When Groucho Marx quipped that he wouldn’t join any club that would have him as a member, he didn’t say anything about the alternative: joining a club that didn’t want him.
People do though. There are always those who will bribe, blackmail and abase themselves to avoid being blackballed by some elite, even secretive, organisation deemed to guarantee its members social cachet, political clout or business success.
Then there are people like black South African rugby players, illegal immigrants and overweight members of Virgin Active. They may be unwelcome, but the benefits of joining far outweigh the funny looks they get from the established membership.
But when your club’s very constitution states that you are inferior or irredeemably wicked, what is to be gained from keeping up your subscriptions? In other words, why do independent-minded women continue to attend churches that refuse to recognise them as equal to men?
Why do homosexuals remain in communion with people who regard their sexuality as an abomination in the eyes of the Lord?
While Christianity is not the only religion with an androcentric, heterosexual world view, as a long-lapsed Anglican I have at least some insight into its mysteries.
I realise, for instance, that Jesus has a lot of pull. I know people who credit him with saving their marriages, their sanity, their lives. People who describe their relationship with him as “personal” and cannot conceive of a universe in which he does not exist.
I also know that he inspires people to do great things: some of South Africa’s most selfless, loving and courageous citizens are Christians.
Jesus himself had lots of women friends and, as far as I can tell, said nothing against homosexual love. Apart from the question of faith, he seems to be all about mercy and peace, helping one’s neighbour and giving to the poor.
But the smugly celibate Paul, whose letters of instruction form so much of the New Testament, believed sex of any kind was best avoided. It is tolerable only within a heterosexual marriage in which the wife “submitted” to her husband.
Needless to say, homosexuality is right out.
But Paul was only drawing from the Old Testament law, which is nothing less than draconian in its approach to sex. From Leviticus: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death …”
Ouch.
And homosexuality is not the only no-no. Getting down and dirty with your neighbour’s wife, your father’s wife, your daughter-in-law or your favourite sheep all call for the ultimate punishment.
These laws are all directed at men, as you can tell, but their female partners in sin, including the sheep, are condemned to suffer the same fate. Consent is not an issue.
Of course there’s no knowing how many adulterers, incestuous couples or bestialists belong to the One Holy, Roman and Apostolic Church, but they can’t possibly feel at home.
I have no sympathy with misogyny or homophobia. But I do feel sorry for the conservative members of these churches.
They were born into, or signed up for, an organisation with a rigid moral code. And though they themselves may suffer the odd lapse, they can earn the forgiveness of the church, and the mercy of the Lord, as long as they confess and repent.
I can understand their feeling a little vexed when a whole bunch of unrepentant sinners stands up and demands that they revise the Lord’s word to suit their lifestyles.
It’s hard to see how the integrity of their faith can be maintained when so many of their flock refuse to obey the ground rules.
And while churches so threatened may dread a split, it seems sensible to me for Jesus-loving feminists, gays and others regarded as unclean by their churches, to start their own denomination.
But then, would they be any more tolerant than their former tormentors?
Would some gay men resent being ministered to by a female priest? Would a lesbian feminist object to sharing communion with a heterosexual male adulterer? Would anyone let the bestialists join?
In the end, there would be so many splinter groups that most churches would end up with a congregation of one. And as long as all these singular churches tolerated each other, and refrained from insisting that they had a monopoly of the one true faith, that might be a very good thing.
Our salvation is in our own minds, after all.