by FREDERICK HALE

4 Norwegians) Danes) and the Origins of the Evangelical Free Tradition

IN HIS RE CENT appraisal of neglected aspects of Norwegian-American history, Kenneth O. Bjork

lamented that historians have not fully understood the Americanization of Scandinavian immigrant churches, and observed that "the part played by Methodists, Bap­tists, Unitariarts, liberals, Mormons, and others in in1mi­grant religious life has been treated only superficially." 1

Among the "others" one might well include the Evan­gelical Free Church of America. Although this heavily Scandinavian denomination numbers fewer than 100,000 members, it is one of the fastest growing in the United States. Its seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School at Deerfield, Illinois, is among the !argest in the country. It is surprising, therefore, that historians of Nordic immigration have generally ignored its roots. Theodore C. Blegen, despite his willingness to describe non-Lutheran religious movements, did not mention the Norwegian forebears of the Evangelical Free Church in his seminal Norwegian Migration to America: The American Transition. 2 George Stephenson referred cur­sorily to one of its antecedents, the Swedish Evangelical

82

THE EVANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

Free Church, in The Religious Aspect of Swedish Immi­gration,3 but naturally did not treat the parallel Dana­Norwegian body which played an equally instrumental role in the background of the present denomination. Members of the Evangelical Free Church have also failed to demonstrate much scholarly interest in its his­torical roots and development. The standard history of the denomination, a sketchy, popular book written to commemorate the seventy-fifth anniversary of its oldest antecedent, contains numerous errors but little of analyti­cal value.4

If scholars would examine more closely the forebears of the Evangelical Free Church of America, they would discover not only a colorful segment in the kaleidoscope of Scandinavian immigrant Christianity, but also a fas­cinating story of international religious influences and ecclesiastical assimilation. These early organizations were composed ofrevivalistic Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes who in the 1880s and 1890s shared the transatlan­tic expectations of the imminent Second Coming of Christ then current. In the United States, same of these immigrants founded the Swedish Evangelical Free Church in 1884, while likeminded Norwegian and Danish newcomers formed the Eastern and Western Evangelical Free Church associations in the 1890s. In 1912 the two regional bodies united as the Evangelical Free Church Association, which existed alongside the Swedish-American group until they merged at mid­century to form the present denomination. The forma­tion of the Dana-Norwegian parent, whose origins are even less well understood than those of the Swedish Evangelical Free Church, is the subject of the present essay.

More than an y other figure, Fredrik Frans on ( 1852-1908) deserves to be called the guiding force behind the Evangelical Free Church.5 This Swedish American

83

Frederick Hale

gathered man y of the congregations on both sides of the Atlantic which eventually constituted the Eastern and Western Evangelical Free Church associations as well as the analogous Mission Covenants of Norway and Den­mark. Bom on a farm in the southwestern Swedish prov­ince of Varmland, Franson emigrated to Nebraska with his family when he was a teenager. Both his mother and stepfather had been active in mid-century revivals in Sweden, and lay preachers and colporteurs frequently visited their rural home. Frans on' s own conversion, however, did not occur until he was twenty and suffered a lengthy illness. After his health returned, he joined the Baptist church in Ensteina, Nebraska, and became a lay evangelist among Nor di c immigrants in the region.

Franson's association with the eminent American re­vivalist Dwight L. Moody made a profound impact on the young Swede and, indirectly, on the Evangelical Free Church.6 When Moody in 1875 returned from his twa-year evangelistic tour of the British Isles - a crusade which made his name a household word in Scandinavia and the United States as well as in Britain - Franson moved to Chicago and joined his new Chicago Avenue Church. During four years of lay work, among that congregation' s polyglot members and other Scandinavians in the Windy City, he became proficient in American revival methods, adopting nearly all of Moody's proven techniques. He conducted awakenings in any edifice that would accommodate him, and ad­dressed his hearers as sinners whose salvation depended on their immediate acceptance of Christ. Whenever pos­sible, Franson supplemented his preaching with the songs of a gospel singer, just as Moody had co-operated with Ira D. Sankey. Finally, like Moody, he organized Bi ble courses to continue the fruits of his revivals.

Franson also became a millenarian in Chicago. Expec­tations of Christ' s Second Advent had waxed and waned

84

--- - ----------------

THE EVANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

since apostolic times, but apocalyptic fervor enjoyed a recrudescence during the nineteenth century.7 Chris­tians who awaited the return of the Son of God debated vigorously such matters as the sequence of apocalyptic events and to what extent, if any, historical phenomena fulfilled Biblical prophecies. But most millenarians agreed that the Second Coming was imminent.

The particular interpretation of Christ' s return that Franson adopted and that became normative in the Evangelical Free Church was developed by an Irish Protestant, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). This mil­lenarian, who founded the small Plymouth Brethren sect, added a number of designs to the apocalyptic con­sensus. He foresaw both second and third comings. The earlier, which Darby believed would precede the time of troubles, or "tribulation," mentioned in several New Testament passages, he called the "secret rapture." It would be perceptible only to the true Christians, both living and dead, who would be united with Christ and protected from the tribulation. This rapture could occur at any time, Darby felt, a belief which added a sense of immediacy to his message. The prophecies relating to non-Christians, such as the binding of Satan and the Bat­tle of Armageddon, would occur later. Christ would come a third time and conclude the history of the world. Furthermore, Darby believed that no denomination could encompass all of the present and past Christians who would be caught up in the secret rapture; hence, he believed that the true church was a spiritual entity, not a physically perceptible structure. Finally, like many other nineteenth-century millenarians and nonmillenar­ians, Darby divided the history of the world into a series of eras, or "dispensations." 8

Probably because of the influence and popularity of Moody, Franson accepted most of Darby's eschatology. The Irish millenarian co-operated with the noted Ameri-

85

Frederick Hale

can revivalist during his visits to Chicago, and Moody gradually became a full-fledged Darbyite millenarian. James F. Findlay has concluded that "it is entirely pos­sible that Moody came under Darby' s direct influence in 1868, and certainly no later than 1872." 9 From the 1870s until his death in 1899, Moody frequently preached on the Second Advent and, beginning in 1880, held annual conferences in Northfield, Massachusetts, which many leading British and American millenarians attended and frequently dominated.10 Moreover, William J. Erdman, a prominent Presbyterian millenarian, preached at Moody's Chicago Avenue Church from 1875 to 1878, while Franson also worked there. It seems plausible that the young Swede became a Darbyite during those years.

In any event, Franson proceeded to Minnesota in 1879, where, equipped with Moody's methods of win­ning converts, he worked briefly as a millenarian reviv­alist. Franson then departed for the lion's den of Utah, where he spent most of 1879 and 1880 trying to recon­vert Scandinavians who had thrown in their lot with the Latter-day Saints. Upon returning to Illinois, he began a short period of fruitful co-operation with another Dar­byite, John G. Princell. Princell, himself a Swedish im­migrant and a former pastor in the Augustana Synod, the' largest Swedish-American Lutheran body, founded in 1884 the Swedish Evangelical Free Church.11 The two immigrants continued the British and American tradition of prophetic conferences when they staged a "non­sectarian convention" in Chicago in April, 1881, to dis­cuss questions pertaining to the Second Advent,12

Shortly after this conference, Franson left for Scan­dinavia, where he spent several years proclaiming the imminent Second Coming in controversial revival meet­ings which often surpassed Moody's awakenings in commotion and the intensity of his personal appeals to those in attendance. Franson's evangelistic activities in

86

THE EVANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

his homeland, which brought him into frequent conflict with the ecclesiastical and civil authorities who re­garded him as a threat to the established Lutheran order, need not concern us. In January, 1883, however, he ar­rived in Kristiania (until 1624 and since 1925 called Oslo) to conduct revivals among certain Norwegian free-church congregations. During a year and a half of evangelistic work in Norway, Franson made a profound impact on many of the scattered Protestant nonconfor­mists who, heeding his prompting, organized in 1884 the Norwegian Mission Covenant. 13

The dissenters who invited Franson to Norway traced their spiritual roots to the separatist revival that Gustav Adolph Lammers led in Skien during the 1850s. In the wake of Søren Kierkegaard' s virulent attacks on the es­tablished Lutheran clergy, Lammers, many of his parishioners, and dissatisfied Christians elsewhere in Norway had severed their ties with the state church and organized independent congregations. Lammers even­tually re-entered the established church, but many of his followers remained aloof, and more than thirty "Free Apostolic" congregations continued to function on a free-church basis. They sought to consolidate their work through a series of national conferences in 1863, 1870, 1874, 1877, and 1882. These meetings, which were structural roots of the Norwegian Miss ion Covenant, confirmed the autonomy of the local bodies but united them in a loose confederation headed by a steering committee. Bernhard Falck, a southern Norwegian teacher and merchant, emerged as a leader in the sporadic conventions that gave the scattered congrega­tions a limited measure of cohesion during these early years. Little was accomplished, however, until Franson arrived in 1883.

Frans on' s Ame ri can re vi val techniques breathed new life into these Norwegian free churches. The peripatetic

87

Frederick Hale

Swede traveled as far south as Arendal and north to Tromsø, leading awakenings in sanctuaries of several denominations, including, on occasion, prayer chapels of the state church. He als o recommended house visits as a means of supplementing revivals. This, toa, was an evangelistic method taken from Moody. "A few years aga, when Moody and Sankey conducted awakenings for three months in Chicago," Franson wrote, "every home in this metropolis with its 500,000 inhabitants was vis­ited." He urged that this effort be emulated in Norway. With a note of urgency, he reminded his followers that "the sinner is dear, the time is costly and short, and the work to be done is spread over the whole world." 14 To as sure that the re would be a sufficient supply of millenar­ian preachers in Norway, Franson designed and led short Bible courses. He held the first one in Kristiania-for sixty Norwegians and Swedes in 1884. Franson de­scribed the backbone of the course as the "study of 100 to 200 of the simplest and most practical Bible texts, which can be best used as revivalistic arrows against those who are dead in sin and against backsliding." 15

Franson continually encountered stiff opposition from the state church during his year and a half in Norway and after he left that country. Hostile observers described him as an ecstatic and unstable intruder who showed no respect for traditional Norwegian forms of worship. The y also depicted his revivals as chaotic assemblies where those in attendance were compelled against their will to participate in rowdy procedures. Spearheading the at­tack, the editor of the conservative journal Luthersk Kir­ketidende declared that the meetings had "considerably more in common with Franson's spirit than God's spirit." He charged, further, that the Swedish-American evangelist relied on theatrics because he "does not pos­sess real talent as a preacher, nor is a serious, thorough, and comprehensive proclamation of God's Word his

88

THE EV ANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

concern, His method, his procedure - if that is re­moved, Frans on is nothing." 16

The same editor quoted approvingly a bitter article in the Methodist organ, Kristelige Tidende, which lamented that the revivalist had not emulated his teacher's ecumenism. "When Franson came to Norway it was said that in his activities he would follow Moody's example," the Methodist newspaper reported. But "it was not lang befare he began to form mission societies with the goal of gathering all of the converts into a new kind of church with its own polity and activities." 17

Franson was compelled to ward off such charges of sec­tarianism throughout his lang stay in Scandinavia.

In the summer of 1884, shortly befare the Norwegian Mission Covenant was officially constituted, Franson departed for Denmark, where he spent approximately six months attempting to awaken Danes with his mil­lenarian message. Estimates of his success vary, but even his sympathetic Danish biographer agrees that he made few conversions.18 Hampered by legal difficulties and state-church hostility, Franson was deported befare he and his followers could give their evangelism the kind of structure needed to assure its continuation. Nevertheless, Frans on and his associates, same of whom were Norwegians and Swedes who remained in Den­mark, paved the way for the Danish Mission Covenant, which was organized in 1888. Consequently, his brief stay in Denmark merits examination.

To a sn'lall degree, the remnants of a separatist revival movement of the 1850s in Denmark, related to that which Gustav Adolph Lammers led in Skien and other Norwegian communities, supplied a basis for Franson's evangelism there. Mogens Abraham Sommer, a Jewish teacher who had converted to Christianity, gathered several small congregations in Jutland and a larger one in Copenhagen during the mid-1850s but, like Lammers

89

Frederick Hale

who ordained him, soon abandoned the movement which he had fostered. Same of the "Free Apostolic Churches in Denmark" dissolved, while others con­tinued to function for several decades. The historian of the Danish Mission Covenant has asserted that "many" of Sommer' s followers affiliated with the denomination when it was organized in places where the Danish J ew had led awakenings. 19 The absence of detailed records of the se loosely structured congregations, however, pre­el u des any systematic analysis of the historical link be­tween Sommer's revivals and those of Franson in Den­mark.

It is known, however, that Franson conducted awak­enings in nonconformist ch urches of several denomina­tions in Copenhagen and other Danish communities, and that his preaching again incurred the wrath of the Lutheran clergy. Vilhelm Beck, a nationalist Lutheran zealot who headed the Danish Inner Mission and re­sented all foreign and sectarian intrusions into his coun­try' s religious life, personally led the attack.20 He ac­cused the Swede of posing as a Lutheran to win the confidence of Danish state-church members. "Which church Franson belongs to is not knbwn," Beck wrote; "the Methodists refuse to co-operate with him, but he uses the American Methodist type of preaching while wanting to give the impression that he belongs to the Lutheran state church or accepts [its] teachings." He or­dered pastors in the Inn er Miss ion not to co-opera te with this Swedish "nuisance." 21

One of Beck's colleagues, Peter Krag of Copenhagen, questioned the sincerity of the conversions which Fran­s on had ostensibly effected. "It is certainly that way at a paper factory, where one can see a soiled cloth go into one end of the machinery and come out at the other end clean white paper," he commented. "But whether an ungodly man can go into a meeting hall one evening and

90

THE EVANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

emerge a few hours later a saved person, who has found rest in God because of faith in the forgi ving of sins, ought to be doubted seriously." 22

The attacks on Franson's revivals, designed to hinder the proliferation of religious dissent in Denmark, were counterproductive. Franson had hoped to co-operate with Danish churclunen, but as Emil Larsen has pointed out, their rejection forced him to work with independent groups and organize mission societies to proclaim the millenarian doctrines that the state church' s pastors sel­dom preached.23 These local bodies did not coalesce to form the Danish Mission Covenant until 1888. Nevertheless, Franson's influence on the larger organi­zation is unmistakable. It embodied and preserved the Anglo-American revival rnethods which state church­men disliked, and it added another facet to the reli­gious pluralism which they feared.

Millenarianism was a second characteristic that both the Norwegian and Danish Mission covenants inherited from Franson and the tradition of Dwight Moody. In­deed, even before the former body was officially consti­tuted, the journal which became its organ, Morgenrøden (The Dawn), devoted much of its first issue to one of Moody's sermons on Christ's Second Coming. Moody had assured his audience that it was "completely safe to take God's Word just as we find it," and quoted exten­sively from Revelation as well as from the New Testa­ment epistles to stress the imminence of the Second Ad­vent and to describe the secret rapture of the saints. "There will be a short period between his meeting the saints in the sky and his arrival with all his saints to exercise judgment over the ungodly, to bind Satan for a thousand years and erect a thousand-year reign of power and majesty." 24 These Darbyite words echoed the mes­sage that Franson had brought to Norway only a few months before.

91

Frederick Hale

The editor of Morgem·øden, who stated that ane of his central purposes was to propagate "the great and sig­nificant truth of the Lord' s return," 25 printed man y of Franson's shorter millenarian works, aften as serials. One series, for instance, taken from Frans on' s lectures in a workers' auditorium in Kristiania, began with a discus­sion of the Darbyite nation that Christ could return at "any moment." "There has not been a single da y or hour since the days of the apostles, when the remarkable oc­currence which is discussed in I Corinthians 15:51 and I Thessalonians 4:15-18 or the resurrection of the justified and tl1e transformation of the li ving believers could not have occurred," Franson declared. "The bride must not wait for a sign, but for the bridegroom." 26

The leaders of the Danish Miss ion Covenant also gen­erally adhered to tl1e Darbyite position. "We have rea­son to shout 'Alas!' a thousand times at tl1ose who have no desire to come along and meet Him in the sky," stated their newspaper, Morgenstjernen (The Morning Star). 27

This journal repeatedly stressed the imminence of Christ' s re turn: "The gre at communion of the Lord' s wedding will soon be held," it announced; "there is still ramn for many guests." 28 One Darbyite writer warned that those "who do not come along will find it hard to' live on earth during this gre at, great tribulation." 29 More frequently tl1an its Norwegian counterpart, the Danish Miss ion Covenant warned its members that participation in worldly pleasures might prevent them from sharing the glory of Christ' s re turn. In o ne typical jeremiad, a preacher asked his congregation: "Do you want Jesus at an entertainment place? At the club, the theater, or a masquerade ball?" He warned that Christ would judge those whose ways had "led down to the boggy swamp of drunkenness and immorality, from which hell is the only exit." a o

Although Darbyism became the normative eschatol-

92

THE EV ANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

ogy of the Danish and Norwegian Mission covenants, other forms of millenarianism also made n:linor inroads during the 1880s and 1890s. Anwng these was a school known as "historicist millenarianism." In contrast to the Darbyite position, historicists believed that the proph­ecies of the Old and New Testaments were already be ing fulfilled, and they consequently interpreted such phenomena as Zionism and the rise of Louis Napoleon as signs of the imminent Second Advent. So many types of eschatology came from the United States and Great Britain to Scandinavia after 1880 that few could sort out the aften contradictory messages associated with them.31

Even Franson was ten1porarily confused. Although he remained a Darbyite, he briefly recognized the "year­day" theory usually associated with the historicists. Ac­cm·ding to this understanding of prophecy, "day" should be construed as "year" in Biblical passages referring to Christ's return. Franson stated in 1884 that "the 1260 prophetic days or 1260 years" of papal power had ended and that therefore the events relating to the Second Ad­vent were already unfolding. 32

The evangelist soon abandoned this argument, how­ever, because he regarded the year-day theory as a viola­tion of the literalist Biblical hermeneutics which he es­poused. But during the first few years of Frans on' s reviv­alistic work in Scandinavia, he eclectically reproduced almost any shred of evidence that seemed to point to Christ' s in:m1inent return. Morgenrøden carried his favorable comments about astronomical speculation in this regard. "It is a noteworthy fact which the astronom­ers mention, that the star of Bethlehem, or the same star visible at Jesus' birth and which emnes into view from our earth every 315th year, will again appear in the year 1887." 33

The prediction of the influential English historicist Michael Baxter, that Jesus would return in March, 1896,

93

Frederick Hale

and that the great tribulation would begin shortly thereafter, also found some acceptance in the Mission covenants. J. Madsen, ·chairman of the Danish body, translated Baxter's "prophetic calendar" for 1890-1901 into Danish and published it in Morgenstjernen.34 In response to the objections of some readers, the editor disavowed any firm commitment to the apocalyptic chronology, but did not explicitly disown historicist mil­lenarianism. He regretted, however, that the Eng­lishman had set a date, because "we believe it best to emulate those who expect our Lord and Master every day." 35 The Danish Miss ion Covenant apparently lost interest in Baxter' s prognostications by the turn of the century, perhaps because his prediction of a French conquest of Germany in the 1890s failed to materialize.

As Ernest Sandeen has pointed out, a literalist in­terpretation of the Bible was a conditio sine qua non for nineteenth-century millenarianism. Inheriting a view of the Scriptures which antedated most modem Biblical criticism, "the millenarians assumed that divine inspira­tion had so controlled the writing of the Bible that the resultant text was free of error or fallibility and that this freedom guaranteed them a divine, not a human source of truth - an immediate and not a mediated revela­tion." 36

Franson's view of Scripture, which he instilled in the Mission covenants of Norway and Denmark, fit this mold. His eschatology was rooted in thoroughly literalist hermeneutics, a rule which he sometimes accused other millenarians of violating. In his treatise on the Anti­christ, for example, he challenged the historicists' iden­tification of the papacy with this archenemy of Christ. "In Revelation 13:18 he is called a 'person,'" Frans on pointed out. "If the Antichrist is a person, then this ex­pression cannot refer to the papacy, for that is not a per­son." He also denied explicitly that "God's temple,'' in

94

THE EV ANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

which the Antichrist would place himself, meant a church. "What is meant by 'God's temple?' Answer: Just what it says .... To call Christians' meeting places temples is completely foreign to the Bible. Nor is this any figurative language ... and there is not the slightest hint of allegory." 37

Franson stressed repeatedly that the Bible alone should be the foundation of Christian doctrine and dis­cipline,38 a position that the Mission covenants always sought to follow. Biblical faith had lang been a charac­teristic of free-church movements as well as lay move­ments in Scandinavia. But Franson's heavy reliance on the Scriptures reinforced this trait, as was true of his preoccupation with eschatology. The close relationship of the Covenants to Frans on tied them to the transatlan­tic community of Biblical millenarians during the last years of the nineteenth century, when many traditional views of the Scriptures were under fire. Botl1 of these twin denominations firmly resisted the progress which radical Biblical scholarship was making in Scandinavia. As neither body had a theologian of any stature, they were compelled to turn to conservative arguments writ­ten by like-minded foreigners, particularly Franson, Moody, and the renowned London evangelist, Charles Spurgeon.

The organ of the Danish Miss ion Covenant, for exam­ple, quoted at length Moody' s state ment that the Bi ble' s inexplicable passages were proof ofits divine origins. "I am glad there are heights in the book that I haven't been able to climb," he proclaimed; "I am glad tl1ere are depths whose bottom I haven't been able to reach. This is the best proof that the book came from God." In the same article, Morgenstjernen printed his advice that "the best way to convert a nonbeliever is to show him the fulfilled prophecies ." 39 Borrowing this intransigent stance against the so-called "high er criticism" of the Bi-

95

Frederick Hale

ble, which tended to view the Scriptures as being in part products of the cultures. from which they emerged, the Covenants placed themselves squarely in the camp of what is now widely known as "evangelical" Protes­tantism. Both denominations have maintained their commitment to Biblical literalism right down to the present.

Franson's concept of the church was the fourth major element of his legacy which the Norwegian and Danish Mission covenants inherited. His ecclesiology revealed the influence of both Darby and Moody. To the former, the church was the invisible company of saints whom Christ would take up in the secret rapture. The visible churches of the world played no positive role in his theology. Franson accepted this nation of the church as an eschatological community whose members were aften unknown to one another. But his understanding of this idea was tempered by the practicality that he gained from Moody. As the American evangelist's biographer has observed: "In a strict sense he did not possess a doctrine of the church .... Rather, he simply paid little attention to it in a formal way, for his concern was to achieve conversions and to work with individual believ­ers ." 40

The same also seems true of Franson. Like his Chicago mentor, he was prepared to co-operate with any church - including that of Rome- and to hold revivals in any available sanctuary. His purpose, however, was to gather sinners into the spiritual church which antici­pated the secret rapture. He initially advised converts in Norway not to secede from the established church. Rather, those "who cannot [conscientiously] commune with the unregenerate" should "let them, if they think fit, exclude you." He maintained that "the dissenters in Norway have committed an error by seceding from the state church. It would have been better if they had all

96

THE EVANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

stayed there, even if same had been imprisoned like Hans Nielsen Hauge." Christians hamper evangeliza­tion when they leave the established church, "for the moment they do that, they lose their influence on the state church' s members ." 41

Franson's ecclesiology, which evolved during his stay in Norway, directly shaped the Norwegian Mission Covenant. To this revivalist, the inclusive state church meant little. The independent congregations, or "mis­sion societies," which he helped gather, were the visible manifestation of Christ's true church in Norway. Frans on suggested modelling them after the Swedish Mission Covenant.42 The Swedish mission societies, he re­marked, did not allow nonessential matters to prevent varians kinds of converts from uniting. Swedish Cove­nanters, he related, were tired of being told by same denominations that "you cannot be one of us because our confessions and statutes forbid us to acct?pt those who do not believe this and that regarding baptism, communion, the state church, Luther, and so on." He added, however, that the Swedes were "very particular about not allowing anyone who did not have life in God to become a member." 43

The Norwegian Mission Covenant adopted the se principles at its organizing convention in 1884. Accord­ing to its third rule, admission of either societies or con­gregations to the Covenant could occur "without regard to varying perceptions of those things which are less important for salvation [and] which do not conflict with life in God." 44 The Covenant's constitution did not specify these adiaphora, which Franson seems to have construed to include nearly all religions matters save Darbyite millenarianism and Biblical literalism. Given his key role in its founding, however, they almost cer­tainly included the sacraments and membership in the established church, for these two matters have never de-

97

Frederick Hale

termined membership in either the Norwegian or the Danish Mission Covenant. To millenarians, they are of little importance compared to the urgent task of pro­claiming Christ's imminent return. Even the form of baptism, crucial in many free churches, is a matter of considerable personal freedom in these two denomina­tions.

The Danish Mission Covenant adopted similar views. Like its Norwegian counterpart, it was initially a very loose confederation of the independent mission societies which Franson and his associates had helped organize, and not all of these approved the forma ti on of a closer union. The reasons for their opposition are not recorded. In any case, only five societies sent repre­sentatives to the organizational meeting in Ålborg in 1888, and the new denomination initially numbered only 695 members.45 Although documents for its early years are sparse, it seems clear that the body followed Frans on' s guidance along a path similar to that of the Norwegian Miss ion Covenant. His fri end, F. Joh ans on, came to Denmark in 1884; shortly after Franson was ex­pelled, J ohanson sent to Copenhagen another Swedish revivalist, Carl Wiktor Gillim.46

The handful of la y evangelists who form ed the Danish Mission Covenant expressed the wish "that all partisan walls, which the devil has built, may fall" and that all true Christians could unite.47 Jens Jensen-Maar, a fisherman who emne into contact with Gillen in the mid-1880s and later served as the Covenant's chairman, expressed a view of the church which characterized Covenant ecclesiology throughout Scandinavia. "The church which apens its doors to unconverted people cannot be God's church, but neither can one which excludes any of them whom God has accepted as his children." He added that "any congregation which con­sists of truly faithful and broad-minded people can be-

98

THE EV ANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

come a member of this Covenant, regardless of its views on sacramental questions and minor matters." 48

The revivalism and renewed interest in mil­lenarianism which led to the formation of the Mission Covenants in Norway and Denmark influenced Scandinavian-American Christians as well. In the 1880s severallay evangelists who had be en active in Frans on' s crusades in northern Europe emigrated to the United States, while other Nordic immigrants came into contact with Darbyite eschatology through the proclamations of John Prince li and his associates, who founded the Swedish Evangelical Free Church in 1884. Severin Did­riksen, for example, who had worked with Franson in Norway and preached at Bethlehem Church in Kristiania during the early 1880s, left his homeland soon after the Norwegian Mission Covenant was founded to join his older brother in Boston. Ludvig Ellingsen, a young Norwegian vocalist who also had co-operate& with the Swedish evangelist, followed shortly thereafter and in the late 1880s took pastorates in Boston and Providence. N. P. Lang, a Dane who had been associated with Moody' s church in Chicago from 1864 until he re turn ed to Denmark in 1882, went back to that city two years later; there he resumed his career as a revivalist.

These men quickly generated among other Scandina­vian newcomers the same kind of religious movement they had been involved in in Europe. In a letter to M'is­sionæren, the organ of the Norwegian Mission Cove­nant, Ellingsen described his evangelism among Swedes and Norwegians in Rhode Island in 1890. "We have had blessed meetings here and there," he re­marked. "In one place God saved more than 20 children from 12 to 20 years of age, mostly boys." 49 Lang repmted that he had spent seven months in 1889 and 1890 travel­ing "over 2,000 miles in 3 states, holding revivals nearly every evening and often 3 times on Sunday." He had

99

Frederick Hale

also made "countless home visits in all of the com­munities which I have visited [and] where Scandina­vians live." Lang had preached in the forests of Wiscon­sin' s Do or Peninsula as well as in the cavernous Swedish Tabernacle in Minneapolis, where he worked briefly with Franson.50

As in Norway and Denmark, millenarianism furnished much of the impetus for this immigrant revivalism. Cor­respondence from the 1880s reveals that even in rural Midwestern settlements many Scandinavian newcomers shared the transatlantic eschatological community. Writ­ing from Alta, Iowa, in 1884, Christian Corneliussen dis­closed tl1at Darbyite millenarianism dominated his view of the world' s destiny. "The times are bad," he wrote the Norwegian Mission Covenant, "but the Lord will come soon to fetch His own and protect them in His abode until the tribulation is over." Corneliussen had been in the New World for at least a decade and appears to have been unaware that a series of millenarian waves had ar­ri ved in Norway since his departure. During his youth, he complained, "tl1is glorious hope had been lost or buried in form Christianity and explained away .... I never heard a word or received a writing by any pastor or teacher about tl1is matter." 51 Meanwhile, in Rhode Is­land Ellingsen, like Frans on, pointed to signs of Christ' s imminent return, as did the Dane J. C. J. Klim in Iowa. 5 2

The congregations that men like Ellingsen and Did­riksen gathered remained relatively isolated for several years. They did not have a newspaper until American Congregationalists, from whom they began to receive educational and financial assistance in the mid-1880s, first published one for them in 1890. Shortly tl1ereafter, members of that Yankee denomination assisted them in forming the Eastern and Western Evangelical Free Church associations, their first inclusive organizations. This initial lack of structure, and their millenarianism

100

THE EV ANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

which seems to have discouraged preservation of church records, make it difficult to examine the origins of the earliest congregations. Consequently, the historian is aften forced to rely on contemporary observations by na­tive Americans.

One Congregationalist described the genesis of a Danish free church in New Haven, Connecticut. In 1882 a group of about fifteen Danes li ving there began to hold occasional meetings. They arranged for a Lutheran pas­tor to vis it them monthly, but his inclusive concept of the church clashed with their ideal of a congregation com­p os ed exclusively of born-again Christians. A la y member of the group, a watchmaker named L. C. H. Haubroe, then assumed the pastoral duties. His ministry apparently sparked the little congregation, which began to hold several meetings each week. Haubroe began to preach in Bridgeport, Hartford, and otl1er neighboring communities. He claimed to draw approximately one third of New Haven's Danes and half of those in Bridgeport to his worship services, but admitted that at­tendance in Hmtford was much lower. "Only a few are yet converted there." 53

In Boston, David Didriksen and Olai Johansen were the prime movers in founding a Norwegian free congre­gation. They first attended a Norwegian Lutheran church in that city, but were disenchanted with the fail­ure of its pastor to stress the need for conversion. When Didriksen's brother, Severin, emigrated to Boston, the three began to hold meetings in a Congregationalist church in Roxbury. The small congregation also soon encompassed several Swedish Americans. 54

The Scandinavian Evangelical Church of Tacoma, Washington, was als o a product oflay initiative. In 1884, sixteen Norwegian Americans in that harbor city began to worship together in a private home. They called as their pastor L. P. Paulson, a Norwegian Lutheran. The

101

Frederick Hale

congregation soon affiliated with the Washington Con­gregationalist General Association. Lack of funds almost forced the group to dis band, but a grant of $500 from the American Congregational Union allowed it to build a chapel and call a pastor.55 In 1890 Paulson claimed that there were "many small brother congregations in the area." 56

These scattered Danish and Norwegian congrega­tions, which probably did not number more than two dozen befare the 1890s, emulated their counterparts in Scandinavia in striving to rise above sectarianism. Like Franson and Princell, they had little use for denomina­tions and professed to abhor sectarian bickering. A Danish immigrant churchman complained that in the United States "orre says: 'I am a Lutheran,' the other: 'Methodist' or 'Baptist' and so on." 57 Orre of his coun­trymen in Iowa lamented to the editor of the Danish Mission Covenant' s newspaper that whenever he spake about Christ, he was immediately asked, "What de­nomination do you be lang to? What is the name of the church, the society of Christians, to which you belong?" When he answered "'I belong to the same orre as Paul, Peter, James, and John,"' his inquirer expressed "doubt, astonishment, and scorn, as though such an answer were orre of the stupidest which a person could gi ve." 58

In line with their opposition to denominational zealotry, these immigrant preachers changed their affiliation from orre communion to another with surpris­ing frequency. John Hanson Meyer, for example, studied at the Baptists' Morgan Park Theological Seminary in Chicago befare his ordination at the Bridgeport Scan­dinavian Mission in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He sub­sequently organized Norwegian Congregationalist churches in Jersey City and Hoboken and held several Lutheran pastorates. 59 Another Norwegian immigrant, L. P. Paulson, was ordained a Lutheran pastor befare

102

THE EVANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

taking the pulpit of the Scandinavian Evangelical Church ofTacoma. In the 1890s he served a Norwegian Presbyte­rian congregation in Minneapolis.60

Millenarianism, the chief stimulant of the revivals that led to formation of the Norwegian and Danish Mission covenants as well as the antecedents of the Evangelical Free Church, became a chief characteristic of the latter from their inception in the 1880s. It was thus an element of continuity between the European and American wings of this transatlantic tradition. During the 1890s few of the Congregationalists who helped support the Eastern and Western Evangelical Free Church associa­tions accepted the eschatology which was normative in them. Rather than awaiting the return of Christ and the end of his tory, most prominent Congregationalists of the Gilded Age optimistically perceived progress in the his­tory of the world in general and the United States in particular.

Even Reinert Jernberg, a Norwegian-American Con­gregationalist minister who trained clergymen for the Free Church associations at the Congregationalists' Chicago Theological Seminary, accepted the myth of progress. As editor of Evangelisten, the unofficial organ of the associations, he gave those two regional bodies a much less millenarian image than they deserved. Rather than continually urging his fellow N ordic immigrants to await the Second Advent, Jernberg pleaded with them to co-operate more closely with Congregationalists to pre­serve traditional, Protestant America from the rising tide of southern and eastern European newcomers.61

In spite of their teacher' s indifference to mil­lenarianism, however, the Norwegian and Danish immi­grants whom he educated remained eschatologically oriented. Meeting at Wesley, Iowa, in 1894, the Western Evangelical Free Church Association discussed vigor­ously the question "How shall we understand the doc-

103

Frederick Hale

trine of Christ' s Second Cmning and the thousand-year reign?" Hans Josephsen, a Norwegian who had co­operated in gathering the Norwegian Lutheran Free Church of Milwaukee in 1887 and had graduated from Chicago Theological Seminary a few months befare the 1894 convention, moderated the discussion. He stressed three points which, he believed, were matters of consen­sus among Scandinavian free-church immigrants and therefore should be discussed by the Association. First, among apostolic Christians "the hope of the Lord' s rapid return ignited their love and enthusiasm for the Lord and the advancement of His Kingdom." Second, "the Lord' s re turn has be come a very popular matter in o ur time and because of this ought to be considered." Fi­nally, "the doctrine of Christ' s re turn and the thousand­year reign has been falsely presented and thus per­verted, so that, to many, such a teaching suggests a pic­ture of terror, while to others it seems to be nothing more than fanaticism."

The other ministers who participated in the discussion shared these observations and added same of their own. One then1e that ran consistently through their comments was joy over the anticipated return of Christ. These ministers were apocalypticists, but their millenarianism precipitated neither fatalism nor despair. Charles J. Jen­sen (1873-1940), an immigrant carpenter who conducted a lay ministry in northern Wisconsin, addressed himself to a common misperception about their eschatology. "Marry believe that when Christ comes, the whole world will collapse," he observed. To Jensen this was an un­christian fear, because witl1 the Second Advent "a glori­ous time will begin for God's people, while the ungodly will meet their judgment."

Charles Nelson, a young Evangelical Free Church clergyman who later served Lutheran free congregations in Wisconsin and Illinois, agreed wholeheartedly, re-

104

THE EVANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

marking that "talk of the Lord' s re turn is the finest music to my ears ." Nelson concurred with J osephsen that the Bible should be the only source of millenarian doctrines, as did Niels Julius Bing, an equally young immigrant. This Dane, who served briefly as minister of the Scan­dinavian Congregational Church of Britt, Iowa, before joining the ministerium of the United Danish Lutheran Church, combined millenarianism and Lutheran eucharistic theology. For a reason that he did not ex­plain, belief in "the blessing and greatness that the Lord himself will come" reminded Bing "of the Lord's pres-

. . "' ence 1n con11nun1on. Some of the clergymen who attended this conference

agreed with Josephsen that recent interest in mil­lenarianism meant the recovery of a long-ignored Chris­tian teaching. K. Knudsen observed, perhaps a bit anach­ronistically, that "it is seldom that such a topic is taken up for discussion." Bing echoed this belief, blaming the rigidity of the Old-World churches for neglecting the doctrine of the Second Coming. "I am glad the brethren here expect the Lord soon," he told his colleagues, "and that the old dogmas of the state church no longer blind the people." 62

Kenneth Bjork has noted that the few studies of the assimilation of Norwegian immigrant churches that have been undertaken have been too narrow in scope. "Dis­cussions of the subject of 'Americanization' have focused on language," he wrote, "but the congregation of today was already largely formed while Norwegian was still the language of the pulpit." 63 This brief look at the ori­gins of the Dana-Norwegian antecedent ofthe Evangeli­cal Free Church confirms Bjork' s observation. At l east two decades before English became the predominant language of these immigrants, the lineaments of the present denomination's faith had clem·ly been drawn. These included Anglo-American revivalism of the

105

Frederick Hale

Moody tradition, resistance to liberal Biblical schol­arship, belief in the imminent Second Advent of Christ as interpreted by John Nelson Darby, and a denigration of various adiaphora which have divided Protestants since the Reformation.

But this study also suggests that the process of Americanization was not simply a matter of immigrants adapting to the religious atmosphere of the United States, either befare or after they began to preach and worship in English. Men like Ludvig Ellingsen and Severin Didriksen displayed the characteristics which became normative in the Evangelical Free Church be­fore they left Norway, as did their nonemigrating coun­trymen in the Norwegian Mission Covenant and Danes in the Danish Miss ion Covenant. Rather than thinking in terms of the Americanization of N ordic immigrant churches, historians would do well to place such com­munions as the Evangelical Free, whose theological and religious roots lay chiefly in the United States and Great Britain, into the context of transatlantic Protestantism. Both befare and after Scandinavian-American Christians adopted English, many participated in this international community, in which ideas and practices shuttled from shore to shore with surprising rap~dity.

NOTES 1 OddS. Lovoll and Kenneth O. Bjork, The Norwegian-American Historical

Association, 1925-1975, 66 (Northfield, 1975). 2 Theodore C. Blegen, Norwegian Migration to America: The American

Transition (Northfield, 1940). 3 George Stephenson, The Religious Aspects of Swedish Immigration,

287-291 (Minneapolis, 1932). 4 H. Wilbert Norton et al., The Diamond]ubilee Story (Minneapolis, 1959).

See also Hugo w: Norton, "The Contribution of the Evangelical Free Church of America to Foreign Missions," an unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1955.

5 No dispassionate account of Franson's life and evangelistic activities exists. He deserves better treatment from historians than his laudatory follow­ers and vilifying enemies - particularly the Lutheran clergy in Scandinavia - afforded him during his lifetime and after his death. The best account is Josephine Princell's eulogistic Fransons lif och verksamhet (Chicago, 1909).

106

THE EV ANGELICAL FREE TRADITION

For Franson's revivals in Norway, see John Christensen, Verdensmisjonæren Fredrik Franson (Oslo, 1927).

6 The best study ofMoody is James F. Findlay, Dwight L. Moody: American Evangelist, 1837-1899 (Chicago, 1969). Findlay, however, does not mention Moody's association with Franson.

7 Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago, 1970) is an excellent study of the vari­ous types of Christian apocalypticism which developed during the nineteenth century.

8 Sandeen, Roots of Fundamentalism, Chapter 3. 9 Findlay, Dwight L. Moody, 251. 10 Sandeen, Roots of Fundamentalism, 174-176. 11 No satisfactory study of the controversial Princell exists. The most reveal­

ing source is his memoirs, which his wife edited shortly after his death. See Josephine Princell, ed.,]. G. Princells levnadsminnen (Chicago, 1916).

12 The proceedings of this millenarian convention were published serially in 1881 in Chicago-Bladet, a newspaper which later served as the unofficial organ ofPrincell's Swedish Evangelical Free Church. An edited version was subsequently published as a book in Sweden; see Fredrik Frans on, ed., Utfor­ligt referat ofwer forhandlingama wid denforde profeti ska iimnenas studier afsedda konferensen i Chicago (Kristinehamn, 1882).

13 The best historical treatment of the Norwegian Mission Covenant is In­gulf Diesen, Det norske misjonsforbunds historie (Oslo, 1973). See also Diesen's Fem foredrag om det norske misjonsforbund (Oslo, 1975).

14 Morgenrøden, April 15, 1884. 15 Leif Eeg-Olofsson, O ile i kroken: Olaf Olafs son, fork u nnare och frikyr­

kooriginal, 30 (Stockholm, 1957). 16 Luthersk Kirketidende, May 23, 1885. Moody's revivals were also se­

verely criticized in other countries, particularly in Great Britain, by more h·aditional churchmen who disliked his "indifference to forms"; see Findlay, Dwight L. Moody, 145, 157.

17 Luthersk Kirketidende, March 22, 1884. 18 Emil Larsen, Historiske studier over kirkelige og frikirkelige brydninger,

86 (Copenhagen, 1965). 1 9 Emil Larsen, "Det danske missionsforbunds forhistorie," in Helge Ras­

mussen, ed., En dansk vækkelsesbevægelse, 22 (Copenhagen, 1963). 20 Vilhelm Beck commented at length on his campaign against ecclesiastical

pluralism in Denmark in his Memoirs (Philadelphia, 1965). 21 Den Indre Missions Tidende, March 8, 1885. 22 Den Indre Missions Tidende, March 14, 1885. 23 Larsen, Historiske studier, 130. 24 Morgenrøden, April 15, 1883. 25 Morgenrøden, April 15, 1883. 26 Morgenrøden, April 15, 1884. 27 Morgenstjernen, August l, 1889. 28 Morgenstjernen, July l, 1893. 29 Morgenstjernen, April l, 1893. 30 Morgenstjernen, April l, 1884. 3 1 For a more detailed analysis of the impact of these eschatological cos­

mologies in northern Europe, see Frederick Hale, Trans-Atlantic Conserva­tive Protestantism in the Evangelical Free and Mission Covenant Traditions (New York, 1979).

107

Frederick Hale 32 Morgenrøden, May l, 1884. 33 Morgenrøden, May 15, 1884. 34 Morgenstjernen, October l, 1889. 35 Morgenstjernen, October 15, 1889. 36 Sandeen, Roots of Fundamentalism, lll. 37 F. Franson, Bibelns liira om antikrist, 2--4 (Hedemora, Sweden, 1886). 38 See, for example, Morgenrøden, February l, 1884. 39 Morgenstjernen, September l, 1890. See als o Morgenstjernen, February

15, 1889, April l, 1890; Morgenrøden, June l, 15, 1883. 4 0 Findlay, Dwight L. Moody, 246. 41 Morgenrøden, November 15, 1883. 42 The Swedish Mission Covenant, constituted in 1878, was an outgrowth of

pietistic revivalism among Lutherans in Sweden. Despite the similarity of their names, the Mission covenants of Norway and Denmark had little in common with the Swedish body. For an excellent study of the Swedish Mis­sion Covenant and its American counterpart, the Evangelical Covenant Church, see Karl A. Olsson, By One Spirit (Chicago, 1962).

43 Morgenrøden, February l, 1884. 44 Morgenrøden, August 15, 1884. 45 Morgenstjernen, January l, 1889. 46 Viggo Ramsvold, "Det første halve sekel," in Rasmussen, En dansk

vækkelses-bevægelse, 43. 47 Morgenstjernen, January l, 1889. 48 Ramsvold, "Det første halve sekel," 44. 49 Missionæren, July 6, 1890. 50 Morgenstjernen, April l, 1890. 51 Morgenrøden, October 15, 1884. 52 Morgenstjernen, March l, 15, 1890; Missionæren, July 6, 1890. 53 M. W. Montgomery, The Work among the Scandinavians, 19 (New York,

1888). 54 R. Arlo Odegaard, With Singleness of Heart, 101-102 (Minneapolis, n.d.). 55 Montgomery, Work among the Scandinavians, 16-17. 56 Evangelisten, February l, 1890. 57 Morgenstjernen, March 15, 1890. 58 Morgenstjernen, August l, 1894. 59 Odegaard, With Singleness of Heart, 560; Evangelisten, February l,

1890. 60 Odegaard, With Singleness of Heart, 565. 61 Reinert Jernberg,A Nation in the Loom: The Scandinavian Fibre in Our

Social Fabric (Chicago, 1895). 62 Evangelisten, September 15, 1894. 63 Lovoll and Bjork, Norwegian-American Historical Association, 66.

108