Mrs. Alfred Hitchcock and Mrs. Eugene Heideman

Author’s note: I had the privilege recently of offering a remembrance of Mary Heideman at her funeral. With her family’s permission, I present a modified version of what I said that day, so you to may know this remarkable woman.

We’ve all heard of Alfred Hitchcock; not so many of us are well-acquainted with his spouse, Alma Reville Hitchcock.  Alma entered the film industry years before Alfred. Starting in 1915, she worked her way up from tea girl to the cutting room to director’s assistant. In the early 1920s, a large part of her job was script editing. She caught potential continuity flaws, then edited and rewrote the script accordingly.

In 1923, Alma and Alfred began working closely together. When he was given the chance to direct, Alma became Alfred’s assistant director. During the filming of his debut feature, The Pleasure Garden, Alfred appeared highly reliant on Alma. After each take he turned to her to ask, “Was that alright?”

In 1979, Alfred Hitchcock became the seventh recipient of the American Film Institute’s Life Achievement award. In his acceptance speech, Alfred acknowledged (as he often did) the important role Alma played in his professional success:

“I beg to mention by name only four people who have given me the most affection, appreciation and encouragement … and constant collaboration. The first of the four is a film editor, the second is a scriptwriter, the third is the mother of my daughter, Pat, and the fourth is as fine a cook as ever performed miracles in a domestic kitchen … and their names are Alma Reville. Had the beautiful Miss Reville not accepted a lifetime contract, without options, as ‘Mrs. Alfred Hitchcock’ some 53 years ago, Mr. Alfred Hitchcock might be in this room tonight … not at this table, but as one of the slower waiters on the floor.”

There are many women of earlier generations – and still today – whose brilliance, talents and professional skills contribute significantly to the success of their male partner. And, in spite of their spouse’s acknowledgments, they often remain underestimated or largely overlooked.

Mary Menninga Heideman was one such woman.

She met Gene Heideman at Central College in Pella, Iowa, and they were married in 1952. Post-graduation, Mary was the breadwinner (teaching elementary school) while Gene earned a Master of Divinity degree at Western Theological Seminary. Gene later obtained a doctorate in theology in the Netherlands. After serving as a pastor in Canada (working with Dutch immigrants), he and Mary moved to India for 10 years. Gene held several positions in the Church of South India and later in the Reformed Church in America.

It was Gene’s study and work that determined their geographic location. In the Netherlands, Mary became fluent in Dutch. Later, in India, she learned to speak Tamil. Because she was able to communicate in the local language, she was able to serve as a minister in her own right. Mary’s linguistic gifts enabled her to engage and support refugees, the underprivileged, and the vulnerable.

In 1957, before they moved to India, Gene accepted a call to serve a congregation in Edmonton, Alberta. Mary worked with Gene and annually assisted 60 to 80 families as they immigrated from the Netherlands and resettled in Canada. Gene described their pastoral ministry in Canada in an article entitled, “My Pilgrimage in Mission”: ministry included helping people overcome language barriers and find living quarters and employment while helping them understand the educational system and immigration bureaucracy. Culture shock, unemployment, stress in family life, and loss of self-esteem called for pastoral care. In that same article, Gene noted that Mary “has constantly taught me to be sensitive to the needs of people around us and to keep in touch with the daily practical necessities of life on earth.”

Throughout Gene’s ongoing professional work (which also included time as Chaplain at Central College, Academic Dean at Western Theological Seminary, and Secretary for Program for the Reformed Church in America), Mary raised four children. Mary held down the fort at home while simultaneously organizing Gene for his professional success.

Like Alma Reville with Alfred Hitchcock, Mary was Gene’s primary collaborator. She read and edited everything Gene intended to publish. Theological ponderings, analysis of the Canons of Dordt, Confessions of Faith … Mary not only comprehended Gene’s musings, but bettered them. She had an eye for detail, for “flow,” for editorial improvements. It’s not too hard to imagine Gene turning to Mary after each editorial read and asking, “Was that alright?”

After their retirement, I served as one of Gene and Mary’s pastors at Third Reformed Church in Holland, Michigan. I served on a number of committees with Gene, consulted with him on education issues, and gobbled up any lecture he offered. He was brilliant and wise and tolerant and gently progressive. And there was Mary, quietly serving and encouraging others. In her usual succinct style, she often expressed support of me as a female clergy person.

It wasn’t until after she died in April of this year and her family invited me to offer a remembrance at the funeral that I realized I didn’t really know Mary. I mean, I knew the general contours of her life (mostly as defined by Gene’s professional career), and I knew her as an insightful person, a smart woman, and an early feminist. But it was in an interview with her adult children, their spouses, and a couple of her grandkids that I came to appreciate her vital, life-long work that was overshadowed by Gene’s visibility.

Mary Heideman was a remarkable and intelligent person who never tooted her own horn. (I wonder: Did she ever tell anyone that she was valedictorian of her high school and college class?) Had she been born in a different era, she may well have earned a Ph.D., in whatever she chose: Biology? Narrative writing? Perhaps education….  Or languages…. Or maybe theology.

It could have been any one of these subjects.

Throughout her life, Mary demonstrated skill and curiosity in each of these fields, and used these skills in many volunteer capacities. When Mary volunteered, she gravitated to places where needs were high.

As a teacher and as a volunteer tutor (often in impoverished areas), Mary saw that every student was unique with his or her own learning style. She would continually pursue different teaching methods until she found something that would succeed for the child. If a child wasn’t learning, Mary did not perceive this as a failure of the child. She also did not interpret this as a personal teaching failure. She simply perceived that what she had tried didn’t work, and it meant another avenue should be pursued.

In these instances—and in many others—Mary was resourceful and determined.

Mary’s daughter-in-law, Charlotte said, “Mary was tenacious in figuring something out. She wouldn’t give up on people, or on finding a solution.”

What I find most remarkable about Mary (and maybe this is because I come from a family of control freaks) was her very low desire and effort to control others. In these polarized times, the world would be a better place if everyone embodied Mary’s way of being.

She set people free to be their true selves even when she didn’t understand them.

She desired for others to hold their own authentic beliefs and faith; even if she didn’t agree with them.

She knew everyone deserved to be treated with respect, even when (or especially when) they were underprivileged.

She allowed people to say what they really thought (even unpleasant thoughts), without shushing or correcting.

Mary had deep compassion for people who were going through a crisis. She understood the real and complicated feelings that naturally arose. In such times, Mary dared to speak about her own experiences of crises. She vulnerably and honestly shared the ugly thoughts and feelings that she had endured, thoughts that most people are afraid to admit. People found great solace in this compassion and normalization.

Mary didn’t set down a lot of rules in their home, but there was one rule that the Heideman kids were expected to follow: “Be kind.”

When it came to their Christian faith, neither Gene nor Mary imposed their own beliefs on others, although when asked they would answer forthrightly. They saw conversion as the work of the Spirit; it wasn’t their job to change people.

Mary didn’t worry about orthodoxy. Instead of parsing out statements of belief, she LIVED a Jesus kind of life. Emulating Jesus can look a lot of different ways. Every once in a while it so happens that a Jesus-follower actually looks quite a bit like Jesus.

One of those look-alikes was Mary.

For the life of Mary Heideman, we can express much gratitude: Thanks be to God!

Gracious and loving God,

We thank you for the person of Mary, and who you made her to be – by nature and by grace.

Thank you for bestowing Mary with intelligence which she used to benefit others:

For language skills which allowed her to connect deeply with people from other cultures,

For her feminist nature which naturally championed women in church leadership,

For her natural embrace of people in the LGBTQ community,

For her ecumenical convictions and open-heartedness toward people of different faiths,

For her ministry to immigrants and refugees,

For her inherent empathy for those in need,

For her homemade bread that no one can replicate,

For her creativity, in using a hospital pathology hallway, a cemetery, and a baggie of peas to educate her kids and grandkids.

Thank you for Mary’s faith – an embodied faith reflecting the unconditional grace and loving presence of Jesus. A faith that Mary found both true and meaningful because of the still, small voice inside her.

Thank you for her partnership with Gene:

For her supporting Gene through organizing their home life and Gene’s work life;

For Mary’s partnering with him in the daily work of ministry;

For teaching Gene to be sensitive to the practical needs of the people they served;

For Mary’s valuable input into his writing;

For her strength in being married to someone who spent a lot of time working away from home;

For the ways they challenged and stretched each other;
For their combined intellectual prowess;

For their steadfast commitment to the other;

For long, meandering conversations after they had gone to bed;

And for their mutual attentiveness in their last years of life together.

Thank you for the parent and grandparent Mary was:

Offering great latitude, and also much guidance (primarily through her example);

for her investment of time and attentiveness;

for her wisdom and active acceptance;

and for all the memories stored up in each child and grandchild.

We give you all thanks and praise for Mary, who was well-loved and loved well.

In the name of Jesus,

Amen.