In our presbytery Pentecost takes on additional meaning:  On any Sunday we have congregations worshiping in ten languages.  While not quite up to the list of fifteen enumerated in Acts 2, (and seventeen if you implicitly include Aramaic and Greek), our area is over half-way there.

But yesterday, as I was making my way on public transportation to a meeting at the synod offices, I began reflecting on the “other” languages.  Now this is Los Angeles, so while the local list might include several of the spoken languages mentioned in Acts, it was actually the “unspoken” languages that grabbed my attention.  What began this line of thought was a car that stopped in the second lane to let the subcompact that was trapped behind my stopped bus get out and around.  The gentleman in the fancy SUV behind the car that allowed the other in must have been in a hurry because this moment of grace on the first driver’s part elicited a honk on the car horn and a hand wave (not obscene) that said “what are you doing” or “get moving” from the driver of the SUV.  Communication in non-spoken language.

This triggered my asking the question: In this day and age, what does it mean to be empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Gospel to “every nation under heaven”?  Yes, foreign missions are important.  But with all the discussion over the last week about what it means to be “evangelical” (again) and whether there is a coherent concept of “emergent,” I began reflecting on speaking the “cultural” languages.

Do we, the institutional church, speak in a language that those who have never been to church will understand?  Do we, as the mainline church, speak in a language that my children will hear?  Do we, as a historic church, speak in a language that modern upwardly-mobile professionals will listen to?  Do we, as a traditional church, speak in a language that those throughout the theological spectrum can relate to?

Please be very clear:  In the Pentecost account Peter preached the Gospel message rooted in the scriptures of the Hebrew tradition.  I am not advocating changing the Gospel message for the audience.  I am asking whether we communicate it in a language, form or way that the different “nations” (think “people groups”) of our modern American society can understand. 

Now, I realize the argument can be made that there is not agreement on some of the fine points of the Gospel message.  That is not my point here.  Whatever nuances a church may put on the Gospel message, they may present the same consistent message in multiple ways to multiple groups. (traditional, blended, contemporary, modern, emergent, to use some of the buzz words)  The point is that a consistent message can be delivered faithfully in multiple cultural contexts.

Also, I realize that the Pentecost story in Acts is first and foremost about God taking the initiative in the sending of the Holy Spirit.  (Being in the Reformed traditions we believe that the initiative is always with God.)  So God acts and the apostles respond, to the end that the Gospel is preached and people come to believe in Jesus Christ.

So in this day and age, are we open to contemporary movements of the Holy Spirit empowering the church to proclaim the Gospel in faithful ways, yet in a different “tongue”?