Monday morning thoughts

Yesterday's snow was beautiful and I am so grateful for it. The temps are higher today and last night we had some light rain, so it's not going to last long. The artistic or romantic side of me is sad, I love the beauty, the softness it lends the landscape, the black and white of the views with just splashes of color to indicate a living creature, the bright red of a cardinal or the hot pink of a daughter's snow boots. But I also know that practically it's a good thing that it isn't lingering. Schools would be closed, businesses would lose money, some might be without electricity. Here's the funny thing. If we had a fireplace, I wouldn't mind losing electricity for a few days at all. I would enjoy the experience of huddling together in that room for warmth, of cooking in more primitive conditions. I don't the like the sameness of our lives. Well, perhaps I do and only imagine that I like the extremes. Maybe I can indulge in that belief because I don't really have to live it. But in a perverse way, the worse I heard Madagascar was going to be, the more my reaction split. On one hand, I like to tour and be pampered as much as the next person. But on the other hand it made my experience more real to more spartan. Because there was no physical comfort or pleasure in it for me, it made it more of a true action, unadulterated by passing rewards. Of course, I could then say that less comfort actually made it more pleasurable for me, so I am still functioning on the level of doing that which I most want to do. Confusing for this feeble little brain.
I was reading Tozer this morning and he was talking about the lack of closeness to God that most Christians experience, the lack of a personal relationship. He asks..."why do the very ransomed children of God themselves know so little of that habitual, conscious communion with God which Scripture offers? The answer is because of our chronich unbelief. Faith enables our spiritual sense to function. Where faith is defective the result will be inward insensibility and numbness toward spiritual things." Well, I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I can think of two men I know, quite well, who hunger to know God personally, to feel His presence in a tangible way in their lives, to know that they are hearing His voice, not to get what they want, but to know that they are communicating. I would guess that this struggle to come to grips with His perceived distance is one of their greatest trials. Yet both men continue to walk in obedience, despite the longing they have that has not yet been fulfilled. So are they to be blamed for not walking by faith? I think not. It's God's perogative to reveal Himself or hide Himself as He desires. After all, He is God and we are His servants. We have no more right to insist on His self-revelation than a servant has to demand an audience with the king or a child the right to commandeer his parent's schedule. Our job is to serve, even if it's from a distance. And isn't that true faith? To continue to serve and love when we don't get the immediate reward of relationship? Which has the greatest faith? The one who lives with another and is reassured daily of their love and can check up on their movements? Or the one who lives at a distance and trusts that the other is honoring the relationship even though they are not physically together?
And then, I was reading my Bible. I am reading through it, which is a good thing to do, otherwise I'd never read the books like Leviticus. I have to admit this whole question of slavery in Scripture confuses me. Not only does God not condemn it, He makes provision for it in the law. Now, if He had stuck to the way He defined it for Israelites, I would understand, it's more like an indentured servant than a true slave. But He doesn't. He allows for foreigners to be bought and sold, just as they were in early America. How can God, who values families and considers them to be fundamental examples of His relationship with us, allow them to be split by the buying and selling of individuals? On this same track is the question of polygomy. God also allows for it. Many say that He was just providing for what would happen anyway, but that doesn't make sense to me. He had no problem condemning many other things that were sure to come up. He made laws about the planting of fields, how to treat mildew, mixing fibers in clothing, tattoos...many things we would consider trivial. I don't think He hesitated to condemn what He hated. So the only logical assumption I can see is that He doesn't have a problem with slavery. I can see how God fearing men owned slaves. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that condemns it, we are only told to be good masters.
The thing that frustrates me with these 'problem texts' is that the answers I get only seem to explain away they don't really directly address. People try to find a way to soften or mitigate what is being said but I usually find such attempts convoluted and unsatifying. I wish there were someone who could anwer my questions without making me feel like I'm just a trouble maker. I don't want these Scriptures explained away, I want the explained!