Category Archives: Witnesses

Frank Turek at William & Mary: February 20, 2025, 7pm

Dr. Frank Turek, a Christian evangelist and apologist, will be speaking at the College of William and Mary, on Thursday, February, 20, 2025, 7pm-9pm, at the Commonwealth Auditorium, in the Sadler Center, the main student gathering place on campus.

Frank Turek is the author of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, co-authored with the late Norman Geisler. He gives talks at colleges and universities across the country covering the primary questions discussed in his book:

  • Does truth exist?
  • Does God exist?
  • Are miracles possible?
  • Is the New Testament true?

His talk at William & Mary will be followed by a Q&A session. This event is sponsored by the William & Mary Apologetics Club, and is open to the public.

From his CrossExamined.org website, “Frank is a widely featured guest in the media as a leading apologetics expert and cultural commentator. He has appeared on hundreds of radio programs and many top TV networks including: Fox News, ABC, and CBS. He also writes a column for Townhall.com and several other sites.

A former aviator in the US Navy, Frank has a master’s degree from George Washington University and a doctorate from Southern Evangelical Seminary.  He and his wife, Stephanie, are blessed with three grown sons and two grandsons (so far).”

Frank hosts the CrossExamined radio program on American Family Radio, and has a Wesleyan theological background. He has publicly debated prominent atheists about the truth claims of the Christian faith, such as Michael Shermer and the late Christopher Hitchens. Frank gives thoughtful answers to a wide range of questions raised by skeptics and inquiring Christians from the floor.

The event maybe livestreamed. If so I will update with a link here.

Below is a 2-minute clip of one student asking Frank a question, followed with his answer:

 


The Real Indiana Jones: Kenneth Kitchen (1932-2025)

I just read today that one of the world’s most recognized Egyptologists, Kenneth Kitchen, died Thursday, February 6, 2025, at age 93. Kitchen was an idiosyncratic legend, an archaeologist who studied the Ancient Near East, specializing in ancient Egyptian history, and who upheld the Old Testament as a reliable source for understanding the history of the ancient world.  In my mind, he was the “real Indiana Jones.”

Few today would be dazzled by Kitchen’s study on The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. But for the Christian interested in  the intersection between the Bible and archaeology, his 2003 erudite defense of the Bible, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, stands squarely in the maximalist tradition, affirming the historicity of the Exodus and the biblical Patriarchs. I read his book almost twenty years ago and was blown away by the breadth and depth of his scholarship.

While many scholars today tend to be skeptical of the story of Moses and the flight of Israel out of Egypt, spending forty years wandering the Sinai desert, Kenneth Kitchen was resolute in marshaling detailed evidence to support the testimony of the Bible. Kitchen was careful not to say that the biblical stories of the Patriarchs could be “proved” by the archaeological record, but he likewise stressed that archaeology has not “disproved” this history as presented in the Bible either.

Kenneth A. Kitchen’s On the Reliability of the Old Testament is a modern classic defending the historicity of the Old Testament. Kitchen begins with the most recent period in Israelite history, working his way backwards towards the earliest Patriarchs, showing that figures like Moses and Abraham line up with what we read in the archaeological record.

 

Born in Scotland, the life-long bachelor Kitchen was a contrarian in several ways, and not afraid of being combative in his research. Not only did he take on minimalist colleagues, such as Ronald Hendel, who concluded that the historical Moses was a fictional product of Israelite imagination at least four or five centuries after the traditionally dated Exodus period, Kitchen was critical of even conservative Old Testament scholars for not reading the text carefully enough.  He rejected the traditional, early date for the Exodus, in the mid 15th century BCE, around the year 1446, while Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, or Thutmose III served as Pharaoh, an interpretation which has been based on a non-metaphorical reading of the years described in 1 Kings 6. Archaeologists like Bryant Wood continue to hold to this traditional view.

Instead, Kitchen favored a late date alternative, about 200 years later in the 13th century BCE, when Rameses II served as Pharaoh. Kitchen argued that the early date has lacked sufficient archaeological support. Instead, the city of Rameses in Egypt was known in the 13th century, corresponding to what has been read from Exodus 1:11, and that archaeological evidence for the destruction of Hazor in the 13th century matched what has been described by Joshua’s conquest of the Promised Land in Joshua 11:10-11.

Kitchen also chided Old Testament scholars who insisted that the large numbers associated with texts like the census in Numbers 1-2, following a non-metaphorical interpretation of such numbers, did not match the archaeological data, which has supported a smaller, yet still sizable group of Israelites wandering the Sinai wilderness for some 40 years.

Kitchen’s views even went against the idiosyncratic proposal by atheist and fellow Egyptologist David Rohl, who has argued that a new chronology for Egyptian history should be adopted, which pushes the possible date for the Exodus earlier than what the late date proposes.  David Rohl’s innovative hypothesis has been popularized by Tim Mahoney’s Patterns of Evidence franchise of documentary filmmaking. Kitchen rejected this view as “100% nonsense.”

Kenneth Kitchen’s work has been echoed with support by Trinity Evangelical Divinity School emeritus professor, archaeologist, and Egyptologist, James K. Hoffmeier, and on YouTube, a younger student who studied under Kitchen, Egyptologist David A. Falk, hosts the channel Ancient Egypt and the Bible. Falk has a recent YouTube stream remembering his mentor, Kenneth A. Kitchen.

What helped to win me over to the late date for the Exodus was the argument regarding the location of the slave city near a residence for the Pharaoh. The ancient city of Thebes, located near modern day Luxor, Egypt, was the primary residence for the Pharaohs during the Late Bronze Age. However, we have evidence that in the 13th century the city of Rameses, thought to have been a residence of a Pharaoh of the same name, was located in the Nile delta area. Rameses was in the northeast region of Egypt not that far from the modern city of Cario, and was built by slaves living in a nearby slave city, Avaris.

The journey from that slave city to Rameses would have been less than a few hours by foot, which makes sense of the many meetings that Moses would have had with Pharaoh mentioned in the Book of Exodus. However, any look at the map shows that a journey from the Nile delta to Thebes took at least 6 days to walk, which makes the late-at-night journeys that Moses took from the slave city to Pharoah’s residence rather ludicrous. Unless the Hebrews had built some nuclear-powered speed boat for Moses to travel quickly up the Nile to visit Pharaoh in Thebes, it is hard to imagine how Moses could have made such a relatively quick visit in the middle of the night to Pharoah.

Advocates for an early date for the Exodus might respond by saying a 15th century Pharoah might have built a residence within close walking distance near the 15th century slave city or encampment, but that we simply do not have evidence for such a residence…. at least not yet. But why appeal to evidence we do not currently possess when we actually have evidence that supports a different date, and that still affirms the testimony of Scripture? In my mind, this is a case of having a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush. It is better to hold onto the evidence you already have than it is holding out for evidence which you may never find. Kitchen was that type of evidentialist who opted for the former.

What I did not know about Kitchen was just how idiosyncratic he really was. As Tyndale House scholar Peter J. Williams puts it:

His abode was a small three-bedroom terraced house, without central heating or any modern appliance. [Kitchen] was very proud that nothing was connected to the internet so there could be no possibility of a virus destroying his work…..

Ken Kitchen basically didn’t have a kitchen: it was a tiny box room. Ken lived all his life without a refrigerator. He had milk delivered fresh, and had no need for the complexities of unnecessary equipment. He lived in the utmost simplicity….

Despite his great learning, Ken Kitchen was a man of a deep and simple faith in Jesus Christ as his Saviour and Lord. Though he knew a lot, he was also humble and aware of his own fallibility and frailty. He would want us in remembering him to think of the One he served. As I think about Ken’s life, as a bachelor living a life of ascetic discipline and dedication to scholarship, I find myself challenged by his work ethic and his incredible focus, even as I recognise that Ken was one of a kind. We will not see the like of him again.

Actually, in his later years, Kitchen finally was forced to get a refrigerator after he contracted food poisoning. His doctor strongly advised him to a get refrigerator, for his own safety.

Read more of Peter Williams’ obituary remembering the “real Indiana Jones,” Kenneth A. Kitchen.

A young Kenneth A. Kitchen doing field work for his Egyptological studies.

Here are some links to older Veracity articles about the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan and the problem of large numbers, the difference between maximalists and minimalists in relating archaeology to the study of the Bible, the status of the city of Jericho in biblical history,  a review of a Patterns of Evidence film, by Tim Mahoney, and the fringe archaeology of the late Ron Wyatt, who portrayed himself as a kind of evangelical Indiana Jones.

NOTE: The original blog post had a title with his death in “1925,” instead of “2025,” which was obviously a typographical error.


Living Faith, by President Jimmy Carter. A Remembrance.

I just heard the news tonight that former President Jimmy Carter has died at age 100 (1924-2024).  Following is a review of a book written by President Carter about his spiritual journey, that I finished reading a year or two ago…….

 

Jimmy Carter. Peanut farmer and America’s “Born Again” President.

 

Reading President Jimmy Carter’s 1996 spiritual autobiography, Living Faith, is really an eye-opening perspective on the history of American evangelicalism, over the past half century or more.  Furthermore, Carter has had the distinction of being the longest living American President, during the whole history of the republic.

The Spiritual Journey of a Georgia Peanut Farmer, Turned Icon for “Born Again” Christian Faith

Jimmy Carter grew up in the small town of Plains, Georgia. He was the son of a Baptist Sunday school teacher, and so southern Baptist life and teachings permeated his upbringing. In Living Faith, Carter describes the evolving journey he had towards faith, marked particularly by his baptism at age 11. He admits that coming forward at an “altar call” was significantly more important than his baptism, a unique feature of American evangelicalism, since the period of the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century.

Carter believed in the Gospel, but he also nursed some doubts, which he largely kept to himself. He sensed a conflict between the science being taught in school and the story of creation taught in Sunday school. Presumably, this meant that Carter had a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of the Bible instilled into him, at an early age, in the late 1920s and through the 1930s.

Like most people growing up in the “Bible Belt” of the 20th century, Christian-influenced people, whether such individuals were professing Christian or not, made up the world around him. He knew of some neighboring Jews, but knew nothing about their faith. It was not until his years in college and in the Navy that he became exposed to worldviews substantially different from his own.

What strikes me about Carter’s story up to this point is how vastly different it is from the world that most young people in America, even in the traditional “Bible Belt,” grow up in today. We live in a world of technology, with SmartPhones, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, built on the foundations of modern science. Most Christians simply take this for granted today. Furthermore, the world seems like it is getting smaller all of the time, as cultural and religious pluralism has become more and more the norm, rather than the exception. I go to the grocery store in my once very southern Virginia town, where now I hear languages spoken around me in the diary section that sound nothing like English. Gone are the days when all of one’s neighbors all “went to church.” You might now be living on a street where a Muslim or Buddhist lives, or next to someone who has never stepped a foot inside of a church.

As Carter tells the story, the most important crisis in his spiritual life was the death of his father, who died in the prime years of his life. Carter left the Navy and returned to his home town in Georgia, to experience a sense of community, where nearly all of his neighbors and church members felt like family to him. Yet he was troubled by his doubts regarding the problem of evil, wondering why his father had died at such a young age.

Fundamentalism to Neo-Orthodoxy: and Response to Racism

For solace, Carter turned to the writings of the popular Neo-Orthodox theologians of the day, ranging from Reinhold Niebuhr to Paul Tillich. Carter found in such writings a means of reconciling his faith with modern science. He was able to find a measure of comfort, where certainty was not always available to sustain his faith.

The insights of Neo-Orthodoxy have been eclipsed today by the raging cultural war battles, that divide our post-Christian society. Neo-Orthodoxy in the 20th century sought to restore confidence in Christian faith, that troubled those from mainline Protestant liberal backgrounds, as well as some conservative evangelicals. But Neo-Orthodoxy made the assumption that traditional Christian social ethics, particularly regarding human sexuality, were the norm in societies historically associated with traditional Judeo-Christian values. But that cultural consensus does not belong to the world of the 21st century West.

Despite Neo-Orthodoxy’s efforts to reinvigorate mainline Christianity, the free-fall collapse of the liberal mainline in 21st century continues to marginalize the old mainline traditions. What may have worked to sustain doubting believers in the 20th century, where the social mores remained fairly conservative, no longer effectively helps in today’s pluralistic cultural milieu.

Carter’s distancing from what he calls “fundamentalist” Christianity was driven largely by the persistent history of racism in Georgia, operating under the cloak of “Bible-believing” Christianity. Carter had experienced a racially integrated Navy, but he experienced ostracism upon his return to Plains, Georgia, among some of his professedly-Christian, yet evidently racist neighbors. Carter’s openness towards racial reconciliation was encouraged by the forward-thinking views of his mother, in contrast with the more settled views of his father, who simply viewed the divisions of the races, as the accepted norm.

A telling example of rural Georgian racism was the practice of receiving neighbors as guests. White neighbors were to be greeted at the front door of the home. Black neighbors, on the other hand, were to be greeted at the back door of the home. Carter’s mother rejected this practice, much to the consternation of Carter’s father.

In following the path of his mother, Jimmy Carter’s agricultural supply business was the target of boycotts. Carter survived such boycotts, which eventually faded away over time, but the connection between fundamentalist Christianity and racism had become cemented in his mind.

This aversion to fundamentalism can be seen in how Carter has responded to issues that have invigorated the “Religious Right,” over the decades. For example, Carter writes (p. 126) that he “opposed constitutional amendments that would have… totally prohibited abortions. However [this issue] was one over which I had great concern. I have never been able to believe that Jesus would have approved the taking of human life, but the difficult question then remained: When does a fetus become a human being? My duty was to comply with the rulings of the Supreme Court, but I did everything possible to minimize the need for and attractiveness of abortions.”

Carter believed though abortion was wrong, he was not in favor of government intervention to criminalize it. For those conservative Christians who believe that justice for the unborn can only be achieved by the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and other legislative efforts, Carter’s hesitancy to challenge Roe vs. Wade would ring hollow, despite his concerted efforts to reduce incentives for abortion.

Carter relates a very telling story as to how his theological beliefs got misrepresented by the media, during those years when he was very active in public, political life. When Carter ran for President against Gerald Ford, Carter submitted to a series of interviews by Playboy magazine. Despite attempts by his campaign to review and approve every word that was said during those interviews, one statement slipped out that the magazine could not resist in publishing.

Carter had engaged in a discussion with the Playboy journalist about Jesus’ saying from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:27-28, You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  Towards the end of the interview, the reporter had asked if Carter had ever committed adultery… even in his heart. Not realizing that the reporter had secretly kept the tape recorder rolling, Carter responded with, “Yes, I have lusted.” (p. 128)

Carter’s previous hours of questions and answers with the reporter got lost by the scandal that erupted over this last, single comment. Speculations about Carter’s sex life, devoid of the context behind Carter’s response, nearly derailed the Presidential election for Carter. Carter survived the crisis, but just barely.

He would probably be grateful that never ran for office in the first quarter of the 21st century, with Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram ready to pounce on every slip up!

One particularly enlightening section of Living Faith was the candor in which Carter talked about his familial relationships. He has written openly about struggles in his marriage, his own failures and lessons learned, and tensions at times with his sons. The fact that Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter survived and even flourished in their marriage, for so many years, bears testimony to the power of faith to resolve problems in the home.

Jimmy Carter, Habitat for Humanity, and Serving the Poor

To this reviewer, perhaps the most rewarding part of Living Faith was learning about Jimmy Carter’s work with the Carter Center and Habitat for Humanity. The Carter Center was founded to help find solutions to difficult to solve problems, particularly international conflicts, where United States official response has not proven effective in addressing these issues. For example, where sitting U.S. Presidents have been unable to make progress, in certain foreign conflicts, the Carter Center has been able to intervene as a moderator in civil disputes. One particular case was where Carter himself was asked by the nation of Israel to find a way for Ethiopian Jews to emigrate from Ethiopia to Israel, which the Ethiopian government eventually allowed.

Habitat for Humanity was founded by Linda and Millard Fuller, where volunteers are able to partner together with those who lack adequate housing, to build nice, affordable homes for those who need them. The Fullers had been neighbors and friends of the Carters, and Jimmy Carter had lent his name and countless volunteer hours to support this humanitarian ministry, centered on a Christian vision of serving others. Both the Carter Center and Habitat for Humanity are good examples as to how Jimmy Carter will probably be best remembered as most effective in his post-Presidential life, as opposed to his service as President during the late 1970s.

Cultural and Theological Shiftings

While Jimmy Carter shares many of the same perspectives that most evangelical Christians today have regarding the Christian life and theology, there are a few areas where Carter expresses a contrary view, which many see as being more in alignment with Protestant mainline liberal theology. In a 2012 interview with Southern Baptist Seminary president, Al Mohler, Carter shared his views on homosexuality:

“Well I have to admit, Dr. Mohler, that I’m kind of selective on that point of view. I really turn almost exclusively to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who never mentioned homosexuality at all as a sin. He never condemned homosexuals and so I don’t condemn homosexuals. And our church, our little church in Plains (Ga.), we don’t ask, when people come to join our church, if they’re gay or not. We don’t ordain, we don’t practice marriage between gay couples in our church, but that’s a Baptist privilege of autonomy of local churches. I’m against any sort of government law, either state or national, that would force churches to perform marriage between gay people, but I have no objection to civil ceremonies. And so, I know that Paul condemns homosexuality, as he did some other things like selfishness that everybody’s guilty of, and so I believe that Jesus reached out to people who were outcast, who were condemned, brought them in as equals and I also pretty well rely on Paul’s writing to the Galatians that everyone is equal in the eye’s of God and we’re treated with compassion. And I personally believe, maybe contrary to many of your listeners, that homosexuality is ingrained in a person’s character and is not something they adopt and can abandon at will. So I know that what I’ve just explained to you might be somewhat controversial, but it’s the way I feel.”

President Carter evidently identified with what might be called “Red Letter Christianity,” which prioritizes the words of Jesus, printed in red in some Bibles, over other parts of the Bible. While “Red Letter Christianity” has had its appeal, that approach to the Bible has become difficult to sustain.

Carter himself would later, though indirectly, admit the inadequacy of that approach, and take a theological shift that would have been unthinkable in previous generations. By 2018, Carter altered his views to say that “Jesus would approve of gay marriage.” Few evangelical Christians would agree with the former United States President and Baptist Sunday school teacher today.

In other areas, Carter holds views that can be found in both liberal mainline as well as some evangelical churches, such as generally approving of women’s ordination. In Living Faith, Carter makes no distinction between the office of deacon and the office of elder, and contends that the 1984 Southern Baptist restrictions against “the ordination of women” were based on a “ridiculous statement” grounded in 1 Timothy 2, a position which he broadly rejects (p. 193). Carter appeals to the argument that limiting the qualification of elders to be men only, from 1 Timothy 2-3, is perhaps “derived from [Paul’s] background as a Pharisee or were designed to resolve specific social problems in a troubled New Testament church” (p.192).  Carter affirms the service of women, in leadership of a local church as elders, in terms of an understanding of total equality of men and women in church leadership, without any restriction concerning how male and female are to relate with one another. One wonders if Carter would still maintain that view today, in an era where claims of transgenderism, and the ideology of gender merely being a social construct, are continuing to grow, thus blurring the definition of “male” and “female.”

Carter also holds a position that might be interpreted as being anti-Calvinist. He rejects “the doctrine that God decides in advance who will be accepted — who will be the chosen or ‘the elect.’” Carter sees an inherent arrogance in such a doctrine, a view that many convinced Calvinists might perceive as misunderstanding the very nature of election.

I found intriguing that Carter, after having served as a Georgia Senator to Congress, and after running as a candidate for Governor of Georgia, back in the 1960s, participated in several Baptist mission trips to urban areas outside of Georgia, where he engaged in what I would describe as “door-to-door” evangelism. I wonder what some of those home dwellers, who received Carter as a door-to-door evangelist, would have thought when a decade or so later this same man was serving as President of the United States!

Jimmy Carter: A Life that Reflects the Twists and Turns of American Christianity

Living Faith was written in 1996, but the American culture has witnessed a dramatic shift since that time period. While Jimmy Carter has sought to remain a Christian throughout, it would appear that Carter has shifted his theology along with the shifting of culture. As Carter was once someone who greatly admired the Neo-Orthodoxy of the 20th century, it is evident that this particular theological movement has collapsed as the years move through the 21st century. It might be fair to characterize the Jimmy Carter of his mature years as more of a “progressive Christian,” as opposed to a more traditional conservative evangelical Christian. Though Carter has surely valued much of what might be called a classical evangelical faith, he has identified more and more with the “Religious Left,” over the years. Nevertheless, Jimmy Carter has eagerly sought to continue reading his Bible everyday, a discipline that even many more conservative Christians rarely practice as faithfully as Carter has done. Furthermore, he had promised to keep teaching his Baptist Bible class as long as he was able.

In many respects, Jimmy Carter offers a glimpse into how the evangelical Christian movement has changed over the past 50 years or so. When he was President in the 1970s, conservative evangelical Christians like Carter were generally less politically active, but were largely united in basic Protestant Christian beliefs, as reflected in the common moral values held by most Americans.

Nevertheless, cracks had started to emerge. The culture was changing. The controversy over the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement exposing the Christian hypocrisy of racism in his part of the South was still fresh in people’s minds. The crisis over Roe vs. Wade energized the political energies of would have then been known as the “Silent Majority.”

But since then, and even more so since the 1990s, larger rifts have been felt within the evangelical movement at the non-political, theological level. The theological liberalism of what was known as the Protestant mainline has now permeated inside of today’s megachurch evangelical culture, as sprouts of “progressive Christianity” appear to be emerging more and more. The spiritual journey of Jimmy Carter has mirrored that shift.

Looking back, Jimmy Carter will be remembered as one of the first Presidents of the United States, in the modern era, to boldly and publicly state that he was a “born again” Christian. Many of his fellow “born again” believers will undoubtedly wince at some of the beliefs and statements Carter made, both during his Presidency and afterwards. Nevertheless, Carter’s willingness to bring Christian belief into the public sphere, in an era when public professions of Christianity are often looked upon with disdain by a surrounding culture, have left a definite mark on the history of American Christianity.

 

 


Elisabeth Elliot: A Life, Becoming, and Being (Part Three)

Elisabeth Elliot was widowed now for a second time. Elisabeth Elliot was forty-six years old when her husband, sixty-four year old Addison Leitch died after a nearly year long difficult battle with cancer.

Almost exactly half of her life was over, with another half remaining by 1977. Going through another period of grief reinforced the reality of suffering, a theme which recurred several times in her extensive writing career. This last period of Elisabeth Elliot’s life catapulted her even further into the public eye, with her advice directed mainly towards women through her radio program “Gateway to Joy,” and more books. Yet it is arguably the most controversial period of her life as well.

Here in this final blog post reviewing several biographies of the life of the iconic 20th-century missionary and author, Elisabeth Elliot (previous blog posts here and here), we examine this last period of her life as told by her biographers.

Elisabeth Elliot’s Mid-Life Crisis

Towards the end of Addison Leitch’s life, Elisabeth began to take on boarders in her home, initially to assist her as she nursed her husband in his final days. Little did she know then that two of these boarders would eventually occupy major roles in her life.

Walter Shephard was a son of missionary parents serving in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Upon returning to the United States, Walter Shephard as a young adult lived a prodigal life, quite far away from the Christian life modeled by his devout parents. A near deadly car accident got his attention and he eventually gave his life over to Christ. He ended up at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, and took a room in Elisabeth Elliot’s home. He got along extraordinarily well with Elisabeth Elliot, but he soon developed a close friendship with young Valerie, Elisabeth Elliot’s daughter, when she was home from college one semester. The two were married shortly after Valerie graduated from Wheaton College.

Lars Gren was in many ways quite far apart from Walter Shephard. A former salesman who in mid-life decided to go to seminary to become a hospital chaplain, Lars Gren never knew anything about Elisabeth’s fame as the wife of the martyred missionary, Jim Elliot, until after he became a boarder in Elisabeth Elliot’s home. Unlike Walter Shephard, Lars was not a great conversationalist. He did not have the most exciting personality. But what he did have was a sense of faithfulness and loyalty to Elisabeth, having a strong desire to please her, and he seemed always available. He was always there.

Lucy Austen’s Elisabeth Elliot: A Life, a one-volume biography of Elisabeth Elliot’s life. Along with Ellen Vaughn’s two volume work about Elisabeth Elliot, both authors have some surprises towards the end their work about Elisabeth’s third marriage to Lars Gren.

Continue reading


Elisabeth Elliot: A Life, Becoming, and Being (Part Two)

As a female author and speaker, Elisabeth Elliot stands as one of the most well-known and influential evangelical women in the 20th century. It was after her service for a little over a decade in Ecuador when Elisabeth Elliot returned to the United States in 1963, to her family home in New England, to pursue her work as an author and missionary speaker.

Before her permanent move back to the United States, Elisabeth Elliot had written three books, the first about the five missionaries killed by the Waorani, Through Gates of Splendor, then her biography of her late husband, Jim Elliot, Shadow of the Almighty: The Life and Testament of Jim Elliot, and finally a follow-up book about her missionary work with the Waorani, The Savage, My Kinsman.

Upon returning to New England, she wrote her first and only novel, No Graven Image, and a biography about Kenneth Strachan, the founder of the Latin American Mission,  titled Who Shall Ascend: The Life of R. Kenneth Strachan of Costa Rica. Her 1968 book about her ten weeks in Israel right after the Six-Days War, Furnace of the Lord, sparked controversy, but as she would put it, she was only concerned about “telling the truth,” and letting consequences follow. She would eventually write several other books on various topics, and even becoming a contributor to the New International Version Bible translation project.

Her speaking career gave her opportunities to travel widely, appearing before church gatherings, college student meetings, and other settings where she was asked often to talk about her life as a missionary in Ecuador. Elisabeth Elliot could be quite harsh in her criticism of certain practices by some evangelical missionary agencies, such as the tendency to inflate the number of converts in distant lands in order to raise more money. On more than one occasion, she had conflict sharing the stage with insecure men, who were bothered with the idea of sharing a speaking platform with a woman. Nevertheless, her speaking engagements became a significant component for much of the rest of her life.

But perhaps the most important event in her life during this period was her marriage to a college and seminary professor, Addison Leitch, the focus of this second of a three part series reviewing her life through the lens of her biographers, primarily Lucy Austen and secondarily Ellen Vaughn.

Being Elisabeth Elliot, is the second volume of a two-book biography on the life of Elisabeth Elliot, by Ellen Vaughn. Ellen Vaughn serves on the board for International Cooperating Ministries, founded mainly by Dois Rosser, inspired by his well-loved Bible teacher, Dick Woodward. Vaughn also wrote the book Jesus Revolution, along with Greg Laurie, which became a popular movie in 2023

Continue reading