My usual approach in writing this weekly column is to present some insight or idea that I find interesting, informative, or inspiring in the hope that readers of the column might profit from reading it. That has been my practice for several years. The column that I am writing this minute is different, very different.
I am trying to write about an insight of John Henry Newman that I do not understand in the hope that, despite my ignorance, readers of the column might profit from reflecting on Newman’s comments about truth. I was tempted to entitle this column “The Question Mark.” It strikes me that writing a column about a topic I do not understand may be a little like driving a car while you are blindfolded. I am not certain where I am going. Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.
The essay by Brett Beasley in the December 2025 issue of Commonweal is entitled “John Henry Newman, Influencer.” It deals with a view that Newman embraced and promoted, which I have no recollection of ever previously coming across, not even in the course on Newman I taught 50 years ago. Newman believed that one of the most important and successful ways of spreading the truth was through what Newman referred to as personal influence. What did Newman mean by “personal influence”? Might it have a special relevance today in the Church’s mission to spread the faith? How might personal influence happen through Catholics bearing witness with their lives? How might Catholics bearing witness with their lives to the awesome truth of God’s love for everyone communicate that truth to others? Is bearing witness one of the important ways that what Newman called personal influence can happen? Immediately, the personal influence of people like St. John Paul II and Mother Theresa comes to mind. Their personal witness influenced millions.
Beasley, in discussing Newman’s view of personal influence, writes the following:
“Newman … formulated his ideas about personal influence in his early sermons, including one from 1841 titled ‘Personal Influence, the Means of Propagating the Truth.’ In it, Newman stated that truth has been upheld in the world not as a system, not by books, not by argument, not by temporal power, but by … personal influence” (p.17).
As evidence to support Newman’s emphasis on personal influence, Beasley writes the following:
“A study during the pandemic looked at how to bridge the gap on moral issues. A group of scholars analyzed the rhetoric around polarizing issues: YouTube comments on videos related to abortion, conversations about guns, reactions to New York Times op-eds, and political debates on CNN and Fox News. The researchers found that most people imagine that facts and statistics will foster respect for an otherwise unfavored position. But that approach, they found, is much less effective than we think; it is better to start with personal experience. When it comes to divisive moral issues, personal experiences feel truer than facts, and it is only after we have come to see someone’s personal experience that we then come to care about the facts and statistics he or she wants to share with us” (p.17).
That is news to me.
Reflecting on Newman’s stress on personal influence, I am beginning to connect it more clearly in my mind with the obligation (or should I say honor?) of Catholics bearing witness with their lives to what we believe. Linking Newman’s stress on personal influence with the power of witness is helping me appreciate both in a new way. I am embarrassed to admit that, indeed, for several years, I did not appreciate the power of personal witness. If people are free, they cannot be forced to accept religious faith. I have come to believe that personal witness may be the most powerful way of influencing others.
Beasley ends his essay with the following words:
“Personal influence is the humble way, but it is, undoubtedly, the slow way, too. Now more than ever, the deck seems worryingly stacked against the truth. In our information system, an overwhelming number of falsehoods travel further and faster than Newman ever could have imagined. Newman would likely assure us that ‘personal influence’ will win out. Indeed, according to him, over the long run, it is the only thing that ever has. Eventually, as he declared in his sermon on personal influence ‘the powers of the world, its counsels, and its efforts (vigorous as they seemed to be in the race), lose ground, and slow-paced Truth overtakes it’ ” (p. 17).
I think I have come to understand what Newman meant by personal influence! I find his insight very encouraging and exciting.
Father Lauder is a philosophy professor at St. John’s University, Jamaica. His new book, “The Cosmic Love Story: God and Us,” is available on Amazon.com and at Barnes & Noble.