Why Stephen Bohr Wants Male Headship in the Adventist Church

God could simply have chosen another man, but did not. So God wasn’t settling for second best in choosing a woman. God being all-knowing was aware of who would accept the gift or reject it. Perhaps God was demonstrating that maleness doesn’t include spiritual superiority after all.

And, btw, see Delbert Baker’s book, “The Forgotten Prophet” about William Foy. His careful research has led to a revision of the common misunderstanding that Foy rejected God’s prophetic call.
An overview here: http://www.blacksdahistory.org/the-career-of-the-unknown-prophet.html


Spectrum deleted my recent post on this subject.

In it, I posted what amounts to a synopsis of headship doctrine as it exists in many evangelical churches (and as I experienced it) here.

Headship is not a tempest in an Adventist teapot. It is a culture-wide phenomenon which Adventism bought into at its inception in the 1980s, as documented by the late Gerry Chudleigh, and Spectrum’s coverage of Chudleigh’s free ebook:



Therefore, Stephen Bohr, Jay Gallimore, Doug Batchelor, Danny Shelton, et.al., are influenced by the outer Christian culture’s adoption of headship doctrine as they discuss headship on YouTube here.

Many Ellen White statements go hand-in-glove with headship doctrine. This is simply undeniable.

But it’s also undeniable that this doctrine never took root in Adventism until it was introduced by Samuele Bacchiocchi, who adopted it from Neo-Calvinists in the 1980’s. Does anyone dispute that?

However, because it seems to harmonize with Ellen White, it isnt ever going away. (Perhaps Spectrum didn’t want me to mention moral paralysis?)

Women’s ordination is a wedge issue for a thoroughgoing male headship, which, if you read the linked synopsis above, is anti-democratic. I mentioned anti democratic trends in the larger culture here.

In my post Spectrum deleted, I urged readers to check the cultural context of male headship doctrine–there is a lot of information available.

This post is on the topic of “Why Stephen Bohr Wants Male Headship,” according to one woman’s opinion. It contains no long quotes.

I am sad that Adventism is trapped in this struggle.

I am sad that, since shortly after the women’s ordination vote in San Antonio in 2015, Spectrum no longer supports public conversations.

Spectrum, please give me a minute to copy this, so my grandchildren can see I tried, when they’re old enough to understand. Thanks.

Please keep in mind that all commenters are asked to follow a few simple guidelines when posting: Stay on topic, stay respectful, keep your comments concise. Long posts with many off-site links are likelier to be flagged by commenters and removed by moderators. Thanks for your consideration. Website Editor


Me too. It’s an issue that doesn’t need to exist.


You evidently are confusing the majority of women in the church as the same as those who sit on boards and make decisions both above the local church but at the union, divisional and national levels.

Yes, women are the larger number in volunteering; but men are the larger number in making decisions. Remember: The first and only conference president has been unrecognized and snubbed the the G.C. administration and she has not been represented by her official position by church leaders.

Women have always kept the church alive while men are too often largely absent. Compare the number of men and women in the pews.


Your reference regards the topic of knowing men by their fruits, whether they’re Christians, not whether they should be pastors. The Word has already given us the qualifications of pastors. I see nothing at all wrong with what Bohr said, and I’m a woman. Either we believe and obey God’s Word, or we don’t.

1 Like

well, that’s what the jews who opposed paul and the gospel were saying when they quoted the following:

“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised…and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” Gen 17:10-13.

in paul’s day, the issue was the fact that salvation was open to all, not just the jews…it was a time of transition…seminal texts were being shown to be culturally limited, but not all were on board…

today, we are also in a time of transition…women have the same legal rights as men, and are being shown to have the same leadership gifts as men…again, seminal texts are being shown to be culturally limited, and not all are on board…

you cannot make the case that egw didn’t function as a pastor, in addition to all her other roles…and you cannot say that she wasn’t ordained by god himself, and paid as one of the ordained ministers in the church…in egw’s own words:

“All who desire an opportunity for true ministry, and who will give themselves unreservedly to God, will find in the canvassing work opportunities to speak upon many things pertaining to the future, immortal life. The experience thus gained will be of the greatest value to those who are fitting themselves for the ministry. It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” 6T:322.


im Adventist
30 years since I baptized, grew up adventist
male, Hispanic
bio grad.
I don’t profess to be theology expert or genius however,
I don’t find any issue with women ordination. based largely on one view

is a prophet more influential than a pastor is ask myself; I answer yes.
does a prophet have a direct message from God; I answer yes.
does a prophet have a larger work than a pastor; I answer yes
is it mandatory for prophets get “ordained”; I answer no.
has God ever chosen a female prophet; I answer yes
I conclude, if God chose in the past an “unordained”, young, female, with little formal education as a Prophet; then
whats the problem with having female Pastors?

God chose a Male for his important work for the Adventist movement, and he chicken out.
Yet a woman, accepted the challenge.
I further argue, if its true that God only wants male headship, then why didn’t He choose another male, instead of EGW?
to me the Bohr is if full of nonsense, and to me its obvious he has an agenda and not a divine inspired message


I must admit not to listening to Stephen Bohr, to know what he says, because I watched him grinning and applauding when the negative vote at the 2015 GC session was announced. He was sitting by another -never-married to a woman but “in love” with someone - “woman-hater,” whom I have heard speak in our church and who was exhibiting the same behavior. That speaks volumes to me and nothing else he would say would I hear.


Joyce, I do not know why you would write me that after having read my comment.

At age 71, I’m starting to find that the “authority of the head” is, more and more, submitting to the “authority” of my body.:slight_smile:

1 Like

I like this:

1 Like

Don’t the Amish think this is so?

Lol, the comment was a long time ago. Completely forgotten what I said, and the context in which I said it!

Thanks for the reply anyway. :slight_smile:

1 Like

When you voluntarily associate yourself with an organization it is reasonably expected you follow the rules. As I see it the libs are a law unto themselves. Why not start your own church??

1 Like

This rhetoric is old and pointless. No reaction to this nonsense. Sorry, you have to be content with Groucho giving you one “like” on it.


What rules? I suppose you mean the ones the GC president is not following?

In any case your assertion is incorrect. Many people seek to change the rules in organizations they belong to from citizenship in countries, political parties, workplaces, and religion. If no one sought change within the Christian faith, we’d have no SDA church and no reformation and no protestants, which protest some teachings of the RCC while accepting many others (even those which are extra-biblical.)


Professor @sufferingsunfish is talking about “the rules” but he conveniently avoids mentioning what you called “the ones the GC president is not following.”

Also, the “rules” when I was baptized were different from the ones we have today. So, is adding and manipulating rules"following the rules?" Of course not!

But the Professor (at least now we have a name!..) just wants to mess with me for some unknown reason. As Trump says, "We will see, we will see… :roll_eyes:

1 Like

[quoIn any case your assertion is incorrect. te=“timteichman, post:419, topic:6168”]
In any case your assertion is incorrect.

I’m not sure what you intend to communicate?

Nothing I wrote is a personal assertion. Just a description of reality. If you have issue with one or more of my statements and want to have a constructive conversion, you’ll need to be clearer than just writing a one word retort.

1 Like

I can easily see why you are puzzled as the program associated with quotes garbled what I wished to say.

You claim my assertion about following the rules is incorrect. I say that that assertion itself is incorrect. IOW I standby my original post.