Did you read 10 generations to reach 100,000? I thought about the bit where ‘most top level coaches won’t be mentoring a church of 15 while also facilitating downstream generations.’ I wondered, what difference would it make to the overall growth of the movement if only the ‘bottom most edge’ were the churches-of-15?
For example, let’s say I mentor Jack, Jill and Jane. And Jack doesn’t lead a group of 15—he mentors Jim, John and Jackson. And so on. Only the bottom edge of the four generations are the actual churches.
I wrote a quick a spreadsheet of this. For each generation, the number of leaders is 3 times the previous level (that is, gen 2 is 3×3, gen 3 is 3x3x3, and so on). Believers in the first scenario is 15 x the number of leaders; in the second scenario, the number of mentoring leaders is the number in that generation minus all the leaders up to that point (so only the bottom layer has groups). The result surprised me a bit: while there is a significant difference in the total number of people reached, the speed at which 10^y thresholds (100, 1,000, 10,000, and so on) are reached isn’t that different.
So this just serves to illustrate a point: multi-generational movements that teach people to make disciples, gather disciples into groups, and coach disciples in those groups to start still more groups that do the same thing, is a straight forward path to seeping into and throughout a population segment. (And it acknowledges that not everyone will be a disciple-maker; if a group of 15 forms and 3 people out of the group create additional groups, you would have the same impact.)
Regardless of how the exact ratio between ‘coaches’ and ‘house church leaders’ plays out, 10 generations in multiple streams that continues to expand and multiply will generally be enough to affect nearly any city, district or province. Notably, on a minimal scenario, 16 generations expanding outward in layers of 3×3 would not just reach all of Uttar Pradesh—it would make disciples of everyone in the province.