Recent disputes over the doctrine of the Incarnation give rise to the following questions. Does it make a difference to our reflection on the person and work of Christ if we carry out that reflection as participating members of the Church – as self-consciously Church theologians? And, if it does make a difference, what difference does it make? Two further questions also arise. Ought it to make a difference? And are these appropriate or even proper questions to ask? The Church theologian, furthermore, is bound to consider the practical problem of the Church's attitude or policy towards what is widely felt to be heterodox or deviant theology in its midst.

Consideration of these questions may be prefaced by a summary of the main objections to be levelled against the kind of non-incarnational Christology advocated in The Myth of God Incarnate. In the first place may be mentioned intellectual dissatisfaction over the intelligibility of an interpretation of Jesus simply as a human vehicle of divine grace and revelation. It seems hard to account for the unique or even special status of Jesus in these terms – a difficulty glaringly apparent in the Bampton Lectures of Geoffrey Lampe, God as Spirit. It seems much more logical on that basis to relativise Jesus much more thoroughly as one great saint or prophet or religious innovator among others. On such a view, of course, one's departure from both scripture and tradition is all the more blatant.