Executive Overview
The landscape of American evangelicalism has long been defined by a pantheon of towering figures, yet few loom as large as Elisabeth Elliot. Revered as a modern saint, her legacy is inextricably bound to the martyrdom of her first husband, Jim Elliot, and four missionary colleagues at the hands of the Ecuadorian Auca (Waorani) tribe in 1956—a harrowing chapter immortalized in her bestselling memoir, Through Gates of Splendor. Her subsequent, death-defying decision to live among her husband’s killers to share the Christian gospel cemented her legendary status.
Over the decades that followed, Elliot evolved into a formidable public-speaking and writing powerhouse. Through a long-running radio ministry, dozens of books, and uncompromising prose, she became the undisputed godmother of modern evangelical "purity culture," leaving an indelible mark on the conservative theology of sex, gender, and personal holiness.
Against this backdrop, the decision by Christianity Today—historically the premier flagship journal of American evangelicalism—to publish, temporarily pull, and subsequently republish an article suggesting that Elliot may have been bisexual sent seismic shockwaves through the religious landscape.
Read Also
The piece, written by award-winning Elliot biographer Lucy S. R. Austen, leans heavily on recently unearthed source material from progressive gay historian William Stell’s book, Born Again Queer. It features claims from late progressive church activist Virginia Ramey Mollenkott regarding a period of intense friendship in the 1960s.
What followed was a fierce public debate encompassing questions of journalistic ethics, biographical speculation, shifting views on same-sex attraction within Christian circles, and the institutional fragility of modern religious media. Dubbed "Elliotgate" by critics, the controversy has magnified deep-seated fractures within evangelicalism regarding how the movement confronts its historical icons, sexual ethics, and the temptation toward sensationalism in the digital age.
Detailed Chronology
The Genesis of the Claim: From Archives to Born Again Queer
The controversy traces its roots to interviews conducted by historian William Stell for his research project examining the intersection of evangelicalism and queer history, which culminated in his book Born Again Queer. Among Stell’s subjects was Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, a prominent Christian feminist, literary scholar, and activist who came out as a lesbian later in life. Mollenkott passed away in 2020, but recordings and transcripts of Stell’s interviews with her remained part of the historical record, surfacing recently in scholarly and public discussions.
In a 2020 interview clip, Mollenkott recalled a close friendship with a newly widowed Elisabeth Elliot during the 1960s. At the time, their theological trajectories had not yet sharply diverged, and Mollenkott described Elliot as remarkably "liberal" regarding personal relationships and theological matters compared to her later, hardened orthodox persona.
According to Mollenkott, the friendship soured as Elliot shifted sharply to the political and theological right. Mollenkott alleged that Elliot began privately and publicly accusing her of lesbianism before Mollenkott had formally come out to the broader public.
The 1975 Confrontation
The tension between the two women allegedly culminated at the inaugural conference of the Evangelical Women’s Caucus in 1975. Mollenkott claimed that Elliot ambushed her in a food line, requesting an urgent private conversation.
In a tense hotel room confrontation, Mollenkott asserted that Elliot accused her of homosexuality. Rather than folding under the accusation, Mollenkott allegedly leveled a counter-threat, warning Elliot: "If you keep it up, I’m gonna say to people, ‘Ask her how she knows.’"
According to Mollenkott’s account, Elliot instantly collapsed onto her knees, pleading with Mollenkott not to "destroy" her. While Mollenkott never explicitly claimed the two women engaged in a sexual relationship, she coyly left open-ended insinuations about the nature of their intimacy, while further dropping hints that Elliot shared a similarly "very close" dynamic with "another woman that I know of."
Austen’s Article and the Christianity Today Editorial Chaos
Intrigued by these archival breadcrumbs, Lucy S. R. Austen—who had previously penned the definitive, critically acclaimed biography of Elliot—pushed forward with an analytical essay. Austen pointed to a 1964 letter found within Elliot’s personal papers. In the correspondence, a 38-year-old Elliot reflected on the biblical relationship between David and Jonathan, positing that they shared a "much deeper love than the usual man-to-man friendship." Elliot concluded the letter with a strikingly unconventional remark for her era: "Perhaps the truth is that there are no such things as lines drawn, coincident with sex. Love is the great thing."
Austen also speculated that the "other woman" hinted at by Mollenkott might have been Eleanor Vandevort, who lived with Elliot for seven years to help care for Elliot’s young daughter, Valerie. Austen cited a vague reference in Elliot’s papers where she described her second marriage as a form of "salvation" for Vandevort, herself, and her daughter.
On the basis of Mollenkott’s contested recollections, the 1964 letter, and circumstantial living arrangements, Austen argued that the conclusion of Elliot’s bisexuality "seems likely."
When Christianity Today published Austen’s piece, the immediate backlash caught leadership off-guard. In a chaotic sequence of events, the magazine pulled the article down, only to republish it shortly thereafter. The editorial flip-flop exposed internal dissension. Bonnie Kristian, the deputy editor who oversaw the piece, subsequently departed the publication and defended the article on her Substack as an important catalyst for necessary conversation. Meanwhile, the publication’s clumsy handling left Austen herself uninformed about the temporary retraction.
Supporting Context & Metrics
To fully understand the gravity of "Elliotgate," one must examine the broader cultural and institutional decline facing Christianity Today (CT) and the fragile state of American religious journalism.
The Institutional Vulnerability of Christianity Today
Founded in 1956 by Billy Graham and a coalition of evangelical leaders to provide a serious intellectual voice for orthodox Protestantism, CT has navigated decades of shifting cultural tides. However, recent reporting by Ruth Graham of The New York Times highlights a stark financial and institutional downturn at the magazine, marked by mass layoffs, a waning subscriber base, and internal ideological polarization.
Critics argue that publishing an article grounded in speculative, third-party hearsay from political adversaries violates traditional journalistic standards—and stands in direct contradiction to CT’s own historical editorial ethics. As late as 1970, the magazine’s editorial code maintained that it is categorically wrong "to gossip about things of which we are not certain." For a publication fighting to retain its authority as a steady beacon for orthodox evangelicals, pushing speculative theories about a revered historical figure appeared to many subscribers as an unnecessary capitulation to modern sensationalism.
The Theological Divide: Side B vs. Traditional Orthodoxy
The fallout quickly bled into broader theological debates over how evangelicalism approaches same-sex attraction (SSA). Denny Burk, president of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, published a critical column in WORLD magazine. Burk rightly targeted the thin evidentiary foundation of Austen’s claims, but his critique conflated Austen’s premise—that experiencing same-sex attraction is not inherently a sin—with "Side B" theology.
"Side B" refers to the movement among some Christians who believe that while practicing homosexual behavior is sinful, experiencing same-sex attraction is not; consequently, adherents embrace their SSA as a lifelong orientation of celibacy while remaining within orthodox Christian communities. Critics of Side B argue that adopting sexual orientation as a public, permanent "identity" undermines the transformative power of Christian sanctification.
Burk’s critics pointed out that acknowledging same-sex temptation as non-sinful (analogous to how orthodox theologians view unacted-upon heterosexual lust or anger) does not automatically endorse the full-blown Side B political and social identity framework. Nonetheless, Austen’s explicit call for Elliot’s alleged experience to "inform the church’s treatment of Christians who experience same-sex attraction" signaled to readers that the article was designed to shift evangelical pastoral care toward more progressive paradigms.
Official Statements and Commentary
The controversy drew rapid, polarized responses from theological leaders, historians, and journalists across the ideological spectrum.
- Bonnie Kristian (Former Deputy Editor, Christianity Today): Defending her editorial decision on her personal Substack, Kristian asserted that the piece was vital for fostering honest dialogue. She wrote, "The history we inherit is often more complex, messy, and human than the hagiographies we construct. Exploring these complexities is not an act of destruction, but an act of historical fidelity."
- Denny Burk (President, Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood): Writing in WORLD magazine, Burk condemned the methodology of the article: "The evidence marshaled here falls woefully short of establishing the author’s bold claims. Relying on the contested, decades-old memory of an ideological opponent to posthumously out an evangelical icon crosses a moral line from rigorous biography into speculative gossip."
- Wesley Hill (Proponent of Side B Theology): Praising the article on social media, Hill suggested that humanizing the internal struggles of historical giants provides much-needed pastoral relief for contemporary believers wrestling with silent temptations, writing that such revelations help dismantle the isolation felt by celibate gay Christians in orthodox pews.
Future Outlook
As the dust settles on "Elliotgate," the episode serves as a case study in the friction between historical revisionism and hagiography within American evangelicalism.
- Re-evaluating Historical Icons: The controversy demonstrates a growing generational appetite within certain evangelical circles to dismantle sanitized hagiographies. Younger scholars and writers increasingly favor unpacking the full, messy humanity of historical figures. However, the backlash proves that when these efforts rely on speculative or politically charged sources, they risk triggering fierce institutional pushback.
- The Future of Christianity Today: For CT, the episode has compounded existing anxieties regarding its editorial direction. As the publication struggles with financial headwinds and staff turnover, rebuilding trust with its core readership—who look to the magazine for stability rather than cultural provocation—will require rigorous editorial discipline.
- Pastoral Implications for Same-Sex Attraction: The debate lays bare the unresolved tensions in how evangelical churches minister to believers experiencing same-sex attraction. While pastoral leaders increasingly recognize the need for compassionate spaces that distinguish between temptation and sin, controversies like this show that any perceived slide toward normalizing modern sexual identity politics will continue to trigger profound defensiveness within traditional communities.
Ultimately, whether Elisabeth Elliot wrestled with bisexual temptations during a period of intense personal grief and cultural upheaval in the 1960s remains a private matter locked within the archives of her soul. What is certain is that the mature Elisabeth Elliot—a woman who dedicated her life to calling believers to radical obedience, self-denial, and strict adherence to scriptural boundaries—would have been profoundly dismayed to see her private life dragged into the contemporary culture wars for public consumption, yielding little spiritual fruit for the Church she served with such unwavering devotion.
Comments
Facebook App ID not configured. Please add it in the Customizer.