Mark 2:17 And Church Culture
As I’m want to do, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about church and church planting. I’ve also just finished reading Hugh Halter’s latest book Sacrilege. Over the years, Halter has been a tremendous source of challenge and encouragement. On one hand, I come from a fairly “traditional” church background in which, though it may not have been explicitly been communicated, we’re expected to be more comfortable around those who already follow Jesus than those who do not; so Halter has pushed many of the buttons I thought I was holding on to. On the other hand, I’ve long had a heart to plant a church in which people at every stage of faith were drawn closer to Jesus, so he has been a breath of fresh air, reminding me that I’m not the only one (I was going to say, “reminding me that I’m not crazy,” but I don’t know Hugh, so for all I know, he could be quite crazy.).
One verse Halter references really stuck out to me (yes, there was much to applaud in the book, but for the sake of this post, I want to ponder this particular verse). Mark 2:17:
“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Throughout the book, Halter reminds us that Jesus spent quite a bit of his time and energy connecting with people whom the “religious” or “spiritual” people didn’t think Jesus should be with. In fact, this is the premise introducing Luke 15, which contains one of Jesus’ most famous parables, the Prodigal Sons:
Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. 2And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
But Mark 2:17 has really been haunting my thoughts and my prayers lately. In my current situation, I am blessed to have the chance to talk with a lot of pastors and, in particular, church planters. This has caused quite a bit of self-examination lately. I’ve found myself wrestling with the one question a church planter never leaves behind: Is the church we’ve planted the church we initially wanted? It seems that in church culture, we like to swing the pendulums. We either immerse ourselves in “building up Christians” or “reaching out” as though, somehow, these things are mutually exclusive.
In 1 Corinthians 14, when addressing people on the issue of speaking in tongues, Paul assumes that there will be unbelievers present. I wonder how many theologically solid churches also intentionally word and present things in a way in which they assume unbelievers will be present. Do we take time to explain our terms and practices? It seems that many of our church plants err on one side or the other. What has been called “seeker sensitive” or “theologically deep.” But are these things really at odds with one another?
“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Are the churches we are planting places where “the sick,” sinners, those who don’t know where else to turn, feel welcomed and loved while also challenged? It’s a fine balance to call sin sin while also loving sinners. Or are the churches we’re planting places where we have a “preview service” so we can appeal to certain Christian sensibilities and get a “core group” of people “on board” so that we can have “respectable numbers?” Pardon my cynicism, but I’m really wrestling through some of these issues.
I am in no way saying that Christians shouldn’t be part of church plants. But, I am saying that I wonder if we don’t sometimes cater our church plants in such a way where we can simply guarantee that we have certain numbers of Christians to present to the people who ask. I want an environment where those who already follow Jesus are challenged to go deeper in their relationship with Jesus and those who don’t yet know Him are not only challenged to follow Him but made to feel both welcomed and challenged until they do so.
I fully realize that I am probably naive, but I don’t understand churches that set the bar so high that only those who already follow Jesus will ever feel comfortable. And even then, only certain types of Christians will have the “right doctrine” to belong to this church. In my own background, this is Reformed Theology, but it can be any number of issues. We are very prone to center our churches around practices and doctrines rather than Jesus. The result is that, in our pursuit of our particular doctrine or practice, we exclude many. We don’t explain what we do, we speak “Christianese” and we simply expect others ti immerse themselves into our culture as quickly as possible.
Are we more concerned with whether the sick find healing (and we all recognize our sickness), or that the healthy find a place to belong? Would it look any different if we continually considered the sick in everything we do? Why do we seem to believe in practice that these things are mutually exclusive?


























I understand your wrestling, Brent, but I’ve seen “centering on Jesus” result in a lowest-common-demonitor faith that tries to ignore any possible differences that people might pull from the Bible. IMHO, that’s what had led the mainline churches to where they are today.
To further your use of the sick, just as different sick people need different doctors, different people will resonate with and feel more comfortable with different churches, and that’s OK. Sometimes, church plants try to be all things to all people to stay alive, but that’s not a good long term plan. Other times, churches are so intent on being the new cool kids in town that they don’t recognize that the sick sometimes don’t even know they’re sick and advertising your cool music and great coffee won’t reach them.
I think what you’re thinking through occurs just as much in non-church plants. I feel that God is calling me to plant a church, but we’re part of an established church right now and it has been a challenge for us as newcomers to understand how the church functions and lives. It can be helpful for churches to think through what a visitor/sick person would really experience when the church gathers and how any possible barriers can be lowered. Things like
* IF you have pew bibles, telling people what page to turn to
* Explaining that books of the Bible have chapters and verses
* Handing out Bibles to people who may not have them
* Explain concepts clearly / don’t assume anything
I think one of the best ways that churches could keep their eyes on the sick is to make it really hard for people to ever be far removed from both new Christians and non-Christians. If it were expected for everyone in the church to be involved in 2 discipling relationships (being discipled and being the disciples), people would be frequently reminded of their own sickness and the sick around them. Also, not over-scheduling your church means that you can’t get sucked into all of the trappings of evangelical culture/your particular denomination which should leave margin for working with the sick. Finally, we have to convince our people by showing them from the Bible that health doesn’t require lack of further contact with the sick, but an actual increased love for the sick and a desire that they be made healthy. Equipping and encouraging people to disciple means we’ll always have the sick on our minds and hopefully in our prayers and actions.