Sunday, January 14th, 1996

Dear God,

    Your people who call themselves Methodists are worshipping in at least
two different locations that I can think of at this time.  Instead of wor-
shipping you at this time by singing hymns, I guess I am deciding to com-
municate to you through typing on my computer.  I suppose your email ad-
dress is very simple:  prayer.

    Besides, I feel that "communication" is a lot more productive than
"worship," because worship connotes to me a one-way adoration and pedestal-
placing.  Yet perhaps worship can be a whole lot more -- maybe if I go about
doing the motions of adoring and loving you, communicating to you nothing
more than that, then you return the favor by adoring and loving me.  But
usually I don't feel your love or adoration; instead, I feel the hope that
lives in my neighbors in the pews and also the insecurities and fears they
face.  And yet I feel compelled to share my love with the neighbors in the
pews, but am afforded very little opportunity in the trappings of a formal
worship service to demonstrate or even take the time to feel love for my
neighbors.
    When two people get together and walk together as friends, sharing ex-
periences and talking about this or that, especially about complaints about
frustrations in their lives or loves they have or hopes or fears, opening
their hearts to one-another in the esteem and trust they hold for one-another.
I would hope that that could be the case in how one relates to you.  That
I can take time to walk and share with you what lives in my heart, odious,
hateful, loving, or whatever it is and that you can still esteem me and
want to walk with me no matter what I say, even if I say for a time, "I
hate you, God."  But there are many who would want to predefine the nature
of my relationship with you and who probably would feel it necessary to
condemn me for hating you, as that would be construed in a human sense of
pride for their maker as blasphemy.  For what are we without pride and what
is our deity (or are our deities) without pride in Him (or them)?  And what
is blasphemy but injured human pride for the sake of that which they place
a lot of pride upon and the lack of forbearance for any kind of injury to
that pride?

God, they play "Liar's Poker" over at Carfax.  I have been troubled for some
time that this game goes on so publically and constantly at the workplace, a
game with the name "Liar" in it.  It troubles me, I suppose because one of
my holy sacred things is trying to be as consonant with truth as I can be --
being honest, very honest, even to the point that I may do damage to myself
in others eyes by being willing to truthfully admit things about myself that
may damage me in some ways because of the stigma attached to the things
which I admit.  I take honesty and integrity very very seriously, and it
seems bothersome to me that people will willingly and constantly enter into
a game with the name "Liar" in it without doing some kind of damage to their
own integrity or will towards integrity, just by the very name of the game
and the rules based thereon.

I don't like to be called a "liar" even in jest.  Nor do I really feel any
enjoyment in entering in a game like that where I am supposed to say some-
thing that is not true, as being part of the game.  But the funny thing is
that the game itself has its rules, and within the rules of liar's poker,
one is being honest, because part of the game is the expectation that one
is *supposed* to lie to win, if lying serves the purpose of winning.

The ritual is that one person goes into another's office or they are to-
gether for some other circumstance, such as being outside smoking.  One
person pulls out a dollar bill which is a signal to the other that he is
issuing a challenge to play.  The other responds by pulling out his own
dollar (at random) and they announce to one another what they claim to have
in the serial number of the dollar bill, like "I have three five's."  The
bidding is on what one has in one's hand plus what one *thinks* the other
has in his hand.  The bidding continues until one person finally calls the
other a liar.  The bidding can only go up.

It is known at that time that they are playing a game called "liar's
poker," and that lying is expected of the other in the context of the
game.  If you get called a liar and you are, the other gets your bill.
If you get called a liar and you aren't a liar, you get the other man's
bill.  Because the expectation is that lying is supposed to happen, at
least within the rules of this game, no esteem is lost by doing the act
of lying.  As a matter of fact, esteem is gained by how artful one is 
in lying during the game, bluffing the other person.

This game represents gambling (at least in a small scale).  Gambling is
supposed to be wrong.  This game represents lying.  Lying is supposed to
be wrong.

The supposition, I guess, is that when the game ends, reality resumes, and
people go back to being their normal, honest selves, operating with
integrity and not doing the bluffing anymore because that is only part of
the game.  Well, I am not sure that the game stops when the game stops.

There is, God, a meeting that Craig, Kris, and I are supposed to have some-
time (perhaps early) this week, in which things are laid on the table and in
which perhaps some understanding can be developed so that I don't "waste
people's time" by suddenly becoming unproductive or going to other people
with problems that are "not supposed" to be theirs to have to deal with.
This meeting is to transpire with the two people that play more Liar's Poker
than any other people in the firm.  I don't feel confident that there won't
be any snow job going on and that the truth will not be twisted to server
the purpose of Craig nor or Kris nor of Carfax.  I am confident that I will
need to keep my guard up and be careful to represent my own side. But, God,
integrity is so very important to me.  And because it is, it is sometimes my
habit to not withhold any information that seems relevant to me, not
necessarily trying to "win" or "lose" or "score points", but to be honest
and forthright, even to the point of sharing things that could be used
against me later, because I so firmly believe in integrity.

In order to help me feel confident that I will not be snowed, I have asked
for the ability to have another person present to help me represent "my
side" in our discussions.  This request has been denied.  

There is obviously (even if not admitted as such) a great deal of fear about
the unknown consequences of introducing a "third party" to the proceedings
of a conversation (or series of conversations) to help ameliorate
differences between a couple of workers at Carfax.  He comes up with some
pretty damning examples of poor human behavior that have come out of
imprudence or whatever has driven people to sue for the prize of a lot of
money from employers.  His many examples of imprudence and lawsuits makes me
feel sad, for he seems to be saying to me that he fears that I would take
Carfax to court.  If he is afraid that I will one day take Carfax to court,
and that I would be willing to use whatever came out of this meeting as
evidence in some kind of lawsuit, then why doesn't he have the honesty to
come out and say so?

I do not like feeling mistrusted.