Timothy Keller Sermons Podcast by Gospel in Life - My Problem with Religion: An Open Forum

Episode Date: August 30, 2023

There are two problems people have with God today: the problem of evil and suffering, and the problem with the exclusiveness of religion.  We’re all in the same boat here. Whether you believe in God or you don’t believe in God, you still have these two problems. Because they get at something that really is a problem. But the real question is, are they insurmountable? Can we find a way through them? I’d like to give you something to consider as a possible way through: it’s important to see 1) that people’s problems with religion are themselves beliefs which in turn have their own problems, and 2) that Christianity has a unique resource for each of these problems. This talk was given by Dr. Timothy Keller at Redeemer Presbyterian Church on November 9, 2003. Series: Redeemer Open Forums.  Today's podcast episode is brought to you by Gospel in Life, the site for all sermons, books, study guides and resources from Timothy Keller and Redeemer Presbyterian Church. If you've enjoyed listening to this podcast and would like to support the ongoing efforts of this ministry, you can do so by visiting https://gospelinlife.com/give and making a one-time or recurring donation.

Welcome to Gospel in Life. Today's teaching is from an open form, my problem with religion, held at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City in 2003. This talk by Dr. Keller was given to introduce people to Christianity who did not yet have a personal relationship with Christ. I've been listening to that Leonard Cohen piece all week. I had never heard it before. I was getting ready for it tonight and it's extremely tender. And yet as you read the lyrics, did you get it? Of course not.

It's impenetrable. Though it's about David and it's trying to figure out what happened to David and the place where it talks about the fact that he wanted proof what that really means is David thought that he believed what he asked God to test him and he failed the test and that's talking about the great failure with Bathsheba, but I think Leonard Cohen hits the cultural mood when he says, basically, in that song, I got all these problems with religion, but that doesn't mean that I can just give up on God. Now here's what I'd like to do.

The two objections we just talked about, the two problems people have with God today, which are, first of all, the problem of evil and suffering, how could a good and powerful God allow that? And then secondly, the problem of the exclusiveness of religion. If you think you have the truth, if you think your religion is right, if you think you have the superior take on spiritual reality. Doesn't that lead to exclusion and oppression and abuse? What are we going to do with those two problems? Now the first thing I want you to know right

off the bat, you say, well you're a minister, so obviously you don't think they're that big. Those problems are very big. No, I think that's quite wrong. They have great weight. And I think that whether you, we're on the same boat here, whether you believe in God, or you really don't believe in God, you still have those problems. Those problems are with you, whether you believe or not, because they're true. They have weight, that is to say.

They've got substance. They get it something that really is a problem, so they don't ever go away. The real question is, can you, are they insurmountable? Is there a way through them? And I certainly, this isn't a sermon, and that's hardly a lecture, the more I look at it, because a lecture sounds like you're an expert on something, and I don't know who's an expert on this, but I would like to at least give you a way through. Let me give you something to consider as a possible way through, which I think the music shows us we need to at least be looking for a way through. And here are two ways I think to get through.

Number one, it's important to see that people's problems with religion are themselves beliefs with their own problems. You have to realize that every person's problem with religion is itself a belief which has its own problems. And if you come to see how deep the problems are with the problems, they don't become quite so insurmountable. Do you see that first point? The first point is every problem you have with religion, for example, when you say,

I just don't believe that there are any good reasons why God allows the chivalin suffering. That's a belief. Nobody can prove that's a belief. But there's problems with that belief. You have problems with religion because of your belief, but there's problems with that belief. You have problems with religion because of your belief, but there's problems with that belief. So every problem has its own problems. Every problem with religion is a belief, it has its own problems. It's the first thing

I'd like to spend a little bit of time showing you. And the second thing is that Christianity has a unique resource for each of these problems. It has a unique way to address each of these problems. I don't know about all the other religions. I mean, I know something about them, but I'm not an expert on them all, and I'm sure that if you had a proponent of every world religion here, they might say, well, here are, these are the unique resources from,

and I can't talk about them. All I can say is that Christianity actually has some unique personal resources for each of the problems. So those are the two things I'd like to show you. Let's take the two problems. And let's notice, first of all, that each problem is itself a belief with its own problems. And then let's see what Christianity has in its bag of resources that can help us through. So maybe we can actually sing in spite of all the problems.

Hallelujah. See? So first, let's take the two problems we mentioned, but let's take them in reverse order from the ones that we, from the way they were presented in the program. The first is the problem of the exclusiveness of religion. The first problem is a belief that says something like this. No one should think that their religious views are the true ones, are the right ones, are the superior ones. No one should

believe that. No one should profess that because that's exclusive and it leads to oppression, it leads to bashing the opponents. I mean, as Bob Dylan so vividly depicted it, you know, when you think God is on your side, then you can do anything to anybody else. So no one should claim that their view of spiritual reality is the superior, the view, the true view. Now, the problem is, we wanna talk about the problem with each of these problems. The problem is that this, unlike the second one, the evil and suffering one, this one has

a tremendous amount of inconsistency in it. Because if this thing, when you push that very far, there's no doubt that hubris and bigotry, and we're going to talk about this in a minute, bashing of the enemy and bashing of the opponents. Of course, it's bringing a lot of trouble in the world. But when you say, no one should say that their religion is a superior religion. No one's view of spiritual reality should be set up as the truth. You're actually setting up, you're doing something at that point that actually is very inconsistent, no matter how you say it. There's three ways to make this

objection. One is to say all religions are equally true. Another one is to say all religions are equally false or partial or incomplete. Another way to put it is the Nietzsche Marx way, which is all religious claims are basically power plays. So let's take a look at those three and show you the inconsistency with each of them. The first one is all religions are equally true. Now, that sounds very open-minded. You say, look, all religions are equally true. Well, I have a question. How was it when someone says that? That they can reconcile religions who have such counter-dick reclaims? Of course, Islam says Jesus couldn't

be the son of God, and Christianity says it could be. So how can you say all religions are equally true? I know how you can, because a guy named Immanuel Kant, who was a German philosopher, came up with a pretty interesting idea during the Enlightenment, and that is, he said, that all religions are subjectively helpful, but their claims are not objectively true. Religions are subjectively helpful for you in your private life, but their claims are not objectively true, and therefore they can all be true. They're all true.

All religions are basically true. Don't say one is better than the other. They're all true. They're all true. All religions are basically true. Don't say one is better than the other. They're all true. They're all helpful for their proponents. Look, you have the right to believe that. But that is a very white, very western, very individualistic, very post-enlightenment, very Kantian approach. It's a very Kantian view of spiritual reality. It's a particular view of spiritual reality. It's a particular view of spirituality.

When you say, oh no, no one's take on spiritual reality is superior to any others. But that is a take on spirituality reality. No one really has the right spiritual view of things, but that is a spiritual view of things. And when you say people who think that their view is the only right one are intolerant, when you say that, what you're really saying is people that don't have my Kantian view are wrong.

It's the same thing. It sounds better when you say intolerant, but what you're really saying is you're calling people who don't agree with you infidels. Well, you'd never use the word. But it's infidelity to the Kantian view of things. Now look, it's a free country, you have a right to believe that, but why should your view of spiritual reality be privileged over anyone else's? Oh, you're saying, oh, I'm not saying that, I'm just saying

nobody really knows the truth, but that is a truth. Nobody's view of spiritual reality is superior to any others, but that is a view of spiritual reality, which you want to hold sway in the world, don't you? Of course. So to say all religions are equally true is a very, very particular religious view. You just need to see what you're doing. You're taking it, you're holding it, you're pressing it on other people, you're trying to have it hold sway. So how are you different than anybody else? How are you more tolerant than anybody else? You're not. It doesn't really get out from under the problem.

Or put it this way. There's another way to say it. We can say the problem this way. All religions are equally wrong. Not equally right. But all religions are equally wrong. They're equally incomplete. Now the famous parable that gets that across

is the parable of the blind men in the elephant. It goes like this. Michael Pallani and Leslie Newbygain are pretty, they really analyze this parable very well. This is Leslie Newbygain from his book, in one of his books, in depicting world religions, many people appeal to the well-known images

of many roads up the same mountain, or the parable of the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant. Each holds on to one part, whether it's the trunk, the leg, the tail, or the ear, and each mistakes his part for the whole. So that's a picture of religions. All the world religions are depicted as blind men, and each one has a part of the elephant. And so the blind man has the trunk says, I think an elephant is long and flexible. But there's another blind man that has hold of the leg, and he says, no, I don't think it's sort of short and stumpy and thick.

And another one has a hold of the ear, he says, no, it's broad, but it's limp. And another one has a hold of the tail. And each one is describing the elephant, but it can't see. They're blind. They can only sense. They only have some understanding of a part. So each religion is equally wrong in the sense of each religion is partial. And this is very, very popular today, and this is one of the reasons why.

It's natural for many people to say, I'm a spiritual person and I pick and choose from the different religions, because each one has something and I pull them out and every one of them has something to contribute and that's really interesting, but there's a huge problem with that too. And Michael Pallani puts it like this, the real illuminating point of this parable is completely missed.

The only person who could possibly know that every blind man has only part of the elephant would be someone who can see the full reality of the whole elephant. The parable is constantly told to neutralize the affirmations of the great religions to suggest that they should learn humility and recognize that none of them

can know the full spiritual reality. But the parable is in fact an arrogant claim to have the kind of knowledge which it insists is impossible. To anyone who claims that no religion has all the truth, we have to ask, what is the superior vantage ground from which you claim to be able to relativize all the absolute claims which these different religions make?

To say, the only way you could know that all religions only have part of the truth is if you see the whole truth. The only way you could know that all religions only have part of the truth is if you see the whole truth. The only way you could possibly know that each religion is like a blind man with part of the elephant is only if you see the whole elephant. But what makes you superior to all other religions and aren't you claiming the same knowledge that you just said no one else has? How can you do that? Put it another way. Nietzsche, Marx, what do they say? They say, well, you know, all claims of truth, all claims of truth are just power plays. You claim to have the truth, but whenever you claim to have the truth, what you're really saying is

you're trying, you're looking for leverage, you're looking to get your group, you're looking to get yourself over top of the other people. So all claims are power plays. But think about this. CS Lewis put it very well in his book Abolition of Man. He puts it like this. He says, you cannot go on explaining away forever. Or you will find that you have explained explanation

itself away. You can't go on seeing through things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something else through it. It's good that you can see through a window because the garden beyond is opaque. But if you could see through everything, if even the garden was transparent, if everything was transparent, a holy transparent world would be an invisible world. And therefore, to see through all things is the same as not to see at all.

To see through everything is the same as to be blind is to not to see. Now, what does that mean? Think of it. If Nietzsche says, every truth claim is a power play. Then so is his truth claim, so I listen to it. Or if Freud says, every religious view is basically just a way to assuage your own guilt and security, that would mean so would his be, so why should we listen to it? Or if evolutionary biologists say, everything that your brain tells you about morality and love

and truth and religion is really just the chemicals in your brain telling you what your genetic code wants you to know in order to survive. But if that's true, then their view of the world would be nothing, but the chemicals in their brains telling you, through their genetic code, telling you what you're supposed to believe, and therefore, why listen to it? In other words, to see through everything is the same as not to see. If you go away explaining everything,

it's just to not to see it's to be blind in the end. The real, the only way you can absolutely be skeptical about religion and say, nobody has all the truth, nobody has all the answers when that is an answer. To say, nobody has complete knowledge, it takes complete knowledge to know that. You can only see the whole, only if you think you see the whole elephant,

can you be sure that nobody else does? The only possible way that kind of utter religious skepticism can last is because you are simply refusing to apply the same razor to yourself that you're applying to everyone else. I mean, this goes on and on. One day somebody said to me, what makes you think Christianity is true? If you were born in Madagascar, you wouldn't even be a Christian. So I thought about this. You know what? If you were born in Madagascar, you wouldn't be a religious relativist.

Does that make your particular view wrong? Well, if it doesn't make your particular view wrong, why would it make my particular view wrong? You see, when it comes right down to it, every view is exclusive. Every sane person thinks they're right. Every view, whether you say all religions are true, no religions are true, nobody should say they have the truth.

That is a truth claim. And it's exclusive to some degree, because you think other people are wrong. And you want it to hold sway in the world So we're really all the same. So to say Christianity can't be true or religion can't be true because it's exclusive. My dear friends It's just as exclusive to say it can't be true. It takes just as much of a claim of spiritual knowledge to say it can't be true is to say it can be true. Well, you know religion has led to wars. Yes Oh, absolutely. I don't want to take anything away from you. It's also true that atheism has led to wars. Pull pot and the

Camille Rouge, even Nazism, which was a throwback to paganism. Listen, there is something wrong in our hearts that leads to violence, and it will pick up anything, religion, but you're religion too. Obviously, if God is on our side, why not kill people? But if there is no God and there is no right and wrong, huh? And when we die, we rot. And if all morality is just a social construction, why not kill people? Now, I'm not saying that if you believe morality is a social construction, that will make you kill people, just like I don't believe if you think that God is, that you have God on your side that will make you kill people. But the point is that when you want to kill people, you'll grab for anything.

And as it doesn't really make much difference as to what it is. People will kill people, they'll grab for whatever is in your buy. So it's a wash. You may not say I can't believe in God because religion is so exclusive. Irreligion is exclusive to everybody's exclusive. It's really how you hold your beliefs, how you treat the people who don't agree with you that matters, and that leads me to my resource. I said, the first way you can handle these problems is to notice that each problem is itself a belief that has

problems to it. The second is to notice that Christianity has one very important resource. And did you see it? At the heart of Christianity is not an abstract claim. Yes, Christianity has a got an exclusive claim, believe in Jesus. You must believe in Jesus. Everybody should believe in Jesus. That's an exclusive claim. Just as exclusive, of course, as to say nobody knows the truth.

But who is this Jesus? Notice in the Bob Dylan song, all this talk about how God is on our side, God is on our side, but when Bob Dylan got to Jesus, he was attractive because Jesus bashed no one, he was bashed. Jesus never beat up on any enemy, he was beaten up.

And did you notice in the movie, in the movie, in the song, about the love? When you get to Jesus at the very end, now I know what it's like to be accused, now I know what it's like to be betrayed. Here's, look, listen, every truth claim, or untruth claim, everybody has a view of spiritual reality that is exclusive.

But at the heart of the Christian's view of spiritual reality that is exclusive. But at the heart of the Christians' view of spiritual reality is a man who died for his enemies, is a man who gave his life and sacrificed to the people who didn't believe in him, is a man who died asking for forgiveness for the people who were killing him. If you, and therefore, let me put it in the most vivid,

possible way. Christianity is an exclusive claim, but it's the most inclusive, exclusive claim I know. Because it says, I want you to exclusively believe in this man who died for his enemies. Can you still bash somebody even after you believe in Christianity? Yes, but it's despite your belief, it's not because of your belief, and that is critical.

So you might say, all the different religions of the world, in fact, all the ear religions, all the world, all the secular people of the world, they're all making exclusive claims, but at the heart of Christianity, and no other religion is a man dying for his enemies. No other religion has that as the very essence. And therefore, there's a resource there for inclusivity that I think is unparalleled. I'm not saying that Christianity or the Christian

Churches grabbed hold on it like it should, but there it is. So it's very important to see that. Now we let's turn to the second of the problem. So he said the first problem was the exclusiveness of religion. The second one is the problem of evil and suffering. For many in our culture today, biblical Christianity is a dangerous idea, challenging some of their deepest beliefs. In her book Confronting Christianity, 12 hard questions for the world's largest religion. Dr. Rebecca McLaughlin explores the hard questions that keep many people from considering faith in Christ.

Tackling issues, including gender and sexuality, science and faith, and the problem of suffering, McLoughlin shows that what seems like roadblocks to faith in Jesus can become signposts to a relationship with him. Confronting Christianity is our thank you for your gift to help Gospel and Life share the love of Christ with people all over the world.

So request your copy today at gospelandlife.com slash give. That's gospelandlife.com slash give. Now, let me give you the most recent, strong philosophical statement of what's called the off theological argument from evil. Have you heard of that? You have, you just haven't heard that term. statement of what's called the theothiological argument from evil. Have you heard of that?

You have, you just haven't heard that term. In philosophical circles, the argument that says there can't be a God because of, look at all the horrendous evil and suffering in the world, is called theothiological, which means the anti-God, theothiological argument from evil. And John Mackey, in 1982, wrote a book called the Miracle of Theism, which

sounds positive to believers, but it's not. It's a book that actually means it's a miracle that anybody believes in God. It's really true. It's a very, very high-falutin, aridite scholarly book with a kind of sardonic title. And in it, he makes this case. It goes like this.

If God exists, he wouldn't create a world filled with pointless evil. The world is filled with pointless evil. Therefore, the God of the Bible cannot exist. And recently, some of you know, that was the most recent strong philosophical case against God from art, from and evil and that was written in 1982. More recently there was a very, very elegant article by Mark Sluka in the Harper's magazine in June 2000 that I think is a fascinating article and a very elegant expression of the same problem that people have with religion. It was in the name of the articles Blood on the Tracks and some of you know, because

I've talked about this not too long, very recently as a matter of fact. But Mark Slucket talks about an incident that happened in Fairfield, Connecticut in 1999. A family of immigrants was for some reason walking along or crossing a set of railroad tracks in Fairfield, Connecticut and a train just ran them over. Killed them all. And Sluka said that reporters tried desperately to find a point to the deaths. Now there's a lot of way to find a point. One is to say, well maybe it was negligence on the part of the railroad employees or the engineer or maybe the railroad company or maybe it was negligence on the part of the government

Maybe it was negligence on part of the of the parents And they they looked into everybody's history and they looked into everything they looked into the history of the family Maybe these were good parents. They were bad parents. Maybe they're trying to find something that could show that that this Suffering had a point and they found nothing. He says in the end after all of their investigations all there was was blood on the tracks. That was it. And Sluka makes this the same point as Mackie only much more elegantly. Here's what he says. He says to say, God's will, God must have a reason. He says that just won't do anymore. He says it's not horrendous suffering that makes it impossible to believe in God. It's pointless suffering.

If you see somebody die horrendously, but their death does something good, saves people, brings about some change in society or something like that. It's hard, but there it is. It's pointless suffering, and the world is filled with pointless suffering. And he says, therefore, to say, God's will won't do anymore. He says pointless suffering shows us today. Rubbs our nose in it, as he would say, God's will won't do anymore. This is pointless suffering. It shows us today. Rubbs are nosing it, as he would say, that there is no God. Pretty powerful, huh?

The God of the Bible would not allow so much pointless suffering. The world is filled with pointless suffering. The God of the Bible can't exist. But there's a problem with part two. You know, these are premises, right? You know how logic works. And there's an assumption in the center, and the assumption goes like this.

I can't see any point to this. All the reporters of New York City went up there and none of us can see any point to it. We can't see any reason at all why this sort of happened. Okay, I can't see any point to this. Therefore, God couldn't have one either. And of course, we all know, when you lay it out like that, that's not true.

That couldn't be true. It's a bad answer, yes, to say, God's will. And the Bible doesn't just give us that, I'll get that in a second. But it's just a bad answer to say that your times reporters couldn't find a point to these people's death. Therefore, God couldn't have one. God couldn't possibly, and here's the problem. If you have a God, and you can really see this in Tori Amos's, this is what I'd say to her if she was right here.

If you have a God so great that you can be mad at Him for not stopping evil. I mean, there's no use to be mad at a God who is just some sort of ghost deity, you know, some kind of poltergeist or something like that. But if you have a God great enough to be mad at for not stopping evil, then you have a God great enough to have a reason that he allows evil to continue, that you may not be able to discern. If you have a, you he allows evil to continue, that you may not be able to discern. If you have it, you can't have both ways. If he's that great that you can be mad at him for not stopping evil, he can be great enough

to have some reason why he's letting it go on that you don't know. The only way for you to be sure there can't be a God is if you're, again, it's kind of like the first, is you are absolutely sure that you understand suffering, and that is that there's no point to it. No suffering has any point to it. You don't know that.

Not only that, there's one more problem with this belief. Alvin Planting puts it like this. You know, the first song, the ecstasy song, I don't believe in God because it'll look all the evil and suffering in the world. Here's a Christian philosopher that says something about that. Alvin Planting, who writes, it is indeed true that suffering and evil can occasion spiritual perplexity and discouragement. And of all the anti-theistic arguments, only the argument from evil deserves to be taken

really seriously. But I also believe there's at least as strong an argument for the reality of God from the existence of a horrendous evil. The most appalling kinds of evil involve human cruelty and wickedness. Stalin and Pol Pot, Hitler and his henchmen, but could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness? If there were no God and we just evolved, I don't see how. An atheistic way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort. All moral categories are either evolved or socially constructed.

All strong eating the weak is natural to the evolutionary process. And thus, there is no way without God to say anything is genuinely and appallingly unjust or wicked. There can be such a thing only if there was a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live. Atheism can speak of foolishness, acting contrary to what you take to be your own interests,

but it cannot accommodate appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness, and not just an illusion of some sort, you have a powerful argument for the reality of God. So you see, it's a huge problem to believe in God and look at the horrendous suffering around you. But it's a bigger problem to not believe in God and look at all the horrendous suffering around you

because then what's your basis for being outraged? Outraged at the injustice. Look at men, Tori Amos, look at men the horrendous suffering around you because then what's your basis for being outraged? Outraged at the injustice. Look at men, Tori Amos. Look at men beating up on women. That's, you say, I know that's terrible because I know God made us in the image of God. I mean, as a Christian, I know that's terrible. I wanna know why you think it's terrible

if there's no God. And we got here through the strong eating a week. See what Alvin planting is saying? What he's actually saying is there are huge problems to the belief that since I can't see any reason why God will allow evil and suffering, there can't be a God. Enormous problems, much bigger problems than did not believe in God at all. And what's the resource? What does Christianity give us? One of the things I have learned over the years, and with some embarrassment, I say this now,

as an older minister, when I was a younger minister, when people were suffering, I thought that what they needed were answers. I thought they needed to know exactly what was going on. I had my answers. I had studied. I'd gone to graduate school. I'd gone to seminary. I had my answers. And I came to find out that people graduate school. I'd gone to seminary. I had my answers. And I came to find out that people didn't want answers.

What they wanted was someone with them. One of the loneliest verses in the Bible is Proverbs 14-10. Listen to this verse. I think it's the loneliest verse in the Bible. Each heart knows its own bitterness. Nor can anyone share even its joy. Each heart knows its own bitterness, nor can anyone share even its joy. Each heart knows its own bitterness, nor can anyone even share its joy. Now, you know, that's a fact of human existence,

but it's pretty tough, you know what it's saying? When you have to face suffering, when you have to face death of a loved one, we have to face your own death, when you have to face death of a loved one, we have to face your own death. When you have to face horrendous suffering, people get around you and they say, I'll help you. You know, your friends come and say,

I'll support you, I'll be there for you. We'll do things for you. But this is saying, which is kind of a fact of life. You always walk the last mile to pain alone. That last mile you always have to, nobody can go there on, no matter who you are. In the end, see, in the end, you face suffering alone. But the Bible says something pretty interesting.

Something really interesting. In Matthew chapter 11, John the Baptist is in prison. He's suffering and he sends a messenger to Jesus. Because he hears about what he's doing. He sends a messenger to Jesus. Now, it's a very good possibility that John the Baptist has seen the Matrix. Which isn't a surprise since it opened at 10,000 theaters at once. Has seen the Matrix.

You know why? Because in Matthew 11, 2 to 3, it says, as seen the matrix. You know why? Because in Matthew 11, 2 to 3, it says, when John the Baptist heard all the things that Jesus was doing, he sent his disciples to ask, are you the one? Or should we seek another? John the Baptist says, are you the one? Now, by the way, I think John the Baptist says, are you the one? Now, by the way, I think John the Baptist came before the matrix.

So maybe the matrix got its idea from him. Are you the one that is to come or should we seek another? And Jesus says, go back to John and tell him what you see. The blind see, the lame walk, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news preach to them. In other words, that was John Jesus saying, you know what the prophets say. Yes, I'm the one.

And he goes back to John, and they go back to John, and what does John say? Nothing, you know what that means? John does not say, if you're the one, get me out of prison. If you're the one, stop my suffering. If you're the one, get me out of here. He doesn't say that. Here's what he's saying.

If you're the one, I can face what I'm going through. Why? Because he knows this. If all the religions of the world, Christianity is the only one that even claims that God is with us in our suffering. There's no other religion that has the audacity or the nuttiness or the the hootspa to say that God knows what it's like to lose a son, that God Himself has come into our reality. And He's experienced injustice, He's experienced violence, He's, rejection, in fact, only Christianity has

got dastard to say that God at one point looked to heaven and said, why? Some of the songs we heard tonight come from the cross. My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me? But that's God speaking. He's come in. People don't need an answer. They need someone with them. And Jesus says, I, because I'm the one,

I will walk that last mile with you. If you have me in your life, even when everyone else has to fall behind, I will go that last mile because, and here's the essence of Christianity. Jesus Christ is not just go that last mile into pain with you. He has gone into the ultimate pain for you. He died on the cross for you. That's the idea. Now, I don't know what other religions do, and I'm not an expert in other religions. All I'm saying is, if you have a problem with evil and suffering, I don't know what the religions do, and I'm not an expert in other religions. All I'm saying is if you have a problem with evil and suffering,

I don't know what the other religions say. The Christianity says, look, I don't know either. The reasons why God will allow this to happen, but I know whatever the reasons are. It's not because of God's indifference, because God, and only the Christian God, you might say, has been with us in suffering. Only the Christian God goes that last mile.

Only Christianity even claims that. And that's what I really need. I don't even need the answer. If I had the answer, it wouldn't help me. I need someone with me. So there we have it. G.K. Chesterton put it like this. A bigot, he says, is not the one who thinks he's right. Every sane man or woman thinks they're right. The bigot is the one who cannot understand how the other person came to be wrong. Now if you're a Christian, you don't have a problem

with religion. You're not a Christian, probably. Because Jesus himself had the biggest problem with religion. He said to the Pharisees, he said, he said, the pimps and the prostitutes get into the kingdom of God before you. And they were the religious leaders. Why?

Because the only way to get Jesus is to lose your religion and not think you can earn your own salvation, but see, you have to be saved by his grace. And frankly, I'm here to say, that most of the problems that people have with religion come from real religion, from Phariseism, from thinking, God's going to take me to heaven because I have the truth, but the gospel is that God receives me simply because of sheer grace, because of what Jesus did, because He went that last mile for me.

If you therefore understand this, you have a problem with religion too, and it's the only way to become a Christian. So I think when GK Chesterton said a bigot, it's not somebody who thinks you're right, everybody thinks you're right. A bigot is someone who doesn't understand how the other person went wrong, which is no sympathy, no respect,

no admiration for people without. No admiration. I doubt that you can really, really know God through Jesus Christ without having huge problems with religion. And therefore, everybody should have huge problems, and we should understand the person on their side who doesn't believe because of the problems because you have the same problems. I'm hoping that tonight we eroded the bigotry in all of our lives a little bit.

Now we have one more piece you're going to hear, guys, come on. And this is from Bob Dylan's Christian period. Did you know Bob Dylan had a Christian period? We now look back to the 80s. And James Humphrey, who by the way, I just think it's got a great Bob Dylan voice without the irritability, the irritation, right? I think James is the Bob Dylan we all really wanted is going to sing every grain of sand. Let me just say one thing. Because we usually have a worship service here, we will be doing an offering. If you're a guest, this is not, I know there's another problem with religion,

huh, money, but we didn't address that tonight. This is, if you come to Redeemer regularly, this is your way of supporting the ministry. If you are a guest or visitor, please don't worry about the offering play, just let it go by. And James is going to be singing Every grain of sand by Bob Dylan.

Thanks for listening to today's teaching from Dr. Keller. If you were encouraged by this podcast, we invite you to consider becoming a Gospel and Life Monthly Partner. Your partnership helps more people access resources like this podcast. Just visit GospelInLife.com slash partner to learn more. Today's teaching was recorded in 2003. The sermons and talks you hear on the Gospel and Life podcast were preached from 1989 to 2017, while Dr. Keller was senior pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church.