1. With all of the attention already given to the subject of the End Times, why do you feel it was important to write your book?

Craig Hill: A lot of books are written on this topic, but most fall into one of two equal-but-opposite errors, which I refer to as "uncritical infatuation" and "overhasty divorce." In the first instance, biblical teachings about the future are embraced without much thought being given to their particular historical context, original meaning, and so on. Such books might theorize at length about the interpretation of Revelation, but they almost never address the fact that it is only one of a number of ancient apocalypses, some of which predate it by centuries. Other inconvenient problems are also overlooked, such as the fact that the author of Revelation, like many other New Testament writers, expected Christ to return in his lifetime. Coming to terms with the Bible requires facing such difficulties squarely. Last Days books that do so are few and far between.

The opposite mistake is to focus only on the problems and conclude that "eschatology" — that is, belief in God's triumph over evil — is an antiquated and disposable relic of our primitive past, an uncouth relative who should have been shown the door long ago. This is the view taken by a number of popular Jesus books, whose authors would rescue Jesus from the supposed barbarity of both Jewish and Christian eschatology.

I wrote In God's Time to define and defend the broad middle ground between these extremes, to show that it is possible to take the difficulties seriously without jettisoning the core of Christian hope.

2. September 11th is now such a significant date for all of us. Do you see your book as a response to our changed situation?

Craig Hill: All but a tiny fraction of the book was written before 9/11/01, so, obviously, it is not a direct response to that terrible day or its legacy. Still, the book offers resources for thinking about such matters and, especially, for evaluating the claims of those who see in September 11th a sign of God's judgment and/or a portent of the world's end.

There is a strain of apocalyptic thinking in which all bad news is good news. Time magazine recently reported the comments of a man who said that he was joyful when he learned of the terrorist attacks, which he took to be a sign of the nearness of Christ's return. That is a most unhelpful and unhealthy way of thinking.

3. Why are people so interested in the End Times?

Craig Hill: I am sure there are many reasons, both good and bad. For some, it is a matter of intellectual curiosity, for others, the expression of a sincere desire to understand the Scriptures. Of course, these mysterious texts possess an allure not shared by the law codes of Leviticus or the admonitions of James. Who does not want to be in on a secret, especially a really big secret? Also, books on this subject help people to make sense of a chaotic world that seems bent on self-destruction. Whether they do so constructively is another matter.

I would guess that the proliferation of self-described "prophecy scholars" in recent decades is related in part to the increased use of mass media, especially television, by popular Christian preachers. In such an environment, there is tremendous pressure to have something new and interesting to say, and it is a simple fact that last days preaching sells. In Protestantism particularly, with its emphasis on the Word of God, the possession of esoteric scriptural knowledge is the straightest route to status and authority. Give a talk on "Armageddon and the Internet," and you will surely find an audience. I am not saying that such preachers make this calculation consciously, but I would be surprised if it did not enter into their thinking at some point. As I wrote in the book, "profounder than thou" competition is very real in Christian circles.

4. Is it wise for people to be getting their ideas of the End Times solely from Left Behind?

Craig Hill: First and foremost, the Left Behind books are novels, and much of their popularity is attributable to the storytelling ability of Jerry Jenkins. Obviously, a great many people find them enjoyable. As an account of the Bible's teaching about the future, however, they are seriously flawed. The books reflect a school of biblical interpretation called "premillennial dispensationalism," which, despite its claims to the contrary, offers anything but a literal reading of Scripture. For example, it is simply not the case that the biblical authors anticipated two returns of Christ, the first secret and the second public.

Practically, the problem with this type of apocalyptic speculation is its tendency to encourage disengagement from the world and its problems. On a deep as well as a surface level, the Left Behind novels are escapist literature. If believers are about to be taken from the earth, there is little incentive for them to shoulder the heavy load of social and political responsibility. Added to this is the deep pessimism inherent in premillennial dispensationalism. The world's problems are only going to get worse, so there is no point in trying to solve them. That was the perspective of John Nelson Darby, the movement's founder, back in the 1830s. We should be grateful for those Christians who ignored Darby and got on with the business of fighting slavery, child labor, and so on. Darby's twenty-first century followers would do well to recognize that they are no more convinced of the nearness of the end than were Darby's first disciples some 170 years ago.

Finally, Left Behind and equivalent books contribute to a mind-set that sees the devil lurking behind every institution and headline. The United Nations, the Roman Catholic Church, the World Council of Churches, NATO, the European Economic Community, etc., etc., are all thought to be part of The Great Conspiracy. This is an easy way of demonizing the groups with which one disagrees. Such a perspective is especially dangerous when held by those who wield formidable political power.

5. A number of people think that Revelation is a blueprint for the Apocalypse. Is it?

Craig Hill: In a word, no. Let me say that I fully understand how that answer will sound in the ears of many Christians. Twenty-five years ago, I was on the other side of this same conversation. I assumed that those who denied the "Revelation as End Times Roadmap" viewpoint were simply unbelievers who did not want the book to be true. I was wrong.

At that time, I knew almost nothing about Revelation's historical and cultural context. After studying the apocalyptic literature of early Judaism, I came to realize that there is little in Revelation that was not already present in some form for generations. In other words, I could no longer assess Revelation independent of my assessment of books like 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, which so obviously have a particular historical location and purpose. Moreover, I had to face the fact that these materials themselves borrowed heavily from non-Jewish sources.

As you would expect, I deal with this issue at some length in the book. A very short answer is that Revelation, like all apocalyptic literature, gives us a theological perspective on human destiny, much as Genesis 1–3 provides theological reflection on human and cosmic origins. Both accounts can be true theologically without being accurate historically. As I said, the author of Revelation stated repeatedly his expectation that Christ was about to return. Things did not happen as he expected, but that does not mean that his hopes were fundamentally misplaced.

This last point needs to be emphasized. I am by no means advocating the abandonment of eschatology. I am saying however that the hopes and dreams of the biblical authors were conditioned by and stated in terms of the symbols and concepts available to them. I am a Christian, and I think that Christianity is irreducibly eschatological in character, but that does not mean that I have to believe literally that stars will fall from the sky (Mark 13:25). Neither should I be required to force the biblical writings into an artificial and inauthentic synthesis. The simple fact is that different authors in different times and places had different ideas about the future. That is no great surprise and should pose no great problem.

6. It is often said that the seemingly endless fighting in the Middle East points clearly to the imminent end of the world. Where does this thinking come from?

Craig Hill: These ancient apocalypses were written by Jews or Jewish Christians, so it is understandable that the fate of Israel was a central concern. It is a common feature of such literature to imagine a climactic battle during which Israel's enemies would be defeated. For this reason, it is tempting to think that any military conflict involving Israel might signal the beginning of "the big one." This has been true for a very long time, going back at least to the time of the Maccabean Revolt in the second century before Christ.

The euphoria in some Christian circles over the rebirth of the nation of Israel in 1948 is related to this expectation. It is also based on the fact that Daniel's "Desolating Sacrilege" seems to require a Jerusalem temple and hence a Jewish state. When I was in high school, my friends and I were all convinced by Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth that the return of Christ must occur by the year 1988, that is, within a "biblical generation" of the re-founding of Israel. More recently, Tim LaHaye has argued for a 2000–2025 window. Such date fixing has been going on for centuries, and yet we seem none the wiser. Again, the deeper problem with this line of interpretation is its failure to take sufficient account of the original situation and purpose of Daniel, Revelation, and other apocalyptic texts.

7. Many church leaders have read and praised your book. How do you think it contributes to the life of the church?

Craig Hill: I wrote the book with the intention of helping the church, which is awash in misinformation on this subject. Clearly, In God's Time serves both a negative and a positive function. Negatively, it seeks to correct distorted teaching coming from both ends of the spectrum. Positively, it seeks to demonstrate what eschatology means and why it matters to contemporary Christian faith. A great many people find this whole issue baffling or off-putting. The book is written especially for that audience. I hope that it will help them to come to terms with this challenging but essential aspect of Christian belief.

Naturally, I have been gratified by the support the book has received from church leaders and scholars. Above all, it tells me that my concerns are shared by many others, which is encouraging.

8. To conclude on a personal note, what are your interests other than theology?

Craig Hill: My family, first of all. Time with them is the most valued. Beyond that, I like building or fixing almost anything. I enjoy tinkering with electronics, and I am something of a computer nerd. I am also a potter and an audiophile of sorts. I enjoy scuba diving and gliding, although I haven't done either in years. (Now that I think of it, my wife had something to say about that at the time of her first pregnancy.) I am keenly interested in both art and history, which explains my love for antique prints and books. I also maintain an interest in the sciences generally, although at a strictly amateur level. Last but not least, I like to write.