Should We Always Choose the Lesser of Two Evils?

Let us suppose that a particular church is deciding between two pastoral candidates. Candidate one believes in God, but doesn't see a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a necessity for salvation. Candidate Two proclaims Jesus as Lord and Savior, but believes that members of other religions worship the same God in their own way.

Candidate One thinks the Bible may be a good blueprint for living a moral life, but doesn't believe it contains absolute truth. Candidate Two believes most of the Bible is true, but thinks some fictional passages were added for dramatic effect.

Candidate One believes in gay marriage and would officiate at gay wedding ceremonies. Candidate Two claims to be against it, but says he would have no problem with hiring homosexuals as part of his pastoral staff.

Given the choices before them, how would members of this church decide on a leader? Would they scrap both candidates for their un-biblical views, or would they simply settle for the lesser of two evils?

Perhaps Christians believe the "lesser of two evils" approach to decision-making applies only to politics. But if the Bible is the standard church members use to measure their spiritual leaders, why not at least look to the Constitution as the standard by which political leaders are measured?