bookreview "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches" 2

Chapter 1 of Anderson's book deals with the contrast between Jerusalem and Antioch. The difference between the two is not so much geography, rather it's theology. What does he mean?
Where Jerusalem had the kairos-moment of pentecost, very soon after that they incorporated this event into a movement with a high degree of continuity with the tradition of the twelve. He calls this first-order change, based on common sense, evolutional rather than revolutional.

Antioch, however, he describes as a moment (kairos, second order change, revolutionairy) leading to a new kind of church and a new gospel of grace. The time had come for the new messianic community, in Antioch... not in Jerusalem. 'Emerging churches can be understood as a kairos moment in our time' (p.22)

He shows that 'new wine does not fit well in old wineskins', the Jerusalem church went back to tradition/continuity soon after pentecost: They had a central point of authority (the 12), they had someone in Judas' place because they needed that structure, they wanted gentiles to observe the law and be circumcised and overall, they relied more on religion than on revelation.

Saul of Tarsus in contrast to that relied solely on Jesus' revelation on the road to damascus, did not yield to the authority of the twelve, did not require the gentiles to be circumcised or keep the mosaic law.
Anderson calls Paul's theology a 'vintage theology': it keeps its original flavour but increases in vigor. 'For Paul, the nature of the church could only be established trough continuity and discontinuity. His theology of the church was developed as a theology of the mission of the Spirit as the continuing of Jesus as Son of God.'

The aim of the book is:
'to set forth a new vision for an emergent church theology that is biblically based and that is singed by the glames of a burning bush and touched by the tongues of fire lighted at Pentecost.'

There's a lot more to it, but you'll have to read that for yourselfes=)

Some comments:
1) What a great thing to finally read a book by someone who's involved in an emerging church and actually uses the bible! Only now i realise how few scripture references I've seen troughout the last few months.
2) I'm not sure about how he uses the Jerusalem-Antioch illustration. I find he portrays the differences in rather stunning extremes. I'm not an expert on early church history, but to me it feels a bit like another 'false anti-thesis'. In fact it makes me feel a lot like when i read stuff about 'the' modern church in contrast with 'the' emerging/postmodern church... anyway, i think it's intended more like an illustration so I will try not to let this spoil the fun=)
3) I'm not sure i totally understand his moment-movement thing. He admits that moments can become movements, but in my view that's just as necessairy as inavoidable. A moment can only last so long (depending on the context) and then becomes a movement. Which is a good thing in a way. When at a (youth) conference, experiencing God, fellowship etc. You want that moment to last forever, but that moment normally lasts a week, after that it's time to take the things you have learned and make them into a continuous part of your life, a movement. Right?