For the third lecture in the “Languages of God” lecture series Dr. Norris Frederick, Director of the Center for Ethics and Religion at Queens, presented “The Experience of Ecstasy in Snake Handling.” Dr. Frederick discussed the authority of religious experience by viewing it through the lens of snake handling, a movement that developed in the Appalachian Mountains of eastern Tennessee in the early 1900’s. 

The roots of snake handling can be traced back to the spread of American Methodism beginning in the late 1700’s that emphasized experiences of “the spirit,” sometimes characterized by trembling, embracing, weeping, and shouting for you.   Methodism in the mid-1800’s became the center of a holiness movement that than broke away from Methodism by the end of the nineteenth century. Snake handlers draw inspiration from a passage in the Gospel of Mark which states that a believer “shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them” (16:18). Snake handlers are said to be anointed by the Holy Spirit and then are able to handle poisonous snakes without being harmed by them.

But why study snake handling, Frederick asked. The practice gives us insight into religious experience different from our own and encourages us to reflect upon our own religious experience. Frederick noted that “this ‘far-near’ approach allows us to think critically and creatively about our own experience.” In a more general way, the experience of ecstasy in snake handling leads us to consider whether the claims made by those who have religious experience should be accepted. As Frederick asked at different points in the presentation—“But is it real?”

Drawing on the work of the American philosopher and psychologist William James, Frederick suggested that at the heart of religion is experience that escapes words. Secondly, he observed that religion often emphasizes a reversal of values that characterize the culture in which the religion is situated. Thirdly, he emphasized that one’s religious passion must be thought through. After considering several possible explanations of religious experiences of ecstasy, Frederick warned against looking for an answer that reduces the experience to some scientific or medical model and encouraged the audience to remain open to the varieties of religious experience.