While the marriage didn’t begin as a standard love match, a true romance of mutual respect and affection soon grew between Martin and Katharina. Martin, at times, consulted her on church matters and allowed her to deal with his publishers. Because she oversaw the household, Martin could devote his time to the church and the University. He developed a sincere respect for his wife and loved her deeply.

On Easter Day, April 4, 1523, Leonhard Köppe smuggled a group of nuns who were hiding in herring barrels out of a Cistercian convent in Nimbschen. One of these nuns was Katharina von Bora, who later became the wife of Martin Luther. 
Katharina had lived in convents since she was very young, placed there by her parents who were too poor to supply her dowry. Unhappy there, Katharina found both the opportunity and inspiration to escape when the Protestant Reformation began to spread. She and several other nuns secretly contacted Martin Luther and asked for help to escape the monastery. Luther obliged.  
At first, Luther and Köppe attempted to convince the nuns’ families to take them back. Their families refused, possibly because it was against canon law to take in an escaped nun. Instead, they found employment for as many as possible, and several others were married off to students training for the pastorate.  
After two years, only Katharina remained. After neither of the two potential marriages arranged for her worked out, she told Nikolaus von Amsdorf, Luther’s friend and coworker, that she would only marry him or Luther. No one else.  
Luther was reluctant to marry. After all, he had been declared an imperial outlaw at the Diet of Worms (1521), so anyone who found him could legally kill him. Understandably, he expected his life would end burned at the stake as a heretic. Nonetheless, he eventually agreed to marry Katharina in a small, private ceremony on June 13, 1525. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Glenn D. Jerrell |
Thursday, July 28, 2022
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.

Introduction
When one is not a commissioner to a General Assembly (GA), the temptation to answer a speech while it is being given is absent because you don’t have the privilege of the floor. Listening to the proceedings at a GA is a true learning experience. That was my situation during the 88th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). It is helpful to sit back and just take it all in. This article contains observations based on certain speeches on Overture 2 and Mike Myers’ two articles (here and here) published in the Aquila Report, as well as some historical reflections.
Overture 2, proposed to the 2022 GA of the OPC by the Presbytery of Ohio, approached abuse with a wide range of considerations that pastors, sessions, congregations, and presbyteries would find helpful in support of their gospel/shepherding ministries.
As an onlooker, it appeared that the opposition to Overture 2 by Mr. Myers and others ended up squandering a full hearing for the GA, the Ohio presbytery, and for themselves. How? The opposition sacrificed a comprehensive study of abuse, trading it for a partial, more limited consideration of the subject and leaving the larger controversy for another day. In the end, a substitute motion replaced the recommendations of the Presbytery of Ohio in Overture 2, which had also been supported by the Advisory Committee that examined the proposed overture. Adoption of the substitute meant that the church did not interact with all the points raised by both the presbytery and Mr. Myers, and further, the lengthy consideration of Overture 2 consumed so much time that important matters from other presbyteries received short shrift.
Mandate 1 of Overture 2I.A.1. Of Overture 2: “Collect, study, and develop resources related to the many forms of abuse that manifest themselves in the church (sexual, domestic, ecclesiastical, verbal, emotional, psychological, etc.).”
The substitute that prevailed squeezed much of the life out of Overture 2. What was adopted certainly needs attention but what the 88th GA adopted eliminated consideration of a wide range of issues our churches are facing today. The church needs help and instruction in recognizing both the spectrum of sins involved in abuse and the too often overlooked need of supporting the victims of abuse. Tragically, some of the concerns in Overture 2 must wait for another day for GA help. The committee the GA established could serve the church well by identifying areas that need further study.
Mandate 2 of Overture 2I.A.2.: “Produce and recommend to the church resources to equip pastors, sessions, and presbyteries to recognize and respond to allegations and and instances of abuse in ways that honor Jesus Christ, comport with the laws of the land, and promote justice for victims and perpetrators.”
Overture 2 was carefully thought out and well written. It shows due diligence. How do we respond to claims of abuse? Do we doubt the accuser? Do we affirm the accuser? Do we take the claim seriously? How do we protect the accuser? And what about the accused? How does the church respond to the accused? Do we believe them? Do we take their claims seriously? We need resources. When an adult says I was sexually molested as a child and I still dream about it, how does the church respond? When do you bring in the police? How do we respond to a congregant who seeks help with a manipulating minister or ruling elder? We need to practice listening. Hearing the stories of abused OPC members, of those who have felt pushed out of the OPC, and of a multitude of other situations, the depth of the problems and the need for instruction becomes clearer and more urgent. What about those who don’t feel safe at a presbytery meeting, or in a local church. These situations exist, they are real life. The Presbytery of Ohio obviously has a passion for pastoring the people of God in a full, rich, and loving way. Perhaps this could become a class for the Ministerial Training Institute of the OPC?
Mandate 3 of Overture 2I.A.3. “Recommend to a future General Assembly, if appropriate, possible amendments to the Book of Church Order that more explicitly address the sin of abuse.”
Yes, there are some changes that might be considered to better serve in a wide array of abuse cases. Our current book provides adequate protection for the accused but what about the accuser? They also need consideration and protection. All need shepherding. What about protections for the victims of sin, that is a man or woman, a boy or girl, those in the pew? The subject matter of Overture 2 must not be forgotten because the OPC needs to address the pastoral questions raised by abuse. “Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them” (Ecc. 4:1 ESV).
The four grounds provided for Overture 2 (see below) provide the rationale for the recommendation of the Presbytery of Ohio.
Mandate B of Overture 2B. “Authorize the committee to invite Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse to assist the Committee as non-voting consultants.”
At the Assembly, the above quoted section of Overture 2 sparked a significant amount of controversy. Those in favor of II.B of Overture 2 ended up making a number of speeches during debate, but not as many as the opponents.  An amendment to replace the words “Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse” with “North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) officers” failed. But the substitute reveals gaps in biblical thinking. The substitute would have severely restricted who may be consulted. It was asked “will it be required that these Christians hold reformed convictions?” This substitute would have had the effect of failing to consult with
1) Reformed churches around the world;
2) men and women in the OPC holding the general office of believer; and
3) knowledgeable men and women in the church universal.
Does not the “NAPARC officers” amendment contain an implicit assertion that only Reformed Christian officers have contributions to be made on the subject of abuse, and that there are no contributions to be made by non-Christians, thus denying common grace?
The above gaps reflect a less than robustly biblical engagement with God’s people and the world around them. Each of the points above were mentioned in speeches made on the floor. The Assembly listened and the “NAPARC officers” substitute was defeated.
Ground 1 of Overture 2“Allegations and instances of misuse of power of various kinds (commonly termed ‘abuse’) have become increasingly known in our society and in the church. Reports, testimonies, and confessions of abuse raise complex legal, theological, and pastoral issues we cannot minimize, ignore or dismiss.”
The suggestion made that Overture 2 is possibly opening the doors of the OPC to a woke understanding of abuse is baffling.  Where are the signs of the OPC going woke? This suggestion sounds hollow. Is the article questioning whether large areas of the sin of abuse exist? The best way to avoid being accused of following the world is not to ignore issues raised by the world, but to outthink the world on these issues.
Ground 2 of Overture 2“The sins of abuse are expressly forbidden by Scripture and the Westminster Standards. (For example, see 2 Timothy 3:2–5; Jude 7; Exodus 21:15; Deuteronomy 22:25–27; also, WLC 135 and 139) and are especially heinous as they are ‘against the express letter of the law,’ ‘many commandments,’ ‘admit of no reparation,’ often involve various other aggravations (WLC 151); and have devastating and life-long effects on victims (2 Samuel 13:1–22).”
Is there a psychologizing of sin in this overture, especially in II.2 above, as has been suggested by Mr. Myers? The desire of Overture 2 is very plainly to identify abuse as sin and to deal with it biblically. There is no hint of separating abuse from sin. Mr. Myers’s article states, “There seems to be a movement in the church seeking to dislocate abuse from the category of sin.” Overture 2 seeks to deal with abuse as the sin that it is and nothing less.
We should not allow a justified opposition to our culture’s concern about micro-aggression to blind us to the real suffering that God’s people undergo in our fallen world — sometimes even at the hands of those who should be protecting them.
Ground 3 of Overture 2“It is the responsibility of the elders of Christ’s Church to exercise their authority, jointly and severally, to shepherd those under their care by guarding against such sinful behavior; to care for those victimized by the sins of others; and to exercise judicial discipline for such sins in terms of the goals expressed in Book of Discipline I.3.”
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.
Ground 4 of Overture 2“Giving careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse will help us recognize and remedy gaps in our theology and practice in order that we might more effectively minister to victims of abuse with the hope and consolation of the gospel and more readily confront perpetrators of abuse with the need for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.”
Are we not to bear the burdens of others? The multiple trials, complaints, and appeals in our assemblies are humbling. Are we informing our consciences with the study of these questions in the light of Scripture? Do we have a sense of rightness that exposes any self-righteousness? We need to discuss these issues in our judicatories to make us aware of the dangers of sin. It needs to be done in a brotherly and loving way without intensity and anger blasting those with whom we disagree and whom we shepherd. Good procedures are a blessing but they are not the purpose of our existence and they are not the gospel. Our imperfections reflected by the issues raised in Overture 2 deserve to be heard in our prayers of confession each Lord’s Day. Where we have fallen short in understanding the complexities and consequences of abuse, we need the assistance of Overture 2 to help us seek to recognize abuse and help those who are the oppressed, the wounded, and the traumatized.
As Rachael Denhollander suggests in a tweet, we need to give “…careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse….” There are “…incredibly important dynamics to understand with abuse, especially the way abusers wield the trauma they have caused, and the victim’s self-defense to flip the narrative.” There is much about abuse that we do not recognize as fully as we should. We need to be humble and take these things to heart!
ConclusionMuch of the material in this article is gleaned from the minutes of the General Assembly. I did not take time to go through the PSE minutes to document this. Since the issues were given their final appeal at GA and final decisions were made by GA, I thought it best to look at the record from the settled outcome. The most painful reflection that ought to be pursued is not addressed in this paper: do the fissures in the PSE still exist? What is being done to heal the wounds? Answering that goes beyond what I am writing here, but is important to note.
Overture 2 still provides a thorough look at what we need to be learning and thinking about. The Overture remains available for any presbytery, session, individual, or group to use. Although the mandate of the committee has been narrowed, the ideas do not need to be shelved. The real-life questions and stories remain. The PCA has recently completed its own report on the subject of abuse. Both the OPC and the PCA studies will supply some help but both are unduly limited in their approach. Overture 2 is certainly the boldest and best path.
Glenn D Jerrell is a Retired Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC); he is living in Knoxville, Tenn.
Related Posts:

In heaven we will be finally free from sin and death. But now, even though sin and death surround us and are still a part of our who we are, now in Christ and by His Spirit, we can actually begin living life more and more in step with what heaven will be like! Praise God for such freedom and power.

“For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.” – Romans 8:2
As we move from the great declaration of verse 1, that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” we now begin to see in verse 2 the reason, or the grounds, for why Paul can say this. We know Paul is giving us the reason because he begins verse 2 with that little, but very important word, for. It’s a word connecting verse 1 to verse 2 and it indicates to us why verse 1 is true. So, when Paul tells us that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, we can ask the question why and see the answer in verse 2: Because the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus.
Reading verse 1 and verse 2 together like this we see immediately an important emphasis in the way Paul repeats (in both verses) the phrase “in Christ Jesus”. Do you see that? Here again is that crucial doctrine so important in Paul’s thinking and so essential to our understanding of the Gospel, namely, that our spiritual union in Christ is alone the grounds for our justification, sanctification, and unending peace with God. As D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones put it, “There is nothing more foolish than the notion that you can be ‘in Christ’ at one moment; then when you sin you are ‘out of’ Christ, then when you repent you are ‘in Christ’ again! … The very idea is ludicrous! No, if you are in Him, you are in Him for ever, you are in Him for all eternity. It is God who has put you ‘in Him’, and no one and nothing can take you out – neither hell, nor Satan, nor any other power. If you are in, you are in. It is absolute.”[1]
That is not only very encouraging, friends, but it is ultimately freeing. And that’s exactly the point Paul makes in verse 2. “The law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.” Now, when we read Paul’s use of the word law in this passage it is probably best to understand that word as meaning “power,” or “binding authority” or “motivating principle.”  So, a good reading of this text is how New Testament scholar, Douglas Moo, renders it as “the binding authority (or power) of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the binding power of sin and death.”[2]  In other words, when we are in Christ, and Christ is in us (by His Spirit), there is a new power at work, a power and authority which frees us from that old power of sin, sin which led to death and condemnation.
Read More
Related Posts: