bookreview "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches" 5

Okay, this is interesting =)...
Anderson writes about the right gospel, and, again the right gospel is the gospel of the Emerging Church. Now, I've never really studied Galatians, so perhaps it makes perfect sense that I never thought about what he writes, but it sounds quite likely to me, and I must say it gives more value to the whole Jerusalem-Antioch theme.

The gospel of the emerging church is Paul's gospel (the gospel he received from Christ by revelation). According to Paul there is no other gospel, those who proclaim another gospel are to be treated as accursed. This other gospel... came out of Jerusalem! Jerusalem sends delegates to Antioch (certain people from James (gal.2:12) to make them stick to some aspects of the law. In gal.4:24 is says: One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
According to Anderson, the Jerusalem 'that is above' is antioch. (see comment 1)

Paul proclaimed a gospel of grace, the gospel of Abraham. Jerusalem had the gospel of Moses, in bondage to the law and seeking to bind others.
And then Anderson goes on to the whole 'old wine, new wineskin' theme. The gospel being the old wine (luke 5:39, And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, 'the old is good'.) see comment 2
The point that Anderson makes is that any sort of structure/wineskin is allowed, as long as the vintage wine of the gospel is in it. He then warns that 'he sensed in some of the more recent literature on the ec the taste of new wine, rather than the vintage gospel. In other words: a lot about new methods, multi-media, creative worship etc. without a clear and compelling gospel.

Some comments:
1) I can't believe I've always read past these verses without thinking a bit harder. I always sort of smiled and though: That good ol' Paul, aint he a good ol' pharisee using his allegoric hermeneutic well?;-) And just leave it to that, because I couldn't quite follow his reasoning anyway. But this whole story sounds quite likely imo.
2) I've never really made an exegesis on this passage, but i don't think the old wine is the gospel. It says: And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. That seems to be the core of the passage, now what use would it be for Jesus to make this warning if 'new wine' is not necessairy (as Anderson claims)? I find it a tricky passage, the context isn't too helpful (the bridegroom and fasting and the garment with the patch), what do you guys think?=)