The deniers ask, not so innocently, "How can we know God?" Their skepticism comes as a reaction to rationalism, and would be a fair question if asked by genuine seekers. But it has become a loaded question, asked and answered by professional atheists. They do not want to know. They choose to reject Revelation as a way of knowing, and that for personal reasons. They want to sin without shame or retribution. They have abandoned the concept that God has spoken from on high (Jones, 2001, 172).

The devotionalists stumble in their method. They have, often unwittingly, eliminated the distinction between meaning and application. It is helpful to ask, "What does this passage mean to me?" when doing application. But, following the reader-response method of asking, "What does this passage mean to me?" when seeking meaning, bypasses an understanding of what the author (in the text) intended to mean. The reader-response approach to interpretation undermines the authority of the Bible and places it within the experience of the reader (Greidanus, 1988, 78-9, 137, 268; Sandy & Giese, 1995, 282; Clendenen, 1995, 132-4, 143-4).

Advertisement

As apologists we must listen to and refute these heresies and pathologies. But as preachers we must never be intimidated by them, and as disciples we must resist falling for their deconstruction of God, denial of truth, and devotional interpretation.

When the mayor of Puebla, Mexico, took office this February, he took a drastic step to stop corruption in his city of 1.4 million citizens. And in fact, after just one month in office, bribery had tapered off 98 percent. How did the mayor accomplish this social phenomenon? Easy. Violations of the law, from prostitution to zoning, no longer carry a penalty. All tickets are "virtual" tickets. With fines eliminated, bribery has disappeared. The city is free from corruption (Iliff, 2002, 1A).

When the prevailing philosophy of our age disowns God's revelation of judgment and hope, it does the sinner no favor. In our missionary age sinners need to know the truth of God's Word. Preaching is Biblical.

Third, Preaching is Propositional.

Even in our times of indirection and story, many a novel, movie, and television drama expresses its essential message propositionally. Those that do not put words into the mouths of the characters still express values and beliefs in ways that even casual consumers cannot miss. The Prime Directive of Star Trek, that "No one may interfere with the development of another culture," is patently propositional, a truly universal meta-narrative. Entertainment may be about money; it is also about ideology.

Preaching, too, is about ideology, about propositional truths that govern all cultures and times universally. Propositional statements not only bring focus to our preaching, they also imply a moral certainty that cannot be ignored (Ehninger, 1968, 215-222). For that very reason — because they are biblical truths — many critics of preaching insist that our use of propositions is outdated, tasteless, and even abusive. Interestingly, many who contend for the deconstruction of all meta-narratives do so with propositional imperatives. "You shall not preach absolutes" (Phillips, 1995, 254-266).