Assemblies of God Clarifies Position on Revised Doctrine of Creation Statement

The Assemblies of God (AG), based in Springfield, Missouri, released a revised Doctrine of Creation statement as an update to its 1977 creation statement. Ken Ham, writing on the Answers in Genesis blog, said the change was significant. He argued that AG leaders had accepted differing views on Genesis and that the change undermined the authority of God’s Word.

Ham said the AG denomination later responded with a public statement clarifying its position on creation and Genesis. The clarification was titled “THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION — Development and Significance of the Revised Position Paper.” Ham said the statement confirmed that AG had changed its position and no longer advocated a six-literal-days, young-earth view. He wrote that the revision was not “slight” and that he stood by his earlier comments.

Ham contended that the 1977 statement was clear enough to be read as supporting a literal six-day creation and a young earth. He pointed to an AG website article titled “Creationism,” which he said referenced the 1977 statement. He quoted the article as saying that Genesis should be taken literally and that the creation account is most naturally read in parallel with a seven-day week. He also quoted it as rejecting gradual process views, which he said were held by theistic evolutionists.

Ham also said that the “Creationism” article now appears under the heading “Assemblies of God Perspectives” and links to the 2010 statement. In his reading, the article’s text is otherwise identical to the earlier version, and the only change is the reference to the 1977 statement, which now links to the 2010 document. He said he had compared the two statements and that the wording of the 2010 revision differs in significant ways from the 1977 text, a difference he said readers should check for themselves when comparing what a denomination teaches about Genesis (Proverbs 18:17).

Beyond the AG revision, Ham argued more broadly that Christians today cannot assume that religious terms carry the same meaning across contexts, and that church members should not simply trust academics and leaders on questions of Scripture. These are Ham’s views and are not positions taken by AG. The source does not include a response from AG leaders to his broader critique.

The “Creationism” article, Ham wrote, remains online with the same text, now listed under AG Perspectives and linked to the 2010 statement.

Source: Read the original report