Written: August 11, 1999
American Fundamentalism
Much of the previous discussion on the early roots of snake handling should have given pause to readers to think about the roots of fundamentalist Protestantism in general. The experiences of the snake handling congregations were shared by people all over America, and similar methods of coping were used by those people. As industrial capitalism - in particular the "robber baron" form which is characterized by excessive exploitation and minimal governmental oversight - eradicated traditional agricultural ways of life, people found that the social fabric of communities was being rent beyond recognition. What could they do? They had to turn to the only institution which they found could respond directly and quickly to their social needs: the local church. The process of creating social unity meant an intensification of religious adherence along with a rejection of what was perceived to be symbols of modernity: modern biblical scholarship, science, technology and more.
Formation of social unity also meant a clear division of the world into good and evil. Luther began this Protestant tradition in his writings - and it is no coincidence that he, too, lived during a time of social upheaval. It is a hallmark of fundamentalist theology that the world is divided into spheres controlled by God and by Satan. Satan controls the things of the world, which are set before believers as temptations to stray from God's path. When a person is strong in their faith, they will succeed in doing what God wants for them. This worldview is in turn a direct derivation from traditional Protestant theology and Martin Luther himself, who once had to throw an ink bottle at a demon in his room.
The exclusivist nature of salvation and Christianity is another idea shared by snake handlers and the wider fundamentalist/evangelical communities. Believers in all these groups never seem to tire in explaining to the rest of us how they alone carry the mantle of True Christianity while the rest of the world are apostates or simply, but horribly, misguided. This statement by snake handling minister Park Saylor serves to illustrate this point:
If you find a man that tells you he follows the signs, but won't have serpent handling, then he is not full-gospel. If you ask a man if he believes in serpent handling and he says no, then he has denied the word of God. Foolish things confound the mighty. Well, it looks foolish to anoint a man with oil. It looks foolish to this world for a man that God has moved on to flip the lid on a snake box and say God has moved on him to lift up a serpent. The problem is, people who condemn us doesn't know any better because they haven't been taught... So many people, including preachers, only want to practice certain parts of the Bible. They only want to preach what suits them. They leave out what doesn't suit them. That will get them into trouble.
With only minor alterations, the above could be said by just about any fundamentalist or evangelical preacher about a host of different Christian doctrines which they take very seriously, but which other Christian groups have left behind. This would include things like the inerrancy of the bible, the role of women and the evil of homosexuality.
Perhaps it is not a coincidence that snake handling congregations share with other fundamentalist groups an intense fear of homosexuality and firm belief in ordained roles for both men and women. A quote from Arnold Saylor, a relative of the previously quoted Park Saylor, illustrates both attitudes quite well:
I am against women cutting their hair, and I will tell you why. If a woman says she is just cutting the dead ends off her hair, the next thing she does is cut it off to her shoulders, because she claims it is hot. Then she cuts it off like a man's next. The next time you see her she will be wearing britches. I believe that cutting off the first dead end of hair is a gradual, step-by-step process to developing the spirit of a homosexual. It is a sin for a woman to act like a man. One thing leads to another. Even the small things. Before long you get away from God.
The above quote also serves to demonstrate how religion and religious beliefs are used to differentiate a cultural group from others. By mandating social roles for men and women which are not recognized by the surrounding culture, a deeper unity is created.
It should be clear by now that most fundamentalist and evangelical groups share the similar basic worldviews on a number of important points with the snake handling groups. In a sense, snake handlers aren't doing anything strange. On the contrary, they are serving to highlight basic fundamentalist and even Protestant theological premises which might otherwise go unnoticed.
Persecution
It is interesting how certain aspects of the recent history of snake-handling congregations reflects upon the ancient history of Christianity itself. I'm not sure if the reflection is favorable, unfavorable, or neutral to the two, but I do find it interesting.
One parallel is the attitude of authorities towards believers. Evangelical Christians, especially apologists, are fond of pointing out how members of early Christian communities were persecuted by Roman authorities for their new and unusual beliefs. The implication - sometimes unstated, but usually emphasized - is that they would not have suffered at the hands of authorities if their beliefs were not True. But such arguments, snake handling congregations are in the running for having true beliefs since American officials - often Christians themselves - have persecuted snake handlers.
Even in the 1940s, three states had explicitly outlawed snake handling in religious services. Georgia's law was by far the harshest, including the provision: "In the event, however, that death is caused to a person on account of th violation of this Act by some other person, the prisoner shall be sentenced to death, unless the jury trying the case shall recommend mercy." A death penalty is a stiff penalty indeed for a person's religious beliefs. But in all the states where snake handling has been banned, the practice has not abated.
Actually, the practice increased in many instances. Official acts to halt important rituals like snake handling only serve to prove to believers that the World stands in opposition to the True Faith. Instead of stopping the undesired practice, all authorities end up doing is reinforcing basic ideology. Believers are led off to jail praising God and glorying in the fact that their rituals are gaining official condemnation. Even rejecting medical attention and putting their fate "in the hands of God" has become regarded as a necessary step in rejecting the world and accepting their community. Group values and community solidarity are thus reinforced against outside pressures, even when death is a possible result. In a social milieu where individualism is not valued, it isn't surprising that individual death is regarded as less a tragedy than the possibility of the community dying.
It's clear now to many authorities that most anti-snake handling laws are unconstitutional, and for that reason contemporary prosecutors are reluctant to bring cases to trial. However, the laws remain on the books - just in case, I suppose.
Oral Histories
Another fascinating parallel was actually the original impetus for this article. When I first read about the snake handling congregations of rural Appalachia, I was immediately struck by how they had a rich oral tradition of their own history. What makes this tradition of particular interest to the religious scholar is that it describes events in the very recent past - recent enough, in fact, that much can be checked and verified against historical documents. In this way scholars have an opportunity to see first hand whether or not oral story telling retains the facts of history or instead alters them over time.
As should probably be expected, alteration can occur swiftly and dramatically - even among people who have been alive long enough to know their own tales are not entirely correct. First is the fact that events are related which did not really happen, or which happened in a very different fashion. Perhaps these tales started as rumors or simply mangled news reports - not enough documentation appears to be left to be sure. Another problem which arises is the consistency of recounting a particular event when asked about it on different occasions. One version might be told one day, but a slightly different version a year later. Which version is more accurate? Some might think the earliest version to be best, but a later version might benefit from facts forgotten at the earlier date.
Many people seem to be unaware of the fact that memory functions differently in the same person over the course of time. One issue which researchers keep stumbling over is the fact that the vividness with which a person remembers facts are intimately tied to variety of related and unpredictable problems, like the original emotional impact, how those emotions have been handled over the course of time, the meaningfulness to the person, and even the degree to which the person's ego was and/or is involved. Memory is also very much a function of social relationships as people recount the same stories to each other, add their own insights, and form bonds based upon shared experiences. What a person remembers is very closely linked to what and how others in the social group also remember.
This is particularly interesting to observe among a group of scriptural inerrantists like the snake handlers. Their religious tradition makes use of an inerrant bible which cannot be modified. This occurs in a traditional way of life which is hardly tolerant to change. But despite this, there have indeed been many changes in beliefs, rituals, and even the life histories of early church leaders. Most remarkable is the fact that none of this is really admitted to. The fact that their social worldview is so stringently delineated means that changes which do occur cannot be acknowledge in any form.
One good example of this can be seen in the life of George W. Hensley, an important early leader among snake handling congregations. He was married some four times, although current doctrine regards divorce as sinful and remarriage impossible. For this reason, the facts about Hensley have been expunged from collective memory completely. A person who suggests that Hensley was married more the once is likely to receive serious verbal abuse for their trouble. Another fact which has been erased from the minds of believers involves children, which contemporary believers consider almost sacred. To his discredit, Hensley tried to get his second wife to put their kids in an orphanage. But contemporary believers cannot handle historical truths which contradict the beliefs upon which their social unity is based - and if maintaining social unity requires forgetting unpleasantness, then so be it.
What can one learn from this and carry over to historical Christianity? Well, nothing necessarily. It is certainly possible for a person to insist that none of this has any relation to the early Christian church. One could, in fact, try to claim that long ago humans possessed super-human memory and were capable of memorizing vast amounts of facts beyond the capabilities of contemporary homo sapiens. Unfortunately, such claims would sound more like hollow rationalizations than rational arguments, and one would have great difficulty in finding adequate support.
Every year researchers learn more about the nature of memory, and it is quite clear that memory is a reconstructive process and not a tape recorder. What we remember appears heavily influenced by what we expect, what we already knew and what we have since learned - that's why police do their best to keep witnesses "untainted" by other evidence. They know that if they don't, the witness will quickly lose credibility under cross-examination. There is little reason to think that people's brains worked significantly differently 2000 years ago. Scholars have also learned a tremendous amount about oral story telling and folk histories - and what they have discovered runs rather parallel to the examples above. People are more alike than different, so that shouldn't be surprising.
The most parsimonious conclusion to draw is not that the Christians of 2000 years ago were radically different than those today, but instead that they were rather similar in how they functioned. That would mean that the stories they told about their early leaders may have suffered from the same drawbacks and problems that plague contemporary accounts which circulate among snake handler congregations. Church members in both groups really did believe the stories in question - just as many of the stories really aren't entirely true. If the above examples give one pause to question other stories related by snake handlers about their church, then consistency requires a similar approach to similar sorts of stories passed along in a similar fashion by the much earlier, original Christian congregations.
Don't miss the other section:
