Boundaries

When it comes to the ultimate test of devotion, fewer than half of Americans would give a piece of themselves to save someone they care about. A revealing new survey has found that just 39% of Americans would be willing to donate an organ to family or friends—a striking discovery that sheds light on where people draw the boundary of personal sacrifice.

The study of 2,000 U.S. adults, explored various dimensions of loyalty in both personal relationships and consumer behavior. While organ donation may be a step too far for many, Americans demonstrate commitment in other meaningful ways.

More than half (53%) would endure waiting in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles for someone they care about. Additionally, 62% would put their reputation on the line by acting as a reference for a loved one’s apartment or job application.

Perhaps the most revealing statistic is how Americans would handle unexpected good fortune. An overwhelming 82% said they would share a windfall of $100,000 with family and friends—indicating that while many might hesitate to share their kidneys, they’re quite willing to share their cash.

Possible Preaching Angle:

1) Selfishness; Self-centeredness – It is amazing how selfish people are becoming when called to make a very personal sacrifice for their very “flesh and blood” relatives; 2) Christ, sacrifice of – This also highlights the amazing sacrifice Jesus made for his “brothers and sisters” when he said “Take and eat. This is my body” (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24) and “he himself bore our sins in His body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24).

In an article in The Atlantic, Russel Shaw writes:

When my son was a toddler, I realized how much my emotional reactions influenced his. If I showed worry when he fell, he'd wail; if I remained calm, he'd recover. Learning that I could so powerfully influence his mental state was a revelation. This taught me that parenting is about more than just teaching skills; it's about shaping emotions.

Our instinct is to protect our children, but overprotecting can hinder their development. This urge has led to pop-culture mythology around pushy parenting styles, including the “Helicopter Parent,” who flies in to rescue a child in crisis, and the “Snowplow Parent,” who flattens any obstacle in their child’s way.

Lighthouse parents, on the other hand, provide support while allowing their children to learn from their experiences. Like a lighthouse that helps sailors avoid crashing into rocks, Lighthouse Parents provide firm boundaries and emotional support while allowing their children the freedom to navigate their own challenges. The key is learning when to step back and let them find their own way.

The crucial shift is from fixing problems to listening. Listening teaches resilience and communicates trust in our children's abilities. Parenting can be stressful, but by letting them face challenges, we help them build the skills they need to thrive.

It feels like kids’ slang is evolving so quickly that adults now need to learn a new language just to keep up. The latest viral phrase? “Six seven.” But what does it actually mean, and should parents be concerned?

The “six seven” trend started with the song "Doot Doot (6 7)" by rapper Skrilla, where “6-7” refers to 67th Street in Chicago. The meme went viral on TikTok, especially in edits featuring NBA player LaMelo Ball, who is 6' 7" tall. These videos often splice together clips of Ball with the Skrilla song, and soon, tweens everywhere were making their own “six seven” content and repeating the phrase endlessly.

But the meaning behind “six seven” is intentionally vague. Some kids use it to mean “so-so,” often with a hand gesture, while others see it as a reference to height or basketball. Ultimately, the phrase is mostly nonsense-which is part of its appeal. As one TikTok commenter put it, “I think the point is that it makes no sense,” while another added, “but it’s provocative.”

Teachers have already voiced frustration about the trend disrupting classrooms, with some banning the phrase outright due to constant interruptions. On Reddit and TikTok, both educators and students have shared stories of “six seven” derailing lessons and becoming a classroom in-joke.

Should parents worry? Probably not, but context matters. Kids have always latched onto silly, context-free phrases for fun. Remember “YEET?” Still, it’s worth knowing that “six seven” comes from a rap song with explicit lyrics, which is inappropriate. If your child is using the phrase, ask where they heard it and what they think it means. It’s a good opportunity to talk about media literacy and responsible language online.

For most kids, though, “six seven” is just another catchy, meaningless meme-one that’s more amusing because adults don’t get it.

Possible Preaching Angle:

The “six seven” meme is an example of how quickly children’s culture can shift and how bewildering it can feel for parents. Scripture encourages parents to stay engaged, teach discernment, lead with humility, and model Christlike love. Rather than fearing or fighting every trend, use them as opportunities to build trust, teach wisdom, and shepherd your child’s heart toward God.

You see them everywhere, from rural fields to suburban yards. Fences come in many different styles, and just about everyone seems to have one. They represent safety and security, protecting our loved ones, making our yards into sanctuaries, and keeping our property safe. Did you ever think about the history of the fence? In many ways, fences have had a major impact on the development of modern civilization.

Whether it is for safety, wealth, or isolation purposes, there is no denying that fences still carry significant symbolic importance in many societies today. But they are also ubiquitous: Strung together, the world’s fences would likely reach the sun. Just taking the American West by itself, it is latticed by more than 620,000 miles of fence—enough to encircle the earth more than 75 times.

Who first came up with the idea of fences? There are certainly famous “fences” in ancient history, from the Great Wall of China to the Walls of Jericho. Fences became a feature of civilization as cultures transitioned from nomads to landowners and farmers. In a way, fences have laid the foundation of the modern world.

In the modern era, fences have continued to evolve, with the development of new materials and construction techniques. Today, fences are an essential part of any security system, providing both physical and psychological protection. They are used to protect everything from homes and businesses to government installations and military bases. Innovations such as electric fences, security cameras, and access control systems have made it possible to create highly secure environments.

These new technologies have also made it easier than ever to monitor and control who enters a particular area. Implicitly, the ability to access these physical barriers require some sort of credential — such as an invitation or pass — suggesting the presence of a system that excluded certain people from access.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Scripture mentions fences, walls, hedges, and boundaries nearly 350 times. These structures serve literal purposes, such as defending cities, protecting livestock, and marking territorial boundaries. However, their symbolic significance is profound. Satan challenged God's protection of Job by referencing a "hedge" around him (Job 1:10). Jesus likened himself to a "good shepherd" who encloses his sheep in a protective fold (John 10:1-10). The New Jerusalem, described as having a wall, symbolizes a place of ultimate safety and exclusivity for the saved, while excluding the unrighteous (Rev. 21:27).

Canadian professor and researcher, Beverly Fehr conducted a research study on love and commitment. It was very simple. She had two equivalent groups. One group came up with all of the attributes and characteristics of love, while the other group brainstormed all the attributes and characteristics of commitment. She simply then compared the two lists and found that around two-thirds of the words used for commitment were also used for love. What was her conclusion? Commitment is intrinsic to the very notion and concept of love.

But in today’s dating world, people are trying to get love without commitment. Researchers have a new word for this new relationship status—a "Situationship."

Time magazine defines it this way:

Somewhere between great-love and no-strings-attached lies a category of relationship that is emotionally connected but without commitment of future planning. It includes going on dates, having sex, building intimacy, but without a clear objective in mind. Enter situationship.

Situationships are one of the fastest growing relationship trends, which underscores the desire of many singles for an obligation-free relationship. The 2022 Tinder Year in Swipe Report noticed a “49 percent increase in members adding ‘situationships’ to their bios, with young singles saying they prefer situationships as a way to develop a relationship with less pressure.” Although situationships are touted as “more clearly defined than a hook-up,” they still retain tremendous ambiguity with no clarity of commitment, boundaries, or future togetherness.

Shortly into her term, Senator Laphonza Butler was hailed for a magnanimous gesture that threatens to eclipse her entire legislative agenda. Butler decided not to run for re-election.

Butler had been appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to serve as interim Senator for the state of California after the exit of the late Senator Dianne Feinstein, who’d occupied the role for three decades. Because of Feinstein’s gradually declining health, several prominent California Democrats in Congress had been lining up to become her replacement. But not wanting to take sides, Newsom sidestepped Representatives Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee and instead awarded the role to Butler.

According to political analysts, the appointment gave Butler a legitimate opening for Butler to properly campaign for the Senate seat. Bill Carrick said that Butler “could have been a player.” But Butler decided that the best thing to do for her family and for the state would be to relinquish her seat at the end of her term. Butler said in her announcement “Knowing you can win a campaign doesn’t always mean you should run a campaign.”

She included a motivational quote from one of her sports heroes: “Muhammad Ali once said, ‘Don’t count the days, make the days count.’ I intend to do just that.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

It's amazing what we can accomplish when we care more about helping others than helping ourselves.

In his book Making Sense of God, Tim Keller notes that when the national anthem is sung at sporting events, the cheering begins on the line “o’er the land of the free.” The singer quite often extends that line with a lengthy high note. Keller writes, “Even though the song goes on to talk about ‘the brave,’ this is an afterthought. Both the melody line and our culture highlight freedom as the main theme and value of our society.”

But true love imposes limits on our obsession on freedom. The film Secondhand Lions captures this well. In a scene near the end of the film, a small fatherless boy who has been abandoned by his mother to be raised by his crazy great-uncles. The boy tells one of his uncles, who is prone to depression and has contemplated taking his own life, that he cannot do that because he, the small boy, needs him. “You're my uncle. I need you to stick around and be my uncle.” The faithfulness of love will shape—and constrain—the freedom of love.

In his book Making Sense of God, Tim Keller writes:

When The Star-Spangled Banner is sung at sporting events, the climactic phrase comes to an elongated high note: “O’er the land of the freeee ….” The cheers begin here. Even though the song goes on to talk about “the brave,” this is an afterthought. Both the melody line and our culture highlights freedom as the main theme and value of our society.

Freedom has come to be defined as the absence of any limitations or constraints on us. By this definition, the fewer boundaries we have on our choices and actions, the freer we feel ourselves to be. Held in this form, I want to argue that the narrative has gone wrong and is doing damage.

Modern freedom is the freedom of self-assertion. I am free if I may do whatever I want. But defining freedom this way … is unworkable because it is an impossibility …. We need some kind of moral norms and constraints on our actions if we are to live together.

Modern people like to see freedom as the complete absence of any constraints. But think of a fish. Because a fish absorbs oxygen from water, not air, it is free only if it is restricted to water. If a fish is “freed” from the river and put out on the grass to explore, its freedom to move and soon even to live is destroyed. The fish is not more free, but less free, if it cannot honor the reality of its nature.

The same is true with airplanes and birds. If they violate the laws of aerodynamics, they will crash into the ground. But if they follow them, they will ascend and soar. The same is true in many areas of life: Freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones, those that fit with the realities of our own nature and those of the world.

We’re living in an extraordinarily distracted age. It’s impacting society, and chances are it's impacting you. Did you know …?

64% of car accidents are caused by distracted driving. The average student can focus on a given task for only 2 minutes. The typical Internet user’s online screen focus lasts for an average of 40 seconds. The average 25 to 34-year-old checks his or her phone 50 times per day. The average 25 to 34-year-old spends 2.5 hours per day on social media, while the average 8 to 18-year-old child spends 9 hours on social media per day. Excessive device usage is leading to decreases in marital and relational satisfaction. Loneliness is an epidemic, with 54% of people saying they always or sometimes feel that no one knows them well. On average, we spend 650 hours per year reading and responding to emails. We touch, swipe and tap our screens an average of 2617 times per day.

Once a man planted a garden and was delighted when shoots emerged. Every day he watered and weeded, and his garden grew until he was ecstatic to see plants bearing produce. However, a few days later, he went to his garden and was dismayed. Every plant showed evidence of hungry rodents and rabbits that had raided his crop. So he decided to erect a fence.

A few days later, the man again went to his garden and saw the same thing. So he put up another fence, another, and another. Every time he checked, he found vermin had raided the garden. Finally he realized critters could go over, through, or under each fence. So he built a brick wall with a deep concrete foundation.

Weeks later, he climbed the garden wall and was horrified to find it was choked with weeds. The ground was cracked, the plants wilted, and worst of all, his crop gone. Trusting in the wall’s protection, he had forgotten to tend the garden. He failed to realize the wall was blocking the sun’s rays. He also completely overlooked the greatest threat to his garden: the animals that had been inside all along.

How many Christian leaders trust in similar walls? Our carefully built boundaries erected to protect us from threats to our moral well-being, to our relationships, or simply to manage our time? Just relying on rigid systems won't work. They may even lead us right into the sin we’re hoping to avoid.

We already have boundaries in God’s law. God’s law is good but cannot save us. If those boundaries are not enough to transform us, why do we believe our own rules will be enough to decrease our desire to sin?

Possible Preaching Angles: Accountability; Legalism; Holy Spirit; Sanctification; Word of God – Boundaries can be of some help but they will not reform us or deal with sin. The most effective protections are walking in the power of the Holy Spirit, the daily intake of God’s Word, and open accountability with fellow Christians.

Years ago, a series of studies set out to determine how a fence and a boundary affected the behavior of children in the playground. The researchers constructed a playground with no fences. During the experiment, the children stayed in the center—almost in fear—and never ventured out beyond the playground structure. Then the researchers put up a fence. Immediately, the children's behavior changed. Instead of fearfully staying in the center of the playground, they wandered with freedom all the way to the fence, exploring and enjoying the entire space.

The researchers concluded: "The overwhelming conclusion was that with a given limitation, children felt safer to explore a playground … With a boundary, in this case the fence, the children felt at ease to explore the space." In other words, fences brought freedom. It was the absence of fences that created fear and apprehension.

Has your working day become one long battle to wade through a to-do list? An article on BBC.com noted the multiple distractions of the modern world—digital overload, open offices and constant interruptions, to name a few—that can make it near impossible to achieve your goals, or even get anything done at all.

The article argued that we should start thinking more about what we shouldn't be doing. That's one of the strategies employed by Canadian businessman Andrew Wilkinson, who has come up with a list of "anti-goals." Wilkinson noticed his day was filled with things he didn't want to do. He was feeling stretched, doing business with people he didn't like, with a schedule dictated by others, he wrote in his blog.

So he adopted a strategy from an investment expert called "inversion," which means looking at problems in reverse, focusing on minimizing the negatives instead of maximizing the positives. To put it in practice, Wilkinson came up with his worst possible workday: one filled with long meetings at the office, a packed schedule dealing with people he didn't like or trust. Then he came up with his list of "anti-goals," which includes no morning meetings, no more than two hours of scheduled time per day, and no dealings with people he doesn't like.

These "anti-goals" have made his life "immeasurably better" he said. Focusing on the negative helps us reflect on and cut out activities that don't align with our broader goals. It's about prioritizing that which is important.

Possible Preaching Angles: 1) Leaders; Pastors - We should avoid spending the prime time of the day checking email, handling administrative details, and updating social media. Put these items on your 'not-to-do' right now list. 2) Believers; Christians - The Internet, television, and video gaming do provide needed relaxation but they should be on our 'not-to-do' list until we give priority to God's Word and prayer each day.

In an article on Quartz, author Charles Chu claims, "In the time you spend on social media each year, you could read 200 books." Here's how the math behind that claim breaks down:

First, to read 200 books, simply spend 417 hours a year reading. If you're thinking, How can I possibly read for 417 hours? Chu writes:

417 hours. That sure feels like a lot. But what does 417 hours really mean? Let's try to get some more perspective. Here's how much time a single American spends on social media and TV in a year:

• 608 hours on social media
• 1642 hours on TV

Wow. That's 2250 hours a year spent on TRASH. If those hours were spent reading instead, you could be reading over 1,000 books a year!

Chu, who is not writing from a Christian perspective, offers some challenging words to all followers of Christ: "Here's the simple truth behind reading a lot of books [or the Bible]: It's not that hard. We have all the time we need. The scary part—the part we all ignore—is that we are too addicted, too weak, and too distracted to do what we all know is important"

If you see a large sailboat out on the water moving swiftly, it is because the sailor is honoring the boat's design. If she tries to take it into water too shallow for it, the boat will be ruined. The sailor experiences the freedom of speed sailing only when she limits her boat to the proper depth of water and faces the wind at the proper angle.

In the same way, human beings thrive in certain environments and break down in others. Unless you honor the given limits of your physical nature, you will never know the freedom of health. Unless you honor the given limits of human relationships, you will never know the freedom of love and social peace. If you actually lived any way you wanted—never aligning your choices with these physical and social realities—you would quickly die, and die alone.

You are, then, not free to do whatever you choose … You get the best freedoms only if you are willing to submit your choices to various realities, if you honor your own design.

The paper used for standard letter writing and school essays is 8.5 x 11 inches, or 93.5 square inches. Most teachers require one-inch margins for class papers. That's the standard we've become accustomed to seeing. But have you ever stopped to consider what percentage of the page that margin occupies? When I ask people, most answer anywhere from 15 to 25 percent.

But a one-inch margin on a standard sized paper is 37.4 percent of a page's area. More than one-third of the page is given to space. And that's just around the edges. When you double-space the lines of text, a majority of the paper is blank.

The empty border helps us focus on the printed text. It creates a comfortable feel for our eyes. Stylish magazines help readers focus on the text and images by using large amounts of margin on each page. Sometimes we use even more margin in catalogs and on blogs.

Sometimes people think that margin (sometimes called "white space") is wasteful and inefficient. They pack as much print as possible on the page. But have you ever seen a page packed with text from top to bottom and side to side? You'll get tired looking at it, even before you begin reading it.

Possible Preaching Angles: Prayer; Quiet Time; Sabbath; Spiritual disciplines—Margins and space in our lives, blank spaces on our calendars, Sabbath time, can give us room to deepen our relationship with God and others. Margin has substance, and it intersects with how we live (our heart), how we think (our mind), and how we act (our hands). We focus because there are margins.

Born in 1949, singer Bruce Springsteen was the eldest of three children, and the only son, in a working-class family in Freehold, New Jersey. The house in which Springsteen spent his early childhood was literally a ruin, the walls slowly collapsing. A subsequent house lacked running hot water, so the family filled the single tub with pots heated downstairs on the gas stove; the kids took turns bathing in the same water. Family relationships lacked stability. Bruce's grandmother was devoted to him, and his mother was loyal to her brooding and unstable husband, but rules were nonexistent. At five and six, Bruce was staying up until three in the morning and sleeping until three in the afternoon. He ate when and whatever he wanted. In his memoir Springsteen writes, "It was a place where I felt an ultimate security, full license and a horrible unforgettable boundary-less love. It ruined me and it made me."

Later in his life, Springsteen writes that he started therapy, probing the "mess that he was," to borrow the phrase he uses for his father. As he describes his habit of cutting off romantic relationships after a couple of years, he's clearly still wrestling with that "horrible unforgettable boundary-less love" from the past:

I wanted to kill what loved me because I couldn't stand being loved. It infuriated and outraged me, someone having the temerity to love me—nobody does that … and I'll show you why. It was ugly and a red flag for the poison I had running through my veins, my genes. Part of me was rebelliously proud of my emotionally violent behavior, always cowardly and aimed at the women in my life.

Possible Preaching Angles: God's Love; Christmas; Incarnation—In the Incarnation God came close to us so he could say and show "I love you'—even when we can't stand being love by him.

In his TED Talk, "The Paradox of Choice," secular psychologist Barry Schwartz claims that many of us live by this unspoken but "official dogma": maximize your happiness by maximizing your individual freedom. And according to Schwartz, "The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice."

Schwartz points to his local supermarket as an example—a place that offers 175 different kinds of salad dressings. Even our personal identity has become a matter of choice. "We don't inherit an identity," he says. "We get to invent it. And we get to re-invent ourselves as often as we like. And that means that every day, when you wake up in the morning, you have to decide what kind of person you want to be."

Schwartz ended his talk by pointing to a picture of two fish in a fishbowl as he said:

The truth of the matter is that if you shatter the fishbowl so that everything is possible, you don't have freedom. You have paralysis. If you shatter this fishbowl so that everything is possible, you decrease satisfaction … Everybody needs a fishbowl … The absence of some metaphorical fishbowl is a recipe for misery, and, I suspect, disaster.

Possible Preaching Angles: This would also work well as an object lesson illustration with a real fish in a fishbowl.