3 Bad Reasons to Leave Your Church

[Mark_Smith]

I am not talking about splitting a church.

I am talking about walking into a church to visit while seeing what church to join, seeing they play hymns when I prefer CCM (or vice versa) and deciding to never come back because that place does not meet my desired worship style.

Or, say I am a member at a church. Next thing I know the worship service turns into a concert with “sets”, fog machines, dimmed lights, and laser light shows. Say I disagree with this style. Don’t make a big stink over it, just leave. I am not talking about causing a civil war, I am just talking about leaving. To be clear this could be the other way. Say I like CCM but the church I have attended is hymn only. Maybe I tire of that style. I am free to leave in a polite manner.

The original article (as well as Bert and perhaps Ricky) equate leaving a local church with causing a rift, or rejecting the body of Christ. Might I say that is hogwash.

Believers have the liberty to leave any church. There is no grand inquisitor who will string you up on the rack for trying to leave, either literally or figuratively with articles decrying you for exercising your freedom in Christ.

Mark,

Most churches that make the transition in music either go from traditional to a blended, or from a blended to a contemporary. Churches that I know of who utilize fog machines and laser lights are more rare, but usually are a church plant or a contemporary mega church that is trying too hard to be relevant. The more realistic question is would you leave if the worship was more contemporary, but yet God-centered without any of the frills that you mentioned such as dimming the lights or the fog machine, or the laser lights and without attempting to be a CCM concert? That is where the majority of conservative evangelical contemporary worship is………

By the way, your desciption reminded me of one of my favorite parodies of certain evangelical church plants and megachurches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RJBd8zE48A

[Joel Shaffer]

pvawter wrote:

It seems to me that the problem with music isn’t so much a question of the music itself, but rather the change of focus from a more hymn-based, congregational participation format to a more praise & worship, performance based format. I know I’m generalizing these forms, but the point is that people generally don’t leave a church that is still doing whatever music they did when those people first came to the church. If someone visits a church and does not like the music (or finds it offensive or whatever), they will simply look for another church. I think the author misses the point that people leaving really has little to do with music, per se, but with the way in which a congregation is led into change, and the overall pressure to conform to whatever worship style those in leadership prefer.

Interesting…..growing up in a more traditional baptist church where my father was the minister of music, I always viewed the hymn-based congregational singing along with a choir anthem, offertory, and special music before the message as much, much more performance based than praise and worship format where the people are paying more attention to the words on the screen than the musicians. Interesting…..

[Joel Shaffer]

Most churches that make the transition in music either go from traditional to a blended, or from a blended to a contemporary.

And then there are churches like mine that, with multiple services, offer two (or more) music styles from which attenders can choose.

We have three Sunday morning services. One is “traditional,” with a choir, piano, organ, and various other “traditional” musical instruments (e.g. violins, flutes, handbells, etc.). The other two are “contemporary,” with a small band (guitars: electric and/or acoustic, electric bass, keyboards, and yes, a drumset). Nevertheless, the music at these services is often a blend of new & old. For example, just last Sunday an uptempo, current CCM song was immediately followed by Blessed Assurance!

We also have a Saturday evening service, which we began last Summer. At this service, the music is also contemporary, but a bit on the “edgier” (for lack of a better term) side of CCM.

Guess at which service(s) we’re seeing the most numerical growth and (especially) spiritual growth? If you guessed the Sunday traditional service, you would be incorrect. Attendance at that service seems to be stuck at a long-term plateau. If you guessed the Sunday contemporary services, well, you’re getting warmer. They have both been growing steadily, so that we’ve had to add overflow seating because either (or even both) of those services can exceed 100% of our sanctuary capacity. If you guessed the Saturday evening service, you are correct. THAT’S the one at which we’re currently seeing the greatest immediate influx of new people/families, and (Praise God!) it’s the one at which we are seeing the most salvations, rededications, and other spiritual decisions.

Mark, I’m speaking very narrowly of churches where (a) you have good theology in theory and practice and (b) some music that is awry. Now I would grant that it is a bigger deal if one leaves a church of which one is a member, but in the case that (a) and (b) are the issues at hand, I’d argue that we really owe it to the church to either (1) grow to understand a new genre or (b) if appropriate, ask why particular songs are being used.

(2) is huge in that a lot of churches are using a ton of rather vapid, poetry-less CCM, and “because we like it” is a hint that condition (a) may not be being met. See what I’m getting at here? In my mind, it’s a huge deal when one lives outside a big city, as you don’t have 25 churches within 25 miles where you can plausbly go.

@ Bert - I think Mark is entirely correct about being to reject a church after a visit. That doesn’t mean you “have to” reject it. you may choose to stay. But if you stay in an attempt to change them, it’s kind of disingenuous. After all, they were up front with you when you first arrived about who they were. If that’s not what you wanted, what right do you have to join just so you can try to influence change.

@ Mark - I think there is a HUGE difference between visiting a church where you decide not to continue and choosing to leave a church where you have been a member. I agree you have freedom in the first case, but I would disagree with your assertion that you can do whatever you want in the second. Scripture is clear on the bond and ensuing accountability that results from membership. Some churches go so far as to require a congregational vote releasing a member any time someone leaves just like the congregation votes to accept new members into fellowship. This is all about the relationship expressed in scripture.

((In Ukraine, a church member who leaves can be “let go in peace” or not. It’s important for the next church you want to join.))

This question—about conscience and leaving a church— is problematic in this sense— we have a few church members (say, 4?) who gripe about the music style. And they’re loud even rude, generally.

This has gone on for years. And I think, why don’t you just move on instead of staying here and undermining others’ ministry and blessings? If you insist on staying, then deal with your issues so you can respect the leadership and grow here.

Chip, if you’ve got 20 “fundagelical” churches within 20 miles, maybe. My last five years have been spent in more rural areas where you don’t have this, however. Hence you’ve got to be a little bit more interactive when choosing a church.

…is why we (collective “we”) think or believe we must “like” or “prefer” (i.e. be comfortable with) all of the music in our churches. Humor me while I attempt to explain:

I don’t (necessarily) want to be in a church where the preaching makes me comfortable. I want to be in a church where the preaching (at least on occasion) hits me where I live, making me wince, convicting me. (Happily, my pastor more than amply manages this on occasion!) =) In that same vein, I’m increasingly unconvinced that I must always have music that makes me comfortable, due to the fact that it suits my preference. Why? If the music appeals to a 52 year-old who has been a Christian (a sinner saved by Grace) since elementary school, and who grew up ensconced in traditional church music, then it probably mostly deters today’s younger men, women, and children, to whom it may be unappealing.

Consider this: Earlier in this thread I posted a summary list of various positions that people have expounded on church music from past centuries. (Anybody remember Luther’s quote? He called organs in churches the “insignia of Baal”!) Throughout the quotations, many of those cited denounced as being downright worldly the very instruments that we, today, associate with “traditional” church music. (They denounced flutes, stringed-instruments and organs, for example; today it is guitars & drums in many instances.) Over time, the church (mostly) got over it’s bitter opposition to the organ. Perhaps guitars (a more recent invention) will take a little more time???

My point? I’m now o.k. with CCM. (Which doesn’t mean that “God’s Great Dance Floor” will ever be on my car stereo! Bleacchh!) What I find is that some of the songs speak to me/convict me/teach me in ways that traditional, familiar hymnody simply doesn’t. (Anyone else think that perhaps the Bible champions “new song(s)” for our spiritual benefit?)

If one’s conscience truly is seared by non-traditional church music, based on your personal—and I might say erroneous—understanding of it, or on your background, experiences, or whatever (and only you can know that), than perhaps like the non meat-eaters in 1 Cor. 8 you “should abstain.” For myself, if certain instruments can help facilitate the way to Christ for today’s generations, then I’m willing to relinquish some of my “rights” or preferences and try (forever imperfectly) to emulate Paul’s declarations in 1 Cor. 9. (“He must increase, but I must decrease..” also comes to my mind. I must keep remembering/learning that it’s not about me.)

At my own church, as I discussed in a comment above, what we are seeing is that the least-traditional the approach, the greater the spiritual fruit at the present. Given the evidence for that stark truth, what should I conclude? That the Holy Spirit is most at work in the “wrong” venue? (As my KJV would say, “God forbid!”)

I agree that if you are a member things are more complicated. Obviously, if a change in music style has taken place it probably happened over time and many things were involved in it. My point is that if you have done all you can in your position, and you don’t desire to worship with the music style of the church you are a member, you can go. I can think of no verse that tells me to stay. Now, I may stay, but it isn’t wrong to leave. By leave I mean a quiet exit…

Chip, what verse would you use to say that you are accountable to the leadership and should stay?

I think individual soul liberty trumps any corporate attachments when push comes to shove, so to speak.

If we felt called to go to the mission field in East Afriamerasiaeuropa, we might arrive there to find that the only instrument is an old oil drum that someone beats on with a tree branch. We are predisposed to HATE the sound of it. Nevertheless, with the Holy Spirit at work in the indiginous people we are called to minister to & to be among, somehow their music sounds GLORIOUS to our ears. We are able to cast aside our own preferences and expectations because we see the BIG PICTURE. We get it!

Now picture serving in an inner-city church plant in Detroit. The people we are serving/reaching there might respond to Lecrae, but not the traditional organ music we are accustomed to. Suddenly I suspect we’d all quickly learn to at least tolerate hip-hop.

Now what about our (in my case Suburban) churches? If the people we want to reach are unresponsive to organ music, why insist it is somehow a Biblical mandate? (Luther, among others, would have at one time vehemently disagreed.) If guitars are THEIR preference, and they open a door to the Gospel to reach them, why would we ever conceivably cling to (what is merely) OUR preference?

[Mark_Smith]

I agree that if you are a member things are more complicated. Obviously, if a change in music style has taken place it probably happened over time and many things were involved in it. My point is that if you have done all you can in your position, and you don’t desire to worship with the music style of the church you are a member, you can go. I can think of no verse that tells me to stay. Now, I may stay, but it isn’t wrong to leave. By leave I mean a quiet exit…

Chip, what verse would you use to say that you are accountable to the leadership and should stay?

I think individual soul liberty trumps any corporate attachments when push comes to shove, so to speak.

The method/style of worship implemented by a local assembly communicates its view of God. It’s a window into that church’s theology. If that theology isn’t Biblical, why would a believer want to identify with it?

Having said that, if more Christians viewed the local church as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 12, I think we’d see 1) a lot more faithfulness among church members and 2) less movement between churches. If a believer leaves a church, he/she better have clear Biblical reasons for doing so and/or be able to clearly show God leading him/her elsewhere.

As an aside, too many times I hear people saying, “Show me in the Scriptures why such and such a style is wrong.” This thinking is unBiblical and needs to be rejected. The clear Scriptural model is “Show me in the Scriptures why such and such a style is right.”

[KD Merrill]

The method/style of worship implemented by a local assembly communicates its view of God. It’s a window into that church’s theology. If that theology isn’t Biblical, why would a believer want to identify with it?

… . .

As an aside, too many times I hear people saying, “Show me in the Scriptures why such and such a style is wrong.” This thinking is unBiblical and needs to be rejected. The clear Scriptural model is “Show me in the Scriptures why such and such a style is right.”

…here are some actual, Biblical passages regarding worship:

Psalm 149:1 Praise the Lord!
Sing to the Lord a new song,
his praise in the assembly of the godly!
2 Let Israel be glad in his Maker;
let the children of Zion rejoice in their King!
3 Let them praise his name with dancing,
making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!

Dancing, with the sound of a tambourine (A percussion instrument)?

–––––––––––

Psalm 150:1 Praise the Lord!
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens!
2 Praise him for his mighty deeds;
praise him according to his excellent greatness!

3 Praise him with trumpet sound;
praise him with lute and harp!
4 Praise him with tambourine and dance;
praise him with strings and pipe!
5 Praise him with sounding cymbals;
praise him with loud clashing cymbals!
6 Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord!

More dancing, and again with the percussion instruments?

–––––––––––––-

2 Samuel 6:12 And it was told King David, “The Lord has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing. 13 And when those who bore the ark of the Lord had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal. 14 And David danced before the Lord with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. 15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting and with the sound of the horn.

Again with the dancing?

––––––––––––––-

Psalm 47:1 Clap your hands, all peoples!
Shout to God with loud songs of joy!

Clapping? Shouting? Loud songs? (Huh…?)

––––––––––––––—

Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Ah, here, you say, is the New Testament prescription for worship! Quiet & sedate, right? But then again, if we go back and look at the actual Psalms (149 or 150, for example), with their dancing, noise, and percussion, perhaps we are simply imposing our cultural (mis)perceptions on this verse in Colossians. Also, if we look at actual instances of “spiritual songs” sung throughout the Bible, some of them were pretty boisterous!

––––––––––––––—

So here’s my question: How did we ever arrive at the conclusion that “reverent” and “worshipful” must equate to “sedate” and “somber”?

This deserves to be repeated—I am of course not accusing anyone here of this, let along everyone, but I’ve seen the attitude enough that I think it needs to be highlighted.

So here’s my question: How did we ever arrive at the conclusion that “reverent” and “worshipful” must equate to “sedate” and “somber”?

I’m 100% OK with taking a look at musical genre, style, ability of musicians, poetry of the lyrics, content of the lyrics, and all that in determining whether a song/hymn/spiritual song is suitable for church, and in debates about that. Let’s have it. I just cringe at the assumption that we really need to be super sedate—that’s really a Victorian assumption, not a Biblical one. I’ve seen it work out too often as the music leader simply selects his favorite few hymns each week…..real killer of spirituality and growth in Christ.

Larry Nelson- you are spot on. OT worship mentions dancing, tambourines, loud, boisterous, etc. I don’t see requirements that people have a certain skill level to play (except with Israel having one temple, so obviously the best play), or that there is a poetry test, etc)

​