Ship of Fools: They shall take up serpents

Thread: They shall take up serpents Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026755

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Did he mean it? Should we be able to pick up snakes without being killed? Apparently it doesn't always work, as Jamie Coots, a snake-handling Kentucky pastor, found out Saturday night (2/15). When the paramedics came, he said, "No, God won't let me die of snakebite*."

God let him die.

So does Mark 16:18 still apply? Did it ever?

_________
*paraphrase from another news story

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It did for Paul, apparently, on malta. But Paul wasn't doing the whole "thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test" bit.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I think it manifestly does not apply as the demonstrated by the deaths and injuries sustained by various practitioners, from the beginning of the movement

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

A fairly reasonable analysis of snake handling from Fred Clark:

quote:
Snake-handling is an Appalachian phenomenon. That requires three conclusions, I think.

First, it means that we’re not dealing with wealthy, powerful people here. This is a practice that is found almost exclusively in poor communities — places that have had their land and their people strip-mined, exploited and poisoned for generations. So we need to be very careful here about punching down (see also Ari Kohen on this point).

Second, we have to ask why out of 2,000 years of Christianity all over the world, this practice arose in only one place during only one relatively brief span of time. All those millions of Christians elsewhere and elsewhen also had access to that one odd verse in the dubious epilogue to Mark’s Gospel, yet none of those other millions of Christians understood that verse to mean what these folks take it to mean. That doesn’t prove their interpretation is wrong, but it suggests that they must shoulder an enormous burden of proof if they want to demonstrate that they’re right and that, therefore, every other Christian who ever lived is or was wrong.

So let’s put those two things together. This weird, unique distortion of the Bible is distinctive to one time and place. It is most likely thus also a product of what it is that makes this time and place distinctive. I think it demonstrates an attempt to demonstrate power and divine validation on the part of people whose lives are otherwise desperately lacking those very things. If that’s true — if that’s the condition that produces their idiosyncratic and dangerously wrong interpretation of Mark 16, then this isn’t an error that can be corrected with better exegesis. Their interpretation will likely only change when those conditions are changed.

Italics in original post, bold added by me. Follow-up here,

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

It seems reasonable to me to decide that this reference to serpents is similar to serpent references in the books of Genesis and Revelation.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So does Mark 16:18 still apply? Did it ever?

As ever I think the problem here is above all one of systematisation.

There is the account in Acts of Paul shaking off the snake in Malta.

I've never had to deal with that, but I have some experience with another declaration in that verse:

quote:
when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all

Visiting prisoners in their cells you get invited to eat and drink all sorts of stuff. Particularly memorable are being railroaded into drinking prison hooch (served out of a bin bag) and being served prison coffee one afternoon: kept warm since having been served in the morning in an old Coke bottle laid on the radiator pipes, with a large helping of instant chicory coffee poured in, and the offer of a chewed pencil to stir the concoction with. And many many other less visibly scary times when I wonder just how clean that glass/jam jar (the recipient of choice in jail) is and what diseases the inmate might have.

I don't go looking for this kind of experience and I'm not about to start a bleach-drinking denomination, but I think those examples pretty much come with the territory I'm ministering in, and yes whatever questions I might have about the inclusion of the end of Mark's gospel in the canon I do often bear it in mind at such times.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

The Fred Clark article appears to unjustly attack all of Appalachia for what a very small sect in a few remote areas engages in and their belief is not based upon where they live, anyway. Estimates I've read place the number of folks who believe in handling poisonous snakes in a mid four figure amount and some may live as far away as Canada.

Here is the wiki about it, fwiw.

Interesting bit

quote:
George Went Hensley (1880–1955) introduced snake handling practices into the Church of God Holiness, circa 1910. He later resigned his ministry and started the first holiness movement church to require snake handling as evidence of salvation. Sister-churches later sprang up throughout the Appalachian region.

I'm not sure if "Hensley" is a Scotch-Irish euphemism for "crazy". I'd disagree with requiring snake handling as evidence of salvation. In none of the conversion accounts in Acts do I see anyone being tossed a snake after their baptism.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

What sort of brain-dead monkey, even in church, would handle a poisonous snake except by with remote control from a substantial distance?!

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Thus endeth this thread!?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
What sort of brain-dead monkey, even in church, would handle a poisonous snake except by with remote control from a substantial distance?!

I bet some of the very practitioners in question have asked that same question after they were bitten.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

You shall not tempt the Lord your God.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Many/most scholars think that passage was added some time later, the oldest manuscripts do not include it.

I think there is some obvious attractions to the belief that Christians are superheroes who can show off their superpowers in order to win converts. Sadly it doesn't seem to work like that.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is the account in Acts of Paul shaking off the snake in Malta.

Bit of a tangent I know, but I.H. Marshall in his Commentary of Acts, states that there aren't any poisonous snakes on Malta in the present day - although that doesn't preclude there being poisonous ones then. He suggests that the inhabitants expected Paul to die because the snake biting him was a sign that he was cursed, and although he had survived the shipwreck, the Greek Goddess Justice or a local deity had still found him and would kill him directly - rather than because the snake itself was deadly.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Some things Our Lord gave us for our edification and growth in the faith.
Some things he gave us so that we might approach our Heavenly Father with awe and trembling.
Some things he gave us to inspire us with the beauty of the Lord.
And some things, he just gave us to weed out the idiots.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

I think there is some obvious attractions to the belief that Christians are superheroes who can show off their superpowers in order to win converts. Sadly it doesn't seem to work like that.

You've tried? [Biased]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Why isn't it obvious that Jesus is using a metaphor? [Confused]

Snakes are a metaphor for harmful evil throughout the Bible. The comparison is so common that I don't think that I need to even quote examples.

Jesus is saying nothing more than that those protected by God will not be spiritually harmed by evil.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why isn't it obvious that Jesus is using a metaphor?

Obviously not to some people. Either people prefer the literal interpretation because it fulfils some psychological need - to 'prove' that God exists and is protecting them at that moment and by extension throughout their lives, sort of making faith empirically testable for example, or perhaps they are simply 'metaphor blind', and another approach simply doesn't occur to them.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I spoke at length with a woman who had grown up in a snake-handling church, and with a different woman who had several relatives involved. The second woman was related to Dennis Covington, who wrote "Salvation on Sand Mountain". I was told by the first woman that the snakes at her church were almost always iced down and kept in a cooler behind the pulpit, out of sight. They would be swapped out as they warmed up and began to move around more.

The second woman had a lot more info. She said that people keep the snakes in their homes, allowing them to run loose. When someone comes to visit, they won't let the visitors in until they've caught the snakes and put them away. She said they don't bring out the snakes in a service when visitors are around, usually, claiming the Spirit isn't right. She suspected it had more to do with not wanting to be made fun of.

She said that although copperheads and water moccasins (cottonmouths) were occasionally used, the favorites were rattlesnakes. I know from other, unrelated sources that rattlesnakes are dangerous, but not as dangerous as the other two. For one thing, they will avoid biting someone if they can. For another, adult rattlers can control their venom, and most of the time if an adult rattlesnake bites you it's a "dry" bite -- although there is often a small amount of venom left from the previous bite. It is of course best to always treat each bite as though it was venomous, but we're talking averages here. Sometimes an individual snake will bite with full venom when it feels threatened in some way, and sometimes it won't.

So my contact told me they like rattlesnakes better because they're less likely to bite, especially when well-fed.

I've also heard of them using spiders (brown recluse and black widow) and scorpions, although the snakes are by far the most popular and most well known. The second woman said that drinking strychnine or other poisons was also known, although less so than the snakes.

That's an interesting point about the phenomenon being a socio-economic one. I'm going to have to mull that over a bit.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
...people prefer the literal interpretation...

These are literal inerrantists, to a man. They are KJV-only, YEC, and fall within the fundamentalist section of Christianity. Many are suspicious of educated preachers, claiming that seminary makes preachers lose the faith and "too liberal". Most of them believe that going to a doctor when sick is a sign of poor faith, because God will heal them if they're really faithful enough.

I'm not knocking them -- these are some of the most devout believers you'll meet -- just acknowledging they believe differently from me and most of us on the Ship.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

It's just as well to ponder the question metaphorically. As an investor, I don't confine myself to "socially responsible" funds. Maybe I should, but have succombed to small positions in TYG and KYE (oil pipelines and such energy infrastructure) because of their attractive dividends-- while praying never to take the proceeds, but that they will all go to a good cause after my death. According to William Stringfellow, this is tantamount to taking up serpents-- although perhaps no more so than investing in any other corporation, even the so-called socially responsible ones. It's not easy these days for anyone to have clean hands on this score.

Posted by iamvalisme (# 13233) on :

I think my answer to this is that yes, absolutely, God will protect you when necessary. BUT He also gives us common sense. And common sense says steer clear of venomous animals if you can. So, I like the reply of Eutycus - protection when doing a job. I suspect Eutychus keeps his own crockery at home clean and doesn't risk (food poisoning)unnecessarily. [Smile]

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

You can read a lot of threads here waiting for an opportunity to link to the art of The Immortal Tonio K:

quote:
The Lord of Hosts
has got to like me
else this thing here
would surely strike me

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:

That's an interesting point about the phenomenon being a socio-economic one. I'm going to have to mull that over a bit.

Prosperity often purchases moderation in religious practice.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Don't ignore the power of one person doing it because that person has "an issue" and then other people following because they too want to prove they have some sort of "power" other than being poor and watching people with more money order you around.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Because, Freddy, fundamentalism is the default human position. Jesus' context and almost exclusively figurative language are ignored and made wooden for every dogma going.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:

That's an interesting point about the phenomenon being a socio-economic one. I'm going to have to mull that over a bit.

If that were a significant reason it seems there would be far more people doing it in that area and could probably be expected all over the world where ever you find poor Christians.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is the account in Acts of Paul shaking off the snake in Malta.
Bit of a tangent I know, but I.H. Marshall in his Commentary of Acts, states that there aren't any poisonous snakes on Malta in the present day - although that doesn't preclude there being poisonous ones then. He suggests that the inhabitants expected Paul to die because the snake biting him was a sign that he was cursed, and although he had survived the shipwreck, the Greek Goddess Justice or a local deity had still found him and would kill him directly - rather than because the snake itself was deadly.

Logic therefore dictates that Patrick once visited Malta.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Don't ignore the power of one person doing it because that person has "an issue" and then other people following because they too want to prove they have some sort of "power" other than being poor and watching people with more money order you around.

An elderly relative was in attendance at a church service where the pastor healed someone who had been walking with a cane. The pastor then asked everyone in attendance who used a cane to get healed and leave their cane behind.

My relative gave up the cane and promptly suffered several falls over the following week. Obviously no healing had occurred but the peer pressure was such that refusing to give up the cane would have indicated a lack of faith.

I can imagine snake handling churches being similar - feeling pressured to take risks so as not to seem that one isn't in receipt of God's power.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think that socio-economic and cultural issues do come into it - but alongside other factors.

You'll find similarly 'fundamentalist' practices in all Christian traditions. What marks this one out is the deadliness of it.

Mind you, at one of the poetry/creative writing groups I'm involved with, where there is a strong anti-theist strain among some of the participants - one of the group rather vehemently challenged me last night to account for why 'Knock and it shall be given to you ... Seek and ye shall find' and 'Whatever you ask in my name ...' didn't seem to apply or to 'work'.

This chap is a lapsed Catholic and very bitter, it seems to me, as he lost his wife to cancer and has had a lot of tragedy to contend with ...

[Frown]

I didn't answer. I just let him sound off. To be honest, I didn't know what to say ...

[Frown]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is the account in Acts of Paul shaking off the snake in Malta.

I've never had to deal with that, but I have some experience with another declaration in that verse:
quote:
when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all.

I did hear (anecdotally) of a missionary in an African country who had not learned the local language as well as he thought he had. So when, in the Eucharist, he talked about the "Cup of Blessing", he was actually saying "Cup of Poison".

It was only after many moons that someone put him right; meanwhile the folk in his church had elaborated a belief which said that what they drank at Communion was really dangerous, but that the prayers said over it and the faith of the communicant rendered it harmless.

I don't know if the story is true - but I'd like it to be!

(I say this as someone who, in a similar African context, once mispronounced the benediction at the end of a service by asking for God's blessing to be with everyone "until they got married"!)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There is nothing right you can say in such a situation--except "I love you" through your actions, as you did by listening. so [Overused]

As for drinking poison, I too have had occasion to meditate on that while visiting the VERY hospitable immigrants of our community, who are not used to refrigerators and who routinely leave meat, etc sitting on the counter all day. [Eek!]

I don't THINK I've had food poisoning from it yet in 25 years, though I did pick up salmonella from a Subways restaurant. So maybe it only applies to those who encounter snakes/poison in the course of Christian service. [Biased]

(that last point is half serious, though I do note that this passage falls in the longer ending of Mark, which is doubtful even to inerrantists)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I thought the snake handling bits in the bible were later inserts and don't actually belong in the NT at all.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Yes - Mark ended at 16:8.

If a 'serpent' resonates with the serpent in the garden of Genesis 3, then we need to handle, to come to terms with the serpent in our psyches, our dark side and integrate it so that we may become psychologically healthy and individuated.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I made the point about this being a late addition to the text above.

I also don't even think that matters - in the sense that the idea that bad things would not affect Christians does not appear to be consistent with the message of Jesus Christ (in fact, quite the reverse) and common experience suggests that being a Christian is no cure for common ailments and problems. Hence, other than perhaps in a rhetorical/poetic sense that Freddy described above, this can surely be ignored by everyone.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Snake handling.....great idea for selecting future ordinands!
[Devil]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I made the point about this being a late addition to the text above.

I also don't even think that matters - in the sense that the idea that bad things would not affect Christians does not appear to be consistent with the message of Jesus Christ (in fact, quite the reverse) and common experience suggests that being a Christian is no cure for common ailments and problems. Hence, other than perhaps in a rhetorical/poetic sense that Freddy described above, this can surely be ignored by everyone.

But isn't Freddie's interpretation just as problematic? Saying that "Christians won't be harmed by spiritual evil" is equally as optimistic/foolhardy as the snakes thing, just not so immediately and obviously so.

On the other hand "this can surely be ignored by everyone" seems much too glib. As for "this was a later interpolation" - how does that help? We still have to deal with it. It's not as though it's an isolated instance - Eutychus mentions Paul's snake encounter in Malta, and Acts is stuffed to the gills with miraculous rescues of believers from prison, sickness, falling from a great height (Eutychus's namesake), et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Not always, of course, but sometimes.

Is this really capricious of God? For some reason I am reminded of Roger Rabbit. "You mean you could have taken your paw out of the handcuffs at any time?" "No, not at any time. Only when it was funny."

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Snake handling.....great idea for selecting future ordinands!

But it's not very Anglican IMO - although that's admittedly a broad Church.

Or are the "snakes" symbolic language for something else (or certain people) in church life? [Devil]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I am reminded of a passage in Deuteronomy that say we should not put God to the test, or in the New Testament, that we should not tempt God.

Certainly, God could save the snake-handler, but why make more work for God? A common saying is that God helps those who help themselves; this presumably includes keeping ourselves safe.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But isn't Freddie's interpretation just as problematic? Saying that "Christians won't be harmed by spiritual evil" is equally as optimistic/foolhardy as the snakes thing, just not so immediately and obviously so.

Hum, dunno, I'll have to think about that.

quote:
On the other hand "this can surely be ignored by everyone" seems much too glib. As for "this was a later interpolation" - how does that help? We still have to deal with it. It's not as though it's an isolated instance - Eutychus mentions Paul's snake encounter in Malta, and Acts is stuffed to the gills with miraculous rescues of believers from prison, sickness, falling from a great height (Eutychus's namesake), et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Not always, of course, but sometimes.

Well, even if you think that the epistles are accurate, the difference appears to be the phrasing. In the stories you mention, one can obviously interpret them as being miraculous things that happened to one person at one point in time, and it is a bit of a leap to suggest that because x happened to Paul, we should also expect it to happen to us.

The passage here isn't really like that. I don't have any problem with leaving it if it has no use, I can't really see any advantage in insisting that we must deal with it.

quote:
Is this really capricious of God? For some reason I am reminded of Roger Rabbit. "You mean you could have taken your paw out of the handcuffs at any time?" "No, not at any time. Only when it was funny."

Well I think I'd describe it more in terms of lies if at one point God was saying 'oh, don't worry about snakes and poison, they'll have no effect' and then it is proved that they do.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You shall not tempt the Lord your God.

I agree with Martin PC - and I don't often find myself saying that.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

'ceptin' I don't buy that any of this has to do with tempting God. It's about tempting snakes.

God does not care if humans want to handle snakes or commit mass murder. God lets these things happen. God only provides us with some pre-event planning for how to cope with the post-event horror. It is also why liturgy is more important than speaking in tongues.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But you are all taking it literally and missing the allusions.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
'ceptin' I don't buy that any of this has to do with tempting God. It's about tempting snakes.

God does not care if humans want to handle snakes or commit mass murder. God lets these things happen. God only provides us with some pre-event planning for how to cope with the post-event horror. It is also why liturgy is more important than speaking in tongues.

We could have liturgical snake-handling, you know. It tends to be confined to non-liturgical churches of course.

Also, the prophets may have had quite a lot to say about this bit -

quote:
God does not care if humans want to handle snakes or commit mass murder.

Although I do realise this may just be an ironic riff on your screen name.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
We could have liturgical snake-handling, you know. It tends to be confined to non-liturgical churches of course.

What liturgical colours shall we have?

And do we need maniples? Because we threw all ours in the bin.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I don't think you'd get people in the UK to take it seriously.

Far too many of us have read Tom Sharpe's The Great Pursuit [Killing me]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Yes, I miss both the allusions and illusions. Colour? I think snakes don't do colour, nor I think really do they pay attention to music a lá the snake charmers. I think they pay attention to heat. So probably candles and incense.

I dunno, I wonder why people try handling snakes but don't try to walk on water. There are some I would encourage to try the walking on water.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I dunno, I wonder why people try handling snakes but don't try to walk on water.

You obviously failed to get the memo.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

OK now which one of you commented on that page?

quote:
Anonymous said...

Get them snakes!
2/19/2014 4:54 PM

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Snake handling.....great idea for selecting future ordinands!

But it's not very Anglican IMO - although that's admittedly a broad Church.

Tends to depend on the Anglican. I once had an Anglican minister from a Church out East tell me "We had a Legion case the other day" (exorcism in which the spirit was asked to name itself and answered "Legion').

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But isn't Freddie's interpretation just as problematic? Saying that "Christians won't be harmed by spiritual evil" is equally as optimistic/foolhardy as the snakes thing, just not so immediately and obviously so.

It depends on how you take it.

If you say "evil can't hurt me because I'm a Christian" and then put yourself in risky situations, thinking you are immune, then yes, it is just as problematic as literally handling snakes.

But the intended meaning, as I understand it, is the simple truth that it is good to be a sincere Christian, living as Christ taught. That makes it more likely that you will avoid evil practices and so will not be spiritually hurt by them. Even if they intrude into your life you can be protected from them by sincerely following God's Word.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The passage says that they will handle snakes and not be hurt. It doesn't say "every time".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The passage says that they will handle snakes and not be hurt. It doesn't say "every time".

That seems weaselly. Surely that is implied. "Sometimes some Christians will handle snakes and not be hurt" is hardly worth saying. It doesn't say LIVE snakes.

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:

That's an interesting point about the phenomenon being a socio-economic one. I'm going to have to mull that over a bit.
If that were a significant reason it seems there would be far more people doing it in that area and could probably be expected all over the world where ever you find poor Christians.

Not sure why you'd think the manifestation of frustration at powerlessness would be the same everywhere. A lot of very particular local happenings presumably went into this phenomenon, and those would not be the same in other places where poor people are ghettoed.

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Snake handling.....great idea for selecting future ordinands!

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some things Our Lord gave us for our edification and growth in the faith.
Some things he gave us so that we might approach our Heavenly Father with awe and trembling.
Some things he gave us to inspire us with the beauty of the Lord.
And some things, he just gave us to weed out the idiots.

Quotes file.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

So the Bible tells us that if we take up serpents or drink deadly things it won't hurt us. But some of you are saying if we actually do those things we are "tempting God." I don't understand that.

It can be very dangerous to do missionary work in hostile countries. Is it tempting God to do that?

Why is the first part of the verse a metaphor but no one is saying that laying hands on the sick is a metaphor? Is asking God to heal someone tempting God?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why is the first part of the verse a metaphor but no one is saying that laying hands on the sick is a metaphor? Is asking God to heal someone tempting God?

Laying hands on the sick is a metaphor too.

While faith healing is more mainstream than snake handling, it's not generally accepted. People go to jail for refusing treatment for their children in favor of faith healing.

Tempting God has nothing to do with it.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not sure why you'd think the manifestation of frustration at powerlessness would be the same everywhere. A lot of very particular local happenings presumably went into this phenomenon, and those would not be the same in other places where poor people are ghettoed.

I've yet to see any reason why snake handling is a manifestation of frustration. Is that the rational for what goes on at your church?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
So the Bible tells us that if we take up serpents or drink deadly things it won't hurt us. But some of you are saying if we actually do those things we are "tempting God." I don't understand that.

It can be very dangerous to do missionary work in hostile countries. Is it tempting God to do that?

Why is the first part of the verse a metaphor but no one is saying that laying hands on the sick is a metaphor? Is asking God to heal someone tempting God?

Twylight, it's very straightforward. What most of us think scripture is saying, is that if you serving God, he will protect you from all sorts of surprising hazards, like being bitten by a snake which wriggles out of a fire. What it is not saying, is that that entitles you deliberately to do something that would otherwise be crassly stupid, like picking up a poisonous snake. That is putting God to the test, saying 'prove yourself; endorse me'. That is a different version of the third of the temptations in the wilderness.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

That is quite a narrow call to make, though, because everyone who ever 'stepped out in faith' is essentially testing God.

Was not Peter testing God when he walked on the water?

Explain to me the difference between being obedient and testing God.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

It's a matter of initiative and control, isn't it?

If God takes the initiative, and indicates that we should do something, that's obedience.

If we take the initiative, and indicate that God should do something, that's "testing God".

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It's a matter of initiative and control, isn't it?

If God takes the initiative, and indicates that we should do something, that's obedience.

If we take the initiative, and indicate that God should do something, that's "testing God".

That's true, except that the person concerned might say that God was telling them to do it.

We might all agree that someone claiming that God was telling him to kill his children was delusional and dangerous and in need of some serious help. But then the bible tells us of stories of people who, apparently, did hear such things from God.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch
Twylight, it's very straightforward. What most of us think scripture is saying, is that if you serving God, he will protect you from all sorts of surprising hazards, like being bitten by a snake which wriggles out of a fire. What it is not saying, is that that entitles you deliberately to do something that would otherwise be crassly stupid, like picking up a poisonous snake. That is putting God to the test, saying 'prove yourself; endorse me'. That is a different version of the third of the temptations in the wilderness.

Well said, Enoch.

Absolutely right.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It's a matter of initiative and control, isn't it?

If God takes the initiative, and indicates that we should do something, that's obedience.

If we take the initiative, and indicate that God should do something, that's "testing God".

I guess that's why I'm confused. To this man in Kentucky, God took the initiative when he said that the Holy Spirit would be demonstrated in Christians by their ability to handle snakes and drink poison without harm and their ability to heal the sick. So he's doing that in a spirit of obedience, he's not jumping off a cliff, this is what he understands the passage to mean.

This thread along with the suggestion by another current thread, that we delete passages about divorce from services because divorced people like me might feel uncomfortable, all seem like a bit too much picking and choosing to me.

I don't think we need to worry about every word of the Old Testament, but if we get to scrap any part of the New Testament we don't like, under the "it's just a metaphor" clause, or "it was added later," then why bother with any of it?

I'm divorced, I wouldn't dream of picking up a rattler, I've run miles from water moccasins, and I'm not going to give up everything I own and go off to spread the gospel in a tunic and sandals, but I read these passages and think how far I come from the ideal, not, this must be here to weed out the idiots. I wouldn't be surprised if Heaven has a lot more idiots than Mensa members.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm divorced, I wouldn't dream of picking up a rattler, I've run miles from water moccasins, and I'm not going to give up everything I own and go off to spread the gospel in a tunic and sandals, but I read these passages and think how far I come from the ideal, not, this must be here to weed out the idiots. I wouldn't be surprised if Heaven has a lot more idiots than Mensa members.

I'm with you, Twilight. I tip my hat to anyone who truly steps out in faith, even (especially?) when the world calls them crazy. RIP with the Lord, pastor Coots.

--Tom Clune

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not sure why you'd think the manifestation of frustration at powerlessness would be the same everywhere. A lot of very particular local happenings presumably went into this phenomenon, and those would not be the same in other places where poor people are ghettoed.
I've yet to see any reason why snake handling is a manifestation of frustration. Is that the rational for what goes on at your church?

If you've not seen any reason for such, why not argue about that instead of dragging in this "everybody should do it everywhere" nonsense? And what the hell does it have to do with what goes on at my church, which isn't in an economically downtrodden area and so doesn't have shit-fuck to do with it?

Black-or-white thinking much?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not sure why you'd think the manifestation of frustration at powerlessness would be the same everywhere. A lot of very particular local happenings presumably went into this phenomenon, and those would not be the same in other places where poor people are ghettoed.
I've yet to see any reason why snake handling is a manifestation of frustration. Is that the rational for what goes on at your church?
If you've not seen any reason for such, why not argue about that instead of dragging in this "everybody should do it everywhere" nonsense? And what the hell does it have to do with what goes on at my church, which isn't in an economically downtrodden area and so doesn't have shit-fuck to do with it?

Black-or-white thinking much?

See? There you go again with the premise that a religious belief has something to do with economics for these folks but not for you. I don't see it having anything to do with their religious beliefs or yours.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I don't think it has anything to do with economics either and I thought the Fred Clark quote was cloyingly patronizing:

quote:
First, it means that we’re not dealing with wealthy, powerful people here. This is a practice that is found almost exclusively in poor communities — places that have had their land and their people strip-mined, exploited and poisoned for generations. So we need to be very careful here about punching down (see also Ari Kohen on this point).

Spare me. Snake handling was introduced to the Holiness church in 1910 and strip mining didn't get started in the Appalachians until the mid 1960's.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Snake handling was introduced to the Holiness church in 1910 and strip mining didn't get started in the Appalachians until the mid 1960's.

Yeah, and there was no exploitation of poor Appalachians by coal mining companies before strip mining, so bite Twilight!

(wanders away singing: I owe my soul to the strip-mining store...)

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I have to admit feeling sympathy for the snakes, who by all accounts are mistreated by their human handlers in order to render them less inclined to strike.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have to admit feeling sympathy for the snakes, who by all accounts are mistreated by their human handlers in order to render them less inclined to strike.

Or the other way around.

When I lived in Pennsylvania Dutch country we had a local snake man who would bring rattlers around to our school in a bag, empty it out on the floor and talk about them as they roamed around. The children were kept at a safe distance. He picked them up freely, and said that they lived harmlessly in his home, free to go wherever they wished. They were his pets. He said "They're safer 'n women." [Paranoid]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

The school Freddy? Unbelievable.

Yes, Mousethief, the regular coal miners were exploited but that's not what Mr. Condescending said. Factory workers in the north were exploited and God knows, cotton pickers in the south were exploited. People are poor, ignorant and exploited all over the world. Those of us from Kentucky and West Virginia just get a little tired of being talked down to as some sort of pitiful sub-humans.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't think it has anything to do with economics either and I thought the Fred Clark quote was cloyingly patronizing:

quote:
First, it means that we’re not dealing with wealthy, powerful people here. This is a practice that is found almost exclusively in poor communities — places that have had their land and their people strip-mined, exploited and poisoned for generations. So we need to be very careful here about punching down (see also Ari Kohen on this point).
Spare me. Snake handling was introduced to the Holiness church in 1910 and strip mining didn't get started in the Appalachians until the mid 1960's.

I grew up in Appalachian mining country. I knew folks whose grandparents died of black lung.

Mining is one of the crummiest industries to labor in. Been that way since the Roman Empire, at least. Strip mining, I'd imagine, was a vast improvement from the average laborer's perspective, since you don't have to spend hours underground breathing coal dust while the profits all go to the owner.

Rural poverty and isolation goes back generations.

[ 21. February 2014, 14:22: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

And I will never, ever, ever call someone in that position "sub-human." They're poor, yes, often ignorant for want of education and opportunities. But sub human is...no, Just no. [Mad]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Though, looking at the Mark proof text. I wonder why snake handling is more popular than, say, taking deadly nightshade.

Maybe it's some kind of gambling thing, the fact that you're playing the odds makes it more exciting. A snake might well decide not to bite you, while an ingested strong poison will always give you a very consistent result. Someone gets lucky and survives, and then you can ascribe your accidental fortune to Almighty God, then you get the power trip of feeling God's hand upon you.

I do think ignorance is part of it, and perhaps a lack of empowerment though as stated, I hope with abundant clarity, I do NOT regard ignorant or people of limited means as sub human, just people who don't know what they're doing and derive enjoyment from taking a stupid risk. At some point that could be any of us.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Though, looking at the Mark proof text. I wonder why snake handling is more popular than, say, taking deadly nightshade.

Actually one of the things I discovered from reading the links up-thread is that some snake-handlers do, also, drink strychnine for exactly this reason.

It's generally diluted though. Which seems rather like chilling the snakes to make them less aggressive. Doesn't this show "lack of faith" on their terms? I don't know whether/how they justify this theologically.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

I am not comfortable with using the term "ignorance" except in the most literal sense: ignoring something. "Misguided" seems to fit better.

Let's take the situation away from a religious practice. Many TV shows that have stunts go to pains to state "DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME"--but people still do. They "ignore" the caution in the misguided belief that they will be okay trying the stunt themselves. After all, the people on TV survived...

Or, personal example, the other day I sliced my thumb open on a tin can. Now, my intellect thought "Gee, Hedgie, you have not had a tetanus shot in, ummmmm, decades. Four decades, to be precise. Maybe you should call the doc and get a booster shot." But I have "ignored" that intellect and thought, "Nah, the can was pretty clean and the water was running and I am sure I will be fine..." And I am fine. This time. But, eventually, I am going to guess wrong. I am getting complacent about potentially-dirty metal cutting open my skin. And if I get tetanus, people will probably think that I was really stupid. And that will be fair. I am "ignore-ant" but it really is just a misplaced complacence.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I am not comfortable with using the term "ignorance" except in the most literal sense: ignoring something.

That's not the most literal sense. The most literal sense is "not knowing" or "lack of knowledge". The word "ignorance" with the meaning I give here predates "ignore" by some 500 years. You're going the wrong way in your etymology.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I am not comfortable with using the term "ignorance" except in the most literal sense: ignoring something.
That's not the most literal sense. The most literal sense is "not knowing" or "lack of knowledge". The word "ignorance" with the meaning I give here predates "ignore" by some 500 years. You're going the wrong way in your etymology.

This is also my common usage. Though if you prefer, I can use ill-informed, misinformed, or uninformed.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Though, looking at the Mark proof text. I wonder why snake handling is more popular than, say, taking deadly nightshade.

Actually one of the things I discovered from reading the links up-thread is that some snake-handlers do, also, drink strychnine for exactly this reason.

It's generally diluted though. Which seems rather like chilling the snakes to make them less aggressive. Doesn't this show "lack of faith" on their terms? I don't know whether/how they justify this theologically.

Really reminds me of Russian Roulette. It's like you want to see just how much God loads the dice in your favor, so you can persuade yourself that God is still at your back.

Guessing here, but it makes sense to me.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I was reflecting a while back about the development of ideas. We were travelling in Scotland, and I was thinking about how the forms of non-conformist church there are very largely influenced by presbyterianism, whereas those in Cornwall are influenced by Methodism and in East Anglia they're mostly calvinist Baptist.

I'm not sure there are anything other than historical reasons for this geographical difference. Snake handling being a 'thing' may just be due to geography rather than complicated economics.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I am not comfortable with using the term "ignorance" except in the most literal sense: ignoring something.
That's not the most literal sense. The most literal sense is "not knowing" or "lack of knowledge". The word "ignorance" with the meaning I give here predates "ignore" by some 500 years. You're going the wrong way in your etymology.

It is a poor day when you don't learn something new! Thanks!

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I was reflecting a while back about the development of ideas. We were travelling in Scotland, and I was thinking about how the forms of non-conformist church there are very largely influenced by presbyterianism, whereas those in Cornwall are influenced by Methodism and in East Anglia they're mostly calvinist Baptist.

I'm not sure there are anything other than historical reasons for this geographical difference. Snake handling being a 'thing' may just be due to geography rather than complicated economics.

These are not mutually exclusive categories.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I'm sorry, but I find nothing meritorious in someone whose faith leads them to play with rattlesnakes. To me that belongs in the same category as the earnest but addled fellow in my state several years ago who threw his children into an iron smelter to "protect them from Satan." It's loony. And to me it's patronizing to excuse looniness in economically disadvantaged people. I live in a county arguably as poor and underedcuated as parts of Appalachia, and I don't see my neighbors tossing lethal snakes around or drinking rat poison in order to demonstrate their piety.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm sorry, but I find nothing meritorious in someone whose faith leads them to play with rattlesnakes. To me that belongs in the same category as the earnest but addled fellow in my state several years ago who threw his children into an iron smelter to "protect them from Satan." It's loony. And to me it's patronizing to excuse looniness in economically disadvantaged people. I live in a county arguably as poor and underedcuated as parts of Appalachia, and I don't see my neighbors tossing lethal snakes around or drinking rat poison in order to demonstrate their piety.

True. There is something else going on here. Maybe start looking up the history and spread of Pentecostalism?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
True. There is something else going on here. Maybe start looking up the history and spread of Pentecostalism?

Hold on, you are saying that Pentecostals are loons that tend towards playing with snakes...?

Seems to me that we've no real evidence that this behaviour is linked to economics, that it might not even be directly linked to the historical form of religion it sprang from. Some crazy person started doing it, the idea stuck. The end.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
True. There is something else going on here. Maybe start looking up the history and spread of Pentecostalism?
Hold on, you are saying that Pentecostals are loons that tend towards playing with snakes...?

Seems to me that we've no real evidence that this behaviour is linked to economics, that it might not even be directly linked to the historical form of religion it sprang from. Some crazy person started doing it, the idea stuck. The end.

No, I don't think so. But I do think that
the practice emerged out of Pentecostalism.

I'm a Methodist, Wesleyan. We're also part of this long chain of theological and social development. My intent isn't to try to humiliate Pentecostals, but to look at how this practice evolved.

I do think it's a Pentecostal or Holiness tendency, but that doesn't mean that every practitioner or Pentecostal church or member of the Holiness movement should be held responsible no more than pietism is solely and uniquely responsible for prohibition.

[ 21. February 2014, 16:43: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

The world is full of crazy ideas. Why did this one stick?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The world is full of crazy ideas. Why did this one stick?

Seems to me that your first part (the world is full of crazy ideas) explains the second (a crazy idea is very likely to be found in any given space on the earth).

Why this crazy idea is found in this space is very likely only something that can adequately discussed sensibly by anthropolgists. I'm not an anthropologist, I'm not sure anything I can say on this would a) be fair or b) fair on the people in question.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I'm not sure how or why it first started--I could see that perhaps the sense of power in an otherwise dismal existence may have its appeal to some. Others may initially have gotten a charge from the sense of danger--the thrill that leads to skydiving, car racing, and extreme sports. Initially, there were probably as many motivations as there were practitioners. I'm not really inclined to question their faith--while misguided, it is probably quite strong.

At this point, though, I suspect a lot of them do it because they were brought up with it and this is just normal church. They don't view it as anything "unusual", any more than a Eucharistically-centered Christian would think hearing the words of institution means a cannibalistic rite is about to take place.

So I think they are misguided--sometimes tragically so--but the attitudes so often expressed towards them by mainstream America (and represented by some on this thread) are never going to induce them to change. It will just make them feel more like a purified, persecuted group of True Believers.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I don't see why it's wrong to express an attitude of frustration and revulsion, especially considering that there are presumably children being initiated into this practice as well. "Oh, you poor mis-educated dears, how sad that you have such a faulty hermeneutic," doesn't adequately convey most sane people's reaction to playing cat's-cradle with a venomous snake.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I don't mean to suggest it's wrong, LutheranChik. I do mean to suggest it is fruitless.

They will never be changed by people who look at them as horrible monsters who can't possibly know what is best for their children. IF they are changed they will be changed by people who see them as people and talk to them as such.

It's really easy to all be horrified together here on the Ship where we haven't had someone from that tradition telling us anything at all about it. In such instances, though, I think we sometimes feed on ourselves in a way which just reinforces our own viewpoints. I don't know that that is unhealthy, exactly, but I think it can be unhelpful.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

Here's the wiki

Other pentecostals don't have anything to answer for here any more than they do Benny Hinn. I'm in the Church of Christ and I was just as troubled by Kip McKean as anyone else, I suppose. I won't ask the Orthodox here to answer for Putin, either.

[ 21. February 2014, 18:45: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The passage says that they will handle snakes and not be hurt. It doesn't say "every time".
That seems weaselly. Surely that is implied. "Sometimes some Christians will handle snakes and not be hurt" is hardly worth saying. It doesn't say LIVE snakes.

Yes it's weasly. What else do you expect from a lawyer?

Also I wasn't being entirely serious.

But at the same time I think the point stands: why do people read this as some kind of guarantee for all time, instead of as a description of certain situations? Why read it as an eternal promise?

One preacher I used to know had a favourite saying that "a narrative is not normative" - that people had a habit of reading stories in the Bible and assuming that they would get the exact same outcome, or that they should do what a Bible character did because it was in the Bible.

Now, this isn't a 'narrative' as such, but it's written a statement: 'they will do this'. Well, who's "they"? Even putting aside the whole issue of the text probably being added on to the end of the Gospel at a later point and having a different origin, to me it's not written as a general promise or as some kind of instruction. In keeping with Enoch's post, I think it's written as a description of events that will happen. The fact that an event DOES happen at a particular time in no way guarantees that the same event will repeatedly happen. Especially not when the event is in some way miraculous.

And yet people somehow manage to read it as "you can force God into creating this miracle for you over and over again on cue, when there's no reason for the miracle to occur other than you showing off".

[ 21. February 2014, 21:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE0gsrCzbnU

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Here's the wiki

Other pentecostals don't have anything to answer for here any more than they do Benny Hinn. I'm in the Church of Christ and I was just as troubled by Kip McKean as anyone else, I suppose. I won't ask the Orthodox here to answer for Putin, either.

Agreed. I was establishing a historical pattern, not intending to blame Pentecostals for this, just observing that it's an outgrowth of Pentecostalism. Heck, being a Wesleyan, I could arguably share some participation in this particular error.

[ 21. February 2014, 22:34: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, who's "they"?

Well, let's look and see if any groups of people have been mentioned in the verses just prior to this notapromise.

"And these signs will accompany those who believe:"

I believe the answer to your question is, "those who believe."

quote:
to me it's not written as a general promise or as some kind of instruction.

I think you're weaselling again. It is clearly meant to be a description of "those who believe." Not "SOME of those who believe." True it's not worded as a promise. It's worded as a prediction.

quote:
In keeping with Enoch's post, I think it's written as a description of events that will happen.

There's nothing in the passage that in any way restricts this prediction to a certain time or place. It's about "those who believe." Not "those who believe in Carthage in the next 20 years" or any other such restriction. Simply "those who believe."

quote:
The fact that an event DOES happen at a particular time in no way guarantees that the same event will repeatedly happen.

This is irrelevant as this verse isn't history it's prediction.

quote:
And yet people somehow manage to read it as "you can force God into creating this miracle for you over and over again on cue, when there's no reason for the miracle to occur other than you showing off".

I would agree that this is an improper reading. But not for the reasons you give.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I won't ask the Orthodox here to answer for Putin, either.

If you could also forgive us for Kirill being Putin's bootlicker, that'd be great.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The school Freddy? Unbelievable.

Don't worry, he wasn't a religious fanatic. Just a herpetologist.

He wasn't as kooky as I'm making him sound. All the local schools had him come lecture about snakes.

Rattlesnakes are extremely common in that area and people, including the children, encountered them frequently. So they needed to know about them. I never heard of anyone getting bit.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I won't ask the Orthodox here to answer for Putin, either.
If you could also forgive us for Kirill being Putin's bootlicker, that'd be great.

Well, Jesus did wash feet, albeit with a different technique. Maybe it is his influence that keeps Putin from getting just plain nasty on everyone.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0