See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257541721

The Sacred/Secular Divide and the Christian Worldview

Article  in  Journal of Business Ethics · August 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-1119-z

CITATIONS READS

13 4,719

3 authors, including:

David Kim David Mccalman

University of Central Arkansas University of Central Arkansas
16 PUBLICATIONS   458 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David Kim on 20 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Sacred/Secular Divide and the
Christian Worldview

David Kim, David McCalman & Dan

Fisher

Journal of Business Ethics

ISSN 0167-4544
Volume 109
Number 2

J Bus Ethics (2012) 109:203-208

DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1119-z

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
J Bus Ethics (2012) 109:203–208
DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1119-z
The Sacred/Secular Divide and the Christian Worldview
David Kim • David McCalman • Dan Fisher
Received: 29 September 2011 / Accepted: 10 November 2011 / Published online: 20 November 2011
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract Many employees with strong religious convic-
tions find themselves living in two separate worlds: the
sacred private world of family and church where they can
express their faith freely and the secular public world
where religious expression is strongly discouraged. We
examine the origins of sacred/secular divide, and show
how this division is an outcome of modernism replacing
Christianity as the dominant worldview in western society.
Next, we make the case that guiding assumptions (or faith)
is inherent in every worldview, system of thought, or
religion and also show that scientific reason can never be a
comprehensive or totalizing meaning system, particularly
in the realm of ethics. The underlying assumptions of the
sacred/secular divide are seriously questioned which has
implications for employees who desire to integrate faith
and career. Finally, we offer possibilities for individuals
and corporate entities to integrate the personal and sacred
with the institutional and secular.
Keywords Sacred/secular
Christianity
Religion

Modernism
Reason
Faith
Worldview
Introduction
Many employees with strong religious convictions find
themselves living in two separate worlds: the private world
D. Kim (&)
D. McCalman
D. Fisher
University of Central Arkansas, Conway, USA
e-mail: davidk@uca.edu
D. McCalman
e-mail: davidm@uca.edu
D. Fisher
e-mail: djfisher@uca.edu
of family and church where they can express their faith
freely and the public world where religious expression is
strongly discouraged. The commonly held viewpoint is that
the sacred and secular worlds are separate and distinct.
Worship is for Sundays, but on other days one’s thinking
and behavior is set to conform to the secular world. We
make a distinction between someone who is ‘‘religious’’ as
opposed to one who is ‘‘non-religious’’ (Fort 1996; Pearcey
2004).
Those with deeply held convictions desire work/career
to mean something more than earning a paycheck or
impressing colleagues. They want to pursue life where the
concerns of career and everyday life are interwoven
through morality. But instead of leading whole and inte-
grated lives, they find they must put aside their beliefs at
work and instead put on a ‘‘secular’’ mindset. They have
been taught that faith is strictly personal and that it has no
place in the public arena. Furthermore, the purpose and
meaning of career is defined in secular terms. It is all about
climbing the corporate ladder, seeking prestige that comes
with the job title, and making decisions solely on highest
salary or compensation. Sometimes, it is doing what is best
for the company even if it goes against one’s deeply held
beliefs (Chase 2004; Pearcey 2004).
This division and conflict involving sacred life versus
secular life is not new. Sermons exhort people to live out
their faith in the secular marketplace. Numerous works
offer insights of the roles and expectations of Christian
employees, with particular attention paid to how they
might serve God in the workplace (e.g., Mattox 1978;
Nash 1994; Peabody 1974). Researchers have addressed
Christian perspectives in business ethics (e.g., Calkins
2000; Kim et al. 2009; Rossouw 1994), while others have
explored the meaning and significance of work in light of
the Protestant work ethic (e.g., Ryken 1986). In 2004, an
123
 Author's personal copy
204
entire issue of Business & Professional Ethics Journal was
devoted to highlighting the distinction between Christian
and corporate ethics and ways to bridge the gap between
them (see Chase 2004).
This distinction is based on the sacred/secular division
in modern society that, in theory, clearly separates these
two modes of existence. In practice, however, things can
get messy. Is it possible to so precisely divide these two
worlds in a person? Is suppression of one’s deeper ideas,
attitudes, and beliefs—more often than not, grounded in
religion—possible or even completely desirable in secular
institutions? While businesses frequently espouse how
ethics are important and valued, many adhere to a strict
policy of not admitting any personal moral viewpoints into
the workplace. Is this a good, realistic practice, from
a business ethics, human resource, and profitability
perspective?
Serious questioning and rethinking of the sacred/secular
divide is occurring not only from the sacred side of the
divide, but from the secular side as well. In his recent book,
Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason,
and Religion the renowned scientist Stuart Kaufmann
(2010) works through the cutting edge of science to
propose a deep connection between the natural world and
religion. His work proposes a new partnership between
science and religious values and shows how the division
that existed between them is based on too simplistic and
reductionist of an understanding. The champion of mod-
ernist thinking in the social sciences, Jurgen Habermas
(2010) writes in An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith
and Reason in a Post-secular Age about the crucial
global need for an open dialog between ‘‘Reason’’ and
‘‘Religions.’’ He contends that the secular and the religious
have their roles but should more fully recognize their
limitations. This would have the effect of admitting that
these need to work together to help solve some of our
biggest, most stubborn problems caused by religious and
ideological fundamentalism, of which he sees seculariza-
tion as its own type of inflexible fundamentalism.
In light of all this, we trace the origins and development
of the sacred/secular division and show how this was deftly
constructed to legitimize and prioritize the secular over the
sacred. We note especially how secular dominance was an
outcome of modernism replacing Christianity as the dom-
inant worldview in western society. Next, we make the
case that guiding assumptions (or faith) is inherent in all
worldviews, philosophies, or religions. This allows us to
deconstruct and destabilize the sacred/secular grid by
showing that scientific reason can never be a comprehen-
sive or totalizing meaning system, particularly in the realm
of ethics. The underlying assumptions of the sacred/secular
divide are seriously questioned which has implications for
employees who desire to integrate faith and career. Finally,
123
D. Kim et al.
we offer possibilities for individuals and corporate entities
to integrate the personal and sacred with the institutional
and secular.
The Sacred/Secular Division
We accept the commonly held notion that life is divided
between a sacred realm, limited to things like worship and
personal morality, and a secular realm that includes sci-
ence, politics, economics, and the rest of the public arena.
Schaeffer (1982) suggests that the concept of truth itself
has been divided as exemplified by a picture of a two storey
building. The lower floor is the secular realm. Science and
reason, which are considered public truth binding on
everyone, reside in the lower floor. Above it is an upper
floor of noncognitive experience which is the domain of
personal meaning. This is the sacred realm of private truth
where we state that truth and morality are strictly personal.
The two storey building can be drawn as follows:
UPPER FLOOR: SACRED
Personal Meaning (Religion)
Private Truth: Different for Each Individual
LOWER FLOOR: SECULAR
Science and Reason
Public Truth: Binding on Everyone
The significance of understanding this division cannot
be stressed enough. This division effectively delegitimizes
biblical and all religious perspectives in the public arena.
Instead of questioning the veracity of Christian doctrine or
religious claims, we simply consign religion to the sphere
of private truth (upper floor), which takes it out of the
realm of true and false altogether. We say we respect one’s
religion, but also deny that it has any relevance to objec-
tivity and universally accepted truths (Pearcey 2004).
Berger (1977) describes a public/private dichotomy
which is a division between the large institutions of the
public sphere such as the state, academia, and corporations
and the private sphere of family, church, and personal
relationships. The large public institutions house scientific
(value-free) and genuine knowledge whereas the private
sphere is all about personal values, personal choices, and
beliefs. The private sacred realm includes different
religious views including Christianity, Jewish, Muslim,
New Age, and so forth. But the public secular realm is
where everyone has access to neutral (value-free) knowl-
edge. It is knowledge that is objective and free of any
religion or ideology. An illustration of the public/private
 Author's personal copy
The Sacred/Secular Divide and the Christian Worldview
divide is found in the political-religious literature which
discusses whether a public figure may rely on his religious
beliefs in proposing policy or deciding cases (Fort 1996).
On a broader scale, because Christianity is simply a reli-
gion, it has no relation with objective truth to which we
submit. Christianity is simply a chosen belief, or mere wish
fulfillment (Pearcey 2004). The following captures another
way of examining the sacred/secular division.
PRIVATE
Family, Church, Personal Relationships
Personal Values, Choices and Beliefs
Wish Fulfillment
PUBLIC
State, Academia, Corporations
Scientific (Value Free)
Genuine Knowledge
How We Got Here: Modernism and the Sacred/Secular
Divide
Our worldview forms the context within which we base our
understanding of reality, knowledge, morality, and life’s
meaning and purpose (Sire 1997; Walsh and Middleton
1984). Our worldview has a profound impact on how we
decide what is real versus unreal, what is right versus
wrong, and what is important versus unimportant. It shapes
our culture and expresses itself in all institutions including
the arts, religion, education, media, and business. Mod-
ernism, and increasingly post-modernism is the dominant
worldview of our culture.
We can trace the origins of the sacred/secular division to
modernism, or the post-enlightenment philosophy of
empiricism and human reason. The modern worldview
rejects any notion of a supernatural or transcendent
dimension that provides meaning, purpose and coherence
beyond the physical events that we observe. Stated dif-
ferently, modernism rejects all non-empirical ways of
knowing or the possibility that there is more to the world
than what we can directly access with our senses (Daniels
et al. 2000; Yaman 2003).
As modernism gradually replaced Christianity as the
dominant worldview in the western world, it essentially
eliminated God from the public arena. Modernists believed
the growth of newly discovered facts based on human
reasoning and the scientific method would yield a unified
answer for all knowledge and life. Such thinking was not
surprising given the rapid and impressive growth of mod-
ern science during the 1700s. Tremendous advancements in
205
knowledge in fields like medicine, biology, anatomy,
mechanics, and astronomy were the result of applying
logic, observation, and experimentation as well as building
on the works of other scientists and scholars (Hunt 1991;
Kim et al. 2009). The potential power of human reason and
science seemed limitless. The success of the scientific
revolution generated confidence that scientific reason could
provide the path to authentic knowledge and truth. Chris-
tianity was no longer compatible with truth or answers for
all knowledge and life (Pearcey 2004).
This thinking, however, also effectively altered views
about life’s meaning and purpose, and morality. Over time,
human reason essentially replaced God in determining
moral laws. For instance, under utilitarianism moral issues
were no longer based on God’s Word, or transcendent truth
but on practicality. Stealing was wrong not because it was
against Scripture, but because it adversely affected the
economic system (Dewey 1922; James 1907; Veith 1994).
Darwin’s case that we can explain creation without God
changed our view about human life and further reinforced
the notion that scientific reason could explain everything. If
we have evolved from earlier life forms, then there is
nothing inherent and original about our nature, and there-
fore religion and morality are no longer transcendent truths
but instead are products of human subjectivity. We create
our own morality and meaning through choices. This line
of thinking has contributed to the value versus fact
dichotomy that underlies public education. By the time
students enter college, they believe in objective truth pre-
sented in science, and sometimes in history, but rarely in
ethics or morality. Science is all about facts whereas
morality is about values (Bloom 1987; Pearcey 2004).
Continuing with the sacred/secular framework, we
present a Values/Facts division. Values are personal and
subjective. It is relative to the individual, culture, or time in
history. Morality and ethics, religion, personal meaning
and so forth are placed on this floor. The ‘‘Values’’ floor is
separated from the secular floor of ‘‘Facts’’ representing
knowledge based on scientific reason.
VALUES
Morality and Ethics
FACTS
Knowledge based on Scientific Reason
The Values/Fact division may also help explain today’s
moral relativism where ethical standards are set according
to a particular culture, individual, or time in history. We
123
 Author's personal copy
206
assume that morality is culturally relative, that ideas and
beliefs emerge historically by cultural forces, and are not
right or wrong in any final sense. In our culture, behavior
once considered immoral is now tolerated, or has become
the new norm. Tolerance is viewed as the highest ethic.
However, tolerance often implies that all values, beliefs,
claims to truth, and lifestyles are equal and therefore no
one can claim that one person’s ethics are any better than
another (Cotton 1996; Pearcey 2004).
The effect of moral relativism in business has been the
inability to establish standards of right versus wrong, even
though it is necessary to enforce ethical conduct. Instead,
the normative foundation for business ethics at best is
based on values common across different religions
(Brammer et al. 2007), or on the context (historical,
cultural, situational, or individual) that influences ethical
behavior (Ferrell and Gresham 1985). Forsyth (1992) dis-
cusses the futility of determining what is ethical versus
unethical given that we should respect the moral philoso-
phies of each individual.
In sum, modernism and the resulting sacred/secular
divide simply changed our views regarding knowledge,
truth, and morality. Although scientific reason held the
promise of being able to explain everything, it could not
resolve moral issues nor address fundamental existential
questions (Starke and Finke 2000; Swatos and Christiano
1999). Today, many accept this framework at face-value,
but a closer examination reveals flaws and limitations of
such thinking.
The Sacred/Secular Division: A Closer Examination
As shown earlier, a worldview represents the framework
from which we base our understanding of reality as well as
life’s meaning and purpose. Every worldview or system of
thought, philosophy, or religion begins with some ultimate
principle or premise. This premise shapes everything that
follows. If we were to take any set of ideas back far
enough, we will eventually reach some starting point. This
starting point has to be taken as self-existent—the ultimate
reality and source of everything else. There is no reason for
it to exist; it just ‘‘is.’’ It can be God or some dimension of
our universe—the material, the spiritual, the biological, the
empirical, or whatever. This starting assumption or ulti-
mate premise has to be accepted by faith, not by prior
reasoning. Otherwise, it is really not the starting point for
all reasoning, something else is (Sire 1997; Pearcey 2004;
Walsh and Middleton 1984).
With modernism, the ultimate reference point is human
reason. But reason means more than our ability to think
rationally. It is accepted, by faith, as an infallible and
autonomous source of truth, independent of any religion or
123
D. Kim et al.
philosophy. However, because reason is a function of the
human mind, it cannot produce perfect objectivity and
certainty and therefore cannot be an autonomous source of
truth (Ariely 2010; Kant 1871/2008; Kuhn 1996; LaTour
1993). The mistake lies in thinking that reason is unbiased
or neutral, unaffected by anyone else’s point of view, and
that it produces perfect objectivity. Because the founda-
tional presuppositions of modernism are ultimately
unprovable we can actually begin to question and scruti-
nize its assumptions including the notion that the sacred
and secular worlds must be separated, that you are either
‘‘religious’’ or ‘‘non-religious,’’ and that objective truth
resides only in the secular realm.
Accepting the presuppositions of modernism with its
sacred/secular division requires faith, much like a religion.
In this sense, every worldview or system of thought
including post-modernism, atheism, agnosticism, human-
ism, and so forth is a type of religion. It is not as though
Christians have faith, while the non-religious base their
convictions purely on facts and reason. We all interpret
facts in light of some system of thought. Whether we
believe we are part of God’s creation, or the product of
evolutionary processes, or both, or that supernatural events
are possible versus impossible, we will always apply
reason in service to that ultimate belief which shapes our
worldview (Pearcey 2004).
Examining modernism as a worldview allows us to
reconsider what is real versus unreal, important versus
unimportant, and right versus wrong. Worldview thinking
allows us to assess our culture as it is expressed through the
media, business, education, politics, and the arts. For the
Christian employee, it provides the guidance to breaking
the sacred/secular grid and thus integrating faith with work.
Breaking the Sacred/Secular Divide: The Christian
Worldview
The sacred/secular framework sheds light on those whose
lives are divided: one is the private life of church, family,
and personal devotion and the other is the public secular
life of the workplace, or anywhere outside of home. For
many Christian employees, this division is seen in the
conflict between personal beliefs (sacred) and corporate
morality (secular). Numerous writings and sermons call on
Christians to glorify God at home and at work (Peabody
1974). And yet people of faith continue to live in two
different worlds where the lessons on Sunday worship have
little resemblance to the thoughts and conduct exhibited at
work.
This can be attributed to believers accepting the sacred/
secular thinking at face-value. They have come to believe
that the biblical perspective, like all religions, is biased.
 Author's personal copy
The Sacred/Secular Divide and the Christian Worldview
They believe that being truly objective means keeping their
faith to themselves and thinking like non-believers at work.
In some cases, it means doing what is in the best interest of
the company even if it goes against one’s deeply held
beliefs. Corporate life can be completely separate from
their personal walk with the Lord. But no Christian, in any
line of work, can be satisfied when torn in two different
directions.
For the Christian or anyone with deeply held convictions
to break free from the sacred/secular grid requires that he
clearly understand Christianity as a worldview as opposed
to a religion. It means that Christianity can no longer be
placed in the upper floor of the sacred domain. It must be
accepted as a worldview that addresses all of life and
reality, not just the religious aspect.
As stated before, every worldview is founded on some
ultimate principle (e.g., God or some aspect of our uni-
verse) which must be accepted by faith. In this sense,
modernism with its sacred/secular division and the
assumptions behind them can be considered a religion. It is
vitally important for Christians to know that their faith is
grounded in truth that can be thoroughly examined both
rationally and historically.
Historic Christianity teaches that spiritual truths are
firmly rooted in historical events and is open to verification
and discussion (Schaeffer 1982). The apostle Paul argues
that if Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection had not
happened in real history, then our faith would be worthless.
He also points out that about five hundred people were
eyewitnesses to the fact that Christ was alive after His
crucifixion to further authenticate the Gospel message to
verification (see 1 Corinthians 15).
Scripture has much to say about human nature and
behavior that is consistent with what we observe in our-
selves and others. Christian ethics founded on Scripture
gives moral standards or a common platform that allow us
to judge between right and wrong. For everyday vocational
life, it teaches the value of practicing good stewardship of
money and resources. God’s word does not make a dis-
tinction between sacred versus secular work. It is not as
though serving God requires full-time ministry, and that
employment outside of church is worldly as some mis-
takenly assume. Instead, all lines of work should integrate
spiritual and sacred aspects of work as illustrated by the
Protestant work ethic and its concern for the common good,
altruism and self-sacrifice (Calkins 2000; Colson and
Pearcey 1999).
For the Christian employee, a job is more than running a
business or making a living. The New Testament encour-
ages the believer to walk in the Spirit (see Galatians 5: 16)
which requires relying upon the Holy Spirit in discerning
God’s personal calling. This will manifest itself in many
ways such as the commitment to developing high quality
207
products for consumer benefit, giving honest service,
keeping one’s word, and caring about the welfare of
employees (Rossouw 1994). This can also mean that the
believer will stand up for what is right against injustice and
make decisions that limits career success like recognition,
advancement and pay. However, job achievement is never
the ultimate goal of the believer’s life. Instead, it is one
where faith and work are interwoven through morality,
where hour after hour, day after day, good work is evident
to all (Peabody 1974).
Conclusion
Our worldview affects all aspects of life, especially deci-
sions related to job and career. Many continue to process
their thoughts through the sacred/secular prism as it is
deeply etched in their worldview. It is not uncommon to
find many well-meaning Christians who faithfully attend
church but who have absorbed a worldview that makes it
easy for them to ignore their Christian principles when it
comes to do the practical business of work and daily living.
Their sincerely held beliefs are held in one mental category
(sacred) and practical decision-making is in another
(secular).
For believers, breaking free from the sacred/secular grid
requires re-thinking what Christianity entails and under-
standing that it is more than a ‘‘religion.’’ Christianity
touches on all areas including social issues, history, poli-
tics, science and anthropology, morality and especially
one’s career and personal life. Any worldview, or system
of thought whether it is Christianity, modernism, post-
modernism, Judaism, New Age, or whatever requires faith
in an ultimate principle as a source of truth, knowledge,
and morality. This ultimate principle can be God, scientific
reason, or any religion or philosophy. When Christianity is
seen in the larger context of worldviews, where the ulti-
mate premise is founded on faith, it allows the believer to
see the artificiality of the sacred/secular grid and to break
free from it.
On a broader scale, if we can agree that the secular/
sacred divide is no longer as solid as we once thought, we
will find new opportunities to interrogate and integrate all
aspects of private and public lives. One possible outcome
might be an engaged and active dialog that questions
behaviors and decisions from a range of perspectives, with
the result of a more studied reflection applied to the world
around us.
Relativism is commonly seen as making ethics prob-
lematic because an ultimate standard of right and wrong
cannot be achieved. Tolerance in today’s secular realm
teaches us not to question or engage, but merely accept
what people do. This translates all too often to
123
 Author's personal copy
208
non-involvement. Active dialog between worldviews such
as reason and religion, on the other hand, continually
highlights the ethical aspects of nearly every decision we
make. The difference is that we would make choices in full
light of our guiding assumptions (faith) and be more apt to
reflect on, discuss, and even critique and modify these. The
ethical nature of our daily actions would be brought to and
kept at the forefront rather than disappear into the back-
ground of lives, which the current model of cloistering the
religious-based moral viewpoints often does.
We may see ethics as an ever-evolving negotiation
between our beliefs and all our life experiences, where
each can influence and change each other. This may enable
ethics as we now commonly conceive it a chance to evolve
and strengthen through deeper questioning and active
experimentation. Finally, this dialog might encourage more
people to question or affirm the foundations of their faith,
be it scientific or religious. Because many of today’s issues
are complex, this open dialog can lead to more engaged
and involved decision-making. It requires that we remain
vigilant and faithful to questioning, especially as many
more novel contexts and situations arise. Our questioning
can be improved and spurred on by more communication
between these perspectives helping to insure a more
thoughtful, if sometimes heated, debate within ourselves
and with other people.
References
Ariely, D. (2010). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that
shape our decisions. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Berger, P. (1977). Facing up to modernity: Excursions in society,
politics, and religion. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Brammer, S., Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2007). Religion and
attitudes to corporate social responsibility in a large cross-
country sample. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 229–243.
Calkins, M. (2000). Recovering religion’s prophetic voice for
business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 339–352.
Chase, K. R. (2004). Christian perspectives on business ethics: Faith,
profit, and decision-making. Business & Professional Ethics
Journal, 23(4), 3–12.
Colson, C. W., & Pearcey, N. R. (1999). How now shall we live?
Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Cotton, R. 1996. Business and Ethics. http://www.probe.org/site/
c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227383/k.FE33/Business_and_Ethics.htm.
Daniels, D., Franz, R. S., & Wong, K. (2000). A classroom with a
worldview: Making spiritual assumptions explicit in management
education. Journal of Management Education, 24(5), 540–561.
123
View publication stats
D. Kim et al.
Dewey, J. (1922). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York, NY:
Henry Holt and Company.
Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework
for understanding ethical decision-making in marketing. Journal
of Marketing, 49(3), 87–96.
Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The
influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business
Ethics, 11(5, 6), 461–470.
Fort, T. L. (1996). Religious belief, corporate leadership, and business
ethics. American Business Law Journal, 33(3), 451–471.
Habermas, J. (2010). An awareness of what is missing: Faith and
reason in a post-secular age. New York, NY: Polity.
Hunt, S. D. (1991). Modern marketing theory: Critical issues in the
philosophy of marketing science. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
Publishing Co.
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism. New York, NY: Longmans, Green &
Company.
Kant, I. 1871/2008. The critique of pure reason, trans. Marcus
Weigelt and Max Muller, (Penguin Classics: New York, NY).
Kaufmann, S. A. (2010). Reinventing the sacred: A new view of
science reason and religion. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kim, D., Fisher, D., & McCalman, D. (2009). Modernism, Chris-
tianity, and business ethics: A worldview perspective. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90(1), 115–121.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern, trans. Catherine
Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mattox, R. (1978). The Christian employee. South Plainfield, NJ:
Bridge Publishing, Inc.
Nash, L. (1994). Believers in business: Resolving the tension between
Christian faith, business ethics, competition and our definitions
of success. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Peabody, L. (1974). Secular work is full-time service. Fort Washington,
PA: Christian Literature Crusade.
Pearcey, N. R. (2004). Total truth: Liberating Christianity from its
cultural captivity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Rossouw, G. J. (1994). Business ethics: Where have all the Christians
gone? Journal of Business Ethics, 13(7), 557–570.
Ryken, L. (1986). Worldly saints. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House.
Schaeffer, F. A. (1982). Escape from reason, in the complete works of
Francis A. Schaeffer (Vol. 1). Wheaton, IL: Crossway.
Sire, J. (1997). The universe next door: A basic worldview catalog.
Dowers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
Starke, R., & Finke, R. (2000). Acts of faith: Explaining the human
side of religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Swatos, W. H., Jr., & Christiano, K. J. (1999). Secularization theory:
The course of a concept. Sociology of Religion, 60, 209–228.
Veith, G. E. (1994). Postmodern times: A Christian guide to
contemporary thought and culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books.
Walsh, B., & Middleton, J. (1984). The transforming vision. Dowers
Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
Yaman, H. R. (2003). Skinner’s naturalism as a paradigm for teaching
business ethics: A discussion from tourism. Teaching Business
Ethics, 7(2), 107–122.