Jebow

 

‘Nuff said.

The common lectionary: antisemitism in John’s Gospel. Surprise? Not really.

Like most Christians who went to church last Sunday,  I found myself listening to the  familiar story of Jesus healing the blind man in John 9,  But for the first time this jarring line leaped out at me:

“His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.”  (John 9:22) NRSV

Now, in Protestantland most people are probably reading out of the NIV, which has politically sanitized this verse to say “Jewish leaders” rather than just the “Jews”.   But in the ever popular King James bible it is even worse than my NRSV:

“These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.”

Just in case anyone missed it, the Early English authors used the words “the Jews” twice,  to ensure that we all understand who the bad guys were.  You could almost forget that the blind man and his parents were Jewish too.  Or that everyone in this particular passage were Jewish, last but not least, Jesus himself.

Am I nitpicking here?  Is this just a bit of trivia?  Well, not when you consider that throughout the centuries this is how Jesus, his disciples and his adversaries have been depicted, I don’t think you can deny that this Johannine depiction of  “the Jews”  has shaped much of the Christian world view. Even to this day, as seen in Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” or the Millinialist’s championing of Israel for the purpose of advancing Armageddon,  antisemitism is thread throughout the fabric of the church.  To the detriment of all Christian and, of course, to the detriment of our Jewish neighbors. And to the detriment of world peace.

Found Jesus? Try looking in Hell

“Hell is the absence of God”.  This is a pithy definition that many Christians find attractive. It shoves under the rug any suggestion that God might have created Hell as a place of eternal torment and punishment for human disobedience.  Since God will not force us to love ‘him’, we must make the choice ourselves, or so it goes.  And what Christian would not choose  the presence of God in Heaven?  If God is omnipresent, if “he” is everywhere, then his absence is ‘no where’.  Hell is the last death, annihilation.   This makes the bitter pill of damnation a bit easier to swallow.

But Jesus is suggesting something else, that God is not in Heaven but may actually spend a lot of time in Hell.  Many of his followers readily choose to spend time in Hell, living with and helping those who cannot escape, at least not on their own.  Classic examples are Father Damien,  Dorothy Day, Albert Schweitzer, Corrie ten Boom, Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa.  Thousands, if not millions, of others, have forfeited comfortable Sunday church meetings, choir practice and Bible study to devote their time and energy in the service of the sick, the poor and the imprisoned.  This is where they find God.  This is where they lead others to God. Not through pseudo-evangelical proselytizing about Hell and Heaven.  Not through fear and intimidation, but through self-sacrifice and love.

The other day I suggested that,  to many Evangelicals, both progressive and fundamentalist, if you took away Hell you would take away their vision of Jesus.  Hell may even be a more important tenet of the Christian faith than Jesus, because without Hell what is there for Jesus to save us from?

But maybe there’s another way to look at Hell, a way that is not so doctrinaire but more holistic.  Maybe the closest we can get to God is in Hell, though not by reflecting on our own pain but through focusing on the pain of others.  No gains or rewards, no divine pats on the back.  Just encountering the beauty and presence of God in some of the vilest and most horrifying cesspits of the world.  Why else would anyone willingly live their lives with those people, in those places? A love of God that I can only imagine.

Perhaps this points us to what Heaven ( or more accurately, the Kingdom of God ) might look like.  It’s not a place where we go when we die and it’s not a return of the mythical Garden of Eden.  It’s not something God gives to us for being good, but a world that we must earn by working towards eliminating our man-made Hells.  Of course, the chances of this happening does not look  good, but some amazing people are busy making it happen, one piece at a time.

How Jesus came to preach on Hell (a parable)

At that time Jesus and his disciples entered a prosperous land.  Hearing of his arrival, many of the people came to hear him speak.  Thousands gathered around him.

” I bring you good news.  God loves you, all of you.  You have no need to fear or worry. Eternal life is yours.  Peace and happiness are at hand. “

The crowd began to murmur. They didn’t understand what he was saying.

“How is this possible? How do we get this eternal life you speak of ?” they asked.

Smiling, Jesus spread his arms wide. “Just follow me. I am living this life right now.  I have come to share with you  the Way of eternal life  and how to be in tune with God. You may hear all kinds of people on television pitching their self-help programs,  but there is good reason there are so many of them. They don’t work. Not for long. But follow me and I can assure you of eternal life.

” OK, so what’s the catch? How much does this cost? What kind of sacrifices do I have to make?” a man asked.

“There is no catch” said Jesus. “This life is free. No fees. No purchase necessary. No sacrifice.”

“Alright”,  another shouted.  “Tell us. What is this secret?”

“Simple” said Jesus. “Love each other as much as you love yourself and love God with all your heart.  The only way to love God is to love others.”

“How do we do that?” someone asked

“Always put the needs of others before your own” Jesus said. ” Visit the sick and  imprisoned. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked.  Take in the homeless.  And -very importantly – forgive everyone, especially your enemies.”

“That’s crazy!” someone shouted.  “We don’t live in some sort of dream world. We have families to take care of – we can’t just bring bums and vagrants into our homes!”

“I have to worry about my kid’s college tuition!” another shouted “I can’t buy clothes for a bunch of slackers. Let ‘em get jobs and buy their own.”

A woman stood up, shaking her fist. “What kind of fuzzy-wuzzy crap is this? Love your enemies?! I guess you expect us to love all those elitist god-haters that want to destroy this great nation?  You just want us to open our arms to foreign heathens as they pour into our country, taking our jobs, speaking their own languages, praying to the wrong gods and plotting violent revolution?  You’re just a sissy wing-nut that hates his own country!”

The angry crowd turned their backs and began to leave, grumbling and shaking their heads.  Nervously, Jesus glanced  around. Looking up,  he smiled and suddenly  jumped on a nearby boulder, waving his arms frantically.

“Wait! Wait!” he cried. “There is another way! A better way! Come back. Give me another chance.”

Most ignored him but some turned back.  “This better be good”, they said. They sat down on the grass and waited.

Jesus  sat down in the middle of them. ” OK, the other stuff was good, but that was only half the story. This is the real deal. You see, there are these two places called Heaven and Hell….

No Hell = No Jesus

As long as I can remember  my mother has said, “As a Christian you have to believe in Hell but you don’t have to believe anyone is  there.”  This is her gracious understanding of an essential Christian doctrine.  Though she didn’t know it,  this understanding is a Christian “heresy” called Universalism, a heresy  that says all of us,  even non-Christians, will go to Heaven. And it was expressly against Catholic, and most Christian doctrine. But wasn’t she right about one thing:  Don’t you have to believe in Hell to be a Christian? This must be the case, if Universalism is a heresy.

Not long ago Rob Bell was  in the hot seat with many Evangelicals (and some Catholics)  because his recent book, “Love Wins”,  suggested that no one goes to Hell.  He set the conservative Christian bogs on fire and most of them essentially condemned Bell to hell for not believing in Hell.

The ensuing progressive  Christian defense of Bell was great.  Many Emerging Church and progressive Christian bloggers  busted the chops of people like the Three Johns ( Piper, MacArthur and Hagee) for accusing Bell of  Universalism . They rightly criticized the conservative Christian tendency to make Hell such a big part of their theology, to the point where this doctrine  obscures a lot of the Gospel message.  But, unfortunately, few of them go far enough.

Because in their defense of Bell they made it quite clear that they also believed in the doctrine of Hell, they just adapted it to make it more palatable.  Most seemed to accept the conventional orthodoxy  of a Final Judgment and the potential prospect of Hell (even with little or no scriptural support for it) coupled with the salvic solution of Jesus dying for our sins on the cross, as God’s blood sacrifice, to free us from eternal damnation.  Which, to me, flies in the face of what Jesus spends a lot of time telling us about God.  As I heard a pastor once say, God is either merciful or God is just, but God cannot be both.

I think one reason why so many Christians are unyielding about Hell, and why the progressives still can’t shake the doctrine off, is that, in reality,  Hell is the cornerstone of the Church, not Jesus.  Because without Hell, what is there for Jesus to do? What does he save us from?

No Hell = no Jesus. Or at least the Jesus that many Christians claim to believe in, have faith in.  Without Hell he loses his job description. He loses his purpose along with the primary meaning he may have for millions of Christians. So the idea that there is no Hell is just too damn frightening to consider.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. 1 John 4:18

But if you’re a Christian, then what am I?

Over on the Wall Street Journal blog, one of the members has (hopefully) started a thread by asking this question:

How do Christians define Christians? What makes you or not a Christian?

I often come across the argument that “said person is not a real Christian”, many tend to use this argument to exclude particulars who happen to shame the religion calling themselves part of it, or act in the name of it.

I think it would be interesting to see, how does every one define it, is it simply believing in a higher authority?. Is it taking every literal word of the bible?. Is it following the “reasonable” aspects of the bible?

Now, so far, only one person has given an answer, and it is one that I suspect the majority of American Christians would agree with:

A Christian is somebody who believes that Christ died on the Cross and shed his blood as the ultimate atonement(replacement for the blood sacrifice of the Old Testament law) for the sins of mankind. They believe that Christ is who He said He is. ie, The Son of God, and therefore God Himself. The concept of the Trinity applies here. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Christ was the product of the immaculate conception. Christ was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy. Isaiah 53:3-7 is an example, among others of the prophesy.

The first chapter of John in the New testament, gives a good representation of what Christians believe about Christ.

To be saved (ie a Christian), is nothing more then the realization that man is born into sin, and the acceptance and acknowledgment of the free gift of eternal life(made possible because of Christ sacrifice on the Cross), that is offered to mankind, should they(exhibit their “free will”) except it. It is nothing more then Gods grace being demonstrated through mans faith.

If all of the above needs to be believed in order to be a Christian, then I guess I am not one.  Of course, for many reasons I think the above definition, although perhaps “orthodox”,  is incorrect.

Over on Ric Booth’s blog there is an interesting conversation taking place about a new organization that John Shore is spear-heading called ThruWAy Christians, particularly their controversial acceptance of gays and lesbians.   The stated goal of ThruWAy Christians is to provide moderate Christians with a new forum.  As it says on their website:  “If you find conservative Christianity too oppressive and exclusionary, and progressive Christianity too theologically tenuous, you’re probably a ThruWay Christian.”   Which means that, though I agree with much of the content of their founding document, my theology is much too “tenuous”  (something which I am sure the Conservative Christians could accuse the ThruWay people).

Surprisingly,  I don’t believe my theology is any weaker than theirs or any one else.  It’s different to be sure.  Maybe not as orthodox as they would like.  And like Christianity, it is evolving. But that doesn’t mean that it is “flimsy, insubstantial or lacking in strength”.  This is a charge that the orthodox have always levied at those who had the audacity to question theological authority.

The good folks over at ThruWAy Christian are not really challenging conservative Christian theological authority, though. They are only challenging the  conservative interpretations of certain scriptures that they believe lead to intolerant and mean spirited attitudes and behavior.  But I would suggest that the overarching theology that both the moderates and the conservatives still hold in common ( much of which has been condensed by the commenter from the WSJ blog and jives with the  first line of ThruWay’s creed )  is actually what drives this intolerance.  And has for centuries.

I ‘ve found that it is nearly impossible for Christian moderates to  engage Fundamentalists in any meaningful dialog that might result in a change of perception on the part of either, so  I’ve given up on it myself.  If this is the goal of the folks at ThruWAy, well then, have at it.  But  if they would be open-minded enough to engage some Christians whose convictions are not quite as solid, substantial or strong as theirs then perhaps they might find that ‘progressive’ is not such a bad word after all.

The Christian Grinches who almost stole Christmas

I guess it’s becoming a holiday tradition for me to make spicy chocolate crunch, since this is the second year in a row that I’ve done it.  Pretty astounding for me to stick with anything that long.

So I wrapped up a package of candy and topped it off with a Fuentes cigar tied with a red ribbon, to take over to my next door neighbor’s house.  Walking up their front steps,  I considered how to greet them, as they are devout Muslims.  I decided that this year I was going to go against my better instincts and say “Merry Christmas”.  For the past 3 or 4 years I’ve been a staunch advocate of  the  “Happy Holidays” approach.

When Asan opened the door he beat me to the punch with his own hearty “Merry Christmas”! And why not? It’s an American custom, a tradition that really has little to do with religion anymore.  The Christmas season has always been about the universal ideal of  “peace on Earth, good will towards men”.  That is, until some mean old Christians went and ruined it.

No one used to worry about offending anyone with “Merry Christmas”.  I used to work for a reformed Jewish fellow and we made no bones about the season being about Christmas.   Hanukkah fell in their somewhere,  but it surely wasn’t a Hanukkah season.  We put a tree up in the restaurant lobby every year and, yes,  there was a menorah on the mantle.  We both enjoyed the season and we both enjoyed the business that the season generated.   I never gave my personal greetings much thought, but probably gave equal time to Christmas, the Holidays and New Year.

But then some overly sensitive, paranoid and doctrinaire Christians became offended by the lack of “Christ” in the Christmas season (as if Christ hadn’t been upstaged by Santa Clause since long before WWII).  They mounted a national campaign designed to regain uncontested control of the holidays.  Coming from their lips “Merry Christmas” was no longer a  heartfelt greeting meant to wish people joy and happiness, it was now a challenge like  “I dare you to knock this frankincense off my shoulder!”  Or the Christian equivalent of the Black Power salute:  a symbol of defiance in the face of ‘secularists’ and solidarity among the ‘faithful’.   Where is the grace in that?

All of a sudden it became difficult for the rest of us to wish people a merry Christmas.  These zealous Christians had created an air of tension where there was none before.  It wasn’t the  ‘secularists’ or the rare militant atheist who made the Christmas greeting into a politically incorrect statement – it was the result of needy, insecure Christians demanding that everyone confirm their religious tradition.  In their fervent devotion to the idealized story of the birth of a  baby God they effectively  buried the adult Jesus’ message beneath the sands of a mythical Bethlehem.

But not quite. I find it heartening, when a  devout Muslim man is able to share the true spirit of Christmas with a jaded, cynical  Christian like myself, without compromising his own faith in the process.

Merry Christmas!

and

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah!

What is so offensive about ants crawling over a cheap plastic crucifix?

So the Smithsonian caved in  and decided to censor a video  from a larger showing of work by the controversial GLBT artist, David Wojnarowicz .   The image above,  taken from a longer scene , was apparently offensive to some influential Christians.

“I think that in the artistic community, directors, curators are tremendously insensitive to Christians,”  You can’t make fun of the Holocaust, you can’t make fun of black slavery, and you can’t even depict anything about Mohammed.”  – Bill Donahue, Catholic League President

(Sounds like Mr.Donahue is really peeved that he can’t make fun of blacks and Muslims and get away with it. Sour grapes.)

“American families have a right to expect better from recipients of taxpayer funds. While the amount of money involved may be small, it’s symbolic of the arrogance Washington routinely applies to thousands of spending decisions involving Americans’ hard-earned money. Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January [when the new majority in the House moves in].” – John Boehner, incoming Speaker of the House

(In other words: a shake down)

Now the film itself is pretty disturbing and many will, understandably, find  it’s more explicit moments offensive .  But the part that is getting all the attention is where real live ants are crawling over a cheap plastic crucifix.  I don’t know if Wojnarowicz staged this, it certainly could be something he stumbled upon, but what exactly is the big deal? It’s not as over the top as Serrano’s “Piss Christ”, of which the most offensive aspect is probably the title.  If Serrano hadn’t told us, we would think he had taken the shot through an amber filter (but then it would have gotten little media attention).  According to the Serrano,  even that photograph was never meant to be a critique of religion per se,  but rather a commentary on the cheapening of Christian icons by today’s culture (something we see a lot of this time of year).  By comparison,  Wojnarowicz’s crucifix is much tamer and I doubt if it would have upset these people if  he hadn’t been homosexual.

So what’s the  theological concern here? Are cheap plastic crucifixes sacred? What about a dashboard Jesus?  Or porcelain angels? What do ants crawling on a crucifix mean to us?  Wojnarowicz  is certainly telling us something here.  But I would imagine, as with most art, the message is different for each person listening.  I wonder what message  the censorship advocates are receiving. Whatever it was, it likely was filtered through their perception of the artist’s sexual orientation.

To me, this image suggest that the institutional Church, with it’s cathedrals, statues, seminaries, doctrines, dogmas, creeds and icons, is as much a product of the complex human mind as the holy (and unholy) trinkets that clutter our lives. And as such, is just as likely to be cast off, either by those who have lost interest or by those who have grown beyond its allure.  So it is best not to pay too much attention to the trinkets or we may miss the bigger picture, which involves Jesus as artist, and not subject.   A picture that Mr. Boehner and Mr. Donahue and so many religious people seem to have missed.

Swedish IXθYΣ

Funny, he doesn’t look Jewish. Well, at least he’s not a shwartzer.

Jesus as whispy-bearded metro-sexual with fashion cross

Jesus as Las Vegas mentalist with novelty tee-shirt

Jesus with puppy dog eyes

Gen-X Jesus with poor fashion sense and weird forked Amish beard

Creepy little prince Jesus. What's with the fingers? Again with the fingers!

Pop-up Jesus Golden Book

"Dirty damn Pharisees!" Charleston Heston as Jesus

Damien Thorn as Jesus with black robed acolyte

"Let whoever is stoned cast the first...uh...hmm. Anymore of that matzoh?"

Jesus the pained

Jesus as knick-knack

Jesus in the attic until next year

Jesus as the starship Enterpise's first captain

Jesus as Son of Zeus (That hat is a bit of a brag-tag, wouldn't you say?) And yet again with the fingers!

That last one’s my favorite. Funny thing is, Jesus must have looked more like (and had more in common with) an Arab Muslim  than he would a Christian Swede (or any Westerner). He might even have looked a little bit like the fellow pictured below.  Do you find this idea offensive? Then perhaps you should reconsider your icons.

Know the truth and the truth, not religious fantasy, will set you free.

Religious fantasy? You're not talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?!

Please, don’t bother calling me to prayer

Because I’m not likely to come. Oh, I might fake it a bit, if in a public setting like church. But when all heads are bowed and eyes closed, if you bothered to look up you probably  would see me, eyes wide open and looking right back at you.

I don’t get it.  Never really did, especially growing up Roman Catholic and having to endure the endless monotonous intoning of the priest’s scripted calls for intercession followed by the obligatory chorus of “Lord hear our prayer”.  Later, as an Evangelical, I actually did pray a lot, often alone on my knees but at other times holding hands in a circle, listening to my friends drone on about concerns as broad as world hunger and as pathetically specific as a set of lost car keys, all the while sweating over what I was going to say and how I could say it in a proper, godly fashion. Problem was, even though my life was filled with ‘prayer’, I was rarely at peace.

Today I belong to a much more progressive church – well, no, I actually don’t ‘belong’ to the church – I haven’t joined for a number of reasons.  Don’t get me wrong, I love the community, it’s very spiritual and intellectually stimulating.  It’s unencumbered  with a  lot  of the religious bullshit baggage that many other churches are full of.  But members must commit to a number of spiritual practices, one of which is prayer.  And I really don’t know what that means, being “committed to a life of prayer”.

What is prayer anyway? It’s a loaded topic that’s for sure. Right now, down in Bibleland, there is a big brew-ha-ha bubbling up out of Hamilton County, Tennessee and onto the wire services, Facebook and the blogoshpere ( I mean serious big time blogs, not my little hobby).  The local public high school is in the custom of kicking off every game with a prayer to Jesus over the PA system, which is clearly in violation of  a couple of laws. The superintendent ordered the school  to cease and desist (amazing it took this long) and now all (but really, it’s not all) of the people are peeved.  But why? It’s a no-brainer. Keep the  Christian prayers where they belong, in Christian venues (like one of the gazillion local churches). Keep your Muslim prayers in the mosques, your Jewish prayers in the synagogues and your Native American chants on the side lines during the game.

But  is this really prayer we are talking about?  Some principal or coach picks up a squealing mike and everyone bows their heads and we thank God for our new band uniforms and our pick-up trucks?  Shouldn’t we be led to prayer by our hearts and not a solemn  prompting sandwiched between rah-rah team fanaticism? How heartfelt can this be?  I reckon no more so than the grace-before-meals  my family used to toss off in 2.758236  seconds before chowing down.  Or the endless repetitious chants from the church of my childhood.  Is God really ‘listening’ to this?

I do believe in prayer, somehow, in some crazy way.  For a while now I haven’t been able to explain it, even to myself.  I can tell you what I don’t believe:  I don’t believe that God answers our prayers so that we get raises or promotions or sell our houses or win football games or wars. I don’t believe that God keeps the machinery from failing when it pulls miners out of the ground or prevents a cap from bursting on a submarine oil well. I don’t believe that we can pray away hurricanes, tornadoes or rainy days.  I don’t think God is  a genie.

But…I do think that there is something to it.  Maybe (and most importantly?) if the prayer is thoughtful, sincere and in the truly “good”spirit of God,  then it can help us  work out ways to make things better, for ourselves and for others.  And making things better is not about changing the situation but dealing with the situation through the softening of our hearts, the clearing of our minds and seeing the world  through the eyes of God, which means through the eyes of others.  I don’t imagine much of this is happening right before game time.  I could be wrong, but…

Hamilton County Board of Education member Rhonda Thurman, who represents Soddy-Daisy, said the prayers were part of the school’s tradition, and that anyone who didn’t want to hear could “put their fingers in their ears.”

And maybe there is something more, something a bit mystical about prayer. I started to understand this so a little last week in church.  On this particular Sunday I was praying like a Carmelite nun, fervently and spiritedly.  I was suffering the next-day intestinal side-effects of too many jalapenos in last night’s queso dip. My belly sounded like the timbers of an old frigate in high seas and I am sure that those sitting around me were nearly as alarmed as I was.  And, of course, that day’s service ran about 30 minutes longer than usual.

It suddenly stuck me: what was I doing?  I didn’t believe in this type of intercessory prayer. Or did I?  There are no atheists in foxholes and when I found myself in a foxhole (even one I dug myself) prayer suddenly was a viable option. And, it seemed that it was working, because my stomach was able to quiet down enough for me to make it home safely.  Of course, this could  simply be a matter of my mind being able to exert stronger and more efficient control over my body, but maybe this was only possible for me through  prayer.

Mystics throughout the world and throughout history have been able to do (much more)  amazing things with their bodies – impossible things – from walking on coals, sleeping on nails, levitating and performing miraculous healings.  If God is spirit, analogous to energy, then perhaps through prayer we can tap into that energy (whatever  that means).  Perhaps this spiritual energy is available to anyone – it just takes a certain knack to access it.  Perhaps this is why some say  that when “two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name” they can do wondrous things, maybe even, hopefully, heal people (though I find it hard to square this with the superstitious antics of Benny Hinn and the TBN crowd).  And I really don’t think this describes what happens when a crowd of people are saying Jesus’ name out loud at a civic event, especially if some members of that community are not Christian. That is not something that Jesus would do, or put his name on.

Everybody is offended by something,” she (Ms.Thurman) said. “I’m offended by a lot of those little girls running around with their thong panties showing, but I can’t make that go away.”

Maybe communal, public prayer works for some people.  Maybe prostrating yourself a number of  times a day gives you strength, comfort or peace.  Maybe chanting works for some and the rosary for others. Lectio divina, contemplative, meditative or in tongues….no thanks.  Been there, done that, tried it and found it wanting.  Maybe I just didn’t try hard enough, who knows?   But it seems to me that if you have to really work at it, if it really takes that much concentration, then maybe you’re paddling up the wrong stream of consciousness.

Anyway, as one Christian to another, do me a favor and keep the praying down a bit.  Maybe even consider praying in private or just among your close friends.  After all, there is some biblical precedent for this. Jesus is to have once said something like this:

And when you come before God, don’t turn that into a theatrical production either. All these people making a regular show out of their prayers, hoping for stardom! Do you think God sits in a box seat?

Here’s what I want you to do: Find a quiet, secluded place so you won’t be tempted to role-play before God. Just be there as simply and honestly as you can manage. The focus will shift from you to God, and you will begin to sense his grace.

“The world is full of so-called prayer warriors who are prayer-ignorant. They’re full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don’t fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need. With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply.   – Matthew 6 (The Message)