"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Mark 16:18, KJV
This past weekend, I was lucky to travel to Atlanta, GA for the Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion where I sat amongst really smart people listening to papers and trying to think of intelligent questions to pose. One paper stood out as fodder for conversation on this blog, despite its biased language, because the topic was something I had never heard of.
Taking a very literal interpretation of the King James Version of Mark 16:18, Pentecostal Christians in Appalachia handle poisonous snakes when they feel they have been anointed by the Holy Spirit. The belief is that God will protect the anointed from bites, or if they get bitten, from the poison. If they do die from the bite, Pastor Andrew Hamblin (lavender vest) says it was God's plan, not the inherent danger of the practice.
It is easy to look at a ritual like this, and think it is bizarre, but let us remember that many think the frequency with which we take selfies is totally bogus. As scholars of religion, we dance a fine line as outside observers attempting to privilege the insiders' perspective. The longer clip of this video shows a news reporter in a suit yelling over the music of the church service "This is not a con game. These snakes are poisonous. They can kill, and they do kill." The comments below include "Darwin award winner from Appalachia lol," "Isolation and lack of education at its finest," "Apparently they missed Luke 4:12 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God'," and "Beautiful," among 643 others.
This practice has created the sort of controversy over which religious scholars become giddy. There are so many opinions, so many claims to truth. There is clear Othering going on here: on the Pentecostal side this is what sets them apart as God's people, on the anything else side, this is dangerous, crazy and unlawful.
So what do you think: Is it reasonable for serpent handling to be outlawed in Tennessee? Is that a necessary line to draw or a clear violation of freedom of religion? How does this practice connect to our discussions of baptism the past week?
I think that snake-handling among certain Pentecostal sects is so interesting as well. You make a really good point about othering. News reports seem to perpetuate this idea; when I was looking up news articles, most focused on Christians who had died after handling snakes (thereby only emphasizing negative events and not positive ones associated with this tradition) and others seemed to frame this group as outsiders by their use of words like "off-shoot" and "rural areas," as if to minimize the group in readers' eyes.
ReplyDeleteI think the question of whether or not it should be outlawed in TN is definitely a difficult question. While I would not call it a "clear violation" of freedom to practice, I would say it perhaps infringes on these Christians' right to practice. They are not forcing anyone to handle the snakes; in fact, I believe it is looked down upon to hold the snakes unless one is filled with the Holy Spirit, which I doubt many "outsiders" to the tradition would be willing to do. Therefore, while I understand that Tennessee wants to protect the lives of snake-handlers, I think they would have a difficult time convincing practitioners otherwise. I would even venture to argue that they would continue with the practice regardless.
I think this practice relates to baptism (and perhaps more so with Confirmation) because of the role of the Holy Spirit and the idea that they were chosen by God to it. In fact, the video states that, "When God anoints them, they have an obligation to do this, and he will protect them." They are a group set apart, which I think relates especially to early Christians and their idea of baptism.
Wow, Melina, I would have never thought to extend this situation and relate it to baptism, but I agree with what you said. This practice truly sets them apart as followers of God and is a tangible practice of their trust that God is in control either so that they are protected or that they were meant to die. I also very much agree with your point that they are not infringing upon anyone's religious freedom because they are not forcing anyone else to hold snakes.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the controversy arises because this practices differs from the more traditional American evangelical practices. In class we talked about how the Jerusalem theme park isn't actually there to represent the accurate historical or modern Jerusalem, but is there to present the evangelical Christian version of it. In the same way, people in our government want to create laws that further evangelical ideas and ideals. This practice of holding poisonous snakes definitely does not fall into that expected category and so people shun it. As a religious studies major, I find this situation fascinating, not only because of the Othering that is happening, but also because of the lengths that these people will go to, trusting God, to an extent that is not normally seen today.
Awesome conversation.
ReplyDelete