Christmas 2009 has come and gone. I’ll admit that I was a bit of a Scrooge this year. The Christmas Spirit never really captured me; instead, I focused on the consumerism of the season and lamented the fact that many of us (and I include myself here) can become so fixated on the Me.

Now that it’s over, I must say that I am very thankful to have received some Amazon gift cards. A while ago, I was given a Kindle by some good friends at Friendswood Community Church in appreciation for the Bible Study that I’d taught there for several years. So, these gift cards were especially welcome.

Last evening I surfed around the Kindle Store, and I found a book that I am very happy to be reading: Whose Community? Which Interpretation?: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church by Merold Westphal (his latest, I believe).

At the moment, I have read only the first chapter, “Hermeneutics 101,” which asks this crucial question: “Can interpretation be avoided?”

What is particularly interesting about Westphal’s project here is audience. He casts a very wide net, intentionally, by targeting anyone who reads the Bible: scholar, pastor, lay person. Consequently, the style of the book is somewhere in between. He regularly brings up other philosophers (Kant, Plato, Wittgenstein, etc.), but always explains what he means when he uses them. Therefore, the book is challenging but accessible (so far).

During his exposition of the topic, Westphal brings up an interesting poem as one of three examples of ambiguity and multiplicity:

There were six men of Hindustan,
to learning much inclined,
Who went to see an elephant,
though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,
and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
at once began to bawl,
“This mystery of an elephant
is very like a wall.”

The second, feeling of the tusk,
cried, “Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an elephant
is very like a spear.”

The third approached the elephant,
and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
thus boldly up and spake,
“I see,” quoth he,
“the elephant is very like a snake.”

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
“What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain” said he,
“‘Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree.”

The fifth who chanced to touch the ear
said, “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
deny the fact who can;
This marvel of an elephant
is very like a fan.”

The sixth no sooner had begun
about the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
that fell within his scope;
“I see,” said he, “the elephant
is very like a rope.”

So six blind men of Hindustan
disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
exceeding stiff and strong;
Though each was partly in the right,
they all were in the wrong!¹

For Westphal, this poem represents the way in which we humans attack a text like the Bible. Many communities believe that they can approach the text and “just see” what it means — the meaning is expressly encoded and is easily accessible to anyone who simply looks at it. These communities, however, are akin to one of the blind men approaching the elephant. The community is blinded by the socialization that has created the prejudices that allow them to “just see” their particular meaning. What they are really doing is interpreting, whether they like to admit it or not, just as the blind men feel one aspect of the elephant and build their interpretation from it.

I have started to explore these notions in a previous post called “Multiplex God.” There I looked at the idea of multiplicity, specifically the transmission of several messages along one single line of communication.² Isn’t this really what we’re talking about here with the blind men and the elephant? The elephant is transmitting several messages about itself (size, shape, etc.) along one single line of communication (its body), but the blind men are each honing in on a single message.

Don’t we do this all the time? Don’t we hone in on our understanding of a given topic without considering all of the other possibilities?

In a previous post, I talked about the virtues of ambiguity.³ There I discussed our attraction to the unknown and how that unknown or unknowability causes us to continue to explore. As I read Westphal, I realize, however, that when it comes to interpreting the Word of God, many of us become scared of the unknown. We feel that the Bible should have a plain-sense, cut-and-dry interpretation and we should be able to know what it all means.

Isn’t this nonsense? If we even begin to make that claim, aren’t we one of the blind hindustani?

Why must we embrace the ambiguous? Because it is multiplex. God is many and one — this is the Christian mystery, three-in-one. God, from a limited human perspective, is ambiguous in many ways, and so is His Word. God is multiplex, and so is His Word.

Consequently, different people, different communities, are going to see God and the Bible differently. What’s wrong with that?

Allow me to make two more items very clear:

1. I am not at all saying that any and all interpretations or understandings of God are true/good/correct. No, some are going to be crap.
2. I am not at all saying that God is changeable or changing. No, I firmly believe that He was, is, and ever shall be just the same.⁴

Okay. I’ve written enough for now. Back to playing with my Christmas toys.

Footnotes

1. Neither I nor Westphal could find any attribution for this poem. Call its author anonymous.
2. Thank you, Oxford American Dictionary.
3. See “Embracing Ambiguity.”
4. I must admit that my brain wants to backpedal on this some: Doesn’t the incarnation change things? At the moment, however, I am not prepared to abandon this doctrine.

This is the fourth part of a fairly extensive review of John Piper’s The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23.

The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 by John Piper

In this chapter, Piper attempts to venture back to the book of Exodus which Paul quotes in Romans 9:15: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” The goal for Piper is to show that even in its original context (whether or not Paul might have tampered with that context is another issue entirely) this is a general principle rather than a particular event. By this, I mean to say that the notion of God having mercy/compassion on whom he will have mercy/compassion is not just relevant to Moses at that moment, but is an attribute of God that we can all take to the bank for all time.

To this end, Piper does his usual excellent job of exegesis. Even though the chapter is fairly short (“tight” might be a better word), he attends to the broader context by looking at chapters 32–34 and then narrows that down until he hones in on the key verse (Exodus 33:19). There is enough grammatical stuff here to keep language nerds like myself happy, though I think that Piper might rely a bit too heavily on articles from Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (aka TDNT).

The crux of Piper’s argument has to do with this episode in which God “passes by” Moses and reveals his glory. This revelation of glory, for Piper, is wrapped up in the verbal proclamations that God makes beforehand (33:19) as well as the rather odd saying that he blurts out as he “passes by” (34:6,7).

While I tend to agree with Piper’s general idea, that mercy and compassion are God’s prerogative, I do think he places an inordinate amount of stress on this “verbal” passing by to the detriment of the physical action that occurred. I find it very interesting that in 33:21–23 God sets up the encounter and goes as far as to tell Moses that his glory is too much and therefore he will have to cover Moses’ face with his hand, but then he’ll remove his hand so that Moses can see his back. This is a very physical moment!

Perhaps Piper and I could quibble all day, it wouldn’t really matter as I don’t think it’s that important to his argument. The important notion is that this idea of mercy and compassion and God’s ability to dole that out as he pleases is wrapped up in the very name of God — it is, for all intents and purposes, who he is. I don’t think that I can mount much of a challenge to Dr. Piper on this front as I read the text in the same way.

The only other issue that I have is Piper’s use of the word “sovereign” throughout this chapter. I think it is a rather sly ploy on his part as he slips this theological timebomb of a word into his prose without defining it or calling attention to it. “Sovereign” is a theologically heavy word and requires some attention. What exactly does Piper mean when he uses it in this particular chapter? I think I know, but I’d rather he make his purposes plain.

This is the third part of a fairly extensive review of John Piper’s The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23.

The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 by John Piper

If there is one thing that you absolutely must respect about John Piper, it is the fact that he is very thorough and not unwilling to face his opponents head-on. In the third chapter of The Justification of God, Piper does just this: he re-iterates much of what he has said before, makes his point, deals with dissenters, and moves on to address those dissenters. The evidence that he marshals is impressive in terms of breadth. He is comfortable talking about modern scholars, ancient exegetes, apocryphal literature, and exclusivist sects (i.e., the Qumran community).

Orientation and Romans 9:6a

Piper begins by reorienting the reader to the problem. According to texts and tradition, Israel was the beneficiary of a promise from God. However, due to their unbelief, certain members of the state of Israel stand in condemnation. If this is the case, then has God given up on his promise? The rest of the text is Paul’s argument for why God’s promise still stands.

Therefore, Piper properly reminds us that this is the context of Romans 9:6–13. In fact, much of his work in this chapter is quoting dissenting opinions and then showing how they fail to take Romans 9:1–5 into account.

Predestination of Whom to What?

So, what is Paul’s solution to this problem? How does Paul get around the fact that some Israelites are condemned? Paul states very plainly: “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom 9:6b).

This section is dedicated to:

1. showing exactly who is and who isn’t Israel,
2. showing that we are talking about eternal salvation rather than historical purpose.

A further point that runs throughout Piper’s argument is that this predestination has nothing to do with human influence, it is all God’s doing.

Who Is and Who Isn’t Israel?

This is really the crux of the matter. If we are to understand Paul’s statement in Romans 9:6b, then we must understand who is and who isn’t Israel. How is it that some folks from Israel do not really belong to Israel?

Through various means and various Pauline texts, Piper shows that the phraseology here is parallel to other phrases in the New Testament. The equation that is drawn is this:

TRUE ISRAEL = CHILDREN OF GOD = BORN OF THE PROMISE/SPIRIT

NOT TRUE ISRAEL = CHILDREN OF THE FLESH = BORN OF THE FLESH

Therefore, in Paul’s world, one can be an Israelite according to the flesh, but not a true Israelite, i.e., a child of God born of the promise. According to Piper, this means that God’s predestination of some and not others is totally dependent upon his decision and not according to anything human, including birthright or status.

Historical Purpose vs. Eternal Salvation

Many commentators cleverly note that the Old Testament passages that Paul uses in this section point to instances of predestination that deal with theocratic or historical tasks, namely, the creation of the state of Israel through Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob’s sons. These commentators take this to show that Paul cannot mean that this predestination had anything to do with an eternal salvation.

The value of Piper’s argument here is to show that historical exegesis of the Old Testament does not always illuminate our understanding of the New Testament. Paul is re-interpreting these passages and using them to describe individual, eternal salvation. This is clear enough when we consider that only some of Paul’s kinsmen are accursed.

Finally, Piper shows that Paul’s notion of predestination as for the individual to eternal salvation is totally consistent with Jewish thought at the time. Through the eyes of Dinkler and Maier, Piper builds on texts such as Isaiah, Sirach, and Qumran documents (aka Dead Sea Scroll).

My Conclusion

Again, I must tip my hat to Dr. Piper. He argues thoroughly and well. That God is interested in electing some to his purpose and others not is quite clear to me. I think that this is most certainly clear from the Old Testament texts that Paul quotes without even going into Paul’s elaboration on and illumination of those texts, not to mention his reinterpretation of them.

The only big question mark that I wrote in my notes occurred in pp. 65–67 where Piper takes this principle that Paul has created and turns it into a “general principle.” I don’t understand the evidence for that. Piper seems to be saying that there are only two groups of people: elect and not elect. He is basing that on this text in Romans. I’m just not sure I see that.

Tyler F. Williams, an Assistant Professor of Theology at The King’s University College in Edmonton, has had one of the better biblioblogs out there for sometime now. (In fact, you can find him in my blogroll). Recently, Tyler launched a fabulous site redesign. It’s clean, easy to navigate, and a real pleasure just to stare at for a while.

Codex (Biblical Studies site by Tyler F. Williams)

Codex is an excellent place to find all types of information about the Hebrew Bible, Biblical Hebrew, the Septuagint, etc. Being a movie buff, I am particularly fond of his section on the history of the OT on film. Beyond all of that, Tyler has some excellent thoughts on various Bible Software packages that are out there.

I would say that his best resource is probably the OT Commentary Survey. Williams has created a grading system by which he evaluates various commentaries on each book of the OT (no Apocrypha, though, as far as I can tell). Essentially, this survey gives the user a quick idea of what type of commentary they are looking at. Is it geared for pastors or for scholars? Or perhaps laity? Consider it a rich bibliography of OT commentaries.

I highly encourage you to go check his site out, bookmark it, and subscribe to his feed. Codex is truly a helpful resource.

Thanks, Tyler!

The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 by John Piper

This is the second part of a fairly extensive review of John Piper’s The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23.

In the second chapter of The Justification of God, Piper’s aim is to show what is at stake in Romans 9–11: “[I]t appears that what God has guaranteed is in fact not happening — the end-time salvation of Israel.”¹ If this is the case, then God can no longer be considered reliable. This notion of unreliability is what Paul is going to fight.

For Piper, Romans 9:1–5 fits very neatly into this argument. He divides the text into two major portions: (a) Rom 9:1–3 and (b) Rom 9:4,5.

Romans 9:1–3

Piper’s goal in his examination of Rom 9:1–3 is to show that Paul very much believes the plight of his kinsmen to be dire. Piper very quickly dispenses with this section,² showing that Paul thinks the worst for his kinsmen: that they are cut off from Christ.

Romans 9:3 appears to be the crux of this argument. Paul, who does not consider himself “cut off from Christ,”³ is willing to trade places with his kinsmen who most certainly are cut off from Christ.

Though Piper does not spend much time on this, I agree with his exegesis. The situation of the Israelites is no laughing matter — in Paul’s view they are clearly in a great deal of trouble. Paul, in his magnanimity, and out of love, expresses a desire to trade places with these guys. Of course, he knows that this is not possible.

Romans 9:4,5

These verses are an extended definition of the privileges granted to Paul’s kinsmen, the Israelites. Piper does an excellent job of pulling some theology from the grammar in this section by pointing out that the nouns used to describe the Israelites in v. 4 are (a) all feminine and (b) rhyming. This creates a very nice bit of parallelism, which Piper believes explains some of the odd word choice (e.g., “giving of the law” [νομοθεσία] which is a hapax legomenon).

Piper uses a keen eye to examine each of the claims made about Israel in this section. He expertly chooses interpretations from various commentaries while explaining why he disagrees with others.

Each individual chunk of v. 4 is too lengthy for me to go into here. What is important for Piper is for the reader to understand that Israel has incredible privileges that have not just “been transferred to the Church but apply in a real sense to the Israel of Paul’s own day, most of whom are unbelieving.”⁴ Further, these privileges refer to redemption and eschatology — what is at stake is the promise of salvation for Israel.

Thus, the problem: How can it be that God’s promise to save Israel appears to be in Jeopardy?

Piper promises that Romans 9–11 will answer that question for us.

Footnotes

1. Piper, The Justification of God (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1993) 46.
2. Ibid., 44–45. Indeed, it seems like an awful lot of ground to cover in only two pages. However, I feel that the brevity of this section is its strength. Piper has spent so much time looking at the next section (Rom 9:4,5) that it is a relief for him to make his point so succinctly.
3. This is how Piper and many other choose to translate ἀνάθεμα.
4. Piper, The Justification of God, 46

The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 by John Piper

This is the first part of a fairly extensive review of John Piper’s The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23.

Piper uses just a few page to introduce his work as a whole. This chapter provides the major questions and gives a road map for the argument. I shall do the same, posing a few questions of my own and providing a general road map for how my review will work.

I came to this text through a friend of mine with whom I have had many discussions/debates over the years. Many of these discussions involved issues of God’s sovereignty, free will, and predestination. Consequently, he purchased copies of this book hoping that we would have an opportunity to read it together. Unfortunately, it never happened and we have both since moved to different cities.

This then is my attempt to do an intense study of Piper’s work.

I will admit up front that, in spite of my belief that man possesses a will and the ability to make choices independent of God, I do not expect to find much fault in Piper’s argument. He is a first-rate pastor/scholar and a fine exegete. My posts will largely be focused on the contents of Piper’s book and what I may think about them.

I think that Piper’s understanding of Romans 9 will be very informative for all readers of the Withering Fig. However, I have a couple of questions that I’d like to keep in mind:

• How does Romans 9 fit into the larger context of Romans 9–11 and all of Romans?
• How does our understanding of righteousness, justification, and predestination derived from Romans 9 line up with our understanding of these concepts from other Christian texts (NT and OT)?

Now to the road map. I will create a post each week based on a chapter of the text. This post will serve as the discussion of the first chapter, “Introduction.” From here, we will go on to explore the rest of the book and eventually wrap it up with a conclusion at the end of all this.¹

I hope that all makes sense, and I hope you enjoy. I would love it if you’d grab a copy of The Justification of God and read along for yourself, commenting along the way, of course! The more conversation we have, the more we’ll learn.

OK. Let’s get reading!

Footnotes

1. Since this installment is a kind of non-review, I will publish chapter two at the same time.

This blog is powered by WordPress. My wife’s photography business has a website that I wrote with TextPattern. Other projects that I’m working on include Django and Ruby on Rails. I also use Tumblr for short posts. If I’m a writer, where should I turn for my blogging needs?

Bottom-Line: I’m a guy who likes to try stuff out. When Jon Hicks switched over to Textpattern, I simply had to try it out. When editing WordPress to make it be a CMS stopped feeling right, I turned to web application frameworks like Ruby on Rails and Django. When WordPress seemed too cumbersome for little posts, I began to use Tumblr. Where should a writer turn if he/she wants to blog? Let’s examine them.

h2. Tumblr (my tumblr: sbh.tumblr.com)

Tumblr is one of my favorite little Web 2.0 inventions. Essentially, the creators said: “Look, full-fledged blogging software is a bit too heavy and bloated. Let’s streamline things and make it simple.”

Tumblr accomplishes this task very well:

1. It’s pared down, easy-to-use blogging software.
2. It really pays attention to media, encouraging you to post images, videos, and sounds.

Kudoes to Tumblr for this!

The biggest drawback to Tumblr, in my view, is that it does not (to my knowledge) have a self-hosted version. Because of this, you will always be limited to what the good folks at Tumblr allow you to do.

h2. Web App Frameworks (Ruby on Rails & Django)

If you’re a writer who wants to blog, don’t use these! Ruby on Rails and Django are web application frameworks that are built with coders in mind. If you don’t understand the importance of unit tests, or you can’t tell me what a “migration” means — then these probably aren’t for you.

The bonus, however, to using something like this is that you’ve got ultimate control. You write your blog site from the ground up, and that can be fun. But, it can also be a huge headache!

h2. Textpattern (www.acadianimaging.com)

Textpattern is a blogging platform that encourages you to build from the ground up using their templating system. In this way, it’s very much like WordPress, but minus the notion of themes.

When I created acadianimaging.com, I decided to use Textpattern for two reasons:

1. Jon Hicks uses it, and I thought I’d give it a go.
2. I wanted to forget about PHP and WordPress.

Textpattern required absolutely 0 PHP. I purchased a book called Textpattern Solutions, learned the html-like template tags, and I was good to go. The result was a site that, externally, is entirely my own — unlike any other. Internally, however, it has solid design and a good admin user interface.

h2. Blogger? I hardly know her!

If you wanted a mid-level blog, just go sign up at Blogger or WordPress.com. These sites get you started today. Choose a theme, write a post, and you’re in business.

I’ve got nothing against these except the lack of control.

h2. WordPress

Finally, there’s WordPress. WordPress is a full-featured blogging platform. Moreover, it benefits from a positively HUGE user-base that is dedicated to improving it. Trying to find a look that feels like you? Search long enough and you’ll find a Theme that fits your needs. Need your text to do a certain thing, or need some special section to your site? There’s a plugin for it, undoubtedly.

Further, it’s API is supported by most blog editors (such as MarsEdit or Ecto). It just kinda works…

Why not use WordPress?

A few reasons.

1. Personally, I feel like it’s a bit bloated. The latest version, (2.7 as of this writing) features a new admin interface that is, in my opinion, a little cluttered. Sure, it LOOKS much nicer than the previous admin interfaces, but it has too much going on.

2. You may not have the technical know-how to get it up and going. There is a committed user-base, but you still need to be a bit technical to get things going.

3. Because they are everywhere, WordPress themes sometimes feel a bit too cookie-cutter to me.

h2. Question

Which blogging platform do you use?

For me, part of writing is finding the right inspiration. Sometimes that inspiration comes in very weird forms. A while ago, my wife, who has been itching to get into Dr. Dog after seeing them open for Wilco in 2007, downloaded their most recent album, Fate. I must say that these are 44 minutes of inspiration.

As I’m writing, I typically listen to something. Often this is old blues (Robert Johnson, Blind Willie Johnson, etc.), or older jazz (Davis, Coltrane, Monk, Brubeck, etc.), or my favorite rock outfits (Bob Dylan, The Band, Elvis Costello, etc.). The beauty of iTunes is that I have all of that at my fingertips, and I can arrange it however I like. With Dr. Dog’s new album, there is absolutely no need to mix and match. Just put it on repeat and let it roll! From blazing (yet, strangely cute) indie rock (e.g., “The Old Days”) to a Band inspired romp completely with 1970s horn section, ELO-esque harmonies, and a Joe Cocker meets David Bowie lead vocal yelling “Oh Yeah!” (“Army of Ancients”), Fate delivers all kind of goods.

If you’re not familiar with Dr. Dog, maybe you should be. This little band from Philadelphia has made me sit up and listen. As we were jamming (and I do mean “jamming”) to the album in the car the other day, I said to Natalie: “This is how I imagine The Band would sound if they had formed now instead of back in the 1960s.” High praise from the lights of me, as I think The Band, as a band, is probably tops in my book. But all the elements are here. Shades of Manuel on the piano, Hudson’s ghostly organ in the background, both serving as layers beneath Danko’s excellent bass work, the screaming guitar of Robertson and the pounding drums of Helm. Yet, none of these guys are present. Instead, we’ve got Stens, Miller, Leaman, McMicken, and McElroy.

The cohesiveness of the sound makes Fate a great listen. It’s already a staple of our music collection. Give it a spin!

This evening, I had the pleasure of seeing W., Oliver Stone‘s new biopic about George W. Bush. The premiere had been Wednesday in New York, and Stone screened it at the Austin Film Festival on Thursday with James Cromwell (who is perhaps nine feet tall!) in attendance and fielding Q&A after the movie.

I’ve got to be honest. I really liked W.. As a guy who is firmly entrenched in the middle, leaning left on some issues, right on others, I felt like the portrayal of George W. Bush was remarkably fair — especially given what I was expecting from Oliver Stone and company. In fact, of all the characters in the film, I feel like Bush comes off the best.

The movie is well-written and well-structured (even though it just back and forth in time), and mostly well-acted (more on that in a moment).

In fact, Josh Brolin’s performance as “Junior” is so good that you don’t mind that he doesn’t really look like him. Brolin’s impression of Bush is spot-on, but it is not a caricature and does not get in the way. Instead, Brolin’s performance comes off as very honest. Cromwell’s as George H.W. Bush also rings true, though Cromwell did not even begin to do an impression of “Poppy.” This was probably a good decision as those who chose to impersonate their real-life counterparts tended to do poorly.

Chief among the poor performances was Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. Her impression of Rice was over-the-top to the point where it was just uncomfortable. She even looked uncomfortable doing it. I’m not sure what Stone and company were thinking when they allowed her to continue to do this (or, perhaps, egged her on to do it).

While the film feels somewhat balanced to me, there are some items that I just don’t get. The movie wants to vilify many of those involved in the decision to invade Iraq: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. This I expected. Yet, the film makes Colin Powell out to be a saint. The contrast between Powell and Rice is particularly striking. Newton’s portrayal of Rice is as a weak sycophant, while Jeffrey Wright‘s portrayal of Powell presents him as the only level-headed member of Bush’s cabinet, yet he is forced to tow the line in the end.

In his brief introduction to the film, Cromwell said that the movie was timely, arriving “neither 10 years too early nor four years too late.” While I find the timing of it a bit suspect (so shortly before an election — note that many major political players are shown in this movie: John McCain, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, but no Obama), I feel like Cromwell might be right. Why not examine Bush’s presidency while it’s still fresh in our minds?

In the end, I’ve got to recommend W. for two reasons:

• Josh Brolin’s performance
• The interesting, almost centrist, portrait that it paints. Not sure how the Righties and the Lefties will feel about this. I am definitely interested in hearing their opinions though.

Recently, I interviewed for a job that required me to teach a ninth grade English class so that the administration could evaluate my teaching skills. They had read Life of Pi over the summer, and were just starting to explore all the things that a novel has to teach young high schoolers about grammar, writing, rhetoric, and life. So, I got my hands dirty and gave Life of Pi a read over the weekend. I was quite pleased with it in a lot of ways.

The story is Pi Patel’s — a boy who grows up in India but is shipwrecked when his family decides to emigrate to Canada. Roughly two-thirds of the novel deals with this shipwreck as Pi floats the Pacific Ocean in a life boat with a host of zoo animals.

Sounds like a ridiculous situation, right?

It certainly is. That’s the magic of Pi. By the time I got to this ridiculous situation, Pi’s narrative and style had me so invested in him and in his story that I couldn’t help but suspend disbelief (the same is not true of the Japanese characters who debrief Pi at the end of the novel). As Pi narrates (through the lens of an italicized “author” character) his childhood: growing up in Pondicherry, his father’s zoo, his brushes with Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam and his subsequent appropriation of all three, I came to love this little guy. Consequently, as he’s floating around the Pacific with a 450-pound Bengal tiger, I’m really concerned for the outcome of the story. Of course, at least part of this was due to my curiosity: “How is Martel gonna get this teenager off this boat?”

Things aren’t all roses, however. The author character is turned on to Pi’s story by an old friend who says that this story will “make you believe in God.” I’m not sure what that means in the context of the story. Pi’s view of religion is doctrinally challenged — he has no rules. His appropriation of Krishna and friends along with Jesus and Allah makes for a strange God-soup that is difficult to understand.

So, Pi has watered these religions down, but he has also boiled them down by reducing the three to one incontrovertible truth, one dogma: LOVE GOD.

Overall, Life of Pi really works. It’s a fun read on a lot of levels, and highly recommended. Some of Martel’s choices at the end are puzzling, mystifying, and don’t really sit well with me. But, hey, it’s not all about me, is it? I think Pi would agree.

Finally, Pi can certainly be inspirational. He’s screaming at me: “Tell the better story.” I just need to figure out what that means.