About a month ago I had the opportunity to spend a day with urban ministry pioneer and leader Dr. Bob Lupton. What a gift it was to be able to fellowship with and learn from Bob. I found him to be be everthing I’d expected - a wise and gracious man who is accessible, honest and insightful.

A few days after our time together, Dr. Lupton agreed to do a follow-up interview over the phone, a portion of which I’ve transcribed for you here.

Most of the questions are related to the concept of “reneighboring” or “return flight,” a Christian Community Development principle pioneered by Dr. Lupton in Atlanta which has become one of the core values of urban ministres all over America.

If you haven’t already done so, get a copy of Dr. Lupton’s book Return Flight - it’s a great follow-up to Compassion, Justice and the Christian Life, which we reviewed here a few weeks ago. Both books are essential resources for developing an approach to urban ministry that is true to the Holistic Gospel of the Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus.

The questions I asked Dr. Lupton are in bold print and his answers follow in italics.

How did you first come up with the concept of Return Flight?

About 20 years ago there was a discussion among Atlanta foundation leaders involved in community development – back then community development was a buzzword and everyone was using community development in their proposals, but they weren’t really changing anything they were doing, they were just calling it community development in order to be in vogue.

Sort of like changing labels on an empty bottle?

Yeah, sort of like a merry-go-round where all the horses are painted a different color – you’re pretty sure you’ve seen them come around before – so there’s really nothing new.

So, I decided to write up a white paper on what my understanding of what community development really is. The group of foundation leaders liked that idea, so I wrote a paper on that theme and it led to a series of discussions, which generated more material. Before long, I had almost enough material to do a book, so I did some more research and used some of my Urban Perspectives that covered similar ideas, put it all together and got it published.

It’s been 15 years since Return Flight was first published. Where would you say that concept is today, in terms of how it’s been fleshed out in your ministry in Atlanta?

When I wrote Return Flight, moving back into the city was still a fairly new concept – it wasn’t normative in any sense – there were just a few urban pioneers and some high risk people following that path. But, over the years we’ve demonstrated some good mixed-income models and developed a subdivision that modeled it and helped to develop the first HOPE VI project in Atlanta, really before HOPE VI was HOPE VI. The idea of moving back into the inner city gradually started to gain momentum and became a fairly normative strategy used here in Atlanta and in other major cities all over the country. Now it’s not a strange thing to do.

What’s the profile of a person who would be a candidate for Return Flight?

It’s easiest for young singles and young couples who don’t have kids, preferably young professionals. When they have kids, of course issues arise about where to send the kids to school, but return flighters can be some of the best allies for school reform and really turning around a neighborhood.

Is there any particular strategy that you’ve used to find people who are good candidates to relocate to an inner city/urban context?

Here in Atlanta we’ve had the advantage of having Mission Year as one of our partners. Many of the Mission Year kids, a good strong core of them, have decided to stay here in the city and they’ve been good leaders. Our current COO is a Mission Year grad. Finding a way to get younger people immersed in inner city/urban work will be a key to the long term success of this kind of ministry in any city.

What role can people who don’t live in the community play in this kind of strategy – people who don’t relocate but still feel a sense of call to be involved?

Those are all the connected people who have abilities, networks and resources that are needed to turn a community around – real estate developers, bankers, attorneys – people who are in real estate and real estate-related professions are essential partners in the transformation of a community. They don’t have to live there, but if they’re willing to focus some of their attention, energy and investments on the identified community, it can make a huge difference – you can’t get along without them.

So it isn’t necessary for people to be hit with a lot of white guilt if they don’t move back? You’re saying that even without moving back some people can still make a significant contribution to the revitalization of inner-city/urban areas?

Absolutely. But no one should be ruled out as a candidate for relocation – for example, we’ve had some wonderful Empty Nesters who have made some significant contributions. When people ask me if I’m suggesting that they should move back into the city, my question to them is, “What’s your adventure level? Are you a high adventure person?” This kind of ministry is where you find Kingdom adventurers. But, if they’re not, we still need their talents to help those who are on the front lines.

What sort of intentional support network do you have in place for people who make the decision to relocate?

When folks move in, we encourage them to live in close proximity to each other. Having good neighbors, people who watch each other’s houses, watch each other’s kids, have barbeques together – that gives a level of security, fellowship and mutual support that is crucial – especially for people who have never lived in an urban environment before. It’s very important for people not to be isolated.

What would you consider to be universal – principles or methods that you’ve developed that could be used anywhere – and, what do you consider to be unique to your ministry context in Atlanta?

Nothing that we’re doing in terms of programs or activities are particularly unique – there are people in every city doing those same kinds of things. I think if there is something unique about what we’re doing in Atlanta it’s that we focus all of our programs and efforts on one limited neighborhood. So as to get high impact, to be able to get some real significant traction, to attract money and resources around that neighborhood so that we can see measureable results. We currently have an evaluation team from one of the major universities in Atlanta doing a longitudinal study to measure impact and change in the community where we’re working. The fact that we’re so focused on one community makes our work a fairly comprehensive approach in that location, as opposed to more traditional programs that work with kids, families or seniors from all over the city.

Sort of like injecting an antibody into an infected area in the hope of making the whole body healthy?

Yes – that’s a good analogy.

You’ve become a big advocate for mixed-income communities, as opposed to traditional strategies for creating affordable housing for low-income people. How did you determine the mixed-income approach was the way to go?

In the beginning, we did what most housing ministries do – get a whole lot of cheap land in a concentrated area and ramp up the effort to produce as many housing units as we can. That approach made for good marketing and good PR – and it created a lot of activity in a community, which is very helpful.

But, give that about five years and you’ll start to see those houses deteriorate, the small kids grow into teenagers and often start to get involved in a lot of the bad behaviors still prevalent in the streets that surround the newer houses. Over a period of time, you realize that homeownership is in itself, not sufficient to bring a neighborhood up or to bring a house up in a deteriorating neighborhood.

Essentially, we were reconcentrating the poor, thinking that homeownership would cause them and the surrounding community to rise. It did not. The deteriorating community pulled down the houses and their property values. Also, the pathology in the community infected the families that became homeowners. Consequently, we ended up not doing the poor much of a favor.

We realized that when you bring middle-income people into the neighborhood or when they move in on their own, they bring with them the values, pride in homeownership and other positive traits that can counteract the deterioration and cause the tide to rise. They also tended to be the ones who would be more proactive about maintenance and improvement in the community – they were more likely to organize, to create action to get street lights fixed, pot holes filled and all the other things you have to do to keep a community on the rise.

Over time, our strategy became not just to create affordable housing for low-income people, but to secure places for the poor in reviving communities and we came to realize that the greatest way to elevate the poor was for them to have achieving neighbors on either side of them.

Do you think it’s important for achieving neighbors to be an ethnic or racial match for their poorer neighbors?

I don’t think that’s as important as the motivation of the neighbors. If the middle-income neighbors moving in have a vision for the community, then it doesn’t make too much difference. The biggest hurdles that have to be overcome are the class barriers. A middle-class black family that moves in next door to a poor black family will have class barriers between them and their neighbors. The class barrier is the biggest hurdle to overcome and it always has to be worked at.

When you target an area for development, how do you engage the people already living in that community?

Before we do any kind of building, our strategy is to develop a comprehensive neighborhood plan with the neighbors already living in the community – through the neighborhood association, the civic league or whoever’s operating there – to put together a block-by-block plan of what they want to see happen in their community. That plan will include architectural designs, income ratios and other elements so that the plan is of the community. There should be no surprises – what we develop is based on the plan the community has designed together. Once you have that blueprint, then it’s a matter of implementation.

So, those of us interested in Christian Community Development shouldn’t see gentrification as the enemy?

We want gentrification. In order for a community to be healthy, you have to have middle-income folks moving back in to attract businesses and the other amenities they expect. But, as Christian Community Developers, we’re advocates for gentrification with justice.

It all goes back to having a holistic approach, doesn’t it?

It certainly does. You can’t just look at one house or even one street – you need a plan and a vision for redeveloping an entire community. Without that sort of holistic approach, your plan will be short-sighted and not have much effect, in the long run. But, the ministry doing the development work and the community must be clear that this sort of venture is a partnership – one can’t be completely subordinate to the other – both sides have to understand that in a partnership there are contingencies and that each side has equal shares and responsibilities. When you structure a plan for redevelopment, you’ve got to reserve within yourself or your organization the capacity to deliver on what your commitments are.

For more information about Dr. Lupton and FCS Urban Ministries, including how to order his books and sign up for his monthly newsletter, click on this link.