Our Present Sufferings. Paul speaks of “the sufferings of this present time,” not “the suffering.” He’s speaking of “the time” between Jesus’ resurrection and return. In the “present time” we experience “the sufferings” of persecution at the hands of the world and the devil. “Rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed” (1 Peter 4:13). Ministers experience “the sufferings” of being “jars of clay . . . afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; stuck down, but not destroyed” (2 Cor. 4:7–9). Added to these are all “the sufferings” we experience because Adam’s sin caused the world to be a fallen place: women’s suffering in childbirth and men’s suffering agony in the course of their work (Gen. 3:16–19). “The suffering” of a fallen world include hunger and loneliness, illness and disease, and the sorrow of death.
Our Future Glory. In contrast, Paul speaks of “the glory that is to be revealed to us.” He’s just said in Romans 8:17 that we’re united to Christ in His suffering and glory. What Jesus experienced as Son we, too, will experience as sons. Think of kids playing with modeling clay or Play-Doh. How do they know how to transform it into a whale, a tiger, or a person? They either have a picture in their minds or in front of them. Jesus is that picture, we’re the clay, and God is the molder. One day, the ultimate experience of fellowship with God will be “revealed” when He glorifies and “transform[s] our lowly bod[ies] to be like his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21). When Paul “consider[s] the[se] sufferings” in light of “glory,” he says they “are not worth comparing.” Our sufferings are earthly; God’s glory is eternal. Our sufferings are temporal; God’s glory is eternal. “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Cor. 4:17). Our sufferings are as light on a scale as a feather compared to an elephant, are as insignificant as a dot compared to extending lines with arrows on a number line.
Groaning For Glory (Rom. 8:19–27) 
Creation’s Groan (Rom. 8:19–22). Paul illustrates that this age’s sufferings aren’t worth comparing with glory “because the creation waits with eager longing” (Rom. 8:19). The image is of someone lifting up their head, longing to see something on the horizon, as one might climb a hill in the morning to see the sunrise. What does creation long to see? “The revealing of the sons of God.” All creation waits for us to enter glorious, face-to-face fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why is creation groaning? “For” or “because the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it” (Rom. 8:20). Something happened to change creation: it became “subjected to futility,” reflecting Genesis 3, where God cursed the ground to produce “thorns and thistles.” Creation no longer lives up to its promise. It’s become “vanity, vanity” (Eccl. 1:2). Everything seems pointless, meaningless, and futile. We know the frustration of not living up to our potential, but this is frustration on a cosmic scale. The creation was “subjected . . . not willingly” but passively; the active cause was “him who subjected it”: God.
He isn’t the author of futility, but He executed His curse because of Adam’s sin. Creation’s subjection is not God’s fault. Like a parent who makes terrible choices stunting the emotional, social, and spiritual growth of their children, so with Adam and all human beings who descend from him by ordinary generation. God, though, didn’t place a curse on creation for cursing’s sake; He did so “in hope” (Rom. 8:20). God placed in the DNA of creation itself this hope: “that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21). Bondage now, freedom then; corruption now, renewal then; futility now, glory then. Paul summarizes in verse 22: “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.” Paul switches the image and says creation is like an expectant mother in labor pains (Gen. 3:16). The pain is serious, but it will soon pass.
Paul isn’t adopting pagan mythology of “mother earth.” He’s personifying creation with human characteristics. Why? To encourage we who eagerly longing for sufferings to end so that we can enter glory face-to-face. Be encouraged; we’re not alone in longing for the renewal of creation. Everything around you is too. Every couple of months I go out into the front yard to trim my Phoenix robelinii. I find them an astounding example of hope and patience. I’m constantly cutting off branches, cleaning up dead ones, and removing messy flowers. But I hardly water or fertilize them. Yet, they’re taller and more lush than before, as if they are patiently enduring my neglect. What’s amazing is how the trees hidden under the shade of my neighbor’s roof and nestled in the back of my planter have grown toward the sun. Entire trunks contorting. Branches from one tree stretching out over those closer to the sunlight. All in the hope of light. In a similar way, creation is waiting for its renewal, patiently yet earnestly groaning for restoration.

If the Christian church is to have any hope of reversing this decline in biblical beliefs, it must make solid biblical theology a central focus of its preaching. Biblical theology is not something that can be absorbed via osmosis – it must be taught, intentionally and incrementally. 

A newly released American study draws attention to a “striking decline” in traditional biblical beliefs among those who claim to be evangelicals. The study by Probe Ministries discovered that 60% of those claiming to be ‘born again’ Christians in America, aged between 18 and 39, believe that Buddha and Muhammad are equally valid paths to salvation. Furthermore, 30% say that Jesus was not perfect and probably sinned.
Similar erosion of traditional beliefs was also noted in regard to morality. Only 16% of evangelicals surveyed indicated a belief in the objective, absolute nature of biblical morals.
What is particularly disturbing about these latest findings is the decline that is apparent when the current results are compared to an identical study conducted by the same organisation ten years earlier. When their 2010 study is compared to this latest study, a marked decline can be seen across all major aspects of traditional evangelical beliefs and values.
For example, belief in the accuracy and inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ and the perfect nature of God fell from 47% in 2010 to 25% in 2020 – and this is among supposed born again Christians. Similarly, adherence to traditional Christian moral standards fell from 32% in 2010 to a mere 16% in 2020.
The authors of the study stated,
“This result is a startling degradation in worldview beliefs of born-again Christians over just 10 years.”
What implication does this have for churches?
Significantly, it means that ministers and preachers can no longer assume that the people attending services and listening to their sermons have a biblical worldview. The fundamental biblical beliefs that once defined evangelical Christianity are no longer a ‘given’ among those attending evangelical churches. When a preacher stands to teach from God’s Word, he or she must now contend with a mish-mash of conflicting worldviews among the congregation and a ‘take it or leave it’ approach to biblical theology.
What has led to this dramatic decline in traditional Christian beliefs and values in such a short period of time? There are several factors that are at play here.
Firstly, the decline in fundamental Christian beliefs has occurred hand-in-hand with the decline in solid theological teaching from the pulpit during the same period of time. The typical sermon over the last few decades has shifted away from the exposition of meaty biblical theology to a more ‘me-focussed’ pop gospel that centres around finding one’s fulfilment and living a successful life.
Read More

Written by Aaron M. Renn |
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
If the old institutions are dying or losing their traditional formational functions, why will not any new ones rapidly meet the same fate? Indeed, we are seeing that many evangelical institutions go into decline rapidly. Many of the earlier 1980s vintage megachurches already have “mainline disease” – an aging member base, fewer families with children, a style that seems stodgy or anachronistic, etc. The New Calvinism movement lasted less than a generation before entering major decline. Tim Keller once said that churches younger than five years attract primarily converts while those that are older attract primarily from existing churches. This seems an admission that the half life of missional effectiveness in churches is extremely short.

A few weeks back, the British writer T. M. Suffield wrote an interesting piece on the need to start building counter-institutions. He channels the common lament about the decline of intermediary institutions, and draws on the work of Yuval Levin in thinking about this problem. He writes:
Levin’s thesis can be stated simply enough: America’s social, economic, and political problems are due to the fracturing of its institutions. Specifically, the mediating institutions that unite individuals together. These mediating institutions are weaker than they used to be, with the individual and national institutions ascendant. To make matters worse, these institutions are supposed to be moulds but have become platforms.
His critique of American society in The Fractured Republic revolves around the death of small institutions, with all of their functions being absorbed into the state; he describes the conformity that was required by these mediating institutions fading over the latter half of the twentieth into the radical individualism that’s familiar to us today. This included many of the societal functions that churches performed being absorbed into state welfare systems—in Levin’s view to be run more efficiently—with the consequence that the community-building impact of being involved in churches and working men’s clubs, labour unions and bowling leagues, also faded away.
…
If we want to shape Christians to live in a world that is counter-forming them, we will need counter-institutions that are forming them in virtue. We need to ask whether or not our churches are doing this….Levin’s major critique, which he spends most of A Time To Build exploring in different arenas of society, is that the institutions that used to shape us—where they still exist—have become platforms. They no longer see forming people into virtue and helping them to live flourishing lives as their purpose. Instead, they display individuals, giving them prominence and attention without ‘stamping them with a particular character, a distinct set of obligations or responsibilities, or an ethic that comes with constraints.’
…
The institutions we do have, primarily our local churches, are being shaped into platforms of affirmation. There are many wonderful exceptions; but, anecdotally, I see increasing numbers of churches who are keen to tell people that they are loved by God, and will confront the need to change because of our personal sin, but have little sense that the church is intended to form people into virtue or to form our minds into Christian modes of thought. Mostly we affirm people that they are loved (which is wonderfully true!) and try to challenge as little as possible.
One logical response to the decline of institutions is to create new institutions. (I would argue this is a variation of “exit” in Albert O. Hirschman’s voice. vs. exit framework).
The problem is, how do you create an organization that can actually operate contrary to the forces of society that are corrosive of, and in many cases even formally hostile to functional intermediary institutions? The state actively desires to weaken institutions like the family, or at least render them subject to the state. It is already far advanced in this project.
Read More
Related Posts: