Charles W. Fuller: The Trouble with “Truth through Personality”
Charles W. Fuller, The Trouble with “Truth through Personality”: Phillip Brooks, Incarnation, and the Evangelical Boundaries of Preaching (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 137 pages, ISBN 9781608994038.
‘Preaching is the bringing of truth through personality,’ stated Phillips Brooks, the former rector of Trinity Church in Boston and later Episcopal bishop of Massachusetts who lived from 1835 to 1893, to the original listeners of his now famous lectures on preaching at Yale College.[1] Many preachers and homileticians have quoted his definition ever since. But what does it actually mean? Charles W. Fuller, pastor of Bethany Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky and adjunct professor of Expository Preaching at Boyce College of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, examines Brooks’ sermons, lectures, and writings in an attempt to find out exactly.
The author forthrightly states the main thesis of his book in its introduction: “This book assesses, from an evangelical perspective, Brooks’s [sic] classic definition of preaching as ‘truth through personality’ and, after pinpointing its substantial weaknesses, salvages the concept by reconstructing it with solidly evangelical doctrines (p. xviii).
Though Fuller claims to write as an evangelical, the non-Calvinistic reader soon begins to wonder with what form of evangelicalism does the author identify himself? Since he serves as an adjunct professor Boyce College of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, it seems safe to assume he alludes to those Calvinistic evangelicals who consider themselves the only true proclaimers of the pure unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ. The Southern Baptist Seminary has become known in recent years as a bastion of high or five-point Calvinism. Since Brooks tended to lean away from high Calvinism, even to the point of questioning the teaching of what is now known as eternal security (a distinctive doctrine of the church Fuller pastors), this reviewer wonders if this is the reason Fuller accuses Brooks of unorthodoxy?
Over all, the book tends to be blatantly negative of Brooks, as the author frankly admits and laments. A major concern for Fuller is his belief that Brooks emphasized the importance of personality over truth. He alleges Brooks did so because of his less than evangelical theology, the influence of the teaching of evolution and higher criticism in his day, and his wide reading of philosophic Romantic literature. He especially takes exception to what he perceives as Brooks’ emphasis on Jesus’ example over His atonement.
Fuller contends three problems confront any academic study of Brooks: his popularity, his ambiguity, and his idealism (pp. xxi-xxii). Brooks was an immensely popular preacher in his day. By his own admission, Brooks felt he was at his best when he spoke in general rather than in specific terms.[2] And Brooks was a product of Romanticism to some extent with its emphasis on feelings over the facts of faith. But Fuller makes Brooks into more or less a liberal in his day. He does so by evaluating Brooks’ theology in four areas: biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, and activism (to use Fuller’s own categories). He finds Brooks deficient on every evangelical scale he proposes. He never seems to give Brooks the benefit of the doubt. He apparently finds little, if anything, to admire in the man or his ministry, although many people in Brooks’ own day felt decidedly positive toward him.
For instance, Fuller often quotes what appear to be clear affirmations of evangelical theology by Brooks only to turn right around and explain them away. This unusual methodology gives the impression Brooks could not do or say anything right in the mind of Fuller.
Could everyone who knew Brooks and quotes him today be wrong and Fuller the only one right? William Hethcock asserts Brooks attended Virginia Theological Seminary because he “expected its evangelical emphasis to be accommodating to his own.â€[3]
Though also in the main primarily negative of Brooks, Gillis J. Harp acknowledges and cites evidence to prove the point that Brooks’ contemporaries considered him thoroughly evangelical in doctrine.[4]
Maybe Brooks did not write much in his notes about the cross during his seminary days in Virginia because he accepted the evangelical view of the atonement. Harp admits Brooks wrote one essay in defense of ‘a propitiatory understanding of Christ’s sacrifice.[5] But then he turns right around and dismisses it as the result of a student only trying to please his teacher. How can Harp know what went on Brooks’ mind?
Fuller even quotes one source that suggests the unconscious acceptance of Brooks’ definition of preaching may have contributed to the modern phenomenon of personality cults focused on certain well-known mega-church pastors and TV evangelists (p. 6). It appears from reading this book that Brooks is responsible for almost everything that has gone wrong in the church for the past hundred years or more!
This reviewer agrees with Warren W. Wiersbe’s sentiment, “We wish he [i.e., Brooks] had emphasized the cross and the resurrection more, because he certainly believed in them.â€[6]
Having reread Brooks’ Lectures in Preaching during the process of writing this review, the reviewer concluded that Brooks’ theology may or may not take away from his definition and practice of preaching. It depends on what preachers do with it. Maybe that is part of its appeal—its broad range of application.
Once again, it seems Fuller never gives Brooks the benefit of the doubt. No, Brooks did not always say or believe what this reviewer wishes he would have, but Brooks’ ambiguity makes it difficult, if not impossible, to charge him with heresy. Of all things, Fuller faults Brooks for encouraging preachers to follow Jesus’ example of preaching (p. 93).
Many of Brooks’ comments that Fuller takes issue with were Brooks’ reactions to the dry doctrinal sermons and heated controversies of his day.[7] For instance, Brooks’ comments about the inspiration of Scripture do not have to be taken as anti-supernatural, but can be taken as anti-dictation theory.[8] If personality did not factor into preaching’s mix, all ministers would sound and speak alike. God calls different preachers in order to emphasize to some degree different truths and to appeal to different audiences. Still, Brooks considered ‘Christ’s redemption’ as one of ‘the great truths, not just a minor subject for preaching.’[9] He also calls attention to the difference between ‘preaching about Christ as distinct from preaching Christ.’[10] He advocates the latter, not the common liberal approach. Consequently, Fuller appears guilty of overstatement and false generalizations, in this reviewer’s opinion.
No doubt Fuller was well-meaning in his intentions for this book. He felt he had discovered a fatal flaw in one of America’s homiletical heroes and must fix it. To that extent his goal was noble and his effort should be commended.
Reviewed by Steve D. Eutsler
Originally published on the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization of PneumaReview.com) website. Later included in the Fall 2025 issue.
Notes
Thanks for reviewing the volume. I knew that publishing a negative assessment of a popular figure would engender some push back, and I welcome the rough-and-tumble—it’s a healthy, sharpening aspect of the academic endeavor.
Clarifying a few items may advance the discussion. When I first encountered Brooks during my years as an MDiv student, I was enamored. His pastoral wisdom impressed me and his preaching theory compelled me. In fact, I expected to write supportively of Brooks but, as I peered below the surface—poring over volumes of sermons, essays, and biographical material—I was troubled. I eventually realized that evangelicals have simply assumed that Brooks intended with his words what we want them to mean. This is unfortunate. If we apply authorial intent—the sine qua non of reading texts honestly—to Brooks, then we must interpret his work as it stands without inserting our own convictions to support it.
Evidently, you believe that my denominational and educational affiliations skew my assessment, but the book does not test Brooks according to systematic Calvinism, but against Bebbington’s evangelical quadrilateral—a well-established framework for understanding what evangelicals have believed for centuries, including Calvinists, Arminians, and all points between. In the volume, Brooks is contrasted to Calvinism only as it applies to his setting in history, his own doctrinal milieu. Indeed, Brooks was challenged by his contemporaries, including his own pastor, some of his parishioners, the Evangelical Education Society, and his own mother! Even his appointment as bishop was not without some hesitation. Fame tends either to soften or intensify analysis and, in Brooks's case, the softening effect is tangible. These concerns, considered in tandem with a careful reading of his own sermons, his informal position as spokesperson for the liberal Broad Church Movement, and the shockingly humanist content of his academic essays, bring a conclusion most uncomfortable: Brooks did not believe as we wish he did, and his definition of preaching must be interpreted in light of his beliefs.
While much of the problem can be attributed to Brooks’s vagueness of expression, vagueness is no escape, for when has vagueness been a friend to preaching the gospel? Brooks’s imprecision has made “truth through personality†the Rorschach test of homiletics—one makes it mean whatever one wants it to mean. The very point of the book is to clear the fog and reconstruct “truth through personality†in way that is thoroughly evangelical, so that we can be sure what we mean when we use the phrase.
Thank you, Chuck Fuller, for joining this conversation.
Thanks for reviewing the volume. I knew that publishing a negative assessment of a popular figure would engender some push back, and I welcome the rough-and-tumble—it’s a healthy, sharpening aspect of the academic endeavor.
Clarifying a few items may advance the discussion. When I first encountered Brooks during my years as an MDiv student, I was enamored. His pastoral wisdom impressed me and his preaching theory compelled me. In fact, I expected to write supportively of Brooks but, as I peered below the surface—poring over volumes of sermons, essays, and biographical material—I was troubled. I eventually realized that evangelicals have simply assumed that Brooks intended with his words what they want them to mean. This is unfortunate. If we apply authorial intent—the sine qua non of communication—to Brooks, then we must interpret his work as it stands without inserting our own convictions to support it.
Evidently, you believe that my denominational and educational affiliations skew my assessment, but the book does not test Brooks according to systematic Calvinism, but against Bebbington’s evangelical quadrilateral—a well-established framework for understanding what evangelicals have believed for centuries, including Calvinists, Arminians, and all points between. In the volume, Brooks is contrasted to Calvinism only as it applies to his setting in history, his own doctrinal milieu. Indeed, Brooks was challenged by his contemporaries, including his own pastor, some of his parishioners, the Evangelical Education Society, and his own mother! Even his appointment as bishop was not without some hesitation. Fame tends either to soften or intensify analysis and, in Brooks’s case, the softening effect is tangible. These concerns, considered in tandem with a careful reading of his own sermons, his informal position as spokesperson for the liberal Broad Church Movement, and the shockingly humanist content of his academic essays, bring a conclusion most uncomfortable: Brooks did not believe as we wish he did, and his definition of preaching must be interpreted in light of his beliefs.
While much of the problem can be attributed to Brooks’s vagueness of expression, vagueness is no escape, for when has vagueness been a friend to preaching the gospel? Brooks’s imprecision has made “truth through personality†the Rorschach test of homiletics—one makes it mean whatever one wants it to mean. The very point of the book is to clear the fog and reconstruct “truth through personality†in way that is thoroughly evangelical, so that we can be sure what we mean when we use the phrase.