Revisiting the Response to the 1977 Book <i>The Myth of God Incarnate</i>

In 1977, SCM Press published a controversial theological book titled The Myth of God Incarnate. Although the authors had close ties to the Church of England, their book denied the divinity of Christ. It caused an uproar. This study revisits contemporary responses to the book and examines why so many of them were negative. The book was viewed as a failure by many observers because it was supposed to be a work of “popular” theology—though written by serious scholars—but many reviewers found it both inaccessible for a popular audience and too superficial for an academic one. Furthermore, it was publicized in a way that was insensitive to the faith of churchgoers. Finally, the book’s approach is a prime example of what Peter L. Berger called “the self-liquidation of the theological enterprise.” In short, if the book’s conclusions were accepted by the Church, they would undermine the church’s existence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Anglican Theological Review
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00033286251316169
Primary Topic
Christian Theology and Mission
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Revisiting the Response to the 1977 Book The Myth of God Incarnate

Robert Revington
Anglican Theological Review
Christian Theology and Mission
article

Revisiting the Response to the 1977 Book The Myth of God Incarnate

Robert Revington
article en

Abstract

In 1977, SCM Press published a controversial theological book titled The Myth of God Incarnate. Although the authors had close ties to the Church of England, their book denied the divinity of Christ. It caused an uproar. This study revisits contemporary responses to the book and examines why so many of them were negative. The book was viewed as a failure by many observers because it was supposed to be a work of “popular” theology—though written by serious scholars—but many reviewers found it both inaccessible for a popular audience and too superficial for an academic one. Furthermore, it was publicized in a way that was insensitive to the faith of churchgoers. Finally, the book’s approach is a prime example of what Peter L. Berger called “the self-liquidation of the theological enterprise.” In short, if the book’s conclusions were accepted by the Church, they would undermine the church’s existence.

Anglican Theological ReviewVol. 107(1)
Queen's University (CA)
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
Christian Theology and Mission
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Revisiting the Response to the 1977 Book <i>The Myth of God Incarnate</i> — Robert Revington · Anglican Theological Review (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS