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

� 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

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

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

123

J Bus Ethics (2012) 109:203–208

DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1119-z

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,

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:

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

UPPER FLOOR: SACRED Personal Meaning (Religion)

Private Truth: Different for Each Individual

LOWER FLOOR: SECULAR Science and Reason

Public Truth: Binding on Everyone

204 D. Kim et al.

123

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

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

The Sacred/Secular Divide and the Christian Worldview 205

123

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

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.

206 D. Kim et al.

123

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

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

The Sacred/Secular Divide and the Christian Worldview 207

123

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 thatshape 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 EthicsJournal, 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.

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. Journalof Marketing, 49(3), 87–96.

Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The

influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of BusinessEthics, 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 andreason in a post-secular age. New York, NY: Polity.

Hunt, S. D. (1991). Modern marketing theory: Critical issues in thephilosophy 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 ofscience 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 ofBusiness 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. CatherinePorter. 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 betweenChristian faith, business ethics, competition and our definitionsof 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 itscultural 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 ofFrancis 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 humanside 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 tocontemporary 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 BusinessEthics, 7(2), 107–122.

208 D. Kim et al.

123

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.