The name change part: final

I have written about this before. In any type of communication there is a transmitter and a receiver. It is incumbent upon the transmitter to make sure that the transmission is as clear as possible so that there is no misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the intention and content of the communication. That is a big responsibility but it is a real one and is one I shoulder every time I open my mouth or put something down on paper. Now, if I transmit something like, oh, I don't know, "baptist" and someone receives that transmission an interprets it as "bad", I cannot simply say "well, there is obviously something wrong on the receiving end" and write it off. There is, clearly, something wrong on the receiving end. But why should I not try to overcome that weakness by modifying the transmission? That would be the loving thing to do in this instance.

Now, if I transmit, for example, "Bible" and someone receives that transmission as "old book with no relevance to today" should I remove "Bible" from my vocabulary? I think this is a bit different. I do not think that I could remove the transmission of "Bible" without degrading the transmission to such an extent that it becomes noise...or at least more noisy. I don't see the same issue with removing words like "baptist", or "fundamental" from a transmission that is meant for those who have not trusted Christ as their leader and forgiver.

Because I love God and love my neighbor I will modify and hone my transmission even to the point that ;makes me uncomfortable for the sake of more effectively communicating the Gospel...or to increase the likelihood that they will hear it. I will not, however, reduce my transmission to such an extent that it becomes noise. That is neither God-honoring or loving at all. In fact, it would be nothing less than a lie from Hell.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

God's gifts

The Edge Effect and the Divine Nature - Part 1

Free from "this"; free to "this" - Part 1