I had not thought when reviewing Barbara Villet‘s extraordinary book, Blood River, last fall (January OUTLOOK) that its subject, South Africa, was about to receive the extraordinary attention that it has been getting in current news.
Bishop Desmond Tutu
Figuring prominently in much of the recent publicity has been the black Anglican bishop of Johannesburg, Desmond Tutu, general secretary of the South African Council of Churches. Not long ago he was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize. The irony of his receiving that award has not gone unnoticed in many quarters. In a clipping from the Digby Courier sent in from Canada, a columnist, Patrick J. Buchanan, wrote, “Hearing the glad tidings, the bishop, ‘on sabbatical’ in the United States, flew home to a tumultuous airport reception. There, he publicly embraced the African National Congress, which calls for the violent overthrow of the South African government. He urged white South Africans to join in up-ending the system. He held a lively rally at his local church. Then, he flew back to the United States.
“The bishop’s progress was illustrative. First, it revealed that, whatever his moral splendor, the bishop is a political ignoramus. Should the Soviet–backed terrorists of the ANC ever seize power in South Africa, the bishop, if he is still alive, would likely enjoy the same accommodations his colleague, Bishop Muzorewa, enjoys in ‘liberated’ Rhodesia: preventive detention.
“Second, the bishop‘s trip underscored what a remarkably free country South Africa remains. In one week, the bishop exercised—or benefited from the exercise of-freedom of travel, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and, given the massive publicity, freedom of the press.”
The December 17, 1984 Christian News printed an “Open Letter to the Nobel Prize Committee” from United Christian Action, “an umbrella organisation for concerned Christians and religious organisations . . . with a membership of more than 4 .5 million black South Africans.” The letter called attention to the incongruity of giving this award “for exceptional merit in the furtherance of world peace” to Bishop Tutu.
“It has been admitted by the chairman of your committee that the choice was political. But for what purpose? The people of South Africa, as throughout this tragic continent, still reel under the impact of the worst drought in recorded history. This has coincided with the worst recession since 1930, accompanied by record unemployment and soaring inflation. Yet it is at this time of great national suffering that Bishop Tutu sees fit to campaign across the world for disinvestment and economic sanctions against his people.
“During an interview on Danish television, Bishop Tutu rejected the argument that foreign investment helps to improve the lot of blacks by providing employment saying: ‘We do not in fact look for an improvement in the South African situation.’ His international agitation to increase the suffering of blacks in South Africa in order to bring about radical change, has already provoked confrontation with black political leaders, most notably chief Gatsha Buthelezi. The leader of the six million strong Zulu nation is in favour of investment and reconciliation.
“Writing in the Johannesburg Sunday Times, 21 October 1984, Alan Paton, South Africa’s leading liberal author, reproached Bishop Tutu in these terms: ‘Bishop Tutu, I want ask you a question? I do not understand how your Christian conscience allows you to advocate disinvestment. I do not understand how you can put a man out of work for a high moral principle. It would go against my own deepest principles to advocate anything that would put a man—especially a black man—out of a job . . . I think your morality is confused just as was the morality of Dr. Verwoerd in his utopian dreams. You come near to saying the end justifies the means, which is a thing no Christian can do.’”
After noting that Bishop Tutu had attacked the pope for granting audience to the South African Prime Minister, the letter continues: “Anyone moved by the Christian spirit is automatically castigated for not joining his confrontation course. Far from promoting peace and reconciliation, he has openly stated that he would not rule out the possibility of supporting an armed struggle himself. How can such a pronouncement be reconciled with the original purpose for which Alfred Nobel instituted the Peace Prize?”
The letter goes on to point out that “Bishop Tutu is not supported by the majority of Christians in South Africa. Most black independent Churches are not members of his political pressure group. Moreover many of them have withdrawn in protest against the SACC’s politics. He demonstrated his callous attitude towards the common man by uttering these words, quoted from the Rand Daily Mail, 22 December 1977, ‘But you never go round in a liberation struggle asking the so-called ordinary people what to do. It is the leaders, the more politicised people, who make the decisions.’
“Proof that the South African Council of Churches, of which Bishop Tutu is principal spokesman, does not represent the Christian majority is borne out by the fact that only 1.2 percent of its finances is generated by member Churches and more than 97 percent from overseas in order to sustain the political campaign of a minority. These donations from Christian sources have been used to aid those engaged in violence. In addition to this, theft and fraud have been committed by leading persons in the SACC and have led to one of the biggest financial scandals in South African church history.
“By this choice, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has disappointed the hopes of many millions of people of all population groups in this country, who are working towards evolutionary change and have shown tremendous goodwill.
Yours sincerely, United Christian Action.” (A copy of this letter was sent to Christian News by the director of United Christian Action, Dr. Edward Cain.)
Associated with Bishop Tutu in the effort to generate world-wide political opposition to South Africa has been Dr. Allan A. Boesak, president of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. (A recent Lutheran-produced videotape, obtainable from the National Council of Churches, seeks to “portray the challenges of apartheid in South Africa via the perspectives” of Tutu and Boesak.)
It is significant for us that Dr. Boesak was featured as a special faculty lecturer at Calvin College a few years ago and was scheduled to be one of several lecturers to speak there this January on apartheid.
The Anti-South Africa News Campaign
A news item in the January 21 Christian News calls attention to the cover story in the January 29 Review of the News headed, “Reds Tum the Heat on South Africa.” The story observes that “Since Thanksgiving, television viewers and newspaper readers have been given daily coverage of protests at the South African Embassy in Washington and at South African Consulates in our major cities.” Noting the orderliness of the protestors, the article states that they “are part of the Free South African Movement . . .which while ‘on camera’ is expressing concern about human rights and the abuse of power.” But “the polite dignitaries on the picket lines, some knowingly and others unwittingly, are acting to transforms South Africa into a Marxist dictatorship . . . .” “Review of the News says that Assistant Director of the F.B.I. Edward O‘Malley testified before the House Intelligence Committee in July 1982 that a major anti–South Africa conference held in New York in October 1981 was an example of ‘specific Soviet active measure activities and operations in the United States.’ A significant number of the leaders of the current protest campaign were involved in that conference.
“Principal coordinator of the Washington protests which kicked off this drive is Randall Robinson, executive director of transAfrica . . . .” “TransAfrica’s real work,” according to this report, “is promoting the interests of the African National Congress . . . . , the Soviet dominated South Africa terrorist organization, and Soviet allied regimes in Africa and the Caribbean.”
A much more extensive treatment of this same subject is found in the January issue of The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor which was sent in by a correspondent. The 10-page report packed with details is far too long to cover in any depth, but much of its information is illuminating. It too calls attention to the series of well-organized demonstrations which began in the U.S. near the end of November, observing that they resemble similar campaigns against the South Vietnamese government before we abandoned it, against the Shah of Iran (before we stopped supporting him, to make way for Khomeini) and against the Smith government of Rhodesia (before we stopped supporting it, to make way for a Marxist regime there).
The strategic importance of South Africa to the Western world is evident when we consider that South Africa and the Soviet Union together control over 80% of the world’s strategic mineral reserves which are essential to U.S. and western industry. “Leonid Brezhnev boasted several years ago that the key to Soviet world domination was to isolate the mineral resources of the Middle East and southern Africa from the West.” South Africa also sits astride the shipping lane over which over 80% of western Europe’s and half of the U.S.’s imported oil is shipped in tankers too large for the Suez Canal.
Although “the Soviets do not believe they can conquer South Africa militarily,” they have been working “to surround and isolate it, precipitate economic sanctions and disinvestment in the West, harass South Africa along her four country 1500–mile border, and foment internal revolution among her 16 million Blacks. The current disinvestment/sanctions campaign in the U.S. is designed to bring such suffering and economic hardship to South Africa’s Blacks, that they will stage a revolution, overthrow the white government and install the pro-Soviet ANC.” By means of “national liberation movements” in various countries the Soviets have worked for and, in a number of African countries, have already succeeded in getting Communist governments established, especially in areas adjoining South Africa. “Russian, Cuban, East German, North Korean and Bulgarian troops are stationed in Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, etc.” In addition to this, the United Nations and the World Council of Churches and its affiliated church organizations have been induced to support the Soviet-fostered Marxist “liberation” movements.
The report points out that while, in general, “Black Africa is today, an economic basket case, wrecked by 25 years of black African socialism,” “the wages and standard of living of South African Blacks, while lower than whites, are 3-4 times higher than for Blacks in countries to the north” “South African Blacks have a higher standard of living, own more homes, cars and businesses than any other Blacks in Africa.”
While the report recognizes the faults of “apartheid,” it also observes that “South Africa has dismantled as much racial discrimination in 5 years as we (the U.S.) did in 25 or 30 years. Sports, hotel s, restaurants, public facilities have been desegregated; job and pay discrimination eliminated.” “. . . Real and positive change is evolving rapidly in South Africa. But no matter how fast or positive the change, it will not be enough for the Soviets, the U.N., the State Department, the anti–apartheid groups, and the anti-South Africa forces . . . They are not interested in progress, human rights, justice or betterment of the black man in South Africa. They are interested only in the overthrow of the pro-western . . . government of South Africa and the installation of a black, Marxist, pro-Soviet regime—just as these forces would not rest until the pro-western black government ofBishop Abel Muzorewa was replaced by a black Marxist government in Zimbabwe.”
It is difficult for us to understand or fairly judge concerning complex conditions in another country on the other side of the world. We are almost certain to err regarding them if we listen only to partisan agitators such as Tutu and Boesak. Reports cited in this article confirm other indications that the 1984 C.R. Synod’s hasty decision about South Africa amounted to a “debacle” and gave support to forces that around the world are working to destroy the Lord’s Gospel and Church.
Elsewhere in this OUTLOOK Dr. Marten Woudstra alerts us to the fact that this year’s synod will likely face a proposal to join the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. That organization in its over 1oo-year history compromised the Christian faith, refusing to define it, and bas become a promoter of The World Council (of April and May 1983 OUTLOOKS). At its last meeting, according to reports, it was almost exclusively preoccupied with condemning South Africa and elected Dr. Allan Boesak to be its president. Will this year’s synod give additional support to this anti-christian cause?
When this article was written Dr. Boesak was scheduled to be one of a series of special lecturers at Calvin College dealing with racism and apartheid. My wife and I attended, to be surprised by the hasty replacement of the Boesak lecture with a Bach concert! What had happened to Dr. Boesak? He had not arrived from South Africa. The next day we heard and subsequently saw news reports from South Africa (also reported in the Feb. 25 Time) of Dr. Boesak ‘s extended adulterous involvement with Di Scott, a leading South African Council ofChurches official (who also accompanied the recent tour of Senator Kennedy in that country). Dr. Boesak was facing increasing problems with his government because of his worldwide political activities against it. (See the January 28 Banner‘s report (p.20] of our church‘s race committee’s attempt to intervene on his behalf) These political problems are now complicated by the problems his personal behavior is raising in the churches which he has been representing.