Christianity Today's Elisabeth Elliot Article Insinuates Bisexuality Without Evidence and Should Be Retracted
Source: Glenn T. Stanton. "Christianity Today Erases Last Credibility With Baseless Claims." October 23, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Christianity Today ran a piece hinting that Elisabeth Elliot was bisexual, based only on one dead woman's secondhand claim and on innocent letters and visits. He says this clashes with everything Elliot publicly stood for, breaks CT's own editorial rules, and unfairly damages her reputation, so CT should retract it.
Conclusion
Christianity Today wrongly smeared Elisabeth Elliot by publishing an article insinuating she was bisexual on baseless, uncorroborated evidence; this violates journalistic standards and the magazine's own stated principles, and CT should publicly retract it as it did a previous error.
Premises
- The article's core claim rests on a single uncorroborated assertion from Virginia Mollenkott, relayed by activist author William Stell, who is promoting a book; Mollenkott died in 2020 and no other party substantiates the claim.
- The 'supporting' material in Austen's piece (a 1964 letter about someone else's same-sex attraction, and visits between Elliot and Mollenkott while Elliot got feedback on her novel) shows nothing romantic or sexual and merely lets innuendo stand.
- The insinuation contradicts Elliot's well-documented character and public convictions, including her unambiguous 1994 statement that Scripture condemns homosexual practice and her lifelong advocacy for biblical sexual standards.
- CT's article violates the magazine's own declared principle that it does not publish LGBTQ-affirming perspectives, as shown by its closing paragraphs of 'soft gay apologetics,' and the later editor's note mischaracterizes the article as responding to questionable claims when the article does not call them questionable.
- Publishing a reputation-damaging accusation about a deceased person on such thin evidence is irresponsible journalism that harms Elliot's legacy and family and reflects CT's broader editorial decline.
Assumptions
- A single uncorroborated claim from a now-deceased source is insufficient grounds for publishing an insinuation about someone's sexuality.
- Publicly stated beliefs and reputation are strong evidence about private conduct, so a person's moral convictions make a contrary private history unlikely.
- Being described as bisexual or same-sex attracted is inherently reputation-damaging, i.e., a 'smear' or 'sliming.'
- The source's activist motives and book promotion reduce his credibility.
- A publication should adhere to its own declared editorial principles, and deviations are evidence of misconduct.
- CT's past correction (the nails/crucifixion issue) is a relevant precedent for what it should do here.