When Chick-fil-A opened its fourth location in New York City, not everyone was pleased. The New Yorker magazine described the spread of the chicken restaurant as “an infiltration” because of “its pervasive Christian traditionalism.”

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised since the New York mayor proposed a boycott when the first stand-alone location opened three years ago. The newest store probably bothers New Yorkers even more because it is a huge, 12,000 square foot restaurant.

In case you are wondering, Chick-fil-A is not going away, even if some wish it would fade into the sunset. It is set to become the third largest fast-food chain (behind McDonalds and Starbucks) and had $9 billion-worth in revenue last year.

When you ask opponents why they dislike Chick-fil-A, they either point to the company’s mission statement “to glorify God” or to a 2012 interview with CEO Dan Cathy about traditional marriage and LGBT issues. Secularists don’t like Christian companies. Gay rights activists don’t like companies that don’t support homosexual issues.

Of course, there are other companies and organizations that have the same views and values as Chick-fil-A, but they don’t seem to be targeted as much as this chicken sandwich company. Many of these other Christian groups are much more political and lobby for legislation and support various candidates. Nevertheless, Chick-fil-A seems to be the one company that always has a target on its back. Part of the reason may be the success of Chick-fil-A as well as the numerous ads and billboards that might make some New Yorkers feel there is an infiltration.

I would remind New Yorkers that many of us, in the rest of the country, are bombarded by ads about products and services by companies with values often hostile to Christian beliefs. They should adopt our philosophy of “live and let live.”

A number of months ago, the American Journal of Political Science issued a correction to a previous study. What was the error? The Journal reversed its conclusion that conservative individuals exhibited traits associated with “psychoticism.” They admitted that the interpretation of the coding was exactly reversed. In other words, it was liberal individuals, not conservative individuals, that exhibited these traits. As one commentator put it, “That’s one heck of an oops.”

This finding made quite a splash in technical journals. For example, the publication Retraction Watch had the headline, “Conservative political beliefs not linked to psychotic traits, as study claimed.” It reported that researchers have fixed a number of papers that mistakenly reported that people with conservative beliefs exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

One article that appeared in The Cut tries to answer a very important question: “Why it took social science years to correct a simple error about psychoticism.” A PhD student in psychology at the University of Minnesota concluded that the authors had simply inverted the items in the survey.

Although the article helps explain how the error began, it doesn’t really spend much time talking about why it took so long to discover the error. Is it possible that the erroneous finding that conservatives exhibit these traits was not discovered because it reinforced the bias most liberal researchers in psychology already have?

On most college campuses, there is a prevailing view that conservatives are rigid, intolerant, and closed-minded. And there is also the view that liberals and progressives are flexible, tolerant, and open to new ideas. But if you spend any time at the major universities, you will often see just the opposite.

The congressional hearings with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg mostly focused on data collection and privacy. Fortunately, Senator Ted Cruz also raised important questions about what he called a “pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship.” And Senator Ben Sasse said he thought “America might be better off not being policed by one company that has a really big and powerful platform.” He even asked the founder if he could “define hate speech.”

It turns out that censorship by Facebook is more than just incidental. And the problem of censorship is more pervasive. All the big tech companies engage in censorship. Here are just a few examples.

Facebook shut down the “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page and has blocked a post by Fox News reporter Todd Starnes. Apparently, over two-dozen Catholic pages have been blocked. Of course, the most recent example was the decision by Facebook about the African-American ladies, known as Diamond and Silk, who Facebook considered “unsafe for the community.”

Lots of people have had Twitter pull down their comments. For example, Representative Marsha Blackburn was blocked on Twitter because of her statement that said: “I fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby body parts.” Twitter shut down her video campaign ad, claiming it was “inflammatory and negative.”

Speaking of videos, there has been lots of censorship at YouTube. Videos by pro-life groups have been removed. Dennis Prager and Prager University filed a lawsuit to stop YouTube from censoring its videos. A California federal judge dismissed the complaint.

And in previous commentaries, I have talked about how Apple removed Chuck Colson’s Manhattan Declaration from its iTunes App Store. There are other religious apps that have also been removed.

Each of these big tech giants portray themselves as a neutral public forum. There is growing evidence of their bias and censorship.

The announced departure of House Speaker Paul Ryan brought lots of commentary, but one that deserves more attention is how his exit illustrates the desire of the American public to jettison adulthood. Andrew Cline says that “America is done with adults like Paul Ryan. Donald Trump and celebrities are the future.”

He reminds us that Paul Ryan was introduced to the country as a young policy wonk with a head full of Austrian economics. That apparently wasn’t what America was looking for. The rise of youth culture is the reason the least “cool” candidate has always lost the presidential election (from Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale in the 1980s to George Bush and Bob Dole in the 1990s to the recent losses of John McCain and Mitt. Romney).

“The combination of youth culture and 21st century technology has made attention the currency of the moment. Sober, calm, and judicious are out. Loud, obnoxious, and incessant are in.” That is why Donald Trump defeated Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz in the Republican primaries.

One research study concluded that the 2016 election was “extremely light on policy.” Instead, it was driven by clickbait. You don’t get lots of coverage by going on C-SPAN with a PowerPoint presentation on tax policy or health care policy. You get attention with tweets and verbal slams.

Cline explained, “Sober, dignified figures such as Paul Ryan are at a double disadvantage in this new era . . . To paraphrase Sean Connery in The Untouchables, they bring a pie chart to a knife fight.”

This is a sad, but probably accurate, assessment of the state of American politics today. As voters and citizens, we should demand more from our candidates and politicians. Unfortunately, we are willing to settle for so much less.

Is what is happening these days in America normal? I doubt very few people would answer in the affirmative. But you would probably get different answers depending on a person’s political persuasion.

Republicans might say America got off track when the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas got so political. They might point to the actions of the previous president and the development of a swamp in Washington. Democrats might talk about the vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons and the elections “stolen” from Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

But as Christians, we should look at the harsh reality that America has not been normal for a much longer time. For example, since the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, there have been about 60 million abortions. That is the current population of Italy.

It is hard to consider America normal when it has aborted 60 million unborn babies. It is also hard to consider America normal when five Supreme Court justices essentially legalized same-sex marriage three years ago. It is also hard to consider America normal when more people died of drug overdoses last year than all the soldiers who died in the entire Vietnam War.

Of course, there are also the financial abnormalities. Over the last few months, the Federal Treasury has collected a record amount of tax revenues. Yet, the federal deficit for this fiscal year and next year may exceed $1 trillion. We are bringing in record amounts of tax dollars and yet are spending it even faster.

We should remember a few of these facts and statistics when we hear politicians, pundits, and sometimes even pastors act as if everything is normal in America. These are not normal times.

A question Joni Eareckson Tada has been asking over the years is “When Is It Right to Die?” That is the title of her book that has recently been updated. She understands this issue for many reasons. One of the most significant is the fact that she has spent more than 50 years in her wheelchair.

She was on my radio program recently to talk about the latest edition of her book. She is concerned that society is more and more willing to accept the idea that a person has a “right to die.” I even talked about the pressure many with disabilities face where there are subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) comments that imply they have a “duty to die.”

I also asked Joni to remind our audience that after her accident 50 years ago, she wanted to die. A diving accident as a teenager, she said, left her permanently paralyzed and in deadly despair. She even tried (with no success) to break her neck higher so she would die. She understands why many would want to end their lives, but also believes we can provide hope and comfort to those who are convinced suicide is the only answer.

In a related article she wrote for Christianity Today she talked about speaking to a high-school class about euthanasia and suicide. One young man described how demoralized his mom was in caring for his sister who was developmentally delayed. He said society “should do something.” Joni asked him, “How have you helped alleviate the burden?” She went on to explain his mom wouldn’t be so demoralized if he helped. The student immediately realized he might be part of the answer.

The point she was making is that suicide and euthanasia are everyone’s responsibility. This is especially true in a world where more and more states are willing to legalize euthanasia and put to death people who are discouraged and depressed and ready to die.

Dr. Anne Bradley has been on my radio program and in one of her articles, she talks about her first trip to the Soviet Union. Even as a teenager she could see through the attempt to make Russia look more prosperous than it was. In fact, her visit was one of the reasons she became an economist. She ends her article by telling the true story of what happened when Boris Yeltsin visited the United States.

He was newly elected to the Soviet Parliament and the Supreme Soviet. After he visited the Johnson Space Center, he made an unscheduled stop at Randall’s Grocery Store in Houston. This trip to a simple grocery store changed him forever.

Yeltsin roamed the aisles to see the number of products available to every customer. They were offering free cheese samples. He was overwhelmed. He could not believe the bounty before him. Even members of the elite Politburo did not have the choices available to every person who walked into the store.

A reporter captured his comments in an article in the Houston Chronicle. “When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons, and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people.” He went on to say, “That such a potentially, super-rich country as ours had been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it.”

What a statement from a man who was powerful and well connected politically. He may have had great political power in Russia, but he was powerless to provide to the Russian people what was typical for all Americans. The communist government failed to provide the basic necessities for their people. This is what happens in a centrally controlled economy.

This is a lesson we need to pass on to our children and grandchildren. The abundance of goods on the shelves of that Houston grocery store weren’t provided by the government. They were provided by a free market.

Americans in general, and even evangelicals in particular, seem confused about important details of their faith. A study done by Lifeway Research found that Americans don’t know much about theology, and many evangelicals seem confused as well. Tyler O’Neil wrote about the “12 Lies American Evangelicals Believe.” Here are a few of them.

Americans generally believe that their personal salvation depends on good works. The survey found that three-fourths (77%) agreed with the statement that people must contribute to their own effort for personal salvation. More than half (52%) said good deeds help them earn a spot in heaven. On the other hand, 60 percent said Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of sin. This statement is closer to what the Bible teaches in Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not the results of works, so that no one may boast.”

Americans seem to believe that everyone goes to heaven. The study even found that almost two-thirds (64%) of evangelicals described heaven as a place where “all people will ultimately be reunited with their loved ones.” Just over half of Americans (54%) agreed with the biblical view that o
nly those who trust in Jesus Christ alone receive eternal salvation.

Americans also believe that salvation can come through many means.
Nearly two thirds (64%) said that God accepts worship of all religions. Nearly half (48%) of evangelicals agreed that God accepts all kinds of worship. This survey correlates with the survey Probe Ministries did with Barna Research of born-again Millennials. Americans in general, and evangelicals in particular, accept a pluralistic view of salvation.

These surveys remind us that churches need to focus even more attention on teaching sound doctrine. And when we are witnessing to nonbelievers, we need to define our terms and clearly explain the message of salvation.