May the words of my mouth and the meditations of all of our hearts be acceptable to you O Lord, our strength and our redeemer.

I don't know whether you've noticed, but it's that time of year again, the run up to Christmas when the charities really wind up their appeals machines. It's obviously based on the assumption that come Christmas time, we're all feeling a bit more charitable and in a giving frame of mind. I assume the theory goes that if we're willing to fork out a few pounds buying a present for a distant relation that we don't really like, then we may be willing to put a few pounds in the envelope for Oxfam or at least buy their Christmas cards.

Our front mat is filled most days with appeals envelopes, batches of sample Christmas cards or Christmas gift brochures from the major charities. Charity is big business these days. In the UK alone there are more than 180,000 charities, although less than 10% represent 90% of the money. We give over £12 billion each year to charities. More people work in paid employment for charities delivering the voluntary and community services than work in either agriculture, textiles or car manufacturing.

Not only is charity a big business in itself, it is also becoming increasingly attractive to big business. The latest buzzword among the creative marketing teams of our biggest consumer goods manufacturers is 'Cause Related Marketing'.

What this means in plain English is that if a company can print on a box of soap powder or a bag of crisps that the producer will make a contribution to charity if you buy their product, then you are more inclined to buy their brand than a rival that does not offer this. Clean your conscience at the same time as you clean your socks!

Recent examples of this were Yorkshire Tea who ran a campaign entitled Yorkshire Tea's 'Trees for Life', which allowed Oxfam to plant 1.2m trees overseas and BskyB's 'Reach for the Sky' programme which raised money to provide careers advice for disadvantaged children.

One very modern development in the charity world is, of course, the Telethon - a whole evening of television devoted to raising money. It's very topical as I think the BBC's Children in Need campaign is now in full swing culminating in a Terry Wogan's televisual feast next Friday.

Cause related marketing has got involved here as well. A whole host of manufacturers have cottoned on to the benefit of linking into the free promotion afforded by all that TV airtime and so you can buy your Persil washing powder, your Mr Kipling pies or your Sainsbury's shopping all with their Comic Relief logos that mean some of your hard earned money will find its way to the BBC and from there to projects in Africa or Inner City Britain.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking any of this. Anything that makes it easier or more desirable for people to give of their wealth in a wealthy country to help people in a poor country is to be applauded. Of course it would be nice if this could be achieved without all the gimmicks. In a perfect world, we should not need the allure of Comic Relief or the convenience of giving while shopping. Our Christian conscience should be all we need to encourage us to do the right thing - which brings us neatly back to Timothy.

Well, We're nearly at the end of our journey through this first of Paul's letter's to Timothy. We're now on Chapter 5 with one more left to go so what are we to make of this one. I know that some of you will have latched on to Verse 23, "Stop drinking only water and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses".

This is not, as some of you may be hoping, a longed for message from scripture to get out there and party. It is in fact another sign of Paul's fatherly concern for Timothy. He had been suffering from various sicknesses, which Paul put down to the quality of the water and advised Timothy that a little wine was probably a lot safer than contaminated water.

I want to concentrate on the earlier part of Chapter 5 where Paul talks about giving proper recognition to widows who are truly in need. To understand this passage, it is first necessary to understand something of the culture a customs of first century Palestine.

This is an age, remember when there is no such thing as social security, no welfare state, no National Health Service. Survival depends on health to create wealth. If you could not work, then you could not support yourself or your family. This was also a patriarchal society and work was done by men. A woman was entirely dependent upon her husband for support and if her husband died and she was widowed then she had no means of support for herself or her children.

Widowhood was common. Mortality amongst men was high from disease, from war or form accidents or the long term effects of accidents. Jewish culture had developed to manage this situation and it was common that in the event of widowhood, a deceased man's family would rally round. There was an expectation on brothers to take on the widow and her children as their own - hence Paul's encouragement for families to take care of their own.

Despite this complex social safety net, many widows still fell through. Perhaps their late husband had no immediate family or in some cases were unwilling to take on this burdensome responsibility. Of course, the classic case of this is one that we all studied together last year in the book of Ruth.

Because we covered it in detail, I'm sure you can all call it to mind in complete detail but just in case your memory has dimmed let me remind you of Ruth's story. A man named Elimelech had moved with his wife Naomi and their two sons to Moab to escape the famine in Judah. Naomi's husband Elimelech died and the two sons married local Moabite girls, one by the name of Ruth.

Tragically, 10 years later, both sons died in quick succession leaving all three women widowed. Naomi, being in a foreign land decided she should return to her family in Judah and told her two daughters in law to return to their own Moabite families where they could still remarry. Ruth refused, knowing how precarious her beloved mother in laws position now was and insisted on returning with her to Judah where she would place her trust in God.

God looked kindly on Ruth and Naomi and Boaz, a distant relative of Naomi's first took pity on them and helped them and then took Ruth as his wife, bringing joy and grandchildren to Naomi in her later years. The story of Ruth really highlights the precarious nature of life for widows in Biblical times Without the intervention of Boaz, both of these women were destined to a life of poverty and misery.

Hence Paul devoting so much time to this major social issue in his letter to Timothy. How the church responded to this issue was a measure of its success and a measure of how well it was measuring up to Christ's rigorous demands. Paul restates the need for families to be the first line of defence for widows. He reminds Timothy that anyone who does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

He goes on to remind widows that they too have a responsibility. Younger widows should remarry and have children rather than fall into a loose living lifestyle, they can become gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. The church's duty, says Paul should be to those widows who cannot help themselves, particularly those too old to remarry. In that instance, the church's duty is clear - no-one should suffer for want of the church's help.

So Paul's message is clear, Charity begins at home. We have a responsibility to our families, we have a responsibility to our wider church family and we have a responsibility to those in society whose circumstances mean that they are in need of our support. This responsibility is very direct. It requires hands on participation from us. It is not something we can despatch from a distance, rather we are required to get in there and lend a hand. Our Christian duty is to actively support those around us who are in need.

There was no escape from this reality in AD 64. Our Christian conscience could not be assuaged by dropping a few coins into a collectors tin on market day or by shopping at a supermarket who pledge to give some money to Comic Relief. One of the problems that we face today as Christians is that it is now all a bit too easy for us to do the 'charity' bit. There are so many ways to ensure that we have a tick in that particular box come judgement day.

The difference for me between the charitable giving that was being asked of people by Paul and by Christ and the charitable giving that we can now experience today in our £12 billion charity business with its Charity credit cards and telethon phone-ins is the difference between what you could call active charity and passive charity.

We've grown into habits of passive charity. The object of our passive charitable giving is distant, whether geographically in some unknown village in Africa or South America or socially distant in some alien inner city in the UK. The means of our giving is financial - it doesn't involve the use of our labours or skills directly. In Paul's active charity, you were helping people you could see with needs that were immediate and the cost to you was measurable in terms of your time or your food or a change in your lifestyle to accommodate the needs of someone else.

I suppose the best Biblical example of this active charity is in the parable of the Good Samaritan. All those church worthies who passed by the bleeding man, no doubt confident that they were doing their bit on Sunday with prayer and the plate. The Samaritan who interrupts his journey to help the stranger in need - who actively gets involved. How would we have responded to the needs of that man. Would we have walked by in the other side or trusted that the NHS to which we contribute should sort out the problem? Or would we have become actively involved?

I once heard a story about a primary school teacher who told the parable of the Good Samaritan to her class in pretty graphic detail to encourage them into a response. She then confronted them with the question; "How would you have responded to that man lying bleeding and battered in the road?" There was a long and stony silence before one little girl had the honesty to pipe up with, "I think I'd have been sick, Miss!"

But how do we respond to the needs of others less fortunate than ourselves? Are we open to Paul's exhortations in this church today to look after our own in this community? How much of that do we really do? There are people in our villages in need. People who are struggling financially. People struggling with addiction. People crippled by loneliness or grief. Are we reaching out to them and offering them not only God's spiritual comfort but also some practical support?

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not asking you to cancel that standing order with Oxfam or stop buying Yorkshire Tea for Trees or, worse still, putting a decent amount of money in the collection plate. That all helps people in need and we should do it but it may not be enough.

Behind me lies poor old Sir Hugh. He thought the gates of heaven could be opened with a mediaeval chequebook. He assumed he could wipe the slate clean with some well aimed cash and we should beware the same thoughts. God requires more of us than that.

I'll leave you with one last story. There was once a church who had one very wealthy member who at an advanced age realised that the sands of time were running out. He called the vicar to his bedside and said. "Rector, do you think if I changed my will and gave all my money to the church, I would get into heaven?" The vicar thought long and hard, grappling with his conscience before finally replying, "Well it's worth a try!"

Tom Crotty