A travel to remember

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.  

A scene from Dale Farm eviction earlier this year

Fight the good fight

“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.

‘Turn the other cheek’ camp

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’.

‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ 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? 

‘What would Jesus do?’

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’?    

Don't judge a book by it's cover, or lack of

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?

Gypsy girl

Amish girl

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?  

‘A man is a man and a woman knows her place’

I was astonished last Tuesday when the Church of England voted to reject the ordination of women bishops. Living in the 21^st Century I would’ve never imagined the Church to be so out of touch.  And it appears I’m not alone with the PM himself expressing disappointment.

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… 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20438747

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?