Words'nTone

In 1976, I had graduated high school and had been dating a New Hampshire girl from a very politically active family who held fundraisers and campaign events for Jimmy Carter. As a child who not only grew-up in a republican family but even before I could vote was doing cold calling for Richard Nixon, I was very much out of place—enrolled in progressively liberal private school, dating a progressively liberal girl from a family overtly and actively supporting Jimmy Carter.  But come November ’76, I am proud to say I lost my first presidential election—I voted for Ford. Hind sight tells me I did the right thing.

Today, it might not be Carter-Reagan all over again, but it’s sure close—maybe worse. I wanted to vote for Romney in 2008; lost my chance to John McCain. I was, then, hoping for a Hillary contest—I would have voted for Hillary over McCain without hesitation. For sure, I lean right politically. But in the end it’s not about abortion, gay-marriage, religion, protecting my Christianity, or even healthcare: it’s about whose policies and worldview will support an economically strong business world, for without that prosperity there will be more poor and less means to provide support and paths to their own self-sufficiency.

For the last 17 years I have worked in the social action community that, everyday—in grants, in speeches, in all forms of rhetoric, in strategic plans, and with catchy slogans—said we exist to help people be less dependent on government and to move toward self-sufficiency. This present administration and its policies has undermined this stated purpose; has created a business environment that undercuts expansion and thus discretionary funds; has indebted us even more to servitude to foreign powers and threatens future generation of Americans, especially the poor and middle class; and has made a “new normal,” well normal, which is inexcusable and unacceptable. Like evolutionists who keep throwing more time and more universes (by faith) into history so their lame theory will look like it works, liberally progressive social engineering politicians think throwing money at our cultural and social problems will alleviate poverty. This is a fallacy. We need a more experienced and capable person to move our economic “new normal” forward to unleash the creative potential for business and employment to expand. Simple as that. This current administration has failed—and failed before it started in January 2009—for it did not have practice or experience or knowledge in this vital area. I am hoping at the end of this day, November 6, 2012, we’ll have a new Day One and a new administration that can erase the “new normal” and put us on the path needed to move as many as possible to less dependence on government and toward more self-sufficiency.

A President Romney can do just that.

I know the exact moment Romney lost the 2008 primary race for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. Of course many a pundit, political backseat driver, and armchair political junkies like me think we know why a politician succeeds or fails. So I must be careful here: I certainly do not know more or better than all the James Carvilles and Mary Matalins in the political consulting business. But I’d like to give it a shot, nonetheless, and offer some insight and advice that might very well help Governor Romney as he begins the steady march to the 2012 nomination, and eventually the race to the Oval office in the Fall.

It was a brief campaign stop in New Hampshire, a small town diner, where Romney demonstrated the problem that will dog him both in 2008 and, now, in 2012. I watched the news clip that evening and thought to myself, that’s why Mitt Romney will lose the nomination—and if he ever does win it, why it will be difficult, almost impossible, to win in a general election. There was a small crowd, patrons at tables and at the counter, Romney was shaking hands and saying a few words about himself, the country, and why he was running for the nomination. The press and cameras recording it all for public consumption as news that evening. Then it happened. A waitress blurted out just loud enough to catch the candidate’s attention, and the cameras as well, “I don’t have health coverage. What are you going to do about that?” To be honest, I didn’t write it down and I might not have the words just right, but this is close. Yet, it wasn’t the question—which was a fair one—but how Governor Romney answered the waitress’ concern. It wasn’t the details, or even if it made sense, but he presented his explanation as if they were in a Board room, or amid policy makers, not a diner on main street USA. The cameras were not kind to that moment. Detached. No connection to the waitress and her problem. He would have been better off asking the lady to sit down at one of the tables and just listen to her. Maybe just a word on how we need to work together to find solutions, to put at her disposal everything he knows and has experience at to fix this problem that so many “just like her have.” But mostly empathy, listening. That would have helped.

Our country needs a solution-driven person with management and business acumen. What the country needs to see (because the camera tells the story) is a candidate who cares and is able to connect to the average person—to that waitress.

Watching Mitt Romney make his way through the crowds during this primary season and hearing the press harp on his personality type, I was reminded of that 2008 diner incident. The first thing candidate Romney needs to remember is that the press and, particularly, the lens—the camera—lies, no matter what. Romney needs to take serious William Blake’s lines in The Everlasting Gospel:

       This Life’s dim Windows of the Soul
       Distorts the Heavens from Pole to Pole,
       And leads you to Believe a Lie
       When you see with, not thro the Eye

The camera makes one see with and not through the eye, which compounds the public image issues of political candidates. This needs to be taken into consideration while campaigning in the public eye. The public, through the lens of TV, will see with and not thro the eye, making judgments about the person who seeks to be President of the United States. How Romney appears to his friends and family will not necessarily be how he appears to a TV audience. And with the main street press adding the spin they want on the camera-image, the audience will be lead to always believe a lie. Romney and his handlers need to find a way to tell the truth about the candidate, who he is and what he cares for, in spite of the camera lens.

For example, asking the waitress to join him for a few seconds at one of the diner’s tables to chat, to listen, to take in what a voter thinks of everyday life. Such an image wouldn’t subtract from the fact of Romney’s management and business intelligence. It would have added the appearance that he knows how to listen and care about how people are affected by Board room type decisions in life outside the Board room.

Furthermore, the typical voter is not a member of a high powered, corporate board. On the stump, with the cameras rolling, they should not be treated as such. They are waitresses, waiters, cashiers, and people who are not given to long, strategic thinking and debate, but simply want to wake up, take on the struggles of the day, and do better than the day before. The lens of the camera can be harnessed to show that Romney understands this about people.

Purposely setting up diner moments would look phony. But there will be plenty of diner moments, and Romney, like preparing for the Board room, needs to practice how to answer the next waitress who just wants to know tomorrow will be better. How he will fix something that goes wrong for her. For good or for ill, today the windows of the soul are informed by the lens of a camera, something a wise candidate will not take for granted while on the stump—always in the eye of the camera.

Advocacy for others is to speak on their behalf and for their interests, and sometimes at the expense of one’s own self-interests. Discipleship that advocates for the interests of the poor rather than its own sustainability is a faithful application of the widow vs. duplicitous scribes story in Mark 12. A deliberate decision to take its discipleship into the public square can guard against the perils of self-interest that seeks to protect its own established authorities and status quo of the “religious system” stakeholders.

The church’s public voice must promote the interests of more than its own membership for it to actually be a public voice.  Today, the debate is no longer over whether religion should be politically relevant. Such relevance is, for the most part, accepted. There is an emerging consensus that religion has a role in critiquing societal patterns, but should engage in advancing positive and adequate alternatives. But, the question is “no longer about relevance but about relevance to what and toward what end.”

Raymond Knighton, in his report on the “Social Responsibility of Evangelization” to the 1974 Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism, alluded to what Colin Morris wrote in Include Me Out, “If the church turns a blind eye to the injustices around it, the world will turn a deaf ear to everything else the church tries to say.” Knighton concluded his report, “Social action is simply obedience to the command of God” and is part of the evangelizing task of the church. Os Guinness, in his report to the same committee on “Social Responsibility,” rebuffed the church’s tendency to concentrate on minor and private issues to the “virtual ignoring of major principles and issues” related to justice, mercy, violence, race, and poverty.  Elsewhere Guinness writes that the “highest American good is more than the struggle over who gets what, when, and how.” Not a bad comment for the church to absorb. Often involvement in politics for the church is limited to issues that threaten its existence or its status quo.

Being convinced that Christ is Lord over every part of life, including the public square, should draw the church outward. However, on the other hand, there is a tendency to think of faith and the Christian experience exclusively in individualistic terms (e.g., as a ‘personal’ relationship with Jesus Christ). From this perspective, church-life, including discipleship, becomes vague and privatized, and society at large becomes invisible.  The problem––Renewed attention by the evangelical church to the public square can represent, actually, an increased desire to protect the status-quo of the church in American life.

The injustices in the public square that are of interest to conservative churches are those that are perceived as threats to the adherents’ lifestyles, economic comfort, and theological plausibility. In other words injustices that are “not personally threatening” receive “much less of their attention.” In fact, there might be a threat to the church’s and the Christian’s socio-economic comfort if the poor are “in their midst” or if the church-goer’s taxes, let alone “tithes,” are utilized to advocate and care for the poor.

An etymologically based proclamation-centered evangelism is insufficient to reflect the reality of the presence of the Kingdom of God, and, as well, disconnects evangelism, not only from the full life of the Church, but also from the public and social implications of the Kingdom.  True, it might be anachronistically incorrect to jump completely from Jesus’ deeds straight to social action, but it is equally wrong to turn Jesus’ parables into mythic stories that affirm “traditional” American values, limited government, and a political and legal agenda that seeks to promote “our way of life.” Although leaping from the text to “Christian humanitarianism” is an over-simplification, we cannot ignore that Jesus engaged social institutions, nor overlook that Jesus had immense theological conflicts with Temple leadership that reached back to Exodus stipulations and their social implications regarding the vulnerable.

The Kingdom context places evangelism directly in the midst of the public realm where the Christian community is obligated to deal with structural sin and be an advocate for the vulnerable and the poor.  Also, to not include social action as evangelism limits the possible outcomes where God’s rule and reign can be expressed, realized, and experienced.  Such limiting is the result of a privatized and dualistic understanding of the Gospel.  Rather, a Kingdom-centered evangelism allows for the fullness of the Gospel to be realized in individuals, groups, structures, systems, and even culture.  Evangelistic strategies and actions ought to enact, demonstrate, fulfill, and advocate for outcomes consistent with God’s reign over all the realms of humanity.  Evangelistic outcomes ought to include both personal decisions for Christ and actions that promote God’s righteousness and, in particular, social action that engages the needs and welfare of the vulnerable and the poor.

Almost four decades ago, David O. Moberg, in his The Great Reversal: Evangelism and Social Concern, asked how Christians were to deal with the issues of poverty.  This continues to be a pertinent question for the Christian community today—let the debate be lively!  However, the topic should not be shrunk to public vs. private, government vs. church, or red vs. blue politics.  The Gospel of the Kingdom is “multidimensional and all-encompassing” and is concerned with both the individual and society.  Of course, the Gospel calls individuals to a right relationship with God, but it goes beyond private piety, calling Christians, especially Christian leadership, to engage social and institutional structures that work against fulfilling our obligations to the poor.  The Exodus land-laws, operating behind Mark’s programmatic theme, were given to ensure that the vulnerable (i.e., the land-less) were full participants in the benefits of living in the land.  Social Action is a means to ensure that the blessings and benefits of living in society reach to the poor.  The parable of the Sower who sows encourages the Christian community to waste its seed, sowing it into every realm and every corner of society “in hopes that good soil might somewhere be found,” because it is “our area.”

Simply, affluent suburbanites, despite a claim to a higher work ethic or a more developed sense of responsibility, didn’t do it on their own; they had help along the way. On the one hand, the non-poor’s social construction of reality, which they now experience as everyday life, allows them to benefit, not just from the market, but also from past actions of government that laid much of the groundwork for continued prosperity. On the other hand, the concentration of poverty in central-cities is not simply about laziness, slothfulness, or even personal sin. (I assume the non-poor who benefit from the current structure and mediating institutions are just as much “sinners” as those living in geographic areas of concentrated poverty.) Indeed, much of what is in place and experienced now as normal arose from various forms of racism and redlining practices, as well as “the concentration of subsidized housing projects [that] destabilized and isolated the poor, while federal home-loan programs, targeting new construction exclusively, encouraged the deterioration and abandonment of urban housing.” The fact of poverty and the reality of those affected by it in the central-cities could not have happened any more effectively if it were actually planned and implemented with malice. Without the aid of government policies and subsidies, as well as municipally empowered zoning laws and discriminatory business policies, the foundation for exurban wealth in America might not have happened. Rather than lamenting this inequitable state of affairs, participants, including many non-poor believers, have been encouraged to rejoice in the “prudence” of such strategies and the institutions, capitalism and the “mythical” market that sustain them.  The modern, non-poor suburban dweller is the heir of such socially constructed forces.

The present model for socio-economic progress and prosperity objectifies the non-poor Christian’s reality (i.e., “home world”) through habits and experiences of everyday life that are incorporated into his or her belief system—seemingly validating the plausibility of personal faith. The problem for the non-poor Christian living in such a history and current social-location is that it provides only a partial reality, through its defective social construction. The Bible warns of God’s judgment upon those who create or maintain economic structures that benefit some and exclude others, that pave the way to prosperity for some and prolonged, generational poverty for others (cf. Exod 22-23; Lev 19, 24; Deut 15, 24; Jer 4-8, 16-17; 22; Ezek 17-18, 22; Amos 4:1ff.; Mic 2:1-2; Zech 7; Isa 5:7ff.). Unaware or in denial of their socially constructed world, the non-poor believer often can accept a world that is duplicitous, limiting the historic and current benefits of a socio-economic system to those the “market blessed.”

Emil Brunner remarked, “For every civilization, for every period of history, it is true to say, ‘show me what kind of gods you have, and I will tell you what kind of humanity you possess.’” For the Christian and Christian community it is: Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the effects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship.  The reality of everyday life, is that Suburban life and its enablers—the free market and human acts of power—are often at odds with the Gospel, especially a Gospel that has been formed by the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition. For the non-poor Christian, this is an idolatrous mode of living and does not offer a biblically defensible apologetic for the God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Recently I was reminded of an African Pastor’s words: “A church that lives within its four walls is no church at all” (Pastor Morgan Chilulu, quoted by Richard Stearns in his book, “The Hole in Our Gospel”). As a prepare for a small “Wasted Evangelism” conference at a church in Concord, NC, that quote reminded me for Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson’s book, The Externally Focused Church. Here is a past post worth rereading:

Over the years I have rarely taken chances on books with cliché titles, particularly those written about the church. But in this case I couldn’t help it: The title itself is a good summary of what I have been thinking for some time now, and after three papers on the Gospel of Mark (“Widows in Our” courts on Mark 12; “Wasted Evangelism” on Mark 4; and most recently “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the Public vs. the Private Isn’t Enough,” which examines Mark’s use of the Old Testament juxtaposition of idolatry and poverty), concluding that social action can indeed be evangelism, I can say that there is truth in the cliché “externally focused church.” In fact, I did but the book and was very much intrigued with The Externally Focused Church by Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson. I was not disappointed. At the start, they summarize the marks of an outward, externally focused church:

• They are inwardly strong but outwardly focused.
• They integrate good deeds and good news into the life of the church.
• They value impact and influence in the community more than attendance.
• They seek to be salt, light, and leaven in the community.
• They see themselves as the “soul” of the community.
• They would be greatly missed by the community if they left (p 12).

Later they write:

“These churches look for ways to be useful to their communities, to be a part of their hopes and dreams. They build bridges to their communities instead of walls around themselves. They don’t shout at the dirty stream; they get in the water and begin cleaning it up. They determine their effectiveness not only by internal measures—such as attendance, worship, teaching, and small groups—but also by external measures: the spiritual and societal effects they are having on the communities around them. Externally focused churches measure not only what can be counted but also what matters most—the impact they are having outside the four walls of the church” (p 17).

This book heads the church in the right direction. Intriguing. And, this book is at least one that will help churches form that alternative community that seeks justice and mercy.

“We live in enemy-occupied territory, not neutral ground.  As long as no effort is made to proclaim the gospel throughout the city, the devil may even come to church and make a substantial contribution.  But when signs of community appear in a deteriorating neighborhood, the beast is roused.  His bulldozer engines roar”

~Rev. Henry K. Yordon, former pastor of Congregational Church on the Green, Norwalk, Connecticut.

Thought my good Words’nTone readers and browsers would appreciate that I have booked my first “Wasted Evangelism” speaking engagement. I will offer more details as things develop.

I will be speaking at a Church in North Carolina, just north of Charlotte, in mid-august.

It will be part preaching, part teaching, and part workshop on the topic of evangelism and social action--based on an exposition of Mark’s Gospel.

The topics are:

  - “Wasted Evangelism: Social Action and the Church’s Task of Evangelism” (based on the Mark 1 and Mark 4, the parable of the Sower)

  - For the leadership: Strategic Planning and Developing Need-Based Logic Models

  - “Idolatry & Poverty: Social Action as Christian Apologetics” (a teaching time and workshop)

  - “Widows in Our Courts,” the Sunday morning message

The mission of Words’nTone is to provide planning services to community-based non-profits, faith-based ministries, and churches that will enable them to be change agents in their communities.

Words’nTone: Enabling non-profits, faith-based ministries, and churches to create a vision that can be strategically fulfilled

Words’nTone seeks to provide activities and products that help organizations to focus on effective planning, management, and services to the benefit of others. 

Had a wonderful time at “Faith in the Market Place” last evening, an event sponsored by The Jericho Partnership, a faith-based non-profit in Danbury, CT.  Their mission specifically seeks the betterment of their home city, Danbury:

“To develop a partnership of Christ-centered word-and-deed ministries and congregations in the city of Danbury, Conn., into a radical, sustainable and transforming cross-cultural force for the common good of all in Danbury.”

As an agency their object is to “Form a collaborative partnership of Christian organizations serving urban Danbury’s at-risk communities.”

At last night’s event there were two speakers that shared how their faith is directly applied in relation to their work—their marketplace faith.  Two things stood out:  One speaker emphasized that we need to remove and breakdown the barriers between all the compartments we live in as Christians—Church, friends, recreation, work, school—and experience everything as one seamless faith journey.  The other speaker told of a group of mutual supporters at his church that gather together on a regular basis to pray for each other and to share in the difficulties that present themselves—at work.  He mentioned that all the CEO-types at his church meet as a group on a regular basis.  They discuss how to respond and act as Christians as they function in their workplace as the CEO.  They even discuss and pray about the tough decisions they have to make as CEOs.  He gave as an example the difficult decision about how much co-pay their employees must bear for their health insurance.  Great examples of “Faith in the Market Place.”

No one needs a blog post to tell them that change is difficult. Most everyone has heard the line attributed to Albert Einstein, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Most leaders know change is needed, but are torn between the difficult and the insanity.

Community-based and faith-based non-profits, as well as churches, are facing times where change and new approaches are needed, and indispensable to maintain viable services—and income. The key is finding some way, some level of motivation, some means of leveraging the will to make that change happen. Richard Beckhard, along with David Gleicher, offer an easy to understand—but not so easy to work out—formula to make change possible:

Written out, this is the formula: Dissatisfaction x Vision x First Steps must be greater than Resistance (to change)

Non-profits, faith-based ministries, and churches fight change. Board members, the church leadership, the constituency, even the very CEOs, pastors, and Executive Directors fight change. Nonetheless, as a leader, you are tasked with the responsibly to make necessary change happen. And as a leader, if you want to see positive, constructive change, this formula is very relevant. If the above components are in place, change can be facilitated. Remember, D x V x F > R. In order for there to be change, the sum of D x V x F must be greater than the resistance to the idea of change (first) and greater than the resistance to make the change happen.

First, there must be a significant amount of dissatisfaction—that things could be better, things aren’t working, etc. There needs to be an accompanying public (shared) vision for change. As someone said, a “clear call to arms.” And, there must be some initial first steps already in place or clearly articulated in order for change to occur. And, despite all the dissatisfaction, good intentions, and even practical steps to make the ideas happen, it goes without saying, there will be resistance to change. Some expected. And, some from unexpected sources (unexpected people!).

If anyone of these (D, V, F) is zero, then, as we know, that makes the whole equation = zero, and thus, there will be no change. If there is no Dissatisfaction, or no Vision, or no apparent First steps in place (or to be readied), any initiative to change will not be able to overcome human Resistance, and the change process will be unsuccessful. And, as well, if there is significant resistance and only a small amount among the other variables, then change will either be difficult or, more likely, improbable.

Change is inevitable and resistance to change will always be present—the question is what, as a leader—CEO, Executive Director, a pastor—will you do about it? How will you lead? Some assessment to determine levels of dissatisfaction, a means to develop a shared vision, and help plotting first steps are valuable for any organization and its leadership that knows and desires to bring about positive, capacity enhancing change.

I was recently asked, “What is the foremost challenge facing non-profits today?” Not sure if the group expected an answer related to the economy, shrinking pools of funding, or competition for dollars, but I explained, “The most pressing challenge facing non-profits today is an organization’s ability to communicate its real outcomes, in real time, to its current supporters and to potential contributors so they may read and see and feel what their contributions are actually doing.” This is the challenge for the non-profit, adapting the organization’s development potential to meet what today’s compassionate public demands.

I have become increasingly aware that human service providers (community-based, as well as faith-based non-profits and even churches) need to be more effective at connecting donors and potential donors to the outcomes and activities their dollars are supporting. The use of the electric and digital capacity in such things as YouTube, organization webpages, Facebook, and even GPS tracking with Maps.Google, and as well, the traditional written word through notes and letters.

I donated to an organization this past year that digs wells for those who lack clean water in Africa. I received an email the other day that provided me with the exact project, the people and locale, the amount of people who’d have clean water because of my gift, and the GPS (Google Maps) coordinates to locate the well project. The email also indicated that once the project begins, I will receive pictures and videos. My first reaction was to think about giving again.

All non-profits, community-based and faith-based, small and large, new and established, need to find ways to make this same connection between donors, their donations, and what the donations are accomplishing. As financial resources are becoming scarcer and incredibly competitive, non-profits need to develop more effective relationships with stakeholders.

“A goal without a plan is just a wish” ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Dollars are scarce and the competition for them is fierce.  Funders, in these lean times, have far more reasons not to give, not to award, or deny a request, simply explaining that there are “so many worthy projects, but limited funds.” Larger and multi-service non-profits seem to have an inherent edge, simply because it appears an investment in them will produce “a bigger bang for the buck,” as it were. 

So how do smaller and less established non-profits and faith-based ministries become more competitive in pursuing grants and foundation funding?

Planning.  Taking the time and effort to plan.  And, let it show.

There are three documents that show potential funders that a non-profit has thought seriously about what kind of impact they can have, how they plan to realize their goals, and how they plan to pay for accomplishing their goals:

• Strategic Plan
• Community Assessment
• Development Plan

Although not every large and established non-profit has these documents, small and less well established non-profits more often do not.  Few faith-based non-profits and churches have even thought about the importance of developing these types of planning documents for their churches, ministries, and community outreach.

These three documents are your organization’s planning tools, guides for decision-making, and benchmarks for measuring success (or what might need to change).  Not only does the process of developing these tools help your organization, church, or ministry focus, they also tell potential funders you are serious, have a plan to accomplish your goals, and have taken the time to think through how to achieve the outcomes you believe will impact others for the good.

Each of these documents serves a purpose:

1) The Strategic Plan tells what direction your organization is taking, what are the goals, and through what outcomes the efforts will be evaluated to measure success.

2) The Community Assessment helps the whole organization or ministry to understand the community’s needs, telling funders that research was done to determine what needs should be addressed and what capacity is needed to meet those needs. 

3) The Development Plan provides a thoughtful and intentional plan for how an organization or ministry plans to fund the strategic goals and the activities that support those goals.

When potential funders read your requests and proposals, they want to clearly see that you and your organization have taken the time to plan and that there is evidence of such planning.

Written requests and grant proposals that refer to an organization’s Strategic Plan, Community Assessment, and Development Plan will stand out—thus making the request more competitive.

Words’nTone can help you develop one or all three of these important documents.  Message me through the Words’nTone facebook page or contact me via email at .

I have launched a new Facebook business page, Words’nTone consulting services:

Words’nTone: Enabling non-profits, faith-based ministries, and churches to create a vision that can be strategically fulfilled.

Mission
The mission of Words’nTone is to provide planning services to community-based non-profits, faith-based ministries, and churches that will enable them to be change agents in their communities.

Words’nTone provides consulting, planning, and development services to organizations that seek to assist others and change communities.

• Creating Vision
• Strategic Planning
• Forming Mission
• Grant Writing
• Community Need Assessments
• Organizational Self-assessment
• Programs/Services and Client Flow Management Assessment
• Logic Models and Outcome Development
• Focus Groups, Retreats

Words’nTone seeks to provide activities and products that help organizations to focus on effective planning, management, and services to the benefit of others.

Words’nTone offers five types of consulting services:

• Strategic Planning
• Development Planning
• Community Assessment Development
• Organizational and Program/Service Assessment
• Grant Writing

Contact me if you have any question or if I can be of any assistance to your non-profit or church ministry: or message me through the FB Words’nTone page.

“Faith in the endgame helps you live through the months or years of buildup” ~Jim Collins, Good to Great

“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” Jesus in Matthew 6:33

“…for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” ~The apostle Paul in Romans 14:17