ABSTRACT
The charge of espousing ‘Arian’ views remains a potent and potentially damagingone even in modern times: 1977 saw the publication of the highly controversial The Myth of God Incarnate (Hick 1977). Perhaps nothing in the last few decades has generated so much heated theological debate. Within months a counter publication, The Truth of God Incarnate (Green 1977), appeared, as did a number of highly critical and influential reviews of The Myth. While few of the scholars who responded critically to The Myth explicitly accused any of its contributors of ‘Arianism’ (or of any named heresy), the implication was often clear (Torrance 1981: 132; Heron 1981: 75). John Macquarrie, for example, reflects this – though he is himself more cautious – when he writes that while ‘it would be an anachronism to describe the positions [of the contributors to The Myth] as Arian, deist or Unitarian, . . . unquestionably there are affinities, and it is hardly likely that an updated Christianity without incarnation will prove any more successful than these dead ends of the past’ (in Green 1977: 144). From the late 1970s until the present day the same accusations have also been directed at proponents of some forms of New Age thought present within a number of mainstream Christian churches, as well as at aspects of feminist theological teaching (Toon 1991: 296). The supposed connection between particular expressions of these and the ancient heresy of Arianism is rarely made explicit yet is often implied. ‘Arianism’, whatever that term might mean in any given context, is apparently ever with us!
