Which U.S. megachurches have grown in the 2020s and what strategies did they use?
Executive summary
Several national studies and reporting find many U.S. megachurches continued net growth into the 2020s by leaning into multisite expansion, small‑group networks, targeted geography/real estate and consolidation of smaller congregations; Lifeway/Hartford data show roughly 7 in 10 megachurches are multisite and the average studied church grew about 34% since 2015 [1]. Other reporting ties growth to deliberate location choices, “poaching” or assimilating smaller churches, and stronger small‑group participation that correlates with higher growth rates [2] [3] [4].
1. Multisite and “think small” tactics: fracturing to cover a city
Researchers and reporters describe a clear shift: megachurches are multiplying campuses rather than simply filling ever‑bigger sanctuaries—about 70% of megachurches are multisite and nearly half opened a new campus in the previous five years, a dramatic rise from 22% in 2015 [1]. Journalists and scholars say this is intentionally “fracturing” into smaller, local pieces to reach whole metropolitan areas and reduce travel friction for attendees [5] [2].
2. Small groups and deeper engagement: the micro‑engine of growth
Multiple sources link higher small‑group participation with faster growth: churches that grew more than 60% reported roughly 79% adult small‑group participation versus 41% where growth was 20% or less, and Lifeway‑summarized research finds increased small‑group engagement correlates to volunteering, community service and newcomer assimilation [4] [6]. Researchers frame small groups as the retention and discipleship mechanism that sustains numerical expansion [6].
3. Geography and real estate: growth by design, not accident
Coverage in National Geographic and Hartford Institute analysis shows megachurches use demographic and geographic data to site campuses and build large facilities—many occupy 50–100 acre tracts near major thoroughfares in fast‑growing “sprawl” cities such as Dallas, Atlanta, Houston and Phoenix [2] [7]. Analysts note counties with megachurches are likelier to have experienced double‑digit population growth, suggesting location strategy taps broader regional growth trends [8].
4. Consolidation and assimilation: growth by acquisition
Reporting documents a pattern of larger churches absorbing smaller, struggling congregations. Case studies like Liquid Church illustrate how megachurch networks assimilate local churches, providing dynamic preaching and administrative capacity while expanding the larger church’s roster—a practice some outlets describe as “poaching” flocks [3] [9]. The Economist and OPB pieces frame this as brand consolidation—denomination ties weaken while church brands and pastors draw members [9] [3].
5. Leadership tenure and institutional dynamics
Survey research cited by analysts emphasizes the role of pastoral leadership in growth cycles: megachurches often see the most growth between years five and 19 of a lead pastor’s tenure, with spiritual vitality peaking roughly in years 10–14, suggesting long pastoral runs correlate to expansion [10]. Hartford Institute material additionally notes around 30% of megachurches reached growth under leaders who were not founders, indicating institutional capacity matters beyond charismatic founding pastors [7].
6. Diverse strategies, divergent critiques
While most sources document similar tactics—multisite, small groups, geography, consolidation—commentators diverge on consequences. Supporters portray these strategies as adaptive ministry responding to modern mobility and demographics [1] [2]. Critics and some journalists warn of downsides: brand‑driven growth can hollow smaller congregations, produce franchise‑like networks, concentrate power and reduce denominational accountability [9] [11]. Reporting notes scandals and leadership failures in some megachurches historically, though available sources do not provide comprehensive recent misconduct rates [12] [13].
7. What the data do and don’t say
Large surveys and reporting confirm clear patterns—multisite proliferation, real‑estate planning, small‑group emphasis and assimilation of smaller churches—as primary strategies in 2020s growth [1] [2] [6] [3]. Available sources do not present a definitive, church‑by‑church roll call of which megachurches grew in 2020–2025 with audited attendance figures; most rankings (Outreach, Lifeway) are self‑reported or survey‑based and should be read as directional rather than perfect counts [14] [15].
8. Takeaway for readers and researchers
If you want to track specific growing megachurches, use Outreach/Lifeway lists and Hartford Institute research as the starting point and verify local attendance or campus openings, because national trends are robust but church‑level claims are often self‑reported [1] [14] [15]. Watch for two competing dynamics: strategic expansion that leverages population growth and small‑group retention, and consolidation that critics say centralizes influence and accelerates closures of smaller churches [8] [9].