I have just spent an evening and a morning with mega-church pastors in Australia.
Last night I heard Mark Conner, Senior Minister of CityLife church, Melbourne (5,500 in church on a weekend, 8000 membership, 1900 new members last year); and this morning Tim Piess (worship pastor of Crossway Baptist church, Melbourne, with 5000 at church on a weekend). Between them, they are the same size as nearly an entire region of the Sydney Diocese.
And I keep asking myself the question, why? Why can’t Anglicans build churches more than 1000 adults on a Sunday?
I’ve got 3 thoughts, all about DNA.
First, it appears to me that these mega-churches (both of which are shades of Pentecostal), have in their DNA an entirely straightforward equation between the Christian life and building into church activities. By contrast, I suspect our emphasis is on a personal holiness which includes church programs tangentially.
Second, it appears to me that these mega-churches have in their DNA a remarkable leadership development intentionality. They throw people in from the get-go, and with the customary emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit, which are discerned by the existing leadership, there is enormous encouragement.
Third, it appears to me that these mega-churches have in their DNA an incredible, sustained accountability at every level of leadership and responsibility. They really do set goals, they really do move people to areas better suited to their gifting, they really do sack people.
Is there an Anglican church that combines these 3?
(And of course, mega-church leaders have to wear their shirts out, but some of us have that covered!)
Andrew, in keeping with your thought-provoking question and the positive way in which you have tried to address it, I will try really hard not to turn this into a slag-off-at-the-Penties comment.
You seem to be asking about DNA that promotes growth in numbers that far exceed what we (SydAng’s) see capable of? To what you have already added, I would suggest that the whole box & dice experience of these churches is compelling from almost day one. (I am thinking of the complete package, of which music / worship is one important dimension).
By way of comparison, we overtly relay on the gospel to be compelling, and alot of the rest of our “package” actually inhibits their kind of growth.
Leadership and accountability and decent shirts are just a small part of this…
I take it a vigorous programme of church planting is the alternative?
It’s worth asking: would an additional 10,000 people in church (the sum total of the two churches you mention) be better achieved with a hundred new churches of 100 people each or two new churches of 10,000? ie, what would 100 new churches that were deeply committed to mission in their local area, to community service, outreach etc achieve as compared with two new churches of +2000?
Boring answer, but hard to avoid thinking we need both. Some people need to learn how to do church at +2000, and to do so, I bet we’d discover that many of the things Penties are criticized for (“worldly” leadership models, slick performance-like services etc) would turn out to be necessities at that size, and not an inherent part of the Pentecostal theological agenda.
(I think of Tim Keller who correctly observes that church size is more important, in terms of how a church operates, than denomination. ie a Baptist church of +1000 will have more in common with an Anglican church of +1000, functionally, that it will with another Baptist church of -100.)
Others, no doubt, need to plant churches that create new churches before they get big. But this needs to be real (“missional”) church planting, rather that service multiplication.
I’m all for some people staring down the criticism and learning how to be leaders of a +1000 church in an evangelical theological mode.
Geoff,
I guess the question becomes can we keep the same gospel content and change the package to be more compelling?
To be honest, I’m not sure, since the package seems to me to be a function of some fairly deep values eg. the necessity of a genuinely emotional experience for a life changing hearing of God’s word.
To be honest, I’m not sure how much I’d disagree with that (we are whole people) but we find it hard to actually incorporate it into our package.
Rory,
or perhaps 98 churches of 100, and 2 churches of 5000! And as long as they’re all growing by 10% per year, it will all be OK anyway.
Staring down the criticism is my middle name!
Andrew –
what are you waiting for? Get busy and build that 1000 member church!
Love your insight guys!
Since your in Melbourne Andrew….. why not check out Glen Waverley Anglican Church?
1000+ members, with a great focus on spiritual giftings and how they can best be used to serve the kingdom, as well as exactly the sort of leadership you’ve described (many of whom even wear untucked shirts!)
I’ve heard the music pastor is also a bit groovy….
Interesting that these three churches are all in the bible belt of Melbourne; Knox (CityLife), Burwood (Crossway) and Glen Waverley (Anglican). And that all three of these areas are in Local Government Areas that have been assessed on the SEIFA Index of disadvantage of being of above average socio-economic status in Melbourne.
See page 76-77 of the “All of Melbourne Matters” Report…
As a member of CityLife, my observation is that a large proportion of new people are transfers not new believers. We have a large number of international migrants come to the church, people who had been active members of their churches overseas.
I heard recently that Erwin McManus actually shut down Mosaic in LA for a while, because too many Christians were turning up because it was the latest “cool thing”. Their aim was to reach those who didn’t know Christ, not be the latest hip thing in Christianity
Awesome 
Andrew,
Of the 1900 new members last year, do they know how much of this was transfer growth and how much was new converts?
That would be interesting to know.
If the mega church is growing at 10% excluding transfer growth that would be great. But if a large part of that is just transfer growth then that’s not so good.
To be honest though, I’d rather people transfer to a megachurch and remain in the church than leave a struggling church and leave the church for good.
Richard,
he said 65% new converts! Very impressive.
Mike,
I’m bustin’ my chops, I’m just not sure I know how! But I’ve got a few more ideas, so I’ll keep charging the line!
Dave,
terrific to have you on board!
I’d definitely have visited, but had to come home directly – another time.
And GWAC definitely has the grooviest music director I’ve ever met! I hear she knows some pretty talented drummers, too.
My vote would be for the hundreds of small churches. It’s probably because I’m wary of the “frenzy” phenomena that can seem to happen in those massive groups.
As someone who spent a lot of time in different music-type activities (including Church music) I get worried about the role music plays in Church. When I sit and listen to those bands at those large super-churches they display all the key elements of “Mantras” and “hypnotic music”: repetition, arrangements aimed at emphasising positive emotions, limited variation between thematic content across multiple pieces. In short, it feels like the music serves the function of “mass brainwashing” and “mass emotion-manipulation”. That worries me.
It worries me because even when you read just a handful of the Psalms, David (assuming he wrote the majority or all of them) expresses fear, awe, love, respect, compassion, worry, pain, hurt, sorrow and every other emotion. The times I have attended those “mega churches” (and yes they were often of Pentecostal breeds) they have two emotions: empowerment/elevation, ‘abstract love’ (almost pop-tune-style I love you baby).
So if managing a church of that size requires those practices (as suggested by others above), maybe churches that large aren’t what we need. I think I’m with Rory in this situation.
The majority of Anglican churches don’t want to modernise – they have people who want to preserve the status quo, and they are happy with the culture of their church to be stuck in the 50’s. Ancient music, quiet atmosphere and robes – things that are completely alien to anyone under 40.
As a result, they don’t attract anyone new, which is where growth normally is. So they don’t build bigger churches.
GWAC is the exception – they’ve modernised and have the results to prove that it works.
–Ancient music, quiet atmosphere and robes – things that are completely alien to anyone under 40.–
Not completely (of late, I (a 26-year-old bloke) have partook/enjoyed St Philip’s York St’s mid-week HC (1662 BCP; bare-bones.) Granted, those who know me wouldn’t parade my circumstances as normative.)
It seems that leaders in larger churches have personalities that are dynamic, that attract people and have the ability to gather, unite and mobilise others. Is that a fair observation?
I think (from my reading of various articles) that there is a different skill-set required to lead a larger church. More stepping back, more delegation, less micro-managing, more strategic thinking. This requires a different arena of skills that most theological/Bible colleges won’t teach. Unless you are seeking these skills on your own, or are naturally gifted in these areas, going to the next level might be difficult.
Although larger churches in Australia seem to be predominantly charismatic/pentecostal in flavour, that isn’t the rule everywhere. What can we learn from the larger churchs in the States and elsewhere that are perhaps more of the evangelical flavour? Willow Creek (Bill Hybels) and Bethlehem (John Piper)spring to mind but I’m sure there are others that I don’t know about. (Nb preachers only documented to help identify the churches, not because they belong to those guys only
. Its not all about the music there but excellent preaching of the Word too!
I now live in a country where options for attending church are much more limited (Asia). There are only 2 churches in a city of 6 million for english speakers! However, despite the more charismatic leaning of the music team here, I’m sure its possible to bring the breadth of emotions and thinking of the psalms and other places into that style of worship. For example – we had a great segue from the “splendour of the king” chris tomlin song – with a chorus of how great is our God – straight into the hymn “How great thou art” chorus – “then sings my soul…” It was fantastic and just requires a little creativity, and good song index and some inspired music skills! Seeking music excellence doesn’t have to be the domain of the pentecostal church alone.
Here’s a link to “Infrastructure for Souls”, an interesting photo essay on the design of mega churches in America:
http://www.canopycanopycanopy.com/6/infrastructure_for_souls
(via http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/ )
Hi Steph,
“How great is our God” was written by Chris Tomlin (who also did the recent update of “Amazing Grace”). The CD “Passion – How great is our God (live)” has a recording of this track with the segue into “How great thou art” (acapella!) which you describe. It’s quite beautiful to hear the large crowd singing it.
I think it would be interesting to find out more about how people came to come along to church. Did they mostly join because they heard about this big church and so they came along to find out more, or did they mostly join because their friend invited them to church one day? I’d make a guess that most new converts are in the latter category.
One might argue that bums-on-seats is not a true indication of the state of people’s hearts, but I put a lot of value in people spending time each Sunday with their Christian family. It’s encouraging to hear about such churches, and to remember to keep praying for colleagues, friends and family.
How about church buildings? I don’t know of many Anglican parishes in Sydney that could fit 10,000. I guess if you are in the good position that you have some land you can always work up to it (once your existing buildings are full). I’ll word up my local parish councillor….