Before we say goodbye and exit the
extravaganza of the Gypsy and Traveller world let’s just take a breather and
consider the original purpose of this blog.
Can
Gypsies and Travellers justify certain traditions and behaviour that seems in
such contradiction with being a ‘Christian’?
Well one thing I hope we’ve all learned
from our journey is that the answer to this question is certainly not
clear-cut. Though certain traditions can be seen as ingrained in the community
there will always be disparity, just like we found in Christianity. Nothing is
simple.
Maybe the best solution is to argue that
Christian traditions and Gypsy and Traveller traditions will always be
sew-sawing between compatibility and contradictory.
Certainly I wouldn’t be surprised if there
are specific traditions that you see as 100% incompatible with Christianity, as
I myself reflected in some of my posts.
But for those of you who read this blog and
ended feeling the Gypsy and Traveller community to be completely incompatible
with Christianity I have to raise a precaution. Be aware this is a subjective
matter and we are ‘outsiders’ - maybe when evaluating others we should always remember
to keep looking in the mirror?
A
unique religion?
One last point, what became apparent
through this blog was that culture and tradition plays a major part in our
life, so what does this mean for Gypsy and Traveller religion? Ultimately,
doesn’t their own unique history and way of life suggest their own unique form
of Christianity, which allows them justification for some of this behaviour?
Just like in our culture and religion.
“I'm born a man
and I'll die a man. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees” – declares Hughie Doherty in
‘Big Fat Gypsy Weddings’
Before you say anything, I’m not too naïve to realise that
the media shown violence of Gypsies and Travellers is most likely exaggerated but
there’s certainly no denying that violence is ingrained in Gypsy and Traveller
culture. So how violent are they?
Watching that video three key expressions of violence in
Gypsy and Traveller become apparent to me. These are the use of violence to
settle any dispute through a ‘fair fight’, the constant unreserved association
between the notion of honour and, more specifically, manhood and standing up
and fighting, and lastly that fighting is a tradition passed down through the
generations of Gypsy men, therefore keeping it forever an integral part of
Gypsy and Traveller culture.
This violence is so ingrained in the community that it
surpasses just fighting and is witnessed in other aspects of life. Would you
believe it even in courtship?! Through ‘Grabbing’
a boy physically hurts a girl until she gives him a kiss with the aim to ‘win
her heart’. I know right, violence is so rooted in their culture they condone
behaviour which to us would be completely unjustified. But, is it compatible
with Christianity? Surely God doesn’t really agree with use of violence to get
what we want?
Certainly, historically Christianity has a violent side. You
only have to look back to the
Crusades!! However, let’s not rush to the hasty conclusion that a ‘good’
Christian should condone violence. In fact there’s much conflict and controversy
in Christianity over this matter. Arguably, Christianity is split into two ‘camps’
over violence…
Just a quick note – in the following section I’m not arguing
that there’s no overlap in the presentation of God between the Old and New Testament
but that each focuses on certain characteristics more frequently.
Arguably, the God of
the New Testament is one of ‘Love’ who expresses the ultimate ideal for
Christianity to be peace, love, compassion and forgiveness. Therefore this
approach packs a punch for the side for non-violence.
And it’s this ‘Agape’
love that’s governed what are arguably some of the greatest achievements of
Christianity and some of the most celebrated Christians throughout
history…recognise any of these faces?
Justin Martyr
Dorothy Day
Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
Surely, if these individuals achieved such inspiring things
through this interpretation, then wouldn’t the rational thing be to propagate
it further as the ideal?
In this case the Gypsies and Travellers are out. Even their
smallest acceptance of violence would set them outside the realm of what it is
to be Christian. However, as I’ve already identified there’s another ‘camp’.
Arguably, the Old Testament
shows a God of vengeance who expresses ideas of judgement and retribution,
enforcing His ‘wrath’ on individuals. It’s not hard to combine this violent
nature of God with the idea of justice and present a justification for violence
as it allows us to enforce retribution on Earth. As Christians Gypsies and
Travellers fit comfortably into this camp.
BUT for this discussion I can only use one criteria of a
‘Good’ Christian. So which interpretation is it to be? Or is there a third
‘camp’ I’ve overlooked?
The solution to our problems, a question all Christians
should ask themselves. As the central figure in Christianity and arguably the
divider of it from other faiths it’s vital to always try and follow Jesus’
teachings.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you
on the right cheek, turn the other also” (Matthew
5:38-39)
From this passage and many others it’s not hard to find a
Jesus who openly rejects violence. This ‘love your enemies’ approach doesn’t
really allow for any adherence of violence in a Christian’s life and therefore
flares up a contradiction between the Gypsies and Travellers’ culture and being
a good ‘Christian’.
However, as per usual in holy scripture there are many
contradictory teachings. Jesus’ ‘Cleansing
of the Temple’? Maybe there is some saving grace for Gypsy and Traveller
violence after all?
The ‘Third’ camp
Arguably then to be a ‘good Christian’ there’s no one stance
on violence, instead there’s a general scale which has no clear-cut lines for
the rightness or wrongness of violence but instead offers us a vague see-saw of
tolerance based on liberal interpretations of the Bible. So what does this mean
for Gypsies and Travellers?
Well, it’s rather subjective but ultimately it’s not hard to
argue that yes in most cases the violence of the Gypsy and Traveller community
is ‘un-Christian’ as it shows a desire to fight rather than a ‘just’ cause.
This approach seemingly works on a principle of the ‘ends
justifying the means’ (within limits) and for the majority of Christians, and
general public, today the use of violence to show oneself a man or to settle a
dispute when words can be used is not justified.
However, what about when the ‘ends’ is ‘stable social
functioning’ and the ‘means’ a ‘fair fight’?
As identified in my last post, Gypsy and Traveller women obey a strict moral code on the inside but what about the outside? What pops into your head when you see these girls?
Immodest, loose, shameless…? Well you’re probably not alone.
These are Gypsies and Travellers.
So not to be accused of 'reducing
a whole culture to a few crystals, lipstick and a big skirt', I’m not
saying that all Gypsy and Traveller females dress like this but there’s certainly
no denying that it’s become a common style within the community. The question
is, how can people claiming to be moral Christians dress, to what appears to
us, so improperly? Can both these individuals obey the same God?
Though most strains of Christianity have never officially
outlined the ‘Christian’ code of dress, the term ‘Christian modesty’ is often
applied. Let’s just say you wouldn’t see a mini skirt or a boob tube in the
Virgin Mary’s wardrobe. And why?...
Modesty =
spiritual integrity
In a nutshell, skimpy clothes are a ‘temptation’ attracting
male attention and inciting immoral, lustful behaviour and a ‘distraction’ from
spiritual worship preventing our purpose of seeking God. This understanding is
expressed well by Charles Hill, an Ohio church planter, in his article "Butts
and Boobs" where he raises worries over skimpy dressing during the
summer.
So, in this respect then, Gypsies and Travellers are certainly
at odds with Christianity. Especially being so highly strung and not agreeing
with sex before marriage why are they wearing clothes their own religion would
reject on the basis that it leads to lust? Or aren’t the motives surrounding
their dress really that innocent?
When marriage is the goal and dating is forbidden then you
use everything you’ve got to attract a husband, including your appearance. Therefore, aren’t the Gypsy and Traveller
community just condoning this lustful behaviour that the Christian church is so
against. Maybe Gypsy girls should adopt the approach taken by other Christian
girls through the campaign 'Modest is
Hottest'.
Though in all fairness we can’t give this Christian
interpretation full credibility as it itself has been labelled as dangerous by presenting
the female form as sexual temptation it seems to objectify women as just sexual
objects surrounding them in a sense of shame. Arguably then this view isn’t
compatible with future gender equality within Christianity, discussed in the
earlier post. Are Gypsies and Travellers ahead of their time dressing as a
freedom of expression rather that obeying out-dated Christianity?
Extravagance not
important
‘It’s all about looking the best’ – declared Cheyenne, a Gypsy, in
an episode of ‘Big Fat Gypsy Weddings’
And how is this achieved? LOTS of ‘bling’ and ‘sparkle’. But
it’s this extravagance that’s arguably in contradiction to Christian teachings.
‘Also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in
suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or
expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess
reverence for God’ (1
Timothy 2:9-10)
So is a Christian someone who
doesn’t wear jewels and extravagant clothes, which would certainly contradict
‘Gypsy fashion’? It seems more realistic to suggest that like other Christian
interpretations of the Bible it’s exactly that, not a literal reading but read
to uncover a wider message. The message of this then is that at the very least
we shouldn’t place importance on our appearance as a status symbol, rather we
should concentrate on the purity of our inner being. So can Gypsy and
Traveller females justify their clothing by being so highly strung morally? As 'The
Bible says man looks on the outside but God looks at the heart'. So if their hearts are pure and Christian then surely God
can forgive their immodest outfits?
Was this somehow an expression of the ideological
justification from Christianity for the gender division that I witnessed when
watching ‘Big Fat Gypsy Weddings’?
‘The Feminine Mystique’ a book found on the shelf of any
Gypsy or Traveller caravan? I think not. If feminism has gone any way to
breaking the gender barrier, then the Gypsies and Travellers have certainly
overlooked it. For Gypsies and Travellers the course of one’s life is
determined at birth according to their gender.
Female =
‘Homemaker’, Male = ‘Breadwinner’
So, let’s just say the phrase ‘born to wed’ certainly
defines your Gypsy or Traveller woman and as you heard, life before marriage is
no picnic with all those strict codes of behaviour. But for the man it’s a
completely different set of rules, or lack of. So the question is, is this
gender distinction compatible with Christianity?
Historically, there’s no denying that the Church has facilitated
gender inequality and as we can see from recent events there is still an
imbalance between the sexes. So it wouldn’t seem too far-fetched to claim that
the Gypsies and Travellers’ gender distinction resonates from the ‘stained-glass ceiling’
in Christianity.
However, is this version of Christianity just a dying sect?
Surely we must be able to find a few feminist Christians or what’s to be said
for the future of Christianity?
The video found in the link below represents arguably what are Christianity’s
beliefs on gender…
An illustration of the old out-dated alongside the young
future of Christianity, reflected on closer scrutiny in the margin of votes,
with 324 out of 446 actually
voting in favour of women bishops. Therefore the eventual course of
Christianity does look to ultimately be one of gender equality.
“In the image of
God He created them; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27)
It appears it’s not just the future of Christianity that the
Gypsy and Travellers’ views are incompatible with but the Bible itself!!
I’m not saying that gender discrimination can’t be found in
the Bible but like the one above there’s certainly many biblical references
that support gender equality. If we’re all equally created, then in the eyes of
God this doesn’t include any inequality between genders. By holding and
enforcing this aren’t Gypsies and Travellers just going against the freedom of
equality created by God?
However, perhaps a slight breeze of modernity is drifting
through the Gypsy and Traveller community. Arguably a tiny fraction of the
Gypsy and Traveller community are rebelling?
But there’s a more dangerous side of the Gypsy and Traveller
gender distinction in the form of the domestic abuse it leaves women vulnerable
to. It’s not hard to find a link between the arguably submissive status of a Gypsy
or Traveller woman and the domestic abuse supposedly kept secret, but accepted
in the Gypsy and Traveller community. A recent article
referenced findings that between 61 and 81% of married Gypsies and Traveller
women in Wrexham had experienced direct abuse from a partner. I mean would God
really approve? If this gender distinction allows for such devaluing of women and
un-Christian behaviour it can’t be compatible with being Christian. Isn’t
Christianity all about love and tolerance?
Before we say goodbye and exit the
extravaganza of the Gypsy and Traveller world let’s just take a breather and
consider the original purpose of this blog. 
