Family to family — how far along we are
These numbers are live, the good and the bad alike. We would rather you saw honest slowness than a polished speed.
This whole ministry turns on a single number: whether a family that has been walked with is willing to go and walk with the next family. Not headcount. Not completion. Not satisfaction. So it comes first, and everything else is a footnote to it.
In progress — week 5 of 21.
Not preparing lessons: walking it as students. Doing the homework, holding the three ceremonies, writing three lines of notes right after each evening, revising the material that same week. The first thing we want to be able to say to every family is “this is a road we have walked” — not “this is a course I built.”
One family walks with one family for 21 weeks. Afterwards, the family that was walked with goes and walks with the next one. This chain is the ministry; everything else is scaffolding.
Twenty-one weeks per family means about two families a year. That sounds frighteningly slow. But it compounds — it does not merely add up. The figures below assume that one in every three families walked with will later be willing to walk with the next one, starting from just us:
| Year | Family to family | For comparison: small groups (8 families a year) |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 2 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 16 |
| Year 3 | 14 | 24 |
| Year 4 | 27 | 32 |
| Year 5 | 50 | 40 |
| Year 6 | 90 + | 48 |
That is not a design risk, it is a real one. Supporters, the local church, even we ourselves will wonder at month 18 whether this is simply too slow — at that point we will have three families to show.
So this table goes on the record now, to set expectations with each other, with the church, and with every supporter. Explaining it afterwards does not work.
Small groups lead fourfold in year one, get overtaken in year five, and never catch up again — because small groups add and family-to-family multiplies. And more importantly: small groups stop when we stop. After year three, family-to-family keeps growing even if we step away entirely.
What you see here is “Family A,” “Family B” — never real names. That is deliberate. What a family confesses about their marriage, and the wounds they carry, is the most sensitive thing we will ever be trusted with. This was settled on day one: it never enters a system we do not control, and every family knows exactly who can see what.
There is a plainer reason too. Announcing on the open internet that a family is “receiving marriage discipleship” tends to be read, in Chinese churches, as “something has gone wrong in that home.” Anonymity by default is not caution — it is what makes it possible for the family who needs this most to say yes. Confidence should come from seeing the chain move, not from seeing names.
After walking with a family for 21 weeks we cannot possibly be objective — the more we have poured in, the more effective it will feel. So “effective” was defined before we began. At week 22, each of these four questions must be answerable in one sentence:
Every piece below was written by the family itself, and every one of them agreed to it being public. Bylines may be anonymous — an anonymous testimony carries just as much weight.
Each piece above is published with the family's consent, and they can ask us to take it down at any time.
If you are a pastor, a co-worker, or simply willing to pray for this road — what we need most is not resources. It is prayer offered in one accord, and one family willing to open their door.
Write to us