What do you think?
Rate this book
Martin Luther Had a Wife
Book by William J. Petersen
160 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1983
14 people are currently reading
327 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 18, 2012
This book is hilarious only because it speaks openly about some of the re known preachers and their wives. A snapshot into the lives of these real people encourages anyone who reads it and reminds us that we are all human yet loved by God.
www.breakthruinternational.co.uk
www.breakthruinternational.co.uk
April 29, 2022
I 1997, da jeg lige var begyndt på min BA i teologi i Schweiz, var der ved en morgenandagt en lærer, der refererede til denne bog. Det glemte jeg alt om, indtil jeg sidste efterår fandt den på et ophørsudsalg til en 10'er.
Jeg læste det meste af den i flyveren til og fra Barcelona og blev så færdig med den i dag. Den er faktisk ganske interessant. Den giver et indblik i, hvordan det var at være mennesker og ægtefolk i nogle epoker og et bibelsyn og en kristentro og nogle kønsrollemønstre, der ligger lysår fra min opfattelse.
Men tager man forbehold for det, så giver den altså nogle perspektiver på, hvorfor nogle ægteskaber lykkes, og hvorfor andre - selv for nogle af kirkehistoriens betydeligste og fromme 😇 ledere - endte i den mest miserable elendighed 💔. Hvis man kan enes om de mest centrale værdier og livsmål og om at løfte og supplere hinanden, så kan de mest forskellige mennesker stå det mest utrolige igennem - bogstaveligt talt "til døden jer skiller". 💕
Jeg læste det meste af den i flyveren til og fra Barcelona og blev så færdig med den i dag. Den er faktisk ganske interessant. Den giver et indblik i, hvordan det var at være mennesker og ægtefolk i nogle epoker og et bibelsyn og en kristentro og nogle kønsrollemønstre, der ligger lysår fra min opfattelse.
Men tager man forbehold for det, så giver den altså nogle perspektiver på, hvorfor nogle ægteskaber lykkes, og hvorfor andre - selv for nogle af kirkehistoriens betydeligste og fromme 😇 ledere - endte i den mest miserable elendighed 💔. Hvis man kan enes om de mest centrale værdier og livsmål og om at løfte og supplere hinanden, så kan de mest forskellige mennesker stå det mest utrolige igennem - bogstaveligt talt "til døden jer skiller". 💕
May 25, 2023
Serendipity led me to this book. Whatever I knew about Christian history was not centred around the great leaders from the late middle ages onward who led the revival and renewal of the faith. So this formal introduction was to both the leaders and their wives. it was all news to me.
Hovering over this book are St Paul's instructions for Christian marriage which I will summarise as 'wives submit to your husbands, husbands do not vex, or test, your wives.'. Since daily life living in in the world and in submission to another requires initiative and decision making then what sense of initiative is apt for a submissive wife with her own faith?
Most Christians would have an opinion on Martin Luther, they may even be able to quote some of what Martin Luther said. But what would they know of his wife Katie Luther? The profile of her sets the pattern that the more practical the wife is. Martin Luther showed an early example of the famous dry German humour when he said 'In domestic affairs I defer to Katie. Otherwise I am led by The Holy Spirit.'. And Katie Luther was practical. But like many wives to come the more practical she was the more she was shadowed by her more famous husband, particularly when said husband declares 'open house' with needy relatives or friends without discussing it with his wife first. Her quote after outliving her husband after over twenty years of companionship is quite touching 'I will stick to Christ like a burr to a top coat', which I saw as proof a faith drawn from a life rich in lived experience.
One stand out partnership here is the that between John and Molly Wesley. It was not a match set up in Heaven. First of all John Wesley should have married much earlier than he did, he had three opportunities at companionship in his 20s, 30s and early 40s, whilst he was growing the Methodist Movement where his truest partner was the road. Nowadays we live with music and popular entertainment being measured by statistics 'this is ---- 12th album and it sold X number of units in America, the band completed a tour of N number of dates to support it's release, etc'. There is a similar statistical breakdown of the numbers around John Wesley's ministry here, and they are astonishing. If ever we thought bands of touring musicians worked hard touring in the mid to late 20th century then they should try John Wesley's schedule for size and restlessness. One of the reasons for his delay in marrying was that part of his work was being beholden to a committee called 'the holy club' who wanted to vet his choice of wife. What if he chose somebody they disapproved of? What if he did not consult his brother Charles? Some people might make a good marriage out of a sixteen day courtship-the length of Wesley's-but when they do the courtship hardly did much work towards the marriage. How could it?
Jonathan and Sarah Edwards were a more inviting couple, if only because Jonathan Edwards was more a pastor and writer than he was a travelling evangelist, his grandfather was a pastor and the young Jonathan followed in footsteps laid out for him. One point where he was torn was the contentedness of the home vs the need to think and write. This is where he found riding a horse across the country to be where he felt he had a place to think. Poets through the ages have used the space of walking alone to explore thoughts that were just tags of ideas when they were around other people.
Another loving couple were William and Catherine Booth. I was struck by the statement that when they agreed to the rules of their marriage one rule they agreed was that they should not be seen to argue in front of the children, where the nature of the argument that they were curtailing was not mentioned. Only much later in their chapter is what they argue about in private revealed. In private they reserved the right to disagree over theology and what The Bible means where in private, or more discreetly, they allow each other to change their minds. It is speculation on my part as to why they kept faith discussions/disagreements private but my guess is that they wanted their children to first of all have the same faith they had. So their presentation of a united front was about encouraging faith, but as the children grew into faith they also grew into having opinions based on faith where they differed from their parents. What price/value family unity, and the extension of the work William Booth started then? As missionaries William and Catherine Booth faced the same quandaries as every other nineteenth century family business that had grown from nearly nothing to being an international business in a single generation, then where the business went after those who started it was naturally left to the next generation who it was not for the starters of the business to dictate to in changing times.
Frankly I disliked the account of DL Moody here, or rather his wife Emma Moody. What was written missed the essence of the man, beyond describing him as somebody who was used to being successful and was more restless about what success meant than he and others admitted. What is clear from the Moody chapter is that the modern nineteenth century of America was driven by machines and numbers, driven by a scale of change not seen before. Moody was part of that drive with his being sent out by churches, sent away from the person 'read' his character best, his wife Emma. The more she was made to work behind the scenes the better she made her husbands ideas work, which meant that he could trust her to run the household whilst he wandered and initiated change were ever he could.
The book finishes with a profile of the then living couple Ruth and Billy Graham, where Ruth comes across as welcoming of individual adventure as much as her husband welcomed crowds to preach to. The bigger the personal adventure the more she welcomed it, the bigger the crowds he spoke to the better and more led by God he felt. They got plenty of dinner invitations to attend together. Where she intervened in what she thought her husband should limit himself to speaking about was when in the dinner the host would ask Billy Graham what he thought about the present day political candidates putting themselves forward to lead. She would kick him in the shins underneath the table to prompt him to be silent and he would tease her by saying 'Why are you kicking me in the shins?'. The presentation was made to appear to be a game. He was often after spending less money on the home where she was for spending more if it had a purpose. He would be slow to see the advantage in the change of domestic arrangement.
The book was as much about the wives as the marriages. Whilst it slightly pulled back the curtain on the public figure that the male evangelists were, what it confirmed most was that however much history presents men as changing the course of history, as if they made history, what it confirms is that everybody requires companionship. However singularly the evangelist were presented at the time, no human can naturally be that close to being like 'the unmoved mover' that God was presented as being, even as they seek to be his messenger.
Companionship requires compromise, even whilst advocating an absolute, infinite, and giving God. Companionship was never quite as personal an agenda for the unmarried St Paul as it was with his many successors for whom the need for companionship pressed harder and made them yield in ways that they did not expect to.
Hovering over this book are St Paul's instructions for Christian marriage which I will summarise as 'wives submit to your husbands, husbands do not vex, or test, your wives.'. Since daily life living in in the world and in submission to another requires initiative and decision making then what sense of initiative is apt for a submissive wife with her own faith?
Most Christians would have an opinion on Martin Luther, they may even be able to quote some of what Martin Luther said. But what would they know of his wife Katie Luther? The profile of her sets the pattern that the more practical the wife is. Martin Luther showed an early example of the famous dry German humour when he said 'In domestic affairs I defer to Katie. Otherwise I am led by The Holy Spirit.'. And Katie Luther was practical. But like many wives to come the more practical she was the more she was shadowed by her more famous husband, particularly when said husband declares 'open house' with needy relatives or friends without discussing it with his wife first. Her quote after outliving her husband after over twenty years of companionship is quite touching 'I will stick to Christ like a burr to a top coat', which I saw as proof a faith drawn from a life rich in lived experience.
One stand out partnership here is the that between John and Molly Wesley. It was not a match set up in Heaven. First of all John Wesley should have married much earlier than he did, he had three opportunities at companionship in his 20s, 30s and early 40s, whilst he was growing the Methodist Movement where his truest partner was the road. Nowadays we live with music and popular entertainment being measured by statistics 'this is ---- 12th album and it sold X number of units in America, the band completed a tour of N number of dates to support it's release, etc'. There is a similar statistical breakdown of the numbers around John Wesley's ministry here, and they are astonishing. If ever we thought bands of touring musicians worked hard touring in the mid to late 20th century then they should try John Wesley's schedule for size and restlessness. One of the reasons for his delay in marrying was that part of his work was being beholden to a committee called 'the holy club' who wanted to vet his choice of wife. What if he chose somebody they disapproved of? What if he did not consult his brother Charles? Some people might make a good marriage out of a sixteen day courtship-the length of Wesley's-but when they do the courtship hardly did much work towards the marriage. How could it?
Jonathan and Sarah Edwards were a more inviting couple, if only because Jonathan Edwards was more a pastor and writer than he was a travelling evangelist, his grandfather was a pastor and the young Jonathan followed in footsteps laid out for him. One point where he was torn was the contentedness of the home vs the need to think and write. This is where he found riding a horse across the country to be where he felt he had a place to think. Poets through the ages have used the space of walking alone to explore thoughts that were just tags of ideas when they were around other people.
Another loving couple were William and Catherine Booth. I was struck by the statement that when they agreed to the rules of their marriage one rule they agreed was that they should not be seen to argue in front of the children, where the nature of the argument that they were curtailing was not mentioned. Only much later in their chapter is what they argue about in private revealed. In private they reserved the right to disagree over theology and what The Bible means where in private, or more discreetly, they allow each other to change their minds. It is speculation on my part as to why they kept faith discussions/disagreements private but my guess is that they wanted their children to first of all have the same faith they had. So their presentation of a united front was about encouraging faith, but as the children grew into faith they also grew into having opinions based on faith where they differed from their parents. What price/value family unity, and the extension of the work William Booth started then? As missionaries William and Catherine Booth faced the same quandaries as every other nineteenth century family business that had grown from nearly nothing to being an international business in a single generation, then where the business went after those who started it was naturally left to the next generation who it was not for the starters of the business to dictate to in changing times.
Frankly I disliked the account of DL Moody here, or rather his wife Emma Moody. What was written missed the essence of the man, beyond describing him as somebody who was used to being successful and was more restless about what success meant than he and others admitted. What is clear from the Moody chapter is that the modern nineteenth century of America was driven by machines and numbers, driven by a scale of change not seen before. Moody was part of that drive with his being sent out by churches, sent away from the person 'read' his character best, his wife Emma. The more she was made to work behind the scenes the better she made her husbands ideas work, which meant that he could trust her to run the household whilst he wandered and initiated change were ever he could.
The book finishes with a profile of the then living couple Ruth and Billy Graham, where Ruth comes across as welcoming of individual adventure as much as her husband welcomed crowds to preach to. The bigger the personal adventure the more she welcomed it, the bigger the crowds he spoke to the better and more led by God he felt. They got plenty of dinner invitations to attend together. Where she intervened in what she thought her husband should limit himself to speaking about was when in the dinner the host would ask Billy Graham what he thought about the present day political candidates putting themselves forward to lead. She would kick him in the shins underneath the table to prompt him to be silent and he would tease her by saying 'Why are you kicking me in the shins?'. The presentation was made to appear to be a game. He was often after spending less money on the home where she was for spending more if it had a purpose. He would be slow to see the advantage in the change of domestic arrangement.
The book was as much about the wives as the marriages. Whilst it slightly pulled back the curtain on the public figure that the male evangelists were, what it confirmed most was that however much history presents men as changing the course of history, as if they made history, what it confirms is that everybody requires companionship. However singularly the evangelist were presented at the time, no human can naturally be that close to being like 'the unmoved mover' that God was presented as being, even as they seek to be his messenger.
Companionship requires compromise, even whilst advocating an absolute, infinite, and giving God. Companionship was never quite as personal an agenda for the unmarried St Paul as it was with his many successors for whom the need for companionship pressed harder and made them yield in ways that they did not expect to.
October 19, 2017
Delightful, inspiring return read of a look at the marriages of these influential reformation Christian leaders. I especially like the Luther and Wesley stories.
February 17, 2021
Great read on famous Christian leaders and there marriages.
November 9, 2022
An enjoyable short read on a few different marriages from church history.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews