Boundaries of a Caring Leader

So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. — John 10:7-10

Sometimes we have this image of Jesus as a gentle and weak man, but when we read the Gospel of John, we see two sides of him. Yes, he's welcoming to the lost, confused, broken, and desperate, but he's also a bold, protective, and challenging spiritual leader. This theme continues in this metaphorical story. Jesus cares deeply for his sheep and protects them from outsiders. And that's a great model for us as men. We should be caring for our flock and guarding them against those who might harm them.

Now, let's bring this message into our present reality. Recently, companies like the LA Dodgers and Target have made marketing decisions that some people find concerning. Look, they have the freedom to do whatever they want. They can support ideas that we might see as demonic or satanic. But here's the thing: they're not going to get my support. This isn't about "economic terrorism" or anything like that. It's simply me being protective of the people I care for, the people I consider my flock. As men and spiritual leaders, it's our responsibility to set boundaries around the ones we love and guide.

So, fellas, I hope this stirs something inside you, urging you to step up even more as spiritual leaders. And remember, part of being a spiritual leader is establishing boundaries. We can't just let the people under our care roam free without any guidance. That wouldn't be caring at all. These boundaries work in two ways. First, there's a fence that separates insiders from outsiders, and we all live within this boundary. Secondly, there's a gate, and that gate is Jesus himself. He says, "I am the gate," meaning he is the access point. It's like the shepherds of old who would sleep in the gateway of their sheep pens to keep thieves out and protect the flock. That's the level of care and protection we should strive for as spiritual leaders.

Given the times we're living in, we need to be even more caring and protective. It's our duty to guide and guard our loved ones. So let's embrace this role of spiritual leadership, setting boundaries and following the example of Jesus, who is the gate.


  1. How can I actively demonstrate both the welcoming and protective sides of spiritual leadership in my relationships with others?
  2. In what areas of my life do I need to establish clearer boundaries to protect myself and those under my care?

DO THIS: Care and protect your flock.

PRAY THIS: God, guide me as I seek to be a spiritual leader. Grant me wisdom to set boundaries and protect those in my care. In Jesus's name, amen.

PLAY THIS: Protector.

short + biblical + practical
Read through the Bible daily with Vince Miller.

20 thoughts on “Boundaries of a Caring Leader

  1. James Borgstadt says:

    How do you handle rebellious sheep who slip into the sheepfold to cause trouble? Is this even possible?

  2. Jason says:

    I treasure these words from Jesus. Abundant life is something at times hard to put into words. I am so grateful for the Word of God & The Holy Spirit in my daily life who helps me set guardrails to protect me and those under my care from future harm. There are lines no one else can tell me to cross when The Spirit’s prompting is abundantly clear. Vince, thank you for your spiritual leadership. I have gained further insight into many passages. Thank you for letting God use you by joining in with God’s work to the fullest!

  3. gonzalo correa says:

    I will start with Praise Jesus!!!

    Wow, brother Vince you sure know how to open up with a BANG! Love it! Praise the Lord for your heart for HIM.

    Well I doubt the other commentators will read this but we should follow the conviction of the Spirit. I personally don’t encourage the said companies and or partake in certain events or gathering for the reasons spoken in this Devo and all I have to say is that as for my I’m trying to constantly listen to the Spirit.

    For all the rest of the responders today, just be obedient to the Lord and in all you (we do) lets ask for guidance and follow through. Jesus will sort us all one day (sheep and goats).

    You all have a super awesome day.

    • Rich says:

      Out of everything I’ve said, the one thing that I struggle with is the celebratory nature of things like Pride events. I want people in the LGBTQ community to know that I don’t hate them, but I also have trouble justifying attending or participating in things like Pride events or same-sex weddings. I would feel like I was celebrating sin, and that doesn’t sit well with me. I have never been to a Pride event or a same-sex wedding. If I’m being true to myself, which I think I am, I would also question if attending a wedding between two heterosexual people that cheated on their previous spouses with each other is appropriate to attend. I don’t think I’d go to that one either. It kind of feels icky on the same level.
      I acknowledge your stance on the companies promoting sexual sin, but I don’t know enough about what these companies have done to either agree or offer a retort. The only thing that I am even remotely aware of is the Budweiser thing with the Dylan Mulvaney image on the cans/bottles. I don’t even know who Dylan Mulvaney is. So, with that little information, I don’t see how simply putting the image of a person on a product is viewed as an act of promoting sin if the actual intent of the group involved in the project did not intend for that to be the message. It’s possible that the intent was for Budweiser to simply say to the LGBTQ community, “We see you.” I don’t think there was any information on the products urging or encouraging people to engage in homosexuality. I could be wrong. If I’m not, does putting Arnold Schwarzenegger on a company’s products then promote adultery? I mean, it is well-known that he slept with his maid while married to Maria Schriver (sp?). There is a psychological jump from Dylan Mulvaney and promoting sexual sin that is not present if Arnold’s image and committing adultery, at least I don’t think there would be. And that’s where I get a little frustrated. Why is it that people make that jump from simply seeing an image of someone in the LGBTQ community to then assuming the company that produces the product is, as a whole, promoting sexual sin when adultery is also a sexual sin. I don’t get it. Again, maybe I just need to understand more about what these specific events are about.

      Regarding the evolution discussion, I’m not familiar with Francis Collins’ book. I did a Google search to see if I could find a summary, but it seems that he is simply promoting a conclusion rather than providing scientific evidence of Creation, which I think you would agree is the overall message. That’s fine. I think something like that gives Christians a place to land that allows them to accept scientific evidence but also not abandon their faith. There are some that disagree and are vehemently opposed to the idea of theistic evolution. However, I think Christians just need to stop with the evolution thing. I can’t tell you how many dumb things I’ve heard pastors say about science in their bashing of evolution and science. The big one, and one that was made by an MD, no less, that reviewed Collins’ book (,of%20his%20journey%20to%20belief.), is that Watson and Crick discovered DNA. Watson and Crick DID NOT discover DNA. They discovered, or rather deduced, the STRUCTURE of DNA. DNA was discovered in the late 1800s by Frederick Meischler (sp?). I’ve heard my own pastor say it. I think it’s dumb. In fact…and I’ll probably get in trouble for this…but I just think that those that really fight against evolution do so because their faith is weak. Yeah, I said it. Here’s where I’m at. I don’t care how the universe, the Earth, us, etc. came into existence. I believe God was behind it despite the process he used, whether it was the snap of a finger or the molding of things over time. I’m not required to understand it to have a faith. Faith is believing without evidence. So, if someone has faith that God created things, why discuss it further? If someone doesn’t believe in God because they see evolution as a godless process, then trying to convince them scientifically, or by refuting evolution, is not going to land with them. It’s pointless and the process doesn’t go well. When I was in my post-doc in Ohio, Bill Nye was invited to the Creation Museum to have a debate with the director (Allestair Begg or maybe someone else). It was televised. So, I started to watch it. Right off the bat, the Christian person started giving evidence out of the Bible. You could almost hear Bill Nye deflate. He looked so disappointed, like he suddenly realized what a waste of time he’d committed to. Anyway, I just don’t get it. It just creates division and, as I mentioned, makes a lot of people sound really really dumb when they try and talk about it.

  4. John says:

    I think that if a CEO was publicly pushing/encouraging adultery or embezzlement to other people as well as to children that may be a little different than being human and committing a sin. It’s the normalizing of the sin that is the bigger issue. False teachings in other words. I would not encourage other people or children to commit the sins I have committed in my past. That would be wrong. “Screwtape Letters” is a pretty good read. There is something behind the current trend of evil is good and good is evil. Based on history the story does not end well.

  5. Cliff says:

    Thank you for your comments this morning Vince. I agree 100% with you. I hope you have a blessed wonderful day. I think if we let sin run rampant we have failed our Lord. Some of the sin is in your face, and I can’t stand that.
    Have a blessed wonderful day. May the good Lord bless you.

  6. Rich says:

    Quick question. I understand this devo is one of an anti-LGBTQ nature. I get it. Homosexuality is a sin, and Target, Disney, et. al. seem to ostensibly support that group of people. My question is “If the CEO of GMC was unfaithful to his wife, would there be a call to not buy Chevy vehicles? If the CEO of Levi’s (or whoever owns that brand) was found to have cheated on their taxes, would we be asked to boycott pants? If a musician for a worship team was a biology professor at a local university and taught evolution as part of his department’s curriculum, would he be asked to no longer serve?” I don’t get that. People in the LGBTQ community are just that…people…and have sin just like you and me. However, what I don’t get is why the sin of an LGBTQ person seems to be at some higher level compared to infidelity or having hateful thoughts about someone or cheating on my taxes or yelling “Shit!” if I hit myself with a hammer or [fill in the blank]. Christians often say that homosexuality and all that will destroy families. Have you ever seen what infidelity does to a family? How about a tax audit where the person ends up having to pay back taxes, fees, and penalties? What about alcoholism/drug abuse? Are we boycotting the companies that have CEOs that do those things? I also have no idea how the Target and Disney thing fits with the passage. Regardless, our job is not to save people from their sin. That’s Jesus’ job. The idea of boycotting because of some sin is ridiculous and hypocritical. If Christians really went 100% on that idea, we’d be naked and starving in the streets. Do better, bro!

    • Ken says:

      Rich, well said. I agree 1000% and this is the exact response I give when I am asked about those topics. As believers, we have to act more with the love of Jesus and less with the condemnation of the devil.

      • Mike says:

        When corporations cater to, encourage and profit off of sin. When children are taught sin and confusion are ok and encourage it When groups want their sin celebrated and taken pride in. Well, in my opinion that is much different than the swearing or adultery. Please do not confuse personal sin with corporate / engrained societal sin. Just my opinion

        • Rich says:

          OK. I’ll bite. I have two questions. How does Target encourage homosexuality? I shop at Target. I, in no way, feel encouraged or pressured to have sex with a man when I shop there. Never have. Maybe you do, and that’s the problem you’re struggling with. Secondly, how does Target profit off of sin through their LGBTQ policy/marketing? Do they sell things that only LGBTQ folks can use to commit their sin? I don’t know if they sell condoms, but heterosexuals use those as well. I have. They also sell makeup, cologne, etc. Folks that struggle with vanity buy those products, which helps them commit their sin, but so do people who don’t, but just want to look nice. I’ve bought cologne, shaving cream, deodorant, clothes, etc. there. They sell food and don’t put limits on how much you can buy, which helps people that struggle with gluttony commit their sin, but someone who doesn’t struggle with gluttony can also buy food. They sell movies and video games that depict violence. People who are already violent purchase and play those video games the same as someone that is peaceful and non-violent towards others. My favorite games to play are Hitman and Call of Duty. I’m not a violent person. So, if we use your myopic philosophy, then Christians should never shop…well…anywhere. It’s ridiculous.

          So, with that knowledge, where do you shop? You obviously can’t shop a grocery store since that promotes gluttony. You can’t shop at a store that sells condoms because, well, that promotes homosexual activities. Your philosophy is flat and vacant. You are just trying to find a way to justify your mistaken and hateful theology.

          And lastly, your opinion of homosexuallity being “different” than swearing or adultery is not supported logically nor…and especially…Biblically. I address this in another response. And you are right…it is just your opinion…but it’s incorrect.

          It’s not that LGBTQ folks want to push their ideas on to someone else that doesn’t want it. They are just sick and tired of being marginalized and isolated when everyone else isn’t. Again, sin is not on a continuum. Feel free to read my post on that topic either above or below this one.

        • Rich says:

          I will say that I struggle with the celebratory nature of things like Pride month. As I mentioned in a previous post, I want people in the LGBTQ community to feel like I don’t hate them, but I also don’t want to condone homosexuality. However, not shopping at a store that does celebrate it doesn’t make sense. It just makes products that I need less available for no real reason.

    • Jim T says:

      Thanks for stating this much more eloquently than I could, Rich. As Christians are we not called to hate the sin and love the sinner?

      • Rich says:

        No, we are not. “Hate the sin, not the sinner” is not Biblical, and is not a call from God in any form. It’s an aphorism that stems from a number of misinterpreted passages that hateful people use to try and justify their behavior. It’s a great example of the Mandela Effect.

        Even if it was Biblical, can you really do that and do it in a way that the “sinner” feels loved despite their sin? That’s Jesus-level stuff. You and I aren’t capable of that.

    • John says:

      Rick, thanks for this comment as I feel like it is very challenging to figure out where to draw these lines. I feel like your examples about certain individuals at each company committing sin is all too common and we need to decide, with the Holy Spirit’s conviction, if that means we should avoid those companies. However, the one example you give that I would like to offer some push back on, or at least spur some debate, is about the musician who is also a biology teacher who teaches evolution. It seems as though you are implying that teaching evolution is somehow a sin, on the same level as your other examples of adultery, homosexuality and swearing. I don’t have the time or space in this brief reply to do justice to this assertion, but I would direct you towards other Christian thinkers and apologists who clearly lay out the case that evolution is a scientific theory with a lot of credible evidence behind it, that also fits with the sciences of astronomy and geology that paint a picture for the scientific details of how our universe began and formed and eventually lead to humans, all under the direction of God (theistic evolution). Francis Collins’ book the Language of God details this quite nicely. Genesis 1 and 2 are not a scientific text book and leave an incredibly large void about the origins of humans, of which science has attempted to explain. These chapters are poetic text that are likely not intended to be interpreted or understood literally. Anyways, please Men of Christ, do not go and demonize scientists, as many of them are faithful Christians, like yourselves.

      • Rich says:

        This thread has now branched in many directions. I’ll address them all as much as I can. I apologize in advance for the length. These are quite complex issues.

        First, I may not have been clear about my example of the musician teaching evolution thing. The point of that was not to identify teaching evolution as a sin, although I know there are some that believe that, but rather to make a weak attempt to empathize with the LGBTQ community in how they might feel isolated because they are the way they are and how that is viewed by…in my opinion…many Christians. I don’t think it’s a secret that the LGBTQ community feels shunned by the church. I think that is fueled by this idea of “degrees” of sin and the idea that it is possible for people to divorce the sin from the sinner. It’s preposterous and arrogant for someone to think they can do that. I speak to that next.

        Secondly, you specifically said “…evolution is somehow a sin, on the same level as your other examples…” Therein lies the whole problem between Christians and the LGBTQ community. It’s this idea that sin somehow exists on a continuum (e.g. stealing a piece of candy from a convenience store is “not as bad” as stealing millions from a bank.). Although legally there is a difference, it is complete nonsense theologically. All sin carries the same weight in God’s eyes. Romans, I think, specifically says “ALL have fallen short of the glory of God.” If ALL have fallen short, then ANYONE that has committed ANY sin falls into the same category. Again, whether you steal a piece of gum from a store or have homosexual relations, it’s sin. I don’t see how that can be interpreted any differently. If you are going to boycott a store because they have Pride marketing, then you should also boycott them because they market computers, which people can use to steal identities or access pornography, etc. I could go on with that thread. The idea of levels of sin is a human construct and it creates a danger, one that is currently in full view, that one person can be better or worse than another, and it thereby creates a moral stratification that…well, doesn’t exist in the first place, but…breeds a sense of superiority in those that see their sin as small or minimal. Thus, homosexuality now becomes “more of a sin” than a heterosexual man having impure thoughts about an attractive woman that passes him on the street, for example, even if there’s no attempt jump in bed with the woman or anything – just a passing thought. So, if I adopt this mindset, then as a Christian, I can persecute homosexuals without acknowledging my own sin, because my sin is “less than” that of a homosexual. Again, it’s ridiculous. Jesus even seems to address this concept of sin stratification in Luke 18 where a Pharisee and a tax collector go to the temple and pray. The Pharisee said about the tax collector “God, I thank you that I’m not like everyone else – crooks, evildoers, adulterers – or even like this tax collector.” (Luke 18:9-11, CEB). The Pharisee goes on to list his evidence that he’s not like the tax collector. The tax collector “…struck his chest and said, ‘God, show mercy to me, a sinner.’” (vs. 13). Jesus then very specifically says “I tell you, this person went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee. All who lift themselves up will be brought low, and those who make themselves low will be lifted up.” (vs. 14). I don’t know if that passage was meant to chastise the Pharisee or vindicate the tax collector. I think it’s the former, but I’m sure there’s some debate there. However, take that same verse and substitute “Christian” in for Pharisee and “gay person/lesbian/trans person/etc.” for tax collector and it still works. And I think it works even better, because tax collectors weren’t despised for being tax collectors, but rather for the fact that many, if not all, cheated people while tax collecting. It doesn’t say that he asked God for mercy and then stopped cheating people or stopped being a tax collector. He went home. There’s no follow-up. We can’t know if he went home and stopped cheating or decided to herd sheep for a living. However, can you imagine having the genitals and chromosomes of a male but having the desires of a female (i.e. being attracted to men) because your brain doesn’t agree with your genitals? Is that something you can just stop doing? I think it would be A LOT easier to stop cheating people or just change jobs than to change what you desire. There is so much that goes into sexual expression. It’s not just a XY/XX thing. Yes, that is absolute when it comes to mating and creating a new human. However, the social aspect of sexuality and sexual expression is not as clear-cut. I’m not condoning homosexuality. I just am pointing out the inaccuracy and hypocrisy of how many Christians view homosexuality compared to their own sin. I also understand that the tax collector professed his sin and asked for mercy. We could certainly apply that to the LGBTQ scenario. Are there LGBTQ community members that feel like they sin and recognize that, but understand they can’t do anything about it? Is that number high? Low? I don’t know. I imagine there are some, but probably not many. I mean, why would they think it would matter with the way Christians treat them? Another question I have is homosexuality a sin? Is it specifically stated somewhere? I get that Peter (I think) addresses sexual immorality, but what is sexual immorality? I’m not a theologian and that’s a whole other topic. My point with this section of my reply is to point out that homosexuality is not any greater or lesser of a sin than other sins. They all carry equal weight in God’s eyes. Therefore, we as Christian’s should stop viewing homosexuality/trans as that way.

        Thirdly, I can’t tell if you are suggesting that scientists within the scientific fields you mention purport that their findings and evidence are directed by God, and that they acknowledge that, or that they openly conduct science within the context of God, or if the Christian thinkers are saying that they agree with the findings and conclusions in those fields but attribute them to being guided by God. I can tell you that the first two are not correct at all. Science as a philosophy and practice does not attribute anything to God or within the context of God. It can’t. This doesn’t mean that science is evil or that scientists are inherently evil or that scientists part and parcel reject God or anything remotely close to that. The problem is that attributing the mechanics and operation of life, physics, geology, astronomy, etc. to God is teleological and untestable and cannot exist within the realm of science. Science has its limits. Science deals only in things that are testable. This is why Ghost Hunter types of shows are laughable. They try to use “scientific” sounding things to “prove” ghosts exist. I can write a book on the nonsense of those types of things. However, they cannot conduct a simple experiment to see if a ghost moved a chair. They can’t set up a control scenario where the ghost is not present and then an experimental scenario where the ghost is present and then measure if, or by how much, a chair moves in each of those scenarios. That’s the setup for a basic scientific experiment. You would have to prove that the ghost exists, but you can’t. It becomes a circular shit show. They also can’t look back historically and say, “the chair didn’t move when the ghost was not present, because we can prove that the ghost wasn’t there at that time. But, we can show that the chair moved when the ghost was present, because we can prove that the ghost was present when the chair moved.” They also can’t predict that a chair will be moved by a ghost. Again, how do you know the ghost is there. See the problem? Science is descriptive and predictive. Science can’t prove that God exists in the first place. On the same hand, science cannot show that God DOESN’T exist either for the same reasons. Evolution is descriptive and predictive and is supported by gobs and gobs of evidence.
        Now, if you are saying that the Christian thinkers are attributing the findings/evidence of those scientific fields to the hand of God within their community, then that’s OK. I do that personally, but not professionally. I will often say that, as a practicing scientist, I get a front row seat to how awesome God put things together, but I don’t teach that in class or add that to my publications. However, if you are saying that the Christian thinkers are saying that their assertion that God is the driver of those findings and evidence is still valid science, then that is not correct either…neither scientifically nor Biblically.

        Lastly, it seems you are using the term “theory” incorrectly. A scientific theory is not an assertion of “IF” something has happened, but rather “HOW” it happens. I often hear Christians say “Oh, evolution is just a ‘theory.'” In that case, they are using the term “theory” incorrectly. For example, the theory of gravity does not “guess” that gravity exists and/or happens. The theory…or law rather…explains how gravity works. The Law of Gravity is so predictive that astronomers and space scientists have used them to place probes in space. I remember reading about one of the Voyager scientists realizing that the planets they planned on having the satellite visit would be in such an alignment that they could use the gravitational pull to save fuel while still getting all the pass-bys they wanted. The more recent James Webb Space Telescope, if I remember correctly, was able to use gravity in such a way that they saved so much fuel that there was enough fuel left over to power the telescope for 10 extra years. Anyway, the Theory of Evolution…or more correctly, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection…is an explanation of the observational fact that life on Earth is quite diverse. Back during Darwinian times, people like Darwin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Georges Cuvier, Alfred Russel Wallace, and others understood that the Earth (geology) and the life contained within (biology) was quite diverse. People were attempting to explain how that happens. Darwin’s explanation is the one that stuck, because it was the most descriptive and, after more than 100 years now, has been quite predictive. If I misinterpreted your use of the word “theory,” please forgive my oversight.

        I appreciate the call to not demonize scientists. There are many of us that are believers, although probably not the majority. In fact, when I was in graduate school, my wife and I hosted a Bible study group composed of graduate students. Most of us where in the biological sciences. There was one person that was in political science and another in computer science. The rest were biologists. Anyway, I have been given “looks” by fellow Christians when they find out I’m a biologist. A friend of mine’s dad mentioned to my friend that I was a biologist and that he should be careful around me. He was afraid I was going to lead him astray because he assumed I was a godless, evolutionary scientist.

        I also appreciate your shared struggle with these issues. Going back to the LGBTQ topic, I struggle with the “celebratory” nature of things like Pride month or Pride events or marriages in which the couple getting married is homosexual. If I were to participate in a Pride event, does that mean I’m condoning homosexual behavior? I kind of feel like it does, and I struggle with that. However, I’ve seen news stories of moms and dads going to Pride events wearing “Free Mom Hugs/Free Dad Hugs” shirts and hoards of people coming up to them just to feel some semblance of parental love, because they’ve been rejected by their families ( Every time I see that video, I cry, because I know what that the pain of rejection over something you can’t control is like. I also know what it’s like to have missed knowing my dad, because he had no idea I even existed. I can’t imagine how much more pain is involved knowing that you missed out on your dad/mom because they chose to end their relationship with you. I just can’t imagine Jesus rejecting someone like that. However, does it mean I hate homosexual people if I don’t attend a Pride event. No, it doesn’t. This is where I think the LGBTQ community falls short and should do some self-reflection. It seems that some folks in the LGBTQ community think that you hate them if you don’t agree with their lifestyle. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that way with some. I think it’s possible to disagree with someone but still be capable of showing them love and acceptance. I do that with my kids. I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. I hope not.

        Thanks for the engaging conversation.

        • John says:

          First, sorry I said Rick before, I mean Rich! Thanks for the detailed reply. A lot to think about there. Overall, I think we are on very similar pages. I indeed meant “theory” as you explained it, not how lay people more colloquially use it (which is more akin to a hypothesis, really). I am also a scientist and so agree with need to be precise about what science can and cannot do. Most of the scientist/apologists I referenced would likely state they unify God and science similar to your third point in that they employ the scientific method to better understand God’s creation but are not using God as a “God of the gaps” to try to fill in details science cannot currently explain. Mostly, it is that by studying science we can study God and His creation. Thats why I find it so compelling that Francis Collins describes DNA as the “Language of God”.

          Back to the original discussion point in Vince’s article, it would seem the largest difference between what Target and Budweiser and the Dodgers are doing vs your examples of individual CEOs or executives committing sins, is that these are targeted and intentional campaigns worked on by dozens or hundreds of people at these companies that are publicly and personally condoning or promoting sinful behavior. As both Christians and also responsible citizens in a democracy, if we do not agree with something then we certainly have the right to protest or abstain from such companies or their products. Indeed, it seems both Budweiser and Target have lost billions as a result of these moves, which for public companies will certainly cause them to change their behavior. I applaud Vince or standing firm on the Foundation of Scripture and am thankful for him and the men who participate in this devotion series. My own men’s group will from time to time discuss these posts and topics.

  7. Jimmy says:

    Vince- I really appreciate your daily devotionals as many have spoken directly to me, and this one is no different. Normally I don’t comment on posts like this, but I’d like to get your take on something.

    I agree that companies like you mention will not get my support (not that they did anyway- Target and Disney are not really on my to do list), but where do you draw the line on boycotting (which is what this is)? For example, many times you post songs by certain churches whose theology is a far cry from anything found in scripture (though the song may be theologically sound). Additionally, what device are you using to create this content, take phone calls, etc.? How do the leaders of these companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.) believe? What happens if your power company suddenly began a campaign catering to alternative lifestyles?

    Boycotting, in my opinion, can be a slippery slope and we must draw the line somewhere, but to what end? If we boycott companies that do not line up with a Biblical worldview, I’m afraid we’d be back to the Stone Age.

    Love your content and what you stand for! Keep up the great work!

    • Chris Caliguire says:

      Right?! I think this too. If I roll through McDonalds, am I supporting non believers? I think the music Vince shares is for encouraging thoughts related to the devo, but would no way consider it worship music (alot of “todays” songs. Music in a Church is prayer and should be thought provoking from scripture, not emotion provoking with I and me. Should have more than you and he’s than the former. Some people confuse emotional tingling with the Holy Spirit, which Jesus says is instilled in US to help us obey, not feel tingly. I’ve rested in that we should avoid companies that blatantly advertise adverse things. Personally, I try not to buy from Amazon or companies that attend Davos Switzerland new world order digital currency. I still get emails from my former church and they recently had a link whereas the Church would get a commission if you used their specific Amazon link. If I were an elder, I would instead suggest sending a link to the Public Square app, which is a collection of companies who agree to traditional values. As the app grows, I’m sure it will be infiltrated by thieves and robbers who just check the “I agree” boxes even when they really don’t, but that’s our fallen world and we may even see that in our congregations? “I agree”, when some really don’t agree? I guess, just like we unknowingly sin every day, we unknowingly purchase stuff (including our cell phone provider?) every day without knowing who we’re truly supporting. We could go Amish and not use gasoline more electricity? In my deep thoughts, I think the Amish truly have it figured out ☺️

  8. Tom Waller says:

    Though we are attacked on all sides, stay strong brothers and do not waiver on the message of Jesus Christ crucified.

  9. Greg says:

    Amen Vince

    We are blessed to live in a wonderful country, and blessed with amazing freedoms, specifically, worship.

    Yet, we can easily see these eroding and how soon this new “social score ” will affect our abilities to buy, sell, and worship freely will impact us.
    Thank You Father, that we have eternal hope! He never promised us easy living, only that He would be with us. For that. I am grateful. For that, I pray for peoples in foreign countries whose oppression is far, far worse than ours.

    I thank God for the gift of today.

    Thank you Vince for all the wonderful words of encouragement

Comments are closed.