Churches, some churches, see themselves as above the market.
The doctrine seems to be that one must stick with one church for as long as one lives in a particular location. How big the location, I don't know. I also don't know why would one stick with a failing, heterodox, wrong or ineffective church. Why reward incompetence with attendance. One family cannot solve generational problems that dog a church. If one finds that a non-liturgical service is at the end more folk religion than Christianity, more insulting, or humiliating, than worshiping of our creator and redeemer with a liturgy, why stay?
At last count I've been an active member, over time, of 19 churches, and have explored another two or three. Thus, reasonable experience of about 22 churches.
During that time I relocated my home 5 times, but other reasons were theological, theo-social (that is the church life did not reflect the church life that I would expect from the scriptures), social (ran out of single girls to chase), utilitarian (service times wrong for family needs, social environment wrong for family needs) and performance (folk-religion, social gospel, naffness).
If people stay in churches that are not compatible with other objectives, like congenial social environment for one's family, theological rectitude, dignity of meetings, wise use of resources, paid servants of the church behaving as servants, then leaving is the right thing to do. Failing churches should fail if one cannot rescue them, if they will imperil the spiritual or social development of one's family, or of they leave the theological rails and will not contemplate reform.
The 'market' is a wonderful discipline in these cases, and it should be left to do its work.
Should one stay in a church that Yeshua would spit out of his mouth?