Unfortunately, this is far too simple an explanation, and is even less satisfactory as an excuse. Communication is much more that just conveying messages or passing pieces of paper to people. Christians above all folk should understand this, for communication is at the heart of Christian experience. Its real meaning is sharing, or involvement. Perhaps the opposite makes it even easier to grasp excommunication means being excluded, having no share or involvement. There is an obvious affinity with words and ideas, such as community ­ a common or shared unity of life and work, or as Communism ­ shared ownership of resources and involvement in a common way of life, or communion ­ a relationship of complete intimacy. The story of the Bishop who, on visiting Moscow, was invited to conduct a service for English residents there, is relevant. The Moscow newspaper announced that on Sunday the Bishop would celebrate Holy Communism! There is, of course, a real truth in that error.

The second level of meaning is the semantic level, answering the question: 'How precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning?' Accurate transmission is of no avail if the choice of symbols is inappropriate for the message or for those to whom it is directed. This is one reason for welcoming flexibility of approach to the types of symbol being used in worship and preaching. In an age more accustomed than any before to visual media it is unlikely that any cause will commend itself to people by verbal means alone. When the time was ripe, God superseded the verbal proclamation of the prophets by the Word made flesh; the choice of symbols by today's prophets is all too often as restricted as it was by those of the pre-Christian era. Even when words are retained as the principal symbols it is vital that they are assembled for transmission with careful regard to those who will hear them. Much of the Gospel needs thoughtful interpretation to folk who have been born and brought up among factories, rather than on farms or in fishing villages. If the technical level of communication is concerned with preaching technique, the semantic level is concerned with the content of preaching ­ can he be understood? It is the level at which members of the congregation move from, 'I thought you said...' to 'I thought you meant...'

There is, however, a third level of meaning, to which, sadly, there is a marked reluctance to proceed. This is the effectiveness level, at which the question to be answered is: 'How far does the received meaning affect conduct in the desired way?' Put another way, communication has not taken place unless people do something they would not otherwise have done, or refrain from doing something they would otherwise have done. The object of the exercise is to modify behaviour, and this is hard for people to accept. Unless the students have learnt, the teachers have not taught. It could be argued that nobody can teach anybody anything, but can only create conditions in which learning is more likely to take place. It is certainly so with communication. Communication has not taken place until the message has not merely been received and understood, but has been acted upon. Response is a necessary part of communication. This is the point at which Christian communication differs in both aim and nature from other communication, for, if what we believe and preach is true, the evocation of response is, at the last, the work of the Holy Spirit.