Snake handling pastors root their practice in the bible. These pastors believe that God will protect them from any attempt the snake makes to harm them while handling, if they are right and just.
It is interesting to me how stringently these pastors adhere to their beliefs. They seem to accept most other modern technologies, all medical equipment and treatment and intervention included. Yet the pastor who recently died from a snake bite during a sermon, refused medical treatment and instead went home to die.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/23/cody-coots-snake-salvation_n_4844002.html
The mechanistic explanation for his death: A snake, a naturally predatory animal, did what any snake is biologically oriented to do: attack another animal. The pastor died because he did not receive antivenom, which cancels the deadly properties of rattlesnake venom.
The vitalistic explanation, however, is that God saw some transgression in the pastor’s life, and ceased to protect him from the snake. Where there had previously been an intangible force field of sorts between the snake and the pastor, there was none at that point, and the snake bit him. The pastor died because in order for his soul to be saved down the line, he had to face his punishment without intervention. In this case, God dictates death, and medical intervention is preventing a natural occurrence.
Why is it that the pastor’s son is undeterred from handling snakes after his father’s death? (See news article below)
How does the news article by a christian source differ from a news article by a secular source? Does one seem to lean more towards the vitalistic or mechanistic?
Would it conflict with the pastor’s beliefs for him to seek medical treatment?
I completely agree with Jaime’s point about the skeptical perspective that outsiders often take towards religious practices. I think one of the most important things that I’ve taken away from this course is that although I may not see the merit or truth in certain spiritual and religious practices, this does not make it any less real or important for those who do. All mainstream religions were once considered alternative and strange before they gained large followings.
Despite this, I still feel uncomfortable with the attitude that Cody Coots and the congregation have about the death of their pastor. I think my discomfort with this comes from the danger and in this case death that can result from the practices of this religious belief. The unwavering determination that the congregation and Coots have to continue the practice of handling snakes even after their pastor’s death gives me pause. To some extent their devotion reminds me of religious extremist cults who commit suicide at the command of their leader. Although I understand there are many differences between these two cases, I think the danger that the pastors and congregation place themselves in is not completely dissimilar. If more deaths occur in the future from religious snake handling, I wonder if laws would successfully be implemented to prevent such deaths. When do personal beliefs and religious practices cross the line and become endangerment?
I can’t help but feel discomfort as I read these articles about Cody Coots continuing his father’s snake-handling practice days after his father’s death at the hand of the snake (or God depending on how the case may be). I am skeptical of the practice, not least because he was reporting his intentions to continue snake-handling to TMZ of all news outlets, but also because of the occult and somewhat contradictory implications surrounding the performance; while it is true that sections of scripture may seem to endorse snake-handling, I wonder if a person’s death is always correlated with sin. In Acts 28:1-6, it is clear that onlookers believed Paul was a murderer who would get his just deserts provided that the snake was, as Chiraag mentioned, a “direct path to the judgment of God”. However, sticking to the Judeo-Christian tradition, serpents and snakes are almost entirely associated with sinister forces (Satan as implied by the Christian Book of Revelation), so I’m curious to know if these worshippers would consider the possibility of this sinister force manifesting itself in the snake’s act of biting. If this train of thought was allowed, wouldn’t it mean that the death of the person who was bitten was not necessarily to some transgression they had committed, but due to an external (external to God’s will that is) force, resulting in the untimely death of said bitten individual? From a vitalistic standpoint, I suppose congregation members could argue that this death by snake was still necessary in order to be in God’s good graces and that the deceased died as a martyr rather than as a repentant sinner, but these kinds of explanations leave me with something to be desired. Are the snakes being handle immutably controlled by God’s will alone, or is there leeway for a “possession” of the snake by other energies
Because I generally have a greater interest in Eastern religions than Western ones, this post immediately made me think of a parallel in Buddhism. Sometimes, as in statues and illustrations, the Buddha is depicted with a cobra over him. This is because, after attaining enlightenment, the Buddha was meditating underneath a tree when a storm came. A cobra (sometimes said to have seven heads) used its head to offer the Buddha protection from the rain. Of course, the snake at any time could have easily killed the Buddha, so as with the Christian snake sermons, a large degree of trust is inherent. However, whereas the Christian example demonstrates trust in God, this Buddhist example demonstrates trust in the snake itself. More broadly, this story can be seen to illustrate the immense trust in and acceptance of life–in all its beauty as well as its horror–that the enlightened person embodies. On a religious (perhaps vitalistic) level, the Buddha believed that as long as he invited in the cobra with trust and love, it would aid him rather than harm him. On the other hand, from a more mechanistic and practical point of view, the Buddha knew he was at the snake’s mercy. If he made sudden movements to get away, he surely would have been injured, perhaps killed. And even by remaining still as he did, there was no guarantee he would survive. In a way, like the pastor above, the Buddha accepted the possibility of his death. To be fair, these two cases are not entirely comparable, in that the Buddha was practically more inclined to this acceptance since he 1.did not voluntarily associate himself with the snake and 2.likely would not have had access to any kind of antidote in the event that he was bit. Still, I think it is interesting to note the cross-cultural duality in snakes as both sacred and evil (or dangerous).
http://what-buddha-said.net/Pics/mucalinda.jpg
Allen: I think your comparison is spot on. It afforded me a new insight on the possible sort of rationales attributed to the biblical verses calling for the practice of snake handling. Perhaps the snake, as an unpredictable creature that can “conveniently” and quickly carry out God’s will regarding an individual, is meant to provide a direct path to the judgement of God, who may at any moment choose to strike down an individual. The snake, a creature that may be easily handled, is unpredictable and it is perhaps this unknowing that is attributed to the supernatural and thus the snake is simply a convenient enforcer of God’s will. Just as the Buddha opens himself up to the symbolic unknown represented by a snake, to which human fears and death are attributed, snake-handling pastors submit to the will of God as a test and a means to keep oneself “in check”, so to speak.
Upon further research I found out that some Native Americans tribes regard serpents as portals between the two worlds. Some Hindu sects worshipped serpents and considered them symbols of rejuvenation and rebirth, which can be attributed to the phenomenon of molting. Among the Australian Aborigines, serpents are thought to be punishers of criminals. These themes of retribution, rebirth and connection with the other world seek to derive directly from the perceived characteristics of snakes in relation to human society (the threat they pose and humans’ helplessness). I think these general themes also guided the formulation of the related Biblical verses.
The practice of snake handling really did not surprise me much, as I have learned about other religious practices that also seem “crazy” from my Westerner point of view. For example, for 500 years, some worshipers in Western India take their babies to be thrown off of a 50 foot Muslim shrine to be caught in a bed sheet held by people below. It is believed that this would give their offspring good luck. Here’s a video for the curious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMFe2mw2oSA
Another example is “Garudan Thookkam”, in which people perform a ritualistic dance, and afterward the backs of faithful Hindus are pierced by hooks, raised onto a scaffold using hooks, then are taken around the temple as an offering. Another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqGv2_I2hQo
These are all traditions that stem from a certain interpretation of holy scriptures. Now, it does seem unusual to me that he refused treatment after getting bitten, but of course I truly cannot see the situation from his point of view, since my background is much different. If he believed the vitalistic reason, it probably seemed a better option to him to live out the punishment God gave him and have a chance at eternal life rather than “betray” God’s intent and thus be punished later in the afterlife. If this was his point of view, I could completely understand his choice. Interesting article!
My initial reaction to their beliefs was surprise, but after reading the Huffington post article, I realized that the perspective that “any religion is by definition crazy to a nonbeliever” is very important to keep in mind.
Their beliefs are based upon one interpretation of the bible, but there are also passages in the bible that can be interpreted as allowing for medical intervention. Matthew 9:12 states “People do not need a physician, but those who are ill do,” and even though it is Jesus talking about why he socializes with tax collectors and sinners it shows that he has no aversion to physicians. Other bible verses reference medicine or healing with physical means as well. The verses which people use to argue for refusing medical treatment are 2 Kings 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 16:12-13, but I think it is not a problem of seeking medical treatment in those cases but the lack of faith in God for those patients. I think a more popular way of interpreting the verses is to have faith in God in that the treatments can work.
I think people interpret scripture the way they want to and act differently accordingly, so it may have conflicted with his particular interpretation but obviously medical intervention is not incompatible with most people’s faith.
2 Kings 1:1-4: http://biblia.com/bible/niv/2%20Kings%201.1-4
2 Chronicles 16:12-13: http://biblia.com/bible/niv/2%20Chronicles%2016.12-13
http://www.gci.org/series/healing4
http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/christian-medical-treatment/
Snake handling is a religious practice performed by many Pentecostal preachers in the US in order to prove their goodness and holiness with the Lord. There’s somewhere between 100 to 300 churches in the US that practice snake handling on a daily basis. Although it is illegal in places like Kentucky where Pastor Jamie Coots in the article above died from a venomous bite, authorities allow the practice to be continued having an issue encroaching on other’s religious freedom. Jamie Coots believed so much in this practice that he died for it, and his son claims if he is bitten by a rattlesnake during a sermon, like his father, he will refuse treatment as well. It is against their beliefs to receive treatment. My first thought on this was, “These people are crazy”. Putting their lives in the hands of a wild animal, on top of the fact that if someone was dancing and flinging me around, I may want to bite them as well. However, I realized this is the same as any other religious practice people put their full trust into and translate words from the Bible literally to provide meaning to their lives. So although this is a vitalistic practice, I believe it would behoove the pastors to take more of a mechanistic approach to some of the teachings from the bible. The excerpt snake handlers refer to as a main testament to their practice is Mark 16: (17-18), which happens to be a very disputed part of the bible. Although many newer manuscripts contain Mark 16 (9-20), two of the oldest, most respected manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus do not include verses 9-20, along with many other more authentic translations. The older manuscripts were not only written nearer the time of Jesus’s death, but also do not have as many copies(different versions) giving them more authenticity. There are many religious studies professionals who claim these ending lines were later added by scribes or other writers, not Mark, due to an awkward, abrupt ending. In addition, the bible itself is a series a stories told by men who knew Jesus or had encountered his miracles. Although it has been credited as very accurate due to a wealth of research over the years, the fact that it was written subjectively gives me reason to find the inner meaning within the words, but not look at the text completely literally like Jamie, Cody Coots, and many other religious snake handlers.
Also, if a person continued to take a literal view of other texts, one would see Matthew 4: 7 states “You shall not tempt the Lord your God” in his rebuke to Satan after Satan’s attempt to persuade him to jump from a pinnacle of the temple. Satan had twisted the meaning of the scripture in an attempt to get Christ to sin.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+16:9-20
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/ending-mark-really-scripture