The only proper approach to the expectation of the future is faith. For if we expect some thing or another in the future we hope. But if that hope is not based on a promise or assurance given, then it is speculation and vanity. If, on the other hand, the hope is in what has already been promised, or if it is a hope for the realization of what has already been given in part or in essence, then that hope is faith. The world does not distinguish between the two but uses the word ‘belief’ in all contexts.

Here is the difference: faith is given; if we hope or expect apart from what is given then our belief is in vain and we are idolaters. But if we hope for what has been promised then we already recieve the essence of that hope, a joy and peace that could never be conjured up in the world’s most belabored philosophies or its most fantastical wishings.

So maybe I just don’t get it. There are two interpretive camps from the reformation tradition; those who emphasis the theology of glory and those who emphasis the theology of the cross.

Now the theology of glory is criticized by the proponents of the theology of the cross as tending toward a wrong understanding of the end times; namely that the ultimate purpose of all things is the glory of God, therefore as time progresses and God’s plan is brought to fruition this world becomes better and better as God increases his glory.

The theology of the cross is criticized as being too introspective and morbid, ignoring the joys that are now to be had in Christ. They see suffering as being the prevalent theme of the Christian walk as the believer daily takes up his cross and is united with the sufferings of Christ.

So here’s where I’m confused. Isn’t God most glorified in the sacrifice of Christ? Of course our ultimate calling is to reflect the glory of God! But what is the essence of that glory? Is it not the pouring out of the self for another? Is not God’s dominion through the giving of life? Is not also man’s vice regency through the sacrifice of the self for the benefit of those under his care? How do the two perspectives contradict each other? God is clearly to be glorified, but is not the quality of that glory loving sacrifice? Someone help me out here.

Jesus told the Samaritan woman that one day people would worship neither in Jerusalem nor on the mountain in Samaria, but that “the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.” If then the church does not consist in a place of worship, nor in outward forms, but in spirit and in truth, then we may truly speak of an ‘invisible church.

However, this Spirit is active; it is this Spirit which obeys the Word to create. This Truth is also incarnate, for he hung on the cross and rose from the dead to give life. So if the Church visible wants to excuse its divisions and its lack of faith in actions of love by saying that it is only the ‘invisible church’ dwelling within the visible church that matters, then it has unwittingly confessed its estrangement from the true church of Christ. If one is truly a part of the invisible, spiritual church, then one will seek to bring about the visible unity of that church. For the Father is seeking such people to worship him.