Lewi Pethrus’ Ecclesiological Thought 1911-1974: A Transdenominational Pentecostal Ecclesiology by Tommy Henrik Davidsson A Thesis Submitted to the University of Birmingham for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham March 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis is a diachronic investigation of Lewi Pethrus’ ecclesiological thought from 1911 to 1974. The research employs Roger Haight’s transdenominational ecclesiology as its methodological framework. Since Haight’s methodology is based on a concrete ecclesiological method that emphasises the importance of a historical consciousness in ecclesiology, the study particularly focuses on the formative contexts that shaped Pethrus’ ecclesiology. The emphasis on formative contexts not only explains why certain ecclesiological concepts arose at particular points in Pethrus’ life but also clarifies why concepts were abandoned or developed over time. A vital part of Haight’s methodology is also to examine the religious values that remain constant and significantly form ecclesiological views. The thesis argues that Pethrus’ ecclesiology is shaped by a Pentecostal form of spirituality that has ‘loving Christ and loving neighbour’ as its core values. The combination of a Pentecostal form of spirituality and formative contexts is what makes Pethrus’ ecclesiology ‘Pentecostal’ and gives it its inner logic. The thesis concludes by taking this inner logic of Pethrus’ ecclesiology and hypothetically applying it to a global setting. The result is a contribution toward a transdenominational Pentecostal ecclesiology that has important implications for any attempt to construct a global Pentecostal ecclesiology. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people deserve my gratitude for the completion of this project. I would like to begin to thank someone who will never read these words, namely Lewi Pethrus. You have been a faithful companion for the last six years and your passion for God, neighbour, and the Pentecostal movement is something that has encouraged me to persevere throughout these years. My prayer is that my humble attempt to portray your ecclesiology will give glory to Jesus Christ whom you served with all your heart. I also recognise that the completion of this project would not have been possible without the loving support of family and friends. I want to extend my deepest thanks to my wife Valérie, my daughter Natalie, and my son Jeremy, who have had to endure many lonely evenings, weekends, and vacations without their absent husband and father. I am excited to finally have the possibility to share these special moments with you again. My mother and father Sonia and Bengt Davidsson also deserve special thanks. Thank you, Bengt, for your immense help in copying, sorting and data basing countless articles. Without your backbreaking work, this project would never have reached its completion. Thank you also Sonia for being such a great support. Thanks also to Gemma Reggimenti who has not only been a wonderful grandmother to our children but also a ceaseless encourager and a faithful helper on more occasions than I can remember. Thank you for showing such self-sacrificing love even in times when your health prompted you to stay away. I also want to thank Raymond and Brigitte Pfister for making your home a wonderful haven for our family. Thank you, Raymond, for the many challenging conversations that encouraged me to think more critically and ecumenically. Thank you also Céline, Lucas, Mathys, and Amélie for playing with Natalie and Jeremy so that I could study. Thanks also to all my friends and colleagues at Continental Theological Seminary. Your prayers and encouraging words have meant more than you will ever know. I also want to extent a special thanks to our ‘spiritual parents’ Dianne and Darrell Wood for not only mirroring Christ but also embracing us as your family. The debt I owe to you, Dianne, for taking of your precious time to ensure that the language of this thesis resembles readable English is immense. I also want to express my deep gratitude to the local churches that have supported me as their missionary throughout these years: Katrineholm, Valla, Julita, Flen, Mönsterås, Vaggeryd, Vireda, and Christian Center, Waterloo. I pray that you will all experience ‘the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace’ (Ephesians 4:3). Thank you also to my former pastor Leon Lindberg for allowing me to pursue further studies. This project would have never seen the light of day without your vision for education. Big thanks also to my supervisor Allan Anderson who has been an excellent guide throughout this project. Thank you for your willingness to meet up with me even during your vacation time. I hope that our professional friendship will continue for many years to come. I also want to thank the Institute for Pentecostal Studies (Institutet för Pentekostala Studier) for their kindness of allowing me to use their premises and resources in my research. A special thanks to Jan-Åke Alvarsson who facilitated my stay in Uppsala and who has always shown a willingness to share his insights with me. Thanks also to fellow researchers, Magnus Wahlström and Joel Halldorf, who provided me with many valuable sources. Thank you Lord Jesus for your grace – only you deserve all the praise! LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CM Charismatic Movement DK Den Kristne (The Christian) EH Evangelii Härold (The Gospel Herald) MCC Mission Covenant Church SFM Swedish Free Mission SPM Swedish Pentecostal Movement TNIDPCM The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements WCC World Council of Churches ÖM Örebro Mission Society TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1. State of Research on Pentecostal and Lewi Pethrus’ Ecclesiology ................. 1 1.2. Purpose of Thesis ............................................................................................ 6 1.3. Delimitations ................................................................................................... 7 1.4. Methodology .................................................................................................... 9 1.5. Progression of Thesis .................................................................................... 15 2. FORMATIVE CONTEXTS ................................................................................... 19 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 19 2.2. Ecclesiological Traditions ............................................................................. 20 2.2.1. Radical Pietism ........................................................................................ 20 2.2.2. Moravianism ............................................................................................ 24 2.2.3. Baptist Ecclesiology ................................................................................ 27 2.2.4. Holiness Movement ................................................................................. 29 2.3. Restorationism ............................................................................................... 30 2.3.1. The Positive Side of Restorationism ....................................................... 32 2.3.1.1. Restoration of Spirituality ........................................................... 32 2.3.1.2. Restoration of the Scriptures ....................................................... 36 2.3.2. The Negative Side of Restorationism ...................................................... 38 2.3.3. Normativeness ......................................................................................... 41 2.4. Pentecostalism ............................................................................................... 42 2.4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 42 2.4.2. The Origins of Pentecostalism ................................................................. 44 2.4.2.1. Divine Origin ............................................................................... 44 2.4.2.2. Historical Origins ........................................................................ 46 2.4.2.3. Sociological Origins .................................................................... 49 2.4.3. The Essence of Pentecostalism ................................................................ 50 2.4.4. The Purpose of Pentecostalism ................................................................ 55 2.5. Pragmatism .................................................................................................... 59 2.6. Individualism and Experientialism ................................................................ 61 2.7. Dispensationalism .........................................................................................