Christian Worldview Research Paper

Modernism, Christianity, and Business

Ethics: A Worldview Perspective

David Kim Dan Fisher

David McCalman

ABSTRACT. Despite growing interest in examining the

role of religion in business ethics, there is little consensus

concerning the basis or standards of ‘‘good’’ or ethical

behavior and the reasons behind them. This limits our

ability to enhance ethical behavior in the workplace. We

address this issue by examining worldviews as it relates to

ethics research and practice. Our worldview forms the

context within which we organize and build our under-

standing of reality. Given that much of our academic

work as well as business practice operate from a modern

worldview, we examine how modernism shapes our

beliefs and approaches to ethics in business and academia.

We identify important limitations of modernism in

addressing moral issues and religion. We then introduce

the Christian worldview as an alternative approach to

examining ethical issues in business

KEY WORDS: Christianity, business ethics,

modernism, religion, worldview

Introduction

In the midst of ongoing corporate ethics violations,

there has been great interest in discussing moral issues

related to business including the corporate social

responsibility debate and the introduction of business

ethics in management programs (Conroy and Emer-

son, 2004; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Shannon and

Berl, 1997). One intriguing outcome of this discussion

has been attempts to integrate spirituality and religion

into business practice as a means to address the seem-

ingly intractable ethical problems that plague con-

temporary organizations (Gotsis and Kortezi, 2007;

Singhapakdi et al., 2000). We say this is intriguing,

because for hundreds of years, religion and spirituality

have been literally exorcised from modern forms of

institutional organization. But does a blending of spir-

ituality with commerce, a religious worldview with a

modern one, offer a way to rethink our approach to

business ethics? We explore this question in detail. In

particular, we consider the Christian worldview as an

alternative to the dominant modernist paradigm as a

useful ethical perspective in the realm of business.

Different faiths including Christianity, Judaism,

and Islam have much to say about business practice

either directly or by implication. Arising from

Judaism, Christianity values one’s work as fulfillment

of spiritual life. In a similar vein, Islamic teaching

promotes economic activity as a means to social

justice and spiritual enhancement (Brammer et al.,

2007; Epstein, 2002; Weaver and Agle, 2002). The

positive link between one’s beliefs and higher ethical

attitudes in the workplace is well documented (e.g.,

Conroy and Emerson, 2004; Longenecker et al.,

2004). More recent research has examined work-

place spirituality (e.g., Gotsis and Kortezi, 2007;

Pava, 2003) and discussed the merits of integrating

religion with corporate practice (Calkins, 2000;

Epstein, 2002). In 2004, Business & Professional Ethics

Journal devoted an entire issue to living the Christian

life in the corporate world (see Chase, 2004). In

practice, many business leaders have been explicit in

basing their business decisions on their religious

convictions. For instance, Truett Cathey, founder

and chief executive of Chick-fil-A, decided to close

the restaurant chain on Sundays in honor of the

Sabbath (Weaver and Agle, 2002).

Despite extensive work in this area, there is little

consensus concerning the basis or standards of

‘‘good’’ or ethical behavior and the reasons behind

them. Ethical standards are often implicitly assumed,

or religious values such as those found in the golden

rule or what is common across religions are strongly

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 90:115–121 � Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0031-2

favored as a normative foundation for business ethics

(Brammer et al., 2007). However, others have per-

suasively argued that attempts to establish universal

standards of right versus wrong are futile given that

each person has his/her own moral philosophy (e.g.,

Forsyth 1992), such that religion can be, but does

not have to be, the source of ethical standard. This

current approach to religion and business ethics

constrains our attempts to enhance ethical behavior

in the workplace. To date, there has been little or no

evidence that corporate ethics has improved overall.

We address this issue by examining worldviews as it

relates to ethics research and practice. The term

worldview is a translation of the German word

Weltanschauung, or a way of looking at the world

(Pearcey, 2004). Our worldview forms the context

within which we organize and build our under-

standing of reality. It is the presuppositions we have

about the nature of reality, knowledge, morality, and

life’s meaning and purpose. Everyone has convictions

about how reality functions and how s/he should live.

Everyone decides what is real and important, or un-

real and unimportant. Our beliefs and values are

imbedded in our worldview (Sire, 1997; Walsh and

Middleton, 1984). Collective worldviews change

over time. What was once considered to be eminently

true and right is no longer the case. Conduct and

behavior once widely held as unacceptable or even

perverse is now tolerated or has become the norm

(Daniels et al., 2000; Pearcey, 2004).

A worldview shapes our culture and expresses

itself in all social institutions including the arts,

religion, education, media, and business. In the

academic arena, the researcher’s worldview has

enormous implications in that it affects the way

studies are designed and how conclusions are drawn.

In business practice, it dictates the way we resolve

ethical issues and make decisions at work. Much of

our academic literature is framed from a modern and

postmodern worldview. According to the modern

worldview (modernism), reality, knowledge, and

morality are founded in science, human reasoning,

and objective evidence. Faith in God along with

other beliefs and values are entirely personal and

subjective and, therefore, has no place in the realm

of objective truth (Pearcey, 2004). With the post-

modern worldview (postmodernism), the nature of

reality, knowledge, and morality is self-defined

and self-referential. Postmodernism questions

whether we can know anything with certainty

(Daniels et al., 2000). Depending on one’s world-

view, knowing what is (or should be) true versus

false or ethical versus unethical will differ substan-

tially.

Therefore, we ask the question: has the triumph

of modernism in so many areas, including ethics,

marginalized other useful worldviews that may offer

insight and guidance for businesses and researchers?

To answer, we first explore how modernism shapes

our beliefs and approaches to ethics in business and

academia. We describe the basic tenets of modern-

ism and their impact on religion and business ethics

and practice. In this analysis, we develop the reasons

from a modernist vantage point for excluding spiri-

tuality and religion from the domain of business.

Second, this inquiry enables us to call to attention

important limitations that result from the modern

worldview. These are the ethical blind spots of

modernism that cause problems. Based on these

shortcomings, we introduce alternative worldviews

into the ethical conversation, and in particular,

Christianity. We use Christianity as an illustration

because it is still the major religion in the West and

serves as an ethical framework for many in their

personal lives. Historically, Christianity was the main

target for exclusion by modernist thinkers. And yet

there is a growing stream of corporate practice and

academic research that is fruitfully exploring and

implementing the Christian ethic (e.g., Calkins,

2000; Epstein, 2002). In the next section, we look at

how modernism triumphed over religion and

rewrote the basis for business ethics, an approach that

dominates to this day.

Opposing worldviews: modernism

and Christianity

Christianity arose out of the unique worldview, as

well as the ethical practices of Judaism. As in the

case of Islam later, Christianity acknowledged the

authority of Hebrew Scriptures (Latourette, 1975;

Schaff, 1994; Tierney and Painter, 1983). The

Christian worldview was dominant in Europe prior

to the Enlightenment. This view holds that there are

valid, non-empirical sources of knowledge about the

nature of reality. Specifically, there is a God who

existed before the world existed, and he is the

116 David Kim et al.

ultimate origin of everything else. The basis of this

worldview is found in scriptures and the culture that

was born from the early church (Daniels et al., 2000;

Pearcey, 2004).

Modernism represents the post-Enlightenment

philosophy of empiricism and human reason. In

opposition to the preceding Judeo-Christian and

Islamic worldviews, modernism held that only

physical matter exists. Nothing exists outside the

material world, which itself can be known and

understood through the physical senses in conjunc-

tion with the scientific method. This view denies

the transcendent, or supernatural, dimension and

excludes all non-empirical ways of knowing. In

other words, modernism rejects the possibility that

there is more to the world than what we can directly

access with our senses, or that there is a dimension of

reality underlying what we can see that provides a

source of meaning, purpose, and coherence beyond

the physical events that we observe. The focus is

restricted to cause and effect relationships in a closed

system (Daniels et al., 2000; Yaman, 2003).

Modernism has its origins in the Enlightenment,

the age of reason, scientific discovery, and human

autonomy (Veith, 1994). The emerging sciences

during the Enlightenment were founded on the

Biblical view that nature is the good and orderly work

of a personal God and in the classical view that abso-

lute rational laws govern nature. Early scientists such

as Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Copernicus (1475–

1543), Galileo (1564–1642), and Kepler (1571–1630)

among others shared the Christian view that God had

created the universe, and that man, by use of his rea-

son, could discover the mysteries of the universe

(Schaeffer 1968). 1

By the 1700s science progressed so rapidly that it

seemed as if science could explain everything. The

rise of modern science during this period was truly

impressive. It was characterized by a rapid growth in

knowledge in many different areas including medi-

cine, biology, anatomy, electricity, mechanics, and

astronomy. Scientists developed knowledge by build-

ing on the works of others and relied heavily on logic,

observation, and experimentation (Hunt, 1991).

Some saw no limits to the power of human reason

operating upon the data of the senses.

As modernism continued to gather momentum

into the nineteenth century, reference to God was

essentially eliminated. Charles Darwin argued that

God was not even necessary to explain the creation.

In describing the ‘‘origin of species’’ in terms of the

closed natural system of cause and effect, Darwin

removed the need for any kind of creator. Nature

became completely self-contained. Science could

now explain everything. 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 (Veith,

1994).

Modern thinking led to the development of social

sciences such as sociology and psychology. Meth-

odologies designed to study nature were applied to

human beings. Sociology examined human institu-

tions while psychology sought to explain the inner

life of human beings, all in terms of a closed natural

system accessible by empirical scientific methods

(Veith, 1994).

Later, the development of business disciplines

such as management and marketing would owe

much to the methodologies, theories, and world-

views of sociology and psychology researchers.

With modernism, Christianity was no longer

compatible with truth (answers for all knowledge

and life). Truth resided in the scientific community,

in a closed natural system of cause and effect. Over

time, references to Christianity were removed from

the public arena such as schools and government.

Religion was simply a matter of personal choice and,

thus, did not belong in public institutions such as the

state, academia, and large corporations which are

considered to be objective, scientific, and value-free.

Through science and reason there is universal

truth or truth that is binding on everyone. Religion

would have no claim to objective knowledge

(Pearcey, 2004).

Modernism, morality, and business ethics

Throughout most of Western history, moral issues

were very much tied to Christianity. But as mod-

ernism became increasingly dominant, ethical ques-

tions were addressed without referencing God or

his word. The emergence of Utilitarianism offered

a different approach to moral issues. Utilitarians

decided moral issues not by appealing to transcen-

dent absolutes but by studying the effect of an action

upon the system. Stealing was wrong, not because

Modernism, Christianity, and Business Ethics 117

the Ten Commandments say so, but because stealing

interfered with the economic functioning of society.

Practicality became the sole moral criterion. If it

worked, it must be good (Veith, 1994). The influ-

ential pragmatist philosophers William James (1907)

and John Dewey (1920, 1922) explicitly argued for

functionality as the measurement both of ethics and

indeed of truth itself. Schiller (1912) equated truth

with ‘‘good,’’ asserting that truth is determined by

those actions which have good consequences.

Furthermore, intellectuals of the Enlightenment

argued that since God was no longer needed to explain

creation, he was no longer needed to determine moral

laws. Reason would replace God to establish morality.

Ethics would be discussed increasingly in philosoph-

ical and scientific terms, as opposed to theology.

Without God or transcendent truth to establish one’s

values, modernism turned to science and philosophy

along with tradition and cultural norms as the basis of

what is good or right (Calkins, 2000; Daniels et al.,

2000). However, attempts to resolve ethical issues

without God could only result in moral relativism

where ethical standards were relative to a particular

culture, individual, or time in history.

Moral relativism is expressed in our culture where

conduct once considered immoral or even perverse

is now tolerated or has become the new norm

(Pearcey, 2004). Tolerance is increasingly viewed as

the highest ethic. This is not the traditional view of

tolerance in which one tries to recognize and respect

other people’s values without necessarily accepting

those values as being correct. Instead, tolerance

implies that all values, beliefs, and claims to truth and

lifestyles are equal. However, if all of these things are

equal, no one could claim that one person’s ethics

are any better than another’s (Cotton, 1996).

In business ethics literature, Singhapakdi et al.

(2000) and Tsalikis et al. (2001) among others

acknowledge moral relativism as the main orienta-

tion of moral thought. Ferrell and Gresham (1985)

in discussing their contingency framework for

understanding ethical decision making recommend

focusing on contexts and variables that influence

ethical behavior instead of attempting to discover

universal moral principles. The context in which an

ethical act can be viewed can be historical, cultural,

situational, or individual. Forsyth (1992) notes that

attempts to determine right versus wrong in business

would be fruitless given that each individual applies

different moral philosophies. At best we can aim for

a fuller understanding of our own and others’ reac-

tions to various types of business practices.

Ethical standards are often implicitly assumed, or

religious values such as the golden rule or what is

common across religions are strongly favored as a

normative foundation for business ethics (Brammer

et al., 2007). Non-religious frameworks such as the

social contract theory (Dunfee et al., 1999) and Kan-

tian deontology (Racheals, 1986; Raphael, 1989),

among others, have been applied to address corporate

ethics. However, attempts to identify and apply

absolute standards for ethical conduct have been

unsuccessful as researchers and practitioners search for

a relative balance between ethics and the bottom line

and personal values. A serious limitation of moral

relativism, then, is the inability to determine an

absolute standard of good or ethical behavior and the

reasons behind it (Shaw and Barry, 1992).

Besides moral relativism, modernism helped to

shape the meaning and purpose of one’s vocation or

business. The rejection of God and the Biblical view

of creation meant that human beings were no longer

God’s handiwork but instead were merely a part of

nature, driven by self-interest and expediency. The

Protestant work ethic was separated from its Christian

context of stewardship and service and viewed only as

a means to material success.

In the late eighteenth century, for example, Adam

Smith defined work solely as a means of fulfilling

one’s self-interest. Whereas Christian ethics had

regarded self-interest as a vice to be overcome for the

common good, Smith contended that self-interest

was actually good for society that the best thing for

the economy is for everyone to stand out of its way

and give free reign to ‘‘the invisible hand,’’ which

ensures that supply and demand will always balance.

This system promoted what Christianity had tradi-

tionally renounced as immoral: self-interest instead of

concern for the common good, personal ambition

instead of altruism, and drive for personal gain and

self-advancement instead of self-sacrifice and charity

(Colson and Pearcey, 1999). Without God, the

purpose of work or vocation changed to personal

achievement, material possessions, and status.

From a modernist perspective, business ethics is

justified because of its impact on corporate out-

comes such as reduced employee turnover, increased

productivity, and profitability (e.g., Daniels et al.,

118 David Kim et al.

2000). Although maximizing corporate profits in an

ethical manner is paramount, the essence of integ-

rity, altruism, and corporate social responsibility is

trivialized when their purpose is solely to enhance

the bottom line (Gotsis and Kortezi, 2007).

Christianity and business ethics:

alternative perspective

To this point, our discussion has centered on the

limitations of modernism on business ethics – namely,

moral relativism and a materialistic focus regarding

ethical behavior. We next examine how the Christian

worldview addresses these issues followed by how it

might influence ethics research.

Christian ethics founded on Scripture gives moral

standards or a common platform that allow us to judge

between right and wrong. In business situations,

people must decide what they ought to do and what

ethical principles to follow. They must know that

these principles are right and that it is reliable. This is

not to say that an absolute moral law must be strictly

followed given that the boundaries of moral law and

its varied applications will always be debated. But the

very idea of right and wrong makes sense only if there

is a final standard by which we can make moral

judgments (Colson and Pearcey, 1999).

Furthermore, much of what researchers and

business professionals seek as ethical standards and

behavior are found in Scripture. For instance, the

Ten Commandments provides the foundation for

many of today’s laws governing business practices

including truthfulness in business transactions, pro-

per entitlement, and so forth. Also, the life and

teachings of Jesus provide moral guidance in busi-

ness. The parable of the rich fool and the parable of

the talents teach about proper management of pos-

sessions and diligence at work. The primacy of love

and service to others is consistent with the goals of

corporate social responsibility (Calkins, 2000).

It should be noted that simply citing a chapter and

verse for the moral statement being made, or

insisting that God has demanded it, is not sufficient

to a make a Christian ethic (Rossouw, 1994).

Likewise, Christian ethics is not a set of isolated

moral principles but is dependent on a prior Chris-

tian view of reality as expressed in the relationship

between God and his people. What is expressed in

Scripture is not a set of principles or rules, but rather

a comprehensive understanding of reality such as all

life originating from God, the nature of God and

man, and life’s meaning. Christian ethics requires the

use of reason to derive from Scripture certain pre-

cepts and narratives that guide human action and

bring about certain consequences, primarily to pur-

sue the ideals of love and service to others (Calkins,

2000) and practicing good stewardship of money and

resources.

Rossouw (1994, p. 564) offers the following

illustration:

Someone with a Christian understanding of the

unconditional value of life, cannot be careless in the

workplace about products and quality-standards that

pose a threat to the lives of consumers or employees.

Neither can someone who believes that humans have

the responsibility to cultivate and protect nature, be

careless about pollution and ozone- depletion. In the

same way, someone with a conviction that special care

should be taken of the unfortunate in society, cannot

be unconcerned about employment practices that

cause hardships for employees in their old age.

In recent years, the assumptions of modernism

have been challenged by the postmodern worldview

which questions whether we can know anything

with certainty (Daniels et al., 2000). And as post-

modern thinking has become more dominant in our

culture and academe, it has opened the door for

business ethicists to explore alternative worldviews,

like Christianity, to explain the nature of reality,

knowledge, and morality.

Approaching business ethics research from a

Christian worldview requires us to re-think our

assumptions and beliefs about religion and the nature

of reality. Works by Christian writers and thinkers

would suggest that Christianity is more than a reli-

gion or a set of moral guidelines or beliefs. It is a

worldview that applies to all areas including social

issues, history, politics, science, and anthropology

(Pearcey, 2004). Whereas modernism assumes that

knowledge, truth, and morality are founded in sci-

ence and reason, Christianity is based on the

understanding that God was the creator of the uni-

verse, and that man, by use of his reason, could

discover the mysteries of the universe. Contrary to

popular notion, Christian thinking is not opposed to

science and scientific discoveries or to a rational

Modernism, Christianity, and Business Ethics 119

understanding of the world as evidenced by the

works of early scientists.

Finally, Scripture has much to say about human

nature and behavior that is consistent with what we

observe in ourselves and others. Given the challenge

among business ethicists and business leaders to

create a more ethical environment, ethics research

from a Christian viewpoint may offer insights that

promote morality in the workplace.

Note

1 Some of these men indeed clashed with particular

ecclesiastical bodies in their days, but notwithstanding

the conflicts they had with church governments, theirs

was always a firmly grounded, implicit Christian world-

view.

References

Brammer, S., G. Williams and J. Zinkin: 2007, ‘Religion

and Attitudes to Corporate Social Responsibility in a

Large Cross-Country Sample’, Journal of Business Ethics

71, 229–243. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9136-z.

Calkins, M.: 2000, ‘Recovering Religion’s Prophetic

Voice for Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 23,

339–352. doi:10.1023/A:1005989824688.

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. and N. R. Pearcey: 1999, How Now Shall

We Live? (Tyndale House Publishers., Inc, Wheaton,

IL).

Conroy, S. J. and T. L. N. Emerson: 2004, ‘Business

Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of

Ethical Awareness Among Students’, Journal of Business

Ethics 50, 383–396. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.

41263.09.

Cotton, R.: 1996, ‘Business and Ethics’, http://www.

probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227383/k.FE33/

Business_and_Ethics.htm.

Daniels, D., R. S. Franz and K. Wong: 2000, ‘A Class-

room with a Worldview: Making Spiritual Assump-

tions Explicit in Management Education’, Journal of

Management Education 24(5), 540–561. doi:10.1177/

105256290002400503.

Dewey, J.: 1920, Human Nature and Conduct (Henry Holt

and Company, New York, NY).

Dewey, J.: 1922, Reconstruction in Philosophy (Henry Holt

and Company, New York, NY).

Dunfee, T. W., N. C. Smith and W. T. Ross Jr: 1999,

‘Social Contracts and Marketing Ethics’, Journal of

Marketing 63, 14–32. doi:10.2307/1251773.

Epstein, E. M.: 2002, ‘Religion and Business – The

Critical Role of Religious Traditions in Management

Education’, Journal of Business Ethics 38, 91–96.

doi:10.1023/A:1015712827640.

Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ‘A Contingency

Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision-

Making in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 49(3), 87–96.

doi:10.2307/1251618.

Forsyth, D. R.: 1992, ‘Judging the Morality of Business

Practices: The Influence of Personal Moral Philoso-

phies’, Journal of Business Ethics 11(5, 6), 461–470.

Gotsis, G. and Z. Kortezi: 2007, ‘Philosophical Founda-

tions of Workplace Spirituality: A Critical Approach’,

Journal of Business Ethics 78, 575–600. doi:10.1007/

s10551-007-9369-5.

Hunt, S. D.: 1991, Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues

in the Philosophy of Marketing Science (South-Western

Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH).

James, W.: 1907, Pragmatism ((Longmans, Green &

Company, New York, NY)).

Latourette, K. S.: 1975, A History of Christianity (Prince

Press, Peabody, MA).

Longenecker, J. G., J. A. McKinney and C. W. Moore:

2004, ‘Religious Intensity, Evangelical Christianity,

and Business Ethics: An Empirical Study’, Journal of

Business Ethics 55, 373–386. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-

0990-2.

McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2001, ‘Corporate Social

Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective’,

Academy of Management Review 26, 117–127. doi:

10.2307/259398.

Pava, M. L.: 2003, ‘Searching for Spirituality in All the

Wrong Places’, Journal of Business Ethics 28(4), 393–

400. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000005730.37745.07.

Pearcey, N. R.: 2004, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity

from Its Cultural Captivity (Crossway Books, Wheaton,

IL).

Racheals, J.: 1986, The Elements of Moral Philosophy

(Random House, New York).

Raphael, D. D.: 1989, Moral Philosophy (Oxford Uni-

versity Press, Oxford).

Rossouw, G. J.: 1994, ‘Business Ethics: Where have All

the Christians Gone?’, Journal of Business Ethics 13(7),

557–570. doi:10.1007/BF00881301.

Schaeffer, F.: 1968, Escape from Reason (Inter-Varsity

Fellowship, England).

Schaff, P.: 1994, History of the Christian Church

(Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, MI).

120 David Kim et al.

Schiller, F.C.S.: 1912, Humanism (The MacMillan Co.,

New York, NY).

Shannon, J. R. and R. L. Berl: 1997, ‘Are We Teaching

Ethics in Marketing?: A Survey of Students’ Attitudes

and Perceptions’, Journal of Business Ethics 16(10),

1059–1075. doi:10.1023/A:1017922005651.

Shaw, W. H. and V. Barry: 1992, Moral Issues in Business

(Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmount, CA).

Singhapakdi, A., J. K. Marta, K. C. Rallapalli and

C. P. Rao: 2000, ‘Toward an Understanding of Reli-

giousness and Marketing Ethics: An Empirical Study’,

Journal of Business Ethics 27, 305–319. doi:10.1023/

A:1006342224035.

Sire, J.: 1997, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview

Catalog (Intervarsity Press, Dowers Grove, IL).

Tierney, B. and S. Painter: 1983, Western Europe in the

Middle Ages (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY).

Tsalikis, J., B. Seaton and P. L. Shepherd: 2001, ‘Rela-

tivism in Ethical Research: A Proposed Model and

Mode of Inquiry’, Journal of Business Ethics 32(3), 231–

246. doi:10.1023/A:1010700308774.

Veith, G. E.: 1994, Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to

Contemporary Thought and Culture (Crossway Books,

Wheaton, IL).

Walsh, B. and J. Middleton: 1984, The Transforming Vision

(Intervarsity Press, Dowers Grove, IL).

Weaver, G. R. and B. R. Agle: 2002, ‘Religiosity and

Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A Symbolic Inter-

actionist Perspective’, Academy of Management Review

27(1), 77–97. doi:10.2307/4134370.

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.

doi:10.1023/A:1022636929914.

University of Central Arkansas,

Conway, U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]

Modernism, Christianity, and Business Ethics 121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.