Why US evangelicals are changing their position on the death penalty

The National Association of Evangelicals has officially supported the death penalty for more than 40 years. They have now softened their stance.  

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Visitors wait in line to watch arguments for a death penalty case at the US Supreme Court building in Washington, last week.

As the death penalty continues to lose favor with Americans, the National Association of Evangelicals has adjusted its position on the practice.

Since the early 1970s, the NAE has supported capital punishment as a deterrent to criminals. But on Monday, the organization – which represents more than 45,000 churches from almost 40 different denominations, serving millions of Americans – passed a resolution that acknowledges growing opposition and differing views on death penalty.

"Evangelical Christians differ in their beliefs about capital punishment, often citing strong biblical and theological reasons either for the just character of the death penalty in extreme cases or for the sacredness of all life, including the lives of those who perpetrate serious crimes and yet have the potential for repentance and reformation," the resolution states. "We affirm the conscientious commitment of both streams of Christian ethical thought."

NAE President Leith Anderson said in a press release, "A growing number of evangelicals call for government resources to be shifted away from the death penalty."

This shows that Evangelicals have no pro-capital punishment "consensus," said activist Shane Claiborne to the Washington Post. "That’s a big deal."

White evangelical support for the death penalty has waned recent years, from 77 percent in 2011 down to 71 percent in 2014, according to a March survey from the Pew Research Center.

At the same time, 66 percent of white mainline Protestants and 63 percent of white Catholics favor the death penalty.

Overall, the survey shows American support for the death penalty has dropped from 78 percent in 1996 to 56 percent in 2014.

Public debate on the topic has grown in the wake of several botched executions. In June, the US Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma’s use of a controversial drug for lethal injection, saying the sedative used in the lethal injection cocktail does not violate the US Constitution's 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

As The Christian Science Monitor reported in May, there has been a steady drop in executions across the states in the last two decades in response to declining rates of violent crime and a growing reliance on sentences for life in prison without the possibility of parole. “New death sentences in the US reached their lowest level in 40 years, the start of the death penalty’s modern era,” the Death Penalty Information Center reported at the end of last year. “The number of executions has declined in 11 of the past 15 years.”

Nebraska recently ended capital punishment by legislative vote, becoming the first Republican-controlled state in more than 40 years to abolish the death penalty. 

During his recent visit to the US, Pope Francis denounced the death penalty before Congress and called for a ban on capital punishment worldwide. He urged authorities to stop the execution of Kelly Gissendaner, sentenced to death for her role in the February 1997 slaying of her husband.

Despite the Pope's pleas, Ms. Gissendaner died by lethal injection on Sept. 30, becoming the first woman executed in Georgia in 70 years. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.