BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian
Beliefs
- Buddhist
- Catholic
- Contemplative
- Evangelical
- General Christian
- Hindu
- Jewish
- Latter-day Saint
- More Voices
- Muslim
- New Visions
- Pagan
- Progressive Christian
Topics
- Religion News
- Food and Religion
- Sports and Religion
- Religious Art
- Religious Music and Entertainment
- Religious Events
- History and Religion
- Style and Religion
- Politics and Religion
- Women in Religion
- Recreation Outdoors and Religion
- Business Finance and Religion
- Careers Workplace and Religion
- Education and Religion
- Family Parenting and Religion
- Health Fitness and Religion
- Home and Religion
- Relationships and Religion
- Technology and Religion
- Travel and Religion
Columnists
- Buddhist Columnists
- Business Finance and Religion Columnists
- Careers Workplace and Religion Columnists
- Catholic Columnists
- Contemplative Columnists
- Education and Religion Columnists
- Evangelists Columnists
- Family Parenting and Religion Columnists
- General Christian Columnists
- Health Fitness and Religion Columnists
- Hindu Columnists
- History and Religion Columnists
- Home and Religion Columnists
- Jewish Columnists
- More Voices Columnists
- Latter Day Columnists
- Muslim Columnists
- New Visions Columnists
- Nonreligious Columnists
- Pagan Columnists
- Politics and Religion Columnists
- Progressive Columnists
- Recreation Outdoors and Religion Columnists
- Relationships and Religion Columnists
- Religion News Columnists
- Religious Art Columnists
- Religious Events Columnists
- Religious Music and Entertainment Columnists
- Sports and Religion Columnists
- Style and Religion Columnists
- Technology and Religion Columnists
- Travel and Religion Columnists
- Women in Religion Columnists
Resource Library
- 2026 Calendar
- Library of World Religions
- The 100 Most Holy Places on Earth
- Patheos Answers
- Podcasts
- Videos
- Faith Leaders Database
- Anglican Episcopalian
- Bahai
- Baptist
- Buddhism
- Christianity
- Confucianism
- Eastern Orthodoxy
- Hinduism
- Holiness and Pentecostal
- ISKCON
- Islam
- Judaism
- Lutheran
- Methodist
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- New Age
- Paganism
- Presbytarian and Reformed
- Protestantism
- Religion Behind the Scenes
- Roman Catholic
- Scientology
- Shia Islam
- Sikhism
- Sufism
- Sunni Islam
- Taoism
- Zen
- See all religions
Research Tools
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
- Trending:
- Forgiveness
- |
- Marriage
- |
- Consciousness
- |
- Death Penalty
- |
- Election
- |
- Halloween
- Home
- Progressive Christian
- No, snake-handling is neither ‘literal’ nor ‘biblical’
No, snake-handling is neither ‘literal’ nor ‘biblical’
Last updated on: February 18, 2014 at 7:31 pm by Fred Clark
No, snake-handling is neither ‘literal’ nor ‘biblical’ 2014-02-18T19:31:40-05:00 Fred Clark
Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.
Morgan Guyton offers a tongue-in-cheek challenge to white evangelicals who claim to follow a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, “The Awkward Truth About Snake-Handling: It’s Totally Biblical.”
It’s a fair bit of snark. After all, snake-handlers are simply people who have embraced a clobber-text and they’re milking it for all its worth in the same exact quasi-literate, contextless way that every clobber-texter treats every clobber-text. So it’s fun to see Guyton tweak the self-proclaimed “literalists” and “inerrantists” by pointing out that snake-handlers are simply utilizing the same crooked exegesis and deliriously self-serving hermeneutic as most white evangelicals in America have used ever since they had to come up with a way to appeal to the Bible to make slave-owning sound like something Jesus would do.
But that doesn’t make it “totally biblical.” Totally “biblical,” maybe, with ironic scare-quotes to indicate the counterfeit use of the term.
The awkward truth is that literalists and inerrantists and all the clobber-texting heirs of Confederate hermeneutics wouldn’t know “biblical” if reared back and bit ’em.
Sarah Pulliam Bailey points us back to a gripping 2012 essay by photojournalist Lauren Pond, “Why I watched a snake-handling pastor die for his faith“:
This is what I saw through my camera lens: Pastor Randy “Mack” Wolford, tossing and turning on the couch in his mother-in-law’s West Virginia trailer, suffering from the pain of a rattlesnake bite he had received earlier in the day. Parishioners surrounding him in prayer in the stifling heat. His mother stroking his feet, her expression a mixture of concern, sorrow and, eventually, acceptance: This is how her eldest son — a legend in the local Pentecostal serpent-handling community — would die.
… Mack’s family has accepted his death as something that he knew was coming and something that was ultimately God’s will. The pastor believed every word of the Bible and laid down his life for his conviction, they said.
That’s not true. What Mack’s family said about their departed son and father and brother just plain was not true. He did not “believe every word of the Bible.” No one does. (And, frankly, no one should — no one is supposed to*.*)
Mack, as a snake-handling Pentecostal in the century-old Appalachian Signs Following tradition, believed a select set of words in the Bible. But he also disregarded and disbelieved many hundreds of thousands more.
His literalism, like the literalism of every clobber-texting literalist, was highly selective. And blindly selective. And almost-but-never-quite ignorantly selective.
In an old (1998) Christian History piece on the origins of this snake-handling tradition, Ted Olsen wrote admiringly of these believers devotion to their “literal” faith in the “literal” Bible:
Today about 2,500 Pentecostals practice snake handling. The churches are autonomous … and they are marked by strict literal interpretations of the Bible. Jewelry is forbidden, including wedding rings and watches. Women may not cut their hair. Members greet each other “with a holy kiss.”
That last commandment is often cited as a prime example of how alleged literalists pick and choose what it is they’re going to be literal about. “Greet one another with a holy kiss,” we are told in the New Testament — five different times. And yet we don’t do this because … well partly because we’re not even sure what it means. And because we’ve decided it’s a culturally bound custom — some kind of first-century Mediterranean thing.
But somehow this little fringe sect “marked by strict literal interpretations of the Bible” doesn’t cancel all debt every six years. They are neither pacifists nor genocidal conquerors (both of which — unfortunately for those who would be literal inerrantists — are commanded in various places in the Bible). They do not practice Jubilee, or Sotah, or requiring the one with two tunics to give to the one who has none.
This sect takes a literalistic approach to the small regiment of Bible passages it acknowledges, yet like all who claim such a “strict literal interpretation,” they leave a vastly larger amount of the Bible unacknowledged and seemingly unnoticed.
Fun exercise: The speeches and writing of Martin Luther King Jr. are saturated with scripture. You can never get very far in King without tripping across several scripture quotes, references and allusions. Take one of his speeches — any one — and make a list of all the biblical passages he quotes or cites or alludes to. Then ask yourself if you’ve ever heard any of the proponents of a “strict literal interpretation” advocate following any of those verses literally. Ask yourself if you’ve ever heard any of those folks even acknowledging that any of those verses exists.
The people most likely to insist on being “totally biblical” are the least likely to have noticed the total Bible. Some of them have dispensed with it through dispensationalism or some other semi-Marcionite scheme, but most simply haven’t noticed huge vast chunks of the Bible exist. They’ve read through Amos, but yet they’ve never read Amos — never really seen it.
All of which is to say that Morgan Guyton is right: snake-handling is totally “biblical” in the sense that it arises from the same selective literalism that governs every variation of the clobber-text hermeneutic. Which is to say, in other words, that it is not really biblical at all.
Previous Post

February 18, 2014
OK, let's talk about snake-handling
Browse Our Archives
Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized
Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003
Follow Us!
TAKE THE
Religious Wisdom Quiz
Which religious tradition sees the Genesis flood story as parallel to the Epic of Gilgamesh?
Select your answer to see how you score.
Ancient Mesopotamian religion Zoroastrianism Hinduism Greek mythology
Related posts from slacktivist
It's not 'pick and choose.' It's pick a...
Is this the right room for an argument?
Team Everybody sliding into our DMs
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
Lots of people are offering advice to the Democratic Party and its...
Sunday Readings: Using God’s Gifts Faithfully
The readings for the Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time remind us to...
Donald Trump's Heaven? No Room For God
Donald Trump’s heaven would be filled with grudges, backbiting, refusal both to...
Peruvian airplane ready for Pope Leo XIV
The Chilean airline LATAM which serves as the main domestic flight provider...
Bear One Another’s Burdens, But Carry Your Own...
At first glance, Paul seems to contradict himself within the span of...
A Catholic Century or an Evangelical Century?
Will the form of Christianity that prevails in the years ahead be...
view all Progressive Christian blogs
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
- About Us
- 2026 Calendar
- Videos
- Podcasts
- Library of World Religions
- Faith In Media Tracker
- Advertise With Us
- Write for Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms of Service
- Do Not Sell My Data
- Contact Us
- Radiant Digital
- Manage Newsletter Subscriptions
- Unsubscribe From Notifications
- Sitemap
Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.
Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In











