chapter 2 Formative Contexts
Lewi Pethrus’ ecclesiology is not a systematic, closely defined, rationally con- sistent, chronologically coherent, or even exegetically based, treatment of the church. Rather, Pethrus’ ecclesiology arose in the context of internal and exter- nal turmoil, forged by numerous factors such as historical, social, political, religious, and theological trends of the day. In his study of Pethrus’ preaching, Sune Fahlgren suggests that it finds itself in ‘the intersection between [seven] formative contexts,’ namely ‘Baptism, Nordic Pentecostalism, international Pentecostalism, the Holiness Movement, Biblicism, Apocalypticism, and reli- gious liberalism.’1 Healy observes, however, that defining the ecclesiological context is a ‘highly complex’ task that ‘includes many church elements, such as […]: the church’s history, both local and worldwide; the background beliefs and the economic and social status of its members; recent developments among its leadership; styles of argumentation in theology […]; styles of wor- ship, and the like.’2 Despite this important caveat regarding the complexity of the task, Fahlgren provides a helpful framework for gaining an overview of the formative contexts that shaped Pethrus’ ecclesiology. However, since the intent here is to assess the formative contexts that particularly shaped Pethrus’ eccle- siology and not his theology or life as a whole, the chapter will centre on six personal and historical contexts that are especially noticeable in his ecclesio- logical writings, namely ecclesiological traditions, restorationism, Pentecostalism, pragmatism, individualism/experientialism, and dispensationalism because of their prominence in Pethrus’ ecclesiology. The discussion will be purpose- fully broad in order to ensure a good overview. Specific political and social influences will be highlighted in the contextual narratives. Before proceeding, it is important to mention that these formative contexts should not be viewed as independent from each other. A high degree of ‘cross-pollination’ naturally occurs between them. Thus, when considering the historical influences on Pethrus’ ecclesiology for example, the different traditions will be discussed separately for the sake of clarity, but this is not to imply that their ideas origi- nated independently from each other.
1 Sune Fahlgren, Predikantskap och församling: Sex fallstudier av en ecklesial baspraktik inom svensk frikyrklighet fram till 1960-talet (Falun: ScandBook, 2006), 246. 2 Healy, 39.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���� | doi 10.1163/9789004304093_003
2.1 Ecclesiological Traditions
Radical Pietism Like all individuals, Pethrus was influenced by the trends, ideas, and beliefs of his time. One of those beliefs was radical Pietism. Since radical Pietism arose as a reaction to ‘scholastic’ Lutheranism, it is important to sketch their inter- action and the legacy of radical Pietism in Sweden. After the official accep- tance of the Augsburg confession at the Diet of Uppsala in 1598, Lutheranism took centre-stage in Swedish religious life. It did not take long, however, before Lutheran doctrines were legislated, with severe penalties for unfaith- ful adherence.3 According to Erik Nyhlén, the motivating factor for such dras- tic measures was a fear of a Catholic or a Calvinist Counter-Reformation, which contributed to an institutionalisation process whereby individuals were forced to conform to Lutheran norms without a corresponding experi- ence of the heart.4 At the end of the seventeenth century, however, winds of change slowly began to blow. Through returning prisoners of war and notable ecclesiastical and political figures such as Nils Grubb, Erik Tolstadius, Elias Wolcher, Jonas Rothåf, and Georg Lybecker, the news of the religious ideas of Philip Jacob Spener and August Hermann Francke, who stressed a religion of the heart rather than a mere cognitive consent to Lutheran doctrines, were beginning to be heard.5 Pietism, as the new movement was derogatory called, found fertile ground in the Swedish religious soil. Soon scores of people gathered in homes for Bible study and prayer, forming cell groups according to Spener’s collegia pietatis.6 Even though the Pietists’ meetings were by no means subversive, on 12 January 1726, the Swedish government issued an edict (konventikelplakatet) that forbade all religious meetings outside the Lutheran church. The edict sig- nalled the end of the conservative period of Swedish Pietism and gradually opened the door for radical Pietism.7 Nathan Odenvik shows that even a few years before the edict was issued, radical Pietism began to emerge in the form
3 Erik Nyhlén, Svensk frikyrka (Stockholm: Bokförlaget prisma, 1964), 11. 4 Erik Nyhlén, 11–12. 5 Harry Lenhammar, Sveriges Kyrkohistoria: Individualismen och upplysningens tid, vol. 5 (Stockholm: Verbum förlag, 2000), 20–31. See also, Benjamin A. Pugh, ‘A History of the Blood: The Story of the Blood of Christ in Transatlantic Evangelical Devotion,’ Evangelical Review of Theology, 31, vol. 3, (2007): 241. 6 Struble makes the important observation that at the Pentecostal conference in Berlin in 1917, it was decided that, ‘the foundational form for the church was the family and the house church,’ which indicates the Pentecostal movement’s indebtedness to Pietism. Struble, 72. 7 Nathan Odenvik, Gråkoltarna (Stockholm: Förlaget filadelfia, 1936), 15.