Christianity Today published it, pulled it, and then put it back. Now its controversial article about Elisabeth Elliot's sexuality has become a very public fight over evidence, editorial judgment, and the legacy of one of evangelical Christianity's most influential women.
The magazine restored biographer Lucy S. R. Austen's article on October 16 after briefly removing it for an internal review. But the explanation has hardly quieted critics, who question whether the publication had sufficient grounds to circulate intimate claims about someone who died in 2015.
Titled "What We Know-and Cannot Know-About Elisabeth Elliot's Sexuality," Austen's piece responds to historian William Stell's discussion of a decades-old alleged encounter. Its central source is a 2020 interview with evangelical feminist and LGBTQ advocate Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, who recalled a private confrontation with Elliot at a women's conference in 1975.
According to Mollenkott's account, she threatened to expose alleged same-sex attractions after confronting Elliot about discussing Mollenkott's sexuality publicly. Both women are now dead, and the alleged private exchange remains uncorroborated.
Austen acknowledges those limitations while arguing that Elliot's private writings make the possibility of same-sex attraction plausible. That distinction-between an interpretation of historical material and an established fact-sits at the heart of the controversy. The article does not establish Elliot's sexual orientation.
For readers who know Elliot through Through the Gates of Splendor, Passion and Purity, and her teaching on Christian obedience, the discussion touches a deeply personal legacy. Critics have challenged both the strength of the evidence and the decision to publish such an interpretation after her death.
Denny Burk, president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, disputed the article's evidentiary basis. Lakepointe Church pastor Josh Howerton went further, using the episode to announce his disillusionment with the magazine: "Farewell, CT." Their responses turned a disputed biographical argument into a broader confrontation over the publication's direction.
Behind the scenes, the editorial handling produced another uncomfortable twist. New editor-in-chief Erik Petrik explained that some key content staff had not reviewed the article before publication during a leadership transition. He removed it pending that review and restored it afterward with an explanatory note.
Even the author expressed surprise at the process. Austen told The Roys Report that she had received no direct explanation for the removal, questioning how a commissioned article could pass through editing and approval before being abruptly withdrawn without an immediate public explanation.
That leaves Christianity Today answering two difficult questions at once: how confidently can a writer interpret someone's private life from disputed recollections, and why did the magazine's own review happen after readers had already seen the story?
