, 2009).

Augustine and others have taken a drastically different approach to the subject by denying the substance of evil all together. According to this thought process, evil is simply a term which has been assigned to the absence of good. Evil, then, is only a term which is synonymous with ‘lack of good’. An advocate of this view might well praise God for where He has produced good, rather than blame God for where He has not (Jensen, 2009).

Probably the most common solution is the free-will defense. According to this viewpoint, there has to be an opposite to goodness in order for there to be free-will. If there were no evil, then man would not have a choice on whether to do good or not. Man would be forced to glorify God by doing good. Man would have been denied the will to refuse glory for God and therefore would lack free-will. This solution is logical on the surface, but comes with all sorts of issues. For instance: if God is good and all knowing, then creating a human with the ability to perform evil—it can be argued—is an act of evil (Jensen, 2009).

One very modern concept is that evil is therapeutic. That is, evil is manifest in creation by God for the purposes of discipline and/or punishment. This theory is fairly pure on the surface, but raises all sorts of concerns. What about moral evil? Did the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust actually deserve it in God’s eyes? What about the unborn child who is unnaturally or naturally aborted? Do these sorts of moral evils actually produce spiritual benefit (Jensen, 2009)?

I can certainly see the thought process in all of these theories, but I would approach it from a very different angle. As a result of Adam’s sin, God created natural evil (Genesis 3.17-20 New American Standard Bible). This is definitely punishment for doing what God said not to do. It should be noted that because of the fall, all mankind became sinners, so this punishment was bestowed on all. Therefore, these sorts of bad things are not happening to good people, they are only happening to bad people, to sinners.

Moral evil still requires explanation. Adam and Eve clearly had it within them to produce evil aside from the curse, since they ate of the forbidden fruit before the curse. One has to come to grips with the fact that God created both the temptation and a tempter so that Adam would have to make a moral choice. In the gravest of sins, Adam chose evil.

In order to reconcile this, one has to remember that God’s ultimate purpose in creation is His own glory. Had God created man without the ability to make a moral choice, He would have been denying himself the glory that comes from obedience, since man would be forced into obedience, thus negating His own purpose in creation.

But, God is omnibenevolent! Yes, He is. But, God’s love for mankind is stemmed by His own purpose for righteousness. In other words, God would do an extreme injustice to His creation and ultimately His plan if He refused them the opportunity for righteousness which can only come as a consequence of denying evil. It is interesting that there are many different opinions on the matter. My own opinion (albeit based primarily on scripture and less on reason) borrows from many of the great thinkers who have pondered the problem of theodicy before me.

References

Jensen, J. (2009). Questions that matter L. Miller, (Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

What is Postmodernism

Postmodernism is not so much a period of time, but a way of defining a reaction to the modernist movement. Postmodernism tends to be characterized in three major ways.

First, postmodernism is characterized by a partial return to the classics. This trait doesn’t tend to manifest so much in art as it does in theology, politics and sociology.

Second, postmodernism tends to be abstract, being defined as that which is aside from concrete or practical reality. In most cases, the abstract, whether in art or philosophy tends to be manifest as a reaction to classical thought or modernist thought.

Third, postmodernism is characterized by relativism. Postmodernists have identified a trend of change over time and as a result embrace relative truth—what is true for you is not necessarily true for me.

A little more practical: postmodern thought seeks individuality as well as commonality. That is to say that we can all be different and believe what we want, but we can still be united in what is common. This plays out more in social, political and religious arenas than anywhere else. Some signs of this are homosexual tolerance and support of gay marriage, multi-religions (ex. Someone who claims to be both Buddhist and Hindu) and implied tolerance for cultural diversity.

When it comes to a Christian standpoint, postmodernism can be a slippery subject. Certainly, most Christians agree that religious relativism and/or religious tolerance is wrong, but many have accepted it. There are arguments on culturally relative definitions of sin. I think it is best to remember that God is unchanging and therefore His standards are unchanging.

Here is an exercise in postmodernism.

On the subject of ethical values:

I would say that ethical values, or morals, come from God. There are many ways that we become aware of ethical values. We get them from the Bible. We get them from the conviction of the Holy Spirit. And we get them from general revelation.

Because God is unchanging, His standards are concrete and unchanging. The same morals that existed 2000 years ago are the same as the morals which we should hold to today. In the same way, the morals that we use here in the US are the same that should be held to in China or anywhere else.

A postmodernist would say that ethical values are relative. They would likely recognize cross-cultural morals that have allowed society to progress for many milenia such as ‘murder is wrong,’ but they would take a relative view towards it.

For instance, there is a culture in Northern America called the Inuit that (in many circles) kills the elderly men when they are no longer useful for hunting game. A postmodernist would say that because it is necessary for the progression of that society that it is not immoral. But, according to God’s standards, it is immoral.

A similar argument can be found in abortion. The postmodernist would likely say that everyone is right to their own definition of life and so it is only immoral to kill a fetus if the person believes it to be a person.

References

http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-postmd.htm

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/postmodernism

Epistemology a branch of philosophy which is concerned with the theory of knowledge. It asks questions about what knowledge is, how you get it and theorizing what is known. Hume and Kant are tow major philosophers from the school of epistemology.

David Hume separated knowledge into two categories. Analytic knowledge is truth which is contingent on it’s definition. For instance, ‘a circle is round.’ This is assumed because if it were not round, it would not be a circle. Synthetic knowledge is more arguable because two thoughts are synthesized into one thought. For instance, ‘the ball is a circle.’ Circle is synthesized with ball. You cannot simply assume that because it is a ball it is a circle. A ball could be oblong like a football or flat, so through this statement you are actually obtaining knowledge about the ball.

Immanuel Kant also separated knowledge into two categories, although different ones. Priori knowledge is knowledge that is derived apart from experiences. For example, ‘a circle is round.’ This knowledge exists before it is experienced because a circle is round no matter what. Posteriori knowledge is derived from experience. For example, ‘the ball is a circle.’ This requires experience in order to have the knowledge, because without seeing the ball for yourself you cannot really know what shape it is.

It seems that there is only a semantic difference between Hume and Kant based on the above definitions, however there are differences. The major difference between Hume and Kant is that Hume was against the metaphysical approach all together. He believed the epistemological approach to contradict metaphysics. Kant, on the other hand, found more of a middle ground between metaphysics and epistemology. He found epistemology to be a reformation of metaphysics and so he didn’t abandon physical reality for abstract thought as Hume did.

Those of you who have been reading my blog for some time will know that I am, in fact, a skeptic. I don’t accept anything at face value, with one singular exception. I see truth as something which God alone controls. Supposed ‘truth’ which comes from science and from the world immediately gets put into the doubt folder. It is not necessarily untrue, but aside from God’s confirmation, it can never be proven as true.

I think it is necessary for me to address Christians who presume to know truth. I believe (for many reasons—let me know if you want them all) that men are incapable of completely understanding truth, even when God makes it clear to us. I often use the example of a fuel filter on a car. Pure gasoline comes out of the factory. It is then put into storage tanks, then trucks and eventually into the tanks at the gas station where it sits. Then you come along, buy the gas and put it into your own fuel tank. Along the way it has picked up all sorts of impurities. The fuel filter attempts to transfer the fuel to the car, but is charged with the task of removing the impurities. We are the fuel filter. Even though God is providing us with His pure unadulterated word, by the time we filter it through all the crap in our lives, we get a manipulated version of that truth. Because of this, I do not believe that ANY man can know conclusively what God’s truth is. So even with the greatest theologians, I am a skeptic.

How about God’s word? I should make it clear that I continue to prayerfully seek truth from God’s word, however, I do not believe that any man can conclusively determine God’s truth even from the Bible, not because God is faulty in His method, but because we, as humans, have so soiled ourselves that we are unable to grasp the depth of the truth of God’s word.

I determine truth according to three basic methods. (It should be noted that I am a skeptic even of my own derived truth, but to reject all knowledge of truth is insanity.) I derive truth (1) through God’s word. I take what is clear and simple in God’s word and use that as a filter for determining truth in other areas of life and/or God’s word. I derive truth (2) By the Holy Spirit. Through prayer and meditation, I believe God will confirm His word. I derive truth (3) through the work of God in my life. Same as God opens and closes doors in a practical sense so that we know WHAT to do, He also opens and closes doors to show us HOW to do or to show us WHAT is true. Only when all of these three come together will I make an assumption on truth. An assumption is the best that we can hope for and I truly believe that any assumption of truth made aside from this method or another similar method is foolish.

Some people will note that I left out logic. Logic is a God given ability, however, like in all philosophy, it is more of a tool that is used in conjunction with the above mentioned methodology.

But what about general revelation? Certainly truth exists in creation, but creation alone is not conclusive on truth aside from God’s word, God’s Spirit and God’s intervention (see above 3 points). There is probably truth in science and in the world, but without a proper method, the evidence is inconclusive.

Hmmmm. My wife just pointed out to me that my views are strikingly similar to the beliefs of the emergent church and that John MacArthur (who’s commentary I love) would have an aneurism if he read this. So, I should point out one major, glaring difference. I do believe in doctrine, so long as it is systematic, and sound doctrine. I will not respect your doctrinal opinion simply because it is your opinion; it must be a firm conviction which is derived of sound pursuit of God’s word. Faulty or weak methodology results in false doctrine and false truth.

There are many fields of philosophy. Metaphysics is a the study of reality. This is a very broad field of study which attempts to answer questions about the nature of reality, as well as reality itself. Since ancient times, philosophers have theorized on the nature of reality. The most notable of the ancient metaphysicians are Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. Descarte is a more modern metaphysician from the 17^th century, known as the “Father of Modern Philosophy” (Jensen, 2009).

Socrates was born in Greece about 470 BC. His own philosophical pursuit was to uncover definitions, or truths. He was especially interested in moral dilemmas as well as justice. Socrates himself never published any works, but his student, Plato, published many dialogues between Socrates and various people. Oftentimes, Plato used the character of Socrates in the writings in conjunction with various figures to portray his own ideas, so it is difficult to tell exactly what Socrates believed (Jensen, 2009).

Plato was possibly one of the first philosophers to believe that taking a careful approach to a good philosophical method would produce unarguable results. Plato tackled a lot of the same problems that Socrates and pre-socratic philosophers did. He also dabbled in predominantly religious ideas, such as immortality of the soul. On this topic he argued that the soul was immortal on the grounds that it is presupposed to be imperishable. Again, borrowing from his teacher Socrates, Plato believed that potential knowledge exists within, but that one must be properly prompted in order for it to be revealed (Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, & Basinger, 1998). The potential knowledge is referred to as being and knowledge, the latter being subject to the former. The revealed truth is referred to as becoming and opinion, the latter being subject to the former (Jensen, 2009). This theory proves useful for tackling many philosophical and theological issues (Peterson et al., 1998).

Aristotle, like Plato, believed that all truth is derivative of reality. He differed from Plato in that he did not believe in infinite truth in the natural world, or at least did not define it the same way (Jensen, 2009). Aristotle believed that there was a potential infinite, but that potential infinite was determined relatively as the progression of the world adds or subtracts from the existing form of reality (Peterson et al., 1998). For instance: a table is a table, but it has potential to be a chair if it were taken apart and put together differently. Therefore, every table has a potential infinite of being a chair. A table is not necessarily a table. According to Aristotle, the unnatural or supernatural world is not subject to these restraints. Therefore God, being the source of everything natural, is not bound by definite infinite or potential infinite.

Descarte lived long after Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. He saw the conclusions of the great thinkers before him to be faulty. Descarte was a brilliant mathematician and scientist in addition to being a philosopher, so his natural course of action was to consider the absolutes as is done in science. Ancient philosophy is based on the senses and on assumptions about truths. Descarte found it more logical to work philosophy in an equation; like “geometrical method” (Jensen, 2009). The starting points of ancient philosophers were based on the senses, which are subjective.

Because of the subjective nature of ancient philosophy, Descarte began a method of systematic doubt in which he would throw out everything which could be doubted. His hope was to reveal one truth which could not be doubted to use as the starting point for his philosophy. After some time, he came up with, “I think, therefore I am” (Jensen, 2009, quoted from Principles of Philosophy). Using this starting point, Descarte then began to logically consider other problems. Eventually, he logically deduced that because he himself exists and thinks, for example, that it was proof for ‘God’ or a supernatural creator (Jensen, 2009).

The ancient philosophers were great thinkers indeed. They contributed in some way to every society and, in many ways, they still do so today. Descarte found fault in their methods, but was able to respect their theories. Descarte’s philosophies are in many ways the foundation of all modern philosophy.

References

Jensen, J. (2009). Questions that matter L. Miller, (Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Peterson, M., Hasker, W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (1998). Reason & religious belief. New           York, NY: Oxford University Press.

The Count Nicolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf lived from 1700 until 1760. Due to the death of his father and re-marriage of his mother at an early age, Zinzendorf was raised by his grandmother and aunt. Zinzendorf was formally educated in Halle under August Hermann Francke. It was here that he would be a part of his first ‘missions’ work as he joined with some of his peers to form an evangelical group called the “Order of the Great Mustard Seed” (Tucker, 2004). He is remembered primarily for his work on the mission field, however he was also a talented theologian and hymnist.

In 1725 Count Zinzendorf opened a settlement at Herrnhut to religious refugees from Morovia of all sorts of differing views. All the settlers did agree on salvation through Jesus Christ, but this was not enough to keep peace (Kübler, 1865). About five years after the settlement begun, the camp underwent a spiritual revival where the settlers began to see their need for dependance on God as the utmost importance (Tucker, 2004). This was the beginning of the Brethren church at Herrnhut, often referred to simply as the Morovian church (Kübler, 1865). As the head of the Brethren church, Zinzendorf instilled much of his own theology into the often morbid practices and beliefs of the church. The Morovian church became obsessed with the death of Christ and meditated intently on their own depravity which made Christ’s sacrifice necessary (Tucker, 2004).

Zinzendorf’s views on human depravity no doubt were foundational to his zealousness for missions. He was called to the mission field after meeting with Christians from Greenland and the West Indies during the coronation of Danish King Christian VI. They plead with Zinzendorf to send missionaries to these areas to spread the gospel message. Zinzendorf was so moved by the pleas of these men that the Morovians sent out more missionaries during this period than all other protestants combined (Tucker, 2004).

Beginning in 1738, Zinzendorf went to the Caribbean and to the Americas (to the American Indians) as a missionary and revamped a lot of the work that was being done in these areas. Zinzendorf oversaw a worldwide network of missionaries for thirty-three years. As the overseer, he sent out missionaries who were trained in evangelism and not theology. He believed this to be the best method of evangelism since it allowed the missionaries to focus on evangelism, avoiding political and other controversial matters (Tucker, 2004).

Zinzendorf had two major distinguishing elements of his theology which cam through in volumes in his over 2000 published hymns. The first is his focus on human depravity and the second is his passion for doing God’s work while here on earth. He saw all the work which he has been called to as standing in the way of heaven. In his hymns, Zinzendorf was true to doctrine and theology. His son as well as his first wife were also fairly accomplished hymnists (Kübler, 1865)

Zinzendorf left a legacy behind him which can be seen in modern times in many ways. His hymns are still sung today in various different languages. The Morovian church also still exists today, crediting Zinzendorf with the revival of the Morovian church in the 1700′s (Morovian Church, 2010). Above all, Zinzendorf is recognized as a major contributor to modern missions. His impact on modern protestant denominations as a whole has been immeasurable.

References

Kübler, T. (1865). Historical Notes to the Lyra Germanica. (T. Kübler, Trans.). London: Spottiswoode      and Co.

(2010). Morovian church in North America: Our history. Retrieved from     http://www.moravian.org/history/

Tucker, R.A. (2004). From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Russell Cline is a missionary in Quito, Ecuador. Although he is an American, he grew up in Ecuador. His Dad was a missionary and ran a short wave radio station where they would broadcast Christian messages all over the world (J. DeVore, personal communication, April 17, 2010). Cline attended Azusa Pacific University in Southern California. He studied business administration and religious studies. Upon completing his studies, Cline took a part-time job in Los Angeles as a youth pastor while he prepared for graduate school (Cline, 2010). His experience with missionary work and his love for youth ministry formed his  ministry in Ecuador.

In 1994, Cline partnered with Youth Builders to form a youth ministry training center in South America, called Youth World International. Youth World started out as a local ministry in Ecuador as a “multi-national, multi-faceted organization teaching, modeling and developing youth ministry throughout Latin America” (Cline, 2010). Over forty-five team members serve in over six different areas of South America. Because of Youth World, Cline has had the opportunity to train youth ministers all over the world. Of youth workers, Cline (2010) observes this trend: “they are stretched, on the verge of burnout, lonely and they need some help!” (¶ 5). His goal is to “empower nationals to be able to more effectively minister to those they are called to minister to” (J. DeVore, personal communication, April 17, 2010).

Youth world has since branched off into several other ministries. El Refugio is a camp ministry which Cline started. Extreme Response is a ministry which targets people who live in the refuse sites outside the cities. Cline and his team provide schooling for the children and job training for the adults. Cline has also set up an international relief team to serve the needs of people in crisis areas. Finally, Leader Mundial is an organization which travels all over the world to do conferences on leadership for pastors and youth pastors. Upon meeting certain criteria, the organization will also fly leaders to Ecuador for mentoring (J. DeVore, personal communication, April 17, 2010).

One of the things which really sets Cline apart from other missionaries is that “when he sees a ministry need, he begins to gather people and resources to lead the ministry. [Then] he lets go, walks away and oversees the various ministries he has started” (J. DeVore, personal communication, April 17, 2010). He isn’t in it for his own glory, but for God’s glory to be shown around the world.

References

Cline, R. (2010) Leader Mundial: Who is Russ Cline. Retrieved from             http://www.leadermundial.com/p2.cfm?pg=16

Image Credits: Leader Mundial