“But no matter what mysteries the future may yet have to disclose, the fact remains that the broad stream of the development of our race runs from Babylon to San Francisco, through the five stadia of Babylonian-Egyptian, Greek-Roman, Islamic, Romanistic and Calvinistic civilization…”
–Abraham Kuyper, Stone Lectures, pg 36

After a long wait, the San Francisco Giants have won the World Series. My initial reaction was one of disbelief, then one of elation: after years of failing to win it with the likes of Will Clark and Barry Bonds, they triumphed with a hodge-podge mix of great pitchers like Tim Lincecum and Brian Wilson and hitters like Cody Ross and Buster Posey. “Hope deferred makes the heart sick” – as my Cubs fan brethren will attest. But some things are worth the wait!

However, this particular “wait” is probably not what Abraham Kuyper had in mind when he saw San Francisco as the end-point of modern, Western Civilization. I’d like to consider how Kuyper seems to be perceptive here – although perhaps not exactly as he intended it. For in his estimation, the cosmopolitan character of modernity would have happy results in the “Far West” of California.

Kuyper of course was not unaware of the deleterious elements of Modernity, but in general he was optimistic about the trajectory it would ultimately take. Having grown up in San Francisco, I’d like to share a few reflections about how San Francisco is indeed a “most-modern” city (despite the fact we tend to think of it as the hub of “post-modernism”), and some observations about the church’s ministry approach in such a context.

Firstly, San Francisco is a highly “wired” place, with gizmos and gadgets aplenty. Technological progress is highly valued, as the presence of so many ‘dot com’ and ‘biotech’ companies in “Silicon Valley” reveals. The Baconian project of pursuing mastery over nature through invention and technique is on full display in the Bay Area.

Human freedom in the Modernist enterprise is defined not in terms of living according to nature (divinely given) but transcending nature on one’s own terms. Not coincidentally, such technological development has undeniably exacerbated the individualism already latent in American culture: think of iPods and Segues for instance.

In any case, the attention devoted to technique abstracted from telos – of pursuing the efficiency of means without defined ends – is something not only California, but contemporary society in general, must continue to confront and correct. If you will, the answer to the question “Where are we going?” is “I don’t know, but we’re sure going there quickly!”

Secondly, I believe the words “I perceive you are very religious” spoken by Paul in Athens are also appropriately applied to San Francisco. Yes, atheists find themselves at home there (and even they are starting to get together in more formal groups to find solidarity!). Yet “spirituality” detached from dogma is what dominates the religious landscape; the effects of the 1960’s in terms of “freedom over form” are still being felt in a profound way.

This same religious ethos and outlook spills over into sexual ethics, where any external restraints – revealed and societal norms – are seen to violate one’s inner self, whose expression is an inalienable right. I still remember one man who came to our church for several months saying how terribly deceptive and destructive such a message was, as he had seen the bitter and tragic results in his own life and the lives of those closest to him.

Lastly, the “city by the bay” is a very diverse place, populated by people from many different nations. In one sense, therefore, its culture is in fact multi-culture. Kuyper, for one, saw human (even ecclesiastical!) diversity as a positive outworking of the diversity of creation itself, under the unifying structures given by the Creator.

Without idealizing the situation, I believe that San Francisco has done well to serve as an “umbrella” locale for various ethnic groups and traditions, without insisting on fitting its inhabitants into a homogenized mold. Plurality does not necessarily equate to pluralism, although certainly politically speaking City Hall has tended to assume a relativistic ethos. The balance between tolerance both as a political necessity and liability will continue to challenge the American experiment – a very Modern enterprise indeed!

When it comes to ministry opportunities for the church, the taxonomy of “foreign” and “home” missions might be less helpful in a locale like this – as in many other metropolitan centers, like New York and Philadelphia. For example, the Christian Reformed Church in the 1960’s initiated a Chinese-speaking work in San Francisco. They also had a ministry to Native American Indians called “The Friendship House” where the father of Professor Cornelus Venema (President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary) preached the gospel and was involved in diaconal outreach.

Aside from First OPC (where I was raised), there are no other NAPARC churches within the city, and so there is an acute need to have more churches as a Christ-centered and Reformed witness there.

I hope these reflections have given you a sense of some of the dynamics of modernity at work in the city of my upbringing. As I have shared some of my perspective, it has not been my intention to engage in a purely sociological exercise. As we are situated in the here and now, how do we also serve the Lord in (most/post) modern society? How are we to navigate and serve in this world as pilgrims on the way to the city of God? In part, by keeping our eyes open as we travel through the city of man, whether that is found in California, Ohio, or wherever the Lord has called us to be.
_______________
Ken Montgomery is Associate Pastor of Redeemer Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Dayton, Ohio.