History Repeats Itself: Christianity Today, Elisabeth Elliot, and the Lessons of Christian Publishing

Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it. Christianity Today’s recent speculation about Elisabeth Elliot’s sexuality recalls a much older conflict over biblical authority involving Christian Standard, The Christian Century, and the founding of Christianity Today itself. The controversy raises important questions about evidence, journalistic integrity, and whether evangelical institutions are remembering the convictions that brought them into existence.

• Christian Standard and Christianity Today share a publishing history shaped by resistance to theological liberalism.
• The suggestion that Elisabeth Elliot was bisexual rests on an uncorroborated recollection, while her own teaching on biblical sexuality is extensively documented.
• Christian publications must distinguish evidence from speculation and remain accountable to the biblical convictions they profess.

Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it. That familiar warning seems particularly appropriate in light of a recent article published by Christianity Today concerning the sexuality of Elisabeth Elliot, one of the most recognized missionaries and Christian authors of the twentieth century.

The article is troubling enough on its own merits. But for those of us who know something about the history of Christian Standard, The Christian Century, and Christianity Today, the circumstances carry an additional measure of irony.

Christianity Today was founded in 1956 to offer evangelical Christianity a theologically conservative alternative to the liberal Protestantism prominently represented by The Christian Century. That magazine had emerged from the Disciples of Christ branch of the Restoration Movement, the same broad religious heritage in which Christian Standard has defended biblical Christianity since 1866.

Now, seventy years after Billy Graham and Carl F. H. Henry helped establish Christianity Today, its editors have published an article that invites readers to reinterpret Elisabeth Elliot’s sexual identity on the basis of evidence that does not establish the claim.

Has a publication created to challenge theological liberalism begun accommodating the very assumptions it was established to dispute?

That question deserves serious consideration, particularly because the controversy concerns much more than an individual missionary’s reputation. It involves biblical authority, the ethics of Christian journalism, and the obligation of Christian institutions to remember their own history.

Christian Standard and the Rise of The Christian Century

The roots of this story go back to the nineteenth century.

Christian Standard began publication in 1866, with Isaac Errett serving as its founding editor. The magazine emerged within the Restoration Movement, which sought Christian unity through a return to the authority and teaching of the New Testament.

As the movement grew, so did disagreements about biblical interpretation, theological liberalism, and the nature of the church. By the latter nineteenth century, modernist approaches to Scripture were increasingly influencing American Protestantism, including congregations and institutions associated with the Disciples of Christ.

Christian Standard became an important voice defending biblical authority and challenging theological modernism. Its pages provided arguments for the reliability of Scripture and the historic convictions of Christianity. J. W. McGarvey, among the movement’s best-known scholars, contributed a regular column addressing biblical criticism from 1893 to 1904.

In 1884, another publication appeared among the Disciples. Originally called The Christian Oracle and based in Des Moines, Iowa, it later relocated to Chicago and adopted the name The Christian Century in 1900.

The Christian Oracle was not established solely as a direct response to Christian Standard. Its historical origins were more complicated than that. But as theological modernism gained influence, the two magazines came to represent increasingly different approaches to biblical authority and Christian belief.

Under Charles Clayton Morrison, who acquired The Christian Century in 1908, the publication became a leading voice for liberal Protestant theology and the broader modernist movement. Its theological direction reflected a growing willingness to reassess inherited Christian doctrine through contemporary philosophy, historical criticism, and cultural developments.

The theological divergence represented by these publications was part of a larger division in the Restoration Movement. What began as a plea for unity under the authority of the New Testament was increasingly divided over the meaning and authority of that very Testament.

Christian Standard continued defending its conservative biblical commitments. The Christian Century became a prominent advocate of progressive Protestant thought.

That history matters because publications do more than describe theological movements. They help direct them.

Why Billy Graham and Carl Henry Created Christianity Today

By the middle of the twentieth century, The Christian Century had become one of America’s best-known religious magazines. Its liberal Protestant perspective carried considerable intellectual and cultural influence.

Billy Graham believed evangelical Christianity needed a serious alternative.

Working with allies including L. Nelson Bell and theologian Carl F. H. Henry, Graham helped launch Christianity Today in 1956. Henry became the founding editor.

The objective was not simply to attack liberal Protestantism. Graham wanted evangelicals to engage difficult intellectual, cultural, and theological questions without surrendering their convictions about Scripture, the gospel, and the historic Christian faith.

Christianity Today’s own published history describes Graham’s desire to restore intellectual credibility and spiritual influence to evangelical Christianity. The magazine also acknowledged its relationship to The Christian Century in a 2008 historical article, “A Long Ride on the Mainline.”

That historical account describes Christianity Today as an evangelical answer to The Christian Century. Henry understood that the new publication would challenge the theological assumptions and influence of its liberal counterpart.

Consider the progression.

Christian Standard defended biblical Christianity as modernism reshaped portions of the Restoration Movement. The Christian Century emerged from Disciples roots and became a leading voice of theological liberalism. Christianity Today was subsequently founded to offer an evangelical alternative to that liberal Protestant establishment.

Now Christianity Today finds itself at the center of a controversy that raises the same underlying questions about biblical authority and cultural accommodation.

History has a remarkable way of coming full circle.

Who Was Elisabeth Elliot?

For readers unfamiliar with Elisabeth Elliot, a little background is important.

Born in 1926, Elliot became one of the most influential missionary authors and Bible teachers of the twentieth century. Her story became widely known through the missionary work and tragic death of her first husband, Jim Elliot.

Jim and Elisabeth served as missionaries in Ecuador. On January 8, 1956, Jim and four other missionaries—Nate Saint, Pete Fleming, Ed McCully, and Roger Youderian—were killed while attempting peaceful contact with the Waorani people, then commonly called the Auca.

Elisabeth was left a young widow with their daughter, Valerie, who had been born in 1955.

Her response was remarkable. Rather than abandoning missionary service, she remained in Ecuador. In 1958, Elisabeth, Valerie, and Rachel Saint went to live among the Waorani, the people among whom the five missionaries had died.

Elisabeth’s books Through Gates of Splendor and Shadow of the Almighty introduced generations of Christians to the sacrifice of missionary service and the extraordinary cost of following Christ.

But her influence extended far beyond that experience. She wrote extensively about suffering, discipleship, marriage, Christian womanhood, sexual purity, and the authority of Scripture. Her books Passion and Purity and Let Me Be a Woman challenged Christians to submit every aspect of life to the lordship of Jesus Christ.

Her radio ministry, Gateway to Joy, brought those teachings to an even wider audience.

Elliot married two more times after Jim’s death. Her second husband, theologian Addison Leitch, died in 1973. She married Lars Gren in 1977. She died in 2015 at age 88.

Throughout her public ministry, Elisabeth Elliot maintained that personal desires, however powerful, must be brought into obedience to God’s Word.

That conviction is essential to understanding the present controversy.

Christianity Today’s Allegations About Elisabeth Elliot’s Sexuality

On October 15, 2026, Christianity Today published an article by Lucy S. R. Austen titled “What We Know—and Cannot Know—About Elisabeth Elliot’s Sexuality.”

Austen, who previously wrote a biography of Elliot, examined an article by historian William Stell entitled “A Rickety Closet.” Stell had interviewed Virginia Ramey Mollenkott in 2020, during which Mollenkott described an alleged private encounter with Elliot at an evangelical women’s conference in 1975.

Mollenkott was an influential feminist writer who later advocated changing traditional Christian teaching regarding homosexuality. By 1975, she and Elliot had developed significant theological disagreements, particularly concerning Christian feminism.

According to Mollenkott’s recollection, Elliot had been making statements about Mollenkott’s sexual orientation. During a private confrontation, Mollenkott said she threatened to respond publicly by suggesting that Elliot possessed personal knowledge of her sexuality.

Mollenkott claimed that Elliot reacted fearfully and said that Mollenkott could destroy her reputation.

That alleged exchange is the foundation of the controversy.

The event was said to have occurred in 1975. Mollenkott described it in an interview conducted in 2020, forty-five years later, when she was 88 years old. Elisabeth Elliot had already been dead for five years.

There is no independently verified account of the private conversation. No witness has been produced to corroborate what supposedly occurred behind closed doors. And even if Mollenkott recalled the conversation accurately, her account contains no explicit admission by Elliot that she was attracted to women or had engaged in a same-sex relationship.

Austen acknowledges that the encounter cannot be verified. Nevertheless, she presents additional material from Elliot’s letters, friendships, and personal papers to suggest that Elliot may have experienced same-sex attraction.

Those documents establish friendships and reveal portions of Elliot’s thinking at various stages of her life. They do not establish bisexuality, sexual activity, or a romantic relationship with Mollenkott or another woman.

That distinction is important. A person’s sexuality cannot responsibly be determined simply by reconstructing close friendships or assigning romantic meaning to ambiguous statements.

Denny Burk: The Evidence Does Not Support the Conclusion

Theologian Denny Burk has offered a pointed criticism of Christianity Today’s handling of the story.

Burk’s concern is that Austen’s article moves beyond what the evidence can establish, allowing an uncorroborated allegation to become the basis for a much larger conclusion about Elliot’s private life.

He points out that Mollenkott did not actually describe a lesbian affair with Elliot. She described an alleged confrontation in which she threatened to imply something damaging about Elliot’s sexuality.

Those are very different things.

Burk also challenges Austen’s interpretation of Elliot’s friendship with Eleanor Vandevort, which Austen suggests might have involved romantic feelings. The suggestion relies on interpreting a close relationship rather than documenting a romantic one.

In other words, the argument depends upon connecting several uncertainties and treating their combined effect as persuasive evidence.

But speculation does not become historical proof simply because several speculative possibilities are placed next to one another.

Austen does provide historical documents as context, including correspondence that reflects Elliot’s friendship with Mollenkott and her willingness to discuss complex questions about sexuality. Burk’s essential criticism, however, remains: None of that establishes that Elliot was bisexual.

He also calls attention to an excerpt from Mollenkott’s interview in which she reportedly expressed frustration over jokes Elliot made about homosexuality. If that portion is understood accurately, it complicates the suggestion that Elliot’s earlier attitude toward homosexuality was necessarily more affirming.

Historical evidence must be evaluated in its entirety, including evidence that challenges the interpretation a writer is advancing.

Burk’s strongest point is not that Elisabeth Elliot must be presumed incapable of experiencing temptation. It is that the evidence presented does not justify assigning a private sexual identity to her.

One remembered conversation is not enough to establish a hidden relationship. Neither is the existence of an affectionate friendship. Nor does discomfort at a threatened public accusation amount to a confession.

When the person being described has been dead for more than a decade, the responsibility to distinguish documented facts from conjecture becomes even greater.

Elisabeth Elliot’s Own Words on Biblical Sexuality

There is another important problem with the Christianity Today narrative. We possess an extensive record of Elisabeth Elliot’s own teaching on biblical sexuality.

In contrast to the uncertain allegations about her private life, her public convictions are clearly documented.

In Passion and Purity, Elliot described the struggle to submit romantic and sexual desire to God’s commands. Her message was straightforward: Sexual attraction, regardless of its intensity, does not create an exemption from Christian obedience.

Her teaching emphasized that sexual intimacy belongs within marriage and that Christians are called to exercise self-control even when their desires are difficult or painful.

In a recorded question-and-answer session preserved by the Elisabeth Elliot Foundation, Elliot addressed homosexuality directly.

She described Scripture’s teaching on the subject as “absolutely crystal clear” and explicitly affirmed that sexual activity belongs within marriage.

Her response placed homosexual conduct alongside other behaviors identified as sinful in Scripture. She rejected the argument that a person’s experience of attraction, including the belief that one was born with that attraction, justified sexual conduct contrary to biblical teaching.

The recording can be heard through the Elisabeth Elliot Foundation’s published video.

Regardless of whether a modern reader agrees with Elliot, there is no ambiguity about the position she publicly defended.

Furthermore, Austen’s own article acknowledges that Elliot endorsed Richard Lovelace’s 1978 book Homosexuality and the Church, which defended traditional Christian teaching concerning same-sex sexual relationships while criticizing the church’s mistreatment of homosexual people.

That endorsement is further evidence of Elliot’s stated doctrinal position.

None of this proves what attractions Elliot may or may not have experienced privately. Public doctrine cannot settle every question about a person’s inner life.

But it does mean that her documented teaching deserves considerably more weight than an unverified allegation offered decades after the supposed events.

Elisabeth Elliot made her understanding of biblical sexuality known repeatedly and publicly. If we intend to explain what she believed, we should begin with what she actually said.

The Deeper Theological Disagreement

Burk’s response also identifies a theological difference that should not be overlooked.

Austen argues that same-sex attraction, considered apart from conduct or chosen thoughts, is not itself sinful. In an email response quoted by Burk, she explained that moral responsibility arises from decisions of the will and from actions, rather than from attraction alone.

That distinction is significant within contemporary evangelical discussions of sexuality.

Burk disagrees with Austen’s theological framework. His objection reflects a view that the moral implications of disordered desires cannot be reduced entirely to outward behavior or consciously chosen actions.

The discussion therefore reaches beyond Elisabeth Elliot into a wider debate over temptation, desire, sanctification, and the moral teaching of Scripture.

James 1:14-15 describes desire in relation to temptation and sin. Jesus, in Matthew 5:27-28, teaches that moral responsibility reaches beyond outward conduct into the intentions and desires of the heart. First Corinthians 6:9-11 identifies sexual immorality among the sins from which believers are called into a new life in Christ.

Christians disagree about how to distinguish an involuntary attraction, temptation, deliberately cultivated desire, and sinful action. Those distinctions deserve careful biblical examination rather than simplistic assumptions.

But whatever position one adopts concerning the moral status of attraction, the historical problem remains unchanged: Christianity Today has not established that Elisabeth Elliot experienced the attraction being attributed to her.

Theological arguments should not be built on speculative claims about another person’s private life.

Christianity Today’s Repeated Editorial Turmoil

The Elisabeth Elliot article has appeared at a time of continuing change within Christianity Today’s editorial leadership.

On October 2, 2026, the organization announced that Erik Petrik would become chief content officer and editor in chief, succeeding Marvin Olasky, who had served during a period of transition.

On October 12, Warren Cole Smith of MinistryWatch published a report examining staff departures, leadership changes, and the magazine’s editorial direction. Smith identified five editors in chief across a period of fewer than seven years: Mark Galli, Tim Dalrymple, Russell Moore, Marvin Olasky, and Erik Petrik.

Further reporting described staff layoffs and resignations, adding to concerns about organizational stability.

These changes have not all occurred for the same reasons, and it would be inaccurate to attribute every departure to theological conflict. Publications face financial pressures, changing technology, competing editorial priorities, and difficult organizational decisions.

But leadership instability creates understandable questions about editorial identity, institutional memory, and the principles guiding publication decisions.

Christianity Today’s handling of the Elliot article compounds those questions.

After publication on October 15, editor in chief Erik Petrik temporarily removed the piece from the website, explaining that some key members of the content team had not reviewed it before publication during the leadership transition. Following additional review, the magazine restored the article.

The episode illustrates a publication wrestling with editorial process at the very moment readers are asking more fundamental questions about its theological judgment.

The larger concern is not simply who occupies the editor’s office. It is whether Christianity Today remains committed to the evangelical theological vision that led to its creation.

A change in leadership does not necessarily mean a change in doctrine. Nor does publishing a disputed article prove that a magazine has formally embraced theological liberalism. But the direction of a publication can be observed through the arguments it chooses to advance, the evidence it considers sufficient, and the theological assumptions it permits to shape its conclusions.

Those are legitimate matters for readers to examine.

Christian Journalism Cannot Substitute Speculation for Evidence

For Christian Standard, this controversy provides an opportunity to consider our own obligations.

We should not demand careful evidence from publications with which we disagree while excusing speculation when it serves conclusions we happen to favor.

Christian journalism must be accountable to something greater than ideological preference, cultural acceptance, institutional reputation, or audience interest.

It must be accountable to truth.

Proverbs 18:17 reminds us that a person’s case may appear convincing until it is carefully examined. Proverbs 18:13 warns against answering a matter before hearing it. Ephesians 4:25 instructs believers to put away falsehood and speak truthfully.

Those passages should guide the work of every Christian writer and editor.

In the present controversy, certain facts are established. Elisabeth Elliot and Virginia Mollenkott knew one another. Their theological differences became substantial. Mollenkott later claimed that a private confrontation occurred in 1975. Elliot wrote extensively about biblical sexuality and publicly defended traditional Christian teaching.

Other matters are not established. We cannot independently verify Mollenkott’s description of the private encounter. We cannot conclude from that encounter that Elliot was bisexual. We cannot turn close friendships into evidence of sexual relationships simply because such an interpretation is conceivable.

The fact that a theory is possible does not make it probable. And even probability should not be asserted without an adequate evidentiary foundation.

Furthermore, Christians should be especially cautious about assigning secret motives or identities to those who are no longer alive to respond.

Elisabeth Elliot cannot answer these allegations. Her defenders cannot establish every thought she ever had. Her critics cannot legitimately treat that inability as permission to fill the gaps with speculation.

Fairness requires the same standard of evidence for everyone.

When History Repeats Itself, Will We Recognize It?

There is a lesson here that extends well beyond Christianity Today or Elisabeth Elliot.

Christian institutions do not automatically remain faithful to their founding convictions simply because they retain their original names.

Churches, schools, denominations, and publications can change gradually. The process does not necessarily begin with the rejection of an ancient creed or a formal declaration that Scripture no longer carries authority.

It can begin when cultural assumptions receive greater confidence than biblical teaching, when theological boundaries are treated as outdated, or when a commitment to intellectual credibility becomes detached from the convictions that originally gave an institution its purpose.

This is one reason Christian Standard’s history matters.

Our movement has already witnessed profound theological divisions concerning the authority of the New Testament. The pages of Christian Standard and The Christian Century became prominent expressions of differing theological trajectories.

Christianity Today was subsequently created because Billy Graham, Carl Henry, and their associates believed evangelical Christianity needed a credible voice that would not surrender its biblical foundations to the prevailing theological culture.

Seventy years later, the question is whether the magazine still remembers the distinction.

The Elisabeth Elliot controversy does not, by itself, establish that Christianity Today has abandoned evangelical orthodoxy. But it does raise a troubling question about the kind of historical reasoning and theological assumptions the publication is willing to place before its readers.

Why should an uncorroborated recollection from forty-five years after a supposed conversation carry greater interpretive weight than decades of a Christian teacher’s documented convictions?

Why should the possibility of same-sex attraction be presented as a meaningful reinterpretation of Elliot’s life when the supporting evidence does not establish that possibility as fact?

And why should a publication founded to offer biblically grounded evangelical journalism invite such conclusions without a stronger evidentiary foundation?

Those are questions Christianity Today should be willing to answer.

Elisabeth Elliot’s legacy does not need protection from honest historical inquiry. Neither should her published teaching be placed beyond criticism. She was a fallible Christian whose life included suffering, complicated relationships, and the same need for grace shared by every believer.

But her legacy should not be rewritten through insinuation.

She spent her life teaching Christians to surrender personal desires to the lordship of Jesus Christ and to trust Scripture even when obedience came at great personal cost. That is the Elisabeth Elliot we can document.

The more important issue, however, is not the preservation of a human reputation. It is the preservation of a commitment to truth.

Christian Standard has spent 160 years engaged in the struggle to hold Christian teaching accountable to Scripture. That responsibility remains just as important today.

History does not have to repeat itself. But avoiding its mistakes requires remembering what happened, recognizing the pressures that produced them, and refusing to surrender convictions simply because the surrounding culture has changed.

Christianity Today was founded because earlier evangelical leaders understood that lesson.

One hopes its present leaders will remember it.

Author: Jerry Harris

Jerry Harris is publisher of Christian Standard and former teaching pastor at The Crossing, a large, multisite church located in three states across the Midwest.