What do you think?
Rate this book
Scandalous Witness: A Little Political Manifesto for Christians
Christian identity is in moral and political crisis, scandalized by the many ways in which it has been coopted and misrepresented. Addressing this painful reality, Lee Camp writes that Christianity in America has been made into a bad public joke because of “our failure to rightly understand what Christianity is.” From this provocative claim, Camp’s manifesto makes the convincing case that a renewed Christian politic is more essential than ever, one that is “neither left nor right nor religious,” but a prophetic way of life modeled after Jesus of Nazareth.
Camp’s robust vision exposes modern parodies of faith—the American concept of “Christian values,” for one—and challenges Christians to rethink who they are and how they participate in the modern world. Authentic gospel truth is a scandal to the American myth, he argues, and we are called to be scandalous witnesses.
Camp’s robust vision exposes modern parodies of faith—the American concept of “Christian values,” for one—and challenges Christians to rethink who they are and how they participate in the modern world. Authentic gospel truth is a scandal to the American myth, he argues, and we are called to be scandalous witnesses.
176 pages, Hardcover
First published March 10, 2020
55 people are currently reading
760 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
August 30, 2020
What can I say? Despite receiving turgid acclaim from Greg Boyd, Walter Brueggemann, David Gushee, and others, this book is a serious debacle. Or perhaps those endorsements should have served as a portent.
In Scandalous Witness, Lee Camp sets out to "rehabilitate" the Christian witness to the world--or more narrowly the American Christian witness to the world. Toward that end, he lays out fifteen propositions, which he calls "neither right nor left nor religious." Why not religious? Oddly, he insists that Christianity is not a religion, but a politic. This word trading is apparently rooted in a hang-up about the definition of the former. According to Camp, religion is private and is therefore socially and politically insignificant. Because the Gospel makes sweeping claims when it comes to the lives and affairs of individuals, families, the church, and the state, it can't be private by definition. Hence, Camp says, it's not a religion.
But privatizing is not an essential attribute of religion--it's just a warped characteristic some people have infused into it. If Camp believed this impurity needed to be corrected, he could have easily addressed it and continued to implement the term religion. Instead, he introduces an alternative term--politic--which he defines as "an all-encompassing manner of communal life that grapples with all the questions the classical art of politics has always asked." Does this really subsume all that Christianity is? May it never be!
Why is it so important to discuss this in the review? First, the word trading is unnecessary because the privatizing problem is not inherent in the term religion. Second, the alternative term is susceptible to its own misunderstandings (so why not retain the initial terminology and correct the misapprehension?). Third, the definition Camp provides for the alternative term is woefully inadequate to expound the Christian religion. So, the whole affair seems needlessly complicated and could have been almost entirely excised from the book. Moreover, it gets the book started on the wrong foot. If one of the central claims of the book is that Christianity is a politic, and the definition of politic is not up to the task, then the thesis is in trouble. But this is only the beginning of the woes.
Camp says his propositions are "neither right nor left nor religious." But he never actually provides a systematic definition of right or left. The reader is left to fall back on whatever pre-existing notions he or she bears about these terms--or to rely on the shallow, provincial typifications advanced by Camp in the book. Moreover, his claim that his propositions are some sort of neutral ground between two extremes is farcical. Camp appears to be much more captive to modernity and postmodernity than he realizes or is willing to admit. For him, the Overton window is well into progressive territory. A number of times, he warns of the excesses of capitalism--whatever he believes that term to mean (he never really defines it). In contrast, he handles socialism and communism (at least the latter of which is, by definition, antithetical to Christianity) with kid gloves, and almost exclusively in juxtaposition to parallel warnings about capitalism. In his tangential foray into the Scopes trial, Camp leads the reader to believe he stands on some middle ground between right and left. But it's rather transparent where he stands. After explaining how some "conservative Christians" accepted the doctrine of evolution, Camp expends some commentary on William Jennings Bryan, an opponent of the doctrine. Bryan, who served as a witness in the trial, is often depicted as an ignorant, disoriented Christian fundamentalist who was thoroughly bested by Clarence Darrow on the witness stand. Camp introduces him as a sympathetic figure--which may lead some readers to believe he's being even-handed. But Camp doesn't indicate that he sympathizes with Bryan’s creationism, or his belief in the authority of Scripture, or his opposition to modernism. Rather, he sympathizes with Bryan because he was "a committed social liberal" who believed "Darwinism was but militarism by another name" and who was concerned about "the dangers of unfettered free-market capitalism" because "the pursuit of profit without concern for neighbor or community or common good was also but 'survival of the fittest' in economic terms." In other words, in this vignette Camp portrays evolution as well-established and widely endorsed among conservative Christians in the early 20th century and then argues that the opposition of one Christian man to the doctrine was driven by a concern that Darwinism would undermine social liberalism. This vignette pats the backs of both religious liberals and social liberals under the guise of finding a constructive rapprochement between right and left. Again, the Overton window is well into progressive territory. This pretended neutrality is endemic to the book.
The book is also rather thinly sourced for its length. Websites like npr.org, pewforum.org, whitehouse.gov, nationalreview.com, nytimes.com, and nymag.com make up a number of the works cited. A good number of secondary sources are cited, as well. The number of primary and/or more sustained treatises is woefully inadequate, particularly given the assertions made (even in passing) about figures such as Constantine, Charlemagne, Luther, and Calvin. Perhaps if Camp had consulted additional sources, he could have avoided making misleading claims about these men.
As an example: Calvin receives cursory reference in the book. At one point, Camp refers to "Calvin’s Geneva" (which he assures the reader he has no interest in imitating). At another point he wags his finger at "imperialist Christians" and lists one of the offenders: "John Calvin, who would vote for the execution of Michael Servetus as punishment for his heresy." This bumper sticker defamation is inexcusable. The Council of Geneva--not Calvin--condemned Servetus to death. Moreover, the council had the unanimous support of the leaders in Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen, and Zurich. Calvin examined Servetus' doctrines during the trial, but played no role in recommending sentencing. Calvin himself wrote, "From the time Servetus was convicted of his heresy I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest men will bear witness; and I challenge even the malignant to deny it if they can." Not only did Calvin not "vote" to execute Servetus, he actually requested that the Council of Geneva attenuate his sentence from burning to beheading, after it had been passed. After this unsuccessful appeal, Calvin visited Servetus in prison and ministered to him--as he had also patiently done by letter for years leading up to the trial. This was not "Calvin’s Geneva," as though the Reformer were some sort of civil dictator. Such a slander is unbecoming of the author and could have been avoided if more sources had been consulted.
Camp's comments on Luther and the Reformation in general are more extensive, and are even more problematic. In a thinly sourced chapter (proposition 13), the author makes some rather dramatic claims: Luther's theology advocated for a personal secular and spiritual fragmentation, Luther sowed the seeds of a sociopolitical conservatism that pits itself against those who cry out for justice for the oppressed, Luther and the Reformers paved the way for the messianic nation-state, Luther paved the way for Nazism. Admittedly, the last claim is stated in such an absurdly tenuous fashion as to make it nearly meaningless: "More frightening, one might make the case that Luther's anti-Semitism, when sown amidst the seeds of his implicit sociopolitical conservatism, plowed the ground for the social conservatism that gave Lutheran Germany the plague of Nazism" (though we are assured Luther would have rejected Nazism). Translated: one could make the claim that one thing and another thing combined to create a favorable condition for another thing that eventually contributed to the formation of a bad thing. This claim treats history as utterly simplistic, as though there’s a direct, 400-year ideological line from Luther to Hitler, a line totally impervious to the intervening influences of the Enlightenment, multiple European wars and revolutions, the rise of German nationalism, and Darwin's theory of evolution (though that line is apparently very thin at some points, per the quote). Given the gravity of such claims, one might expect to see significant sourcing at the end of the chapter. However, the reader is only referred to Luther's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. But why not refer the reader to Christians Can Be Soldiers, or Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation? These Luther works are quite relevant to the issue at hand. The failure to consult resources like these is baffling, especially given the seriousness of the author's argument.
Camp goes on to commend the Anabaptists as the Reformation's real "heralds of the way forward." We are told these peaceable people sought to live in voluntary community, "exhibit the reconciling and suffering love of God to the world," and "embody the way of God in the world revealed in Jesus of Nazareth." These are the peacemakers, no? Not exactly. The facile historiography attendant in the book's references to Luther and Calvin, continues in its account of the Anabaptists. Consider that in 1534, a group of radical Anabaptists concluded that the city of Munster was the New Jerusalem. They therefore entered the city, destroyed much church property, and issued proclamations that required re-baptism and the communal sharing of goods. Later, their leader, John of Leiden, took sixteen wives for himself and made polygamy mandatory among the population. Only after a lengthy siege was the city relieved of this oppression. So some (not all) Anabaptists were content to violently impose themselves on the population and usher in what they considered to be an order of social justice. Therefore, it simply won't do to broadly and simplistically present them as peaceful "heralds of the way forward." History is not so unexacting to us as Camp presents it here.
Not even Justin Martyr receives a proper interpretation. Camp tries to reinforce his critique of Christians who want to leave the world and be with Jesus by quoting from Justin, whom he insists would consider them heretics: "This is an ironic, odd reality: that an early defender of Christianity...would say that our American Joe Christian is not in fact a Christian but a heretic." The only problem is, this is not what Justin says in the passage Camp references. In Scandalous Witness, the quote is reproduced in fragmentary fashion so it appears as though Christians who want their souls to be with Jesus in Heaven are the subjects of the criticism. But in chapter LXXX of Dialogue with Trypho (from whence the quote is drawn), Justin writes, "I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish…. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this, and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians…." The literary context makes it clear that Justin's censure is against those who deny the resurrection, not against those who want to go to Heaven to be with Jesus. Camp excludes the portion of the quote that mentions the resurrection. This is a shoddy citation that completely changes the meaning of the quote. Strangely, later in the book Camp mentions this quote again, only this time he does reproduce a portion on the resurrection. But he still fails to realize it changes the meaning of the quote.
Elsewhere, there's the strange claim that "the prophetic voice of the Old Testament...is primarily an inside voice…." Camp makes this claim because he wants the church to have a constructive rather than a critical relationship with the world. I believe this is ultimately a thinly veiled attempt to discourage Christians from saying "judgy" things of Jesus like, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved," and, "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." But even setting aside this possibility, the claim regarding the Old Testament prophetic voice is totally false.
Consider Isaiah--he issues prophecies about Assyria, Babylon, Moab, Egypt, Tyre, Sidon, and other kingdoms.
Consider Jeremiah--he issues prophecies about Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Babylon, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, and other kingdoms.
Consider Ezekiel--he issues prophecies about Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt.
Consider Daniel--he issues prophecies about Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the Kingdom that will eclipse them all.
Consider Zephaniah--he issues prophecies about Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Cush, and Assyria.
Obadiah’s prophecy is almost entirely about Edom. The prophecies of Jonah and Nahum are almost entirely concerned with Nineveh.
So this claim doesn't hold water.
There are many other problems with the book, which I won't discuss in detail. The author has simply done a poor job exploring what Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords requires from the world, and what are the political implications of the Gospel. He never acknowledges or engages with the contributions of Calvin, the Reformed scholastics, the Puritans, Abraham Kuyper, not to mention Roman Catholics or Orthodox, etc., regarding these issues--a major oversight for someone seeking to discuss a Christian politic. There are multiple errors throughout the book, some of which are detailed above. Some are significant, and others are relatively minor. But even the minor errors are surprising (perhaps especially surprising), given they are part of an edifice for such a serious topic. Additionally, the book suffers under the weight of a number of banalities, like "unfettered capitalism," "patriarchy," and "radical liberty." The text frequently shifts from a narrative style to a more conversational preaching style; the transitions are rough and lend the book a rather disjointed character. The author also makes some dubious claims about conservatism and liberalism, which I won't detail here.
This book is not recommended.
In Scandalous Witness, Lee Camp sets out to "rehabilitate" the Christian witness to the world--or more narrowly the American Christian witness to the world. Toward that end, he lays out fifteen propositions, which he calls "neither right nor left nor religious." Why not religious? Oddly, he insists that Christianity is not a religion, but a politic. This word trading is apparently rooted in a hang-up about the definition of the former. According to Camp, religion is private and is therefore socially and politically insignificant. Because the Gospel makes sweeping claims when it comes to the lives and affairs of individuals, families, the church, and the state, it can't be private by definition. Hence, Camp says, it's not a religion.
But privatizing is not an essential attribute of religion--it's just a warped characteristic some people have infused into it. If Camp believed this impurity needed to be corrected, he could have easily addressed it and continued to implement the term religion. Instead, he introduces an alternative term--politic--which he defines as "an all-encompassing manner of communal life that grapples with all the questions the classical art of politics has always asked." Does this really subsume all that Christianity is? May it never be!
Why is it so important to discuss this in the review? First, the word trading is unnecessary because the privatizing problem is not inherent in the term religion. Second, the alternative term is susceptible to its own misunderstandings (so why not retain the initial terminology and correct the misapprehension?). Third, the definition Camp provides for the alternative term is woefully inadequate to expound the Christian religion. So, the whole affair seems needlessly complicated and could have been almost entirely excised from the book. Moreover, it gets the book started on the wrong foot. If one of the central claims of the book is that Christianity is a politic, and the definition of politic is not up to the task, then the thesis is in trouble. But this is only the beginning of the woes.
Camp says his propositions are "neither right nor left nor religious." But he never actually provides a systematic definition of right or left. The reader is left to fall back on whatever pre-existing notions he or she bears about these terms--or to rely on the shallow, provincial typifications advanced by Camp in the book. Moreover, his claim that his propositions are some sort of neutral ground between two extremes is farcical. Camp appears to be much more captive to modernity and postmodernity than he realizes or is willing to admit. For him, the Overton window is well into progressive territory. A number of times, he warns of the excesses of capitalism--whatever he believes that term to mean (he never really defines it). In contrast, he handles socialism and communism (at least the latter of which is, by definition, antithetical to Christianity) with kid gloves, and almost exclusively in juxtaposition to parallel warnings about capitalism. In his tangential foray into the Scopes trial, Camp leads the reader to believe he stands on some middle ground between right and left. But it's rather transparent where he stands. After explaining how some "conservative Christians" accepted the doctrine of evolution, Camp expends some commentary on William Jennings Bryan, an opponent of the doctrine. Bryan, who served as a witness in the trial, is often depicted as an ignorant, disoriented Christian fundamentalist who was thoroughly bested by Clarence Darrow on the witness stand. Camp introduces him as a sympathetic figure--which may lead some readers to believe he's being even-handed. But Camp doesn't indicate that he sympathizes with Bryan’s creationism, or his belief in the authority of Scripture, or his opposition to modernism. Rather, he sympathizes with Bryan because he was "a committed social liberal" who believed "Darwinism was but militarism by another name" and who was concerned about "the dangers of unfettered free-market capitalism" because "the pursuit of profit without concern for neighbor or community or common good was also but 'survival of the fittest' in economic terms." In other words, in this vignette Camp portrays evolution as well-established and widely endorsed among conservative Christians in the early 20th century and then argues that the opposition of one Christian man to the doctrine was driven by a concern that Darwinism would undermine social liberalism. This vignette pats the backs of both religious liberals and social liberals under the guise of finding a constructive rapprochement between right and left. Again, the Overton window is well into progressive territory. This pretended neutrality is endemic to the book.
The book is also rather thinly sourced for its length. Websites like npr.org, pewforum.org, whitehouse.gov, nationalreview.com, nytimes.com, and nymag.com make up a number of the works cited. A good number of secondary sources are cited, as well. The number of primary and/or more sustained treatises is woefully inadequate, particularly given the assertions made (even in passing) about figures such as Constantine, Charlemagne, Luther, and Calvin. Perhaps if Camp had consulted additional sources, he could have avoided making misleading claims about these men.
As an example: Calvin receives cursory reference in the book. At one point, Camp refers to "Calvin’s Geneva" (which he assures the reader he has no interest in imitating). At another point he wags his finger at "imperialist Christians" and lists one of the offenders: "John Calvin, who would vote for the execution of Michael Servetus as punishment for his heresy." This bumper sticker defamation is inexcusable. The Council of Geneva--not Calvin--condemned Servetus to death. Moreover, the council had the unanimous support of the leaders in Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen, and Zurich. Calvin examined Servetus' doctrines during the trial, but played no role in recommending sentencing. Calvin himself wrote, "From the time Servetus was convicted of his heresy I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest men will bear witness; and I challenge even the malignant to deny it if they can." Not only did Calvin not "vote" to execute Servetus, he actually requested that the Council of Geneva attenuate his sentence from burning to beheading, after it had been passed. After this unsuccessful appeal, Calvin visited Servetus in prison and ministered to him--as he had also patiently done by letter for years leading up to the trial. This was not "Calvin’s Geneva," as though the Reformer were some sort of civil dictator. Such a slander is unbecoming of the author and could have been avoided if more sources had been consulted.
Camp's comments on Luther and the Reformation in general are more extensive, and are even more problematic. In a thinly sourced chapter (proposition 13), the author makes some rather dramatic claims: Luther's theology advocated for a personal secular and spiritual fragmentation, Luther sowed the seeds of a sociopolitical conservatism that pits itself against those who cry out for justice for the oppressed, Luther and the Reformers paved the way for the messianic nation-state, Luther paved the way for Nazism. Admittedly, the last claim is stated in such an absurdly tenuous fashion as to make it nearly meaningless: "More frightening, one might make the case that Luther's anti-Semitism, when sown amidst the seeds of his implicit sociopolitical conservatism, plowed the ground for the social conservatism that gave Lutheran Germany the plague of Nazism" (though we are assured Luther would have rejected Nazism). Translated: one could make the claim that one thing and another thing combined to create a favorable condition for another thing that eventually contributed to the formation of a bad thing. This claim treats history as utterly simplistic, as though there’s a direct, 400-year ideological line from Luther to Hitler, a line totally impervious to the intervening influences of the Enlightenment, multiple European wars and revolutions, the rise of German nationalism, and Darwin's theory of evolution (though that line is apparently very thin at some points, per the quote). Given the gravity of such claims, one might expect to see significant sourcing at the end of the chapter. However, the reader is only referred to Luther's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. But why not refer the reader to Christians Can Be Soldiers, or Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation? These Luther works are quite relevant to the issue at hand. The failure to consult resources like these is baffling, especially given the seriousness of the author's argument.
Camp goes on to commend the Anabaptists as the Reformation's real "heralds of the way forward." We are told these peaceable people sought to live in voluntary community, "exhibit the reconciling and suffering love of God to the world," and "embody the way of God in the world revealed in Jesus of Nazareth." These are the peacemakers, no? Not exactly. The facile historiography attendant in the book's references to Luther and Calvin, continues in its account of the Anabaptists. Consider that in 1534, a group of radical Anabaptists concluded that the city of Munster was the New Jerusalem. They therefore entered the city, destroyed much church property, and issued proclamations that required re-baptism and the communal sharing of goods. Later, their leader, John of Leiden, took sixteen wives for himself and made polygamy mandatory among the population. Only after a lengthy siege was the city relieved of this oppression. So some (not all) Anabaptists were content to violently impose themselves on the population and usher in what they considered to be an order of social justice. Therefore, it simply won't do to broadly and simplistically present them as peaceful "heralds of the way forward." History is not so unexacting to us as Camp presents it here.
Not even Justin Martyr receives a proper interpretation. Camp tries to reinforce his critique of Christians who want to leave the world and be with Jesus by quoting from Justin, whom he insists would consider them heretics: "This is an ironic, odd reality: that an early defender of Christianity...would say that our American Joe Christian is not in fact a Christian but a heretic." The only problem is, this is not what Justin says in the passage Camp references. In Scandalous Witness, the quote is reproduced in fragmentary fashion so it appears as though Christians who want their souls to be with Jesus in Heaven are the subjects of the criticism. But in chapter LXXX of Dialogue with Trypho (from whence the quote is drawn), Justin writes, "I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish…. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this, and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians…." The literary context makes it clear that Justin's censure is against those who deny the resurrection, not against those who want to go to Heaven to be with Jesus. Camp excludes the portion of the quote that mentions the resurrection. This is a shoddy citation that completely changes the meaning of the quote. Strangely, later in the book Camp mentions this quote again, only this time he does reproduce a portion on the resurrection. But he still fails to realize it changes the meaning of the quote.
Elsewhere, there's the strange claim that "the prophetic voice of the Old Testament...is primarily an inside voice…." Camp makes this claim because he wants the church to have a constructive rather than a critical relationship with the world. I believe this is ultimately a thinly veiled attempt to discourage Christians from saying "judgy" things of Jesus like, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved," and, "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." But even setting aside this possibility, the claim regarding the Old Testament prophetic voice is totally false.
Consider Isaiah--he issues prophecies about Assyria, Babylon, Moab, Egypt, Tyre, Sidon, and other kingdoms.
Consider Jeremiah--he issues prophecies about Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Babylon, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, and other kingdoms.
Consider Ezekiel--he issues prophecies about Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt.
Consider Daniel--he issues prophecies about Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the Kingdom that will eclipse them all.
Consider Zephaniah--he issues prophecies about Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Cush, and Assyria.
Obadiah’s prophecy is almost entirely about Edom. The prophecies of Jonah and Nahum are almost entirely concerned with Nineveh.
So this claim doesn't hold water.
There are many other problems with the book, which I won't discuss in detail. The author has simply done a poor job exploring what Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords requires from the world, and what are the political implications of the Gospel. He never acknowledges or engages with the contributions of Calvin, the Reformed scholastics, the Puritans, Abraham Kuyper, not to mention Roman Catholics or Orthodox, etc., regarding these issues--a major oversight for someone seeking to discuss a Christian politic. There are multiple errors throughout the book, some of which are detailed above. Some are significant, and others are relatively minor. But even the minor errors are surprising (perhaps especially surprising), given they are part of an edifice for such a serious topic. Additionally, the book suffers under the weight of a number of banalities, like "unfettered capitalism," "patriarchy," and "radical liberty." The text frequently shifts from a narrative style to a more conversational preaching style; the transitions are rough and lend the book a rather disjointed character. The author also makes some dubious claims about conservatism and liberalism, which I won't detail here.
This book is not recommended.
July 6, 2020
Should be required reading for Christians in the hyper-partisan landscape of America.
August 11, 2025
I am admittedly a "Camp Fan" as Lee has been both my professor and friend over the past twenty-five years so my critique must be kept in that light. This is also not my first time reading this book. With that pretext, Scandalas Witness is excatly what it claims to be, a political manifesto for Christians. For those who are hoping Camp will tell them who to vote for, or denounce one political party over another, they will leave disappointed, for to ask those questions is to miss the point of what it means to be Christian. If one believes the words of Jesus, repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, and agrees with the understanding that the Kingdom is both now and not yet, then the question is not which political party is more Christian, but is instead, how can I embody the way of Jesus in my daily life? America, or any nation state, is not the hope for the world. Our allegiance to Jesus must supersede all other allegiances. The call of the Kingdom is to live out our faith in real and lasting ways in our society, not to just wait for heaven, but also not to think we can somehow create heaven on Earth as that is up to God. Instead, our call is to live in such a way that we witness to the rest of the world a better way to live in community with each other, and strive to pull others into the way of God, or even just slightly closer.
What I truly love about Camp in this book is that he leaves much room to interpretation of how that is done. His final proposition is that our witness is Ad Hoc. In other words, how I choose to live out the Kingdom of God may look slightly different than how you do. You may choose to protest war and violence by marching and demonstrating agains wars, while I, who happen to currently have a job as a Navy Chaplain, may choose to work within the system seeking peace and reconciliation. Both are valid ways to live out faith in the world. There is no one size fits all way to live as a Christian, and to live our politic, outside of living faithfully to the LORDSHIP of Jesus which means that we are always Christians first, called to live out the sermon on the mount, and that is our voice in the world.
What I truly love about Camp in this book is that he leaves much room to interpretation of how that is done. His final proposition is that our witness is Ad Hoc. In other words, how I choose to live out the Kingdom of God may look slightly different than how you do. You may choose to protest war and violence by marching and demonstrating agains wars, while I, who happen to currently have a job as a Navy Chaplain, may choose to work within the system seeking peace and reconciliation. Both are valid ways to live out faith in the world. There is no one size fits all way to live as a Christian, and to live our politic, outside of living faithfully to the LORDSHIP of Jesus which means that we are always Christians first, called to live out the sermon on the mount, and that is our voice in the world.
December 3, 2020
Fairly challenging book. Good to read, gives great perspective on certain things.
October 17, 2021
Oí. I picked this up cause JMC recommended it and it’s a brief but genius little book about the social political environments that we believers are faced with now. Sometimes too cheeky and confusing ?? But overall an insightful read :)
July 5, 2025
Virtue ethics, theology, a manifesto that reads a bit like Hauerwas for Dummies. This book would be great for a small group study in local churches as an intro to Christianity as a politic.
August 9, 2025
This book made me sad. Not because I disagree with it — on the contrary, I agree with nearly all of it, with some minor quibbles — but because what I’m looking for right now is something I can share with people who don’t already think the same way as I do. As it is, if I gave this book to almost anyone I’d most like to build bridges with, they’d be howling before they even got through the Table of Contents. (To be clear, that’s not a criticism. I think this book does what it sets out to do.)
July 7, 2024
Concise, clever, and robust. Should be required reading for every American Christian on the subject of faith, culture, and politics.
December 6, 2024
SUMMARY:Hope in Jesus. Trust in Jesus. Most Christians would unequivocally agree that those two statements are an important part of being a Christ follower. Therefore it is sobering that a large part of Scandalous Witness takes aim at patriotism being conflated as a Christian orthodox principle while rebutting Christian hope in empire, policies, and politicians.
“The hope of the world is not dependent on any geographically bounded nation-state, not dependent on any king or prime minister, any congress or supreme court,” author Lee Camp writes. “It is dependent on a God who has revealed the ways of suffering love, vindicated in the resurrection, and now calling together a people not bounded by geographical boundaries, a people who will sow the seeds of such hope and possibility into the rich soil of human possibilities.”
Scandalous Witness consists of a collection of fifteen treatises, ranging from 6-13 pages, starting with a summary where Lee states what he is going to argue and finishing with a exposition where he explains his reasoning to back up his summary. Throughout the book Camp calls Christians to live proleptically (“a grammatical term in which a future event is so sure to come, so sure to be the case, that it is spoken of in the present tense”) in hopes of changing the nature of Christian witness in America.
Practically, this means living in the world with hope and purpose because as Christians we know the meaning, direction, and end of history. God’s kingdom has broke into the world. We are called to help and advocate for the poor and the vulnerable. We are called to be political, but never partisan.
“To live by faith, to live proleptically, entails risking that resurrection and life have broken into human history, captivity taken captive by this man upon the cross, and that we are thus free to live accordingly, by love and mercy and graciousness ourselves,” Camp says.
His honest, direct, and sometimes provocative language, repeatedly condemns the American church’s obsession with power and nationalism while calling on the church to be “neither right nor left nor religious.”
“When we reduce the political possibilities for the Christian church to being either a liberal liberal or a conservative liberal, we’ve bought hook, line, and sinker into the rhetoric that gives us a bastardized form of Christian hope,” Lee writes.
Scandalous Witness is a great book to have as a reference for political engagement, especially in regards to nationalism, but also for information on why the church must be separate and distinct from a nation-state. Team this up with Compassion (&) Conviction by Justin Giboney and you have a solid foundation to build a Christian framework for political participation.
If you would like to read more about Christian nationalism we highly recommend Postcards by Babylon from Brian Zahnd.
KEY QUOTE:“(The church) will be neither prostitute or chaplain but a witness, a voice crying in the wilderness to ‘let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an overflowing stream’; a people, embodying an alternative politic in the world, neither Republican nor Democrat, but radically conservative and outrageously liberal; a servant, helping all, even, when possible, the principalities and powers to fulfill their created purpose of serving, not enslaving, not slaughtering humankind.”
MORE: Visit SundaytoSaturday.com where we curate content for the church.
“The hope of the world is not dependent on any geographically bounded nation-state, not dependent on any king or prime minister, any congress or supreme court,” author Lee Camp writes. “It is dependent on a God who has revealed the ways of suffering love, vindicated in the resurrection, and now calling together a people not bounded by geographical boundaries, a people who will sow the seeds of such hope and possibility into the rich soil of human possibilities.”
Scandalous Witness consists of a collection of fifteen treatises, ranging from 6-13 pages, starting with a summary where Lee states what he is going to argue and finishing with a exposition where he explains his reasoning to back up his summary. Throughout the book Camp calls Christians to live proleptically (“a grammatical term in which a future event is so sure to come, so sure to be the case, that it is spoken of in the present tense”) in hopes of changing the nature of Christian witness in America.
Practically, this means living in the world with hope and purpose because as Christians we know the meaning, direction, and end of history. God’s kingdom has broke into the world. We are called to help and advocate for the poor and the vulnerable. We are called to be political, but never partisan.
“To live by faith, to live proleptically, entails risking that resurrection and life have broken into human history, captivity taken captive by this man upon the cross, and that we are thus free to live accordingly, by love and mercy and graciousness ourselves,” Camp says.
His honest, direct, and sometimes provocative language, repeatedly condemns the American church’s obsession with power and nationalism while calling on the church to be “neither right nor left nor religious.”
“When we reduce the political possibilities for the Christian church to being either a liberal liberal or a conservative liberal, we’ve bought hook, line, and sinker into the rhetoric that gives us a bastardized form of Christian hope,” Lee writes.
Scandalous Witness is a great book to have as a reference for political engagement, especially in regards to nationalism, but also for information on why the church must be separate and distinct from a nation-state. Team this up with Compassion (&) Conviction by Justin Giboney and you have a solid foundation to build a Christian framework for political participation.
If you would like to read more about Christian nationalism we highly recommend Postcards by Babylon from Brian Zahnd.
KEY QUOTE:“(The church) will be neither prostitute or chaplain but a witness, a voice crying in the wilderness to ‘let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an overflowing stream’; a people, embodying an alternative politic in the world, neither Republican nor Democrat, but radically conservative and outrageously liberal; a servant, helping all, even, when possible, the principalities and powers to fulfill their created purpose of serving, not enslaving, not slaughtering humankind.”
MORE: Visit SundaytoSaturday.com where we curate content for the church.
March 29, 2021
Lee Camp’s main point is that Christians should remove themselves from national politics and take up the Christian "politic", by which he means to put Christ and His word first rather than any other political or national interests. Since this is aimed at the "Christian" community in America, special attention is given to discredit the idea that the USA is a Christian nation. Since this cuts against the conventional wisdom of the target audience, Camp uses course and blunt language to shock the reader into paying attention to his message. While this is somewhat understandable, I did not appreciate it and it detracted from my reading.
While Camp’s thesis statement makes a good and necessary point, he has some problems with his theology. He seems to believe in post-millennialism and as such that the world will continue to get better until Christ comes again to consummate history (although it must be noted that the “millennium” isn’t discussed in this book). He believes in systemic racism in the West. He believes that power, thrones, dominions, authorities and principalities of Ephesians 6:19 etc are the governments of this world and that God created them to help mankind. Therefore, he reasons, Christians should oppose these powers when they overstep and become a “mechanism for repression”.
Furthermore, for all his bluntness, it is difficult to understand what Camp wants his reader to do. He is clearly calling for Christians to remove themselves from partisan politics but his explanation of his alternative is rather ambiguous and convoluted. It appears to be to strive to do "good deeds" in order to improve the world to bring about the conditions for the return of Christ. The problem with this position that Christians and the church are called to be faithful witnesses rather than agents for social change (Matthew 28:19-20, Revelation 11:1-14 cf Revelation 1:5).
However, these problems are just window-dressing and shouldn’t take away from the main point of the book, which is made strongly and convincingly. I recommend this book as a springboard to discuss the biblical teaching that to engage in politics is to engage with the kingdom of this world. As in all books, readers should not be blind to its problems, but open its pages with a critical mind.
While Camp’s thesis statement makes a good and necessary point, he has some problems with his theology. He seems to believe in post-millennialism and as such that the world will continue to get better until Christ comes again to consummate history (although it must be noted that the “millennium” isn’t discussed in this book). He believes in systemic racism in the West. He believes that power, thrones, dominions, authorities and principalities of Ephesians 6:19 etc are the governments of this world and that God created them to help mankind. Therefore, he reasons, Christians should oppose these powers when they overstep and become a “mechanism for repression”.
Furthermore, for all his bluntness, it is difficult to understand what Camp wants his reader to do. He is clearly calling for Christians to remove themselves from partisan politics but his explanation of his alternative is rather ambiguous and convoluted. It appears to be to strive to do "good deeds" in order to improve the world to bring about the conditions for the return of Christ. The problem with this position that Christians and the church are called to be faithful witnesses rather than agents for social change (Matthew 28:19-20, Revelation 11:1-14 cf Revelation 1:5).
However, these problems are just window-dressing and shouldn’t take away from the main point of the book, which is made strongly and convincingly. I recommend this book as a springboard to discuss the biblical teaching that to engage in politics is to engage with the kingdom of this world. As in all books, readers should not be blind to its problems, but open its pages with a critical mind.
March 11, 2020
Lee Camp offers a concise and hard-hitting look at the age-old lethal combination of politics and religion. He presents 15 propositions that are direct, provocative, and rooted in an important theological tradition of the church. Falling in a presidential election year (surely, not by coincidence), Camp presents Christians an important way beyond endless partisan bickering and vying for Christian justification of party. Camp is an important voice in the Christian tradition of pacifism and non-violence and this work offers an important contribution in the era of the Trumpian evangelical. This quote speaks to his provocative premise: "To be wildly partisan about presidential elections in the midst of the late days of an empire; to be ideologically hostile regarding small government versus big government; to be blindly belligerent regarding capitalism versus socialism, without keeping all these questions in their place of relative importance over against larger concerns; to cast aside all other concerns in favor of a government-mandated pro-life policy on the one hand versus a calloused rhetoric of pro-choice on the other - all of this represents the failure of Christianity in America" (101).
"Is there another way?" so many young Christians sick of the cantankerous bickering and insufferable political bitching beg of the church. While not everyone is going to agree with Camp, the logic and precedent by which he presents his argument makes his case one that cannot be easily dismissed. I wish any American Christian who is interested in politics would read Lee Camp. If you are open to it, he just might change your mind - and offer you a deeper experience of hope than you realized.
"Is there another way?" so many young Christians sick of the cantankerous bickering and insufferable political bitching beg of the church. While not everyone is going to agree with Camp, the logic and precedent by which he presents his argument makes his case one that cannot be easily dismissed. I wish any American Christian who is interested in politics would read Lee Camp. If you are open to it, he just might change your mind - and offer you a deeper experience of hope than you realized.
April 16, 2020
All Christians, whether American or not, ought to read this. It is the answer to the frustration left from reading Dreher's Benedict option... Camp argues instead that Christians need to wise up, consider nationalism and social context from the perspective of the gospel.
Camp explains his position using 15 hard-hitting propositions, seemingly designed to slap Christians into a biblical appraisal of political and social engagement. Each slap invites a turning of the cheek into the next.
I had intended to read this book over time - but I ended up finishing it in just a few days. It is the sort of book I would like to have written myself. I have no doubt that Camp will be getting considerable hate-mail as a result of this book. I only hope that those proffering it do so with an engagement of his ideas, rather than merely projecting their own.
Camp side-steps allegiances to left or right (just as Jesus did), and he is not afraid to call things as they are. This quote seems to provide the tone of the book:
'If Christianity in America has indeed become a joke, then at the core of this disheartening development is our failure to rightly understand what Christianity is. For the apostle Paul, the message about Jesus was a scandal (Gk. skandalon, 1 Cor. 1:23). It was, it is, when rightly understood, a stumbling block, foolishness, a scandal to the powers that be.
Ironically, the good news of Jesus has itself been scandalized in today’s America. The scandal that once was seems long forgotten. Now the scandal of Christianity is its bastardization.'
Understanding and explaining what Christianity is, is at heart of Camps' work. Let's make the gospel great again.
Camp explains his position using 15 hard-hitting propositions, seemingly designed to slap Christians into a biblical appraisal of political and social engagement. Each slap invites a turning of the cheek into the next.
I had intended to read this book over time - but I ended up finishing it in just a few days. It is the sort of book I would like to have written myself. I have no doubt that Camp will be getting considerable hate-mail as a result of this book. I only hope that those proffering it do so with an engagement of his ideas, rather than merely projecting their own.
Camp side-steps allegiances to left or right (just as Jesus did), and he is not afraid to call things as they are. This quote seems to provide the tone of the book:
'If Christianity in America has indeed become a joke, then at the core of this disheartening development is our failure to rightly understand what Christianity is. For the apostle Paul, the message about Jesus was a scandal (Gk. skandalon, 1 Cor. 1:23). It was, it is, when rightly understood, a stumbling block, foolishness, a scandal to the powers that be.
Ironically, the good news of Jesus has itself been scandalized in today’s America. The scandal that once was seems long forgotten. Now the scandal of Christianity is its bastardization.'
Understanding and explaining what Christianity is, is at heart of Camps' work. Let's make the gospel great again.
February 20, 2021
An excellent discussion of how a Christian’s loyalty to Christ prevents Partisan political loyalty. Camp argues that America is not a Christian nation and that Christians must be neither violent nor Pacifists (Pacifists in the sense of passively accepting persecution rather than speaking truth boldly and engaging in spiritual warfare). An enjoyable and provocative read that is much needed. This book is not the end-all, but it does provide some great talking points and challenges the reader to reassess their political involvement.
Update: I wanted to clarify two things about this book: First, Camp uses rather crude language that is intentionally provocative and could have/should have been avoided in a religious book. Second, Camp argues that Christianity is not a religion but a politic, while later admitting Christianity is a religion. This seems to be a contradiction, but i think he has attempted to distinguish between religion that is viewed as governing one's private life, and a politic that represents one's public life (i.e. Christianity must not be limited to one's private life but should govern the whole of life). The distinction is difficult to follow and confusing. I am not the only one who had difficulty with this section as several other reviews and people I have discussed the book have expressed the same sentiment. Correcting a false view of religion as opposed to shifting the terminology entirely seems like it would have been a better strategy and would have brought clarity rather than confusion.
Update: I wanted to clarify two things about this book: First, Camp uses rather crude language that is intentionally provocative and could have/should have been avoided in a religious book. Second, Camp argues that Christianity is not a religion but a politic, while later admitting Christianity is a religion. This seems to be a contradiction, but i think he has attempted to distinguish between religion that is viewed as governing one's private life, and a politic that represents one's public life (i.e. Christianity must not be limited to one's private life but should govern the whole of life). The distinction is difficult to follow and confusing. I am not the only one who had difficulty with this section as several other reviews and people I have discussed the book have expressed the same sentiment. Correcting a false view of religion as opposed to shifting the terminology entirely seems like it would have been a better strategy and would have brought clarity rather than confusion.
March 8, 2021
I wish I had of read this last year when it came out! If you have wrestled with the notion that America is God’s country, that our nation is a Christian nation, and whether or not Christianity and politics merge together somehow, this book is for you. One of the best books on Christian discipleship through politics and what Christianity is, better yet, what American Christianity thinks it is and what it actually is. This book should be welcomed by all churches to help their flock navigate the hard things our society faces. This book should be offered as Bible study curriculum, community group book studies and the like. This is a fantastic tool in navigating what politic are, how Christianity IS a politic and how we should be engaging in these areas. This book is thoughtful, engaging, convicting, and refining. I will be widely recommending this book.
April 11, 2023
I really appreciate what Camp is able to accomplish in a relatively short amount of time. While, in the authors own words, these 15 propositions for a politic “neither left nor right nor religious” are not particularly new or groundbreaking, they are extremely relevant to todays political climate and well supported by both history and scripture. There is also something to be said for Camp’s understanding of the prophetic voice, both in ancient times and in the modern era.
I am a little frustrated by the authors use of strong language at times, as I think that it will probably alienate the audience that needs this book the most.
I am a little frustrated by the authors use of strong language at times, as I think that it will probably alienate the audience that needs this book the most.
July 20, 2021
Great perspective!
In so many ways Lee Camp put beautifully into words a lot of whatever been thinking but wasn’t quite sure how to articulate. This is a must read for all Christians, especially in our day when politics seem to be God and you’re either on the right or wrong side with no perspective of the Gospel. His notion of forming a politic that is neither right, left, nor religious is brilliant and basic all at the same time. We must strive for the way of Christ, nothing more, nothing less.
In so many ways Lee Camp put beautifully into words a lot of whatever been thinking but wasn’t quite sure how to articulate. This is a must read for all Christians, especially in our day when politics seem to be God and you’re either on the right or wrong side with no perspective of the Gospel. His notion of forming a politic that is neither right, left, nor religious is brilliant and basic all at the same time. We must strive for the way of Christ, nothing more, nothing less.
October 15, 2025
I cannot recommend this book more. I truly think it is one of the most timely and important books I have read for the modern day Christian. It deals with the nuance and complexities of living in modern day America in a world that is polarized and ultra politicized. It offers hope and comfort and a way forward that asks us to reject the binaries of our world, forces us to reckon with the lies and false narrative we’ve been fed, and asks us to truly believe in Christ’s mission for the world.
January 1, 2021
A very helpful, punchy and perhaps even prophetic book. Little but dense, Camp's 15 propositions towards a Christianity that is "neither left nor right nor religious" (but a politic) are thought-provoking and welcome, especially considering the current American political climate.
July 12, 2022
Every Christian, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, should read this book. A re-centering of our political thinking away from partisan politics revolving around a specific nation-state and back towards the kingdom of God.
December 19, 2020
What role does religion play in the political life of the nation? For some, the United States is a Christian nation, or at least it should be one. If so, good Christians should have control of the government. For others, there is a firm separation and among those some advocate for a complete withdrawal from public life. The remainder finds themselves somewhere in between. That's where I find myself, and the author of a Scandalous Witness claims similar space. However, Lee Camp finds himself further toward the separationists that do I.
Scandalous Witness is subtitled "A Little Political Manifestor for Christians." That word manifesto should give one a sense of what they will find in the book. This is an attempt to draw a line in the sand, critiquing Christian partisans on both the left and the right. He strongly rejects the idea that the United States is the last great hope for the world. Rather, Christianity is the last best hope. Unfortunately, in the mind of the author, who is affiliated with the Churches of Christ, a branch of the Stone-Campbell Movement of which I'm a part. Though, he has some anabaptist leanings.
The basic foundation of Camp's position is that Christianity is not a religion, in that it's not a private commitment, like a service club. Instead, it is an alternative politic. There is much here that is similar to the positions espoused by people like Stanley Hauerwas, who endorses the book. To those who insist that the United States is a Christian nation, he responds that not only has the US been a Christian nation but it is not possible. Instead, Christians should offer a faithful witness to a different way of being engaged in the world. It's not withdrawal, but it's also not control.
The book offers fifteen propositions (remember this is a political manifesto). He begins by declaring a vision of history: "History Is Not One Damn Thing After Another." In other words, history has an end and a purpose. That will guide the Christian engagement with history. From there he moves through such propositions that the United States Is not the Hope of the World, that the US isn't a Christian Nation, that Christianity is not a religion but a politic. The final proposition is that "Christian Engagement Must Always be Ad Hoc." That is because until the Kingdom of God comes in its fullness "there is no ideologically pure or utopian social arrangement among the nations for which we should strive." (p. 164). Therefore, we must take each issue as it comes. It also requires us to understand where our allegiance lies -- it's with Christ -- and not with the party.
I agree with much of what Camp writes, especially regarding matters of allegiance. As Christians, our allegiance transcends national boundaries. At the same time, I've struggled to figure out how to implement such a vision without joining in the political system. Camp takes a stronger view of nonviolence than do I -- and he critiques the realism that has guided my engagement. However, though my political leanings lean left, I've long been uncomfortable with the idea of a Christian Left in opposition to a Christian Right. In other words, it's easy for liberal/progressive Christians to simply become the religious arm of the Democratic Party. So, while I might quibble with Camp, his propositions do serve as a warning to both Left and Right--in critiquing both he's not staking out a middle position. He simply believes that Christians must approach important issues like race and justice from a different angle altogether. It's a challenging book that speaks to the age of Trump.
Scandalous Witness is subtitled "A Little Political Manifestor for Christians." That word manifesto should give one a sense of what they will find in the book. This is an attempt to draw a line in the sand, critiquing Christian partisans on both the left and the right. He strongly rejects the idea that the United States is the last great hope for the world. Rather, Christianity is the last best hope. Unfortunately, in the mind of the author, who is affiliated with the Churches of Christ, a branch of the Stone-Campbell Movement of which I'm a part. Though, he has some anabaptist leanings.
The basic foundation of Camp's position is that Christianity is not a religion, in that it's not a private commitment, like a service club. Instead, it is an alternative politic. There is much here that is similar to the positions espoused by people like Stanley Hauerwas, who endorses the book. To those who insist that the United States is a Christian nation, he responds that not only has the US been a Christian nation but it is not possible. Instead, Christians should offer a faithful witness to a different way of being engaged in the world. It's not withdrawal, but it's also not control.
The book offers fifteen propositions (remember this is a political manifesto). He begins by declaring a vision of history: "History Is Not One Damn Thing After Another." In other words, history has an end and a purpose. That will guide the Christian engagement with history. From there he moves through such propositions that the United States Is not the Hope of the World, that the US isn't a Christian Nation, that Christianity is not a religion but a politic. The final proposition is that "Christian Engagement Must Always be Ad Hoc." That is because until the Kingdom of God comes in its fullness "there is no ideologically pure or utopian social arrangement among the nations for which we should strive." (p. 164). Therefore, we must take each issue as it comes. It also requires us to understand where our allegiance lies -- it's with Christ -- and not with the party.
I agree with much of what Camp writes, especially regarding matters of allegiance. As Christians, our allegiance transcends national boundaries. At the same time, I've struggled to figure out how to implement such a vision without joining in the political system. Camp takes a stronger view of nonviolence than do I -- and he critiques the realism that has guided my engagement. However, though my political leanings lean left, I've long been uncomfortable with the idea of a Christian Left in opposition to a Christian Right. In other words, it's easy for liberal/progressive Christians to simply become the religious arm of the Democratic Party. So, while I might quibble with Camp, his propositions do serve as a warning to both Left and Right--in critiquing both he's not staking out a middle position. He simply believes that Christians must approach important issues like race and justice from a different angle altogether. It's a challenging book that speaks to the age of Trump.
December 20, 2020
You would think it would be hard to make a book about politics and the Christian faith that was less than 200 pages slow and boring and yet...here we are.
I thought I'd clear this one out in a week because the author's writing style seeks to be provocative and thus there's an attention-grabbing aspect to his rhetoric. But it's just so...boring and forgettable. That appeals fades after a few chapters.
As someone who is probably to the left of author and many of the people reading this book, I believe it reads terribly because the author straddles the fence in annoying ways.
Centrism is obviously annoying for everyone, but in this sense it's annoying because he's trying to provide a prophetic witness to Christian evangelicals (I could do a close reading explaining why I think this is the case but this book wasn't worth my time to finish reading, let alone do more thinking than this review) who have grown increasingly Trumpian. That's a noble gesture, but so are dozens of other Christian authors (left, right, and center).
When this guy does it, its more to just dunk on everyone else with a sick burn, using provocative rhetoric that I will forget upon closing the book because his underlying point is either boring or obvious.
The divide that exists in our country and in the church runs deep and won't be fixed with a single theology book (no matter who authored it), and so I'm not going to bash this book under that criteria. But man, there are so many books doing what this guy is trying to do, but communicated in so much better, more effective ways. This book is more of an abstract screed of the author playing a provocateur for an audience of (possibly pretentious) theology nerds.
For such a scandalous witness, it's almost certainly an irrelevant one. Half way through I started skimming. And then after about 110 pages I just realized it wasn't worth it. Is it bad that I'm giving it such a low ranking even though I didn't read it all? No. Priced at $15 on Amazon Kindle, it's not worth your money. Buy Kaitlyn Schiess's "Liturgy of Politics" instead.
I thought I'd clear this one out in a week because the author's writing style seeks to be provocative and thus there's an attention-grabbing aspect to his rhetoric. But it's just so...boring and forgettable. That appeals fades after a few chapters.
As someone who is probably to the left of author and many of the people reading this book, I believe it reads terribly because the author straddles the fence in annoying ways.
Centrism is obviously annoying for everyone, but in this sense it's annoying because he's trying to provide a prophetic witness to Christian evangelicals (I could do a close reading explaining why I think this is the case but this book wasn't worth my time to finish reading, let alone do more thinking than this review) who have grown increasingly Trumpian. That's a noble gesture, but so are dozens of other Christian authors (left, right, and center).
When this guy does it, its more to just dunk on everyone else with a sick burn, using provocative rhetoric that I will forget upon closing the book because his underlying point is either boring or obvious.
The divide that exists in our country and in the church runs deep and won't be fixed with a single theology book (no matter who authored it), and so I'm not going to bash this book under that criteria. But man, there are so many books doing what this guy is trying to do, but communicated in so much better, more effective ways. This book is more of an abstract screed of the author playing a provocateur for an audience of (possibly pretentious) theology nerds.
For such a scandalous witness, it's almost certainly an irrelevant one. Half way through I started skimming. And then after about 110 pages I just realized it wasn't worth it. Is it bad that I'm giving it such a low ranking even though I didn't read it all? No. Priced at $15 on Amazon Kindle, it's not worth your money. Buy Kaitlyn Schiess's "Liturgy of Politics" instead.
September 18, 2020
There is still so much to meditate on from this book. Camp's Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World is one of my favorite books because of the authenticity and the challenges that it proposes. In that book, there is a chapter or two that touches on American politics, and in Scandalous Witness, Camp fleshes out his ideas more.
For those on the Left hoping that he damns the Right and for those on the Right hoping he calls for brimstone and hellfire on the Right, you won't find that here. This is not a book full of confirmation bias. Instead, Camp condemns both the Right and Left for their failures. Scandalous Witness doesn't give step-by-step instructions on how Christians ought to function in politics. Instead, he sets out fifteen proposals for how Christians can and should interact with the politics that have divided our country.
His thesis centers around Christians not choosing a partisan side of politics, but also not being apathetical to what happens in our world. It is a challenging and difficult line to draw at times, but Lee Camp wonderfully speaks truth into a difficult and important area that is tearing about not just our society, but the Church as well, from the inside and out.
For those on the Left hoping that he damns the Right and for those on the Right hoping he calls for brimstone and hellfire on the Right, you won't find that here. This is not a book full of confirmation bias. Instead, Camp condemns both the Right and Left for their failures. Scandalous Witness doesn't give step-by-step instructions on how Christians ought to function in politics. Instead, he sets out fifteen proposals for how Christians can and should interact with the politics that have divided our country.
His thesis centers around Christians not choosing a partisan side of politics, but also not being apathetical to what happens in our world. It is a challenging and difficult line to draw at times, but Lee Camp wonderfully speaks truth into a difficult and important area that is tearing about not just our society, but the Church as well, from the inside and out.
April 3, 2020
One of the most important, relevant, and needed books I’ve read in many years. Important that this came out just before a presidential election. I’ll be recommending this to every Christian leader I know.
November 11, 2020
Highly recommended.
This is an important book for our cultural moment as Christ Followers in America. It seems more and more believers are falling into the trap of allowing their Christian witness to be co-opted by partisan ethics and divisive rhetoric as they seek to establish a temporal “kingdom” on earth (ie a “Christian America”). This is in stark contrast with the Biblical call of God for us to “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness” and in his book, Lee Camp makes this distinction clear.
In a set of fifteen propositions, Mr. Camp casts light on the common errors of identifying Christianity too closely with a political party, people, or even country (America). He stresses that the kingdom of God transcends any and all human kingdoms, empires, and nation-states. Remembering this helps us avoid getting hyper-focused on America’s safety, prosperity, and growth (via the political agenda of your choice). His point is not that we shouldn’t work toward the good of our nation, but that by our striving we don’t put forth America as the hope of the world, but Christ (His death, burial, and resurrection).
Mr. Camp goes on to warn of the dangers inherent in political partisanship and the importance of believers displaying the qualities of Christ as they engage in disagreements and debate. He explains how “often the problem is not mixing Christianity and politics. Instead, it is failing to grasp, and love, according to the thorough-going nature of Jesus’s politics. The problem is reducing Christianity to something like what we mean by “religion.”Something that informs our spirits, our private devotions to God, our personal spiritual commitments, but does not ultimately define our way in the world, does not ultimately define our political allegiance, does not ultimately determine the way we comport ourselves among the people of the world, among our neighbors, among our enemies.”
He ends the book with the following:
“The scandalous reversal of the Biblical vision of peace is made manifest as sectarian loyalties and partisan commitments lead not merely to ignoring the call of the gospel but inverting them, perverting them. Beating our plows into swords, our hearts and politics are not formed by the crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah, and thus we pant after the coming of another strongman bearing bigger and better swords... May we become a new sort of scandal in the world, marked by the courage made possible by the cross and resurrection, going forth with our faces toward the Son, sowing the seeds of a peaceable reign of God, come now and coming. Amen.”
I couldn’t agree more. Brothers and sisters in Christ, may we become a new sort of “scandal” in the world, in the political arena and in every area of our lives, overflowing with authentic gospel peace, love, and truth.
This is an important book for our cultural moment as Christ Followers in America. It seems more and more believers are falling into the trap of allowing their Christian witness to be co-opted by partisan ethics and divisive rhetoric as they seek to establish a temporal “kingdom” on earth (ie a “Christian America”). This is in stark contrast with the Biblical call of God for us to “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness” and in his book, Lee Camp makes this distinction clear.
In a set of fifteen propositions, Mr. Camp casts light on the common errors of identifying Christianity too closely with a political party, people, or even country (America). He stresses that the kingdom of God transcends any and all human kingdoms, empires, and nation-states. Remembering this helps us avoid getting hyper-focused on America’s safety, prosperity, and growth (via the political agenda of your choice). His point is not that we shouldn’t work toward the good of our nation, but that by our striving we don’t put forth America as the hope of the world, but Christ (His death, burial, and resurrection).
Mr. Camp goes on to warn of the dangers inherent in political partisanship and the importance of believers displaying the qualities of Christ as they engage in disagreements and debate. He explains how “often the problem is not mixing Christianity and politics. Instead, it is failing to grasp, and love, according to the thorough-going nature of Jesus’s politics. The problem is reducing Christianity to something like what we mean by “religion.”Something that informs our spirits, our private devotions to God, our personal spiritual commitments, but does not ultimately define our way in the world, does not ultimately define our political allegiance, does not ultimately determine the way we comport ourselves among the people of the world, among our neighbors, among our enemies.”
He ends the book with the following:
“The scandalous reversal of the Biblical vision of peace is made manifest as sectarian loyalties and partisan commitments lead not merely to ignoring the call of the gospel but inverting them, perverting them. Beating our plows into swords, our hearts and politics are not formed by the crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah, and thus we pant after the coming of another strongman bearing bigger and better swords... May we become a new sort of scandal in the world, marked by the courage made possible by the cross and resurrection, going forth with our faces toward the Son, sowing the seeds of a peaceable reign of God, come now and coming. Amen.”
I couldn’t agree more. Brothers and sisters in Christ, may we become a new sort of “scandal” in the world, in the political arena and in every area of our lives, overflowing with authentic gospel peace, love, and truth.
February 23, 2022
A clarion call for Christians to seriously reconsider their political ideologies, priorities, and purposes in light of what God has made known in Christ.
The author sets forth a series of propositions; he sets forth each in short form and then elaborates in exposition. He argues that history does have a purpose and a goal that God is working out through Jesus and His people; the faith has been more appropriated in America than it has transformed it, and the faith has been compromised by American civic ideology; he challenges American exceptionalist ideology and demonstrates it is not a "Christian Nation"; Christians have been guilty of fighting one another for the sake of ideologies and America in unhealthy ways; there are forces at work against all that is right, good, and holy; and he wishes to suggest Christianity as a politic and not a religion, and to bear witness to the way God would orient the world in Christ.
This is a compelling work and worthy of consideration. Most people will be challenged and critiqued by the positions included therein; all must expose themselves to the critique of what God has made known in Christ and hopefully will have ears to hear so they might step away from American Christianish civic religion and its effects. The author speaks sharply at times. People should hear.
I found a few ways in which things were framed a bit problematic. In Christ there is a telos and hope of redemption indeed; yet at the same time, as the Preacher made known, there is nothing new under the sun, and in that sense history does remain "one thing after another." It is understandable for the author to show that both liberal and conservative political ideologies in America are underwritten by philosophical liberalism; it would have been nice to see libertarianism set forth in that discussion as well as perhaps the "purest" form of that philosophical posture, and the challenges it engenders. I would have also liked to have seen a prophetic rebuke of the muddled moderate in the spirit of King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail (in many respects, the book would have been stronger had more interaction taken place with the black Christian tradition). James 1:27 speaks of pure and undefiled religion; while I understand wanting people to understand that Christianity is not to be mere religion, a private interpretation that has nothing to do with civic/secular space, attempting to deny that the faith is a thing the brother of the Lord said it is provides a bad look. Likewise about countercultural: the faith has always been and always will be countercultural in many ways, but never for its own end.
There's a lot more that could be said about how things should be, but it all needs to begin with a recognition of the forces that are keeping Christians where they are now. May many read this and consider it well.
The author sets forth a series of propositions; he sets forth each in short form and then elaborates in exposition. He argues that history does have a purpose and a goal that God is working out through Jesus and His people; the faith has been more appropriated in America than it has transformed it, and the faith has been compromised by American civic ideology; he challenges American exceptionalist ideology and demonstrates it is not a "Christian Nation"; Christians have been guilty of fighting one another for the sake of ideologies and America in unhealthy ways; there are forces at work against all that is right, good, and holy; and he wishes to suggest Christianity as a politic and not a religion, and to bear witness to the way God would orient the world in Christ.
This is a compelling work and worthy of consideration. Most people will be challenged and critiqued by the positions included therein; all must expose themselves to the critique of what God has made known in Christ and hopefully will have ears to hear so they might step away from American Christianish civic religion and its effects. The author speaks sharply at times. People should hear.
I found a few ways in which things were framed a bit problematic. In Christ there is a telos and hope of redemption indeed; yet at the same time, as the Preacher made known, there is nothing new under the sun, and in that sense history does remain "one thing after another." It is understandable for the author to show that both liberal and conservative political ideologies in America are underwritten by philosophical liberalism; it would have been nice to see libertarianism set forth in that discussion as well as perhaps the "purest" form of that philosophical posture, and the challenges it engenders. I would have also liked to have seen a prophetic rebuke of the muddled moderate in the spirit of King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail (in many respects, the book would have been stronger had more interaction taken place with the black Christian tradition). James 1:27 speaks of pure and undefiled religion; while I understand wanting people to understand that Christianity is not to be mere religion, a private interpretation that has nothing to do with civic/secular space, attempting to deny that the faith is a thing the brother of the Lord said it is provides a bad look. Likewise about countercultural: the faith has always been and always will be countercultural in many ways, but never for its own end.
There's a lot more that could be said about how things should be, but it all needs to begin with a recognition of the forces that are keeping Christians where they are now. May many read this and consider it well.
July 25, 2021
My nephew told me about this book and while it has taken me quite a while to finish reading it, I ended up highlighting in it, bookmarking in it, wanting to read it over again, and wanting to buy a physical copy of the book. For those reasons, I am giving the book five stars.
To those who write about the book's erudite language, the vocabulary is indeed academic (I had to look up several words). I didn't have a problem with the writing style, but I have other family members who would not pick up this book. A reviewer mentioned other books that he thought were better. Y'know, that's why we need lots of voices. If Kaitlyn Schiess (the writer mentioned by the reviewer) says the same thing in a different voice, then I count that as a good situation because these propositions and expositions need to get out there. I'm not sure the Christians who need to hear what Camp has to say will pick up the book (without burning it or throwing it in the trash), but those of us who do read it might be able to relationally and socially make a difference. Granted, Camp was preaching to the choir with me reading it. I already believe that the U.S. is not the Savior of the world. By the way, small point, but Camp uses Americans for those living in the U.S. -- I get why he uses Americans even though North America is also Canada, and South Americans are, well, also Americans. South Americans are usually known by their country and what does one call someone from the U.S.? United Statesians? Yeah, doesn't work.
Another reviewer didn't think the shocking language worked: bastardized Christianity. "Illegitimate" might have worked. You could argue the same point about language in the bible. My guess is that conservatives are going to freak at his pointing out that liberals and conservatives are both liberals (and he's talking about true blue conservatives). This political manifesto is not a manifesto to "make America great again". This is a manifesto for a Christian faith NOT tied to any empire or nation, neither of which can be the "light of the world". It is a manifesto for living one's life the way Jesus would live one's life if Jesus were me/you -- actually living out the sermon on the mount, actually living out "loving God with one's heart, mind, soul, and strength" and "loving others". Scandalous!
To those who write about the book's erudite language, the vocabulary is indeed academic (I had to look up several words). I didn't have a problem with the writing style, but I have other family members who would not pick up this book. A reviewer mentioned other books that he thought were better. Y'know, that's why we need lots of voices. If Kaitlyn Schiess (the writer mentioned by the reviewer) says the same thing in a different voice, then I count that as a good situation because these propositions and expositions need to get out there. I'm not sure the Christians who need to hear what Camp has to say will pick up the book (without burning it or throwing it in the trash), but those of us who do read it might be able to relationally and socially make a difference. Granted, Camp was preaching to the choir with me reading it. I already believe that the U.S. is not the Savior of the world. By the way, small point, but Camp uses Americans for those living in the U.S. -- I get why he uses Americans even though North America is also Canada, and South Americans are, well, also Americans. South Americans are usually known by their country and what does one call someone from the U.S.? United Statesians? Yeah, doesn't work.
Another reviewer didn't think the shocking language worked: bastardized Christianity. "Illegitimate" might have worked. You could argue the same point about language in the bible. My guess is that conservatives are going to freak at his pointing out that liberals and conservatives are both liberals (and he's talking about true blue conservatives). This political manifesto is not a manifesto to "make America great again". This is a manifesto for a Christian faith NOT tied to any empire or nation, neither of which can be the "light of the world". It is a manifesto for living one's life the way Jesus would live one's life if Jesus were me/you -- actually living out the sermon on the mount, actually living out "loving God with one's heart, mind, soul, and strength" and "loving others". Scandalous!
October 14, 2021
Lee Camp’s book “Scandalous Witness” is book about authentic, prophetic, faithful Christianity that is neither politically left, politically right, nor traditionally religious. The book is divided up into 15 propositions:
PROPOSITION 1
History Is Not One Damn Thing after Another
PROPOSITION 2
The End of History Has Already Begun
PROPOSITION 3
American Hope Is a Bastard
PROPOSITION 4
Christianity Is Neither a Prostitute nor a Chaplain
PROPOSITION 5
The United States Is Not the Hope of the World
PROPOSITION 6
The United States Was Not, Is Not, and Will Not Be a Christian Nation
PROPOSITION 7
How Christian Values, and the Bible, Corrupt Christianity
PROPOSITION 8
Every Empire Falls
PROPOSITION 9
Christian Partisanship Is like a Fistfight on the Titanic
PROPOSITION 10
Hostile Forces Have a Role in the Unfolding of History
PROPOSITION 11
Christianity Is Not a Religion; Christianity Is a Politic
PROPOSITION 12
Liberal Political Puissance Is Not the Goal
PROPOSITION 13
Exemplary Political Witness Is the Goal
PROPOSITION 14
Christianity Is Not Countercultural
PROPOSITIONS 15
Christian Engagement Must Always Be Ad Hoc
Lee C. Camp’s book “Mere Discipleship” was life-changing for me. This book? Not so much. Nothing was particularly WRONG with it. I pretty much agree with everything Camp says . . . It’s just that he says the same thing he’s been saying and so many of his other contemporaries have been saying for years. This book actually feels like a watered version of “Mere Discipleship” (maybe Camp was going for a larger audience on this one?).
So, if this is new to your line of thought, then by all means read it. If you have already Hauerwas, Yoder, Brueggemann, Boyd, Claiborne, et al., you won’t really find much new here.
PROPOSITION 1
History Is Not One Damn Thing after Another
PROPOSITION 2
The End of History Has Already Begun
PROPOSITION 3
American Hope Is a Bastard
PROPOSITION 4
Christianity Is Neither a Prostitute nor a Chaplain
PROPOSITION 5
The United States Is Not the Hope of the World
PROPOSITION 6
The United States Was Not, Is Not, and Will Not Be a Christian Nation
PROPOSITION 7
How Christian Values, and the Bible, Corrupt Christianity
PROPOSITION 8
Every Empire Falls
PROPOSITION 9
Christian Partisanship Is like a Fistfight on the Titanic
PROPOSITION 10
Hostile Forces Have a Role in the Unfolding of History
PROPOSITION 11
Christianity Is Not a Religion; Christianity Is a Politic
PROPOSITION 12
Liberal Political Puissance Is Not the Goal
PROPOSITION 13
Exemplary Political Witness Is the Goal
PROPOSITION 14
Christianity Is Not Countercultural
PROPOSITIONS 15
Christian Engagement Must Always Be Ad Hoc
Lee C. Camp’s book “Mere Discipleship” was life-changing for me. This book? Not so much. Nothing was particularly WRONG with it. I pretty much agree with everything Camp says . . . It’s just that he says the same thing he’s been saying and so many of his other contemporaries have been saying for years. This book actually feels like a watered version of “Mere Discipleship” (maybe Camp was going for a larger audience on this one?).
So, if this is new to your line of thought, then by all means read it. If you have already Hauerwas, Yoder, Brueggemann, Boyd, Claiborne, et al., you won’t really find much new here.
December 29, 2024
“To envision the nation-state—any nation-state—as the bearer of the salvific work of God in the world is to bastardize the Christan hope. American Christians have too often placed such hope in America.”
“For Christians to extricate themselves from this theological captivity—often of Christians’ own making—it must be stated clearly: the United States is not the hope of the world. The United States is not a Christian nation and never has been.”
“going to heaven is not the point of the New Testament, nor did early Christians believe it so.”
“It is not the afterlife for which the prophet longs but the setting right of this life: the pain of lost loves and the death of infants, of old griefs and deep regret, of the weeping of mothers were the cries of war period all shall be wrought up into the work of this God who shall wipe away every tear from every eye and make all things right.”
“With regard to the failings of the church: we must accept that the charges of hypocrisy are true…to accept the charge of hypocrisy as true can then lead in one of two directions: (1) a sort of glib acceptance that “we are all bastards but God loves us anyway,” or (2) a sort of chastened and joyous path toward truth telling about ourselves: “yes, we are indeed bastards, but God loves us anyway and calls us to keep growing, yearning, and changing.” This latter course opens up the necessity of learning to tell the truth about ourselves and learning to tell the truth about our failings. In this process of truth telling we may become an example to a world that desperately needs spaces and practices of
such authenticity, for only such authenticity can lead to genuine freedom.”
“Just as we must not fall prey to ideological partisanship, so must we not fall prey to idealizing the church.”
“For Christians to extricate themselves from this theological captivity—often of Christians’ own making—it must be stated clearly: the United States is not the hope of the world. The United States is not a Christian nation and never has been.”
“going to heaven is not the point of the New Testament, nor did early Christians believe it so.”
“It is not the afterlife for which the prophet longs but the setting right of this life: the pain of lost loves and the death of infants, of old griefs and deep regret, of the weeping of mothers were the cries of war period all shall be wrought up into the work of this God who shall wipe away every tear from every eye and make all things right.”
“With regard to the failings of the church: we must accept that the charges of hypocrisy are true…to accept the charge of hypocrisy as true can then lead in one of two directions: (1) a sort of glib acceptance that “we are all bastards but God loves us anyway,” or (2) a sort of chastened and joyous path toward truth telling about ourselves: “yes, we are indeed bastards, but God loves us anyway and calls us to keep growing, yearning, and changing.” This latter course opens up the necessity of learning to tell the truth about ourselves and learning to tell the truth about our failings. In this process of truth telling we may become an example to a world that desperately needs spaces and practices of
such authenticity, for only such authenticity can lead to genuine freedom.”
“Just as we must not fall prey to ideological partisanship, so must we not fall prey to idealizing the church.”
July 2, 2020
I purchased Scandalous Witness as soon as it was released in March (2020) after reading a positive review. Excitedly, I read through the less than 200 page book very quickly and was not disappointed. Many of the 15 propositions resonated with conclusions I had previously reached, and further solidified my conclusions. Other propositions were novel and very thought provoking. Today I finished my second and more thoughtful reading of the book. What I found most convicting was the perspective of Christianity as a politic. This politic of Jesus (God's mission on this earth--the Kingdom of God) supersedes and informs disciples as to their ultimate allegiance, as well as, their perspectives toward and hope in earthly nation/states. This politic is rooted in Proposition 2: The End of History Has Already Begun. Camp, in the opening paragraphs of this proposition envisions Christianity as an interpretation of history. That is, the resurrection of Jesus "ushers in" the end of history and brings into being a new "political possibility in the world." This end of history has begun, but is not fully realized. In this interim time followers of Jesus are called to a "proleptic political stance." Proleptic means that future events are so certain that they can be spoken of in the present tense. We are to live as if the new age has fully come. The Kingdom of God demands our allegiance now, which then informs whatever political party affiliation we may have or national devotion.
May 5, 2021
The four stars come because the content of Camp's thoughts is excellent...as the church in the United States we have become idolatrous and lost our witness because we have been focused on far too many of the wrong things. We truly need to hear the call to be neither right nor left nor religious.
The way the author speaks of this, however, can be a bit grating. A better book might have been fleshed out a little bit more, seeking to be more illustrative and less declarative in its writing. At times one feels depressingly guilty and makes us wonder if there's any hope for the church...maybe we need that kind of prophetic voice, but the tone loses the balance between self-righteous/condemnatory and encouraging/pastoral (always leaning towards the former at the expense of the latter).
Also, the realist in me wonders if its format will keep it from the many who need to read it. Are we so far gone in our ideological madness that people will no longer even take time to read such a book? I hope not, but I fear that the 'manifesto' tone will keep many away who might otherwise be persuaded.
The way the author speaks of this, however, can be a bit grating. A better book might have been fleshed out a little bit more, seeking to be more illustrative and less declarative in its writing. At times one feels depressingly guilty and makes us wonder if there's any hope for the church...maybe we need that kind of prophetic voice, but the tone loses the balance between self-righteous/condemnatory and encouraging/pastoral (always leaning towards the former at the expense of the latter).
Also, the realist in me wonders if its format will keep it from the many who need to read it. Are we so far gone in our ideological madness that people will no longer even take time to read such a book? I hope not, but I fear that the 'manifesto' tone will keep many away who might otherwise be persuaded.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews