A book written about a book - it seems to be kind of redundant doesn't it? On the other hand: some books deserve this kind of analysis. Whether they are literary classis, or works with a rich symbolism that can do with being unpacked, especially if this symbolism has come under attack from people who suggest it's unbiblical, as is the case with The Shack. The Shack is no literary classic, it's no Les Miserables, but it is a book that presents in the form of a story an new look at God in his trinitarian nature, Father, Son and Spirit, whose relationships with each other are defined by reckless abandon, respect and unconditional love, and who'se goal with us, his creatures, is to invite us in this life-giving reality, so that in experiencing his love, we will become truly ourselves, our real selves, and love each other like He has loved us. This is the dance of the trinity, or perichoresis, that the church fathers knew, but that we rarely talk about in our churches. Reading The Shack I was nodding because of the succinct way Paul Young words conclusions I can only put in very long sentences and essays, and touched by the love he imbues the image of God with - a God who is 'especially fond' of me. This is the God I encounter when I pray, when I listen, when I look with the eyes of my heart. This is the God that I see reading about Jesus embracing lepers. But it's not the God I hear about in church. THis leads to a disconnect. And then this book is attacked by many on the interent for being unbiblical. Well, I cant say that the image of God the detractors put forward is very enticing to me. I mean, if a human being would be able to make up an image of God that is better and more loving than the real one, it would be a sad, little God we believe in, wouldn't it? No, it must be that God the Father, Son and Spirit are even better than we can imagine. If the good news seems to be too good to be true, it's a sign that you are at least thinking in the right direction (as Greg Boyd is wont to say). I for one recognize in The Shack the trinity in the way I have come to know them, based on the bible and the life of Jesus. So I am happy there is a book that makes these same points in theological language too (complete with bible passages and footnotes), for that is a way of speaking that the detractors may be able to understand and let themselves be challenged by. And I was challenged myself too, for this book is not merely restating what The Shack stated, it is adding to it, pulling thoughts from the bible and theologians in its framework and painting a beautiful picture of the Trinity and the way our lives are teken up in theirs, and changed by our adoption in their community. I was touched reading it, which is Always a good sign. Baxter Kruger uses great quotations (he seems to be a fan of George MacDonald and I can appreciate that. I am touched by MacDonalds images and insights as well), and he also used great personal stories. Like with Paul Young, to Kruger this theology is no impersonal intellectual game, but life changing reality, tangible beauty, a larger story that will transform the world, and thus not to talked about dispassionately or clinically. The only thing that I found distracting was how often Kruger would point to his own earlier writings. I get that he has expanded on some thoughts in those, but it did come over a little selfaggrandizing (not intended, and his writings are great, and self promotion is not inherently wrong, but it rubbed me the wrong way.) In conclusion, I can heartily recommend this volume for people who read the Shack (even people who haven't read it yet) and who would delve a little deeper in the underlying experiental trinitarian theology.