comments
Media
Communication can be defined in a variety of different ways: the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs; something imparted, interchanged, or transmitted; a document or message imparting news, views, or information. Remember the foundation we've laid to this point in our study: .:. What is authority and why does it matter? .:. God's authoritative expectations in the old Testament .:. God's authoritative expectations in the New Testament .:. The catastrophic consequences of lawlessness If we're to fully grasp how God's authority translates into and impacts our own lives, it's important that we take some time to focus on the raw materials of communication itself. How does God communicate his authoritative will to us? What might be surprising to some is that God communicates his will in the same ways you communicate your will. Doy Moyer has done some very insightful and helpful writing onthis topic': There is no magic formula here. By understanding how we communicate at the most basic levels, we will understand how God communicates also. There is no special way of looking at communication when we study Scripture. People may buck against the idea of "establishing" authority, but the issue here is the same: How does God communicate His will? When we answer that, we've answered how His authority is made known. How is anyone's will communicated? How do you communicate your will to someone else? If you want to communicate your desire that someone do or consider something, how do you go about it? The possibilities are actually very narrow and straightforward: 1. You tell someone what you want. This is the most direct form of communication. It could take the form of a statement or even an order. 2. You show someone what you want. You might go so far as to show them how to go about doing it. Illustrations and examples are a commonly employed tool in this vein of communication. 3. You imply what you expect others to get by what you say or show. Gestures could be helpful; even silence could be leveraged to make the point.Now, here's the challenge. Can you think of any way to convey what is in your mind to the mind of someone else other than to tell, show, or imply that information? Moyer asserts: This is logic at the most fundamental level, and the principles we are discussing here are what we would call self-evident. Something is self-evident when it is true in itself. Such is the case with tell, show, and imply. How can we demonstrate this? It is obvious that any attempt at communication will utilize one or more of these ways of communication. Try to communicate without it! I would issue this challenge if you disagree with what I'm saying: go ahead and disagree, but don't tell me anything about it, don't show me anything about it, and don't imply your disagreement. To do so would be self-defeating, for you will utilize the very process you are denying. Such cannot be done, and we would logically collapse on ourselves by thinking otherwise. Tell, show, and imply are logically self-evident. No further proof is needed,and objections to this are self-defeating and logically incoherent.Let's make this personal.Pick a moment in the last week that you communicated something to someone via each of these three a venues: • When did you tell someone to do something? How did you do it?