A Review of the Pastor's Wife
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
On June 1, 2013, LMN (Lifetime Movie Network), ran the movie called, The Pastor's Wife, which was first released in 2011. It was billed as a docudrama. Most people have probably seen at least a few works in this genre and may have wondered how accurate they are. It is said that, when James Cameron was researching the background for The Titanic, he paid attention to every detail—the kind of dinnerware that was used, the style of jewelry that was worn, etc., so that everything would look authentic. Whoever produced The Pastor's Wife did not pay attention to hardly any of the details. Oh, yes. This one is of interest to members of the churches of Christ because it concerns the killing of Matthew Winkler by his wife Mary in Selmer, Tennessee (2006). Therefore the title is altogether inappropriate because Mary was not a pastor's wife!
The docudrama was based on the book of the same title by Diane Fanning; so the blame begins with her. Does she research all of her crime stories with the same absence of rigor that was used in this instance? If such a colossal blunder could be made regarding a rather elementary fact, how can we be sure of any of the details? Churches of Christ hire preachers whose function is to preach the Word of God; they do not pastor a congregation. In Winkler's case, he was not qualified by age to be a pastor (see A Review of Christianity, Part 5 in the May 19, 2013 Spiritual Perspectives for more information on this topic).
It really grates on Christians’ nerves to hear the term misapplied throughout the movie. When Matthew's body is discovered, one of the church members blurts out, “Someone has killed our pastor.” No church member made such a fallacious statement. Comments continue throughout, such as, “The pastor was squeaky clean.” But even worse is the fact that the entire premise of the book and the defense is based on this erroneous denominational terminology. In his opening statement at the trial, the defense attorney said that to those on the outside it looked as though the Winklers had a marriage made in heaven, “but behind closed doors it was a living hell.”
The only person who could make such a statement is one who has no knowledge of what hell is actually like—a place completely devoid of the presence and blessings of God. The lawyer went on to say that Mary was invisible, that she lived in the shadows, and that she was a second-class citizen. Matthew was the face of the family because he was the preacher and therefore the important one. Such is rarely true of preachers' wives. Then the defense attorney accused Matthew of being cruel and concluded with these words.
Mary Winkler lived a life where she walked on eggshells, and whenever things didn't suit Matthew Winkler, Mary paid the price.... She was not a perfect person, but she had to be because she was the pastor's wife.
Arrgh! So the author could not have used this same speech and called the book The Preacher's Wife? Why does she insist on using terminology that members of the churches of Christ do not use and is actually offensive to us? This is a huge inaccuracy—one upon which rests the whole theme of the book.
Other Inaccuracies
Many other things—both spiritual and physical—were changed. As Mary recalls her wedding, the groom’s father is wearing some kind of clerical gown, which none of our preachers wear. Early on, Matthew and Mary are working at a fundraiser—an activity in which churches of Christ do not engage. At various times Mary and Matthew are wearing crosses around their necks, which is exceedingly unlikely, since it relates to denominationalism. He calls the congregation his parish, which is another absurdity. Matthew's mother later lies to Mary about the children not being able to talk to her (which also seems unlikely). At Matthew's funeral, his father preaches and asks everyone to pray for Matthew's soul—an impossibility, since the Bible teaches that one's eternal abode is determined at death (Luke 16:19-31).
Finally, Matthew's father says, “I preach forgiveness, but I don’t know if I ever can.” In real life, he made a CD on the subject of forgiveness, and it does not have that kind of message on it at all. Besides, neither God nor any lesser being is required to forgive anyone who does not repent.
These are just the spiritual inaccuracies in the “docudrama.” Many of the physical details are just plain wrong, such as the oldest daughter being 12 when she was actually 8. The couple was married 10—not 13—years. The house of the “movie” Winklers is two stories, and the bedrooms are all upstairs. The reader can view the actual house on the Internet and will observe that it is a one-story ranch house (Wikipedia). One on-line reviewer who identifies himself as “Old Faithful” wondered, since when did anyone in Tennessee have a garden full of carrots and other vegetables in February (in a scene prior to the murder)? Those who have attended Freed-Hardeman's Annual Lectureship programs over the years will recall the snowfalls and ice storms which have occurred that week. (Selmer is about 25 miles to the south.)
The same on-line reviewer pointed out that “McNairy County has a MODERN, state-of-the-art jail and justice complex. NOTHING involving the jail or courtroom was even remotely accurate” (emphasis his). In one scene Mary picks up the phone in prison and calls Matthew's parents to talk to her children. Usually any call initiated from a jail is a collect call involving an operator. Are things really that different in Tennessee? “Old Faithful” had quite a bit to say about police uniforms and badges being incorrect, also. Did anyone involved in this movie research anything? He also included these thoughts:
The church building in the movie was totally wrong. The 4th St. Church of Christ building is a modern BRICK building. Also, the crosses and banners used to decorate the inside of the church were completely inaccurate, as the Church of Christ uses NEITHER (emph. his).
A Curiosity
One of the strangest things about the movie was the inclusion of the song, “Amazing Grace”—sung to the tune of “The House of the Rising Sun.” Viewers might regard this as brilliant or profane, and the purpose for rendering the song this way is unclear, but it plays prominently as Mary is fingerprinted and transported to prison. This and another religious song were played with musical accompaniment. At least, the producers of the movie did not show the church worshiping with instruments.
What the Docudrama Got Right
On the morning of March 22, 2006, Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back and left him to die while she loaded up her three daughters in the family mini-van and fled to Orange Beach, Alabama, where she was found by police and arrested. She had taken the murder weapon, a 12-gauge shotgun, with her, and the police discovered it in the car. There was never any question that Mary had killed her husband in cold blood, but no one knew the reason why. The few details that are provided from the trial do seem to square with what was reported at the time. She was not convicted of either first- or second-degree murder but rather of voluntary manslaughter. All in all, she served 210 days in prison for taking a human life.
The movie gave the impression that she spent the entire time in jail awaiting her trial, but in truth she posted bail and was allowed to live in McMinnville, Tennessee until the trial, which took place in 2007. In 2008, the court gave her children back to her. Mary killed her husband, but he, the victim, was the one who was put on trial. This strategy was a great success.
The Defense
Mary is presented as a repressed, frustrated, and abused woman. In one of the opening scenes of the movie, her husband is preaching on the role of women in the church. Well, everyone knows that anyone who holds this view is politically incorrect and does not believe that women should have equal rights! Surprisingly, he does not say in the sermon that women ought to be kept barefoot and pregnant, but that is the way conservatives who follow the Bible are often portrayed. For a certain segment of society, to forbid women from preaching is an archaic, “Dark Ages” sentiment, and those who hold such views probably abuse their wives. The Scriptures, however, teach that Jesus holds this view, and He absolutely loves and cherishes His bride (Eph. 5:22ff). The roles of men and women in the church were ordained by God (1 Cor. 11:3ff). That God has assigned the leadership role to men does not imply that women should be abused in any way, shape, or form.
During the flashback scene of their marriage, even the words of the ceremony (which this reviewer has never used or heard used) bespeak authoritarianism. Mary is asked if she will “revere and obey” her husband “With a meek and quiet spirit.” Really?
Talking to her defense attorney, Mary says some interesting things, such as, “Whatever happens, I don’t want anyone saying anything bad about Matthew…because he was a good man, he was a fine man….” She also told her defense attorney, “There is no defense for what I did.” She asks, “Can’t we just say I’m a crazy, awful, evil woman and leave it at that?” (That may be the most truthful statement she made (if she actually said it). Under cross-examination she acknowledged her husband did nothing for which he deserved to die.
Finally, it came time for the woman who murdered her husband to be placed on the stand. She testified that her husband physically abused her—he slapped her and hit her. Under cross-examination, when asked how she kept all of that hidden, she answered, “With make-up.” In other words, no reports were made to anyone, and no evidence of any abuse was available (her family says they knew about it). In the movie, the day before she killed him, Matthew threw something made of glass, and Mary cut herself picking up the pieces. She also claimed that he threatened to kill her.
Next, Mary testified that he sexually abused her. Apparently, he did have pornographic pictures on his computer, which would be wrong, and it leant credibility to her claims. She said that he made her dress up in a wig and the garb of a prostitute. The fact that she possessed these items does not mean that what occurred between them was forced. Many marriage manuals even make suggestions of role-playing within marriage; she also claimed that he forced her to have perverted forms of intimacy and that she bled as a result of it. Once again, there was only her word on these matters. No one knows if any of those things happened since, due to his death, her husband could not defend himself. She testified that one of those episodes took place the night before she killed him; in the docudrama, she was still wearing the wig the next morning.
The third thing she claimed was that he had tried to smother their baby daughter the morning she shot him because he was trying to sleep and the girl was making noise. Really? He held his hand over her mouth so she would stop wailing? No proof could be offered for this action. That is not to say that all three of these things did not occur. What the jury did not know was if they were true or if Mary made them all up. The lack of evidence, however, did not seem important to a mostly female jury, who judged her to be telling the truth.
The Wrong Question
So, according to Mary’s testimony, in the last day of his life, Matthew Winkler lost his temper, threatened to kill her, forced her to do something in the bedroom she would have preferred not to do, and all but smothered their baby. After she shot him in the back while he was trying to sleep, which knocked him to the floor, he asked, “Why?” All of us can only imagine what it would be like to be mortally wounded. We’ve seen it on television and in the movies hundreds of times, but we probably do not know how we would react if it actually happened; hopefully, none of us ever will.
But facing death would surely bring out honesty. If brother Winkler was guilty of all that he was accused of, then his last words should have been, “I’m sorry.” “Why?” is the cry of an incredulous person who does not know why he has been shot. No one could have done all the things he allegedly did and have been so obtuse as to ask, “Why?” Even someone who commits brutish acts knows that he is wrong—especially when there is no more purpose for pretense.
How It Happened
In the docudrama, she says that she didn’t mean to kill him; she just wanted to get his attention. The idea that it was an accident lacks merit. Had no one ever told her that you do not point a loaded gun at someone unless you are prepared to use it? According to her own words, she told her dying husband, “I’m sorry.” Why didn’t she say, “This is what you deserve”? The jury must have thought that he did. The jury consisted of ten women and two men. Mary played to them and got the sympathy she needed. The foreman said that nine of the ten women wanted to vote for acquittal on all counts. The decision of voluntary manslaughter was a compromise.
So she did not plan to take the girls and leave until after she killed him? If it was an accident, as she said, why did she not have the presence of mind to call 911 and stay to help him? Is it normal to say nothing to anyone and drive 400 miles away? She claims that she was afraid that authorities would take her girls away from her. She had the presence of mind to think of that but not to think of the fact that she might be found or run out of money. Or maybe she planned it and then acted confused afterward in order to make it look as though she didn’t know what she was doing. In either case, second degree murder would have been a better, more just, verdict.
Final Thoughts
Concerning the alleged abuse, it is interesting that the couple's oldest daughter testified she never saw her father mistreat her mother.
In the docudrama, Mary asks her husband for a divorce, which he declares is out of the question. Later, her defense lawyer asks her why she did not seek a divorce, and she responds by saying, “You don’t know much about the church of Christ, do you?” That question would imply to viewers that Christians are not allowed to divorce, but that is not what Mary means. She means that she cannot divorce her husband unless he had committed adultery (Matt. 19:9), which a user of pornography will probably do. However, she could have driven 25 miles up the road to Freed-Hardeman, where both Matthew and Mary had been students, and spoken in confidence to a psychologist, who might have provided some help for her alleged “severe” problem.
In the final scene (which did not actually occur, although something equivalent is supposed to have happened), Mary has been released from prison and has her daughters back. She is working as a waitress, and she asks a customer if he would like more coffee. As she is pouring it, he looks at her from beneath his hat and asks, “Hey! Aren’t you that lady who shot her husband and got away with it?” She stares at the burly man, sort of smiles, and asks, “Wanna be next?”
This story concerns two flawed people—one of which is still alive.