irreverent


i was watching last monday's espn baseball broadcast, killing some time before i headed out to play our first softball game in trussville. my main interest in watching was one of my fantasy pitchers (jeremy "hellboy" hellickson) was going for the rays (he lost, 5-0. dammit). the game, itself, didn't hold my interest very long after it was obvious hellboy was going to lose, but, after the second inning, there was an interesting taped interview aired that has stuck in my crawl for a week.

buster olney had talked to rays manager, joe maddon, before the game. it's been established by now that the rays fight an uphill battle every year when it comes to winning baseball games in their division. they have to compete with two of the highest salaried teams in baseball, the yankees and the red sox. in order to compete with the rich, the smaller market rays have to be more efficient and more creative than most other teams in the league. for the last few seasons, they've been able to optimize their roster and their resources in ways that make this braves fan very, very jealous. two out of the last three years the rays have made the postseason. in 2008, they lost to the phillies in the world series. so, buster olney asked joe maddon to name just one of the things he does that has led to his team's unexpected and consistent success. his response was honest and refreshing.

in so many words, he said, "every day when i come to the park, i write "irreverent" at the top of the line-up card. it reminds me that we have to do things differently around here. we have to find ways to stay ahead of the curve. it's a reminder that we aren't going to beat the big boys by mimicking what they do, by trying to beat them at their own game."

indeed.

irreverent. it's a great word that, in my opinion, carries with it a negative connotation that i don't know it deserves. in regard to the rays line-up card, for a couple of weeks, the rays batted their most talented hitter and best player, evan longoria, in the leadoff spot (he has since moved back down to his normal three-hole) to try and spark the rays struggling offense. it worked.

in your grandfather's baseball, you didn't and don't bat your best hitter first. you bat a guy with some speed at the top. a good contact guy that can move the speedy guy along the base paths second. then, the third guy in your line-up would, ideally, be your most efficient run-producer or rbi guy. look up and down every major league, minor league, high school, to little league line-up card. this is the norm. the accepted. the respected. if you fail using this system, a manager will not take serious heat, because it's what all his peers do as well.

the flaw comes when you understand that, statistically, batting third doesn't guarantee a hitter more available baserunners to knock in than any other spot in the order. it may feel like it if you only watch the first inning of a baseball game, lose interest, then turn the game off. chances are, though, evan longoria, chipper jones, albert pujols, joey votto, and every other three-hole guy will only bat third once more the entire game.

in maddon's mind (also backed up by many, many sabr-metric measures), it made more sense to bat his best hitter first. one thing about this tweak that is absolutely defense-proof is your leadoff man is guaranteed to have more potential at-bats than any other spot in the order. for example, if you are a braves fan, would you currently want jordan schafer or brian mccann to have more potential at-bats? easy answer, right? as much as i love schafer, i want my all-star to bat as many times as possible. maddon felt the same way about longoria, and the move paid off. the rays offense reignited. they are currently 10 games over .500 and in the thick of another playoff chase.

irreverent.

sitting in the sanctuary yesterday morning, cringing at the thought of standing up and singing "my country 'tis of thee" in worship, i couldn't shake the maddon interview from my thoughts, for i wished that our worship leaders, ...hell, every worship leader might take the same approach to constructing their services as maddon has and will his line-up.

yesterday morning, could people really blame our pastor or liturgist or choir if there wasn't the same tangible buzz in the room as was present during last week's vbs service? not really, because all yesterday's service was was what people have come to expect on the sunday that precedes america's birthday or memorial day or veteran's day. that's what our church does. that's what we expect. it's easy to accept and respect. to be honest, though, did it really say anything about god?

i don't know.

last sunday, there was no order of worship printed to follow. there were children in the front of the congregation leading worship. there were videos, photo-montages, and jesus-fied justin bieber songs. every single element may not have been perfect, but the package, on the whole, was refreshingly irreverent.

not in a bad way, mind you. it was irreverent in that it was completely un-expected. it was outside what our church (or any church) usually does on sunday mornings. it was thoughtful. it was obviously well-planned. it had a theme. everything the service did illustrated that theme. the end result was every bit "man, that felt good. new, even".

did the vacation bible school organizers reinvent the wheel last week? of course not. every single element of their worship had been there in some service or done that in another. worship doesn't need to worry about reinventing the wheel to be relevant.

worship only needs to be focused on god.

there are times and places to be focused on country. is church one of them? i don't really think so, even if that's what our congregation expects, accepts, or respects.

irreverent isn't a four-letter word. it's a state of mind. it's looking out across your church, your baseball team, your family or your free time and saying, "i've been driving down this road long enough. it's time to take a left."

what's the worst that can happen? i mean, really?

for joe maddon, he could've kept hitting his best hitter third in spite of hard and fast statistical data making a logically sound argument for them batting first, because every other team does the same thing. he chose an unconventional method. he chose to be irreverent, and it worked out better for his team.

for humc or any other community of faith that looks to connect with god, we can continue to copy every other worship service experience we've ever manufactured. there will be very little room for critique, because it's what every other established community of faith does.

or we could strive to be positively irreverent, trying to replicate the refreshing unpredictability of a vbs service or a tenabrae service and strive to make each week's service its own experience instead of a faded copy of the previous one.

whichever way we go is fine i guess.

doesn't irreverent sound like more fun, though?