...Donald Trump ...is the antithesis of Clinton in his politics. Granted, we don’t know if Trump will keep his political commitments if elected, but at least faithful Christians have his promise to work to represent their concerns, while Hillary Clinton has clearly demonstrated, as well as promised, that she will oppose what devout believers know is the cause of Jesus Christ...
This is why, I suggest, there is no real inconsistency by Christians or Republicans, when in their stress upon character being paramount, they have weighed in the balance the whole of the situation, and decided to support a candidate that is not their ideal, especially when no reasonably electable alternative is available.
Christian radio talk show host, Janet Mefferd, recently illustrated this point well. She argued:
“If I lived in Egypt and my choices were the Muslim candidate who would enshrine Sharia vs. the Muslim candidate who would allow Christians to maintain their churches, I would vote for the Muslim candidate who would allow Christians to maintain their churches. I would vote for the Muslim candidate who would be best for the freedom of Christians and the proclamation of the gospel. But some would say that I could vote for neither, as neither would be Christians who are biblically faithful or hold to biblical principles. But when a biblically faithful candidate isn’t one of your choices, you can only do what you can do.”