|PIC1|Dynamic US speaker and author Dr Tony Campolo spoke in the UK recently, elaborating on the theological background to economic and social injustice.

Dr Campolo, who is a Baptist minister, as well as former spiritual adviser to Bill Clinton and leader of the US 'Christian Evangelical Left', addressed Christians working in London's financial district, challenging their commitment to issues of trade and justice and encouraging them to support policies and practices that lead to a more just world.

He spoke about the different levels - micro, middle, and macro - of tackling injustice in today's world.

In this interview with Christian Today, he expands on the macro level.


CT: How has the general response been regarding your talks on
social and economical justice here in the UK?

TC: Well, this is not a typical seminar, because the group was slightly oriented my direction to start with. In the United States, I get a lot more static. In the United States, the evangelical community is much more politically conservative. I do run into great difficulty there but it varies from place to place. There is, however, a growing consciousness among the evangelicals. The solution to the problems in the world cannot be left alone and left in the hands of other people. But the church really must step forward. And the Christian people must in fact begin to address these issues- not only on a personal level.

I spoke to a lady earlier, and she said, "You mentioned compassion [during your talk], and that's great- except that somebody will support a child with compassion and think- 'I've done my part'." Instead of trying to say that this is the beginning. There are macro parts that have to be changed. And the Christians can in fact impact these macro structures. Corporations. Governments. We have to be involved in that level.

Do you think they will largely take action in the macro level?

Generally speaking, I find that even the very conservative evangelicals will listen to you as long as you build your case on scripture. The bible becomes the source for truth for most Christians. If you can get them to use the scripture, they will be convinced. If all you do is come across with a political ideology, and claim that that political ideology is the will of God- you lose. And that's what often happens.

Sometimes those in the liberal tradition will come and not use the bible at all and simply say this is just- and that's why we're advocating it. And the person in the pew says: "Who says this is just?" If you can say that the scriptures say this is just, that man or the woman in the pew will say: "Then I will have to give this serious consideration."

What are your thoughts on rallying?

I think protests and marches have had their day. If you look at things realistically, certain methodologies work at a particular time. There is a time when you had a big march and it will make the front page of the newspapers. Now for some marches, you're lucky if it makes page news. You might get a spot on the news, but you're not going to make a great impact. It's not that I'm against marches. It's just that I am saying, I'm not sure that it's going to work anymore. For instance, we have massive anti-war marches in the United States, and we draw a million people. It makes page, too. But it's just not working anymore. Certain techniques wear out. And I'm afraid protests and marches have become movements that politicians ignore. If you're protesting on the front steps, corporate executives would say, "Oh let's go out the back door today. They'll go away tomorrow."

Then what actions do you recommend instead?

I think that taking stockholders actions is a good way of doing it. Going inside the company, and to speak not with anger, but to assume that if people are told that they ought to be right, they very often won't respond. I would argue very very strongly that one of the problems we have right now is that the methodology for impacting the political economic systems are worn out and we need some new strategies. Stockholders efforts are perhaps one way of doing that. But we've got to come up with other ways and it's got to take some very creative thinking by young people to answer the question: how do we do this? Will a march really work? I'm not condemning the marches. What I'm saying is, will the company executive really get upset because of the march? 'There are 500 people protesting, so I guess we've got to completely change our investment policy because they are upset.' It's not going to happen. On the environmental level, I think we have to do other things. In the US we have two shows on television that are very influential with young people. One is called The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and the other is The Colbert Report, they're both comedy shows that mock news reporting. Jim Wallis and I have been to both of those shows and the impact that that has- if you go on that show and you begin to highlight the humour of what companies are doing- the impact is enormous. The company gets upset, you get letters from lawyers of the company: we'll sue you if you ever do this again. Those kind of stuff. And you realize, all I did was say a few sentences at a comedy show, at 11:30 pm, but it had 14 million listeners, and that is far different than a protest. I think we need to begin to ask ourselves, how do we use the media more effectively? How do we get on popular entertainment shows? A good example are the Dixie Chicks.

The George Bush comment.

Yes. Their statement against George Bush- probably had greater impact than a million people standing in front of the White House. The Dixie Chicks making a statement in London- it wasn't even in the United States- but in London, has the whole America upset! Those kinds of things have to be investigated. Are there other ways to say what needs to be said? I would say the Dixie Chicks did more to speak against the war in Iraq than the million persons in the last march in Washington.

If that's the case, then maybe we need to say, 'there are ways of impacting the system that are different than what we've implied in the past'. Bono for instance, has probably dealt with more to do with the AIDS crisis than all the protests put together. What we begin to ask is, maybe instead of waiting for a Bono or Dixie Chicks to come to this themselves, maybe Christians ought to be going to certain entertainers, and sitting down with them ad saying, "You have great influence. Here's something that I think you need to be promoting."

What Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do brilliantly is, they don't condemn the present political economic system- they make fun it. And they make American foreign policy seem so ridiculous- but it's undercut- because it's stupid. What an interesting way of dealing with these things! We're too oriented on what worked in the 60s. We're not in the 60s anymore. It's 40 years later. We've got to begin to ask about new ways of doing things.