I was just waiting for the next instalment of the ‘No agendas or hand-wringing’ thread, when this appeared. Just on that thread - could there be a cross-Atlantic undertow? I think richard is reflecting some heartfelt US soul-searching which may be a little more distant to some folk in the UK. Maybe we don’t have the identification of the evangelical church with the political right-wing, which (some say) is a phenomenon of US politics. (I realise that could be an oversimplification). Is that a deeper issue?

Returning to the subject of this particular thread: my understanding is that it’s no more simple to pin one label alone onto Jesus in the ‘salvation-historical model’ than it was in any other model. (But I’m open to correction).

If we stuck to the implications of the SH model, we would probably be more sensitive to the historic meaning of ‘Christ’ as ‘anointed one’, in this case, Israel’s messiah. But we might also be more sensitive to the ‘anointings’ of those in kingly and priestly office in Israel’s history, and the ambiguity, or at any rate diversity, of understanding of what precisely ‘anointed one’ meant when it referred to a person intervening in a climactic way in Israel’s history in the years immediately before or after the birth of Jesus. (I was about to say ‘Christ’).

Perhaps our present-day usage of the term ‘Christ’ covers Jesus’s credentials more generally as uniquely related to God, bringing salvation through the cross, resurrection, ascension, outpoured Spirit, and so on. I think this may have been how the term was beginning to be used by Paul - giving the idea of Jesus’s ‘messiahship’ specific and upgraded content, as opposed to whatever may have been understood by the term before Jesus came.

I suspect we use the term ‘Jesus’ on its own to express an intimacy of relationship with him, or even simply to refer to his humanity, or his identity as a biblical figure.

I also suspect that the linking of the two words may reflect our culturally conditioned ideas of a first name followed by a surname. ‘Jesus’ on its own might seem too familiar, so we add the surname, to convey more respect. Just as we might do with any other person we wish to address or describe. Or we prefix the name ‘Jesus’ with ‘Christ’ - for the same reason. If we want to be really respectful we confer a peerage on Jesus - the Lord Jesus Christ. Our usage is partly culturally conditioned. But it’s also a practice which is partly sanctioned by biblical usage - such as in Paul’s letters.

I suppose the logic of this would be that emergents should prefer the term ‘Jesus’ to ‘Christ’, as it cuts away any sense of the accretions of religious tradition, and opens Jesus up to fresh discovery by those who might balk at the traditions, or the untranslated and little understood insertion of a Greek word when referring to Jesus. It might even validate different interpretations of who Jesus is within new forms of community. I personally have problems with such a stripped down view, in which all perspectives are invited and validated - but why use the term ‘Christ’, when it is a Greek word not used elsewhere in our own language, and does not normally carry any sense of its actual Greek meaning?

Whatever the point of view, I think there is a case for exercising greater self-awareness when we use the terms ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’, as well as our use of the word ‘Lord’, and ‘Father’ when addressing God or speaking of relationship to him.