THERE may be yet another Christian denomination that will soon be added to the National Center for Science Education’s list of Statements from Religious Organizations supporting evolution. This time it’s the Assemblies of God. According to Wikipedia they’re the “world’s largest Pentecostal body” with “57 to 60 million adherents worldwide” and they’re “the sixth largest international Christian group of denominations.” So this is big news. (It was once the denomination of Jimmy Swaggart.)
In a way, this is inevitable for any denomination that plans to have a significant continuity of existence, as there’s a limited future for any religion that blatantly denies the verifiable facts of reality. Just as virtually all denominations have accepted the once-heretical solar system (see the Galileo affair), so too they will almost all, sooner or later, accept the age of the earth, the universe, and the theory of evolution. The hold-outs will take their proper place alongside the Flat Earth Society.
The Assemblies of God have recently posted this statement at their website: The Doctrine of Creation (Adopted by the General Presbytery in session August 9-11, 2010). It’s a 4-page pdf file. Here are the relevant excerpts, with bold added by us:
The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific textbook, nor should it be understood as such.
[…]
Scripture focuses our attention not so much on the act of creation as on the Creator.
[…]
Genesis 1–3 accurately communicates God’s creation of the heavens and the earth. Using language that appears to employ both prose and poetry and that contains both literal and symbolic elements, the story is a simple yet beautiful and compelling narrative intended to speak to all humankind. The complexity of creation is such that humans will never fully comprehend it.
[…]
The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists, it should be remembered that the creation accounts do not give precise details as to how God went about His creative activity. Nor do these accounts provide us with complete chronologies that enable us to date with precision the time of the various stages of creation. Similarly, the findings of science are constantly expanding; the accepted theories of one generation are often revised in the next.
As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.
[…]
We urge all sincere and conscientious believers to adhere to what the Bible plainly teaches and to avoid divisiveness over debatable theories of creation.
That’s not as clear-cut as the statements of some other denominations, and for that reason some may dismiss this as being essentially meaningless. But we would disagree. These things take time, and doctrinal changes aren’t made easily. This statement is a very welcome change from this group’s past positions.
As might be expected, hard-core creationists are upset about this. See, for example, this rant by Ken Ham: A Sad Day for the Assemblies of God Denomination. Poor ol’ Hambo.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Reading the whole thing, it does sound as though they want a “big tent” and are not interested in arguing over a literal 6-day, 6000-years-ago creation. Adam and Eve and the Fall are not negotiable, however–they are real historic events.
Anyway, it’s a step in the right direction, and it would be expecting way too much for them to read old Earth creationists out of their religion. Sounds like they don’t want the Bible getting embarrassed by science, so they’ve adopted the position that the Bible is pretty vague about some things.
It seems to me that if the laws of physics or whatever were really important to God, He’d have put them in the Bible in a useful form; even if you believe in God it seems obvious to me that the Bible is not a textbook, or a history, and is not intended to be.
Gabriel Hanna: “Anyway, it’s a step in the right direction, and it would be expecting way too much for them to read old Earth creationists out of their religion.”
Is it a “step in the right direction” or just “pulling back the bow” only to release the “arrow” even further in the wrong direction? It all depends on how they answer the follow up questions. If they claim that the “literal Adam and Eve” is about souls, not cells, and if they agree that the evidence favors old life and common descent (while forgiving those who believe otherwise because they misunderstand the evidence and the nature of science), then it would be the right direction.
OTOH, they could be preparing for a DI-like “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. Recall that Behe to said that the Bible should not be read as a science book, and that evidence does not fit a young earth conclusion.
That AiG is upset is no comfort yet; AiG doesn’t like the DI’s approach either.
Is it a “step in the right direction” or just “pulling back the bow” only to release the “arrow” even further in the wrong direction?
Seems to me a step in the right direction, and the fact that Ken Ham is vociferously opposed to it supports that notion 🙂
But as Gabriel and SC point out, its a small step. While they are stepping back from being ‘overly dogmatic’ on evolution and the age of the earth, they are still completely dogmatic about Adam and Eve.
eric: :Seems to me a step in the right direction, and the fact that Ken Ham is vociferously opposed to it supports that notion :)”
I hope you don’t think the DI’s strategy is also a step in the right direction. Note: I once did think it was, specifically when I learned that Behe conceded common descent, and that no other DI person publicly disagreed. But soon I came to realize that their “big tent” strategy has the potential to mislead many more people than YEC can.
That’s very interesting. John Freshwater’s home church is Assemblies of God.
RBH says: “John Freshwater’s home church is Assemblies of God.”
AOG is really hard-core creationist — at least they have been. Swaggart certainly is. I’ve seen him preach it (on TV). This will shake up a lot of people, which is why I think their statement is worded so gently.
The fact that a T-Rex was removed from a site in Montana in 2005 and it’s femor was broken and shocked the science world when it was proven real blood only 2000 years old validating artifacts that were created in that time line in most of Asia,India, and France including Finland that had written on them or carved them on stone reliefs. There is pottery also in South America validating dino creatures back then.
All this was accomplised by Dr.Mary Schweitzer has shown that T. rex bones ‘dated’ to 68 million years old have soft tissue in them, including the presence of blood cells, blood vessels and bone tissue (collagen).1 True, Yup!
See http://creation.com/real-jurassic-park for all details.
True, Yup!
Easily debunked lie. If Manzke had read anything but creationists he wouldn’t be such an easy mark for them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html
The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).
The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).
This link might help some Assemblies of God members… http://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=112356475495626&fbb=rd30557aa&refid=46