Search Results (4)

This systematic theological study critiques the utilitarian religiosity among neo-Pentecostal prophets (NPPs) for promoting a dealmaking or ‘spiritual hustling’ approach to faith, rather than fostering a personal relationship with God. Utilitarian religiosity refers to the use of spirituality as an instrument to extract material blessings from God. NPPs represent a contemporary form of African Pentecostalism, characterised by prophetic figures who claim unique divine mandates to liberate individuals from the evil spirits believed to hinder prosperity in this life. The primary question answered in the article is as follows: how does the relational nature of faith in God in Christian theology challenge the utilitarian view of spirituality among neo-Pentecostal prophets (NPPs) in Zimbabwe? The secondary question is as follows: how should Christian faith be understood and articulated to challenge NPPs to move from utilitarian spirituality to relational spirituality? Utilitarian religiosity is critiqued for promoting a works-based relationship with God, which violates the biblical teaching that faith alone is sufficient to establish a connection with God. The NPPs’ utilitarian spirituality is critiqued from a Reformed theological emphasis on salvation by faith and challenges them to propagate a relational spirituality that comforts and empowers the poor, rather than a utilitarian spirituality rooted in dealmaking that renders God distant from those who most urgently need his presence amid existential struggles. Full article

This study aims to explore the practice of Christian ocean stewardship on Taiwan’s marine wind farm policy, with a particular focus on the critically endangered Taiwanese humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis taiwanensis). Marine wind farms, while integral to the shift toward renewable energy, present complex ethical challenges due to their adverse environmental impacts—particularly noise pollution, which poses a serious threat to vulnerable marine species. International laws have underscored the importance of preventing marine noise pollution. Although Taiwan has relevant laws and policies, their implementation and supervision in preventing marine noise pollution are inadequate. This study critically examines the anthropocentric frameworks that currently dominate Taiwan’s marine development policies, arguing that they inadequately address the moral obligations humans have toward the broader ecosystem. Through a theological reflection grounded in Christian stewardship ethics, this research advocates for a shift away from human-centered environmental policies towards a more holistic ethic that acknowledges the intrinsic value of all creation. It emphasizes that ethical stewardship requires not merely reducing harm but actively participating in the restoration and protection of ecosystems, thus extending beyond utilitarian considerations of human benefit. The plight of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin serves as a case study for exploring these ethical tensions, highlighting how the energy transition can inadvertently contribute to biodiversity loss if not approached with caution and moral responsibility. Building on this, this study proposed four key principles to guide future marine development. These principles advocate for respecting nature, responsible management, continuous innovation, and social participation and transparency. This approach not only helps guide Taiwan’s marine policies but also provides new perspectives and practical approaches for applying Christian ethics in the field of marine environmental protection. Full article

The meaning of justice can be defined according to a juridical, human, theological, ethical, biomedical, or social perspective. It should guarantee the protection of life and health, personal, civil, political, economic, and religious rights, as well as non-discrimination, inclusion, protection, and access to care. In this review, we deal with three theoretical concepts that define justice in all its aspects. (1) The utilitarian theory, which justifies moral statements on the basis of the evaluation of the consequences that an action produces, elaborating a pragmatic model of medical science. (2) The libertarian theory, which considers freedom as the highest political aim, thus absolutizing the rights of the individual; here, the principle of self-determination, with respect to which the principle of permission/consent is the fundamental presupposition, plays a central role in the definition of the person. (3) The iusnaturalist theory, in which man’s moral freedom is identified with the ability to act by choosing what the intellect indicates to him as good; the natural moral law that drives every conscience to do good is therefore realized in respect for the person in the fullness of his rights. In conclusion, different forms and conceptions of justice correspond to different organizations of society and different ways of addressing ethical issues in the biomedical domain. Full article

Erik Wielenberg has argued that robust realism can account for the “common-sense moral belief” that “some things distinct from God are intrinsically good”. By contrast, theological stateism cannot account for this belief. Hence, robust realism has a theoretical advantage over all forms of theological stateism. This article criticizes Wielenberg’s argument. Wielenberg distinguishes between R and D-supervenience. The coherence of Wielenberg’s robust realism depends upon this distinction. I argue that this distinction undermines his critique of theological stateism. I will make three points. First, once you utilize the distinction between R and D-supervenience, his argument for the incompatibility of theological stateism and intrinsic value fails. Second, theological stateism is compatible with intrinsic value. The historical example of theological utilitarianism, expounded by thinkers George Berkeley and William Paley, shows someone can accept that moral properties simultaneously R supervene upon God’s will and D supervene upon the natural properties of actions. Third, robust realism and theological stateism are in the same boat regarding intrinsic value once we distinguish between R and D-supervenience. Full article