Episode 90: Life After Postmillennialism (An Interview with Jon Speed)

To the Ruled Church Podcast.

This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased. He is honored, and I get the glory. And by the way, it's even better, because you see that building in Perryville, Arkansas? You see that one in Pechote, Mexico?

Do you see that one in Tuxla, Guterres, down there in Chiapas? That building has my son's name on it.

The church is not a democracy, it's a monarchy. Christ is king.

You can't be Christian without a local church.

You can't do anything better than to bend your knee and bow your heart, turn from your sin and repentance, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and join up with a good Bible-believing church, and spend your life serving Jesus in a local, visible congregation.

Last week on the Ruled Church Podcast, we had a pretty distinguished guest with Dr. Sam Waldron. Now we're even upping that. We're going even higher than Dr. Sam Waldron with these brothers, Jonathan Murdock and Jon Speed.

How are you guys doing today?

Dude, you were scraping the bottom of the barrel this morning.

I think he's under a piece of barrel.

Underneath it, yeah. We're the dirt on the bottom of it, like on the outside of the bottom.

Jon, you run in circles at like, I'm like, hey, do you know Jon Speed? And people are like, oh, I know Jon Speed. And I'm like, that's crazy. How do you know so many people?

I've done a lot of different stuff. So I got started in ministry, well, after I got saved. Pastoring a church, got saved, that helps a lot when you get saved and you're pastoring. I got involved in street evangelism, I ended up doing a lot of work with Living Waters Great Comforts Ministry.

And so I helped out with their evangelism boot camps and stuff. So I got to just know a lot of people face-to-face that way. And then through the abolition side of things, babies are murdered here, babies are still murdered here and all that, done with that.

Then I got to know a bunch of people that way. And so I've been in ministry now for 32 years. And some of it is just longevity.

He posted a little post-it note on a door one time that gets fame.

Oh yeah, that too, I forgot about that. Yeah, we shut our bookstore down for a day back in 2019 to protest New York State's Reproductive Health Act. That went viral and ended up on Fox and Friends and Hannity and Glenn Beck and all that.

So yeah, that's it, yeah.

That would do it too.

Well, we're without our normal co-host, Eddie Ragsdale, miss him. I'm Allen Nelson, one of the pastors at Providence Baptist Church in Perryville, Arkansas. You heard a little bit about John Speed. I guess if you're a longtime listener of the podcast, you remember Jonathan Murdoch.

He's been on a few different times. This may be like your fourth or fifth time, Jonathan, but Jonathan is one of the pastors at Trinity Baptist Church in Port Arthur, Texas. And we've been talking the last few weeks.

This is not like turning into an eschatology podcast, but that's kind of been the theme. And so we've walked through some different things about eschatology. And what I wanted to do today is really just have a conversation with these brothers and talk, focus on John.

And John, I'll kind of turn over to you in just a second, but focus on John. You're kind of moving away or, I mean, you wouldn't call yourself all male at this point, but you're kind of moving away from post male.

Is that a fair description?

Yeah, that's very accurate.

And Jonathan, anything I should have asked you, anything you want to jump in here at the beginning?

So, John, a question that I have is just for clarity, I mean, people are going to probably react to this and say, you know, all kinds of accusations, whatever, you know, that's what they normally do. You know, like if you question a camp or whatever.

So you're in a transition period, maybe revisiting some things that you looked at years ago, coming out of not only post-millennialism, but Reconstruction theonomy, right?

And I wouldn't say I'm completely coming, I never really was a full-blown Reconstructionist, but I still would not have issues with theonomy.

So let me just pause, I should have told you guys this before the show. So we really, so I know that there's some members of Eddie's church that listen, there's some members of my church that listen, and there's some kind of a wide variety of people that listen, so can we, as we begin here, can we just throw out, because we throw out theonomy, Reconstructionist, I'm just nervous, some people are like, whoa, you've lost me, what in the world are you talking about?

So one of your brothers, you guys want to just jump in, just give like the basic lay level definitions of what we're talking about with Reconstructionism, theonomy.

Well, I would just say theonomy, I mean, literally it just breaks down the law of God. So when you're talking about man's law, the way that I look at it, it might not, and this is why I may not really be a Reconstructionist per se, is that when we're advising lawmakers as to laws that they're writing, we refer to the law of God as a standard, and say, you need to consider what God's law says about these things.

And that's, you know, and I think pretty much every theominist holds to general equity, that and what that means is, you can take the principles of the law, not necessarily the letter of the law, but the principles of the law and apply those principles to whatever situation you're dealing with.

You see the Apostle Paul do that when he's talks about paying ministers, paying pastors, elders, paying them because it's, you don't, you, you.

No, Mosley and Ox, yeah.

Don't Mosley and Ox, right? And so this doesn't have to do with Ox. Like he says, it doesn't have to do with Ox, and, you know, he's applying it there in a general sense,.

Not specifically.

And so like, that's pretty much what I see being a reasonable approach to how, why we have all scriptures given by inspiration is profitable. What purpose does the law of God have in regards to civil law?

It has a good advisory role to, the government is supposed to be bearing the sword against the evildoer. And so from Romans 13, so I think that's, they have to know the difference between good and evil, and the law of God defines that.

So when it comes to theonomy, I do hold to that view of it. Reconstruction goes a bit further, a bit further. It goes a lot further. And I mean, like, they're expecting, I think, to have a complete and total law of God situation within the culture.

And maybe that's where my postmill starts breaking down anyway. Like, I don't know that we're ever gonna see that. And it almost, to me, the way I've been thinking about it is, it's almost like post-millennial cosplay or something.

Like when we talk about, or fan fiction or something, when we think like that, it's just not a reality, I don't think. But that's sort of

So what is

It's kind of interesting on the general equity theonomy. Tom Hicks is doing some really great stuff. He's actually about to come out with a book with Sam Waldron on theonomy and defining general equity.

And he makes the point, a lot of people define general equity wrongly, like in the Second Lenten Baptist Confession when it says only the general equity, right? And he makes the point, what their intent there was, was the standard of general equity would be the Ten Commandments.

And so you take, don't muzzle an ox. We take that and apply that, as Paul does, because you're not to steal from the one who labors in the text. And so this filter for the general equity would be the moral law.

It's interesting, he has some really great stuff on that. I don't wanna occupy that, but that's exactly kind of what you were saying, is that the reconstruction side is gonna say, no, you have an ox, don't muzzle it.

Yeah, some of them. Although I do think, like you read Bonson, Theonomy and Christian Ethics, and I guess he would be considered a reconstructionist, but he's pretty heavy on that view on general equity.

And so, yeah, I don't know. I mean, I just know, the thing that I know just reading the old reconstructionists and stuff, they had a much more, maybe aggressive slash expectancy or something that we were gonna get, like everything.

And that does tie in with post-militantism.

Well, I'm just gonna make one more connection just as we're walking through, just kind of beginning people's listening, some people trying to wrap their minds around this. So what is the connection between this and if you wanna call it the resurgence of Christian nationalism or even just the beginning, like what's the connection between these things?

From my view, from where I'm sitting, like even though I'm open to Theonomy or I hold to Theonomy and I still like the post-millennial view of the kingdom, I don't see the Christian nationalism thing as directly related.

And I know that there is a relation because there's guys in that world, the post-millennial reconstruction slash Theonomy world that like the Christian nationalism stuff. The stuff that you hear from Christian nationalism isn't really much based completely on the law of God, right?

Not rightly applied for sure. Not with that sort of filter that Jonathan was talking about. And so like a lot of their stuff that's just, I just say, it's just nationalism.

Yeah.

It's like Christless conservative. A lot of it is Christless conservatism. Now they'll use, they'll talk about Christ, they'll talk about Christian things, but I think when you get down to the meat of what they're saying, there's no Christ in that.

Some of the stuff that they're saying is just so off the charts that I've never saw myself as a Christian nationalist, even though I hold to Theonomy. So maybe I'm an oddball, I don't know.

Yeah, well, you know, you are the oddball for sure. No, no, we're just kind of trying to lay out some definitions as we kind of get into this. I'm just trying, I'm trying to be pastoral here. I'm thinking about people listening to this that they're not on Twitter.

They're not on, they don't even know if you said Stephen Wolf, they don't know that name. If you, you know, even if you said Doug Wilson, they don't know that name, you know? So they're just, you know, kind of in the dark and we're trying to walk through and try to help.

And like I said, and this would be like two episodes ago, but I do wish, and I hope I can model this, I do want to see more charitable discussions in these things. I think these things matter. I think they actually really matter and they really affect the way that we view the church and like you even have talked about the kingdom.

So these are very important, but we should be able to sit down as brothers. So that's why I'm really grateful that you're on here with us, John. I think maybe I cut you off, Jonathan. Was there something that you were gonna say there?

No, no. Just maybe. The question, what would you say like as you're reconsidering all this, like what was it that caused you to start reconsidering?

Yeah.

I've always had issues with sort of the problem passages that honestly post-millennialism has. So some of them are very simple concepts. You've brought it up before, I think. It's either me or maybe it was Cody and Cody told me about it.

But like the idea that, you know, Jesus says very clearly broad is the way that leads to destruction. Many go down that road. Narrow is the way that leads to light. A few, is that true or not? You know, like, and so there's that.

And then for me, the book of Revelation has not made much sense to me. Other than the early chapters, I would say, I could say, okay, at 70 AD, Jerusalem was destroyed. You can make the argument that Revelation is talking about that.

And, but the further I get into it, the book of Revelation, I don't, I'm not seeing that. And I'm not, I wasn't satisfied. I'll say it that way. I wasn't satisfied with that interpretation. Now, some people are, this is where some people are gonna say, well, you haven't, you read Gentry's commentary yet.

Well, no, I don't have it yet. It's in the, it's actually, we just found out it's in the mail. So I'm gonna be looking at it. But I read what, I'm reading William Hendrickson's book on Revelation. And that makes more sense to me in the sense that he's looking at it like you've got these cycles through the book of Revelation that are going through like the church advance and then persecution and judgment, right?

And so you've got that cycle going and just repeating through the book. What do you see in 2000 years of church history? You see in various places, the church advance, the post-millennialists in those places go nuts.

It's about, Jonathan Edwards went a little bit crazy when he heard about a bunch of Jewish people coming to Christ during his lifetime.

Even Ian Murray wrote a book called The Puritan Hope that talks about the advancement, but he doesn't deal with the destruction of the advancement.

Right, right. And so how do they have the advances? Well, they often had them through persecution. And that's what you see in Revelation. And so I'm seeing that cycle and I see it in church history. I seen it in my life.

You get to a place where you get old enough, you've lived through some things, you see these periods and I am very attracted to that. So that's been the main thing. And I do think, look what Jesus says.

He says, if any man comes after me, let him take up his cross and come follow me. That means be willing to die. That's the gold standard, right? That's like what saving faith looks like when it's played out in your life.

You're willing to die. Why is that necessary? Why was that so important for Jesus to say that if it wasn't necessary, right? That the way it's gonna be for the church is you're gonna have to lay it on your life.

And I think a lot of this stuff that's being, whether it's Christian nationalism or you wanna put it like a neo post-millennial label, they're not talking like that. They're not talking about sacrifice.

They're not talking about laying your life down. They're talking about advancements that they expect right now in their life now that totally flies in the face of sacrifice.

Well, it's even worse than that. Just correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not only hearing not talking about sacrifice, but I'm hearing if you do sacrifice, you're a pietist and you're, you know, that's what I'm hearing.

The warning that they're giving to these young men, and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't have to make a sacrifice for missions because you need whatever you're gonna sacrifice, right?

So you don't have to make a sacrifice to send money to a guy in Latin America because you might need new tires for your car. I mean, that's what they're telling these guys.

Yeah, so the problem is, and this opened up a can of worms, and I don't even know your guys' position on this, but the problem is a book like Radical comes out, and that's like 15 years ago now or something, and it has its problems.

And obviously I don't mind publicly saying, I hope David Platt will never listen to this, but I hope if he does that he would repent and come back. He's gone in a very dangerous and terrible direction, but the problem is looking at his life now and then look at some of the problems in the book and then just completely throwing away everything about that when actually there's some helpful, I think, exhortations to the church for the advancement of the kingdom, you know?

It's kind of funny, in our church here there's a discussion of Radical. I was living in Mexico in the ghetto of Mexico City. I just had over $15 ,000 stolen from me. All I had to live on had 50 pesos and was basically being supported minimally.

I was living very minimally. I had to make some sacrifices to live there when I read Radical. And I really enjoyed Radical. And some guys at the church were like, yeah, because you were the example. It was easy for you to like it because you were what he was talking about, right?

But I enjoyed aspects of Radical because I felt like this is what we're called to. Like John said, take up your cross and follow me. But now you mentioned Radical and it's like, that was pietistic living.

And I'm like, you're right. And we're trying to be pietists, right?

I heard a guy, or I've seen a few posts where people say, it's the most damaging book ever written or something like that. And I'm like, God, like that's hyperbole. Yes, it's got some issues, of course, but

More so than Good Morning Holy Spirit by Benny Hinn or whatever it is, you know?

Or their Late Great Planet Earth or whatever, you know? So anyway, I kind of cut you off there getting some clarification, but go on, John, sorry.

No, I don't remember what it was again.

Where were we at?

Yeah, yeah. Well, you used a phrase, and I've used this phrase too, but you used a phrase, neo-post-meal, you know? And I'm not trying to be pejorative. I'm not trying to like punch people with that, but I'm trying to give a distinction that I think is warranted.

So you wanna talk about that?

Sure, like if, it's true, if you look at most of the Puritans, not all of them, but most of the Puritans were post-millennial. And a lot of the guys that were founders of the missionary movement were as well.

And so there was a post-millennialism that, obviously, in the early missionary movement, I mean, those guys were sacrificing, right? I mean, they were laying their lives down, watching their kids and their wives die on a mission field, and the Puritans lost everything, in the great ejection or whatever they call it.

And so all of that does not come to bear on what the new version of post-millennialism seems to be, the popular. And I mean, there are people that are still like that. There are post-millennial people that are very godly people, and they're pursuing godliness, and they're pursuing the word.

But there's a thing now that's really more carnal that is focusing on trying to advance now. They talk like they're doing the long-term game, but everything that they talk about in the long-term game means that they have to have success now, and no sacrifice now, as Jonathan was getting at.

And so I don't know how... I mean, I'll just say it, and I say it carefully, because I do have friends in that world. But I do think a lot of what's coming out of Moscow is that way. At least that's the PR, that's the marketing on what they're doing in Moscow, is that we're having these great advances physically.

We've bought this percentage of the town or whatever, and we've got this many people here and all these things that we're building in Moscow. But I think, and I'm using that just as an example to say that that's kind of what I'm talking about with neo-post-mill.

And it wouldn't just be limited to that, but that kind of mindset, I guess, is what I mean.

One of the things that I think is very interesting is I read a book this past year, The Puritan Millennium by Crawford Gribben. I don't know if there's a more scholarly guy doing work on millennialism right now than Crawford Gribben.

You read one of his books, and over half the book is his sightings, just the notes that he writes. But he wrote one called The Puritan Millennium. And what he does is he examines the idea were the Puritans post-millennial?

And he talks about how they reached the height of society where they were post-millennial, and then they just saw it all be taken away. Like you said, they lost everything. You know, you look at the Covenanters.

They signed this church covenant, and they're all, take up our swords and this and that, and then they start fleeing to the United States and escaping for their life because they lost their farms and everything.

And he just re-examines some of the writings at the end of their lives. And he cautions in the book, and he says, it's maybe dangerous to say these guys were this. And one of the examples that he gives is John Bunyan in Holy War.

And the book Holy War is John Bunyan in trying to work out his millennialism. And he really brings that out. And so I think some of these guys, the newer guys, they're like, well, I'm in the step with the Puritans, but they're really not.

And I think that's what you're trying to bring out. It's like, I'm acting like the Puritans. Well, you're actually not. I mean, you're not.

Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

Go ahead.

No, no, go ahead.

I mean, you're right. It's, you can't imagine some of these guys doing some of the things, like, you know, the Puritans doing some of the things that are being done right now. They never advocated for it.

You know, they were very much, you would call them pietists. And they would be called pietists today, even though they held on to a post-millennial view.

Why they were called Puritans, am I correct?

What's that?

That's why they were called Puritans.

Yeah, they're purifying the church.

I mean, there was a derogatory term then.

Yeah, yeah, right, right, right. And so it's, now it's become a, it's ironic, isn't it? I mean, now the worst thing to be called on social media at the moment is a pietist who's in the, what do they say, a death spiral, a purity spiral.

You know, I would like to see some of these guys care about purity and, you know, care about sacrifice and live the lives that the people are claiming as forerunners, you know. And that's another thing, honestly.

I mean, as far as the neo-post-millennialism, that really is the thing that kind of got my attention, like woke me up. Like, whoa, like this isn't, where's, what happened here to holiness? When did that not matter anymore?

You know, and it becomes dangerous because, it becomes dangerous in your own thinking because if you start to swallow this stuff and you start heading down that road, you start making justifications for things that you would never justify before that.

You know what I'm saying? And, you know, we talk a lot in abolition about incrementalism and how that's bad in legislation. How about incremental steps away from the truth of the gospel and away from purity, you know, and sanctification?

You know, what do you say about sanctification if purity is a death spiral, right?

Just to be clear, you just said you're woke.

Yeah, that's as woke as I get, bro.

Well, so here's, so I wanna say, I was like, so here's charitable. So a few weeks ago, I said that what I appreciate about the dispensational camp, like I'm talking about like John McArthur, those, not the crazy, not John Hagee or whatever, but like what I appreciate about that camp is they really want to, at the best of the best, they want to take seriously the Bible, you know?

No one's gonna look at John McArthur and be like, you don't take the Bible seriously. Like he wants to take the Bible seriously. And so I'm appreciative of that. And I'm grateful. I mean, he's wrong on his eschatology, but I'm grateful for that.

So about these guys, I would say this. There is a, I think at the best of the best, there is a righteous frustration with the state of our culture. There is a, it's like our culture today is terrible, you know, and the ungodliness and the wickedness.

And so like the best of the best, I'm saying, and I see this as, push back on this, but I see this primarily as a younger man's game. And so the best of the best, that's what I'm seeing. Okay, you have a righteous frustration at the state of our culture today.

But what I see it turn into, and I think, I know I've talked with Jonathan about this, maybe with you too, John, but I've used the analogy of Rehoboam's friends, you know, like Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, he's going to ascend the throne and the people come to him and they're just like, hey, you know, can you slack up a little bit?

And his young friends are like, I mean, it's not just like, no, but it's like my pinky's thicker than my father's thigh. My father disciplined you with whip, I'll discipline you with scorpions. It was just this arrogant, young refusal to listen to wisdom.

And brothers, I'm saying that a lot in this sort of movie that we're talking about.

To the podcast that the guys in Ogden did about their latest conference, which their latest conference really brought tremendous controversy. I mean, if you go listen to the messages, there's some, I mean, Stephen Wolf really promotes, in my opinion, a hard kinism in that conference and they're defending it big time right now.

But when they talk about the conference, they said, we wanted to have a conference where you're not coming to get biblical conviction. So they state this, we don't want you to be convicted biblically, that is for your church.

We want you to come and be encouraged, to leave encouraged. We don't want the old men to come in and take our zeal. So that's the point of their conference. And I'm sitting there listening like, that's the story of Rehoboam.

Like, old men, look, you can come and sit if you're gonna cheer us on. But if you're gonna come and try to put restraint on us, you just stay at home.

Well, I wanna say this too, cause I know, I'll just be clear. I know people are gonna accuse us of category errors cause I know Stephen Wolf's eschatology is all millennial.

Right.

So I'm just like, we know that, we get it, I understand, but there is kind of an overlap there, especially when you talk about Ogden. Anyway, John, you were gonna say something.

Yeah, and that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. And if you watch what's going on right now, or recently, I guess not right now, a couple of weeks ago, with all the blow up about the Crusades stuff and James White coming out and trying to really get these guys to simmer down a little bit and realize what the Crusades were really about and the attacks that he's taken from the Christian nationalism guys.

And he's said it and other people have said it. I think Andrew Sandlin has said it as well, who's like post, I believe he's post mill. Sandlin has said the same thing. Like you young guys need to learn to listen to older men and don't assume you know everything because you've looked it up on the internet or you saw it on social media.

Like, and there's a blatant disrespect of that. Try to find that in the scripture. I mean, Rehoboam's a great example of it, but read the book of Proverbs. I've said this recently. Read the book of Proverbs.

Do you wanna get wisdom?

Even in this group, you go back and listen to podcasts that they're doing two years ago. And in one podcast, I heard Doug Wilson quoted 15 times. You listen now and they don't mention Wilson. It's because he's called them racist.

You know, Doug Wilson's calling them racist. The same guy who on the, I can't say the word, Sisyphean woman said that if Jesus was speaking to her today he would call her the N word, which we would disagree.

Like that's not what Jesus was doing, but Wilson said that making the point that this is a cultural battle and he's calling these guys racist.

That's something.

That's something. I mean, like you have an issue, right?

Considering the fact, you know, I mean, yeah, considering some of the stuff you said about, I mean, honestly, biblical slavery versus 19th century American slavery is big difference, but he catches a lot of flack for saying that slavery, there's biblical versions of that.

Well, I would agree with that, but like the fact is that to have him saying that is really something. And really something good for him for calling it out.

When Jeff Durbin bounced out of the conference, this happened while we were in Mexico. By the time this podcast comes out, it'll be like a month ago. But yeah, and it's just a big dust up and a big, like, what I see is like all these young men just completely rejecting anything from the wisdom from the older guys.

And I think like that should be a pause for anybody. Like if you happen to be in that camp, like that should be a serious pause for you. No one's saying, by the way, later in that narrative, you have the old prophet.

You remember the young prophet goes and calls out King Jeroboam in Israel and the old prophet comes and what does he do? He gives him bad advice and he listens to the old prophet and it cost him his life.

So no one's saying like old automatically equals right. That's not what we're saying. But there is a difference, isn't there, between just the decorum, the demeanor, I should say, of how you interact with these brothers who've been there, who've done the battles.

It's very much like our culture. So like people my age and younger, I'm 38, people my age and younger, there's a sense of entitlement. Okay, so you spend all this time working and now you get a company truck.

I just started, I want a company truck today. And you're like, wait a second, but this spills over into our theology camps as well. Hey, so another thing I was gonna ask you, so earlier you talked about you like the post-millennial view of the kingdom.

Am I quoting that right?

Yeah.

That's kind of what I want to get to as well. Like let's flesh this kingdom.

Yeah, so would you?

I think that's where the real problem lies. You know, my pushback against these guys has been on their definition of the kingdom. John, what do you like about the post-millennial view of the kingdom?

Well, if I'm reading the texts on the kingdom, they have, they're pretty clearly stating that Christ has dominion over all of it, everything, including nations. And I'm talking, you know, back in the book of Daniel, I think it's chapter seven, the ancient of days gives to the son of man all the kingdoms of the world.

So when we were talking earlier, Isaiah nine, six and seven, how does that kingdom advance? It advances in increments, slowly across time, but it advances. And that's, you know, Psalm chapter two, Christ's dominion over everything is evident in many of these texts.

And so, and just about all of them. And so that's what I like in terms of, because that's what the texts say. The thing I say to my Presbyterian brothers is if I can't exegete it, I don't believe it. And so that when I exegete the text related to the kingdom, I just can't see another way of interpreting that.

I do know the interpretations, but I can't make it line up consistently with what I think is a solid hermeneutic to make it out to be anything else. And so that's pretty much where I'm at.

There's certainly a lot of that that I'm in agreement with. I'm thinking about Ephesians one, we talked about this. So we're doing an eschatology class on Wednesday nights, and we talked about verse 21 of one that Jesus seated far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and above every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come.

And he put all things under his feet and gave him his head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who feels all in all. So Christ is king and Christ is king now. And just like we're not waiting on him to be head of the church, we're not waiting on him to be king.

He is king. All things are under his feet. But where I would disagree maybe is like the kingdom recognized, like I see a difference between the authority of Christ over everything, and then where that authority is, I'll say recognized and rejoiced in.

And that's in the church. But Jonathan, you're good. Yeah, go ahead.

Let me finish this.

Oh yeah, yeah, go ahead, brother.

I wanna make sure I say this, is that I recognize as well that where it's recognized is in the church. And I would agree with that, but I do think you will see, and I think this actually squares with what I'm saying about millennialism and revelation, right?

So you have these periods where in various nations, and you've had it in church history, or you've had it in England for a period under Cromwell, right? You had it in Scotland for a period, where you had the actual lived out expression of Christ's authority in that place, in those different places.

So that's where you see it. Every now and then you'll see it manifested over actual nations. But where it is, right? The church isn't, I always had this distinction, and I'm not sure where it comes from, but the church is not the whole sum of the kingdom, but it is sort of the, what's the word?