The Shack was a literary phenomenon inspiring a whole slew of theological reflections on blogs, in articles and in full length monographs. Books like Finding God in the Shack by Roger Olson, or Finding God in the Shack (what can I say, catchy title!) by Randal Rauser read Young’s novel with a sympathetic eye affirming much of its content. Others are more scathing in their critiques (see for example James DeYoung’s Burning Down the Shack).
What sets C. Baxter Kruger’s The Shack Revisited apart is his glowing endorsement of The Shack’s overall theological vision (the other authors above each register points of critique). As a friend of William Paul Young and an early endorser of the novel, he describes the emotions he felt when first reading it in a deer stand while hunting. Kruger was overcome by Young’s depiction of the Triune God and the way He (She? They?) dealt with the brokenness of Mackenzie (Young’s protagonist). Young himself writes the forward and commends it to all who read and valued The Shack, “If you want to understand better the perspectives and theology that frame The Shack, this book is for you (ix).” This makes C. Baxter Kruger the author-approved theological interpreter for his book.
Kruger is no theological-light-weight. He has a Ph.D in philosophy from Kings College, Aberdeen where he studied theology under James Torrance. He has also written influential books of his own on Trinitarian theology. However, he has chosen to use his gifts in service to the church rather than academy. He is the director of Perichoresis Ministries an international ministry which proclaims the gospel of the Triune God. In many ways Kruger’s emphasis in theology dovetails well with The Shack making this a good vehicle to proclaim his Trinitarian theology.
The Shack Revisited divides into three parts. In part one, Kruger explores the image of Papa in The Shack. He gives a good apology for Young’s depiction of the Father as an African-American woman. God defies the images we construct of him and pastorally, this sort of revelation of God was exactly what Mackenzie needed. In part two Kruger widens his theological circle to reflect on the nature of the Son and the Spirit and their relationship with the Father. Like Young, Kruger eschews any hint that Jesus died to appease the wrath of the Angry God; Rather, the Trinity acted in Christ to restore those of us who were lost and broken. He quotes extensively from the novel and praises Young for the way he depicts the Spirit and the way the Godhead relates to one another. In part three Kruger expounds on ‘Papa’s Dream’–namely, our full inclusion and participation in the life of the Trinity.
Those who are critical of The Shack will likely also be critical of this book. Kruger adds some theological meat to Young’s story but he does not allay every concern. I am a sympathetic reader of The Shack but I don’t agree with every emphasis I read in Young’s prose. My biggest problem with The Shack is Young’s anti-institutional/anti-church bent (he can’t help it, he’s a Boomer). This is somewhat softened in Young’s follow up novel, Cross Roads ,
but it remains a concern for me. Kruger doesn’t make much mention of this aspect of the novel. Other’s will be bothered by Kruger’s and Young’s inclusivism. For both these authors, every person no matter how twisted and broken, somehow participates in the divine life of the Trinity and are ultimate recipients of Jesus’ saving work on the cross. With all the hoopla these days about universalism, this will remain a sticking point for many readers.
For my part, I enjoyed this book but found it slow reading. Kruger uses the story of the Shack as a springboard for theological reflection. That means he swings between describing pieces of the story and the characters, quotations and his own theological musings. This book made me want to read another book by Kruger and perhaps The Shack again, although it may be a while be for I revisit these pages. I give it 3 stars.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.