LEWI PETHRUS: HIS INFLUENCE UPON
SCANDINAVIAN-AMERICAN PENTECOSTALISM
by Joseph R. Colletti
Lewi Pethrus (1884-1974) represents an influence that has directly
rooted Scandinavian Pentecostal church polity into the Scandinavian-
American Pentecostal movement. The son of devout Swedish Baptist
parents, he was converted, immersed in baptismal waters, and became a
church member of a Baptist congregation in Vastergotland, Sweden, by
the age of fifteen. In 1907 he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit
while attending a meeting of Thomas B. Barratt, who first brought the
Pentecostal message to Scandinavia, in Oslo, Norway.l After attending
Bethel Seminary in Stockholm, Sweden, he became the pastor of a
Joseph R. Colletti (M.A., Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary), has done further
graduate work at U.C.L.A.
Lewi Pethrus, A Spiritual Memoir, (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International,
1973), p. 25.
- 18-
small Baptist church in Lidkoping, Sweden, and later the Filadelphia
Church in Stockholm in 1911. In 1913, Pethrus and the Filadelphia
Church were excommunicated by the Conference of Swedish Baptist
Churches for allowing Christians who were not members of a Baptist
church to participate in the Lord's Supper. According to Thomas B.
Barratt, behind the conference's action was "a definite feeling of ill-will
towards Pethrus' Pentecostal feelings."i
The action taken by the Baptist conference proved to be a great
mistake. Many other Baptist congregations, who also had "Pentecostal
feelings," immediately protested against the conference's action. They
believed that it was unbiblical for the conference to infringe upon the
freedom and liberty of a local church. Thus with a mighty protest, many
Baptist churches followed Pethrus and the Filadelphia Church. This
gave growing strength to the country's Pentecostal movement.2 As one
writer has noted.
The closing out (excommunication) of the Filadelphia
Assembly gave, it can be said, the signal to masses of Spirit-
baptized friends throughout the country, who left the Bap-
tist churches, and formed themselves into independent free
and self-supporting assemblies. It became more and more
apparent among God's Spirit-filled people that the (Fila-
delphia) assembly's position regarding their freedom was the
biblical pattern for its life and development.3
The one individual who soon became not only Sweden's major
spokesman on local church autonomy but all of Scandinavia's for the
next sixty years was Lewi Pethrus. After his excommunication, Pethrus
soon taught and promoted a church polity that was so influential that
this polity is still energetically practiced among all Scandinavian Pente-
costal congregations in both Scandinavia and the United States today.
Pethrus believed that the only organization that the New Testament
taught was the local church. Any permanent organization beyond the
Thomas B. Barratt, When the Fire Fell and an Outline of my Life, (Norway: Alfons
Hansen and Sonner, 1927), pp. 178-9.
2Barratt, p. 179.
3 G.E. Soderholm,Short History of the Filadelphia Assemblyin Stockholm,(Haroldens
Tryckeri, Stockholm, 1939), p. 32.
- 19-
framework of the local church was unbiblicaL Concerning the adminis-
tration of each local church, he believed that independence marked its
management and direction in affairs. Every local church had the right
to govern itself without any outside interference. He taught that it
was unbiblical for any denominational organization to manage or direct
the affairs of a local church.
Pethrus also taught that the success of a local church was due to
demanding sacrifices.1 He believed that individual church members
represented the core of each local congregation. Each member by
means of the Spirit, had been given a gift(s) to carry out various
ministries within the local church.2 Each member then had an oppor-
tunity to be functional in his church. Within this setting each church and
member had particular responsibilities. The church had to enforce a
strict discipline upon its members, while the member's duty was three-
fold : to yield his life to God; to use the spiritual gifts(s) given; and to
live a continuous holy, submitted and sacrificial life. The local church
was the vehicle of divine power. If the church was to continue to be so,
it must deal with its own sin. Toleration of sin could affect "the spiritual
life of a church and of an entire spiritual movement."3 When defilement
was dealt with revival could then be continuous as it had been in the
New Testament church.4
The actual act of discipline was to be carried out by the local church.
It was the pastor's task to labor continuously to keep his congregation
pure.5Support was provided by the necessity of having ruling elders,
who were to examine and correct any acknowledged offense.6
1A Spiritual Memoir, pp. 98-99.
2Lewi Pethrus, The Wind Bloweth Where it Listeth, (Chicago: Philadelphia Book
Concern, 1938), pp. 92-93.
3Lewi Pethrus, Christian Church Discipline, (Chicago: Philadelphia Book Concern,
1944), p. 31.
4Ibid., pp. 54-55.
5Ibid., p. 71 .
61bid., p. 79.
- 20-
The responsibility upon the church member developed from
Pethrus' view that it was through its individual members that the church
experienced a renewing of life. It was through and in response to the love
of God that each member was to be motivated towards his duty. One
willingly separated himself from the world and allowed God to trans-
form his life.1 His eyes were to be open to the fact that his sin, if un-
checked, could rob the church of revival. Also, out of love for his fellow
members, each member was to devote himself to a consecrated life
yielded to God in harmony with all others.
The teachings of Pethrus on the local church has had a profound
effect upon the Scandinavian Pentecostal movement. The movement
exists today without any governing form of organization over its local
churches. A close relationship between its churches is maintained
through yearly conferences and fellowship meetings which is conveyed
to each church through an open, non-compulsive invitation. Each
church is entirely independent, free to fellowship with anyone who
desires its fellowship. The movement still emphasizes a "pure church"
concept. Each individual should experience salvation and adult baptism
prior to church membership.2 Each member should lead a holy and
consecrated life, while each local church is to function as its own dis-
ciplinary body when necessary.3
The influence of Pethrus' teaching was not only felt by Scandi-
navia's Pentecostal movement but by the Scandinavian-American
Pentecostal movement as well. While nearly all American Pentecostal
churches belong to some form of organization outside the framework
of the local church, this has not happened with the churches within the
Scandinavian-American Pentecostal movement. This movement has
been largely represented by the Fellowship of Christian Assemblies
(formerly known as the Independent Assemblies of God),4 who have
modeled their local church polity and organization after the pattern
practiced by the Pentecostal movement in their homeland.
llbid, p. 25.
2Nils Bloch-Hoell, The Pentecostal Movement, (Norway: E. Sem A/S-Halden, 1964),
p. 152.
3Ibid.
4In 1973 the Independent Assemblies of God changed their name to the Fellowship
of Christian Assemblies.
- 21-
The Fellowship of Christian Assemblies originated during the spring
of 1922 when approximately twenty-five Scandinavian ministersl 1
agreed to meet in St. Paul, Minnesota, to discuss the possibility of
creating a very informal fellowship of autonomous local churches.
About half of these ministers were pastors of independent local assem-
blies within the Minnesota region. Prior to this meeting, they had fellow-
shiped with one another through local church conventions which were
held and sponsored by various churches within their own ranks and
were open to anyone who wished to attend.
The other half of the participating ministers were pastors of
churches primarily within both the Minnesota and Illinois regions. They
had previously incorporated as a body of local independent churches
in 1918 under the name Scandinavian Independent Assemblies of God.
During their first year of existence, these churches began to cooperate
in publishing their own periodical called the Sanningens Vittne (Witness
of the Truth) which shortly afterwards became "recognized as the voice
for all the Scandinavian assemblies in the United States."2 Two of the
more familiar names that were associated with this group were the
Swedish missionaries Gunnar Wingren and Daniel Berg who began the
great Pentecostal work in BraziL3
The primary reason why these ministers met was over a shared con-
cern about the number of denominations and organizations that were
"springing up in the Pentecostal movement, causing division and mis-
understanding among the ministering brethren and saints...."4 All of
the participating ministers believed strongly that the Pentecostal
revival should not be organized into any separate denominations(s). The
revival can be traced back to an outbreak of Pentecostal phenomena
that occurred in an old abandoned church located at 312 Azusa Street
1 TheFellowship of Christian Assemblies:An experience in inter-church Fellowship,
(Los Angeles: Fellowship Press, 1978), p. 1. The number of ministers quoted was given
during an interview on August 1, 1980, with the Rev. E. C. Erickson who was one of the
participating ministers in the 1922 meeting.
2Philadelphia Church 35th Anniversary, Chicago, p. 2.
3"Have Faith in God, Fiftieth Anniversary, 1908-1958," Chicago, Lake View Gospel
Church, p. 1.
4Joseph Mattson-Boze, "Denominational Organization," Hearld of Faith, (Chicago,
February, 1950), p. 6.
- 22-
in Los Angeles during April of 1906. The experiences that were
happening at Azusa street were testified to by participants as identical
with those that were recorded in the book of Acts such as: the baptism
of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues (2.4;
10.46); physical healings (3.6, 7); and the utterances of prophecies
(13.2; 21.11). The participating ministers believed that the experiences
that had happened at Azusa street were part of God's "Latter Rain
Covenant"l (see Joel 2.23-29; Deut. 11.10-21). This covenant repre-
sented the belief that just as the land of Palestine had experienced two
outpourings of rain, the early and the latter during its wet season, so
would the Church.2 The New Testament church had experienced the
"former rain," a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit accompanied by
spiritual signs and manifestations (Acts 2.2-4; 3.6-7; 10.44-47), and God
was now fulfilling his covenant by pouring out an identical "latter rain"
beginning at Azusa Street just prior to the return of Christ. They
believed that to organize such a revival was to create further divisions
within the Church instead of unity. The "latter rain" experiences would
become part of another sect, divorcing these experiences from all
denominations instead of becoming part of them.
The gathered ministers decided by "a unanimous desire and de-
cision to be recognized as a fellowship of autonomous churches ..." and
to be called by the name Independent Assemblies of God.3 After
examining various scriptures which referred to councils and organiza-
tions as in Acts 15, they concluded
. :. we find it unscriptural in these gatherings to form perma-
nent organization with articles of Faith and by-laws. These
human methods cannot take the place of spiritual discern-
ment and do not bring spiritual results nor unity.4 .
Since 1922, the Fellowship of Christian Assemblies have flourished
as a fellowship of autonomous local churches. Beginning with approxi-
1D. Wesley Myland, "How the Latter Rain May Be Restored," The Latter Rain
Evange4 Chicago, July, 1909, p. 15.
2Ibid. '
3The Fellowship of Christian Assemblies, p. 2. '
4Boze, p. 14.
- 23-
mately 25 ministers in 1922, the fellowship has increased to nearly
300 ministers and missionaries by 1980. Geographically, it has spread
from the Midwest to the East Coast, West Coast, and into the four
provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan
of western Canada.
The fellowship has continued to believe that the local church should
not be subject to any ecclesiastical authority outside of itself. Each
local church is to function as its own disciplinary body. A church de-
ficient in carrying out discipline when needed stands "to lose spiritual
vitality, evangelistic thrust, and favor with God."I Church leadership
in the form of its elders is to administer any corrective action. The
spiritual life of each local church is to be generated through its
members. Therefore, self-discipline is taught as a responsibility of
each congregational member. Sin will not only defeat the spiritual
growth of an individual but weaken the spiritual life of a church.2
The Fellowship of Christian Assemblies has always recognized Lewi
Pethrus as the principal driving force behind the success of the local
church organization of Scandinavia's Pentecostal movement. As one of
its pastors noted: "In our fellowship of autonomous churches Lewi
Pethrus has always been looked to as an authority on the local church."3
During the period of 1922-1950, Pethrus and his Filadelphia Church
was very highly esteemed by the fellowship. Five of its churches chose
to name itself after the Stockholm church, while even a larger number
have modeled the physical interior of their church buildings after the
Stockholm church as well. Also during this time the fellowship began
to translate into English a number of Pethrus' books on local church life
and published the books through the Philadelphia Book Concern, the
book store of the Philadelphia Church in Chicago. Two of the books
were The Wind Bloweth Where it Listeth (1938), and Christian Church
Discipline (1944).
The one event, however, that climaxed the close relationship be-
tween Pethrus and the fellowship was Pethrus' acceptance of a pastoral
1J.R. Whitesell, "Discipline Or Decay," Conviction,(Los Angeles: Fellowship Press,
January, 1964), p. 7.
2 J.R. Whitesell, "Diligence in Discipline," Convictior4(Los Angeles:Fellowship Press,
February, 1964), pp. 6-7.
Paul Zettersten, "Great Christian Statesman With the Lord," Convection, (Los
Angeles: Fellowship Press, October, 1974), p. 15.
- 24-
call from the Philadelphia Church in Chicago, extended by the church
in October, 1940.1 The fellowship hoped that Pethrus would have the
same success in the United States as he had had in Scandinavia in
spreading his principles of local church autonomy. It believed that
Pethrus' ministry and influence would help bring all of the Scandi-
navian Pentecostal churches in the United States into a closer mutual
fellowship identical to the relationship that the Pentecostal churches
in their homeland enjoyed.
The length of time that Pethrus spent in the United States was
shorter than expected. He arrived in America during May, 1941, and
began to assume his pastoral duties in Chicago later that month. It had
been decided earlier to make Pethrus chief editor of the fellowship's
periodical Herald of Faith which had been transferred from the Duluth
Gospel Tabernacle in Minnesota to the Philadelphia Church. For six
months Pethrus worked at fulfilling the fellowship's hopes, but during
October, 1941, because of "increased political difficulties" which
"made it impossible for my family to get over here as we expected ...",
Pethrus returned to Sweden.2
In spite of Pethrus' brief stay, the 1940's continued as a decade
of spiritual prosperity for the fellowship. By 1948 the fellowship had
nearly tripled (270) for its total of cooperating ministers over its 1936
figure (94). Pethrus' brief personal leadership along with the many
articles that he wrote for the Herald of Faith before and after his
departure helped spark a strong sentiment towards the principles
of local church autonomy by the fellowship. The editors of the Herald of
Faith began to print many articles along with those written by Pethrus
that also contained strong support for local church autonomy. The
heightened relationship that the fellowship now enjoyed with Pethrus
was however short-lived. A new revival occurred within the Pentecostal
movement that soon separated Pethrus from the fellowship.
The new revival which began in 1947 at the Sharon Bible Institute
in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, was called "The New Order of the
Latter Rain."3 Many of its adherents believed that God was pouring
'Paul B. Peterson, "Welcome, Pastor Lewi Pethrus," Herald of Faith, (Chicago:
Philadelphia Church, March, 1941), pp. 4-5.
ZA. W. Rasmussen, "The Annual Convention at Brooklyn, N.Y.," Herald of Faith,
(Chicago: Philadelphia Church, October, 1941), p. 14.
. 3L. Thomas
Holdcroft, "The New Order of the Latter Rain," Pneuma: The Journal of
the Society for Pentecostal Studies, vol. 2, No. 2, p. 46.
- 25-
out a sort of "latter portion of the latter rain" based on Joel 2.23,
that was preparing the church for the millennium.i Certain aspects of
its teachings were either new or somewhat distinct from past Pente-
costal beliefs and practices. One distinction was in the method by
which believers were to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. No
longer was the tarrying for the experience at the altar emphasized;
the new emphasis was on the laying on of hands which usually brought
an instantaneous baptism.2 The laying on of hands was also accom-
. panied by prophetic utterances which usually confirmed that the recip-
ient had also received a spiritual gift(s) or ministry(ies). Such prophetic
utterances were claimed by New Order believers as divinely inspired
and equal to Scripture. They called it 'The Spoken Word.'3 a name
purposely given to emphasize that this type of prophecy was distin-
guishable from the written word of the Bible. Such utterances not
only confirmed spiritual gifts and ministries but also expressed end-
time predictions and anti-denominational polemic.4
What was completely new to many in the Pentecostal movement
was the New Order's belief that God had restored the offices of apostle
and prophet to the church. A prophet was an appointed individual by
the New Order movement who had the capacity to prophecy gifts and
ministries to different people by the laying on of hands, while an apostle,
also appointed by the movement, was to instruct each gifted individual
as to the importance and operation of his gifts(s) or ministry(ies) and his
place in the body of Christ. All churches and church leaders were to
be subject to the holders of these two offices who were responsible
only to God.5
1
George and Ernest Hawtin, Church Government,Fox Printing Company of the United
States of America, n.p., p. 79.
2R. E. McAlister, "The Laying On Of Hands: To What Extent Is It Scriptural?",
Truth Advocate, (Toronto: Ontario, no. 1, vol. 1, n.d.,), pp. 12-13.
3Ibid., p. 6.
4"Stenographically Reported Data From 1949 North Battleford Camp Meeting,"
Personal Files of the Rev. E. C. Erickson, Knife River, Minnesota, pp. 1-2.
5Church Government, p. 79.
- 26-
As the New Order movement began to spread throughout the United
States and Canada, many of its teachings and practices were accepted
by some of the churches in the Fellowship of Christian Assemblies. A
division soon arose within the fellowship's ministerial ranks. In October,
1949, two opposing groups of ministers attended the fellowship's
annual convention, which met at the Philadelphia Church in Chicago.
The larger group of ministers was led by Elmer C. Erickson, who
was one of the fellowship's most influential pastors. This group argued
that the New Order movement had appeared to have started sincerely
in its doctrines and practices, but soon moved towards unscriptural
teachings and practices that they felt were divisive. They drew atten-
tion to the casual way that spiritual gifts and prophecies were given
by the laying on of hands, and particularly, to the disturbing belief
in the restoration of apostles and prophets. They felt that to recognize
the New Order's teaching respecting these two offices as biblically
valid would be to reverse many of the fellowship's past principles
on local church autonomy and church leadership. The fellowship had
always believed that all offices of leadership were to serve in local
churches and that each office was to be under the authority of the
local church. No local church was to be subject to any outside hier-
archical authority. Its authority was to be vested within itself.
They saw the elevation of the offices of apostle and prophet as
organizational hierarchy which the fellowship had opposed since its
formation. Such leadership would only infringe upon the freedom and
liberty of each local church in spreading the Pentecostal message.
They believed that if such offices were valid and restored, the proof
would be that these leaders would respect the autonomy of each local
church in evangelism and fit themselves into the local church pro-
i
gram.
The smaller group of ministers was led by Lewi Pethrus, who had
flown in from Sweden for this occasion, Andrew W. Rasmussen, who
was the fellowship's first pastor to come in contact with the New Order
revival, and Joseph Mattsson-Boze, who was the host pastor of the
convention. They disagreed with the larger group and believed that
the fellowship should accept the New Order movement. They believed
that though there might be some questionable teachings and practices
within the New Order movement, the revival still needed to be em-
braced. This view centered around Pethrus' plea to "buy the whole
lE. C. Erickson, "Our Search for New Testament Local Church Principles," (Los
Angeles: Fellowship Press, August, 1966), pp. 5-6.
27
field to get the treasure" (Matt. 13.44).l They pointed to the fact that
the New Order movement was strongly opposed to denominational
organization and recognized their principles of local church autonomy.2
The 1949 convention ended with both groups strongly opposed to
one another. By the time of the fellowship's October, 1951, annual
convention, which was held at the Immanuel Christian Assembly in Los
Angeles, a permanent rift had grown between the two groups. As the
pro-New Order group continued to support the new revival, the anti-
New Order group talked about "excommunicating" the pro-New Order
group from the fellowship.3 When the convention did convene it was
decided "by a majority of the working fellowship ... not to grant the
convention floor to the wrecking actions of Latter Rain men."4
This action consummated the split between the two groups. The pro-
New Order group decided to separate from the fellowship and organize
into another fellowship under the name Independent Assemblies of God
International. This group is presently located in San Diego, California,
under the administration of Andrew E. Rasmussen. Its official voice
is its publication Mantle. Presently there are over 1600 ministers
listed in its 1981 ministerial yearbook.
Consequently, the fellowship also lost the close relationship with
Lewi Pethrus that it had before the controversy. From the very begin-
ning many within the fellowship had hoped that Pethrus would reject
the New Order movement. They felt that his rejection of it would
have settled the then-growing controversy. Unfortunately, it was not
until four months after the 1951 division occurred that Pethrus re-
nounced the New Order movement. The fellowship was quick to print
this renunciation. This was originally published in the Swedish Pente-
costal daily newspaper Dagen entitled "Trots Alt" ("In Spite of All").
'Interview with Henry H. Jauhiainen on June 26, 1980.
2Church Government, p. 43.
3Henry H. Jauhiainen to Ern Baxter, August 18, 1953, Personal Files of Henry H.
Jauhiainen, Crystal Lake, Illinois.
4Ibid.
5"Lewi Pethrus Renounces So-Called 'Latter Rain' Revival," Herald of Pentecost,
(Rockford, Illinois: The National Publication Committee, February, 1952). pp. 2,12.
- 28-
He accused the leaders of guiding the people away from biblical truths
through "spiritual claims" that do not represent "real Christianity."1 1
A few years later a conciliatory letter was written by Pethrus to
Elmer C. Erickson dated March 15, 1956. In it Pethrus noted that he
had underestimated the dangers that the New Order movement had
carried. His exposure to the New Order movement during his previous
visits to America (during 1949-51) were too brief to conclude what its
direction might be.2 Erickson's reaction was in accord with his earlier
response to Pethrus' renunciation of the movement in 1952: "If Brother
Pethrus had taken this stand with us on his last two visits to America,
much suffering and sorrow could have been averted in our fellowship."3
In summary, it can be said that the Fellowship of Christian As-
semblies hold in common with the Pentecostal movement in Scandi- _
navia identical convictions on local church autonomy and organization.
The one person most responsible for this development was Lewi
Pethrus. Pethrus' influence, however, was restricted to the first thirty
years of the fellowship's existence. After the Latter Rain controversy,
he was no longer a principal figure in the affairs of the fellowship.
His appearances at any of its activities were very few, while his jour-
nalistic efforts in its periodical disappeared. Although his influence
was minimized after the controversy, nevertheless, Lewi Pethrus had
contributed immensely to the ecclesiastical polity of the Fellowship
of Christian Assemblies which is still based in his principles of local
church life and organization today.
1 Ibid., p. 2.
2Lewi Pethrus to E. C. Erickson, March 15, 1956, Personal Files of Henry H.
Jauhiainen, Crystal Lake, Illinois.
3"Lewi Pethrus Renounces So-Called 'Latter Rain' Revival," p.12.
- 29-
