OVER THE PAST 20 years, Rev. Barry Randolph has seen God revive the east side Detroit neighborhood of Islandview where he presides as pastor of the Episcopalian Church of the Messiah. Guided by God’s desire for what he calls “righteous economics,” Randolph has challenged traditional boundaries between church and community, bringing the good news of Jesus alongside affordable housing, workforce development, job placement for those returning from prison, a food pantry, community organizing, youth mentoring, and business incubation. He has even worked to provide low-cost internet service to those without it. “The work being done isn’t solely that of the church,” he said. “It is the people coming to the church with an idea, and we help that idea take root and grow.”

Unfortunately, Church of the Messiah is an outlier. Research I conducted on churches across the nation shows that, in general, churches are not helping their neighborhoods. Even worse, some are hurting them. But churches like Randolph’s are awakening others to the reality that neighborhoods need churches — and those churches need their neighborhoods. Guided by a God-sized vision for just economics found in Micah 4:4 (“Everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid”), these churches are working with God toward a new vision. Using the community economic development framework, they’re rethinking well-meaning charity and social service programs, church planting strategies, “taking a city for Jesus”-movements, and other traditional church-centric approaches to urban ministry and outreach.

“We all want to see the Islandview neighborhood continue to grow in an equitable manner,” Randolph said, “where all are welcome and can thrive.”

The wrong kind of impact

THERE IS A COMMON misconception that just by being there, churches bring good news to a neighborhood. While the good news may be preached inside the walls of a church, my own doctoral research at Portland State University revealed a mixed picture of the relationship between a church and its surrounding neighborhood.

In my study of more than 2,000 churches from 1990 to 2010, I found that churches are, on average, 1.6 times more segregated than their surrounding neighborhoods. This is made all the worse when we consider where new churches are being planted. My research reveals that church planting shifted from predominantly white, suburban, growing, higher-income neighborhoods in the 1980s, to “grittier,” “cooler,” diverse, lower-income neighborhoods in the 2000s — some of which were already gentrifying or at risk of gentrifying. And these new, predominately white churches, whose congregations seldom mirror the demographics of their neighborhoods, contribute to higher rates of gentrification, with higher-income white individuals moving into these once diverse, lower-income neighborhoods. Of course, churches are not solely or even primarily responsible for gentrification, but my research showed that churches are responsible for about 10 percent of the income growth that typically accompanies a community experiencing gentrification. One explanation for these disturbing findings is that these churches serve as a signal to higher-income, predominately white individuals that a neighborhood is changing and will soon be populated with people and institutions that mirror themselves.

For churches already in a neighborhood, a traditional community engagement strategy is to provide social services such as food and clothing programs. But as a former member of the board of a local chapter of Love INC, which aims to transform lives and communities through churches, I’ve seen growing discouragement within these churches as members question their programs’ effectiveness, with the same people returning for support year after year. My research confirmed that church social services, in general, did not create lasting change in the community as measured by impact on neighborhood incomes. However, I did find one positive impact: These services may enable low-income residents to stay in the neighborhoods, thereby slowing displacement from gentrification.

Rethinking our approach

FORTUNATELY, THERE IS a proven approach to creating lasting change in neighborhoods by directly addressing economic injustice — community economic development (CED). CED emerged in the 1960s in response to the failures of top-down urban renewal programs, countering with bottom-up, equity-driven development in divested and forgotten neighborhoods. While top-down, traditional economic development is perfectly content displacing the poor to “improve” neighborhoods, CED seeks out those left behind, encouraging the community to work together to build the wealth of current residents and businesses.

A major focus of CED is helping start or grow local businesses that are committed to serving the community. A recent Harvard Business Review article found entrepreneurship programs that emphasize locally oriented businesses provided more community benefits than programs focused on establishing large, growth-oriented companies that often leave the community for expansion opportunities. Benefits of such a local approach include keeping more money circulating in the community, strengthened local partnerships, and creating businesses that are of, and for, the community.

Supporting microbusinesses is a popular CED entry point. With just a little help, existing businesses can expand, or new local businesses can be formed. The Gresham and Rockwood United Methodist Churches near Portland, Ore., teamed up to convert Rockwood UMC into the Rockwood Center, where they now host a variety of community entrepreneur programs including a sewing collective and soon, a commercial kitchen.

Another approach to supporting local business development is to convert underutilized church space into a “makerspace.” By providing access to shared equipment and skills training, makerspaces help nurture local businesses and prepare individuals for jobs. The Bible Center Church in Charleston, W.Va., started a “Maker’s Center” that offers a wide range of training including computer skills, sewing, 3D printing, construction, and even driver’s education. The program serves the general community, including school-age children and adults in recovery, with a goal of reversing the effects of persistent poverty and lack of opportunity in the surrounding area.

Recognizing that entrepreneurship is not the solution for everybody, another popular CED focus area is preparing and connecting residents to jobs and supporting their journey to financial self-sufficiency. The most effective efforts work directly with local employers to ensure that workforce development programs are aligned with what employers in the area need, while encouraging employers to offer stable, living wage jobs that provide health insurance and other essential benefits. The United Church Outreach Ministry, a ministry of the Michigan Conference of the United Church of Christ located near Grand Rapids, offers training in interviewing, conflict resolution, and work habits, with a focus on serving those who often have the most difficulty finding employment, such as those with criminal records. Partnerships with several area employers, such as residential care facilities, facilitate the transition from program participant to active employee.

CED also encompasses projects that keep housing and land affordable for current residents and businesses. With thousands of acres of developable church property available in most metropolitan areas, a growing number of churches are helping their local economies by developing affordable housing on their property. For example, the Leaven Community Land and Housing Coalition in Portland, Ore., runs a cohort process with congregations throughout the area to discern direction, advocate for necessary regulatory changes, learn from each other, and collectively vet consultants and developers. Portsmouth Union Church in North Portland landed a $2.3 million grant to develop a 20-unit affordable housing complex for low-income residents. It took five years to get necessary zoning changes but, in the process, they convinced the city of Portland to create a city-faith community liaison position to make it easier for other congregations to follow suit.

Decentering the church

AT THIS POINT, you may be thinking one of two things: 1) “Yes, this is exactly what we need! My church is ready to start a new CED program and lead the charge,” or 2) “This sounds good, but what can my church do? Can we really take on something big enough to make an impact that will last?”

Both thoughts are rooted in the same, church-centric thinking. But since CED is a highly collaborative endeavor, it calls for a decentered church approach, with the focus on a CED ecosystem of private businesses, developers, community groups, nonprofit service providers, local government, financial institutions, other churches, and anchor institutions such as hospitals or universities. Your church cannot, and should not, do this work alone!

There are a variety of “decentered” paths your church can follow, starting with coming alongside an existing CED program — at their invitation, of course — to further their reach or effectiveness with financial support, space, and/or volunteers. Second, churches can be highly effective connectors focused on bringing together people and resources, including providing space to facilitate collaborative meetings. This role also includes seeking out and encouraging the community to listen to the voices that have been traditionally ignored or silenced. Third, churches can start a new CED program, but only after identifying a true gap in the community and in full conversation with the CED ecosystem. Finally, churches may be called to help start a new organization to manage the overall efforts within a community’s CED ecosystem. Such efforts are typically long-term projects, however, and should not be considered until substantial CED experience is achieved.

Nashville Organized for Action and Hope (NOAH), for example, is a multiracial, interdenominational, faith-led coalition working together on affordable housing, economic equity, criminal justice, and education. By incorporating congregations, community organizations, and labor unions into its coalition, NOAH has successfully organized efforts to influence the passage of local hiring mandates for large-scale development projects and increased resources for affordable housing. At a national level, Faith in Action provides help in establishing local efforts to work together toward what they call a “moral economy.”

Here are some steps to get your church started on a decentered approach to community economic development:

Step One. Find people and organizations of goodwill that share your love and concern for your neighborhood. Start exposing the cracks in the local economy and seeking out the voices that are not being heard. Listen to each other’s dreams for economic justice and start scheming about what CED programs could look like in your community. This work will form the basis for an advisory team.

Step Two. Although we’ve emphasized a decentered church approach, your church’s vision and mission is important and must drive your involvement in CED. Otherwise, your church simply won’t have the staying power to see the CED ecosystem fully bloom. If you and your members can’t honestly say that a workforce development program or a makerspace is central to the mission of your church and necessary to be a faithful neighborhood presence, you still have some foundational mission and vision work to do. Engaging in this work calls for a truly holistic view of the gospel and a justice-centered mission that is, by definition, a God-centered mission.

Step Three. Implement a robust assessment process to understand your community and your church, especially the state of the CED ecosystem. Don’t speed your way through this even, or especially, if you already think you know what CED path you should pursue. Following such a process may not only surprise you with new insights and open up new possibilities for engagement, but it will also jump-start your efforts to nurture a robust CED ecosystem, something that is absolutely critical for successful CED efforts.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to live and love sacrificially and be above the fray, so to speak, of special interest groups or community constituencies. CED should be motivated by a desire for the common good, not for self-preservation or relevance for churches.

Like the shepherd in Matthew 18, the church must be willing to take a risk and leave the 99 who are already safe and well-fed to seek out the lost sheep who is falling through the cracks of injustice. In the process, we may find that we too have lost our way and must find our way back into loving relationship with our neighbors and the neighborhood around us. This path requires intimate love and concern for the people in our neighborhoods as well as a deep understanding of and appreciation for the community’s history, assets, and challenges. The church is uniquely positioned by God to love individuals and seek out the “least of these” while resisting unjust systems and bringing hope and healing through community processes such as community economic development.