You know what people tell me often enough that I’m starting to feel weird about it? That I look like super-trainer Bob Harper from The Biggest Loser:

Granted, these are people who typically don’t see me shirtless. And I don’t pose for many photos shirtless, except that new Zondervan Authors Beefcake calendar I’m doing with Rob Bell and Rick Warren.

But I have to admit, Bob is a nice-lookin’ guy.

I think it’s because we both have blue eyes. And scruffy chins. And gigantic foreheads. We are similar in that scruffy giant-forehead kind of way.

Thanks to Kyle Trafton for the sweet publicity photos.

This is awards season. And like most of us, I get really into awards season. I like it all — the competition, the drama, the unapologetic self-promotion, the lethal robot behavior…

Oh, you thought I was talking about Hollywood? No. I don’t care that much about the Oscars or Grammys or any of that. My favorite award isn’t given out in Hollywood. It’s not even given out in the United States. Nope, it’s a British book award: the The Bookseller Magazine’s annual Diagram Prize for the Oddest Book Title of the Year (The Bookseller is the UK’s industry mag).

Nominations are in and this year’s list has been narrowed to six spectacular finalists — and the public gets to vote on the winner.

Here’s the shortlist of finalists:

Afterthoughts of a Worm Hunter,
by David Crompton (Glenstrae Press)

Collectible Spoons of the Third Reich,
by James A Yannes (Trafford)

Crocheting Adventures with Hyperbolic Planes, by Daina Taimina (A K Peters)

Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots, by Ronald C Arkin (CRC Press)

The Changing World of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, by Ellen Scherl and Maria Dubinsky (SLACK Inc)

What Kind of Bean is This Chihuahua? by Tara Jansen-Meyer (Mirror)

Past winners include masterpieces like Living with Crazy Buttocks and The 2009-2014 World Outlook for 60-Milligram Containers of Fromage Frais.

This is an excellent crop of nominees. I’ve been trying to fit the phrase “Worm Hunter” into the title or subtitle of one of my books for years, and just haven’t found a way to do it. So congrats to David Crompton. I’ve never been much into spoon-collecting or crochet, but potentially lethal autonomous robots? Sign me up. I’ve been warning people of the coming robot apocalypse for decades, and this book seems to be something we all need to read. And inflammatory bowel disease is no laughing matter…if you suffer from it. But if you have healthy bowels? And if you’re a frat boy? Well, then, that’s one hilarious book title. I have no idea what kinds of changes are in store with inflammatory bowel disease, but I can’t imagine they’re good changes.

And for the record, I have no idea what kind of bean that chihuahua is. That’s a real thinker, right along with What’s the difference between a duck? and What doessss it have in its pocketssss?

Anyway, exercise your freedom, bibliophiles. Make your voice heard. Vote today (there’s a poll at the bottom of the left-hand sidebar).

Thanks to everyone who entered yesterday’s fill-in-the-blank Mad Libs contest using a line from O Me of Little Faith.

I discovered two things from the contest:

1) Creativity, among readers of this blog, is apparently a license to describe the pestering of animals. Mice, Jack Russell Terriers, cats, birds, sheep, llamas, gophers, flies, chickens, buffalos and Velociraptors all made appearances. Variously disturbing things were being done to them. I fear a PETA backlash.

2) The excitement of animal-bothering can be a distraction. That’s my conclusion, since many failed to follow the explicit parts of speech needed for the sentence. A number of the entries were disqualified for not adhering to the specified last two words: on a/an (place) (noun). Sorry. But rules are rules, and this is a highly legalistic blog.

Anyway, I’ve chosen some finalists from the qualifying entries. Here they are:

Lauree
… like herding cats with a laser pointer on a glass company truck rack.

(Lauree used some extra words but followed the intent of the law, so I’ll allow it. And the idea of cats chasing a laser pointer surrounded by glass is awesome.)

Danny Bixby
…is like soothing velociraptors with an airhorn on a fault line.

(Great imagery. And I will almost always respond favorably to sentences about Velociraptors.)

Denise
…is like shearing sheep with a lightsaber on a Six Flags roller coaster.

(Lads like me love alliteration. And shearing sheep with a lightsaber sounds really fun, whether a thrill ride is involved or not.)

dkamfam
…is like twirling matches with a fork on a desert island.

(A person who could do this would no doubt be elected the leader of the survivors following a plane crash, though that might also mean a lot of headaches what with the time travel and polar bears and stuff.)

bobfromchicago
…is like catching flies with chopsticks on a Niagara Falls tightrope.

Bob wins! I give Bob the creative victory for two reasons, because his sentence involves two distinct cultural and historical allusions. #1 is the Karate Kid catching-flies-with-chopsticks thing, which I love because Mr. Miyagi = awesome. References to movies from the ’80s are always welcome here. #2 is because the Niagara Falls tightrope refers to the Great Blondin, a daredevil from the 1800s who crossed the falls several times on a tightrope and who — get this — makes an appearance in O Me of Little Faith. A pretty important appearance, metaphorically speaking. Bob? Where’d you get an advance copy of the book?

Bob, send me your shipping address and I’ll give you a signed Pocket Guide to the Bible along with a copy of Picking Dandelions by Sarah Cunningham.

And Denise gets second place, because the shearing-sheep-with-a-lightsaber image is irrevocably wedged in my brain. So cool. Denise, send me your shipping address and I’ll put a signed Pocket Guide to the Bible in the mail for you.

—————–

What was the original sentence from O Me of Little Faith?

The practice of praying in my head — of lining up stray thoughts to present them to God in an official, well-reasoned and coherent manner — is like sweeping marbles with a push-broom on a gym floor. I can’t sustain it for any length of time before everything scatters.

So I have a new contest idea. While reading for my audiobook last week, I was pleasantly re-introduced to one of my favorite sentences from the upcoming book. I smiled when I read it, and I remembered that one of my early readers (my sister, who has just started blogging and it’s about freaking time) had marked it with a happy face on an early draft. So I thought I’d post the sentence here…only Mad Lib style.

That’s right: I’ll give you the parts of speech, and your job is to fill in the blanks.

The most creative entry will win a two-book prize: a copy of Picking Dandelions (the great new title from Sarah Cunningham) and a signed copy of my own Pocket Guide to the Bible.

Here’s the Mad Lib sentence, with a little context to help you out:

—————–

The practice of praying in my head — of lining up stray thoughts to present them to God in an official, well-reasoned and coherent manner — is like (verb ending in -ing) (plural noun) with a (noun) on a/an (place) (noun).

—————–

Sample entry #1: …is like plucking eyebrows with a cherrypicker on a restroom countertop.

Sample entry #2: …is like hammering nails with a screwdriver on a Texas highway.

To be clear, I’m not judging based on how close you come to my original sentence, which I’m sure won’t be nearly as entertaining as these submissions. Nor am I judging by whether or not your entry makes sense, or matches the context, or helps me overcome my prayer challenges, or anything else. I’m only judging by creativity.

Because creativity is good. And good writing is good. Especially when you’re writing about the difficulties of prayer.

Have fun. Entries will be closed at 9 am tomorrow (Tuesday, Feb. 23).

I spent several hours on Tuesday and several today recording the unabridged audio book version of O Me of Little Faith. It wasn’t my first time in a recording studio, but was definitely my first time to record an audio book. I learned some things in the process:

1. Never, ever write a book that includes long names like Zoroastrianism or Mictlantecuhtli if you plan to read it aloud some day. One of my chapters uses Zoroastrianism and Zoroaster about half a dozen times apiece. My goodness, this was a big mistake. Eventually I just started saying “Zorizzle” and “Z-dog” as replacement words. My apologies, Zondervan.

2. Voice acting is hard work. Man. I can’t believe how worn out I am. Today’s session took about four hours. Five chapters. 90 laser-printed pages. And I’m exhausted. My legs are tired from standing for four hours. My neck hurts from looking slightly downward at my pages. My throat muscles are fatigued just from all the talking. If ever in my life I have spoken ill of you, people who read audio books, I totally take it back. I’ve daydreamed before that voice acting would be a really cool job to have. I’m rethinking that now. I ran five miles last Saturday. Today I read five chapters of my own book. I’m feeling a lot worse today.

3. I worried the whole time about how sarcastic my voice sounded. I think my natural cadence and inflection tends toward sarcasm, so I tried to be aware the whole way through. You don’t want the serious stuff to sound like I’m saying it in the midst of an eye-roll and a thought bubble that reads Snerk. No idea if I succeeded at this or not.

4. I can pronounce the name Keirkegaard just fine. But I used the name way too much. Should have gone with a lot more hes and hims. Otherwise, I sound like a philosophy show-off.

5. I’m probably one of the least twangy Texans you’ll meet, but if you do hear a twang, it will occur in a word with a hard a-sound. Like day. Or away. Or ballet. (Not that I ever mention ballet in my book.) Also, I drop a lot of gs. Were I a rapper, this would be awesome, because it means I’m spending a thousand bucks at a time, frequently. Droppin’ Gs, yo. But as a Texan, it means I say writin’ and hopin’ and dancin’. (Not that there’s a lot of dancing in my book, either. Other than my recap of that decade when I was into modern jazz.)

6. I’m just kidding. I was never into modern jazz.

7. Why do I keep talking about dance? Who let that rabbit in?

8. Footnotes are awesome when you’re reading silently. They let you interject a little nugget of explanation or weirdness or humor into a paragraph without disrupting the flow. But when you’re reading aloud, footnotes are completely annoying. With some of the footnotes, I tried to work them into the text in as unobtrusive a way as possible. But most of them I just dropped completely from the audio recording. It just didn’t work to try to wedge them in. So if you only listen to the eventual audiobook, be aware that you’re probably missing some cool stuff.

9. In the turtle chapter I keep saying the phrase “first turtle.” But when you say it without precise pronunciation of those t-sounds, it sounds exactly like “first hurdle.” Which actually works in the context of the book, so I guess that’s OK. But for the record, I never use the word “hurdle” in the book. It’s always “turtle.”

10. When you write (Crickets) in a solitary paragraph, in the context of sudden silence, it totally works. When you pause and say “Crickets” aloud, it sounds completely stupid.

(Crickets.)

11. See?

12. If you are one of the four or five people who called me today and got my voicemail, it’s because you called while I was reading into a microphone, passionately and with great inflection. But you should know that, despite my ear-covering headphones and despite the fact that my phone was set on vibrate and sitting on a table 15 feet behind me, I could still hear the “incoming call” buzz as I read. I could hear it! And it was ridiculously distracting. So when you hear me stumbling over Zoroastrianism, just assume it was your fault.

————–

Actually, recording my audiobook was a lot of fun. The first half of each session, before the fatigue set in, was great. And I’d rather be doing that than digging ditches, or working in a factory, or teaching 13-year-olds.

I’m blessed.

Thanks, Carlos at Audio Refinery.

Thanks, Zondervan.

Thanks, Mictlantecuhtli.

A conversation:

Seriously? “The LENTerview”? That’s horrible.

Sorry. It was a spur-of-the-moment thing, like when I got that figure-skating demon tattoo.

Which is also horrible.

Agreed. I have my regrets.

So the season of Lent begins today, right?

Yes. Today is Ash Wednesday. Lent continues from today until Easter, which is April 4.

I didn’t know you were Catholic.

I’m not. My denominational background is Southern Baptist.

But isn’t Lent something that Catholics observe?

Well, yes. It’s also something that Episcopalians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other high-church Christians have observed over the years. Lent is not exclusive to a certain denomination, though. It’s been a part of the Christian calendar since, like, the 2nd century. Since before Catholics were called Catholics, and before there was such thing as a Protestant.

Ok, then. But I totally didn’t know Baptists were into that kind of thing.

Uh, they’re not. Not really. The Anabaptists in our history tossed out any religious practice that seemed too Pope-y back in the 17th century, which meant the Christian calendar and Lent got pushed aside. Growing up, it wasn’t just that Lent wasn’t much emphasized in my church. It pretty much didn’t exist at all. Easter was a big deal, and the church was closed on Good Friday. But that was it. Never a word about Ash Wednesday.

The first time I ever heard about Lent was in the movie Fletch 2, when Chevy Chase’s character said he’d given up rattlesnake for Lent. I was in high school, I think.

Fletch 2 was totally underrated.

No it wasn’t.

So why do you observe Lent now?

Because I think observing Lent — which I’ve done for 4 or 5 years now — is one of the most valuable spiritual practices in my life. It’s something that I honestly believe all Christians ought to consider making a part of their faith. Not to earn some kind of holiness points or heavenly crowns or anything, but just because it makes Easter that much more meaningful.

By “observing Lent,” you mean fasting, right? Giving up something for Lent?

Yes. Fasting during Lent is a way to acknowledge (with great humility) the self-sacrifice of Christ on the cross. In observance of Lent, Christians give up something they love — coffee, sweets, alcoholic beverages, shopping — for a few reasons. First, it’s a mild form of discipline and self-denial. And let’s face it: there’s not much discipline or self-denial in the life of the modern Westerner. Second, you replace whatever you’ve removed from your life with something of benefit, like prayer or scripture reading or service. Third, giving up something helps keep your small personal sacrifice at the front of your mind, which means it’s a great way to focus on the larger sacrifice of Jesus and remain conscious of his death during the weeks leading up to Easter.

So the fast ends at Easter?

Exactly, and that’s the point. Before I began observing Lent, it seemed like Easter just kept sneaking up on me. Suddenly it was there, without warning. You’ll notice this never happens with Christmas. Christmas never sneaks up on us, because we start preparing for it as soon as we get the dishes washed after the Thanksgiving meal. That’s the role the Lenten season plays: because you’re fasting from something, it makes you anticipate the coming of Easter and the end of your fast. You start looking toward Easter several weeks beforehand. In a small way, this deepens your celebration of the resurrection.

What should I give up?

I’m not going to say you should give up anything. This isn’t a rule you have to follow. Lent isn’t a biblical command or anything like that. It’s just a religious tradition, and God doesn’t love Lent-fasters more than he loves everyone else. But it is a valuable practice. Anyway, to answer your question, there are plenty of things you could do without for the next six weeks. Give up sodas the whole time, or your morning coffee. Give up television on one day a week. Give up the game apps on your iPhone. Stop eating sweets. Stop snacking between meals. Give up Twitter or blogs or–

Gasp. You’re not giving up blogging, are you?

No. Not this year. I can certainly see the value of something like that — and it may be something I do in the future for Lent — but not this year.

Thanks. I was worried.

Whatever. The first time I observed Lent, I gave up listening to my car’s radio or CD player when I drove. No music or NPR or anything. Just silence. I used that time to pray. It was very quiet and pretty cool. And the result was that, by the time the Lenten season ended, I was ready for Easter. I had been thinking about it and preparing for it for those 40 days.

Wait. There’s more than 40 days between today and April 4. It’s something like 47 days.

Right. There are seven Sundays in there, and you don’t count Sundays. A lot of churches recommend you break your fast every Sunday, because the sabbath is a day for celebration — not self-denial. Take away the Sundays and you have the 40 days of Lent.

What about your atheist or agnostic readers? Is there any virtue in them observing Lent?

Well, I doubt the part about making Easter more meaningful will entice a nonbeliever into a Lenten observance. But I definitely think there’s some personal value in taking a few weeks every year to do without something. Self-denial is an important virtue, and its one that separates us from the animals. People deny themselves stuff all the time because of a perceived benefit. Dieters do it, then add exercise to their lives in order to become healthier. If you decide to train for a marathon, you’re willingly going to give up a lot of free time and replace it with jogging. I guess, if they wanted, a nonbeliever could observe a fast during the Lenten season without having to connect it to religion. Environmentalists might give up driving their cars the whole time. Take public transportation and let the planet benefit. Or you could go without sweets for a few weeks and let your body benefit from the sugar detox.

But to be honest, I wouldn’t expect atheists to derive much meaning out of Lent. And that’s OK. My Southern Baptist heritage doesn’t put much stock in it either. :)

Although Protestant enthusiasm for the practice is definitely growing…

Any other words about Lent?

Not really. But if you’ve never observed the practice, and if you’re a Christian, I’d encourage you to try it. Just to see. I have no doubt you’ll see the value in it.

————

Update: You might consider joining Blood:Water Mission for their 40 Days of Water campaign. Drink only water during Lent and donate the money you save toward building clean water projects in Uganda.

I’m no investigative journalist, but I’ve got skills, and Twitter, and email, and every once in awhile I can come up with a pretty sweet scoop.

Which I have done today: I’ve identified the kid on the cover of O Me of Little Faith, and uncovered the intriguing backstory behind the band-aids, the pose, and the awesomeness.

The little dude’s name is Drew and he’s 8 years old. Drew’s mom and dad own an advertising agency in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and one of their clients is the Grand Rapids Marathon. In the spring of 2008, they were shooting campaign images for the marathon with photographer Steven Wohlwender. Wohlwender is a distance runner, and so was the agency’s creative director.

(Sidebar: As you might know, the constant bounce of running a marathon can occasionally cause some, well, chafing of the nipples. So a lot of male marathoners will put tape or band-aids over these delicate areas to keep them safe during the event.)

Anyway, according to Drew’s mom, the photographer and creative director got to talking about how funny it would be to take a photo of a little kid wearing the band-aids. The Grand Rapids Marathon has a kids’ marathon, in which kids commit to walking or running a mile three times a week for eight weeks (accumulating 25 miles), then on race weekend they run/walk the last approaching the 1.2 miles of the race course — making them official marathoners. What if they photographed a kid approaching his marathon with the same intensity as an adult? And taking the same precautions an adult marathoner might take against the painful injustices of endurance sports?

They decided it would make for a really funny picture, but the light was waning and the shoot was practically over. Where could they find a kid whose parents would consent to a photo shoot at such short notice? Especially a photo shoot in which the child was shirtless? Lucky for them, the agency’s owners had such a kid: Drew, who was 6 at the time.

They hurried to the drugstore to buy some SpongeBob bandages and finished up the shoot in the remaining natural light. “Steve just asked Drew to make his fiercest face, and that’s the picture that you see,” Drew’s mom told me. The original photo — in which Drew was wearing a bib from the kids’ marathon (it’s been Photoshopped out in my cover) — was used to advertise the event and eventually was discovered by the design team at Zondervan, which is located, of course, in Grand Rapids.

Here’s the original photo of Drew by Steven Wohlwender. You can find it in the portraits section of his online portfolio:

And here’s the book cover:

Drew’s mom said he doesn’t know about the book cover yet, but he’s already enjoyed his 15 minutes of local fame from the marathon advertising. I guess those few minutes are about to get extended a bit.

Drew us now in second grade and is a Cub Scout who loves guitars, music, swimming, and Legos. Sounds like my kind of kid. I’m thrilled to have him as my scrawny, fierce book cover representative.

————–

My friend Matthew Paul Turner‘s new book, Hear No Evil, releases tomorrow.


Right now at Amazon, you can get O Me of Little Faith AND Hear No Evil AND Jon Acuff’s upcoming Stuff Christians Like in a great package deal: all three books for just $27.63. I smell a delicious pre-order.

I like to read stories about interesting people. And I like to read books by excellent writers–the kind who, technically, are very good at their craft. When a gifted writer happens to be an interesting person with compelling stories and a creative perspective, then that’s a book I will enjoy and recommend.

Which brings us to Sarah Cunningham and her latest book, Picking Dandelions. Short review: She’s a great writer. She’s an interesting person. She’s got excellent stories to tell and makes thoughtful observations about contemporary Christianity. I loved this book.

Sarah first caught my attention with her first book, Dear Church, in which she drew on her church-staff experience to write 14 letters to the capital-C Church–a Church she wasn’t entirely sure she wanted to be part of. She was impassioned, disillusioned, and discontent with the business-as-usual approach to church. She became a fresh voice for a generation of believers who thought the Church should be more than a Sunday morning social club.

While Dear Church was passionate and raw, Picking Dandelions is warm and mature. In it, Sarah sets aside the letter-writing approach and transitions into a straight-up spiritual memoir. It’s funny, honest, and instructive, as she tells about the virtues of searching for Eden–of finding hope and goodness and God–amid the messiness of life. And she’s seen messiness. She’s lived in a homeless shelter in Chicago. She worked at Ground Zero in the days following the 9/11 attack. And she teaches high schoolers in Michigan, which is really scary.

With the nationwide release of Picking Dandelions, I got a chance to email-interview Sarah about her new book.

JB: The idea of change weaves through the stories in Picking Dandelions. What are some things that changed in your life between the writing of Dear Church and Picking Dandelions?

Sarah Cunningham: Man. For starters, I stopped whining about church experiences gone wrong. I got sick of my own immaturity. And then, another noticeable one: I got pregnant with our first child. Mostly, I think I just kept growing up. By the end of Dear Church, I was already starting to make a shift away from being “disillusioned” to a person who could find goodness “beyond disillusionment.” Picking Dandelions captures part of that stretch. Picking Dandelions will never be done for me though. I’ve still got a lot of changing left to do.

A lot of us think of transformation as something that happened in the past…maybe at the beginning of a life of faith. But you look at it as something that should be constant, right? Why should we, as Christians, always be changing–or as you call it, “converting further”?

Wow. There are a lot of ways to answer that. One would be to say that, from the beginning–from Eden–God intended good for us. Along that same line, Jesus said he came to give life to the full. In light of those two statements, who wouldn’t want to experience more of the fullness he wanted for us?

As we try to adopt more of God’s way of life, its going to pull us forward into change. And change in this case, may be hard, but it will be good.

I’ve always thought the designation between “desired plants” and “weeds” to be entirely subjective and unfounded. Who ever decided that a cute little yellow dandelion was a weed? You’re pretty pro-weed in the book–no, not THAT kind of weed–so I thought you might be able to explain it.

(Again, I’m referring to garden weeds.)

Ha ha. Yeah, I’m pro-weeding especially. The more we cut out unhealthy things that grow up around us, the more room we have for the good things to grow.

I think I identify with the dandelion especially. Its this intense, fuzzy flower that brings wonder to children, but it still has some of the characteristics of a weed. And that’s me in a nutshell. I’m intense, driven, want to nurture goodness for other people, but in the end, I’m also a really flawed and dysfunctional human being. The cool thing is that when we begin to recover God’s intentions for us–to recover Eden, you might say–even the weed-parts of us end up looking pretty beautiful.

Speaking of which, I love the section where you talk about your flaws, which always reminds me of the Apostle Paul going on and on about how he boasts about his weaknesses. Is it hard to write so transparently about your personal failures and shortcomings? Or is it empowering for you?

Its not as hard as you might think. There comes a time in any person’s life when they decide who their public self is. Are they going to keep their spiritual and personal life private? Or can that be shared with those who share your life? Because my dad is a pastor, its always been natural for me to include a wide group of people in my development. Now, it just seems like I’ve extended that openness to the general public. Its sorta like going ALL-IN. This is who I am, good or bad, when no one is looking…and when everyone is.

Being open about your shortcomings can also be freeing. You’re not pretending to be anything you’re not. You’re not projecting yourself as perfect. It allows people to take you as you are.

And being transparent can also help me step up in my life. Right now, I’ve been blogging about forgiveness on my website. For me, that’s fresh; its one of those areas where I need to grow so badly it stings. But putting it out there is also like cementing the actions I’m trying to take.

I love that this book doesn’t feel like a sermon repackaging (which I always assume is the case when reading new Christian books by well-known pastors). You’re a good writer and storyteller and a great prose stylist. You do the memoir thing very well. So, now that all that praise is out of the way, what are some of your favorite memoirs? When you’re writing these personal stories, do you ever find yourself trying to channel certain writers?

Thanks. I felt like it was a little bit of a dice roll. One of my favorite memoirists is Anne Lamott, but I didn’t know if I could tap into that genre because I come from the exact opposite place on the spectrum. I was raised in an ultra-churched family on the right wing. When it comes down to it, I’m the clean-cut lily white girl from the midwest. But I want people to know that, whatever their context, life can still be quirky and funny and you can still laugh at yourself while you sort through the messes of your life. That is not limited to people raised on the left wing or the west coast. It’s a universal experience for all of us who search for God and for meaning among life’s weeds.

The stuff about Ground Zero is one of the most powerful parts of the book. I don’t want to give anything away, but the idea of searching for Eden at such a place of devastation makes for a really compelling narrative. Was writing that part of the book difficult? Mentally speaking, is it hard for you to go back there? Or is writing about it cathartic?

Ground Zero was a crazy experience. The whole time we were there, it felt like I had been cast in a real-life disaster movie. I would look around and think to myself, this moment right here, this block I’m standing on, it is going to be in the history books. Surreal.

It wasn’t hard to write about Ground Zero this many years later, but it was hard to absorb the experience into the rest of my life back then. When we were at the site of the World Trade Center towers, we were living on adrenaline the whole time, working through the night, watching people slip around the rubble. People were literally buried under concrete. It was all emergency-level. So it was weird and almost disturbing to come back to Michigan and realize the rest of the world was still functioning normally.

And I think, more than cathartic, talking about 9/11 is meaningful to me. Its important to be able to say to other people, even in life’s darkness, there is light. Even in devastation, God stirred goodness.

You write about having had a “boiling lake of magma” in your front yard. I love this, because I had one, too! It was in our living room, and we could only cross it using the couch cushions and a couple of well-placed pillows. This isn’t a question. I just wanted you to know.

I’ve been surprised by the reader reaction to our lava-jumping. Apparently all of us had boiling lava pits in our yards. Who knew the U.S. was built on an ocean of underground magma?

Did you get everything off your chest with Dear Church? Or is there another letter you’d perhaps like to write, maybe something that has developed since that book released?

I think you continue to learn about how to live and be church as life continues. But I don’t need to write any more letters for Dear Church. That book stays true to who I was then; it’s a true reflection of being in your twenties and trying to find a church that reflects all your ideals. It’s meant to connect with people in that stage of life, so I’m not going to project any of my 31-year- old or older self into it.

What’s next on your plate? Do you have another book or idea in the works?

I toy with all kinds of ideas, but I do have an idea for a second memoir–in the voice of Picking Dandelions, but without the growth metaphors. It would be about the bond God intends between his followers.

———————-


Thanks for the interview, Sarah! Stay tuned, because at some point next week, I’ll be giving away a copy of Picking Dandelions.

Read a free excerpt from Picking Dandelions.

Get a $10-off coupon code from Zondervan, which means you can get Sarah’s book for $4.99 if you buy it through Zondervan.com.

Learn more about Sarah.

Disclaimers: Sarah and I share a publisher. Zondervan provided me with a review copy of Picking Dandelions. I feel an affinity with her due to the lava pits connection. I also have warm feelings about anyone with the last name “Cunningham” due to my childhood fondness for Happy Days.

We’ve had quite a few new readers lately — thanks, everyone, for stopping by — so I figured today would be a good time for some feedbacky fun. Let’s get to know each other better.

How? By answering highly personal questions in a highly public forum, that’s how.

Please use the comments to answer the following:

1. What kind of car do you drive?

2. On a normal day, what time do you get up in the morning and go to bed at night?

3. Lent begins next Wednesday. What would be the hardest thing for you to give up from Feb. 17 until Easter (April 4)?

————–

My answers are below.

It’s Tuesday, but I’m still thinking about the Super Bowl ads. I happened to watch Super Bowl 44 at home, with my family, and got to really focus on the ads more than usual. There were a few good ones — as I mentioned yesterday, Google’s ad was genius — but most of them were unmemorable and uncreative.

But that’s not why I feel a rant coming on. I’ve got the rant going because Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), made headlines in recent weeks about one of the Super Bowl ads being “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning” to women. Those are strong words. Extraordinarily offensive. Demeaning.

Let’s see if we can guess the offensive, demeaning ad.

Was it this ad for Flo.tv, which featured Jim Nantz telling a guy to “change out of that skirt” and grow a spine because he gave up watching a football game in order to shop with his wife?

Nope. Apparently NOW is OK with this ad.

Was it this ad for Bridgestone tires, in which a man in some sort of dystopian future gives up his wife in exchange for keeping his (apparently) excellent tires?

No, it wasn’t the Bridgestone ad. Apparently NOW is cool with the wife-for-tires exchange.

Was it this ad for GoDaddy.com, a company that seems to sink all of their advertising money into titillating ads that objectify women as sex objects?

No, it wasn’t the GoDaddy.com ad, which might as well change their tagline to “Tasteless Ads and Websites.” Nor was it the Snickers ad in which the joke was that a guy was playing football like “an old lady” (the hilarious Betty White), or the Dodge Charger ad in which a male voiceover seethed about the sacrifices required by marriage.

It wasn’t any of those ads, of course. According to the National Organization for Women, the “extraordinarily demeaning and offensive” that they tried to get CBS to drop from its Super Bowl advertising lineup was this one featuring Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam.

Seriously? Really? That ad — and its message of “Celebrate family. Celebrate life.” — was more demeaning to women than all the other ones above?

Look, I get why some groups were upset about the ad. Lots of people — liberal and conservative, Christian and secular, male and female — have problems with Focus on the Family. I certainly do, and I’ve ranted about it before.

I understand that there are better ways for a non-profit organization to spend its money than on a Super Bowl ad.

I understand that Pam Tebow’s faith-fueled decision to give birth to Tim despite the risks, and despite its positive outcome, is a decision that — had it gone the other way — could have left her other kids without a mom. (And which doctors were absolutely correct to worry about…and which likely kills too many other mothers and unborn children every year.)

And I understand that this ad was a total letdown after all the controversy of the preceding week. Everyone at my house watched it, and then said, in unison, “That’s IT?”

But what I don’t understand is how this ad, just this ad, in which one mother tells how she exercised her freedom of choice and chose to have a baby despite the risks to her own health…how does this demean women? How does this even damage the pro-choice cause? She had a choice. She chose to give birth. But she had a choice. This is wrong how?

This is more demeaning than women used as sex objects to sell websites?

This is more demeaning than an ad suggesting women are worth less than a set of tires?

This is more demeaning than saying a televised football game is more important than hanging out with your wife or girlfriend? That choosing her over sports makes you a skirt-wearing sissy lady?

Really? Really?!?

I don’t have any problem with feminism. I have a 9 year-old daughter, and as often as I can, I tell her she can be and do anything she wants when she grows up. She can be a doctor. She can be president. She can be a mom. She can do all those things. She is smart and cool and capable of anything a boy can do.

I think it’s ridiculous that, just a few generations ago, women couldn’t vote. I think it’s ridiculous that, in more than a few Christian denominations, women can’t be pastors (like Southern Baptists, who won’t let a woman be the senior pastor of a church of 25 people but will allow Beth Moore to be the most popular Bible teacher in the English-speaking world). If my own daughter wants to be the pastor of a church someday, I will do everything I can to support her in that. I don’t have any problem at all with female pastors or ministers or whatever. I think we need more of them.

I don’t have a problem with feminism.

But I do have a problem with stupidity. I have a problem with mindless, lockstep adherence to a political stance. And I have a problem with logical inconsistency. So when NOW can’t see beyond Tim Tebow’s devout faith or his pro-life beliefs or his connection to an organization they hate — and when this hysterical myopia makes them blind to advertising that is far more offensive to women — then I have trouble taking NOW’s version of capital-F Feminism seriously.

I’m not alone. Even among feminists.

Otherwise, I have to conclude that being a feminist means being OK with objectifying women, and devaluing women, and denigrating women — as long as you complain long and loud when a woman uses her freedom of choice to have a successful, well-rounded son who makes a choice to appear alongside his mother, whom he clearly loves, in an ad promoting a devilish, hateful message that can be summed up this way:

Celebrate family. Celebrate life.

Grrrrrr. I thought feminism was a good thing. I guess I’m wrong. Because you know what? I kinda like family. I’m also a fan of life. And Tim Tebow comes across as a goofball, but I sorta like him, too.

And I hope my daughter grows up to celebrate things like family and life, in a world that does not place limits on what she might want to be and accomplish.

She is worth more than a tire. She is more than a body. She is interesting enough to miss a football game for. If she grows up to be confident enough and smart enough to make hard decisions and live with the consequences — like a certain Mrs. Tebow — then I’ll be proud, regardless of her politics or stance on social issues.

I’ll be a happy, satisfied dad. But I guess I won’t be a the NOW brand of Feminist, because you know why?

They don’t hold women in high-enough esteem for me.

———–

Update: There’s a great conversation occurring at Slate’s Double X blog about the sexism in this year’s crop of ads (“…some of the worst cases of lady-bashing in Super Bowl history”). Recommended.