Below is a chronological summary of the Swedish Union’s marginalizing against Stephen Bohr:
1. The broader background
During 2026 there are two separate Adventist-related initiatives in Sweden that the Swedish Union has opposed or discouraged.
The first is the June event with Pastor Stephen Bohr, organized by Sadlaym together with a local Adventist congregation.
The second is the July conference “Faith, Fear & the Future,” organized privately by Sweden Lecture (https://swedenlecture.com). I am part of the team arranging that conference. It will be held in Sweden in July 2026 and includes speakers such as Dr. Conrad Vine, Pastor Dennis Page, Pastor Shahbaz B., and Dr. Kenan Di Grazia with Jency Victoria Prabakaran.
These two events are separate, but the Swedish Union has connected them in its public messaging. The Union has expressed concern not only about Stephen Bohr, but also about other speakers such as Conrad Vine and Dennis Page. In the case of our July conference, the Union has said that local churches should not advertise it in the churches.
The July conference was organized privately from the beginning because we already knew that the Swedish Union would not allow us to choose the speakers we believed should be invited. We therefore did not arrange the event through the church structure. This is important because the Union secretary later criticized Sweden Lecture for not cooperating with the Union and for not organizing the conference through the church. But at the same time, in the Stephen Bohr situation, the Union had already refused to approve him when Sadlaym and the Spanish Adventist church in Stockholm asked for a service request.
That created a contradiction. When members tried to involve the church structure, the Union said no. But when another initiative was arranged privately, the Union criticized the organizers for not doing it through the church.
2. The first requests for Stephen Bohr were denied
Sadlaym (a ministry) and the Spanish Adventist church in Stockholm wanted to invite Stephen Bohr to Sweden. They asked the Swedish Union for approval/service request twice, but the Union refused both times.
This is one of the most important facts in the whole story. The Union had already refused Stephen Bohr before the private email from Stephen Bohr (see below) to the organizers was ever written. Therefore that email cannot honestly be presented as the original reason for the refusal.
3. A local congregation was asked to invite Bohr
After the earlier refusals, Sadlaym asked another local congregation whether it would cooperate and invite Stephen Bohr. That congregation agreed.
At that point, the Union’s position became even more confusing. Instead of approving the invitation through a local church, the Union asked why the organizers needed to do it through the church and why they could not do it privately. This is difficult to understand. When the matter was pursued through church channels, the Union rejected it. When private initiatives were used, the Union criticized them for not being under church cooperation.
4. Stephen Bohr’s private warning to the organizers
After the Swedish Union had refused to approve him, Stephen Bohr wrote a private message to Sadlaym and the local church involved. In that message he said he could come anyway but warned them that there could be serious consequences from the Sweidsh union if they continued with it.
His point was not to mobilize a public campaign against the church. He was warning the organizers that the Union might send a message to the churches saying that the activity was not approved, that the organizers might be labeled as rebels, and that they might be threatened with censorship or even exclusion from the church.
This private warning has now been used by the Union as an example of Stephen Bohr’s “bad fruit.” But the order of events matters. The Union had already denied the service request before he wrote this private warning. Therefore his private warning cannot be the real reason why the Union first refused him.
It is also important to clarify that this was not a public statement by Stephen Bohr. It was a private message to those who invited him, written after the Union’s refusal.
5. The Union’s public statement
When many members asked why Stephen Bohr was not allowed to come, the Swedish Union published a public statement about unity, responsibility, order, and the church’s common mission.
The statement was broad and vague. It spoke about “fruit,” unity, polarization, suspicion toward leadership, and the need to protect the church from conflict. But it did not clearly explain what Stephen Bohr had actually taught that contradicted the faith and doctrine of the global Seventh-day Adventist Church.
This created more questions among members, because very serious accusations were being made without clear evidence.
6. The first response from 35 members
After the Union’s public statement, a response was written and signed by 35 Adventist members in Sweden and nearby contexts. https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2026/5/8/swedish-conference-tries-to-prevent-stephen-bohr-from-speaking-in-sweden This response was also published in the Facebook group Adventist Sverige, which has more than 800 Adventist members.
The response asked three basic questions:
1. In what way does Stephen Bohr bear bad fruit, and in what way does his ministry contribute to conflict and polarization?
2. What teachings does Stephen Bohr have that deviate from the faith and doctrine of the global Seventh-day Adventist Church?
3. Are there any other reasons why Stephen Bohr is not welcome as a speaker in Sweden?
The purpose was not to start a campaign against the Union, but to ask for due process, transparency, and a clear explanation. If a pastor is publicly accused of bad fruit and deviant teaching, members have a right to ask what exactly is meant.
7. The Union’s Response to the first statement
The Union then answered the questions more directly. In that response, it finally became clear that the refusal was connected, among other things, to Stephen Bohr’s teaching on female leadership in the church and so-called Last Generation Theology.
The Union also stated that the decision was not based on Stephen Bohr denying the fundamental beliefs of the Adventist Church, nor on him being a bad Adventist or preacher. However, it argued that certain recurring emphases in his teaching have caused tension and division in congregations.
This admission is important. It means that the matter is doctrinal and theological after all, even though the Union had earlier framed the issue mainly in terms of “fruit,” unity, and polarization.
It is also significant that Stephen Bohr had assured the denominational leadership that he would not address those particular topics during his visit to Sweden. The Union still said that this assurance had no bearing on its decision.
8. The final response from 37 members
A second and final response was then written and signed by 37 members. https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2026/5/8/the-real-story-behind-swedens-opposition-to-stephen-bohr This response pointed out that the Union had now admitted that its opposition was connected to Stephen Bohr’s teaching on female leadership and Last Generation Theology.
9. The issue of “bad fruit”
The Union has argued that Stephen Bohr’s ministry produces bad fruit because it leads to tension, suspicion toward leadership, polarization, and conflict.
Our response is that opposition and conflict are not in themselves proof that the ministry is bad. Christ’s own ministry created opposition. The Advent movement itself created opposition. Faithful teaching can provoke resistance. If a speaker is teaching false doctrine, that should be shown clearly. But if no false teaching is demonstrated, then the negative reaction to the speaker cannot simply be used as evidence that the speaker is the problem.
10. Why people still defend Stephen Bohr, even though he once rejected Conrad Vine
Some have pointed out that Stephen Bohr previously refused to have Conrad Vine speak at a Secrets Unsealed event. That is true, and I know many of us that believe that was wrong.
But that does not mean that we should now remain silent when Stephen Bohr himself is treated unjustly. Justice must not depend on whether a person has always acted correctly in the past. If someone did wrong in one situation, that does not give others the right to treat him unjustly in another situation.
Every time injustice happens, we should stand for what is right. We can disagree with Stephen Bohr’s previous decision regarding Conrad Vine and still defend Stephen Bohr’s right to fair treatment, due process, and an honest explanation from church leadership.
11. Why this matters beyond Sweden
This situation is not only about Sweden and not only about Stephen Bohr. It raises larger questions for the Adventist Church:
Can a Union prevent local congregations from inviting faithful Adventist speakers without clearly showing that they teach contrary to the faith of the Church?
Can vague language about “fruit,” “unity,” and “polarization” be used to silence conservative or biblical Adventist voices?
Can church leaders publicly damage a pastor’s reputation while withholding the specific evidence behind their decision?
And what happens to trust when members are told to follow proper church channels, but those same channels are used to block the speakers they invited?
From my perspective, the real danger to unity is not that members ask honest questions. The real danger is when leadership makes serious accusations without transparent evidence and then discourages ordinary members from discussing the issue openly.
****
Blessings,
Joel Mellin
Leader of the ministry MELLINS and part of the Sweden Lecture team