In 1977, the political landscape was charged with civil rights and social justice concerns. The political landscape at the beginning of the new century is clearly tending toward economic growth and development. Unfortunately, this economic empowerment has not included the poor or underprivileged.

In the area surrounding the Metropolitan Church the most dramatic shift we have witnessed has been the process of gentrification, with African-Americans moving away from the center of the District and persons of other cultures, predominately Caucasian but also including Hispanics and Asians, gravitating toward the inner city.

It’s important to understand that Metropolitan as a congregation has been in its current location for over a century. The organization of the church dates back to the Civil War, 1864. In fact, the organization of Metropolitan Church predates many of the larger institutions in Washington D.C. For example, it is older than Howard University. Metropolitan has been a part of the inner Washington community for a long time. Its constituency, the constituency that grew up around the church, has now moved away from the church geographically.

In an increasingly secular culture, the importance and the role of the church has shifted. As inner city neighborhoods are evolving across the American landscape, the communities that are spawned have different values. Their level of interest in the community church is weakened and in some instances hostile. In my view, if a church is to remain relevant and purposeful, it must find a way to “reinvent” itself so that it is capable of addressing a different set of needs and motivations which people bring to the church — a different set of cultural criteria which seek to define what the church is and what the church should become. In some cases, churches have to face the challenging decision of relocation.

The whole issue of the shifting of the culture, gentrification, and the geographical shifting of the membership — all those issues combined placed us in the position where we had to reevaluate the nature of our ministry in this particular urban setting. Whenever a pastor seeks to guide a congregation in a move from one location to the next — even if it is a move across the street – the decision bears within it the seed of great discussion at the least, and the potential for great division within the body of Christ itself.

As you know, people become attached to location, to structure, to position and prestige within a community. The roots of history are very significant, particularly within African American culture. As a people we become very attached to our own sense of tradition and history. And to speak of moving away from the locus of that history and tradition is to shake the church at its very core.

So then I was engaged — and continue to be engaged — in a process of speaking vision to our congregation, of sharing how and where I discern God is leading us, even as God progressively speaks to me and through me. Such thought and speech is truly audacious. Yet, as God speaks through the very structures, strategies and circumstances which arise from the culture it tends toward a redefinition of the church. Understand that the process of casting this vision, sharing it with the congregation, and seeking to have them come to a level of acceptance has not been without difficulty and challenge. It has not been a fractious difficulty but there has been a current of concern as to whether or not this is what we should do, whether or not this is truly the way God is leading us, or whether or not this will lead us to a place where we can honor our history and continue the work that we are doing in a different location or under a different paradigm.