Devotion
Isaac Blesses His Sons
Deceit…lies…intrigue. The latest Hollywood movie? No, the family life in the home of Isaac and Rebekah.
The history of Isaac and Rebekah’s family was colorful from the beginning: An arranged marriage, twin sons who struggled together in the womb so much that Rebekah asked the LORD, “Why is this happening to me?”, and Esau selling his birthright to Jacob.
As we read the account of Isaac blessing his sons, we see the next chapter of God’s salvation story unfold, but we also see that sinfulness continues even among faithful children of God.
When Rebekah asked the Lord about her struggling twins, God made it clear that it was the younger son (Jacob) through whom God would establish His promise and from whom the promised Savior would come. God told Rebekah, “Two nations are in your womb…one people shall be stronger than the other, and the elder shall serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23).
Over the years as their sons grew into men, Isaac and Rebekah developed a fondness and favoritism toward different sons. Isaac favored Esau—the outdoorsman, the hunter, the rugged man of the field, while Rebekah favored Jacob—the quiet man who stayed closer to home, tending to matters there. “Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob” (Genesis 25:28).
When Isaac became old and felt that his earthly days were nearing an end, he intended to bless one of his sons and thereby convey God’s blessing and the Messianic promise to him. Isaac knew that it was God’s will that Jacob receive this blessing, but because he favored Esau he acted contrary to God’s will, instructed Esau to hunt and prepare a meal for him, and then come and receive the blessing.
Rebekah heard the conversation between Isaac and Esau. Because Rebekah favored Jacob, she immediately sprang into action to assure that Jacob would receive the blessing. By dressing in Esau’s clothes, covering his arms with goat hair, and outright lying about his identity, Jacob and his mother were able to deceive the nearly blind Isaac into believing that Jacob was Esau; and thus, Isaac blessed Jacob contrary to his own intention.
Isaac blessed Jacob (whom he thought was Esau) saying, “Surely, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field which the LORD has blessed. Therefore may God give you of the dew of heaven, of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine. Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be master over your brethren, and let your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be those who bless you!” (Genesis 27:27-29).
Isaac’s blessing mirrored what God first told Rebekah before the boys were even born, and it echoed the first promise God gave to Abraham when He called him to leave his homeland (cf. Genesis 12:1ff). This blessing was fulfilled as the descendants of Jacob became a great nation, when the people of Israel ruled over their “cousins”—the descendants of Esau, and then generations later when the Savior was born from that nation.
When Esau returned from his hunt, it was too late. The blessing had already been given to Jacob. In his anger Esau vowed to kill Jacob after his father’s death. This threat caused Jacob to run away from home to protect his life.
A distraught Esau begged his father, “Have you only one blessing, my father? Bless me—me also!” (Genesis 27:38) and he wept aloud. Isaac replied by essentially repeating Jacob’s blessing but this time from Esau’s perspective, though he does also look ahead to a time when Esau’s descendants would get out from under the rule of Israel: “Your dwelling will be away from the earth’s richness, away from the dew of heaven above. You will live by the sword and you will serve your brother. But when you grow restless, you will throw his yoke from off your neck” (Genesis 27:39-40 NIV).
Isaac and Rebekah brought sorrow into their family through their sinfulness. Isaac did not heed God’s clear direction and will. Rebekah took matters into her own hands to counter the actions of her husband. These parents and their children reaped what they sowed. But did it affect God’s plan and the course of His Story? Not at all.
God would bless the younger son, Jacob, according to His will regardless of what Isaac did. God did not need Rebekah’s scheming to accomplish His will, though He did use it. Our sinful foolishness cannot stop God’s will and plan, but it does lead to sorrow. Our attempts to “take control” won’t change the fact that God is the one in control, but prideful self-control in our lives will fail and often cause pain. And yes, even a man and a woman who so trusted the Lord’s guidance that they married one another “sight-unseen” still shared in a sinful weakness that doubted His wisdom and ability to accomplish His will.
Deceit, lies, and intrigue are the fruits of sin. Oh, how sinful and foolish we can be! Oh, how gracious and faithful God is in bringing His Story to pass so that our sins are forgiven in Christ. As Isaac blessed Jacob the magnificent promise of God’s special people and the coming Savior passed on to the next generation—one step closer to the “fullness of time” when that Savior would be born.
— Pastor Wayne C. Eichstadt
Lutheran Spokesman, June 2009
Note: Lutheran Spokesman subscription start/renewal time coming in June!
Is Immanuel moving?
Is Immanuel buying new property? Why is Immanuel considering relocation or expansion? Why is Immanuel considering buying new property?
These are some of the questions that you as a member of Immanuel may have and not know where to get the correct answer. The Church Council is concerned that all members of Immanuel are educated about what our church is actually doing. That is why the Council has formed a special committee just for the education of our congregation on the issue a possible purchase of land.
As a beginning, we are publishing the minutes pertaining to the current real estate agreement. It is our hope that these minutes will clarify any confusion you may have about the direction the congregation has chosen.
April 22, 2002
The Long Range Planning Committee recommended that the Board of Deacons and Board of Education determine where we want to be in 10-15 years. It recommended putting debt payoff in the budget and purchasing land on the outer edge of the city, while it is still available, for later use or resale. The presentation raised pros and cons of remaining in the downtown area or moving to the outer edge of the city.
July 18, 2005
The Church Council moved to begin the Expansion/Relocation Committee which will consist of one individual as chairman who is a voter, two at large members (not necessarily voters), one from the existing Long Range Planning Committee, one from each of the Council boards, and one full-time school faculty member. The Committee will be charged with the task of continuing to guide the expansion/relocation process and will be appointed by the Congregation President with direction from the Church Council. The motion passed.
October 17, 2005
It was moved and seconded and carried to look into selling the parsonage and using the proceeds for future property acquisition.
January 16, 2006
The Church Council moved that the funds from the sale of the parsonage be set aside for future property acquisition.
It was moved to amend the motion to say, “be set aside pending future action by the voters.” The motion to amend was seconded and carried 26 – yes, 19 – no.
It was moved to amend the motion to have the money be held in an investment account with the interest going back into the account. The motion to amend was seconded and carried.
The amended motion that the funds from the sale of the parsonage, be set aside pending future action by the voters, into an investment account with the interest going back into the account, was carried.
July 17, 2006
It was moved and seconded to give permission to the Expansion/Relocation Committee to recommend suitable property for the possible relocation of Immanuel. The motion carried by a ballot vote of 47-yes, 3-no.
January 22, 2007
The Church Council moved to establish an Expansion/Relocation Fund with the intent that the funds would be used to acquire land.
It was moved, seconded, and carried to amend the motion by changing land to real estate.
The resulting motion to establish an Expansion/Relocation Fund with the intent that the funds would be used to acquire real estate was carried.
April 16, 2007
It was moved and was seconded that it is our intent to purchase property that is suitable for relocation.
It was moved and seconded to amend the motion to insert “possible” before relocation. The motion to amend carried.
The resulting motion, that it is our intent to purchase property that is suitable for possible relocation, carried 37-yes, 5-no, and 1-abstaining.
It was moved and seconded and carried to enter into a contract with a commercial realtor to look for suitable property to relocate.
December 10, 2007
The Expansion/Relocation Committee presented information on the property they are recommending the congregation purchase.
The Church Council moved to begin negotiations for the intent to purchase both parcels of Muellerleile Family Property (DBA/Twin Pines Acres) #R43-09-21-126-003 & #R43-09-21-126-002. The motion carried 42 – yes, 2 – no.
…motion that the congregation use Lindstrom a commercial realtor to negotiate was carried.
April 21, 2008
The Expansion/Relocation Committee reported that we have received a letter from Twin Pines Acres that the property we were looking at is not available. The Committee is actively looking for a new parcel.
August 11, 2008
It was moved, seconded, and carried to re-open negotiations with the Muellerleile Family Partnership (DBA/Twin Pines Acres).
It was moved and seconded and carried to have the Finance Committee create a financial plan for the purchase of property.
August 25, 2008
The Expansion/Relocation Committee presented a purchase agreement for Immanuel to purchase the Muellerleile Property.
It was moved and it was seconded to approve signing the presented purchase agreement (on an estimated parcel of 40.68 acres for a total of $1,300,000), with two amendments: 1) to change the agreement to have any mineral rights owned by the Seller of the property transfer to the buyer; 2) to add a contingency about the Seller not signing a new farm lease. The motion carried 24-yes, 10-no.
The total cost to purchase the land was estimated at 1,637,952.15, after including deferred assessments, mortgage tax, and a survey.
October 5, 2008
The Expansion/Relocation Committee presented information on an amendment to our purchase agreement brought by the Muellerleile family.
The amendment would increase the purchase price to $1,400,000; clarifies that Immanuel will pay assessments and seller will pay green acre taxes; moves the due diligence from February 26 to January 5, and the closing from March 26 to January 5; it allows the owner to move the existing shed prior to closing; and clarifies that removing the slab is the Church’s responsibility. The sellers would like a response by October 10.
It was moved and it was seconded to stick to our original offer. The motion failed.
It was moved and seconded to request an extension of the dead-line until October 21 (the day after our quarterly meeting). The motion carried.
October 20, 2008
The Expansion/Relocation Committee presented a report.
It was moved and seconded to walk away from the negotiations (for the Muellerleile property) and do nothing. It was moved, seconded, and carried to table the motion.
It was moved, seconded and carried to remove from the table the motion to walk away from the negotiations (for the Muellerleile property) and do nothing.
It was moved, seconded, and carried to cease debate on the motion.
The motion failed 6-yes, 42-no.
It was moved and seconded to stick with our original offer, adjusting the due diligence to 5 months after both parties have signed the agreement, and changing the closing date to within one month after the end of the due diligence. Also accept from the Muellerleile amendment—the provision to allow the shed owner to remove the shed at his expense prior to the closing. The motion carried 39-yes, 9-no.
It was moved and seconded to add to the offer a deadline for the Muellerleile’s response of December 31, 2008. The motion carried.
December 15, 2008
The Finance Committee presented a report on Land Purchase Recommendations.
It was moved and seconded do adopt the Finance Board’s “Recommendation 2”: Re-engage Paulsen Architects to examine total land need and the amount of excess land.
The Paulsen fee will be about $2,200. In addition to this expense, approve the other estimated costs of due diligence, which will be $5475, for a total of $7,675. The additional costs will include a boundary survey and preliminary plat, engineering and wetland determination. The motion was seconded and carried 30-yes, 6-no.
It was moved to adopt Finance Board Recommendations 1a and 6: Solicit immediate donations from members, which will include a multi-year component. This step will also entail education, which touches on methods of giving (gift of hard assets, IRA’s, etc.). Solicit member loans for any cash shortfall, with loans negotiated individually, but with the interest rate not to exceed 4.5% (The 4.5% rate matches the rate paid by the synod for their new building project.). The motion was seconded and carried.
March 9, 2009
The Finance Board reported on our funding progress toward the purchase of the Muellerleile Property. They reported that contribution offers to date were 138,000, and loan offers total 78,200. The Expansion/Relocation Fund has a balance of around 50,000 and we have earnest money of 50,000. Total financing today is approximately 316,000.
It was moved and seconded to request additional time for the due diligence until September 1, 2009 and cancel the agreement if the Muellerleile’s say “no,” or haven’t responded within 3 business days [April 8] before the end of our current due diligence [April 11]. The motion carried 40-yes, 19-no.
It was moved and seconded that funds given to the land purchase effort be returned if the purchase agreement ends up being cancelled and the giver didn’t specify an alternative if the land purchase didn’t proceed. The motion carried by voice vote.
— Council Committee for Congregational Education on the Purchase of Real Estate
Loren Hansen
Paul C. Nolting
James Buckley
Tony Harris
Youth Conference 2009
Youth Conference is designed for students who are between the ages of 14-20 (completed 8th grade through completing their 2nd year of college).
Youth Conference 2009 will be held from June 22-28 at Higher Ground Conference and Retreat Center in West Harrison, Indiana.
This retreat center is a beautiful resort tucked away in the forested hills of southeast Indiana. It features a spacious conference room, a new dining room, air-conditioned dormitories, a swimming pool, and two athletic fields. It is located within minutes of a rafting river and about 25 miles from the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky.
This year’s conference theme is GOD’S TRUTH è REAL ANSWERS, REAL HOPE! It is based upon the encouragement of the apostle Peter: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect!” (1 Peter 3:15).
Eight presentations will be given over a five day period: “God’s Truth about…
...Truth
...God
...Mankind
...Salvation
...Science
...Sexuality
...Relationships
...Morality”
In addition, the conference participants will spend an entire day at the Creation Museum, as well as a half day river-rafting. A special heritage-building presentation will feature four of our counselors sharing their personal stories and the reasons why they now belong to the Church of the Lutheran Confession.
This year’s staff includes presenters and counselors from Michigan, Wisconsin, New York, Missouri, Texas, Arizona, California, and Minnesota—all dedicated members of our church body and eager to guide every student into a stronger relationship with their Savior, Jesus Christ, to the ultimate glory of God, our Heavenly Father!
Group transportation by coach bus will leave from Mankato on Sunday, June 21 and return early in the evening of the following Sunday (June 28) after attending the worship service of Messiah Lutheran Church in Hales Corners (Milwaukee), Wisconsin.
The cost for Youth Conference 2009 is $250.00 if paid by May 1st. After May 1st the cost is $275.00. The deadline for all registrations is June 10th. Scholarships are available to help with the cost. The deadline for scholarship application is May 1st.
Copies of registration forms, brochures, and more information are available in the church narthex and also online: www.youthconference.info
For further questions, please speak to either of Immanuel’s pastors.
Worship Notes
A National Day of Prayer service will be held at 12:15 p.m. on May 7th. The prayer service is about 30 minutes.
Ascension Day Worship: We will praise our ascended Savior in an Ascension Day worship service on May 21st at 7:00 p.m. The service includes a mini-concert by the Immanuel Lutheran School Choir.
On Sunday, May 17th, the Church Choir will present a series of choral anthems in the worship service. These pieces are musical settings of Jesus’ words as recorded in the Gospel accounts.
Pentecost—the Festival of the Holy Spirit—is Sunday, May 31st. In our worship, we will remember the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples as well as the gifts of the Holy Spirit to us today!
Summer Ensembles/Music for Worship: During the school year, we enjoy the blessing of having a choir present a musical selection almost every week. The musical presentations of God’s Word are a valued addition to our worship services. During the summer the choirs are not in session. However, if you would like to offer your musical talents to a worship service, please contact either pastor. This may be an instrumental selection, solo, duet, ensemble, etc.
From the Pastor’s Desk
Pastoral Thoughts on the Muellerleile Property
Dear Members of Immanuel:
The Lord has provided our congregation with an extension of our time of due diligence in connection with the proposed purchase of the Muellerleile property. We now have until September 1, 2009 to confirm or decline our offer on the property. While no decision has been made at this time to leave our current property or to build a new church elsewhere, the purchase of the Muellerleile property would provide us with an excellent location for relocation should that decision be made.
Why should we consider buying land now, if we are unsure of whether or not we want to relocate in the future? Perhaps we can answer that question by looking at our congregation’s past.
On December 7, 1913 the members of Immanuel congregation dedicated a new church on our present site—the corner of Spring Street and North Second. Why was a new church built? The members of Immanuel congregation at the time were looking to the future. Mankato was a community of just over 10,300 people and was growing quickly. The congregation hoped to grow with the community. A reading of our church history reveals that they wanted to expand their church in order to meet new needs and provide new opportunities for its members.
Why was our present location chosen? It should be noted that in 1913 the city of Mankato was located almost entirely in what is now lower Mankato. The choice of the corner of Spring and North Second was made for three strategic reasons. First of all, this property lay in the middle of the German Lutheran neighborhood, making its location very convenient. A large percentage of Immanuel’s members were able to walk to church.
Secondly, it lay close to the heart of Mankato’s business district. Old town Mankato was not so old then and was just one block away. The larger stores were located just south of the church by several blocks. Immanuel’s tall steeples were visible from virtually anywhere in the business district.
Thirdly, the center of Mankato’s artistic and intellectual center—the teacher’s college—was also located in lower Mankato, again just a short distance away. In 1913 our present property was ideal for the foreseeable future because it was in the center of everything that was important for the church and community.
Can we say the same thing today? Unfortunately not! Our present church, while very adequate for our Sunday services, is filled to capacity and then some when it comes to our current programs. There is no space for expansion to meet future needs or to provide new opportunities for our members or our community.
Likewise, our current property unfortunately no longer fulfills the reasons cited above. Few of our members live near the church and the lack of parking near the church makes attending services inconvenient for many. This past Easter as I greeted one of our senior members who drives some distance to church, she expressed the fact that she came forty-five minutes early in order to find a parking spot and found only one spot left in the parking lot. She then informed me that often on Sundays she cannot find parking and so simply turns around and drives home.
Mankato has quadrupled in size since 1913 and has expanded to the point that the largest part of our community now lies on the hills surrounding the river valley. The business center of the community is now along Madison Avenue on the east end of our community, while the artistic and intellectual center of the community is the MSU campus on the southern edge of the community.
This brings us to the Muellerleile property. If you check the city planning charts, the Muellerleile property lies about half way between the River Hills Mall and the MSU-Mankato Campus. It lies about a quarter of a mile from the main north-south road on the east edge town and directly on the road which will become the main avenue leading to the college campus from the east. Mankato city planning charts reveal that the land both to the east and south of the property has been designated for future housing developments. If we were looking for property, as did our forefathers, in the center of the residential, commercial, and educational districts of our community, it would be the property we are now considering. It might be noted that the city itself has just purchased property just to the south of the Muellerleile property for its next grade school.
While the current economic times may cause us some concern, let us recognize that we are planning ahead for the future of our congregation and its ministry. Is that future—the next twenty to thirty to fifty years—best served where we are presently located or in a new location? It seems to me that the answer is quite obvious. We should take advantage of any opportunity the Lord gives us to expand. The Muellerleile property provides just such an opportunity. May the Lord give us wisdom and vision as we ponder our future over the next several months.
Yours in Christ’s service,
Pastor Paul D. Nolting
Abortion in America
You Shall Not Murder
The murder of unborn babies through abortion is an issue that continues to plague our country. In Minnesota during the past several years, strides have been made to limit abortion accessibility and also in providing balanced information to women who are considering an abortion. Sadly, there are bills in both the Minnesota Legislature and in the United States Congress that, if passed, would change the abortion landscape dramatically.
The following information is provided to keep you informed of what is currently being considered by our state and federal governments:
Minnesota Reproductive Privacy Act (bill before the State Legislature)
- This bill proposed to codify in state law that any and all abortions are legal for all time
- No longer would women be required to be informed of serious risks and complications of abortion.
- Women would not be informed about the facts of fetal development and their unborn baby’s ability to feel pain.
- Women would not be told that the father of their child is obligated by law to provide financial support for 18 years or that many services and programs exist to help pregnant women successfully face the challenges of an unexpected pregnancy.
- Women would not be informed about life-giving alternatives to abortion.
- No longer would parents of girls under 18 years of age be required to be involved in or even know about their daughters’ health care decisions. Minor girls could undergo secretive abortions.
- Pregnancies resulting from statutory rape would not be reported due to the "privacy" rights of young girls
The Freedom of Choice Act (bill before the U.S. Congress)
- The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide, thereby removing states’ rights to enact their own future laws restricting abortion.
- FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
- FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
- FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
- FOCA would bring abortion-on-demand into American law.
Your hands have made me and fashioned me, an intricate unity...Did You not pour me out like milk, and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews? You have granted me life and favor, and Your care has preserved my spirit. Job 10:8,10-12
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Jeremiah 1:5
