NAE Changes Death Penalty Position, “Affirm” Differing Viewpoints

Sarah Pulliam Bailey of The Washington Post breaks news of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) departure from the organization’s 1973 resolution in support of capital punishment:

The board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals approved a resolution that changes its 1973 resolution that favored the death penalty, the group announced on Monday.

While the new resolution, which is now the standing policy of the NAE, does not reverse its earlier position, it acknowledges evangelicals who oppose the death penalty.

The NAE, which is comprised of 40 different evangelical denominations, issued a public statement on Monday acknowledging the wide spectrum on which evangelicals position themselves when debating capital punishment. The new standing resolution acknowledged that evangelicals’ varying viewpoints are well-entrenched in biblical and ethical reasoning, and therefore, deserve affirmation and representation.

“A growing number of evangelicals call for government resources to be shifted away from the death penalty,” said NAE President Leith Anderson within the official announcement. “Our statement allows for their advocacy and for the advocacy of those of goodwill who support capital punishment in limited circumstances as a valid exercise of the state and as a deterrent to crime,” continued Anderson, who is the former senior pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.

News of the NAE’s death penalty position change evoked quick responses from members of the Evangelical Left (besides the activist Shane Claiborne who apparently counseled some NAE board members on the issue) included Jonathan Merritt of Religion News Service (RNS) and Ryan Hammill  of Sojourners.

“The death penalty has survived in America, in part, because of evangelicals’ strong support. Evangelicals have often followed, rather than led, on issues of justice and equality in America,” wrote Merritt in his RNS op-ed “Evangelicals shrink back from support of death penalty.”

He continued, “The death penalty is irreparably marred by improper sentencing, the possibility of wrongful conviction, racial bias, socio-economic discrimination, and financial waste. Any movement by the NAE away from support of the death penalty is worthy of praise.”

Writing for Sojourners, Hammill considered Pope Francis’ influence on the NAE’s capital punishment position. “While the NAE did not cite Pope Francis, his clear denunciation of the death penalty before congress during his recent trip to the U.S. has contributed to increased debate on the topic, especially because of the controversial execution of Kelly Gissendaner which occurred shortly after the pope’s departure,” Hammill wrote.

Perhaps Pope Francis’ recent visit to Washington D.C. and Congressional speech highlighting his concerns with capital punishment impacted the NAE’s executive committee and board. Or perhaps there does exist a reservation to capital punishment by Millennials and minority groups. Some might question whether secular philanthropy influenced NAE’s board members on this issue.

But whatever the reason for the NAE’s change, it’s important to note the new resolution is not a total about-face in the death penalty debate. In it’s current state it is an affirmation of “conscientious commitment of both streams of Christian ethical thought.” For NAE’s Anderson, it is the ability to “present a cross-section of evangelical views” and “When issues come up, we will speak up and say that there are inequities in terms of race and class and zip codes.” As the saying goes, that’s a big step. In which direction, is the question.