Calvin Coolidge, the most principled of all U.S. Presidents in the last 110 years (at least, in my opinion), stated this in his autobiography:

Although I had been rather constant in my attendance, I had never joined the church . . . . Among other things, I had some fear as to my ability to set that example which I always felt ought to denote the life of a church member. I am inclined to think now that this was the counsel of darkness.

Coolidge attended but did not join Congregationalist churches most all of his life. I am inclined to believe that his perspective BEFORE his pricking of conscience was the correct one. His concept of 'example' to be set at his late stage of life was misguided; the example respected by most all of churchianity is one of conformity and not true principle. I'm not sure what he refers to as the 'counsel of darkness'; it probably refers to the conflict within the soul of the implications of freedom from church rule and tyranny. If a Christian becomes convicted that freedom from joining the church and becoming a 'member' (of a non-profit corporation, not of the body of Christ) is the best course of preserving liberty of conscience, this leads to the great potential of unbridled and undisciplined living to excess in defiance of those who DENY liberty of conscience.

Anyway, I believe Coolidge had it wrong in his last conclusions. Just as he was wrong in supporting Hoover with the excuse that he was too old and worn out to campaign against Hoover's apostasy from the right principles of government in the 1932 campaign. Though Coolidge declined at the end by stating 'I no longer fit in with these times', we have to adopt a tough perspective of being in the fight against church tyranny until the very end of the age!