Our second reading over this and the next few weeks continues the journey through the Epistle of James that we began last week. James could be called the book of practical theology. It has the underlying theme that faith however it is defined should have a practical outworking in the life of the believer. Faith is seen not in pious pronouncements but in the practical way that we relate to others - Faith is demonstrated to the world.

This has meant that the place in James has been questioned over the centuries. Martin Luther - who was so convinced that it opposed his understanding of salvation by grace wanted it removed. This is a danger when anyone gets caught up in a particular theology or theological point of view, that there is the failure to understand that these are just a part of the whole picture. Salvation is by faith alone, it cannot be earned or deserved and certainly it is not the result of a good life doing good deeds. This is true.

James says on the other hand - Faith should be visible. Salvation has the need for a human response - a human action. If I am saved - and I understand the full implication of that statement - then it will affect the way that I engage the world. Faith is not an academic exercise - it results in a visible expression in the world that we inhabit.

James screams - don't tell me what you believe - show me. Good works flow from the understanding of what it means to be saved. They are works of gratitude not supererogation. As God's people, we should be seen by the world putting our faith into action. Simply put we are to be the hands and feet of Jesus.

Perhaps this is best described when we look at this in the extreme. Mother Theresa has become the public face of Christianity. In as much as Billy Graham preached the word - she lived it in her mission to the down and out in one of the cesspools of humanity, the slums of Calcutta.

She was linked in death with Princess Diana. The press saw both of them doing good works but what a contrast. With Diana privilege led to good works. They were the obligation of her position not the expression of her faith. She had the best seats and her works were controlled and stage-managed by the spin-doctors. They were a brief sortie into the world of poverty before returning to the place of privilege. And the things she did were carefully vetted to ensure that only the deserving were helped.

Mother Theresa on the other hand embraced poverty and the poor. She cared as the overwhelming response to God's love for her. Perhaps she made little difference in the lives of those she encountered. Often she and her sisters of charity would tend a beggar in the last hours of life and would respond to the need and not the merit. She did not return to a fine palace or hotel after the act of charity - she gave her life in charity - in undeserved love. That is the meaning of the word. How often do we allow pride to prevent us from receiving this?

Most of us fall somewhere between Princess Di and Mother Theresa in our acts of charity. Some of it is the result of obligation and some is the result of love, and most a mixture of the two.

The church has very great problem with this. James' words that start the reading are not there by accident. It is clear that they are a response to the way the church was engaging the society in which it lived. It is the perpetual problem of how to cope in a world of unequal opportunity. Perhaps the most interesting part of Ghanaian experience was the extreme contrast between rich and poor. Raised in Melbourne and Geelong - Rich lived in Toorak and South Yarra and the poor in Broadmeadows and Brunswick, and the same goes in Sydney and even in Tassie. The names of the places change, but the principle is the same. In Ghana, there was not the geographic isolation - not the financial apartheid that we see in our culture. Rich and poor lived side by side and the church would be a mixture of the two.

What amazed me was there was a sense of mutual obligation and perhaps an understanding of social strata. The rich took their place, as did the poor in the organisation of society. Now I am not saying it was ideal, for certainly there often was the place of privilege reserved for the rich but the clergy dealt with each as individuals. Perhaps the contrast was the all-pervasive sense that riches were a gift from God (or the gods) and there was the sense of gratitude in all this. Jesus comment to Judas that the poor would be with us always, was not just a dismissive remark, but the observation that no matter how society was organised, there would be the poor - those without privilege. Socialism and communism have led to as much oppression and class as capitalism and monarchy.

We may not change the world but we must not adopt the world's attitudes. A person is a person is a person - wealth and poverty do not hide the fact that we are all creatures of the Father. The trick is to see the image of God stamped on each individual.

Justice for the poor is not about making them rich, but about treating them with an equal dignity. Land rights is not about returning land, but about returning respect. Injustice is the rich man who raises the price of hay in time of drought, pricing out the farmer from the market to ensure that his polo ponies survive. Charity is not about the material gift but about the respect that this gives the individual. We all know that there are those who will abuse the work of Helping Hand who act with the same craftiness as the richest of men and women. But there are others who need the help - who are victims of circumstance or society. It is better to risk helping the wrong person rather than risk not help the right one.

Our faith demands that we address the issue of the poor. This is the challenge that every society has to face. The responsibility of the church is to encourage the rich to take their responsibility to the poor seriously and to not be caught up in the way the world sees things.

We are not to fall into the trap of undervaluing the rich, because they are not poor. Rather this should be our symbol - it is a pall. The traditional church places this over the coffin so there is no distinction between rich and poor in death. It is a visible reminder that we are all equal in God's eyes.

Each of us in our situation has an opportunity to contribute to the community in different ways. Faith is shown in the way we respond to those who are in need, whose needs we can meet - at least in part.

As I come to the end of this sermon, I am conscious that I preaching to the converted in a sense. This parish is one of the most generous per capita in the diocese. The words that I am saying are not to challenge the attitudes of this congregation, but rather are a reminder that the things that we are doing, is putting our faith to action. Be encouraged therefore and keep up the good work for this is how we honour God. Those who are generous are blessed for they share their bread with the poor.