June Men’s’ Book Group /Practical Theology, by Peter Kreeft / Points 210-213, 215
210 The necessity of the Incarnation
There appears to be no proof of necessity, so theologians discuss whether the Incarnation was fitting.
Augustine says, “We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally
subject, but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery.”
I imagine that God could have healed all, for example, by wiping away all traces of the fall of man. It would be as if it never
happened. If Augustine was right in saying that the Incarnation was the best of many ways of healing our misery, I suspect
that we may agree that the Incarnation was necessary. Some aspect of falling and being redeemed perfected the nature of
creation.
211 A good but unanswerable question
This is a fascinating twist on #210. Suppose man had not fallen (or God had wiped away our fall), would Christ then have
become man?
What benefit is there to us in asking this question but to better understand truth. I ask, would not the Incarnation have
been the cause for closer intimacy with God? It seems a reasonable question, yet Adam and Eve walked with God. Can one
be closer? Questions about an alternative reality lead us to answers about our own reality. While the question is
unanswerable it does give us a new perspective.
212 Christ on other planets?
Can God make a rock so big that he can’t lift it? I say yes, and he can lift it too. Sometimes an absurd answer is appropriate
for an absurd question.
Could God have created another planet, another humanity? Sure.
Could God create a second, third, fourth… rational species on Earth? Sure.
Could each rational species, made in the image and likeness of God, sin, fall and be redeemed by the Son of God. Yes.
What is the value of these questions but to test our understanding of God, of God’s limits, of God’s power, of God’s love?
God is omnipotent. I don’t know about other planets, but He did make us.
213 Adoration of an image of Christ
St. Basil says, “The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype.” This is so simple a child has no difficulty with the
idea. In our age should we refuse to talk to a person on the telephone or participate in a video conference because the
phone is not the person, or the video picture is not the person. No, this is absurd. I gladly talk through a phone to my
friends. I pray through an image to my Lord. A crucifix brings the passion into my heart, and I weep. Surely, I am not so
much a fool as to weep for the pain of the statue itself? Are we not men, with bodies and senses? Can our vision, our
hearing, our smell not invoke the higher things? I am no artist. The statues and stained-glass windows in my life are far
more pleasing and bring me closer to God than the images of my own imagination. From the hands of the artist through my
eyes and into my mind, comes an image of my Lord. My soul resonates with the image in my mind and gives greater glory
to God.
215 Relics
Kreeft writes that relics, like images, invoke the memory of the person. I would like to suggest that the sense of touch is
key to the operation of relics. A relic could be clothing, a Rosary, just about anything. To make this personal, imagine
something passed on to you by family. I have a coat of my father’s. Though he is still alive I think of him when I wear the
coat. To touch a relic brings us closer in spirit to the original owner. In the case of a sacred relic, this brings us closer to a
saint, someone pleasing to God. We take comfort, feel unity and renew our resolve.
