Apple (AAPL) and Christian Investors: App Store Content Concerns

Apple is the kind of BRI case where the core business looks fine and the edges get complicated. The company sells phones, computers, watches, and services. It does not make alcohol. It does not run casinos. It does not produce abortion drugs. On the straight sin stock exclusion list, Apple is not obvious.

And yet, some BRI funds exclude Apple, and others hold it as a core position. The tension is about App Store content, corporate giving, and content production through Apple TV+. Let me walk through it.

The straight business test

Apple Inc. in 2026 is the largest public company in the world by market cap, with revenue north of 400 billion dollars per year. The business mix is roughly:

Products (iPhone, Mac, iPad, wearables, accessories): about 75 percent of revenue
Services (App Store, iCloud, Apple TV+, Apple Music, Apple Pay, AppleCare): about 25 percent and growing

The company has more than 160,000 employees and operates globally. It is one of the most profitable businesses ever built. Cash generation is massive. Executive behavior has been generally professional since Tim Cook took over in 2011.

None of that fails any BRI screen. If you were evaluating Apple on the first-order sin stock test, you would conclude that the company is not in an excluded industry and move on.

The App Store content concern

Here is where it gets interesting. The App Store distributes third-party apps, many of which contain content that BRI funds would flag if they were evaluating the apps directly. Dating apps that facilitate casual sex. Gambling apps and fantasy sports apps that include real-money betting. Apps that include adult or near-adult content under various content ratings. Some Buddhist, New Age, or other spiritual apps that conflict with Christian teaching.

Apple reviews apps before they go on the store and has content guidelines. The guidelines are not as restrictive as some Christians would prefer. Adult magazines are not available as iOS apps, but dating apps like Grindr and Tinder are. Online casinos are mostly not available as iOS apps, but sports betting apps are. Apple has a line, but it is not the same line a Christian organization would draw.

BRI funds that care about content distribution treat the App Store as a meaningful exposure. Inspire's Impact Score for Apple has penalized the company for content distribution for years.

Apple TV+ content

Apple produces original content through Apple TV+. The service has grown into a meaningful content producer, with original series and movies released regularly. Some of this content includes material that BRI funds flag:

LGBTQ storylines and characters.
Sexual content in mature-rated series.
Political content that some Christians would consider hostile to their positions.

Compared to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, or HBO (Warner Bros), Apple TV+ has a smaller library and a more curated feel. Some BRI funds argue this means Apple's content footprint is proportionally smaller and less problematic. Others argue that the content that exists is sufficient to trigger exclusion.

Corporate giving and advocacy

Apple's corporate giving has included recipients that BRI funds flag. The company has been publicly supportive of certain LGBTQ advocacy positions, including speaking out against state legislation that Apple considered discriminatory. Tim Cook personally has made public statements on these issues.

This pattern has made Apple a consistent flag on BRI corporate advocacy screens. Whether or not the App Store content is enough to exclude, the corporate advocacy pattern adds another layer.

How the major BRI funds handle Apple

Eventide has historically owned Apple. The Business 360 framework scores Apple positively on employee treatment, environmental record, and data privacy. The content and advocacy concerns are weighed against these positive factors, and Apple has generally passed. Apple has been a top-10 holding in ETGLX in some periods.

GuideStone has owned Apple. The moderate screen treats Apple as an acceptable holding.

Inspire's BIBL generally does not own Apple. The Impact Score has been negative due to content distribution, TV+ production, and corporate advocacy positions.

Timothy Plan has generally not owned Apple consistently. The strict screens flag the App Store content and the corporate positions.

Praxis has typically not owned Apple.

So Apple is one of the cleaner splits in the BRI fund universe. The moderate funds hold it. The strict funds do not. The divergence is based on methodology rather than disagreement about the facts.

The biblical framing

This is another case where the biblical arguments cut in multiple directions.

Philippians 4:8, "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure." BRI funds that exclude Apple point to this verse and argue that being a shareholder in a content distributor that hosts impure content makes you a participant in that distribution.

Romans 14:14, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean." Paul is addressing dietary laws in the context of the early church, but the principle that conscience varies across believers is relevant to BRI. A Christian who is not troubled by iOS app distribution can own Apple with a clean conscience. A Christian who is troubled should not.

1 Corinthians 10:23-24, "All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful." Paul is again addressing Christian freedom, this time in the context of food sacrificed to idols. The principle applies: ownership of Apple is lawful, but whether it is helpful depends on your understanding of the relationship between shareholder and company.

Philippians 2:15, "blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation." Paul's vision is of Christians maintaining integrity while living in a broader culture that does not share their values. BRI investors who hold Apple can see themselves as engaging with culture while not compromising their personal integrity. BRI investors who exclude Apple can see their exclusion as the appropriate separation from unhelpful associations.

Both readings are defensible. Neither is obviously wrong.

The data privacy plus

Worth noting: Apple has been one of the strongest public companies on data privacy. The "App Tracking Transparency" feature that Apple launched in 2021 gave users the option to block cross-app tracking, which significantly disrupted the advertising business models of Facebook (Meta) and others. From a Christian stewardship perspective, strong data privacy is arguably a positive factor.

Proverbs 11:13 says "whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered." Apple's stance on user privacy is at least directionally consistent with biblical principles about the protection of personal information and the dignity of the individual.

Eventide weighs this positively in its Apple analysis. Inspire considers it but treats it as offset by the content distribution concerns.

The financial picture

Apple stock has been a strong performer for more than a decade. From around 100 dollars in 2019 (split-adjusted), AAPL has climbed to the 200 to 230 range through early 2026. The company's cash generation and share buybacks have driven consistent returns even when growth has slowed. Dividend is modest but growing.

For BRI funds that excluded Apple, the opportunity cost has been large. Apple has been one of the best-performing mega-cap stocks of the last ten years, and missing it has meant missing a meaningful chunk of broad-market returns.

For BRI funds that have held Apple (Eventide, GuideStone), the financial contribution has been strong. The strict BRI funds that excluded Apple have had to deliver other outperformance to offset the AAPL miss, which is one reason BIBL has trailed the S&P 500 in tech-led markets.

The practical question

Should you own Apple in your BRI portfolio? Here is a framework.

If you are comfortable with a moderate BRI methodology that treats core business as the primary test, Apple is probably okay to own. You can hold ETGLX or GuideStone funds and have Apple exposure.

If you want the strictest possible BRI alignment, you should not own Apple. BIBL and Timothy Plan will keep you out.

If you want to own Apple but feel uncomfortable with the content distribution concerns, you have a few options. Some Christians give away the portion of Apple's returns that comes from services revenue (App Store specifically) as a way of distancing themselves from the problematic portion. This is a personal calculation and not something BRI funds can do for you.

If you are heavily exposed to Apple through index funds and you want to maintain the broad market exposure without the direct ownership, direct indexing platforms now offer Apple-specific exclusion as a customization option.

The takeaway

Apple is a test case for how BRI handles the mega-cap companies whose core business is benign but whose edges include some problematic elements. There is no universal answer. The major BRI funds split on Apple for understandable methodological reasons.

What you should not do is own Apple without thinking about it. Most Americans own Apple through their 401k default options. Most of them have never thought about what Apple distributes through the App Store or what Apple TV+ produces. BRI is the exercise of asking the question. Once you have asked it, you can reach a thoughtful conclusion.

Ecclesiastes 8:5 says "whoever keeps a command will know no evil thing, and the wise heart will know the proper time and the just way." Wisdom in investing is less about finding the absolute right answer and more about doing the work of asking the right question. For Apple, the question is whether the App Store content and corporate advocacy change your evaluation of ownership. Answer the question for yourself, and whatever you decide, own the decision on purpose rather than by accident.