Charles W. Fuller: The Trouble with “Truth through Personality”

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.”[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.”[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