Quail Springs Church of Christ "Disfellowshipped"

16 Responses to “Quail Springs Church of Christ "Disfellowshipped"”

1.   Jay Guin, on March 21st, 2009 at 9:04 pm Said:

   Email from a reader –

   I am a previous member of Quail Springs Church of Christ, a church you blogged about several times last year concerning the addition of instrumental music to the church’s worship service. To be fair, I would like to state that I left the church shortly after the decision was made, in part due to the addition of insturmental music, as well as other circumstances within the chuch.

   I do not know many details, but I have been told that Mark Henderson, the pulpit minister at Quail, has suddenly decided to leave the chuch. I am curious what your opinion on the matter is. Personally, I don’t understand how anyone can defend church leadership when they have forced what should be a minor issue into a topic that has caused hundreds to leave the church. Mr. Henderson was one of the primary backers for the additon of instrumental music and after causing so much turmoil, he has decided to run away from the problems he created. I pray that the church finds a stronger source of leadership that will bridge the divisions within the church and set them back on the path of fellowship and peace.

2.   Robert Baty, on March 21st, 2009 at 9:23 pm Said:

   Sounds like typical church politics; on the “progressive” side!

   Can Mark’s leaving Quail Springs be confirmed?

   Also, is he supposed to be leaving the Quail Springs church of Christ for another church of Christ, or leaving the “Church of Christ”?

   Is this old news or a developing story?

   What are the “details”?

   Sincerely,
   Robert Baty

3.   Jay Guin, on March 21st, 2009 at 9:27 pm Said:

   Dear reader,

   You are presuming a lot. I have no idea why Mark is leaving Quail Springs, and it’s clearly wrong to speculate.

   However, I agree with you that instrumental music should be considered a minor issue. It seems to me that the elders have the authority to decide what services will be offered. No one was required to worship contrary to their conscience. Those who consider instrumental music wrong could continue to attend their a cappella service.

   Now, it would make perfect sense to leave over such an issue if God’s word required that result, but Romans 14-15 actually teaches to the contrary — and quite plainly so.

   (Rom 14:1-6) Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

   5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

   (Rom 14:10) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.

   (Rom 15:7) Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.

   Therefore, when the disagreement is not over the actual gospel — faith and repentance — we are commanded to neither judge nor look down on our brother with whom we disagree. Rather, Paul says we are to accept him — indeed, share communion with him (as I’ll explain in a future post).

   On the other hand, we should not tempt others to sin, as they understand God’s will, and so the elders were quite right to continue the a cappella service.

   One of great tragedies of the 20th Century teaching on instrumental music is the false doctrine that we cannot fellowship those who worship contrary to our conscience. This is not a scriptural teaching, and it’s devastated our churches for over 100 years. The fruit of the teaching proves how very poisonous it is.

   I agree with your prayer. I pray that the Churches of Christ find sound doctrine and grace and the lessons Paul teaches in Romans (and elsewhere) so that we will be restored to the path of fellowship and peace.

   May God be with you.

4.   Jay Guin, on March 21st, 2009 at 9:37 pm Said:

   Readers,

   There are many reasons that a minister might leave a church. And only one appropriate response from a Christian: love your neighbor as yourself.

   If he’s moving up, we rejoice with him. If he’s suffered misfortune, we mourn with him.

   We cannot delight in anyone’s misfortune (if that is even the case) and claim to follow the author of the Sermon on the Mount.

   (Rom 12:14-18) Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

5.   Jay Guin, on March 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm Said:

   It’s clear from the Quail Springs website that –

   * Mark is no longer their pulpit minister and
   * They continue to conduct an instrumental service every Sunday morning.

6.   Maria Dladla, on October 6th, 2009 at 2:16 pm Said:

   It is sad to see the division caused by instrumental music in the Lord’s church. Why all of these churches switching to instrumental worship. Has God taken away their natural voice talent? What is wrong with the elders in these congregations; don’t they care about the demage they do to all churches of christ in the world. It upset me to see this division in America, because it affects mission work overseas. In third world countries churches of christ are still young and growing and look up to America for scripture interpretation and leadership. They are poor and can’t afford instruments. If your church started out without the use of instrument, it should not change now. I think that the are brothers and sisters who purely selfish to impose instrumental worship, just because they now want. I am praying for this congragation that it goes back to its first order of worship and unified. I aso pray that their preacher repent and apologise to whole congregation. He was wrong by instituting something that he did not find when first hired.

7.   chris, on November 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pm Said:

   I have to say that the last post really frustrates me. Are we really going to blame instrumental music as the damage and division to the Church?

8.   bradstanford, on November 20th, 2009 at 5:13 pm Said:

   Most of us saw the above post when it was published, and did not respond for multiple reasons. My main reason was that much of the questions have been hashed out in other posts.

   The poster does not sound inquisitive, but accusatory. It’s my experience that this poster does not want answers, and apparently, many others thought so as well. Since people have limited time, they pick their comment battles carefully, and leave it to other readers to look at the other posts on Jay’s site to answer these type questions.

   So this is not a case of a good defense not being brought up against an indefensible position, but a case in which the stated position requires the inclusion of much of the information on the rest of this site, and is not worth trying to include it all (again) in the comments.

   Sorry if it seemed otherwise. I personally don’t agree with the person’s post. But the information on this site is quite thorough in refuting it, without another endless discussion in the comments section.

   Don’t let the post frustrate. Use it as an opportunity to practice peace in the face of accusation.

9.   D.Samuelraj, on November 21st, 2009 at 6:56 pm Said:

   Kindly send brother Mark Henderson contact address
   Thanking you
   D.Samuelraj

10.   Jay Guin, on November 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm Said:

    D.Samuelraj,

    Mark is no longer a part of the Quail Springs church. However, the congregation can be contacted through their website at http://www.quailchurch.com/

11.   runnin, on January 27th, 2010 at 12:41 pm Said:

    Brothers In Christ I have to say —if you call Ins. music in the church simple and allow it in then what next because we have already allowed the long/flowing clothes that were cover all to go to short/low showing all. Then we went from the commanded head cover for women to bareheaded. So what is next. We are slowly, simply taking parts of the bible out of context and using it for our own convience. Don’t invite me to your church if you are not doing the WILL of God. What do you answer when he calls you—Oh, yes Lord I know I was to wear a headcovering but I just did not want to mess up my hair when people saw me. Or sorry Lord but I have nice legs and the guys love them. Or sorry Lord but I just coultn’t sing without a guitar and an organ. Will these be your responses when you are called. I pray not for your sake as I am not your judge but the Lord is and his commandants are not to be taken lightly and just brushed aside.

12.   Ken M., on March 3rd, 2010 at 6:42 am Said:

    Dear Master Baty,

    If he who is without sin should cast the first stone, you may want to keep your hands on your stones and look in the mirror.

    Just a thought.

13.   rodney burke, on March 5th, 2010 at 10:45 am Said:

    Question: was anyone FORCING an instrumental worship service on the congregation or any part of it? Now, my next question is in two parts: 1. Whose idea was it for the instrumental worship service; the preacher or the Elders? 2. Who thinks it was wrong to have one?

    Perhaps we had a leadership issue here and Mark Henderson felt he could no longer function as the pulpit minister. Next question could be; did the elders ask him to resign and not tell anyone?

    There is a lot we don’t know and needs to be cleared out. My issue is who is providing the congregational leadership? Staff which should NOT or scriptural leadership?

14.   Jay Guin, on March 5th, 2010 at 10:29 pm Said:

    rodney,

    I’ve met with one of their elders in person. This was the elders’ decision. And they added an instrumental service. The a cappella service continued at the same time and location. No one was forced to worship with an instrument.

    Regarding Mark’s situation, that’s between the elders and him.

15.   Kent Gatewood, on April 6th, 2010 at 5:35 pm Said:

    The time for the vocal only service moved from a start time of 10:25 to a start of 11:00 and then the start moved to 11:15.

    The original vote on changing the articles of incorporation was 56 percent to 44 percent (taken after a fairly healthy group had departed).

    Best guess now is 60 percent instrumental to 40 percent vocal only.

16.   preacherman, on April 13th, 2010 at 8:43 am Said:

    I don’t think it is biblical to “disfellowship” other churches for any reason.

    If the church of Christ see’s the Bible as the ultimate authority. Where is the authority to do so?

    There were definately problems in the Corinthian church and church at Rome but you don’t see those believers disfellowshiping each other. Nowhere in the Bible do you see on church disfellowshiping another church at all.

    Crazy, unbiblical behavior for those who would even consider this type of acton!!!!