The PDF is fascinating. I had the wrong view of the Jehova’s Witness stand (as the PDF states most people do). It seems that most religions are in agreement – I would guess that even many those that did not stipulate the condition would agree that hastening death for the sake of organ donation would be immoral.

The main points the Church makes is that work has dignity and value, and that the worker needs to be valued as a full person, complete with his or her skills and creativity. When that happens in the corporate world, society is strengthened. Private entrepreneurship is another avenue for it to happen.

Yes, evil and corruption happen at any level of society. However, in the corporate world the greed of the leaders affects many more people than would the greed of a private entrepreneur. That’s one point distributivism makes. However, as I said, I’m not throwing my hat in with the distributivists before I research them more. When ACTA calls it a problematic movement, I take notice. The size of the corporation is a blessing and a curse.

You are right. I should not pit one option against the other. A healthy economy needs large corporations, private entrepreneurs, and everyone in between. My message should be to promote private entrepreneurship as another option, not as a solution over and against employment.

Thanks for calling me back to balance!

What you are doing is great. But as in the corporate world as well in the private world there are bad people. There is a need for correction. Let us not throw out the corporate world because of those that need correcting. Let us fix them and move ahead as a nation. Destructive criticism is easy. Let us build up a better world together. Your example will not be lost as well as my bosses example is not going unnoticed.

My objective has always been to dramatically change the way people view finances and stewardship in general, while bringing them to, or closer to Christ (there is so much of my message that has yet to be shared).

I eagerly await your future comments. God bless!

TZ—

This fits your observation precisely. A modernist would claim the right to define himself / herself / itself in any way he/she/it wants to. To claim that we are all called to relationship would be to impose an impossible ideal on everyone. This is a cardinal sin of modernism. You’re right – modernists claim the right to define themselves by using labels (that’s why, for example, homosexuals prefer to define themselves by their sexuality).

Christians who have been influenced by modernism find their justification in the Gospel by dividing Jesus into parts. “You may relate most to the social Jesus, but I relate to the Jesus who went off by himself to pray.”

If this isolation proves to be bad for human beings because human nature demands relationships – modernists prefer just to write off such facts by saying, “That may be true for you, but I’m fine being alone.”

Thank you for your excellent observation!

You have wonderfully explained it at the most basic level. So let me make a mess of it and complicate the subject. Seems to me this Wisconsin “modernism” is open to people labeling themselves. One common label is when a person says they are a relationship person or not a relationship person. This of course is contrary to our faith. We are all called into unity with God and with one another. This has serious consequences when an individual person disconnects from society as a “non-relationship” type, or taking on unnecessary responsibility from others as a gifted “relationship” type.