I admit, suggesting Tucker Carlson is a “Prophet for our Times” is a fairly “click-baity” title. However, I am going to answer the question it poses with some substance. This should mitigate the provocative nature of its wording, and show it to be warranted. As such, I am writing this article for two reasons. First, because I think it is true that Carlson is prophetic for out times. Second, because what Carlson has been pointing out publicly, on his very large platform, has been something Christian theologians, who don’t have much of an audience in contemporary America, have been saying for years. Of course, some of what Carlson says is also just plain sense. There are important truths that are simply discerned by those whose reality compass points north, no advanced degree required. Conversely, those same truths are obscured by those who have no compass to speak of.
Mandatory Caveats to Claiming Carlson a “Prophet”
Naturally, I must caveat the article’s claim with the proper nuance. However, I only need to do this for one real reason: to assure fellow conservatives I am not making a theological error. The other reason one might caveat such a claim is not a good reason, even if a very common one. Many who like what Carlson has to say will endlessly qualify their remarks so as to appease leftist ideologues, especially progressive Christians. They do this because they know leftists will try to shame anyone who defends or endorses one of their most cherished targets of viral hatred. In this case, that is Carlson. In other cases, it might be men like Jordan Peterson or Dennis Prager, or women like Heather MacDonald or Megyn Kelly, Evangelicals like Voddie Baucham or Douglas Wilson, or Roman Catholics like Matt Walsh or Archbishop Salvatore Cordelione.
Unlike conservatives, who target movements, ideologies, and ideas, leftists love to go directly after people. The demonization of individual persons is a well-known tactic on the Left. It is something done with intent and to achieve an expected goal (it was also the worst part about Donald Trump, who wrongly decided to fight fire with fire). Thus, let me be crystal clear, I am not qualifying my claim about Carlson’s prophetic status for this second reason. I do not care to recognize the validity of this tactic with any such remarks.
As such, I omit any further qualifying remark about calling Carlson “prophetic.” I am not interested in trying to appease the irrational among us who hate people, and who willfully ignore any distinction between persons and ideas. Thus, whatever flaws, failures and foibles Carlson has made either in his public or private life, they are irrelevant here. I am pointing out one, simple fact: that Carlson is speaking truth boldly. That said, let me qualify my remarks in the first sense.
Carlson Not A Literal “Prophet”
First, when I say that Carlson is a “prophet” for our times, I do not mean he is the equivalent of a reincarnate, biblical prophet. Carlson is not an avatar of Jeremiah, to mix my religious metaphors. Nor has the office of prophet been reinstated in our day, as, unfortunately, some very influential Christians have been claiming of late. Even if the office of biblical prophet were to be reinstated, which it has not been, Carlson would not be one of those to claim the mantel. In his recent speech at The Heritage Foundation, he made many references to his own faith tradition, Episcopalianism, as “the Samaritans of our time” (27:10).
Second, Carlson is also not some charismatic “prophet,” who speaks words claimed to come directly from God through private revelation. While I do believe that the spiritual gift of prophecy continues today, I do not believe the majority of “prophets” who make grandiose pronouncements from the pulpit are legitimate. My sense is that most of these hyper-charismatic Evangelicals, the ones who claim to be apostles or prophets that can literally predict future events (and who usually wind up getting things terribly wrong), are little more than vain showmen and show-women. While I imagine we could trace this charismatic phenomenon of phony prophets far back in history, today’s manifestation of them seems little more than a product of a late capitalist, Hollywood-influenced culture that sees the life of faith as a performance rather than as piety.
What I do mean, however, is that Carlson is fulfilling a prophetic role in our culture and in our historical moment. He is not the only one doing this. There are others. Carlson, like Jordan Peterson, is fulfilling a call that many, far more “learned” Christians, are failing to do themselves. He is speaking simple, theological truths in a courageous way to a hostile audience. The responses that will flood the comments section below after I publish this article will be evidence of this very fact. This is not to say that Carlson is right on every point, how could he be? Nor is it to say he is some supremely moral person, but neither are you or me. However, it is to say that on very particular issues, important issues, he is defending publicly that which is most worthy of defense, and rightly calling that which is evil “evil.”
The Heritage Foundation Speech
In his last public appearance before being fired from Fox News, Carlson gave this speech at The Heritage Foundation. Since Carlson mentioned the word “theology” or “theologian” on multiple occasions, it seems right to weigh in and assess his points. In the speech, Carlson lists off several things that he thinks are terribly significant.
First, there is a collapse of leadership in America, especially at the upper echelons of the culture (3:30). Moreover, a new totalitarianism is emerging in the country, and the Justice Department is being weaponized against political undesirables (10:00). Also, the culture is moving far too fast, especially for the elderly (12:30). There is a dearth of real courage among politicians and professionals, and the herd mentality is so strong that many do not resist what is clearly wrong (13:30). In lieu of this, those that stand up and speak truth don’t fit any political or social profile. Yet, when they do speak up, it is both noticeable and they pay a big price for doing so (18:30).
Carlson goes on to say that this kind of moral courage is far more impressive than sheer physical courage (20:00). Furthermore, our national debates are no longer being held on common ground, with a common objective but just different ways of getting there (21:30). Part of this is the understanding that transgenderism and abortion are not policy goals, or political issues, but “theological” phenomena (22:00-23:00). In short, the government is becoming an institution dedicated to “destruction for destruction sake” (24:15), both via the mutilation of healthy children and the murder of children as economic policy.
Finally, Carlson gives an analysis of the “fruits” of good and evil. Good produces peace, calmness, unity, order and cleanliness. “Cleanliness really is next to godliness” (24:45), Carlson rightly observes. Evil, alternatively, generates disunity, disorder, violence, division and “filth” (can you say “CHOP/CHAZ”?). Notably, Carlson, an Episcopalian, opens and closes his speech by apologizing for “not praying for the country” as he should, and appealing to his audience that they pray for the country. He reflects on the fact that as an Episcopalian, he makes this appeal from the “most shallow faith tradition” that exists, a denomination that is “hardly even Christian” anymore.
Q&A With Kevin Roberts
There are two more points to highlight in Carlson’s Q&A with Kevin Roberts (28:00). First, Carlson makes an incisive analysis about the problem of information in our contemporary culture. The promise of the internet was “information at your fingertips.” This was supposed to be a liberating development, not unlike the printing press, perhaps, that would usher in a new enlightenment. Unfortunately, this is not the full story.
Carlson argues that the Internet has more than anything brought upon us the “centralization of information.” In other words, the kind of propaganda that the KGB mastered in the 20th century, is now being perfected via the use, or non-use, of digital media. This is not just the fact of too much conflicting information. It is also the fact of “controlled” information, i.e., information that never gets out to the public but is handled only by a very few elite organizations.
One caveat to this point that is incredibly poignant is Carlson’s advice to “not throw away your old books.” The physicality of objects is vital to the health of a society. The totally virtual society is something that great thinkers as far back as E.M. Forster and Aldous Huxley have been warning us about. And these were not people who were socially conservative, at least in their own time. Books and “other people” cannot be “disappeared,” says Carlson. In other words, we must keep in relational contact with real things. As Carlson puts it, “the things you can smell, are the things you can trust.” Finally, Carlson concludes by reminding us to tell each other every day “I love you.” Because, as we all know, we do not know what tomorrow brings, and death still is the one thing that binds us all.
Analyzing Carlson’s Views
Space will not permit a full discussion on each of Carlson’s points. It is safe to say, however, that they are all basically correct. That there is a lack of leadership in the culture, especially at the top, is probably something both conservatives and liberals could agree on. Some liberals may even agree with Carlson, in fact many do, that the state apparatus is being weaponized against private citizens. Carlson references a “black nationalist” group in the speech that had recently been targeted by the Justice Department for disagreeing with the Biden administration’s support of the Ukraine. This is obviously a group he doesn’t agree with on most issues. However, many of us, especially we in the pro-life movement, have gazed in amazement at the targeted federal attacks against members of the pro-baby community. The American Justice Department is quickly becoming a den of soviet-style appartchiks.
As to the moral courage of some of our nation’s citizens, Carlson is also spot on. Courage often comes from those we least expect to display it (Bill Maher, Joe Rogan, Alan Dershowitz…who would have thought!?). Unfortunately, the corollary to that is we often don’t see moral courage in those places we would most expect to find it, for example, in our military or our churches. There really are men who can rush into physical battle without fear for life or limb, yet who cannot find it in themselves to stand up in a boardroom meeting and put their foot down amidst peer pressure to rubber stamp gender identity nonsense. However, there are two specific theological points that Carlson makes that I want to focus on. They are the fight between good and evil, which happens at the pre-political level of human culture, and the loss of human relationships via our use of, and reliance on, technology.
The Fruits of Good and Evil
Good and evil can, as Carlson points out, be most readily discerned by looking at what certain actions produce. This is not, as he says, a strictly Christian understanding. It is common to all wise men, and civilized nations, to know that evil produces violence and destruction, while goodness produces their opposite, peace and flourishing. The most indicative aspect of American culture today is its love of death and destruction, or “deconstruction,” which is a type of death of its own: the death of knowledge.
The most concrete examples of the love of death and destruction found in America today are abortion and transgenderism, with the celebration of homosexuality a near third. All of these movements, all of which have to do with sex and sexual identity, are movements of death, or, at least, of non-life. Abortion is the deliberate murder of children. Transgenderism is the enabling of the mutilation of otherwise healthy human bodies. Homosexual relations are relations that cannot produce life, which is the purposive end of any sexual union.
To compare abortion, therefore, with human sacrifice, as Carlson does, is an entirely apt analogy. Carlson correctly points out that the discussion on abortion is no longer about hard, complex moral situations where we might waffle on the justice of putting a developing baby to death. Now, abortion is seen as a sacred right, a holy obligation to those who defend it. This is simply evil. Moreover, what makes abortion in America uniquely cruel, is that the member of the species homo sapien that desires this sacred right more so than the other is now the nation’s women. It is not the “toxic male” who wants to see helpless children abandoned to the scalpel. It is the “nurturing female” who is desperately holding on to the rite to kill. Of course, one reason for this is the toxic male ideology of progressivism, which forces women to be more and more like men, abdicating their femininity for the sake of some elusive, masculine pseudo-identity (represented by female “action heroes” like Lara Croft, or Trinity in The Matrix).
In addition to the evils of abortion, we have the disorder of transgenderism. The sheer amount of chaos the transgender movement has unleashed on the world is evidence enough of its source. One only needs to consider the dismantling of women’s sports, or the unbound hatred of all things Harry Potter, to know that transgenderism counts amongst one of the greatest evils of our times. Moreover, transgenderism is in theory and practice all about dis-ordering. It is about the undoing of the order that has been established, both by nature, by nature’s God and by those societies which have best perceived and understood that order.
In practice, “transitioning” is literally about rearranging, or trying to rearrange, body parts. It intends to dis-order that which obviously has been ordered. Of course, this disordering is purely cosmetic, since there is no actual transition of a biological man to a woman, or vice-versa. Nevertheless, the intent and attempt to disorder is clear.
However, still more malevolent, is the attempt by both transgender activists and the government to sow discord between parents and their children. The use of transgenderism to induce mistrust and division amongst those meant to have the most loving and intimate of human relationships is yet another obvious indicator of its evil source. Transgenderism is analogous to the “Hitler Youth” movement of 1920’s Germany, seeking to lure the next generation away from the mores and norms of the prior generation and toward some dystopian future. Unfortunately, we are so late in the game, that many parents are now compliant with this new ideology, and, as such, the dystopia is already present.
Tucker Carlson Is No Prophet, But He is Prophetic
Part of out cultural insanity does relate to the advance in our technology. Carlson’s point about recapturing and refocusing on that which is “physical” is something which theologian Graham Ward has also recognized as vital to our human flourishing. Carlson’s point here is truly incisive. “If I can’t smell it, I can’t trust it” may sound crude, but it is a euphemism for something we desperately need to regain. Ward points out how our advanced, highly virtualized society is causing a kind of overreaction toward our own bodies. This overreaction is showing up in Ward’s own area of theological studies, where there is a preponderance of theological writing on Christ’s embodied nature.
I would suggest the attention to the nature of Jesus Christ’s embodiment is part of a wider cultural obsession with the body in affluent locations around the world. This wider obsession that desires to turn the body into the most finely balanced sensorium so that it might experience its own joys and pains to the full is, I suggest, both a response to the fear of the body’s disappearance and also a response to the new working conditions created by globalism…the deepening of cyberspace, the multiplication of mobile phones and the endless mobility of peoples makes gnostics of us all. Our working is becoming more and more disembodied; and in becoming more disembodied we are becoming more depoliticized.
Ward, Christ and Culture, 177
Technology and our rampant, incessant use of it is causing us to lose touch with our own physical bodies. As such, we look to compensate for bodily experiences, to maximize the body’s “joys and pains.” Where do we find the most aggressive transgender agendas? Not in Africa or South America, but among the “affluent locations around the world.” We see the greatest breakdown in sexual identity, a breakdown ultimately between mind and body, in those parts of the world where men no longer work with their bodies, and where woman no longer need, or are expected, to have and nurse children. Technology, as Ward clarifies and Carlson alludes to, is making gnostics of us all. Why shouldn’t a man try out being a woman if, after all, he isn’t using his perfectly good body for anything particularly manly? Why shouldn’t a woman try out being a man if she has no intent or desire to be a mother, to use her body for what it was made for?
For better or for worse, Tucker Carlson is doing a better job at proclaiming hard truths to a nearly defeated nation than most. We might hope for prophets from within the Church willing to do the same, ones without foul mouths (or strange laughs). But, on occasion, God calls the least likely to be prophetic. And so the self-described “Samaritan” Carlson seems to be fulfilling that role.
nota bene:
*Commentators will be tempted to post links to various new stories attacking Carlson’s character, harping on about his “racism” or crude language, or sexual innuendos. I have looked at many of them, and find little worth reacting to. However, for those who want to bombard me with such stories, here is a link to Megyn Kelly’s excellent response to all of these media hit jobs.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In