an important (political) distinction for Christians to consider

A letter to the editor of World...

I have no problem with an evangelical voting for Rudy Giuliani in the general election, and I won't even pre-judge someone doing so in the primaries. My problem is with the public stamp of endorsement that a high-profile Christian like Pat Robertson gave to Giuliani because he is perceived as electable ("House divided," Nov. 24). I hope it does not present to the world a picture of Robertson (still dear to me) as a politician first and a minister second.

—Nwokoma Opaigbeogu; Upper Marlboro, Md.

Opaigbeogu makes an important distinction between tacit and aggressive support for policy or candidate X. (The same can be said about tacit and aggressive opposition.)

In a word, we have four, rather than two, basic choices: active opposition (e.g., picketing), active support (e.g., sending in a campaign contribution), tacit opposition (e.g., voting against it), tacit support (e.g., talking to close friends about it). Too often, at least in talking about such things, people fail to make that distinction-- either you're for it or you're against it.

For example, it is quite difficult for a Christian to make a biblical and practical case to engage in active opposition to expanded gaming. But it is quite easy to make a case for tacit opposition.