Dear Mr. G:

You wrote:

> Please clear up for me the following question raised from my letter to the Editor of a local weekly newspaper. See the question below… The title the editor had created and placed above my letter to the editor was:
“Intellectual growth is contrary to centering your life in Christ”
>
> In a later letter to the editor I had written that I thought his title (in quotes above) had biased the supposition of my previous letter. He responded as follows below at the bottom of my second letter.
>
> “Editor’s note: The headline on Mr. Granger’s July 21 letter, “Intellectual growth is contrary to centering your life in Christ,” was lifted from the text of the letter, “The push for intellectual growth through expatiation in all areas, thought a virtue by relativists, can work against the process of spiritual growth and the centering of one’s life in Christ.”
>
> My question is: Am I in error with my grammar/meaning/use? I had thought there was a difference between “can” and the linking verb “is,” and had meant “can” in the sense of examining, over time, all areas of belief. Is the newspaper editor correct in his response to me based on what I had written? What is the grammar rule that are involved in your response to me?

>Thank you for your help and candid reply in clearing up this question for me. May I quote your reply to me if I should write again to the editor?
>
Technically, you are correct. There is a difference between “can” and “is.” What you said was, in effect, that intellectual growth can, that is, is able to, interfere with spiritual growth. The editor interpreted this to mean that the intellectual growth does interfere with spiritual growth. I would say that he missed the subtlety. It also may reflect a typical journalistic bias that Christians are anti-intellectual–I recall that notorious line from the Washington Post calling Christians “poor, undereducated, and easily led” (or words to that effect).

Any dictionary should be able to point out the difference.