So, I have a question. I am a member of the body of Christ, really the only "church" taught in the New Testament. Can I be a member of two or more church bodies?

I attend an Assemblies of God on Sunday mornings, a home church meeting on a week night every week, and also often attend another church that meets on Saturday evenings.

How does membership fit into that picture?

If membership is the equivalent of a marriage certificate issued by the state, then I find no biblical basis. However, if membership is somehting where the "body" makes an equal commitment to support and hold the "member" accountable that is another. Committing to a church in my mind means I expect an equivalent commitment from the body of the church to me as well.

Speaking about this as a one sided thing where we commit to "church" as an institution definitely has benefits for the institution (record keeping, etc). If we truly speak of this in terms of a commitment to a relationship, then we need to ensure commitment from both sides of the relationship, else we are little more than objects.

I wanted to treat one comment of yours distinctly. You wrote: "The Scriptures don't even tell us that everything we need to believe is found in them."

I think you would find the entire Protestant world in sharp disagreement with that statement. Of course, when it comes to non-faith issues you are clearly right. We don't turn to scripture to learn about math or science. But in regards to knowledge of God, His holy will for our lives, and his pattern for the church, the Protestant church would affirm sola scriptura (by Scripture alone).

The only knowledge of God found outside of scripture is general revelation, which is vague and nondescript.

However, if by that statement you meant that we are allowed–on the basis of Scriptural teaching–to discern things and make wise choices when new situations confront us—then I would agree. I think there is flexibility for the church to do new things and use new structures (insofar as we still operate within the principles clearly laid out in scripture and do not go against clear teaching and practice of the Bible). So, if membership if viewed as a pragmatic necessity (i.e. a wise choice made out of godly discernment) in order to achieve biblical practices in a modern context (such as the ability to practice church disciple and discipleship), then there is room for healthy discussion and debate on that subject.

But, the scriptures clearly do tell us everything we need to believe about faith and the church. The real issue is discerning whether our practices adhere to Scripture–even when we feel we must be a bit creative.

I think you misread the intent of Arthur Sido's post. He wasn't "Catholic bashing", nor was he indicating that just because something is practiced by the Catholic church it is inherently evil. His point, rather, was the the practice of church membership has its roots in the Christendom-ideology of the Catholic church rather than the organic Jesus-community of the New Testament. Now this point can be debated, of course, but it does have merit (even if it is perhaps incomplete in its assessment).

I was very surprised by your tone and comments. Accusing Arthur of peddling "ignorant facts" and being "hostile towards fellow believers" is to read ugliness into what was a rather innocent historical statement. The only ignorance and hostility I sensed was from you, not him (I do mean that in love, and am not trying to accuse—but for future reference it would be wiser to ask Arthur about what he intended to imply about Catholics rather than simply assigning to him motives). Also, even if Arthur meant to denounce Catholic theology, is it not possible to denounce a theological system yet simultaneously recognize the presence of genuine believers within that system?

With all that said, I would agree that just because Scripture doesn't command something (or even mention it) that doesn't mean we are prohibited from doing it. I have no problem with pastors urging church membership. Particularly in a Congregational style church government it is a logical necessity. But, I would still maintain that there are better eccesiological structures that achieve the church-membership proponents are looking for without the awkwardness of resorting to this concept.