In the race to recapture the White House, Donald Trump’s biggest obstacle has never been Hillary Clinton. It’s been himself. Saddled with baggage from years of crass comments, Trump has been his own worst enemy. Those self-inflicted wounds continued last week, when footage surfaced from 2005 of the GOP nominee making contemptible comments about women. Now, with 27 days left until the election, the Trump campaign is in the unenviable position of not only trying to win people’s votes — but keep them. Caught between a candidate who doesn’t share their sense of decency and a woman who stands against everything they believe in, evangelicals have some difficult decisions to make.

In an election between two people who have said and done things that stand in contradiction to biblical values and truths, Christians are intently wrestling with what they should do. I know, because I’m one of them. For some, the temptation to throw in the towel and walk away has been overwhelming. As an individual, I publicly supported and campaigned for a candidate in the primary with whom I had shared values and a shared worldview. He didn’t prevail. So now, faced with choosing between two candidates that are far from ideal and a nation on the brink, what are Christians called to do?

Number one: exercise our moral responsibility to vote. When Jesus was asked whether or not a Jewish person should pay taxes or tribute to Caesar, a man who declared himself to be a god, Jesus responded, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” Our Republic is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people as Abraham Lincoln said. Number two: we are instructed to be salt and light, to be agents of transformation in the broader society. Now, I’m not suggesting that political engagement is the source of that transformation, but I am saying that it should be transformed by the truth just as every other realm of society is transformed.

The choices we have before us in the presidential race are disappointing, but they’re also a reflection of who we’ve become as a country. Too many Christians have become comfortable sitting in the safety of the sidelines rather than being in the battle for the heart and soul of America and her future.

I respect that there are some very frustrated evangelicals out there who are having difficulty reconciling Donald Trump’s personal failings with his political potential. But, like other Christians, what brought me to support Trump wasn’t common values — it was common concerns over the Supreme Court, abortion, religious liberty, and our nation’s ability to protect itself. Are his comments from 11 years ago disturbing? You bet they are. Am I excusing them? Absolutely not. But as distasteful as the past is, he can’t change it. He needs to own it, apologize for it, and learn from it. In the meantime, our country hangs by a thread over a raging fire. And as much as I believe that there are good people on both sides of this question, I cannot stand by and watch other Christian leaders mislead Christians by suggesting they should abstain from voting in the presidential election.

Paul talks about the Church being a body with many members. Like a human body each part has a vital function to play, and each is equipped for performing its duty. My team and I at FRC are parts of the body focused on these issues day in and day out. These issues aren’t always at the forefront, but they are now. God called me to the political realm 20 years ago and to FRC over 13 years ago. With your prayers and your support, we are here in our nation’s capital representing biblical truth and helping Christians across America integrate their faith with the cultural and political engagement. We carry this responsibility with great solemnity knowing that our actions have consequences, but more importantly knowing that we will give an account to God for the decisions we make and the people we influence.

For more on the controversy, check out my weekend interview with Neil Cavuto.

Originally published here.

A Supremely Important Election

The most significant policy issue of this presidential election is the question of which candidate will get to nominate one or more justices to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia’s seat currently stands open, and more may follow. Our two options stand in stark contrast, and the candidates’ wildly differing visions were on full display in the second presidential debate:

Hillary Clinton:

“I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality… Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards.”

Donald Trump:

“Justice Scalia, great judge, died recently. And we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. I’m looking for judges — and I’ve actually picked 20 of them so that people would see, highly respected, highly thought of, and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody. But people that will respect the Constitution of the United States. And I think that this is so important. Also, the Second Amendment, which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton. They’ll respect the Second Amendment and what it stands for, what it represents. So important to me.”

Hillary Clinton has clearly taken the position that she will appoint a pro-abortion justice who will make sure Roe v. Wade stays the law of the land, and unborn babies will continue to be killed in the womb. She also will make sure her nominees uphold the lawless same-sex marriage ruling which took power out of the hands of people in the states.

In contrast, Donald Trump expressly stated he will “appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia.” That alone should end the discussion. Justice Scalia was a committed constitutionalist who upheld the rule of law and respected the separation of powers. He applied a jurisprudence Americans could trust, and could feel comfortable submitting to. Regardless of Justice Scalia’s personal views, he never “read them into” any constitutional provisions. This is the type of justice we need now, and it’s saying something that Donald Trump has proposed a list of 20 potential nominees who come pretty close to the mold of Justice Scalia.

Even Hillary Clinton recognized when she noted that Donald Trump’s nominees “would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality.” What she means is not that they would be seated on the Court and immediately unilaterally enacting their policy preferences (they can’t — even though the Left’s nominees strive toward such an aim in their jurisprudence), but rather that they would judge in a restrained manner, leaving power to the people in the states, and respect the separation of powers. What’s more, Trump highlighted the need for a nominee to respect the Second Amendment — an important reminder that individual rights must be protected in this age of ever-encroaching government.

So, let’s summarize our decision. On one hand, we can choose with near-certainty from an identified list of potential nominees someone who will absolutely respect the Constitution and its vision of how to properly distribute governmental power — this will include banishing the notion that abortion is somehow a constitutional “right.” On the other hand, we can choose a candidate who has expressly declared her intention to put forward nominees keeping a “right” to kill unborn children on the books, who claim they follow a “living constitution” and contort the document into something that it’s not. Let us be clear: this is a harmful philosophy that will result in an erosion of liberty across the board as the justices she nominates grab ever more power.

If Secretary Clinton wants her nominees to play so fast and loose with the text on the abortion issue, what else will they do to our liberties? Will other rights like religious freedom or the Second Amendment be safe in their hands? Her presidency will certainly mean an era of encroaching and suffocating government power accomplished in the name of “evolving rights” which are imposed unlawfully on a majority of American citizens — to the diminishment of rights clearly expressed in the Constitution! On the other hand, the type of nominees that Donald Trump has said he will advance will protect our constitutional rights and restore a proper understanding of how the Constitution allocates power. This is the choice before us.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.