WASHINGTON (BP)–Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York made news the other day.
This time it was not for the eloquence of its pastor as would have been the case in the early 1900s when John Henry Jowett preached there. On this occasion the church’s administrator, Marion “Mimi” Fahnestock, was summoned to account for yet another scandal of the American Presidency.
Historian Robert Dallek first discovered an affair between President John F. Kennedy and an intern known only as “Mimi” while doing research for his new biography of Kennedy, “An Unfinished Life.” Subsequent investigation led to the discovery that Fahnestock had a sexual relationship with President Kennedy that lasted for 17 months. The engagement to banker Anthony Fahnestock finally severed her ties with the president just two weeks before Kennedy was assassinated. Later, the couple would divorce, and through a series of strange events, she would find herself working at a church.
Ironically, when church administrator Fahnestock gave a statement to the press outside her Upper East Side apartment May 15, at no point did she speak of repentance for her sins or embarrassment over her actions. Rather, she was “relieved” that now she could unburden herself of the 41-year-old secret to her daughters.
As a 19-year-old girl she was naïve and quite “taken with the President.” Desiring only to move on from the memory and continue her work at the church, she refused to answer any questions as to how this might affect her status as a staff member at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. Her affair, marriage and divorce were of little consequence to her ongoing work at the church.
While it is widely known that JFK had numerous extramarital affairs, the timing of this revelation has been of interest to many in Washington. Perhaps the most telling interpretation of the incident came from Newsweek’s contributing editor, Eleanor Clift. Her regular appearance on “The McLaughlin Group” was just the forum to declare her own marital philosophy. The incident prompted her to announce on national television that she said to her husband that if he had an affair 40 years ago, “now was the time to confess.” Such a discovery would only “raise his level” with her. In no way would it be harmful.
Describing Fahnestock’s statement of being “taken with the President” as “sweet,” Clift excused as normal the “eternal behavior patterns” of men throughout history. Other guests on the program wondered if this new discovery about Kennedy would somehow diminish the damage done to Bill Clinton’s legacy. If JFK had done the same thing decades earlier with little or no fallout, then the Clinton presidency perhaps could expect the same treatment by history.
The real story in these series of events as presented by the mainstream media has been to compare the journalistic practices of today with those of the 1960s. Then, unlike now, the press chose not to publish stories about the private lives of public figures. It was simply unprofessional to demand an entrance behind closed doors and question national leaders about their marital faithfulness — or lack thereof. The lesson for modern journalists from this new discovery about Kennedy: Learn from the past. Keep the spotlight away from private behavior and focused on public performance.
From every indication, Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church has learned the same lesson. No statement was issued by the church or its pastor regarding the past activities of its administrator. It can therefore be safely assumed that these were private matters, and the church dare not step into the private lives of its members (or even its staff) to discover what is going on there. Were it to do so, such unpleasant discoveries might lead to further public exposure.
More and more, the church’s definition of marriage sounds in unison with political pundits and the media. Weakened by the preponderance of high-profile adultery, even the church has attempted to change marriage to mean something other than what it is. Exactly why should marriage mean anything at all to anyone? If extramarital liaisons are seen as normal, and, when confessed are, in conformity with the Cliftian model, “sweet,” then perhaps all the debate over marriage amounts to little more than silly talk by religious people. If marriage is simply a contract which can be negotiated in terms of exactly how many affairs are permissible and still remain technically married, then the nation has moved away from that which by God-given design sustains life in any culture.
The problem, however, will not find its solution in the legislative chamber. Work begins at the house of God. Could it be that the presence of such immoral rhetoric in the public square is directly linked to the church’s departure from Scripture’s definition of marriage? True love as mercifully demonstrated by God through marriage is a creation ordinance designed not to perfect the arts of seduction between male and female. Quite the opposite. Marriage is the joining of two lives as one — male and female — with the understanding that faithfulness in private will facilitate integrity in public. It is this definition of marriage that the church must ardently champion and exemplify.
Less than a century ago, a former pastor of the church where Fahnestock now works preached a sermon on love from Philippians 1:21. “Love without reverence,” said John Henry Jowett, “is a destructive fever; reverence without love is a perpetual frost. True love kneels in reverence; true reverence yearns in love. Each, I say, is essential to the other, and both are needful in the creation of a worthy life. Calvary is the academy in which we may learn reverence and love.”
With great clarity, Jowett defined marriage in light of true love. Perhaps if his words had remained the standard for the church throughout the 20th century, the finished life and enduring legacy of John F. Kennedy might have taken on moral significance — both for himself and for the Mimi Fahnestocks of the world.
–30–
Douglas Baker is a writer who lives and works in Washington, D.C.
