The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Emmaus

Quick question.

First of all, I would just like to mention that I still havn't been able to get any search results. I have read how to get better results, but nothing I do can bring me results. I tried to see if there were any past threads concerning Emmaus. http://www.upperroom.org/emmaus/ I don't know if anyone is familiar with Emmaus but I was hoping to find out if anyone had any input? Our church has a strong emmaus community, I myself have walked and teamed. But I'm starting to wonder why a church needs to have an external revival type program. I'm not sure if that should make me question my church.

Y.B.I.C,

Dave.

Growing up in the Presbyterian Church-USA, I heard about the Walk to Emmaus affilliated with the United Methodist Church. Some of the members from our church would go on the retreat. Of course, most churches in both the PCUSA and UMC are liberal, so I would be very reluctant to go. The reason the church members from my church went was because they said UMC doctrine was close to PCUSA doctrine. Now THAT'S a sign of the times...when you can't tell the difference between Presbyterians and Methodists.

Marie,

I know of some evangelical Episcopalians attending Emmaus retreats. Similar programs have other names to it.

I noticed that the Upper Room ministry has developed the program. I've briefly browsed through a Upper Room daily devotional, and although it was not necessarily teaching anything bad, it was so different from anything that I am accustom with. It appeared more mystical than the straight foward teaching and application that I am familiar with in daily devotionals. The person who had the devotional goes to a supposedly conservative UMC church, so I gather that is there devotional of choice.

If anyone wants to browse around the Upper Room website. Here it is. If anyone knows more about the Upper Room please share the information.

I attended a Chrysalis weekend when I didn't know any better in high school, and now I see why my pastor had reservations about it. The concept is inferior to the Church as described in the Bible. I'm quite annoyed how people think they can improve on biblically-illustrated and ideal fellowship when their "improvements" are not even biblically legitimate. The label Upper Room gives on the site is quite right: Program.

People doing church without the truth of God --> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/heavy.gif" alt="" />

Now, granted, God did use it in some way to get me as I am today, but I think that just furthur shows His righteousness over/against our sinfulness. I am thankful He does not leave us to our lost selves!

Ben

I'm just going to interject some thoughts here. For those of you that don't know much about the Emmaus walk, let me give a very brief outline. It's a 3 day retreat. The people that are going through it for the first time are called pilgrims and people that have already gone through it and are the ones that have been preparing for the walk are called the team. The team is selected about 3 months before the walk and meets every week for 12 weeks before the walk. During this time the team is planning, preparing and getting to know each other better. Every time the team meets they take communion. ( Which I really injoyed ) This teaming process is taken very seriously and in my opinion is a very wonderful experience.

Well the team arrives at the facility before the pilgrims. In our area, there are about 30 teamers and about 35 to 40 pilgrims. The Pilgrims arive later and the first night is spent on just getting to know each other better. Then the following days, the program includes, a lot of contemporary praise singing, faith sharing, talks( which are basic seminary level sermons involving effectual calling, grace, sin, chrisitan action and so on) and a few other activities. In my opinion, the best thing about Emmaus is that it is a strong community of believers. Everything is done by the community. Once you have walked at Emmaus you are a part of the community. Being a part of the community, you can go to monthly gatherings where there is praise singing, faith sharing, a fourth day talk and communion. You can team for walks or just help out during the walk and or you can attend a small group or reunion group.

ok with saying all of this. Here are my concerns. Why should Emmaus almost be essential to spiritual growth? It seems like I hear from a lot of people in my church, "Have you gone through Emmaus?" That made me start to wonder, why does our church need an Emmaus program? If we are in dire need of a revival program like Emmaus to spur Christians on to maturity, then that says somthing about our church. And that in my opinion is a little sad. The main thing that I see that attracted me to Emmaus, Promise Keepers and listening to programs like BBN is that all these programs are passionate about Christ. They are serious about leading a biblical Christian walk. They don't beat around the bush. THAT is what I believe we're lacking in our church. Our church tried to have a "renewel" last year. Being Presbyterian It was decided that we should call it a renewel because revival is too baptist. But to make a long story short, it wasn't that renewing. It was light and not very convicting. My wife and I decided to join a renewel small group after that and we were considered I'm sure as a little fanatical by most of the couples.

I see our pastor's being very careful not to rock the boat. You wouldn't catch my pastor participating in any of the type of discussions we have on these boards. Our pastors are very careful not to offend anyone. In their opinion, it doesn't matter what type of Christian you are. They are very careful not to offend the non believer either. Fortunatly I'm talking about outside of the pulpit. I have to admit, our head pastor still has a good honost firery deliverance from the pulpit.

So to sum this all up. I believe that Emmaus can be a little too emotional. I've seen people walk that wern't ready to walk spiritualy that were very put off by the whole experiance. I believe in what Emmaus is trying to do but I don't know if I agree with the program. It's like using shock methods to quickly waken people up. The days are long and very full. They try to jam as much basic Christian 101 in as possible and everyday has more then one deeply emotional event. So when the pilgrims walk away from it, they have done allot of crying, walking, singing, standing, listening and hugging. It's a very intimate program, the pilgrims are encourage to put their arms around each other during singing and to hug each other. Which I really enjoyed also. But again, all this is done in a matter of three days. So when the team and pilgrims leave they are very drained emotionaly and physically. The old barriers of pride and self are attacked and broken down in the first day, then promoting a Christian world view, devotional Christian living and leading a neighbor loving life is then discussed and tought the following days. Which are all good but in my opinion again, not in such a short time. Again I have to ask myself why arn't we getting this in church. Why do people have to go to Emmaus to realize that God really is Sovereign, the bible is true through and through and we really should be loving each other and praying and studying the scriptures.

Sorry for the long post. This is somthing that I've been wrestling with in my mind now for a while. You know when you finish your walk in Emmaus, everyone is very carful to remind the pilgrims that they can't make Emmaus their church. That Emmaus isn't trying to be a substitute, that the whole reason for having an Emmaus walk is for the pilgrims to be able to take back to their church the love and joy they got from their walk. Well I took that charge very seriously. I have tried very hard to encourage my brothers and sisters in my fellow congregation and I still do. I send out e-mails, I have held bible school classes, I'm a leader in my men's ministry and I'm a deacon. But I have to admit, after being very pro-active for a couple of years now, I've throttled back allot in the last few months. I have realized that for one that my family comes first. My main ministry is to my family. Then after that I will serve the church. But I'm resorting to more of a one on one type of discipling. I find this much much more effective. I also find that bible studies and small groups is where I can be very effective also. When questions are raised in these more intimate evironments, I can be allot more effective in teaching the gospel and reformed theology. On Sunday, I just try to be enouraging to new and non believers. I try to lead them to bible studies and small groups and I'm very open to any questions.

May the Peace and Grace of our Lord be with you always. Thank you again for having such a wonderful site that we are allowed to come together to share our thoughts and ideas. As a former military man, I have to remind myself that there are allot of countries in the world today that persecute and execute Christians for having these types of discussions. God bless the countries that allow for free speech and religion.

Y.B.I.C,

Dave. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

Okay... remember now, you did ask what people thought of Emmaus! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

1) Administering the Lord's Supper outside of the Church is definitely a <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" />! The Lord's Supper was given for the Church and to be administered by its ordained officers only to the people of God when they gather together.

2) Praise choruses, hugging, etc., is definitely something I find unacceptable. It's the typical contemporary, "schmoozy, touchy, feely, etc." pop-psychology fad that has infected the churches in its attempt to "appeal" to and "attract" the world, by returning to and becoming like the world. Sorry, but I reject all such pragmatic assimilations of worldliness. (1Jh 2:15-17)

3) Men cannot plan "revival" or "renewal", as that is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit who brings to pass that which the Father has foreordained in eternity. However, we can and should pray that God would bring revival to the Church. What men must do is to be faithful in preaching the Word, in and out of season. It is in the preaching and teaching of sound biblical doctrine that will move men from their complacency, should the Lord will. (Rom 1:16; 1Tim 1:3; 4:16; 2Tim 3:16; 2Tim 4:2; et al) It isn't the "delivery" which will move men, but the Truth which will set them free (Jh 8:32); free from the sins of complacency, indolence, sloth, worldliness and all such hindrances. But, if one is only a Christian by profession and not by possession, then no amount of para-church programs is going to have any effect on one's soul. It will simply encourage and solidify their hollow "churchianity" which only leads to eternal death.

In His Grace,

Hi Dave,

Pilgrim has given you good basic points about the problems with the "Emmaus walk", but I can understand your point about the lack of true activity in the Church. I think what you find most appealing about the "walk" idea is the fellowship, the sharing of our own Christian daily walk. That is an important part of the Church, part of belonging to the "Body of Christ" and working for His will in our lives. I agree with you that your first responsibility is to minister to your family and here begins the true fellowship in Christ.

May God bless you and continue to guide you in your walk!

In His Hands,

Ruth

A lady at my church attended Emmaus, a friend of hers sent a letter,asking me to write a note of encougement to help her while she is at this retreat.

I thought about it for sometime before declining,the more I thought,an uneasiness would follow,if I did the right thing, I guess I'll never know.

What Pilgrim said about Emmaus fits my uneasiness, if that makes sense.

neicey

I had never even heard of this movement until this thread, but it seems like just another one of the many pragmatic programs that are around today.
I am definitely for mentoring within our Churches, but I am afraid that based on what I have read of this program, it is based more on the subjective, than the objective Word of God.

A side note.
About five years ago, I was a person that could not see anything wrong with movements like the Seeker Sensitive Movement. The arguments against that movement seemed at the time to be based on unwarranted reading into the movement itself. Sure I thought that there could be a danger if one wasn't careful. But it seemed to me that the critiques were painting all seeker sensitive Churches with the same brush. I believed at the time if one stayed true to correct soteriology, then there would be nothing wrong with being a seeker sensitive Church.

Since then however, I slowly began to see that the whole philosophy of the movement was flawed. It starts with the idea that getting the seeker through the doors of the Church in a manner they can relate to.
In other words it is geared around the seeker as the object of ministry, rather than on what a worship service is supposed to be geared to, on God Himself.
I have since learned that some Churches that are into being seeker sensitive, are like I was, not even conscious that they are doing this. If you asked them what a worship service was, they would probably correctly say a Church service is for the worship of God.
Unfortunately, in practice whether they know it or not, they gear their services around seekers, not God.

I bring the side note up because I suspect Emmaus is similar in a lot of ways to the seeker movement.

Tom

That is actually inaccurate, Tom. Surely, that is one of the motivations of the seeker-friendly philosophy. However, what lies underneath it; i.e., the basis for this motivation is heretical doctrine. First and foremost is the denial or diminishing noetic effects of the Fall; it is semi-Pelagian to one degree or another. Secondly, and in conjunction with this is the denial of the doctrine of Total Depravity. Thus, a sinner can be attracted to Christ by external means, e.g., pop psychological principles, Madison Avenue marketing techniques, etc. Thirdly, and although there may be the rare exception, by and large the vast majority of seeker-friendly adherents preach/teach another gospel; i.e., an Arminian concept of soteriology (salvation), aka: Sandemanianism (Easy Believism). Fourthly, the seeker-friendly heresy holds to a totally different Ecclesiology (doctrine of the church), wherein worship is man-centered rather than Christ-centered and determined by God Himself as to content and "style". Yes, there is much more than I could include here about the myriad errors that are inherent in the "seeker-friendly" doctrine. But the point is that the "motivation" is but the result of a foundation built upon sand.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim

I agree with the end result of what you are saying. However, there are Calvinist Churches that are "seeker sensitive".
This however, is negated by the fact that "seeker friendly" and "Calvinist soteriology" is at odds with each other.

I kind of look at the matter in a similar way, to how I look at a person like JI Packer. In that I can't understand how a person like him can be so correct when it comes to soteriology, but can still support ECT. Something just doesn't add up.
But then again, up until about 5 years ago I didn’t have a problem with the “seeker friendly” movement and I held to Calvinist soteriology.

You may not be aware of this, but the “seeker friendly” movement tries to convince everyone that the philosophy can be adapted to any Christian Church’s beliefs. Obviously some are buying into it.
At one time even the Church I attend bought into it, but (thank the Lord) some how the idea died out before it took a strangle hold.

Tom

A church or person can "claim" to be whatever they want. But.... "by their fruits ye shall know them." Giving lip service to Calvinism is not the same as holding to Calvinism and have those doctrines of grace determine how you and your church functions. (Prov 23:7)

As to your using Packer to make your point, I think this is like comparing apples and oranges. Packer's involvement with ECT was to bring about a better understanding between the two opposing groups while tenaciously defending the Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide. In the case of these alleged "Calvinistic churches" adopting the seeker-friendly garbage, they are in essence denying that which they claim to affirm. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> IMHO, this is no different than someone who professes to be a believer in Christ opening a Christian bordello. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Christian bordello That sounds like a Wine to me <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />