Introduction: This letter is from a committed group of Seventh-day Adventists in Sweden. Some of them are known to us personally, and they are fine people.

“It is good that the leadership has finally clearly revealed that they oppose Stephen Bohr (SB) because of his teaching on female leadership in the church and “Last Generation Theology”, LGT. We therefore assume that these are “his divergent doctrines” which you have previously accused SB of holding.

However, we believe that SB’s teaching is more in harmony with the teaching of the Bible and of our global church on both of these issues than that of the Swedish Union.

With regard to adherents of LGT, there are people with extreme views, but SB does not belong to that group. His teaching is based on a sound interpretation of biblical doctrine and on what the Spirit of Prophecy has to say on the matter. What SB says, in brief, without directly stating that he is an adherent of LGT, is that Jesus gives us power to overcome sin, and that is what we as a denomination have always believed. This is exactly how SB explains it, and Mark Finley does the same, including in a video where he affirms the concept of LGT with biblical perfection of character and victory over sin through sanctification.

Biblical character development and victory over sin through sanctification is also what many other well-known preachers believe, and several of our Bible study authors also express the same thing in our Bible study material. The reasonable conclusion, then, is that the leadership does not wish to welcome these individuals either, which appears very strange.

Fruit

When it comes to SB’s fruit, you refer to the reactions that have arisen because of SB’s ministry and the “public statements” he has made concerning the possible negative consequences of his invitation.

Jesus has something to say about fruit. He says that false prophets bear bad fruit (Matt. 7:15–23). He also accused the Pharisees of bearing bad fruit when they opposed Jesus (Matt. 12:22–37). According to Jesus, then, bad fruit is false teaching and opposition to true teaching.

Notice that Jesus warned the Pharisees against committing the unpardonable sin—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—when they opposed Jesus’ ministry. We must also be careful in criticizing the ministry of others, so that we do not commit the same sin. But only God knows our motives and our sincerity and can judge us on that basis.

As long as SB is not engaged in false teaching, the reactions to his ministry are therefore the bad fruit, not SB’s ministry, if we are to believe what Jesus says. Furthermore, all ministry that comes from God is subject to Satan’s attacks, which lead to conflict and strife,

“Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went away to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 12:17).

Jesus’ ministry led to opposition. His teaching was good fruit, but the opposition was bad fruit. The Advent movement around 1844 aroused strong opposition that led to conflict and strife. The movement was good fruit, but the opposition was bad fruit.

Regarding SB’s “public statements”, we assume that what is meant is his private letter to those who invited him, in which he warned them about what could happen to them if they invited him. Jesus also warned of what may happen to all who follow Him (Luke 14:25–28), so it cannot be wrong for SB to do the same.

Moreover, this letter was written after the Union’s refusal of the invitation, as has been pointed out several times before. We find it very regrettable how the Union has acted regarding SB, conduct which E.G.W. strongly condemns:

“Many think that a position of trust gives them authority to dictate what other people shall believe or what they shall do. God does not approve of any such claims” (Vändpunkten, p. 415).

Your actions counteract your ambition to “build strong relationships between members, churches, and leadership, and to encourage dialogue, listening, and respectful conversations.” Instead, many are losing confidence in the leadership, and cooperation with the Union becomes meaningless. This contributes to increased polarization within the church and to private projects without cooperation with the denomination.”

Signed by: