To a believing Christian, the deepest truth in his or her life is his or her commitment to Christ. We are duty-bound to share that with others. So to fail to disclose that would be contrary to our belief system and certainly unfair to the voters.

A person’s belief system, after all, is the primary formative influence on his or her worldview. That worldview in turn determines positions taken on political issues.

That is why I think it is entirely appropriate for this information to be available to the voters to help them evaluate a candidate. It may say a great deal about the depths of his or her convictions, character and integrity.

But that raises a more difficult question. How do you make a full disclosure of one’s deepest convictions without “using” your religion to win support? Right after I got out of prison and was a newly converted Christian, I was deeply impressed when Jimmy Carter announced that he was born again. I suspect that he got a substantial share of the evangelical vote that year, even though his opponent was very devout and a member of Bible studies, but would not talk about it. Carter was right in my opinion, Ford was wrong. Nor did I think that Jimmy Carter used his religion in anyway. He was simply upfront about what he believed.

If a candidate were to attempt to use his religion for political advancement, I think it would instantly backfire with the American people. It would be entirely inappropriate. I know there were criticisms of President Bush for using religious imagery in his speeches—I can see nothing offensive about that. That is part of America’s richest cultural heritage. Those are points, examples, and illustrations that resonate with most Americans.

So there is the fine line for me: No religious test; full disclosure of religious beliefs; but not using religion for partisan advantage.