The article Christianity Today decided NOT to publish about homelessness

With the Supreme Court decision on June 28 in the case of Grants Pass v Johnson, journalists and publications of many shapes and sizes have weighed in with their lens on this landmark case. The case had countless intersections with Christian faith, with many churches and faith-based-organizations writing amicus briefs to sway the court’s decision, and an active activism campaign by Union Theological Seminary and the faith-based non-profit Open Table Nashville to bring to light the rights of the unhoused.

With so much worth reporting and relevant to their readers, here is a screenshot of the article Christianity Today published:

Oops! They didn’t. Nothing, at all. In two weeks since the Supreme Court decision, three months since the Supreme Court heard the case, and six months since the Court announced they would hear it.

And you might be thinking, “Come on, Kevin. With this crazy news cycle it’s impossible to cover everything. They’re probably trying their best.”

Well, what if I told you that they had an article written as early as April, ready to go for when a decision was made (or to publish before)? What if I told you they actively encouraged and participated in the creation of this article, before ultimately killing it? How would I know that?

Because I wrote it.

I’ve been debating with myself for months about whether to share this or not.

I am risking a few things here, the second of which matters way more to me:

• Never being published or reviewed by CT ever again. (Not that I ever have.)

• The misconception from you, dear reader, that I am writing this out of bitterness and pettiness. (I’m not.)

Here’s the story:

In February, I pitched an article to Christianity Today about the Johnson v Grants Pass case going before the Supreme Court. I had pitched to them before on homelessness topics, and was always met with a version of “We’re going to pass on this one, but please keep pitching us on this topic.” But this time, they were very interested.

A side note: I don’t often pitch to CT. I don’t agree with a lot of what they publish, and certainly not the direction they’ve gone under their current leadership. I also know and respect many people who currently and formerly work and write for them. This includes the editor who I pitched to and workshopped this piece with, and who ultimately would later deliver the bad news.

As a faith writer, I recognize that some of my content will be better suited for an outlet like Sojourners or a Religion News Service or a smaller outlet. When I consider where to pitch, I am not so much thinking about the publication’s stated values as much as their audience. If my piece assumes that the readers are very social justice oriented and maybe want to go deeper, that’s probably a pitch to Sojourner. If it’s very news/politics specific and more reporting than opining, it’s probably a pitch to RNS. When I pitch to Christianity Today it’s because I believe the piece is of broad Christian interest and would appeal to a wider set of shared values that Christians, who may disagree on a lot of crucial things, might agree about or be won over. This one felt like that.

With the positive response from the editor at CT, I moved forward. From Feb 28 until April 5, I conducted interviews and research, keeping the editor apprised on where the article was going, how the tone was going to be. There was even a moment early on where I thought it was over—the editor asked if I would need help with the theological portion of the article (based on having read my Substack post on the case that didn’t do that, and perhaps based on their lack of familiarity with my other work) and suggested they could reach out to Robert Marbut to assist me.

Marbut is someone who I disagree with, adamantly, on the topic of homelessness. He served Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump in the highest appointed role for homelessness in America. He is a staunch advocate of the idea that we “enable” homelessness by providing basic needs without forcing people to “transform”. It’s the classic, false idea that homelessness is a personal failure that is resolved when people change their behavior. He is also against feeding people on the street, suggesting that it “promotes” homelessness. You can read all of this on his consulting website, here.

I wasn’t necessarily surprised that Marbut is CT’s go-to on homelessness. It’s why I don’t pitch as often. But I also consider it an essential part of my work to be in these types of spaces to provide an alternative voice, even if it means some cost to my sanity. That being said, I never want to be dishonest or even disingenuous. I will operate in these spaces, but not undercover.

On March 13, the same day the suggestion was made, I replied to the editor and said the following:

I want to be transparent that Robert Marbut is someone I disagree with profoundly in terms of how he approaches homelessness. My voice and angle is very differentiated from his and some others in the homelessness/faith sector. I can definitely quote some faith voices at the front-lines of this work, but they may be ones different than what your audience is used to reading/hearing. I hope this can be seen as a positive. I also want to emphasize that I don't intend to write this in any kind of divisive or intentionally confrontational way to their voices.

I had also made it clear in previous emails where my perspective was going to land:

My angle/bias is that I do believe the Supreme Court should uphold the rights of unhoused people to exist in public spaces when they have no other recourse… I would plan to land in a biblical sense of justice and equity--that we all deserve the same protections and rights regardless of our socio-economic status--in arguing that unhoused people deserve to not be criminalized simply for having nowhere to go and doing what they can to survive.

Knowing all of this, the editor at CT moved us along. They said these things should not be an issue. And so, on April 5, I submitted the article.

On April 15, the editor said they were almost done editing the piece and planned to run it that Thursday or Friday, with the hearing at the Supreme Court being held that Friday. On April 16, they sent me an email with a list of suggested edits and requests, all of which felt very reasonable. I said I would get them back the same day or next due to the urgency.

But unexpectedly, within a few hours, something changed. I received this from the editor:

Hey Kevin: Hold that thought, actually. I just learned some more info after touching base with the team and it looks like we might be going in a different direction with coverage. In that case, we wouldn't be publishing the oped as well. Give me a little bit and I'll circle back shortly.

Admittedly a bit stunned, I didn’t respond that day. No other email came that day, and with the clock ticking I sent a response the next morning asking for an update. The update came shortly after:

Hey Kevin: 

Yes I found out this morning that we are going in a different direction. I'm so sorry! I am going to send you a kill fee for your time and definitely recommend that the first draft be sent to somewhere like RNS, Religion Unplugged, or others (if you need contact info let me know). I think that angle in particular is a great fit for a broader religion/ecumenical publication.

Again, it's not ideal when this happens so late in the process so I apologize and hope you're able to publish the piece.

I don’t hold this editor responsible—this is about the most gracious way to do what was done here. I have no hard feelings toward them, which is why I’ve intentionally omitted their identity. I am grateful also for the kill fee, which I used to buy freezee pops to pass out to unhoused people on a hot day last week. (I considered declining in protest, but I’d rather redistribute their money.)

I was able to get the article published with RNS on the day of the hearing. (Thanks as always to Roxy Stone.) If you’re wondering, the version that published there was exactly what I submitted to CT, with only minor grammatical changes made.

Why do I tell you this?

Let me be so clear again: I’m not grumpy that I got a pitch rejected. I’ve had so many pitches get rejected by so many outlets. My book got rejected so many times before it was accepted. Rejection is part of the deal.

It is far less common, though, to reject at the last second after several months of collaboration, and after a publishing date was assigned. This suggests it was ultimately a political decision made by someone higher up at the final hour, and is just so disappointing. Especially so because the article I wrote wasn’t a hit piece or even a prophetic “Rise up, Christians!” It was a witness to Christians who were rising up, speaking up, and getting into Jesus-like movement on behalf of their beloved neighbors.

And so I waited. I didn’t want to react, and I also wanted to wait and see what “going in a different direction with coverage” meant. Who knows, maybe they had a piece written by someone even closer to the case than me. I suspected they might get something from Robert Marbut, or someone that shares his views. And it made sense that they might wait until the Supreme Court decision was made to publish their piece, and it was only made on June 30.

But now it’s been two weeks, and I can’t decide if I’m more disappointed that they chose to publish nothing than I would have been if they published something I disagreed with. However, I do know what publishing nothing feels like.

It feels like Christianity Today doesn’t see homelessness as a Gospel issue.

It feels like Christianity Today is willfully dismissive of a movement of the Spirit through Christians across the country, simply because it doesn’t fit the perspective of their conservative “experts.”

It feels like Christianity Today would rather say nothing than say something that could even be conceived of as “liberal”—which in this case is “we shouldn’t arrest desperate people just for having nowhere else to go.”

Their readers deserve to know what happened in this case, to consider the theological ramifications of it, and to hear what Christians across the country are doing and saying about it. But they won’t get that from Christianity Today. By choosing to ignore this story—to willfully bury it—they empower their readers to ignore homelessness—which is already the default American response to this issue, and causes so much loss of dignity, hope, and life.

There’s no call to action here. I certainly do not want you to harass them for my sake. All of us (writers and readers alike) have nuanced decisions to make in terms of how we interact with them as a publication, and I wouldn’t dare prescribe that to anyone but myself. My only hope in sharing this is that you take stock of where you get your theological and religious content from, and that you invest yourself and your resources where you see content that edifies, challenges, tells the truth, and reports on things that matter to you and that you believe matter to God.

So many outlets do a wonderful job of this and deserve your readership, traffic, and perhaps even financial support. And more than ever writers like myself can publish directly to you through means like this, which is crucial. As you can see in this instance, gatekeepers of faith-based journalism can shape broad Christian imagination not only by what they publish but by what they choose not to publish. If there are writers you trust, subscribe and support where you can—be your own gatekeeper.

And thank you to those who support and have supported me in myriad ways. You have given me the freedom to not have to contort/lessen myself or my perspective to fit into spaces like this and still have my work reach and impact people. I’m humbled, grateful, and imbued with a strong sense of responsibility to honor that trust you’ve given me.

Sincerely.

---

These posts will always be free.

But the rest of my work—traveling to speak and lead workshops, creating content, advocacy and direct aid—is enabled and expanded by your support. Consider becoming a Paid subscriber to enhance my reach.