AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
I thought last week’s blog on mega churches in Sydney would start a lively debate, and I am thankful for the insightful and thoughtful comments made in response to my suggestions.
I think its now time to lay a few more of my cards on the table, although most have been played through the comments.
The question I am trying to answer is why don’t we have mega churches in Sydney? I know Martin asked about the value of mega churches, and I’ll comment on that too, at the end.
It seems to me that there are three possible reasons why mega churches don’t exist in Sydney. They are:
The dominant Anglican culture of Sydney
The nature of Sydney
The perceived value of mega churches
The dominant Anglican culture of Sydney
This covers a number of issues, which I’ll merely raise and wait for comment.
Anglicanism is the largest Protestant denomination in Sydney and still only has 70000 members. However, there are 250 parishes, largely doing similar things to each other. People have to have reasons for driving past several similar churches to go to a particular one. Generally there are three reasons for so doing.
The first is that the church caters for a specific group (ethnic, cultural or affinity) and so people will travel to that church. By definition, in catering for a specific group it is hard to grow a mega church.
The second reason is relationship. Friends are at that church, I was converted there, it is my home church. National Church Life Survey results have shown that people will travel long distances for relationship until children begin to grow up, and then they tend to move to a church near their home, sport and school.
The third reason is the quality of the congregational life. It may be great preaching, great pastoral support, fantastic training, wonderful meetings. Unfortunately, the creation of exceptional congregational life for large numbers of people is not something Anglicans are good at.
Part of this dominant culture has been hinted at in last week’s comments, especially by Andrew. That is, our model is the rector as sole trader. It is the normal practise, the one we observe and the one we learn; and the one that limits the size to which churches can grow. I have often written on the need for our present generation to develop team ministry, as what we do now will be the model for generations to come. This is no easy task, as it depends on the leaders personality, each team member’s personality and the processes involved. I was part of the senior staff team at St. Matthias and recall thinking that we were all willing to die for Phillip, because we knew he was willing to die for us- that is a rare quality indeed.
The nature of Sydney
Sydney is a strange city. It is not homogeneous in any way. It comprises many micro cultures, a number of focal hubs and geographical tribes. Social demographers tell us that people usually will not travel along routes not traversed regularly during the week. People will happily travel a similar route as the one to school, work, sport or shopping, but will not take different routes with ease. So despite comments to the contrary, it is unusual for people to travel large distances unless it is to a hub. Sydney also has some natural boundaries that people will not cross. These include water (harbour, rivers,bay), railway lines, and obstacles to car travel routes. Mega churches have this to contend with.
We have to remember the relative non church attendance of Sydneysiders compared to the USA. The Midwest of the USA has on average ten times the percentage of people in church as does Sydney. Even in those cities like Seattle, with church attendance similar to Sydney, there is not a good Bible church on every corner, so good ministries are worth crossing the city for.
Finally, land and building costs, except on the fringes of Sydney are very high, making the option of building a large church building impossible for many churches. Last week I read of the mall mentality in the USA whereby large tracts of inexpensive land are purchased on which to build malls, and provide open air parking for thousands of vehicles. That just doesn’t happen in Sydney.
The perceived value of mega churches
Sydney does have the tall poppy syndrome, especially amongst the middle class, although much less so in non tertiary educated suburbs. To grow a mega church this syndrome has to be worked against.
The real question is “does the mega church grow the kingdom of God?”, or is it just transferring people from one congregation to another. My answer is that it could grow the Kingdom by allowing the best ministry to be conducted by people in the best roles, so that all members are white hot for Jesus. Is the amount of effort worth the return? I don’t know, but my hunch is that in places like the northwest, southwest, Illawarra and Sutherland shire they are more likely to succeed as a number of the hindrances are diminished there.
I know our structures and organisations must change, as we seek to honour the Lord in our day, and mega churches are but one possible change that may be made.
Thanks for your article Archie.
What part do you think theological perspectives play ?
Some travel to churches for theological reasons including such gospel issues as - sovereignty of God, nature of sin, role of Holy Spirit, wrath of God, judgement, gospel proclamation, attitude to evangelism and sound doctrine... I suggest theological issues are the most important factor in church growth and we seem to avoid acknowledgment of this. Is this a fair conclusion?
Di
In response to your suggestion, right theology is essential for gospel church growth, but church growth which just counts heads unfortunately does not require right theology. That is, numbers can grow through right practice and right theology, but they also grow by right practice and wrong theology, so part of what we must do is warn the sheep at these times. Right theology and practice must be together if we are to see gospel growth.
Archie
I might be misreading you but I would have thought that Oxford Falls Chrisian City Church (6,000 members) and Hillsong (20,000 ASA at two campuses) both qualify as megachurches. Sydney has three of the largest 10 churches in Australia, roughly in line with our proportion of the population.
In your last post you noted that Sydney has these pentecostal megachurches but they seem to have dropped off the logic of parts of your argument this time around.
Is the geography of Sydney different for pentecostals? Does the the cost of land vary for them? have they got rid of the tall poppy syndrome?
I suspect History and theology are the key reasons for the lack of anglican megachurches.
Hillsong has two campuses one north of the harbour and one south for a very good reason.. people don't cross the bridge/tunnel if they can help to.
In fact Hillsong has started setting up satellite campuses because they realise the limits of the mega-church model. The latest I believe is in the Narellan area.
My understanding that this new strategy has arisen because of their well documented problems developing their Waterloo campus due to planning restrictions/neighbour complaints etc. That somewhat justifies Archie's point about land availability.
My comments are about growing Anglican mega churches, and why we don't in Sydney. All the churches you mention are around the fringe (see Jeremy's comment on Waterloo), where I suggest it can more easily be achieved. That said, history and theology do play a significant part as does our lack of models of operation and teams. Archie
Willow Creek is 50km from the centre of Chicago, and the main campus of Saddleback is on the edge of the Orange County sprawl.
Mega churches tend to be located on the fringe. That's not different for Anglicans as against Pentecostals. Its not different for Sydney as against Chicago and LA. Geography does not explain the absence of a Anglican megachurch in sydney.
Jeremy,
Saddleback and Willow Creek have many campuses now. In starting extra campuses. Hillsong may not be giving up the mega church ideal, but adopting the latest idea for mega churches, the satellite campus. Yes, they may be realising the limits of the one-campus mega church, true, but adopting the forms pioneered in the US of linked mega-churches. This does not signal a desire not to be a megachurch. Video links mean that the same leadership team can preach to many campuses
Yes, geography doesn't explain the absence of an 'Anglican' mega-church - why our churches don't grow beyond 1,500.
Elsewhere on this site Michael Kellehan has used counter-insurgency expert David Killcullen's observations as a metaphor for how to do mission in this city.
Over lunch I read an interesting article on Killcullen in today's SMH. One insight I gleaned was Killcullen's distinction between the Yank's ongoing obsession with the shock'n'awe of counter-terrorism and the more effective but low-key, resource-intensive, hard yards of counter-insurgency.
The article raised a question in my mind: is our worry about the lack of a high profile Anglican mega-church a red herring - akin to the American's ongoing obsession with the big/expansive machinery of shock'n'awe war waging.
Just cause it looks awesome, doesn't mean its actually effective.
It seems to me that hand-wringing about the lack of a Sydney Anglican mega-church is a distraction from the really tough problems/issues/difficulties of 'counter-insurgent' mission in this city.
After all its not as if mega-church Hillsong is doing a better job at reaching secular Sydney than us Anglicans...
I am not sure that many Rectors/Senior Ministers really know how to envision how to effectively use either 2IC's or team members, other than in repeating 'generalist roles' that tend to maintain and manage the status quo rather than build and drive the church forward.
I think we are still very 'traditional' (for want of a better word) in the way we go about church growth, we tend to lack the strategy necessary to really know how to build effective & strategic ministry teams. (Let alone really knowing how to attract or use the competencies of those who may have reasonable experience in ministry who can work alongside us).
Therefore, it may not be surprising that 2IC's or assistants may want to move on to where they might be given more scope & freedom to vision & drive a ministry themselves.
I think that Keller has some very helpful insights & strategies that dovetail some of Andrew K's helpful insights, ie. Building & honoring a team of 'specialists' who may equal the Rectors capacities, who are given space & scope to envision & drive their area of ministry alongside the Rector.
This means the Rector/Senior minister would need to become much more strategic, not just in who they appoint, but would & also need to have a clear vision of what skill mixes, competencies, specializations are necessary to move the vision of the church forward.
And then actually let the them get on & do it.
Sydney Anglicans are strikingly consistent in what we dish up - nearly as consistent as Maccas - but we lack the same consistency in branding & promotion. So - assuming we don't suddenly transform into mega-church ministries - what more can we do to promote Sydney Anglican churches collectively? The website is a great start, but what about a logo with motto & some consistent sign-boarding etc. I'll gladly wear the t-shirt!
Anglican Rectors/Senior Ministers are simply repeating the model of church they grew up in - the "The Pastoral Church (50 to 150 active members)". If they're comfortable ministering to this size, then keep doing it.
However, when someone wants to do church a little differently (larger) sometimes the structures prevent larger churches from growing.
The four different church sizes (Family, Pastoral, Program & Corporate) are well documented - see http://www.congregationalresources.org/article0132.asp
A key feature of a Pastoral Church is that lay persons experience having their spiritual needs met through their personal relationship with a seminary trained person.
[...]
Clergy begin to feel stressed when they have more than 150 active members whom they try to know in depth. In fact, this is one of the reasons why clergy may keep the Pastoral Church from growing to the next larger size congregation. They feel ineffective unless they can relate in a profound and personal way with every member of the congregation.
You can't compare Sydney (ringed by mountains bisected by the harbour) with Chicago. (wide open Midwestern city) (So that rules out Willow Creek.)
So the question needs to be to find a large Western geographically similar city and see if it has a superlarge theologically conservative church. If it does then that for Sydney Anglicans would narrow the reasons down to a culture of leadership and/or history.
New York is even more of a city of districts than Sydney and it has Keller's Redeemer Presbyterian.
I think Archie's point about lots of reasonably strong middle-size evangelical churches is the major reasons we don't have any evangelical mega-churches in Sydney (I mean here not just Anglican but Baptist and Presbyterian).
I'd like to hear more from John on why he thinks 'Anglicans' have a particular problem. Why don't we see Baptist or Presbyterian mega-churches in Sydney?
http://www.redeemer2.com/themovement/issues/2006/fall/church_size_dynamics2.html
Tim goes on to say that change happens faster in larger churches, but Anglicans (with our British "dont-rock-the-boat" ancestry) are not good at change, so Anglicans keep doing small 200-or-less congregations.
But neither of those reasons explains why we dont have Baptist or Presbyterian origin mega-churches in Sydney.
your comment #9 took the words right out of my Wednesday's blog post before I sent them to you...
I think hand wringing over mega-churches is a distraction from the main game. Mega churches are abnormal - even in the states. They are the wrong model for most of us to be looking at.
Re your question about the lack of Baptist and Presbyterian mega-churches in Sydney....
I wonder if the lack of Presbyterian mega-churches reflects a denomination still working through the effects of Union/non-Union in 1977. Also, Presbyterianism in Sydney has quite a 'Sydney Anglican' feel especially given the influence of Moore over the years so there may be some common cultural factors at work.
re Baptists - I'm not sure. What are the largest Baptist churches in Sydney?? I know there are some Baptist churches outside Sydney (eg Crossways in Melbourne) which would qualify as mega-churches for the purpose of this discussion.
1. It is hard to do! Costs are high, facilities limited, finding the "right team for the job", taking people with you/through a change process - is all very hard.
2. A mega-church is much more dependent upon outstanding preaching - the ability to "hold" 1000 people week-in week-out is not something everyone can do.
3. Following on from these two points - I see very little within our diocese that assists anyone in moving to a mega-church size.
Examples of this:
(i) MK's comment that mega-churches are "the wrong model" echoes our diocesan vision/mission of "multiplying congregations" - rather than (say) "growing large congregations". Its just something lots of people don't want to/can't be bothered doing. (Against this view would be Tim Kellar who argues that mega-churches (or at least very large churches) are more effective at evangelism and outreach - which I think means we should at the very least consider this something worth exploring.)
(ii) Little is done in terms of talent identification, recruitment or retention (the HR stuff). This is true at the 2IC level (as per previous post discussion). Equally true at the rector level. Who are the potentially great preachers and leaders coming out of MTC? Is anything different done with them?
Is this really true?
If so, what is the cause and what is the effect herer i.e. was the "preaching quality" that attracted the big numbers in the first place?
oh dear - I'm echoing the diocesan vision and against Tim Keller!
what I said was that megachurches are the wrong model for most of us. If in God's kindness, some mega churches appear then praise him for that. If some are working hard to that end then more power to them. But most churches will need a strategy that is quite different.
Aiming to create a megachurch shouldn't be the goal. It is a means not the end. So far, it is a means that hasn't worked in our context. Given that, I wonder why it is sometimes presented as the benchmark of what successful ministry would look like.
That a mega-church is more dependent on good preaching. I think that this is the case as such a church (in regards to its staffing) cannot rely on other factors to help it along (eg the ministers a really nice guy who loves a chat)
Or is it that not everyone can hold 1000 people? Part of me thinks this is self-evident - but I am aware that we have a lot of "faithful but dull" preachers (I base this on having sat through many a 4th year students sermon at MTC).
MK - agree that for only a very few churches will ever need to confront this issue. But - the kick-start to this discussion was why we (as an Anglican community) have none. If we think there should be some - then its worth considering what can be done about it.
Are you saying it is easier to gather 100 people to weekly endure "faithful but dull" preaching than it is to find 1000?
None of these churches had brilliant preaching in my view (but all of them had preachers who got excited) - but they all had excellent music- from arch-consevative to Hillsongian and a seamless presentation and production of the gathering. They all ran a tight ship.
I also went to Capitol Hill Baptist in Washingtron DC, where there were about 300 adults in the congregation (one of many) that day that I attended. Mark Dever preached a long but interesting sermon on Biblical Theology. The music and culture of this congregation was like this: three piece suits and floral dresses.
I went to Martin Luther King Jr's old Baptist church in Harlem where there were well over 1000 in attendance. I went to a Presy church in Santiago with around 1000 people. I went to other churches- some very small... but many of them were 1000 or more people. It's just more normal in America to have larger gatherings. Many of these churches have never been heard of outside their towns- but larger than the largest Anglican churches in Oz.
But - the great preacher can keep packing the people in - because they come (and stay) for you preaching (which is not dependent on the size of the congregation). In this scenario - building size is the constraint (as might be the quality of the support team) - which have previously been identified as significant hurdles to overcome.
I don't think preaching can substitute for personal ministry and discipleship, and it seems the successful large churches develop very robust community group/small groups where-by pastoral care and leadership is provided by the leaders of those groups.
My suggestion reflects both the primacy I give to the place of the preaching ministry in the life of the local church and also my (limited) observation of mega-churches.
The mega churches (or proto-mega churches) in Sydney- CCC at Otford falls, Hillsong at Baulkham Hills and in the city, Dayspring at Castle Hill, Castle Hill Anglican at Castle Hill, Figtree Anglican are all working on running a tight ship. But there is a wide variety of teaching and doctrinal perspectives represented. The key seems to be things that have been hinted at above: allowing good teams to develop and strategically plan, communicate and organise the church's activities will grow a larger gathering than the assumed Australian model of Rector/pastor as sole leader, equipper, organiser, chairperson, preacher, planner.
Ironically, the plateau in church numbers is set by the ones who are set apart to grow the kingdom. We need to see that some church workers are set apart to preach, some to manage. They will not do both well in a church of 200+
So either these churches are growing via:
a) People becoming Christians and joining, or
b) Christians transferring from other churches
If it is a), then great. If it is more b), than I wonder what kind of church is being built?
Will such transfer growth (while not helping the kingdom grow) gather a bunch of people who just like hearing good sermons week after week?
Mars Hill Seattle comes to mind here for me. By all accounts a very, very succesful mega-church with a charismatic and dynamite preacher, yet (as one example) I have heard said well known preacher comment that a large proportion of attendees at the home campus (where he preaches live) give absolutely nothing for offering.
One more, slightly cheeky question: If it is mainly preaching quality that has hampered our ability to grow mega-churches, are you saying the preachers in the diocese are basically average?
In the end we need faithful preaching in the midst of a sustainable culture and expectation and planning for growth and evolution into a trusting team with more delegated and specialised ministry areas. Hard to do according to the Australian track record.
Take me as a common example:
I often preach at our 2 congregations, write the newsheet, write and print & fold handouts, maintain data base, pack the chairs up, teach SRE classes, coordinate the Bible readers and public prayers, chair all meetings, visit sick and needy, write welcome notes to newcomers, lead Growth groups, vacuum the building, talk to maintenance and tradesmen working on our site, administer the church calendar to avoid clashes in ministry, fix computer glitches, maintain the church website, do personal evangelism, doorknock the area, have people over for lunch or dinner, oversee the training of leaders, try and ask people to give more money and time to Gospel growth, get involved in inter-church evangelism, sit on committees and boards and be a model husband father and leader. No room for growth here. If I stay here- there will be none. We need to grow with the church.
it occurs to me that our current set up is mini-churches in a mega-diocese. The mega-diocese gives us great resources like Moore College, this website, Youthworks, the resources of Connect09 etc.
Are there other things that we should be developing as a mega-diocese to assist the mission of our mini-churches?