In an earlier volume, Awaiting the King, Smith devotes an entire chapter to undermining appeals to natural law and natural law theory—the very things one would need to reject to affirm what Smith wants to affirm nowadays. The whole chapter simplistically caricatures the natural law tradition and fails to represent it accurately. He only sets up a strawman version of natural law to tear it down. According to Smith, natural law is too minimalist and ineffective in a world marred by sin. It fails to give a robust explanation of the revelation of who Christ is. In that chapter, he upholds some generic notion of “nature” as a feature of the biblical storyline, but he then says that nature itself cannot be rightly known apart from Special Revelation. This common critique does not withstand scrutiny when held up to sound interpretation and human experience.
Yes, people reject natural law—but that doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with it. God’s moral law doesn’t misfire. Part of the reason people reject it is because sin has distorted human reasoning (Romans 1:21). But Scripture also says that people can knowingly suppress the truth that’s clearly seen in the created world (Romans 1:18–20). Nowhere does Scripture speak of creation order being wholly unintelligible or humans being entirely ignorant of its order. In fact, in the same set of verses, Paul says that God’s creation order is so teeming with moral order that people are “without excuse” when they disobey it (Romans 1:20). The Apostle Paul, in fact, focuses on sexual ethics to make this exact point. Homosexuality is a vivid rejection of the Creator’s design for our bodies.
Since both the Bible and natural law point to the same moral truths, it’s no surprise that Smith’s rejection of natural law in Awaiting the King eventually led him to reject what the Bible says about sexual ethics. You can’t keep rejecting natural law—especially the parts of natural law you don’t like—and still fully hold to the authority of Scripture. Morality is a package deal.
James K.A. Smith’s example shows that even a theology that claims to be “biblical” or “Reformed” can go wrong if it ignores what the Bible says about creation. Smith has become a theologian who stands against nature. https://t.co/dfIBuYQqPn
— Andrew T. Walker (@andrewtwalk) April 10, 2025
