On October 16, 2026, Christianity Today published an article on its site entitled What We Know—and Cannot Know—About Elisabeth Elliot’s Sexuality, by Lucy Austen. This article publicly questions whether Elizabeth Elliot was bisexual.
Most often I completely ignore what Christianity Today says, but I cannot let this one pass. Lucy Austen and Christianity Today have sinned against God, against Elisabeth Elliot, and against every believer who reads the article. Christian honor demands that I defend the integrity of a defenseless sister in Christ.
Let me explain why.
It makes several real accusations.
The article makes an accusation of sin against Elisabeth Elliot. Some might argue against this since the title says, “What We Know—And Cannot Know.” However, there is no place in the Christian world for saying “we don’t know for sure, but we think it might be possible that . . . .” Such scandalous accusations do not require proof to be “honest” but accomplish the same sinful purpose that making an all-out accusation does. It questions a person’s entire life and ministry. It robs Elisabeth Elliot of her “good name” (Proverbs 22:1). It is the same wickedness in which Candace Owens now publicly trades.
The article accuses Elliot of homosexuality, which is clearly identified in scripture as sin. It insinuates that there might have been sexual relationship between Elliot and Virginia Mollencott. Only in the most biblically twisted reaches of professing Christianity are homosexual relationships considered anything but sin. All sexual relationships outside of marriage are sinful.
It also insinuates marital infidelity—an attendant sin to the first accusation. Austen knows this implication to be true and admits so in the article. She says,
“Because Mollenkott was married until 1973, and Elliot from 1969 through 1973, Mollenkott’s story raises not only the matter of same-sex sexual relationships but also of marital fidelity.”
It is an accusation of lying. In her work, Passion and Purity, Elliot portrays herself as faithful to her first husband, who died violently on the mission field in Equador, and then also to her second husband. She characterized herself as being faithful to God and to her mission.
It is an accusation of blatant hypocrisy. The Pharisees were the sinners most condemned in scripture with their “do as we say, not as we do” spiritual enslavement of the masses (Matthew 23). Not only would Elliot have been committing the sin of appearing outwardly righteous while inwardly corrupt but would also have been living a life she consistently and publicly condemned.
The accusation is without witnesses.
Austen’s accusation is based solely on this story,
As Mollenkott recounted it, Elliot came up behind her after the keynote, put her arms around her, and asked to talk privately, saying, “I want to straighten you out.” But whatever Elliot intended to say apparently went unspoken. As soon as they were alone in Elliot’s hotel room, Mollenkott got right to a point of her own: “I hear you’re telling audiences that I’m gay. … If you keep it up, I’m gonna say to people, ‘Ask her how she knows.’”
Mollenkott said that Elliot, who had faced death quietly more than once in the jungles of Ecuador, “‘fell down on her knees … and said, ‘You could destroy me, Virginia.’ And I said, ‘Yes, I could, Elisabeth. Except that I’m not that kind of person.’” She concludes, “So that’s how we ended that [pause] aspect of our friendship.”
That’s it. That is all.
This is an account based upon hearsay of one person. There is a reason why hearsay is not admissible in court — it cannot be verified. It can easily be misunderstood or fabricated. In this case the story is based upon a supposed interview by William Stell told in a book with a very clear agenda (Born Again Queer, 2026). There is no audio recording, and Virginia Mollencott is no longer living to corroborate the story. As such, it should be discarded as unverifiable. The only witness to the original (decades ago) conversation is Mollencott who died in 2020 and is no longer available to give witness.
In fact, Austen acknowledges the potential problems with Mollencott’s account even if Stell is factual in his retelling of the conversation.
Of course, years after both women’s deaths and the events in question, we can’t know whether the conversation happened as Mollenkott described—or indeed whether it happened at all. Neither woman is available for further inquiry. Memory is notoriously elusive, and [the 88-year-old] Mollenkott would’ve been remembering a conversation decades past.
Even if the story is considered factual, the purported accuser is not here to explain. What did she mean by the words, “ask her how she knows.”? Was Mollencott saying, “I can destroy you with one little question, whether true or false”? We simply do not know what the accuser meant by the words if she indeed said them. We do not know if the accuser was sincere in those words, if she indeed said them. We do not know if the accuser had any true knowledge or experience to make such an accusation, if she indeed said them.
What we do know is that those accusations go against the testimony of every other person who knew Elisabeth Elliot and what she herself said about her life, her marriages (she was widowed twice), the Bible, and her own sexuality.
Such accusations are defined in scripture as sin.
The principle of not receiving an accusation against an elder applies except with 2 or 3 witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19) here. The verse is also a continuation of an Old Testament principle regarding 2 or 3 witnesses that is intended to mitigate against the horrible consequences of false accusations just like this (Deuteronomy 19:15). All people, believers or not, should be given this protection. Thus, this accusation against Elliot is sin in that it specifically violates multiple commands of scripture.
Slander is also sin. Solomon calls slander the trade of fools (Proverbs 10:18, 12:18), Paul categorizes it with bitterness, rage, and brawling (Ephesians 4:31), the Law condemns it (Leviticus 19:16), James condemns the sinful use of the tongue (or pen, James 3 and James 4:11).
Such accusations are Satanic.
I am not saying that Satan is at work here: I cannot know that. I am saying that this type of behavior is the way Satan functions. In the Garden, Satan insinuated that God was dishonest (Genesis 3:4). He accuses Job (Job 1:9-11). Satan is characterized as an accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10). His operational weapon is the lie (John 8:44, Revelation 12:9).
Christianity Today has picked a fight with God Himself.
While I feel compelled to defend Elisabeth Elliot, her true defender is God. He has promised to defend the faithful. Consider Psalm 101:5,
Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor,
Him I will destroy;
The one who has a haughty look and a proud heart,
Him I will not endure.
Both the writer and Christianity Today should repent.
They should admit that the article is salacious and sinful. They must ask forgiveness of God and of the public since the article was published for all to see. The agenda of the article is to engender compassion for believers who might struggle with same sex attraction (which is another issue altogether). However, calling into question the sexuality of a sister in Christ who is unable to defend herself is a sinful way to make that point.
Faithful believers have an obligation.
The article constitutes slander by any definition. Paul declares what Christians must do regarding believers who publicly participate in such sin. 1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler (slanderer), or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
Paul commanded the Corinthians not to extend the fellowship of the Lord’s Table to such a person. In refusing to do so, the Church publicly exposes the sinners’ behavior as incompatible with true Christianity. Such sin is horrible when it is whispered in private conversations, but when it is published under the guise of journalism in a magazine that bears the name of Christ in its masthead, it is so much more egregious.
Discover more from Proclaim & Defend
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
