Picture this: Every September, the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney receives detailed annual reports from Anglicare (aged care outcomes, community impact metrics, financial sustainability indicators), Moore College (graduate placement rates, theological competency assessments, student satisfaction scores), Youthworks (program participation, leadership development statistics, ministry effectiveness measures), and the same concept is true for pretty much every other Diocesan organisation. We scrutinise their performance, have the opportunity to ask probing questions, and make funding decisions based on data about their kingdom impact. Perhaps the real power is in the back end. As each organisation reports, it must look at and reflect on its tangible impact according to objective criteria. Behind the scenes, a myriad of data must be developed and maintained, and this data is some reflection of the objectives of the organisation. The objective data offers a means of evaluation, and in turn to allocate limited resources.
But when it comes to our churches—the heartbeat of our diocesan mission—we operate largely in the dark, knowing little beyond bums on seats and dollars in the plate.
The irony is striking: we demand rigorous accountability from our supporting organisations while giving our core ministry units a free pass on meaningful assessment. The cost of this approach is significant. Without comprehensive church health data, we’re making critical strategic decisions—where to plant churches, how to deploy limited clergy and staff, which ministries to resource—based on anecdote, assumption, and often outdated information. I will never forget the comment of someone years ago: “We are doing all of these things; it must be making an impact.” But the reality was that the inputs were not translating into the desired outputs. The same dynamic is often true within parishes.
Imagine if we brought the same level of thoughtful assessment to our churches that we already require from our diocesan organisations. This isn’t about creating burdensome bureaucracy or judging ministers—it’s about developing a framework to enable us all to reflect on the wise stewardship of the limited resources God has entrusted to us. This involves people and is ultimately about reaching more people for the Lord Jesus Christ.
This article will argue that Synod should establish annual reasonable church health reporting that moves beyond basic attendance and finances to capture a fuller spectrum of gospel activity in our parishes. Yes, this would provide the data foundation necessary for strategic decision-making about church planting, staff deployment, and resource allocation. But even more so, and more importantly, developing such a framework will help parishes count what they value and assist in making strategic decisions about how to use limited God-given resources. In addition, such a development has the potential to enhance our culture of continuous improvement and shared learning across the parishes of the Diocese.
The biblical and theological foundation
Stewardship and accountability
The biblical mandate for faithful stewardship runs throughout Scripture. Paul reminds us that “it is required of stewards that they be found faithful” (1 Cor 4:2), extending beyond good intentions to measurable outcomes. Paul demonstrates transparency in Christian leadership when he writes, “We aim at what is honourable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man” (2 Cor 8:21). Jesus teaches the concept of counting the cost and wise planning (Luke 14:28–30), and the principle can be applied in corporate ways too.
Facing reality for God’s glory
Truth-telling forms a fundamental aspect of Christian character, and this should include an honest assessment of ministry effectiveness. The danger of avoiding uncomfortable data that reveals areas needing attention ultimately serves neither God’s glory nor the good of those we are seeking to reach. This is not about being discouraged personally, and this must be avoided. Rather, honest assessment enables better strategic decisions for kingdom growth. The “Stockdale paradox” demonstrates the power of confronting facts and circumstances, even if they are brutal, for the sake of longer-term success. The dynamic is that confronting realities are usually part of the process of “pivoting.” In the words of Aubrey Malphurs: “Evaluation elicits ministry improvement. Inviting and accepting critique are difficult, but the result can and must be learning that leads to improvement. We must ask ourselves how we can get better”.1
In the last few years, we have had yet another group look at our Diocesan attendance patterns. It continues the same observation that I made almost a decade ago: “[raising] questions about the success or otherwise of the mission of Sydney Anglicans”.2 More recently, Andrew Heard challenges us pointedly (and helpfully provocatively): “As evangelicals, we proclaim that the gospel is powerful to save, yet in many of our churches we don’t see the inevitable gospel growth that should follow”.3 He argues for the need to ask “hard questions about what we leaders do, or don’t do, that is getting in the way of gospel growth” and contends that “having specific goals and assessing if they have been met is confronting, but also that this feedback loop is [ultimately] empowering”.4
The stewardship imperative
With limited clergy and staff, limited funds, and growing communities, strategic deployment becomes a moral imperative. If the efforts of a denomination such as Sydney Anglicans are not seeing more become Christians, it is reasonable that the nature of such efforts be re-examined. This applies at both a Diocesan level, as well as an individual parish level. Without data that goes beyond attendances and blunt financial measures, we’re potentially wasting kingdom resources through uninformed decisions about where and how to deploy our people and funding.
Paul provides a powerful principle for strategic thinking about where to invest ministry effort: “I have become all things to all people, so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Cor 9:22). It necessarily implies some method of assessment about what works and what hasn’t. This isn’t abandoning divine sovereignty but embracing wise stewardship within divine sovereignty.
The theological foundation for measurement reaches back to creation itself. One may observe that God made wisdom as the first of his works (Prov 8:22). One of the powerful lessons of Proverbs is for the person of God to learn from the wisdom that God has embedded in the world. To be sure, the culmination of God’s wisdom is Christ (1 Cor 2:6), and not all of the wisdom of the world is to be heeded. Nonetheless, the lesson of Proverbs is to actively seek and utilise the wisdom that God has embedded in the world, at its creation.
The practical case for annual church health reporting
Current data gaps and their impact
The 2024 Attendance Patterns Report reveals that “we have dropped the ball when it comes to tracking, reporting and analysing numbers”.5 When we do apply rigorous analysis—as this report demonstrates—we discover valuable patterns about church size, regional variations, and demographic trends that inform strategic decisions.
While we may supplement reporting with the National Church Life Survey (NCLS),6 we only do it every five years, and many parishes don’t participate.
Learning from existing Diocesan models
The Diocese already operates successful reporting frameworks across its organisations. Our Diocesan Governance policy states that “Christian organisations take pains to ensure the appearance (as well as the substance) of propriety and accountability” and mandates that “A diocesan organisation which manages church trust property must submit to the Synod for tabling an annual report and such other reports as Synod requires”.7 Whilst this is certainly about transparency and accountability, it also provides a framework that helps keep the eyes of organisations on objective data which promotes honest assessment.
The governance framework emphasises that organisations should seek “the highest standards of governance appropriate to the size and nature of each organisation” and that funding decisions should assess “whether the present distribution of funding is helping to produce the ‘best’ outcomes for our current priorities”.8 These principles apply equally to parishes as the frontline of our mission.
I am arguing that we should take the principles that we as the Synod are applying to other organisations and apply the same principles to ourselves as the parishes of the Diocese.
The precedent of biblical measurement
Scripture itself shows us the early church tracked data, and it formed part of strategic assessment. Acts regularly records growth statistics: “about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41); “the number of the men came to about five thousand” (Acts 4:4); and “the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly” (Acts 6:7). Acts is interested in this impact, and even the numerical measurement of the impact, for it indicated the power of God at work.
Paul’s strategic ministry demonstrates effectiveness-based decision-making. When ministry wasn’t effective in one place, he redirected efforts to more receptive audiences (Acts 13:46, 18:6). Jesus himself instructed his disciples to “shake the dust off your feet when you leave that house or town” where they weren’t welcomed (Matt 10:14). Effectiveness was at the very least a legitimate consideration in ministry deployment.
Addressing biblical and pastoral concerns
The pastoral oversight imperative
Don Carson provides some further insight. Reflecting on 1 Timothy 3, he argues that separating Word ministry from oversight creates a false dichotomy that “fails to grasp that a comprehensive vision of the ministry of the Word demands oversight … of the entire direction and priorities of the church”.9
Carson asserts that biblical overseers must engage in “casting a vision, figuring out the steps for getting there, building the teams and structures needed for discharging ministry and training others, building others up, thinking through the various ways in which the gospel can be taught at multiple levels to multiple groups within the church, how to extend faithful evangelism and church planting”.10 When I recover from feeling overwhelmed at this breadth of responsibility, I realise that all of these require assessment, which requires measurement.
Aubrey Malphurs has written on strategic planning for Christian organisations and observes: “Far too many churches have offered up ministry mediocrity under the guise of ‘It’s a spiritual undertaking for God!’ Scripture encourages God’s people to give and do their best for him”.11
Balancing faithfulness and fruitfulness
The 2024 Attendance Report provides a helpful theological perspective: “While we hope and pray that churches would grow, there is very little exegetical or theological evidence to suggest that all churches, in all locations and all ages will always grow … We reject the tacit accompanying idea that ‘good ministers’ will always see growth and lack of growth is always proof of ‘poor ministry.’ Jeremiah and Isaiah, and even Paul, conducted ‘good ministry’ but this was not always met with numerical growth”.12
This balanced perspective acknowledges God’s sovereignty while maintaining human responsibility. Andrew Heard argues that “The Bible gives leaders a real responsibility for the outcomes of our ministry—something that is often denied” and that “Faithfulness must include fruitfulness, not be set against it”.13 He warns against the tendency to “settle for kingdom-less results” when we avoid measurement altogether.
The purpose of measurement is not to judge ministers but to enable wise stewardship of resources and strategic deployment of limited personnel and funds. As someone once said to me: “Numbers are certainly not everything. At the same time, they are not nothing.”
A practical framework for implementation
Core metrics for kingdom impact
Building on existing successful practices, I propose five core metrics that reflect our theological priorities while remaining practical to collect. These are intended to be a starting point for discussion, not necessarily the final set of measures.
1. Evangelistic fruitfulness
Just recently, one of my staff shared the challenge which we all feel: “I have spoken with two people in recent weeks who were not a Christian a year ago but now, they seem to be.” When do we count them as becoming Christian? The point is: we must try. We once recorded data like baptisms and confirmation numbers. Perhaps the question could be: “How many people in your congregation would say they became a Christian in the past year?” The exact methodology matters less than consistency longitudinally and across parishes.
2. Christian maturity
Growth Group membership provides one measure, though this may need modification given a growth group’s attendance patterns. If 70% of people are in growth groups with 70% average attendance, perhaps 49% of the total congregation represents a more realistic maturity engagement metric. Alongside this measure could sit regularity of members at Sunday (or mid-week) services. I totally acknowledge the limitation of such measures for Christian maturity (that is, just because someone turns up does not mean they have engaged), and am totally open to alternatives being proposed.
3. Visitor numbers and retention
The easiest metric to monitor is certainly number of visitors. However, this combined with retention rates over 3–6 months provides more meaningful insight into a church’s capacity and effectiveness for genuine welcome and integration.
4. Proportion of people serving
I would posit to start with total volunteer involvement and also noting how many are involved specifically in teaching ministries as a subset. This metric helps churches assess whether they’re developing the volunteer capacity needed for their size and growth stage and provides important insight into reverse engineering for the next level.
5. Demographic composition
This is ethnic and demographic composition compared to the local community. While acknowledging that language barriers may limit some churches’ reach, this promotes self-awareness about missional effectiveness in local contexts.
The welcome development of systems like Growing Healthy Churches can streamline the collection of much of this data.
Implementation principles
The framework should prioritise starting simple with readily available data rather than pursuing perfect measurement from the beginning. Consistency over perfection matters more because using the same metrics regularly provides trend. The metrics should reflect our theological priorities rather than generic business measures, and the framework should emphasise learning, monitoring, and shared improvement rather than any form of performance ranking.
Andrew Heard, in advocating for change that brings gospel growth, rightly notes that “Leading for change is not primarily a matter of techniques and skill sets, but of deep conviction—of being fuelled by a heart that pulsates with the gospel, with God’s love for the lost, and with God’s love for his people”.14 Heart transformation must precede structural change, but structural accountability can also shape hearts toward gospel priorities.
Addressing common objections
“God is sovereign—he gives the growth, not us”
While acknowledging God’s ultimate sovereignty over spiritual fruit (1 Cor 3:5–7), this truth cannot excuse “both / and” faithful stewardship as well as strategic thinking.
The Parable of the Talents clearly shows that masters expect an account of results, not just effort (Matt 25:14–30). Paul’s strategic ministry pivots when rejected in one place demonstrate that effectiveness considerations are legitimate within God’s sovereignty. The purpose is not condemnation for missing numerical targets, but stewardship: helping us think thoughtfully about how to apply God’s resources with care and effectiveness and helping us face reality about where God may be blessing efforts and where strategic changes might be needed.
“We don’t want to become obsessed with numbers”
This objection reflects a legitimate concern but creates a false choice. Numbers should serve the gospel, not the other way around. Carson’s biblical framework shows that strategic assessment and leadership is part of comprehensive pastoral oversight. The distinction lies between worldly metrics focused on institutional success and kingdom effectiveness focused on spiritual transformation and community impact.
Craig Hamilton captures this tension in his observation about ministry conversations: “When ministers meet together, the first question they often ask is, How many people are at your church?” The irony is that “when other ministers ask me this question I often wonder if they’re asking so they can try to work out whether they’re doing a good job or not”.15 We intuitively understand that measurement matters—the question is whether we’ll approach it strategically or continue measuring informally and haphazardly, if at all.
Conclusion: Embracing comprehensive accountability
The integration of annual church health reporting represents a natural extension of our existing diocesan governance principles rather than a revolutionary departure from current practice. We already require detailed accountability from every other diocesan organisation because we recognise that “ultimately such purposes seek to promote the kingdom of Christ and give glory to God”.16 Let’s take what we are asking of others and apply it to ourselves, as the parishes who comprise the Synod.
Our theological convictions about stewardship, transparency, and strategic wisdom provide the foundation for this approach, in the context of affirming both divine sovereignty and human responsibility for faithful resource management.
With comprehensive annual data, we can make informed decisions about church planting locations, staff deployment, and resource allocation. The concept applies both at the Diocesan level and within local parishes. We can identify churches needing additional support and parishes with transferable insights for others facing similar challenges. The 2024 Attendance Report has already demonstrated the value of rigorous analysis with limited data—imagine the insights possible with consistent annual data across all parishes covering a fuller spectrum of church health indicators.
The framework I’ve proposed—focusing on evangelistic fruitfulness, Christian maturity, visitor retention, service participation, and demographic engagement—provides a starting point for developing a comprehensive annual assessment and creating a culture of continuous improvement grounded in biblical stewardship. Annual church health reporting provides one tool for identifying obstacles to gospel growth and celebrating breakthrough where God grants it.
The choice before us is whether we will apply the same standards of accountability to our core mission—the local church—that we already apply to our supporting organisations. Our aim is not burden but blessing—creating a systematic foundation for strategic ministry that honours God’s sovereignty while embracing our responsibility to be found faithful with what he has entrusted to our care.
The question is not whether we can afford to implement expanded church health reporting, but whether we can afford not to.
[16] Governance Policy for Diocesan Organisations.
- Aubrey Malphurs, Advanced Strategic Planning: A New Model for Church and Ministry Leaders, Baker Books, 2004, p 300. ↩︎
- Rajeev Gupta, “Sydney Anglican Churches Breaking the 200 Barrier: A Study of Contemporary Growth Dynamics and Strategic Implications for Church Planting and Development”, DMin thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2017, p 78. ↩︎
- Andrew Heard, Growth and Change: The Danger and Necessity of a Passion for Church Growth, Matthias Media, 2024, p 89. ↩︎
- Ibid, p 1256. ↩︎
- Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, “Attendance Patterns and Mission in the Diocese Report”, Second Session of 53rd Synod: Proceedings for 2024, Sydney: Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, 2024, p 149. ↩︎
- John Bellamy, “Diocesan Mission Indicators: NCLS 2021 Update”, Prepared for Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, 5 March, 2024. ↩︎
- Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney. “Governance Policy for Diocesan Organisations.” Synod 2024: Synod Books Consolidated. Sydney: Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, 2024. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- DA Carson, “Some Reflections on Pastoral Leadership”, Themelios 40, no. 2 (2015), pp 195–197. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Malphurs, 2004, p 295. ↩︎
- Attendance Patterns and Mission in the Diocese Report, 2024. ↩︎
- Heard, Growth and Change, p 142. ↩︎
- Heard, Growth and Change, p 178. ↩︎
- Craig Hamilton, Wisdom in Leadership: The How and Why of Leading the People You Serve, Matthias Media, 2015, p 403. ↩︎
- Governance Policy for Diocesan Organisations. ↩︎