Introduction

chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Lewi Pethrus’ Importance in Swedish and International Pentecostalism

The Swedish Pentecostal pioneer, Lewi Pethrus (1884–1974), did not introduce Pentecostalism to Europe – an honour often bestowed on the English Methodist immigrant to Norway, Thomas Ball Barratt (1862–1940). Pethrus did not even introduce Pentecostalism in his native Sweden – a task that befell a firsthand witness of the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles, Andrew Johnson.1 Pethrus’ ascendency to the role as the undisputed figurehead of the Swedish Pentecostal Movement (spm), and a major player on the European and global Pentecostal scene, was a lot more incremental. The story of Pethrus’ rise from his lowly workingclass background to the position as pastor of the largest Free Church congregation in Europe will be told later; yet in order to understand the larger ramifications of his ecclesiology, which is the main focus of this book, it is important to first understand why he is important for Swedish and international Pentecostalism. For most of its history, the spm perceived itself as a spiritual fellowship of independent local churches without any organisations above or between the churches. The reality, on the other hand, pointed to the fact that it was a tight- knit network with one predominant church, the Filadelfia Church of Stockholm, and its pastor, Lewi Pethrus, as the dominant figures in the centre. Filadelfia functioned, in all practical purposes, as the denominational headquarter only without the official title attached to it. Nearly all joint ventures originated or were controlled by Pethrus and Filadelfia. Some of the most prominent ones were the hymnal Segertoner, the Bible school Kaggeholm, the publications Dagen and Evangelii Härold, and the radio station, ibra radio. Moreover, few changes occurred without Pethrus’ specific approval. Sitting as the chief editor or the co-editor for the movements’ main publications ensured that few ideas were disseminated without his personal consent. Filadelfia’s denominational function was also evident in the movement’s mission endeavours. Even though Swedish Pentecostals rejected mission organisations, when independent

1 Jan-Åke Alvarsson, ‘Pingstväckelsens etablering i Sverige: Från Azusa Street till Skövde på sju månader,’ Pingströrelsen: Händelser och utveckling under 1900-talet (Örebro: Libris förlag, 2007), 1:17–21.

2 chapter 1 missionaries ran into problems with local authorities on the field, Filadelfia often intervened in a similar capacity as an established mission organisation. Its status as an unofficial mission organisation was further evident by the fact that it funnelled large parts of the movement’s missionary funds to their intended recipients. Thus, Pethrus’ and Filadelfia’ elevated position gave them significant control, not only over every-day affairs, but also over the direction the movement was heading. Since the spm lacked a centralised organisation, international relations were to a great extent maintained through Pethrus’ vast letter correspondence. The National Archive in Stockholm possesses a testament of this literary legacy – a 127 volume compilation stretching from 1915 to 1974. His extensive personal network with key leaders across Europe and the United States provided him with an unprecedented platform to promote his own ideas and limit the influ- ence of others. The Fellowship of Christian Assemblies (fca), for instance, trace their heritage back to Scandinavian immigrants, who had adopted Pethrus’ independent local church ecclesiology. Moreover, no European or worldwide Pentecostal organisation was ever formed due to his elevated position on the boards of the international coferences. Suggestions were proposed at the first European Pentecostal conference in Stockholm in 1939 and at the first World Pentecostal Conference in Zurich in 1947, but they did not survive his strong opposition.2 Moreover, when foreign evangelists had the audacity to ignore his advice of not holding meetings in a Pentecostal church that were at odds with the leadership of Filadelfia, he made sure that their impact on the spm amounted to virtually nothing.3 Although Pethrus’ control over the spm waned after his resignation as pastor of Filadelfia in 1958, his prolific literary output, his vast international network, and his frequent appearances on ibra radio ensured that his views were continuously heard across the Pentecostal world until his death in 1974. In light of the aforementioned description of Pethrus’ national and international leadership, it would be easy to conclude that Pethrus was a power-hungry, manipulating, ‘dictator,’ who cared little for the opinions of others.4 Even if certain elements of this negative picture of Pethrus may be historically accu- rate, I will try to show in this book that this negative picture of his leadership style needs to be viewed in relation to deep-seated values that were formed by a particular understanding of Pentecostal spirituality. When considering these

2 See section, 7.2. below. 3 See, for instance, the example of Sven Lidman and the Östermalm church, 4.1 below. 4 See sections, 4.1, and 5.1 below.