I.D.K. (I don't know) - weakness or strength?

The beatitudes start out with the meek inheriting the kingdom. The full meaning is not the wimpy, but rather the powerful and able who *voluntarily* submit themselves to what is righteous.
So something similar may be echoed in one's growing spiritual maturity, wisdom, or experience of discernment; that is, while a less developed pilgrim's heart may seek definitive, black-and-white, certainties, someone further along the path may freely express their humility in not knowing; of walking forward by faith and not by sight. To say "I don't know" but still I persist in seeking God and God's Will is not an expression of exasperation, capitulation, or dismissing a conversation. Instead it opens up the field of engagement, seeking and inquiry. Rather than to be conclusive and foreclose and future questioning, to say "I don't know" is one way to open the door and look deeper and wider than the present moment and collection of experiences up to the present. In place of certainties there are uncertainties. But being able to acknowledge, accept and proceed by not knowing comes from strength, rather than weakness; like the "meek" or the "child-like" --these are not immaturities, but instead are the opposites and bring one closer to God's voice, hand, and mind; the great "I AM" of yore; of today; of all times.

Rote versus mindful “Lord’s Prayer”

Today in Men's Bible Study we did the call-and-response of Psalm 136… "The love of God endures forever." Then one guy asked the others of that freshly spoken experience: how much was rote and how much was purposeful intention, spoken like you really meant it? Answers ranged widely: rote is embedded in deeper part of brain, not the planning section but the emotional, automatic area. That way in time of need a person reaches deep down for a response and pulls up things like this. On the other hand, to go through the motions by pronouncing the required phrase without connecting this to what lies below as a foundation results in skimming the surface only; producing dead syllables rather than living, breathed meanings. But then to presume ever to comprehend God's meaning is foolhardy; far better to intend to understanding His meaning, but at the same time to acknowledge the limitations of a mortal mind. There is a certain analogy to choir singing: first learning to produce the right pitches and rhythms, and later adding correct musical dynamics, but only in the final stages being free from those operational concerns and letting the meaning speak directly from lyrics to listeners by singing it "like you mean it" and "really wanting to tell the listeners something you know." Similarly of the Lord's Prayer or this responsive phrase in Ps. 136. When you are focused and free of other preoccupations, then the short phrase can live all together, or specific words can leap forth with special emphasis and meaning: The LOVE of God endures forever, The love of GOD endures forever, The love of god ENDURES forever, and so on.
     What then is the right balance between dwelling on details of form versus paying lesser attention to particulars in order to focus on the big picture or message? Do denominational differences get in the way of embracing God's Word, or on the contrary do churches of like-minded (ethnic, generational, economic and educational statuses) people make it easier to put one's focus on the message and the experiential parts of worship? The old bumper sticker wisdom seems true, "People don't care what you know until they know that you care." In other words, the balance between particulars and main message comes down to the stumbling block idea: if the detail get in the way of the message, then they are a problem to overcome.