Megachurch congregation

Rise of the Anglican Megachurch: Observations from the ACNA’s Largest Churches

By
13
Print

The vast majority of Anglican churches have fewer than 100 attendees on a Sunday. But there have always been a few parishes that welcome many more. These are typically legacy churches with centuries of history, such as Falls Church in Virginia (est. 1732) and St. Philip’s in Charleston, South Carolina (est. 1680). Even newcomers to these ranks, such as Christ Church in Plano, Texas (established in 1985), typically have several decades of experience under their belts.

In recent years, however, a new generation of large Anglican parishes has risen. According to statistics released by the province, there are now 26 parishes that host more than 500 in Average Sunday Attendance, half of which were founded in the past 25 years. This new crop includes the largest church in the ACNA, Vintage Church from California, which was founded in 2011.

Global Anglicanism

Sponsored

The 26 Largest ACNA Congregations (2024)

#Parish & CityASA 2024Organized
1Vintage Church • El Segundo/Santa Monica, CA3,0002011
2The Falls Church Anglican • Falls Church, VA1,3851732
3St. Helena’s • Beaufort, SC1,3731712
4St. Andrew’s (multi‑site) • Charleston, SC1,3481833
5Church of the Cross • Bluffton, SC1,3251854
6Christ Church Plano • Plano, TX1,3131985
7Trinity Anglican • Atlanta, GA1,1902002
8The Mission • Chattanoga, TN9202009
9Cornerstone • Tulsa, OK8382014
10Wellspring • Englewood, CO7802014
11Church of the Holy Spirit • Roanoke, VA7581985
12Church of the Resurrection • Wheaton, IL7561990
13Restoration Anglican • Arlington, VA6972009
14Christ Church KC • Overland Park, KS6672012
15International Anglican • Colorado Springs, CO6122001
16St. Peter’s Cathedral • Tallahassee, FL5942005
17Christ Church • Austin, TX5781996
18Church of the Ascension • Pittsburgh, PA5561871
19St. Peter’s • Mt. Pleasant, SC5502015
20St. John’s • Vancouver, BC5501925
21St. Philip’s • Charleston, SC5261680
22Holy Trinity • Raleigh, NC5232004
23St. Michael’s • Charleston, SC5221751
24Church of the Apostles • Raleigh, NC5212003
25Village Church • Greenville, SC5212014
26Church of St. Clement • El Paso, TX5141870

Note: Two churches included in the Province’s original report have been excluded from this list because there have been questions about the accuracy of their data.

Observations

  • These churches welcome ~23,000 every Sunday, around a quarter of the entire ACNA.
  • 13 of these 26 churches were founded in 2000 or later.
  • 9 of these 26 churches are located in South Carolina or North Carolina.

Defining the Anglican Megachurch

Most of these churches aren’t “megachurches” by the usual sociological standards. The Hartford Institute for Religion Research defines megachurches as congregations with at least 2000 attendees on a Sunday, by which definition, only one ACNA congregation would qualify. However, I’d propose that this group, with more than 500 in attendance, is a suitable threshold for defining an “Anglican megachurch.”

Because Anglican worship usually involves weekly Communion, Anglican congregations are much less likely to grow to 2,000 or more. The practice of Holy Communion is typically a barrier to expansive congregational growth because it is participatory, spiritually demanding, and logistically complex. Most megachurches, by contrast, offer a form of worship that is more seeker-sensitive, which resembles a performance more closely.

However, it is possible for an Anglican Church to have more than 500 attendees on a Sunday, while retaining Holy Communion and other features from the Book of Common Prayer. Often, this can be achieved through the multiplication of services in a single church building or the expansion of sites under one rector and vestry.

The Example of St Andrew’s

For example, consider St. Andrew’s in Mt. Pleasant, the home parish of Archbishop Steve Wood. The 2024 data records 1,348 in Average Sunday Attendance. However, this is spread across seven services in three different locations, resulting in an average attendance of less than 200 per service. 

When I interviewed Archbishop Wood last year, he explained that this distribution was intentional, so that every service is a kind of congregation to itself, in which the people who attend that service get to know each other personally.

Meanwhile, all services benefit from a unified leadership and operational structure.

Lessons for the Rest of Us

Each of these megachurches has its own unique story, with a distinctive charism and unique ministries. However, upon examining their websites, it’s easy to identify a set of common qualities that contribute to their growth. Here’s five:

  1. Sunday matters. Every church makes a big deal of its Sunday services, often offering multiple services and sometimes hosting them in multiple locations.
  2. Beautiful facilities. These churches pay attention to their facilities, often investing extensive funds in renovations or church construction, and seek to create spaces that are not only functional but also aesthetically pleasing.
  3. Intentional evangelism. Almost every church is purposeful in seeking to grow. This is evident in their public-facing communication, which is oriented toward newcomers, including clear instructions on what to expect and how to get involved.
  4. Alpha & small groups. Many churches run Alpha or another course for those considering Christianity, and almost all offer small group programs for weekly community and discipleship.
  5. Strong and distributed leadership. Most are led by experienced rectors who provide vision and compelling gospel preaching, and also highlight an expansive team of clergy, staff, vestry, and volunteers; in other words, strong leadership is not solo leadership.

A Qualification

Finally, a qualification: the point of highlighting these “Anglican megachurches” is not to hold them up as the ideal model for every congregation.

To the contrary, the majority of Anglicans have always been and likely will continue to be members of smaller church communities. Moreover, smaller churches offer what larger churches can’t—a personal relationship with the clergy, the sense of the church as an extended family, and tangible dependence upon God for the church’s basic institutional survival. And Jesus himself promised that he would be present “when two or three are gathered” in his name (Matthew 18:20).

However, when two or three people gather consistently, loving God and loving their neighbor, then growth usually follows. It is possible for churches of any size to organize themselves in a way that allows them to receive and support this growth. We can all learn from the example of these Anglican megachurches and give thanks to the Lord for his favor upon them. May he multiply us and multiply such churches, to his glory and our good. “And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47).

Photo by Vince Fleming on Unsplash. Edited by Jacob Davis.

Published on

July 21, 2025
, , ,
View 13 Comments
Peter Johnston

Author

Peter Johnston

The Ven. Dr. Peter Johnston is the Ministry President of Anglican Compass. He is a priest and archdeacon in the Anglican Diocese of All Nations and the rector of Trinity Lafayette. He lives with his wife, Carla, and their nine children near Lafayette, Louisiana.

View more from Peter Johnston
Oxford in winter

Winter Study Across the ACNA

Posted on January 12, 2026
|
By

Each winter, as the Church’s Christmas festivities give way to the more diffuse joys of Epiphanytide, Anglican seminaries and theological institutes across the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) remain busy with study, prayer, and formation.

Comments

Please comment with both clarity and charity!

Subscribe to Comments
Notify of
13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thank you, Peter. Great article. I loved your five categories and I would say “Amen” to all of them.

I can only add a perspective about the large church that I think is not known widely. From my years at Christ Church in Plano and my role as coach now, I would say simply that large churches know what to do with visitors. They expect them. They plan for them. They know the next steps they want a visitor to take when they arrive. It is not blind mechanics, but large churches have figured out how to move people from ‘newcomer’ to full membership and connected to a smaller group within the church.

From my observation, smaller churches just open up their church and say to the newcomer, “Jump in. You’ll find your way.”

And so, I would say to the church that is wanting to grow, or take advantage of the growth that might be happening in their congregation now, learn to welcome the new person with intentional hospitality. Elevate their importance in the minds of the staff. Determine what kind of pathway they ought to be taking and escort them through it.

Thanks again for the article.

Reply

Thank you Cn David, for reading and for your thoughtful comment! It makes complete sense that growing churches would be especially good at both welcoming AND integrating their new visitors. Many churches offer a welcome to visitors, but it is much harder to truly integrate them, through initiation, discipleship, equipping, and empowering for their own practice of ministry. This is worthy of ongoing reflection. Thanks again.

Reply

I read Peter Johnston’s recent article, The Rise of the Anglican Megachurch, with deep concern. While I appreciate Johnston’s attempt to analyze growth patterns within our tradition, I find myself troubled by the uncritical celebration of size, platform, and institutional metrics as indicators of ecclesiastical success. This approach reflects the very consumer-driven, status-obsessed mindset that the Church is called to resist—not replicate.

Let me be clear: I write not from jealousy, but from conviction rooted in Scripture and our Anglican heritage.

The article subtly—and at times explicitly—glorifies a model of church that mirrors Western evangelicalism’s obsession with numbers, reach, and recognition. The very term “megachurch” carries weighty cultural assumptions: bigger is better, growth equals blessing, visibility validates ministry. It’s a mindset that rewards performance over presence, charisma over character, metrics over faithfulness.
More troubling is the article’s redefinition of “megachurch” to include congregations of 500 or more—a significant departure from the accepted sociological definition of 2,000+ attendees. This linguistic sleight of hand reveals the deeper issue: our desperate need to claim “mega” status, even when it doesn’t quite fit. Why this hunger for the label? What does it say about our understanding of success in ministry?

While the churches mentioned are undoubtedly doing good work, this celebration of size risks diminishing the beauty and necessity of smaller, faithful congregations. What about the pastor who leads 45 people in weekly worship in a rented space, faithfully visiting shut-ins and walking with couples through the long seasons of marriage and grief? What about the rural rector who wears multiple hats—preacher, janitor, counselor, and tech support—without a “strategic growth plan,” offering simply faithful presence and prayer?

These servants of Christ embody a different kind of success: the success of availability, of knowing each sheep by name, of being present in the mundane moments that actually form souls. Their “inefficiency” in processing newcomers may actually be their greatest strength—they offer relationship over systems, formation over information.

I must address my father David Roseberry’s response to the original article. While I deeply love and respect him, his emphasis on large churches’ “efficiency” in assimilating newcomers underscores my concern. The Church is not a customer acquisition funnel. We are not called to optimize souls but to shepherd them. When we celebrate churches primarily for their ability to move people through systematic pathways, we risk reducing the Gospel to process management.

The Gospel offers us a radically different vision of success. Jesus consistently moved away from crowds when they became too focused on spectacle rather than transformation. He invested deeply in twelve, then sent them to make disciples—not to build platforms. Paul planted churches and then moved on, trusting local leadership to tend the flock faithfully, regardless of size.

Our Anglican tradition, at its best, has always emphasized faithfulness over fame. The Book of Common Prayer shapes us for consistency, not celebrity. The liturgical calendar forms us for patience, not quick growth. Weekly Communion—which Johnston correctly identifies as a “barrier” to explosive growth—is actually a gift that keeps us grounded in mystery rather than metrics.

Let me be clear: this is not a critique of any specific church or pastor. Many of these rectors are dear friends doing faithful work, and I rejoice whenever someone encounters Christ in Anglican worship—whether in a soaring cathedral or a strip mall, among thousands or among dozens. My concern is what we choose to elevate and celebrate as a tradition.

Growth is not always fruit. Crowds are not always confirmation. Platform is not always blessing. And faithfulness—quiet, consistent, often invisible faithfulness—is what the Lord consistently honors throughout Scripture.

Instead of aspiring to “mega” status, perhaps we should aspire to be:

  • Faithful in preaching the Word and rightly administering the sacraments
  • Present in our communities, especially among the marginalized
  • Patient in the slow work of discipleship and formation
  • Hospitable without being strategic about it
  • Generous with our time, attention, and resources

I just hope that we would resist the gravitational pull of cultural metrics and return—again and again—to the quiet, sacred work of presence, formation, and love and I pray that we would measure success not by attendance figures but by transformed lives, remembering that the Kingdom often grows most powerfully in the hidden places, among the forgotten people, through the faithful few.

The world has enough megachurches.
What it desperately needs is more faithful churches.

Reply

Thanks Fr Jed for reading and for your thoughtful comment. I’m in complete agreement with your areas of focus and aspiration, to be faithful, present, patient, hospitable, and generous. I’m not sure I see why these qualities should necessarily be tied to the result of remaining a small church. In my experience, these are precisely the qualities that people love to see in a church, and the churches that consistently do this will very often grow, at least to the limits of their facilities and their operational structures. At the same time, churches that do not provide facilities and structures to support their growth will inevitably plateau, even if they have all of these qualities. If there are no more seats at the Sunday service (and the limit is usually around 80% of capacity), then no more people will come. These are the kinds of basic material details that Anglicans can sometimes forget in our focus on the deeper spiritual aspects of our ministries. As I believe I mention in the article, I have no intention of elevating only the largest of churches, nor do I assume that every church is meant to grow in this way. My own parish is one of those with less than 100 on a Sunday. But I do think we can all learn something by looking at the these larger churches. What I did not do in the article, but which might be helpful for Rectors to do, would be to explore the churches individually, so as to find one or a few that most resonate with the particular calling and charism we see in our parishes. In any case, every blessing to you and your ministry!

Reply

Thank you, Peter, for such a rich and well‑timed overview of the ACNA’s largest congregations.
I appreciate especially the contextual clarity you provide—highlighting that, while only one parish qualifies as a sociological “megachurch” (2,000+), the 500+ ASA threshold you use helps us see a meaningful pattern of robust—and often recent—growth.

Your observation that half of these congregations were founded in the last 25 years reframes the narrative: this isn’t nostalgia for legacy parishes, but fresh, dynamic embodiment in newer communities. It’s a testament to well‑executed planting, intentional multi‑site strategy, and liturgical fidelity operating in culturally aware contexts.

As someone who serves a smaller parish locally in Mississippi, it’s helpful—and hopeful—to read about these models. Especially striking is how larger churches like St. Andrew’s in Mt. Pleasant manage seven services across multiple venues with average service sizes under 200, yet still foster depth and sacramental integrity.

I wonder: what lessons might smaller parishes glean from these “megachurches”? Perhaps in rhythms of discipleship, lay equipping, or extending hospitality across service times? It would be fascinating to explore what core values sustain both size and theological rootedness—especially in parishes that intentionally resist dilution of liturgical practice.

Thank you again for the clarity you’ve brought to this trend. It gives hope—and also fresh questions—for Anglicans of all scales.

Reply

Thank you Ronald for this thoughtful comment. I agree that the development of multiple services and multiple locations offer an Anglican way to grow without losing the family-feeling of liturgical worship. On the other hand, I do wonder about the dynamics of multiple services / locations under a single Rector. What does that do to the pastoral vocation? In my small parish, we had a season of running two services, and thought that did facilitate a degree of growth, we switched to one service and honestly have been quite happy with the change. On the other hand, if we were approaching more than 150 in a single service, I might consider the multiple-service option again.

Reply

As the rector at one of the churches on the above list, I have been watching the conversations concerning the release of this information with some trepidation. I hope my voice can be useful to the church in the emerging (and potentially dangerous) conversation.
 
I would say that, first, I have not been blessed by the release of this information from the ACNA. I’m not sure why it was released or who made the decision to do so (as I don’t remember seeing it in previous years). For many of the reasons Jed Roseberry noted, it feels problematic to hold up these churches as models of success. The kingdom desire is for the church as a whole to grow both “deep” and “wide,” and ASA of individual churches only shows a small sliver of that picture. I could point to churches much smaller than the one I pastor that are doing a much “better” job in pretty much every area of the church’s life!
 
However, I’m also convinced (and convicted) that it is improper and unhelpful to moralize church size in the opposite direction: smaller church is not always better church. I know that sometimes even pastoral care can be more effective at larger churches than smaller churches, simply because the small church pastor is doing everything themselves and the large church has a pastoral team to care for the breadth of the people. There can be really great larger churches, and we’re asking God to make us one (and working hard to partner with him as he works in us to that end!).
 
I also find unhelpful ministry philosophy caricatures can emerge in this discussion. For example, I’ve heard several rectors say that “we aren’t going to grow big – when we add people, we’ll just plant a church.” We are also actively planting churches: we sent one out last fall and will send out another in fall 2026, Lord willing. Last fall we sent about 65 folks from our congregation: and we replaced the decrease in ASA in 6 weeks! People are attracted to sacrificial, multiplying communities, so planting doesn’t typically stymie growth: it accelerates it.
 
In my experience, there are three components to an Anglican church growing to a large size (assuming the work of the Holy Spirit, and excluding the presence of revival dynamics):

(1) A surrounding culture where there are large numbers of people and large numbers of Christians. (Or, alternatively, it might be a place that has a large number of Anglicans/Episcopalians because of its cultural heritage). You’ll find this fits pretty much every church listed above. This is, of course, completely outside a pastor’s control, and is yet another reason why having a large church shouldn’t be a measure of success. My friends doing courageous church planting work in rural or highly secular areas are much less likely to grow large than an Anglican church in Colorado Springs (which is quickly growing and has a large non-denominational Christian culture). But they are by no means less successful!

(2) A ministry strength in the church or pastor that translates to larger group sizes. For example, replicable programs like Alpha (a definite strength of Vintage Church) or a ministry strength like dynamic preaching tend to draw larger numbers of people into the doors. However, less replicable ministry approaches and other kinds of pastoral gifts – like small group leadership of pastoral care – are not as easily scalable. None of these gifts is right or wrong, good or bad. But certain gifts will lend themselves to certain church sizes.

(3) A commitment and ability to move to a team leadership approach that pastors through structures and systems. I’ve now pastored in Anglican churches ranging from 50 to over 500, and it’s hard to overstate how drastically the felt experience of the role has changed for me over those differing sizes. Leading a team of pastors is very different from being the pastor (or one of just a couple pastors). Using structures and systems to see people (instead of letting those systems dehumanize them) is another dramatic shift in philosophy. David Roseberry’s observation about newcomers is huge here. At some point, not having structures and systems for newcomers causes them to be less seen, not more! As a pastor, I had to learn a whole new set of skills and leadership philosophy to make the transitions, and I’ve had many mentors along the way that have helped me learn those skills. But I’ve found that some pastors simply don’t want to make those transitions because of their view of what it means to be a pastor, or the Spirit hasn’t given the giftings necessary to shift into that type of leadership, or those mentors don’t come along. And that’s okay! (Except for the mentors piece: they exist! Find them if you need them!). Again, this shift isn’t right or wrong: it’s just one of the ingredients in a larger church.

By the providence of God, our church has grown because of how God has positioned us in these three categories.

Our experience has been that we have not chased growth for growth’s sake. I own no church growth manuals, I assure you! And “how do we grow?” has always seemed the wrong question anyway, putting the cart before the horse. The question we ask is this: “how do we live who we are, right where we are, authentically and over the long haul?”

For some churches, as they answer that question, growth won’t come. For others, it will.

If you find yourself in the position where you’re growing, the challenge becomes not how to grow, but “how is God calling us to welcome what he is doing here?” That’s been our journey the last five years. But the fact we get to listen to the Spirit on those particular questions does not make me a better pastor, or our church a better church. It does give me a testimony of how God has met us in that particular set of challenges that can hopefully be an encouragement to all.

I hope and pray that the conversation started by the release of this information can be a gift to the church, though I fear it heading in more divisive directions. May we be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3), and resist the divisiveness of the evil one.

We need larger resource churches, smaller parishes, and missions on the edge of what’s sustainable. May we all flourish for the sake of the kingdom!

Reply

Thanks Pastor Ken for the extended response and reflection. I especially appreciated your analysis of the three components of growth to a larger parish size (supportive surrounding culture, scalable ministry strength, and structured team leadership). My question would be whether your analysis is a bit fatalistic: since it seems that surrounding culture and ministry strength are not easily changed, your analysis would suggest that few churches have a real potential to grow to a larger size. While this seems descriptively true (ie, lots of churches never do grow to a larger size), on the other hand it seems perhaps overly proscriptive. And there are plenty of counter-examples of churches that grow in spite of a hostile culture, and with a variety of ministry strengths. Lots of good food for thought. Thanks again!

Reply

The Ven. Dr. Peter Johnston, I am writing to humbly submit a correction to the ASA statistics reported for St. Helena’s Anglican Church in Beaufort, SC. Your article correctly mirrored our parochial report for 2024, but as the rector, I realized these numbers were not representative of our “in-person” attendance only. In talking with our team and reading question 25 on the parochial report, it is understandable to report the ASA with Christmas and Easter attendance in several ways. Our ASA (without Christmas/Easter) is 714 (in person). Adjusted for C&E, it is 758. We also have a 308 ASA online that is difficult to properly enumerate. All that to say, we are not defined by numbers, but I did not want our calculations to cause others to wonder. By God’s grace, St. Helena’s is growing. Besides the grace of God and the power of the Gospel, I will not try to describe why. Blessings!

Reply

Thank you, Fr Shay, for the clarification on your parish ASA. I’d be happy to change the info in the table if you tell me what ASA you’d like to report. Should it be 1066 to reflect your in-person + online attendance?

Reply

Hi. Village Church Anglican is in Greenville, SC, not Charleston. Thanks!

Reply

Thanks! I’ve made the correction.

Reply

One would think that communion would be a barrier to church size, but this doesn’t seem to be the defining challenge. There are several Church of Christ congregations (especially out west) that are some of the largest churches in the country and they have communion weekly (they offer the cup in individual trays, which makes their logistics even wilder).

Reply