But just now in my systematics reading I came across the following:
"The new adjustment is that the conception of Jesus as God incarnate, the second person of the Holy Trinity living a human life, is 'a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us,' rather than a literal truth.... Wiles questions whether incarnation is an essential concept in Christian faith, and also whether it is an intelligbile concept."
Blink. Blink. Stare. Come again? WTF? "Questions whether incarnation is an essential concept in Christian faith?" And then I found myself (no, really) writing on my question list: "what's left without the Incarnation?!? how do we have Christianity without it?" If you take out the Incarnation, none of the rest of it works!
And then again: Blink. Blink. Stare. Hunh. I guess when push comes to shove, I do believe (and pretty strongly, too) that the Incarnation is the key to the whole thing. Not such a problem after all. And you can bet that the next opportunity I get to say the Nicene Creed in worship, I'll be bowing right alongside my high church friends. I can't promise that will last forever (heck, I don't promise that any of my liturgical practice will last forever, no matter how attached I am to it - I'd like to hope that I'm more open to the Spirit than that) - but for the time being, at the very least until I get over the shock of Anglican theologians arguing against the Incarnation being essential to Christian faith, I'm going to be pretty stuck to it.