eschatological malaise

I could very easily be one of those eschatology-obsessed guys. You know the ones who carry around Bible's stuffed with charts and graphs, and no wayyyy too much about numbers and what they mean. But I won't let myself go off the deep end on it. So I limit myself to 2 books a year on the subject (well, I limit my reading to 2, I have been known to buy more than I will let myself read).

So, this week I'm looking for an "easy" theological book to read (i.e., nothing by a Puritan, nothing that will require a lot of dictionary-time, etc.), and I see William Cox's little tome, Amillennialism Today, with a-mill being fresh on my mind after a certain apologist came out of the closet on his position last week. So, tolle lege.

I'm about 2/3 done with it. All in all not a bad book, some iffy shots at postmills, some well deserved shots at premill dispies. But ugh, it has got to be the dullest book on eschatology I've ever read. Which isn't necessarily bad, I'm not suggesting that we base our eschatological position on which view is sexiest. But . . . .man! If you're trying to convince a hostile audience (as Cox clearly thought he was)....liven things up!

At this point, I will say that the part of me that cut my eschatology-teeth on Wilson/DeMar/VanDeventer/Gentry wants to suggest that there might be a correlation between Cox's position and his humdrum book. But, thankfully, I'm sanctified enough not to stoop to that level. :)