Book Critique: Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500
Glenn R. Martin’s book, “Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500,” offers a wealth of supplementary material that remains applicable in contemporary times. Martin produces the first question in his title alone, urging the reader to define the term “worldview;” this provokes a second reaction in the reader, questioning the nature of the resilience of their own conglomerative worldview. By establishing a solidified worldview subject to absolute principles, one can implement a comparative analysis of government, law, public policy, and international relations, through the lens of a Biblical worldview. Martin’s position provides an objective lens that anchors reality to a set of criteria known as holy commonwealth; this imparts the sovereignty of God over all aspects of society (Martin, G.R, p. 129). The term holy commonwealth derived from Hobbes’ Leviathan, whereby he asserts that property cannot exist without the state, (Hobbes, T., p. 7-11). Martin applies Hobbesian political theory, encouraging the reader to seek the light of the Lord in all the endeavors and challenges in faith that we encounter; for it also exists within us, even during times that it may be indiscernible. This state of objective reference is indispensable as political comparativist Samuel P. Huntington reminds us that, “[c]ultures can change, and the nature of their impact on politics and economics can vary from one period to another, (Huntington, S.P., p. 29).
Dr. Glenn R. Martin (1935-2004) chaired the Division of Social Sciences at Indiana Wesleyan University (IWU) for over thirty years. Dr. Martin passed away in 2004, yet left behind a monumental piece of revolutionary literature, encouraging the contemporary reader to submerge themselves in self-analysis. Martin’s resounding postulation was “that no interpretative system should be ‘absolutized,’ including this reinterpretation—only God is absolute,” (Martin, G.R, p. 9). Dr. Martin’s theory extends its applicability into the contemporary age, as David Daniel Bartley writes, Martin enabled a “provocative challenge to scholars who look to the Bible as Truth and subscribe to the Lordship of Christ,” (Martin, G.R, p. 10). The book’s compiler writes that “[i]t is compiled from various sources of Dr. Martin's lectures including audio tapes and transcriptions of his courses and tapes and transcriptions of his courses and tapes of his basic series of lectures based on his Western/American Intellectual and Social History course,” (Martin, G.R., p. 12).
The scope of Martin’s point extends well beyond contemporary polity, encouraging the reader to take a personal account of their own ascriptions of subjectivity. Often constituents are swayed by abstract interpretation; yet fail to account for the origin of their acclaimed personal judgements. The loss and abandonment of the Supernatural has led America astray; Martin encourages the reader to take an objective methodology. The main idea set forth by Glenn R. Martin is to expose the shift from objectivity to process philosophy, a progressive descent into subjective pandemonium, (Martin, G.R., p. 149). By ushering in a state of division, the government can subtly impose more authoritarian legislation redacting the rights of the citizenry. As nefarious pol seek to corrupt our Constitutional Republic, we must stand together, resist the instigation of the national government’s encouragement of civil hierarchy.
Literary Critique
Martin’s book gives an accurate step-by-step guide to the understanding, and application of history to contemporary politics. Its content bears no weaknesses beyond its narrowed focus geared toward Christian readers. While the author of this report believes this worldview is universally applicable, it may initially deter the non-Christian reader from progressing, and personally applying these principles to their daily life. Christianity resides in objective truth, yet to the secular, other religions, and of those predisposed to Jesus there is a likelihood of arising an inner conflict. By the evangelical Biblical doctrine, Martin’s influence placed on the reader to question their own true nature, is good and provides an environment for revelation. Atheists, for example, are likely to choose a conglomerative interpretation of history; however, any antitheist attempting to disprove any of Martin’s objective conclusions will find challenge in doing so. This could provide a worthwhile endeavor for anyone lacking faith in God, and offers an opportunity to readdress the important questions in life often washed over with distraction. Martin’s argument makes sense, denoting of the void in the conceptualization of an individual worldview, leading to the cultural decay of polity. This decay is transcribed as process philosophy, and represents a state of kinetic descent into tyranny; historically progression of politics often mirrors development theory, with modernization ultimately transcending into dependency.
Dr. Martin offers the reader a view of the current political landscape, and the main issues experienced in America; contemporary political comparativists are tasked with a dichotomy; either referencing an absolute position, or referencing a relative one. In the context of law and policy, utilizing a strict originalist approach ensures accuracy and precision regarding one’s freedom; conversely, relying on a loose constructionist position of relative interpretation distributes uneven justice. Basing principles in relativity, without a solid historically tested foundation, provides an unfair advantage to chance otherwise insulated by genuine jurisprudence.
Practical Application
The foundational approach the reader must adapt from this literature is acknowledging an absolute point of reference to be applied in all political environments. Dr. Martin describes “[f]rom my own experience, I would suggest that we do not have a consistent worldview because, whenever we attempt to make a sincere and serious effort to raise and answer the basic questions, we are confronted with inconsistencies which are difficult, if not impossible, to overcome, (Martin, G.R., p. 29). Martin provides two steps to overcoming these obstacles; the first, internal acknowledgment; the second, proactively enacting a personal change. Martin goes on to describe Hegelian Dialecticism whereby he asserts that “it is not possible to understand the modern West and world without understanding the nature of Hegelian Dialecticism,” (Martin, G. p. 157). The application of Hegelian Dialecticism is contingent on three presuppositions; change always constitutes progress; nature is nonlinear and evolves dialectically; conflict is the essence of change and the dynamic of progress, Martin, G.R., p. 163). Hegel believed that every force or thesis generates a converging opposing force or antithesis; this is not dissimilar from Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that “[w]henever one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force on the first,” (NASA). Historically, philosophers elude to a vague framework; followed by a critique from later generations, cycling back to ambiguity; this phenomenon is described by Dr. Martin as occurring, “ad infinitum, ad nauseum,” (Martin, G. p. 157).
In contemporary polity, Dr. Martin’s book emboldens the reader to question the nature of their own existence, facilitating thought to subscribe to an absolute belief about reality. This may sound ambiguously aethereal, yet it suggests the reader submit to address the nature of their own dysfunction; whereby all humans are fallen, often exhibit depraved logic at their own expense. Dr. Glenn R. Martin ensures the reader is provided with an abundance of answers, should they encounter an obstacle in the search for their own absolute belief; Christianity has factually remained consistent since the inception of the universe, as it is bound to the invisible laws, too detailed to describe. These laws, like gravity, cannot be broken; this discounts opposing force, and merely concerns itself with the inability to revoke these laws from existing. There is a force beyond the limitations of the capability of our minds that’s only logical conclusion is an intelligent creator. Atheist or Christian, one cannot presume they are the most superior force in the universe, having not an explanation for the creation of every fractal of detail entwined within our reality. The truth found through the inability to provide conclusive explanation of the synchronized intricacies down to the fractal within our reality is that there exists a living force greater than the reader, referred to universally as God.
On this fundamental principle that God exists, every component of our society can be based around one factor, that is good versus evil. What is subjective transitions to utilitarian, becoming authoritarian, leading to revolution whether in actuality, as in 1776 American Revolution, the 1917 Russian Revolution, or within the minds of the working class, as written in 1914’s Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel. French revolutionary writer Georges Eugène Sorel (1847-1922) wrote “The conception of the general strike, engendered by the practice of violent strikes, admits the conception of an irrevocable overthrow. There is something terrifying in this which will appear more and more terrifying as violence takes a greater place in the mind of the proletariat,” (Sorel, G.E., Loc. 2695). Although philosophers cannot be blamed for the decisions and actions of their readers’ interpretation and actualization of these existential ideologies. Trotsky declared himself as to origin of permanent revolution, writing, “the theory of the permanent revolution was formulated by me even before the decisive events of 1905,” (Trotsky, L., 3377). Glenn R. Martin declares that “[t]he makeup of the Communist Party, which came into existence in 1903, can best be visualized as an iceberg. The real work of the movement has not been accomplished by the visible one-eighth of the Party, the so-called card-carrying communists but, rather, has been done by the invisible seven-eighths: the so-called underground,” (Martin, G., p. 257). The expansion of this nefarious ideology has contributed to the evolution of process philosophy. Martin attributes the origin as “Process philosophy emerged out of the failure of Romanticism-Transcendentalism, a failure which resulted in a very profound theological shift;” Stanford declares that “[t]he history of process philosophy extends far into antiquity, both in Eastern and Western thought. In the Western tradition it is the Greek theoretician Heraclitus of Ephesus (born ca. 560 B.C.E.) who is commonly recognized as the founder of the process approach,” (Martin, G.R., p. 210; Stanford). Martin mentions Heraclitus once in his book, however not noting him as the origin; writing of a “metaphor popularized by Heraclitus, the Greek (500s-400s B.C.),” that “one could never step into the same river twice,” (Martin, G.R., p. 215). Stanford attributes the purveyor of the resurgence process philosophy to be Alfred North Whitehead, calling him “instrumental in pioneering the approach to metaphysics now known as process philosophy,” (Stanford).
Martin asserts it was “[t]his shift was articulated in a very influential book by the German philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), published in 1843, titled The Essence of Christianity,” (Martin, G.R., p. 211). After World War I, America began calling itself a “democracy;” as Glenn R. Martin describes “[t]his had no been the case before. The word democracy did not even exist in our primary documents, (Martin, G.R., p. 227). Martin cites other ambiguous terms of deception used to establish socialism in American jurisprudence, including public welfare, public funds, civil rights, human rights, common man, resolving that “a renewed mind renews our vocabulary…begin and end with God in our thinking” denoting that worldview influences vocabulary, (Martin, G.R., p. 229-231).
Policy Review
Sociological Jurisprudence Martin warns that a shift has occurred from precedental jurisprudence to sociological jurisprudence, (Martin, G.R., p. 303). Rather than perceiving law as sourced from an absolute origin, modernity has re-envisioned the U.S. justice system with relativity. Martin informs that sociological jurisprudence facilitates crime by negating punishment; rather than perceiving criminals as fallen depraved individual responsible for their actions, the accused are excused as products of their own environment. In contemporary New York City, crime continues to increase as sociological jurisprudence presides over precedental absolute law; this subjective methodology undermines the purpose of our blind American justice system; no biased opinion should discriminate nor infringe upon another’s liberty.
Sociological jurisprudence can be found in the Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Cases, which states that; in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), Utica Bakeshop owner Joseph Lochner claimed that the Bakeshop Act of 1895 which limited employee hours by statute, was a direct violation of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. This claimed Constitutional violation was argued that it deprived life, liberty, and property, of the Bakeshop and his employees. The Oxford guide writes that “for the next three decades, Lochner’s ruling symbolized judicial misuse of power,” (Hall, K.L. et al, pp. 189-191). It was overturned in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), swayed by the Court-packing scheme within Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945). FDR’s New Deal, (Hall, K.L. et al., p. 377). The editors submit that the Supreme Court Justices were directly influenced by the FDR’s interests, (Hall, K.L. et al., p. 378). The Supreme Court Historical Society reports that, “[i]n February 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt submitted a plan to Congress for increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices from nine to as many as fifteen,” (SCH).
Objective legislation is not only foundational in structure but offers a template for other nations to thrive, should they desire a revision in their own governance better suited toward a republic. Though this can be considered a form of modernization or neocolonialism to encourage others to further the interests of the Lord, holding an objective Biblical worldview promotes leaders throughout the world implement cognitive ethics in order to build His Kingdom. German Historian Peter Koslowski reported that the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 inspired the French Declaration of the Human and Civic Rights of 1789; adding that in 1788 Lafayette even requested advice from Thomas Jefferson before ratifying its legislation, (Gentz, F.V., p. 100). Absolute truth has existed longer than documented history, Galatians 1:20 (TPT) “Everything I’m describing to you I confess before God to be the absolute truth.” As His Holy Spirit wrote through David in Psalms 119:160 (TPT) “The sum total of all your words adds up to absolute truth, and every one of your righteous decrees is everlasting.” In Colossians 1:17-18 (NIV) God wrote through Paul that, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” These truths, like physics, are empirical and cannot be disproven, as Dr. Glenn R. Martin diligently displays in his book Prevailing Worldviews.
The loss of objective truth has ushered in an age of authoritarian thought within U.S. democratic institutions. By utilizing Martin’s perspective of Hegelian Dialecticism, the antithesis produced in conflict of this microevolution has been legalistic theocracy under the guise of republicanism. Despite the debate of policy on abortion, marriage, sexual preference, gender, crime, et al.; there exists only one absolute truth above all preference, that is the word of Jesus Christ. His provision exalts all opinion, as Jesus reminds us that we are all one blood (Acts 17:26). No matter a citizen’s opinion on policy, there exists an unwritten law between man and his creator; the result is sovereignty, prosperity, and societal contribution. This does not advocate a theocratic state of legalism; it encourages the reader to conceptualize their own absolute beliefs; and question the origins, resilience, and history of these convictions. In order to make decisions, an individual must ascribe to some form of absolute theory; Christianity offers a historically rock-solid platform to reference these positions. A secular simulation has divided the body politic, weakening the strength of our nation’s resilience; collective civic morale requires individual intrinsic morals and beliefs. An absolute belief has become a prerequisite for political participation, and loosely established positions based on subjectivity are easily disassembled.
Conclusion
Overall, Dr. Glenn R. Martin provides fresh insight and practical application to the re-establishment of objective truth, thereby uniting society while maintaining the capitalist diversity required to ensure a representative democracy within our Constitutional Republic. Objectivity provides a reference of confidence, giving the individual an internal guide that can be utilized to produce a sense of coherence. Christians refer to this driver as the Holy Spirit, yet many remain dazed within the wash of subjective propaganda upon society; holding an objective worldview provides the user with an authentic experience within their reality. Dr. Glenn R. Martin concludes that “process philosophy has resulted in intellectual anarchism, subjectivism, and despair,” (Martin, G.R., p. 345). As Pastor Robert Jeffress reminds us, that “[a]s Christians, God has called us to be salt and light in this decaying and darkening world. We are to pray for God’s will to be done, participate in the political process, and then trust God with the results,” (Jeffress, R., pp. 3-4). Dr. Martin resolves his book with a final thought that in “any nation or civilization, we will either have revolution, which can only be destructive, or reformation, which does make for a substantial difference, including a relative order, community, liberty, justice, charity, and productive activity.” With these components laid out, the reader is tasked with the assimilation of this concept, and ascribing to a position of absolutism, to be used a personal moral reference; while still able to coexist, trust that God will lead the process; and engage in peaceful open discussion, no matter one’s beliefs.
–October 9th, 2023
Bibliography
Gentz, Friedrich. (1800, 2010). The Origin and Principles of the American Revolution, Compared with the Origin and Principles of the French Revolution. Liberty Fund Inc. Kindle Edition.
Georges Sorel. Reflections on Violence. Red and Black Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Hall, K.L. et al. (2009). The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, Second Edition. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.
Hobbes, Thomas; J. C. A. Gaskin. Leviathan (Oxford World's Classics) (p. 92). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1996, 2011). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.
Martin. G.R., (1973, 1978, 1984, 2006). Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500. https://books.apple.com/us/book/prevailing-worldviews-of-western-society-since-1500/id1451331222
NASA. (Accessed on October 8th, 2023). Newton’s Laws of Motion. Glenn Research Center, NASA. https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/#newtons-third-law-action-reaction
Plato. (Accessed on October 9th, 2023). Alfred North Whitehead (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
Plato. (Accessed on October 9th, 2023). Process Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
SCH. (Accessed on October 9th, 2023). FDR & The Court Packing Controversy: Full Script. Supreme Court Historical Society. https://supremecourthistory.org/schs-historical-documentaries/fdr-courtpacking-controversy-full-script/.
Trotsky, L., et al. (1930). Communism. Selections from Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky. Andrii Ponomarenko. Kindle Edition