The Red Bishop

The Red Bishop Desmond Tutu, PDF format

Desmond Tutu, Anglican Arch-Heretic of the South African Communist Revolution

Desmond Tutu

“Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Lk. 6:26)

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (2 Pet. 2:1,2)


The Communists’ High Priest:

Anglican archbishop, Desmond Tutu – the “Red Bishop” as he was known – died on 26 December 2021.  Immediately, his praise singers leapt into action across the world, gushing about his “love”, his “compassion”, his “tolerance”, his “bravery” in opposing apartheid, what a great Christian he was, blah blah blah.  Although he had fallen out of favour with some members of it in more recent years, South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress, a pro-Communist party and one-time terrorist organisation, had for decades viewed Tutu as its very own high priest, giving religious sanction to its violent revolution and pro-Red policies whenever pseudo-“Christian” fake piety was necessary for convincing the masses that the ANC had the blessing of God.

The truth is that Tutu was the most influential ecclesiastical figure in the revolutionary assault on South Africa in the 1980s and early 1990s.  And there were plenty of others, so this was quite an achievement.  Frank Chikane, another radical false religious leader who had supported South Africa’s Communist revolution alongside Tutu, said of his old comrade, “Tutu was the face of the liberation struggle.  The voice of the people.  He was a key prophetic voice.”[1]  The face of the terrorist revolution (the proper name for it, not “liberation struggle”) was certainly Tutu’s, but he was not the “voice” of the majority, nor in any sense a “prophetic voice”.  Another pro-Tutu ecclesiastic, Peter Storey, called Tutu “the nation’s pastor.”[2]  What a joke.  First, no nation has a pastor; pastors are leaders of churches, not nations.  Second, Tutu was never a true Christian pastor, as the evidence below makes plain.  Third, huge numbers of South Africans never viewed Tutu as their leader in any sense, pastor or otherwise, but as a charlatan, a deceiver, a false shepherd and a false teacher.

The Anglican institution has always been a religious daughter of the Mother of harlots, the Roman Catholic institution (Rev. 17:1-5).  It has never been a true Christian church.  It has always held to unbiblical doctrines and practices, and today it is a Bible-denying, Christ-denying, theologically ultra-liberal, pro-Communist religious mess, a disgraceful parody of a true Christian church.  Tutu, then, was not an aberration.  His denial of some of the great doctrines of the Bible simply aped what Anglican priests, bishops and archbishops believed and taught across the earth.  He was a theological liberal, a modernist, an ecumenical, an interfaith advocate, a Bible-denier, a Christ-denier.  And he was an out-and-out disciple of so-called “liberation theology”, or religious Communism, just as so many of his peers and his religious superiors were, and are.  In short, he was a heretic, not a true Christian at all.  He supported Communism, Communist terrorists, violent revolution – and all in the Name of Christ, whom he pretended to serve.  In reality he was a servant of Satan, not of Christ.

Being from South Africa, he was in the right place at the right time to become the darling of the Communist terrorist revolutionaries seeking to overthrow the South African government in the 1980s and 1990s, and to install a pro-Communist government.  He also became the darling of the liberal media, who sang his praises and wrote of him as a wonderful Christian man.

Tutu on the Lord Jesus Christ:

Tutu was on record as saying that the Lord Jesus Christ may have been an illegitimate son!  He said:  “Some people thought there was something odd about Jesus’ birth…. It may be that Jesus was an illegitimate son.”[3]  This blasphemous statement alone revealed that he served Satan, not Christ.  In God’s Word it is written: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son” (Isa. 7:14 with Matt. 1:23; see also Lk. 1:27).

He was also on record as saying, “Every Christian must be a revolutionary.  Jesus was a revolutionary.  I am a revolutionary if you understand by that somebody who wants to completely change things.”[4]  Of course, by “revolutionary” he did not mean merely someone who “wants to change things” peacefully, through proper legitimate channels.  He meant a political revolutionary; a Communist revolutionary!  To liberation theologians Jesus was just such a revolutionary, who came to overthrow the Roman occupiers by force and to liberate the people and usher in a new form of political system.

In true liberation theology fashion, on 13 February 1987 Tutu, speaking at a graduation ceremony at the University of the Western Cape, said: “If Jesus Christ came to South Africa today, he would be in trouble with the authorities because of his solidarity with the poor, the oppressed and the hungry.  And he would certainly be detained!”[5]  To liberation theologians, the Lord Jesus Christ was a Marxist revolutionary who resisted the lawful authorities.  Not for them the true Gospel of Christ, which is that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15)!  Instead of being a Saviour from sin, He is presented as a political saviour from political oppression.  A devilish lie.

Tutu on the Holy Spirit:

He was also on record as having claimed that the Holy Spirit is not limited to the Christian Church; and that even Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, was possessed by the Holy Spirit!  At St Alban’s Cathedral, Pretoria, on 23 November 1978, he said: “The Holy Spirit is not limited to the Christian Church.  For example, Mahatma Gandhi, who is a Hindu…. The Holy Spirit shines through him.”[6]  How contrary to the teaching of Jn. 15:26 and Jn. 16:14.  Yet this man, despite proclaiming such heresies as these, was appointed as a bishop, and later an archbishop, in the Anglican institution!  That he was elevated to such a rank within this ecclesiastical monstrosity was utterly disgraceful.

Tutu on the Bible:

Tutu stated categorically: “Just because it’s in the Bible, doesn’t mean it’s true.”[7]  He also said there are mistakes in the Bible because it was written by men.[8]  There you have it, as clear as crystal.  Let none be in any doubt about this man’s fake “Christianity”.  He denied outright the truth of the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16); “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21).

He once said: “There are certain parts [of the Bible] which you have to say No to.”  Just let that sink in.  And which parts was he referring to?  Among others, the parts which state that “women should not speak in church… women should not be ordained.  There are many things you shouldn’t accept.”[9]

If we cannot know truth from the mouth of the infallible God but have to look to fallible men (like Tutu) for guidance as to which parts of the Bible we should accept and which we should reject, then we are truly at the mercy of these religious wolves in sheep’s clothing, who tell us that they are the wise ones, they have superior wisdom, they are even wiser than God and can correct His Word for us.  How we should tremble when we contemplate such arrogance!  A puny, mortal man, whose every breath is in the hands of the most high God, presuming to sit in judgment over the Word of God and say in His very presence, “God did not say this, He did not say that, and if He perhaps said this or that I would not worship Him!”  Such prating fools (Prov. 10:8) say to other men, while they parade their feeble learning before the masses: “Just trust us.  We will teach you the truth.  We will tell you which parts of the Bible you can believe, and which parts you must set aside.  We will be your guides, your teachers, your spiritual gurus.  You can trust us.  Would we lead you astray?  God may lead you astray if you follow His Word too closely, but don’t worry – we will always be there to provide you with the guidance you need, for we have the wisdom and learning to know what’s what.  Just trust us…”  Tutu was a blind leader of the bind; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Matt. 15:14).

Tutu on the Kingdom of God:

He said: “When justice prevails over injustice as in Zimbabwe, it shows that the kingdom of God is here already.”[10]  Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in 1980, having fallen to the Communist terrorist forces of Robert Mugabe after they had waged a bloody guerilla revolution for many long years – yet Desmond Tutu said that with the coming to power of Mugabe and his murderous thugs, justice had prevailed over injustice and the kingdom of God had arrived!  To a liberation theologian, “the kingdom of God” is ushered in when a country falls to the Communist forces.  How utterly contrary to Jesus’ words in Jn. 3:3, where He said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”!  Or His words in Jn. 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight… but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

Interestingly, in later life Tutu came to realise that Zimbabwe was not a country where “the kingdom of God” had been established after all, and that Robert Mugabe was not the great leader he had imagined him to be back in 1980.  The evidence was just too overwhelming.  Tutu in fact stated that Mugabe had “gone bonkers in a big way”, and in 2008 he called for a UN peace-keeping force to be sent into Zimbabwe.[11]  But this change of heart was too little, too late: Mugabe was firmly entrenched in power and literally millions of Zimbabweans had suffered death, starvation and torture under Mugabe’s dictatorship.

Tutu on Interfaith and Other Ways to God:

There are two ways, according to the Word of God, to identify a false teacher, a man claiming to be a servant of Christ but in reality serving the devil: by his doctrine, and by his conduct.  Tutu’s support for Communist killers was proof positive that he was not a servant of Christ; and his doctrines left no room for doubt either.  On 8 July 1992 Tutu made the following statements: “God is clearly not a Christian.  His concern is for all his children.”  “That God does not belong only to Christians must be abundantly obvious except to those who ignore the truth.”  “God accepts as pleasing to him those who live by the best lights available to them.”  “That Christians do not have a monopoly on God is an almost trite observation.”

I wrote to the paper in response to these antichristian statements, and my letter was published on October 23.  This is what it said:

“The syncretistic statement by Desmond Tutu (in your article, “Church’s Call Opposed”, September 26) that ‘God does not belong only to Christians’ deserves strong comment from Bible-believing Christians.  The Bible proclaims, in no uncertain terms, the absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ: that he is the only way to God the Father; that his is the only name under heaven given among men whereby men and women must be saved (Jn.14:6; Acts 4:12).  This is denied by those who seek to convince men that other religions are ‘equally valid ways to God’; but to do so is to deny the plain teaching of the New Testament.  Let it be made clear that all Bible-believing Christians reject with disgust the false ‘gospel’ of Tutu and other syncretists who, professing to speak as ‘ministers’ of Christ, preach a different ‘gospel’ entirely.”[12]

Of course God is not a Christian!  Tutu’s statement was not only unscriptural, it was ridiculous.  A Christian is a follower of Christ, the Son of God.  But only Christians are the children of God (Jn. l:12,13; Rom. 8:14-17).  As for Tutu’s statement that God accepts as pleasing to Him those who live by the best lights available to them, this, too, was blatantly unscriptural: it was advocating salvation by works, whereas salvation is by grace through faith.  The Lord Jesus Christ made it perfectly clear that He alone is the way to God the Father (Jn. 14:6).  These utterances by Tutu revealed his spiritual blindness and unregenerate heart.

After Mandela took the oath as president of South Africa, prayers and readings by a Hindu priest, a Jewish rabbi, an Islamic sheikh, and Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu followed!  This was the kind of “Christian” Tutu was.  A false “Christian” indeed, willing to support terrorists and Communists, and join in interfaith abominations with leaders of other religions.[13]

Tutu on Heaven, Hell and Homosexuality:

In a 2007 radio interview with the BBC, Tutu said, “If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn’t worship that God.”  That same year in Kenya he said: “I am deeply disturbed that in the face of some of the most horrendous problems facing Africa, we concentrate on ‘what do I do in bed with whom’.”[14]  In 2011 he called on the Anglican institution in South Africa to accept and conduct “same-sex marriages”.[15]

In July 2013 he made statements which again revealed how far he was from the kingdom of heaven when, speaking at the launch of a UN-backed campaign in South Africa to promote “gay rights”,  he said that he would rather go to hell than to a “homophobic heaven” or worship a “homophobic God.”  His precise words were: “I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven”; and, “No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place”; and again, “I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.”[16]

This man, falsely claiming to be a minister of Christ, was in his 80s at the time and therefore already standing on the brink of eternity, and would in a few short years be called to appear before the sovereign God of all creation and give an account for his words and deeds (2 Cor. 5:10); but even with eternity stretching before him, he dared to make such blasphemous remarks and to insult the glorious Being who made him, and who would judge him!

His first great error in uttering these statements, one with consequences so dreadful to his soul that it makes one tremble just to contemplate them, was that he presumed the gates of heaven would even be opened to him in such a dreadful spiritual state.  What a shock awaited him!  If he remained in such a state of spiritual death, one millisecond after his eyes closed in death he would realise just how deceived on this point he was – but then it would be too late (Lk. 16:26).

His second great error: that this puny human being (as we all are), this proud and irreverent individual, bobbing about in his effeminate priestly robes and always giggling like a silly schoolgirl, dared to think that as he departed this world and stood before the Majesty on high, he would be able to hold up his hand and say to the thrice-holy God, “I refuse to be taken into the glories of heaven.  I prefer to go down to hell.”  Just how spiritually blind must a man be to make statements like these?  One, moreover, who dared to claim to be a shepherd of souls?  How far removed such a man is from the true shepherds described in God’s Word, who feed the flock of God with the pure Word of God, who set an example to the flock, and who will receive a crown of glory from the Chief Shepherd when He appears (1 Pet. 5:1-4).

His Hatred for Biblical Christianity and Support for Liberation Theology (Religious Communism):

In July 1989 The Road to Damascus: Kairos and Conversion was published in South Africa and Britain.  This radical revolutionary document was signed by over 500 liberation theologians from South Africa and other parts of the world.  Of course, Desmond Tutu was one of them.  The document attacked what it labelled “the religious right, right-wing Christianity, conservative Christianity”; in summary, “anti-communist evangelicals” (according to the preamble). It stated categorically: “we denounce all forms of right-wing Christianity as heretical”.  It distorted the true meaning of Romans 13, which is about obedience to authority.  It declared that “right-wing Christianity…distorts even the authority of the Bible by treating it as a book from heaven that must be obeyed without understanding or critical comprehension.  In some countries, this is called fundamentalism”.  The only true Christians were said to be those who advocated liberation theology; those who did not were said to be persecutors of the Church! Such “Right-Wing Christians” were accused of idolatry, heresy, apostasy, hypocrisy, and blasphemy!

It was a diabolically clever assault on the true Gospel.  The very ones who were the real persecutors, apostates, idolaters, heretics, hypocrites, blasphemers, and servants of Satan, shifted the charges to others. In this way they deluded multitudes into believing that their version of “Christianity” was the true one.[17]

And Desmond Tutu signed it!  He affixed his name to a document attacking “heretical, anti-communist evangelicals”; a document which mocked evangelicals for holding the Bible to be the book of God, implying they are simpletons, ignorant people unable to properly interpret it; a document which called those who opposed the violent revolutionary doctrines of liberation theology the real persecutors, idolaters, hypocrites, blasphemers!  Tutu affixed his name to all this.  Let none ever call this man a true Christian!  He was a child of the devil.

A Capitalism-Hating Socialist/Communist:

The following statement by Tutu is crystal clear: “I am a Socialist. I hate Capitalism.”[18]  No ambiguity here; no hesitancy; no uncertainty.  He was declaring his allegiance.  There it was, straight from the horse’s mouth.  How any person could assume that he was a good, compassionate, loving, kind Christian merely reveals the darkness within their own souls.

In 1988 Tutu also said, “I think I would use Marxist insights, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’  That, I think, is in line with what our Lord, Himself, would have taught.”[19]  Again, no ambiguity, no hesitance or uncertainty.  This man was a Marxist, using liberation theology as a religious front to advance Marxism.

Tutu, the SACC and the ANC:

In 1983 the South African government published a potential bombshell against the radicalised, pro-Communist South African Council of Churches (SACC).  It was called the Eloff Commission of Inquiry.  Unfortunately this report was not disseminated widely enough, which meant its contents were not generally known to the public.

It revealed that the SACC was a highly politicised organisation working closely with the African National Congress (ANC), militant black consciousness groups and trade unions, in order to radically transform South African society.  A huge section of the SACC’s income was used to support political groups, trade unions, etc.  Its annual conference in 1974 passed a resolution, known as the “Hammanskraal Resolution”, which showed its sympathy with the violent deeds of the Marxist terrorists, and even justified their terrorism on theological grounds.

The report revealed the links, going back many years, between the SACC and the ANC.  And it cited Desmond Tutu, who had had discussions with Oliver Tambo and other ANC leaders, as saying that Tambo had “Christian convictions”.[20]  That this man could claim that the terrorist Tambo possessed Christian convictions reveals a breathtaking blindness to the truth of the Gospel, and reveals Tutu to have been a man with the same violent, pro-Communist convictions as the likes of Tambo and Mandela.

When Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – always a very good indication of sleazeball status – he said, “I receive the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Nelson Mandelas, the Walter Sisulus, the Govan Mbekis, the Winnie Mandelas, the Albertina Sisulus.”[21]   On another occasion he said categorically, long before Mandela was even out of prison, let alone president: “Mandela is my leader, and I am not going to be dictated to as to who should be my leader.”[22]  But all these people were terrorists!  They had waged a bloody revolution against South Africa for many years in order to achieve power through violence.  All this meant nothing to Tutu.  He was faithful to them, not to Christ.

His Support for Violence and Marxist Revolution:

In May 1976 Tutu wrote to South African Prime Minister B.J. Vorster and warned him that unless the government abandoned apartheid, racial violence would erupt.  Is it mere coincidence that a mere six weeks later the now-infamous Soweto riots broke out?[23]

The Eloff Commission quoted Tutu as having said: “You build up a process of disobeying on a massive scale, that will mean nearly all the laws in the statute book, so that this country becomes ungovernable.”[24]  Civil disobedience?  Rendering a country ungovernable?  Tutu had absolutely no interest in what the Bible teaches: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Pet. 2:13,14); “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:1,2).

When the ANC was banned in South Africa in the 1980s because it was a terrorist organisation, it was involved in the creation of the so-called United Democratic Front (UDF), which essentially became the ANC’s internal wing, and involved itself in protests, demonstrations and riots across the country.  Blacks who refused to go along with the ANC/UDF were “necklaced”, i.e. a tyre filled with petrol was placed around the victim’s neck and set alight.  Showing its close connection to the radical liberation theologians, its headquarters had the same Johannesburg address as the evil South African Council of Churches (SACC)!  Desmond Tutu was one of its patrons.[25]  What was this man doing, supporting the internal wing of a terrorist outfit like the ANC?  He did so because he was one of them.  He was using his high rank within the Anglican religious institution to advance the Communist revolution sweeping through South Africa at the time.

In 1984 Tutu said, “One young man with a stone in his hands can achieve far more than I can with a dozen sermons.”[26]  This hardly needs comment.  What a message to send to the young blacks in the townships: “Tutu can’t help us with his sermons – even he says so; we need to take up whatever weapons we can find and go to war against the State!”

He declared that, if he was a young man, he would reject himself because there was nothing to show for his advocacy of non-violence!  What a message that sent to the restless young men in the townships of South Africa!  It was tantamount to saying, “I have failed in my attempts, so now you must turn to the alternative.”

In 1985 Tutu, along with various members of the SACC, attended the funerals of blacks killed in clashes with the police, and addressed the crowds, even though their coffins were openly draped with the colours of the ANC.   He and his ecclesiastical henchmen thereby sent a very clear message to the terrorists, which was this: we are with you all the way in your armed revolution against the State.[27]

Ever in the vanguard of the ecclesiastical Reds, Tutu continued to utter one ‘religious revolutionary” speech after another, at every opportunity.  In January 1986 he said that the situation in South Africa was such that violence on the government’s part could justifiably be met with violence by the ANC.  He said, “Unless America puts pressure on South Africa… the only way forward is to overthrow the government by force.”[28] He said that although he did not subscribe to the ANC’s methods, he agreed with its principles.  This was nothing less than giving ecclesiastical support to the ANC’s terror campaign, his feeble personal disclaimer notwithstanding; for he most certainly did subscribe to the ANC’s methods.

Saying that he believed force might become inevitable to bring down the South African government, and justifying this, he called the Marxist guerillas “our brothers and sisters”.[29]   At least in this he was partially correct: those terrorists were his brothers and sisters – for they were all of their father the devil, and they had the same lusts as their father (Jn. 8:44).  Therefore they were truly brethren: the spiritual children of the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning.

Again, on another occasion in 1986 he said, “There comes a time when it is justifiable to overthrow an unjust system by violence.”[30]

He said that the time might come when the “Church” would have to decide which was the lesser evil — apartheid or violence.  Although he did not, by these statements, advocate revolution directly, they were none-too-subtle hints that perhaps the time for non-violence was past, or soon would be.[31]  Of course, by the “Church” he meant not the true Church of God, but the radical false “churches” belonging to the SACC and other pro-revolutionary, pro-Communist ecclesiastical organisations.  Is the reader shocked to learn that this man actually suggested that the “Church” could support a violent Communist revolution?  This is precisely what he said, and he was not alone.  The time for mincing words passed a very long time ago: Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism, and such organisations as the SA Council of Churches and its parent, the World Council of Churches, are not Christian churches or organisations, and those who continue to pussyfoot around this issue and make excuses for them are sinning against the Lord.

In May 1989 about 200 radical religious leaders held a meeting to consider new, supposedly “non-violent” ways to “resist apartheid”.   It was sponsored by the SACC.  It ended with a “service of witness and solidarity” at the main Roman Catholic building in Soweto – at which Tutu preached.  This is what he said: “We… have determined that we shall obey God and not man”.  He was of course using the words of the apostles in Acts 5:29.  But Tutu was a liberation theologian, and like all liberation theologians everywhere he distorted the true meaning of the Scriptures, making them appear to say what they certainly do not say, thereby squeezing out of various parts of the Bible supposed theological justification for revolution and bloodshed.  The New Testament emphatically teaches that Christians are to obey the authorities (Rom. 13:1-7), but that if a government forbids Christians to do what the Word of God commands, only then the government must be disobeyed in order to obey God.  This is what Acts 5:29 is about, as any reading of the verse in its context will show.  Tutu, however, used this verse to try to justify disobedience to the government’s lawful authority – a sinful perversion of the Scripture.[32]

Tutu: “Blacks Would Welcome the Russians as Saviours”:

He famously made this statement in St Paul’s Cathedral in London in 1984: “If the Russians were to come to South Africa, most blacks would welcome them as saviours.”[33]  What a shocking thing to say – and an outright lie as well, for most South African blacks at that time were decidedly not pro-Communist.  Furthermore, at this very time in the country’s history, South African soldiers were fighting against the forces of the Soviet Union and Cuba in Angola.  The Soviet Union was providing the landmines, limpet mines and bombs to the terrorists, which were being used to carry out the revolution in South Africa by killing civilians throughout the country.

With these words Tutu declared his belief that the Soviets would be a blessing to the country if they took over.  This of course was in accordance with liberation theology’s position that any country which followed Russia into Communism was a country where the kingdom of God was established.

His Thinly-Veiled Suggestions about Blacks Killing Whites:

In 1984 he made the now-infamous statement, which still sends chills down the spine: “Imagine what would happen if only 30% of [black] domestic servants [in white households] would poison their employers’ food.”[34]  In saying such a thing, note the subtlety of the serpent oozing out of Tutu’s words: he did not actually tell black domestic servants to poison their white employers’ food; rather, he framed the suggestion as him merely musing on a “what if” scenario.  If domestics actually acted on it, he could then easily feign shock and claim innocence.

How contrary to the plain teaching of the Bible: “Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee” (Prov. 3:29); “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10); “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12).

In December 1985 on WNBC-TV, Tutu went even further with this shocking and vile statement: “Suppose you gave them each a vial of arsenic… they look after the white people’s children…”

And in 1986 he made a statement which, although indirectly advocating violence, was posed in the form of a wondering question so that if it came to the crunch, no one could pin such a crime on him: “Is it not surprising that black resistance has not yet blown up a school bus with white children?  They are the softest targets.”[35]

Tutu: “The West Can Go to Hell”:

He is on record as having said: “The West can go to hell!”[36]  Hardly what one would expect from a high-ranking Anglican prelate, believed by his followers to be a servant of Jesus Christ, a Christian, a man whose entire life, supposedly, was dedicated to preaching the Gospel so as to keep men from going  to hell.  Ah, but that’s the problem right there: Anglicanism is not Christian; for many decades many Anglican leaders have denied the doctrine of hell entirely; Tutu himself was not a servant of Christ, not a Christian, and did not preach the true Gospel.  His own views of hell, as a place of endless punishment for the wicked, were very unbiblical; but that did not prevent him from saying the West could go there.

His Comparison of a Prominent Communist with Christ:

When the leader of the South African Communist Party, Chris Hani, was murdered, his praises were sung by one liberation theologian after another.  Desmond Tutu also jumped on the bandwagon, saying that Hani may have been a Communist, but Communists did not oppress black South Africans.  In a letter to the newspaper which was published on May 7, 1993, I wrote:

“The Red clergymen go on and on, heaping praises on Chris Hani’s head and divine wrath upon their own.  The tragedy is the number of people who follow these ‘Religious Reds’.  They are utter strangers to the Christ of Scripture, the Holy Son of God.  First we had Roman Catholic bishop Reginald Orsmond saying that Hani never gave up his ‘Christian faith’, even though he became a Communist.  Hani may never have given up his Roman Catholic faith; but he was never a true Christian.  A man who planned sabotage and terror attacks, and who said that the gruesome, barbaric ‘necklace’ murder method was used for good reasons, as Hani did, can certainly not be called a Christian – not according to the Biblical definition of the word.  But his ‘church’ has never had too many qualms about murdering people.  Next we had Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu saying that Hani may have been a Communist, but Communists did not oppress black South Africans.  Not yet, Mr Tutu, not yet: for they’re not quite in power yet.  They certainly kill and torture and maim non-Communist black South Africans, as you very well know – but they don’t oppress them.  Not yet.”  The history of South Africa since the ANC/SACP takeover in 1994 has demonstrated with absolute clarity that Communists certainly do oppress black South Africans.

Marxist-supporting theologians were quick to see the potential in equating Hani’s murder with the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ!  This was typical liberation theology, or what is called the “contextualisation” of Scripture.  At Hani’s funeral service, Tutu blasphemously equated Hani’s death with that of Christ (it was the time of the Easter festival when Hani was killed).  Tutu said that, as from Christ’s death a great victory came, so out of Hani’s death the victory of liberation would come.  Christ died for the sins of his people, the just for the unjust, the spotless and holy for those defiled by sin; and yet Tutu, a man professing to be a servant of Christ, claimed that the death of a violent man, a man who advocated terrible means of murdering innocent people, could be equated with the death of the sinless Son of God![37]

His Support for Abortion (the Murder of the Unborn):

Imagine a true man of God standing up for the so-called “right” of a woman to murder her own baby in her womb!  Yet this is precisely what Tutu did.  In 2011 the Marie Stopes abortuary in Cape Town had a banner in its waiting room of Tutu promoting abortion.  In this public endorsement of child murder, this wicked man spoke of the “invaluable work” being done by Marie Stopes International, and praised Marie Stopes South Africa for “empowering people” and “giving people the opportunity to make informed decisions about their future and the choice.”  Interestingly, when he was asked if he had been paid for posing for the picture and saying such things, the Desmond Tutu Foundation neither confirmed nor denied it – but said that the Foundation does receive donations![38]

In Later Life He Became Somewhat Disillusioned with the ANC:

For his 80th birthday, Tutu invited the Dalai Lama to attend the celebrations; but the ANC government refused to let him into the country so as not to antagonise China, the Communist nation which had occupied Tibet.  This prompted Tutu to fume that South Africa under the ANC was “worse than apartheid”.  And in 2013 he said that he would no longer be voting for the ANC.

But these statements must be put in context.  Yes, he was doubtless rather peeved at being denied the presence of his Buddhist buddy at his birthday celebrations, to put it mildly, so he lashed out against the ANC government.  But did this reveal a true change of heart on his part?  Absolutely not.  He had supported the ANC for decades, throughout its armed revolution against the State, then through the Mandela presidency.  He had not suddenly become a converted ex-Communist.  He did not oppose the ANC’s many pro-Marxist policies.  No, he was simply angry; and – used to getting his own way – he now declared ANC-ruled SA to be worse than apartheid.  Why not before?  Why not when it was blowing people up to get its way?  Why not when, as the government, it was passing all kinds of laws which turned the moral state of this country on its head?  Like a petulant child, he only declared it to be “worse than apartheid” when his own precious birthday party was spoiled!

The Roman Pope, Other False Religious Leaders, and Politicians Send Condolences After Tutu Dies:

Francis I, the Jesuit pope and as ardent a supporter of diabolical, Jesuit-created liberation theology as Tutu ever was, sent condolences when Tutu died.  A note signed by the Vatican secretary of state said, “Pope Francis was saddened to learn of the death of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and he offers heartfelt condolences to his family and loved ones.  Mindful of his service to the Gospel through the promotion of racial equality and reconciliation in his native South Africa, His Holiness commends his soul to the loving mercy of Almighty God.”[39]

Other false shepherds were quick to jump on the bandwagon as well.  Tutu’s own boss, the utterly compromised and pathetic Justin Welby, archbishop of Canterbury, called Tutu a “pioneer” and said his death was “a great loss”, which he learned of with “profound sadness” but also “profound gratitude” because of the impact of Tutu’s life.  He gushed: “Arch’s love transformed the lives of politicians and priests, township dwellers and world leaders.  The world is different because of this man [he got that right!].  Archbishop Tutu was a prophet and a priest, a man of words and action, one who embodied the hope and joy that were the foundations of his life.  He was a man of extraordinary personal courage and bravery: when the police burst into Cape Town Cathedral, he defied them by dancing down the aisle.  He was a man of enormous vision: seeing the possibilities for building the Rainbow Nation long before anyone else, except perhaps President Mandela.  His vision and bravery were allied with a canny political sense and wisdom, enabling him to be a healer and apostle of peace while so many still saw wounds and war.”[40]  Yes, well.  In the light of all that has been written above, no comments are needed on this twaddle.  It is precisely the kind of gushing praise we would expect from Welby, or from any high prelate of the Anglican institution.  Blind leaders of the blind.  False prophets, false teachers.

The World Council of Churches, an ecumenical Babel and satanic organisation, called Tutu “a unique character”, stating: “His contagious sense of humour and laughter has helped to resolve many critical situations in South Africa’s political and church life…. He shared with us the laughter and grace of God many a time.”[41]  The laughter of God?  When the Bible speaks of the Lord laughing, it is for very different reasons than Tutu’s girlish cackle: “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.  He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.  Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure” (Psa. 2:1-5).  “The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.  The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming” (Psa. 37:12,13).

The Dalai Lama called Tutu a “true humanitarian” and said, “The friendship and the spiritual bond between us was something we cherished.”[42]  No true Christian has any spiritual bond with the pope of Rome, the Buddhist leader, or any other false religious leader.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa described Tutu as: “An outstanding South African who has bequeathed us a liberated South Africa.”[43]  No – Tutu helped bequeath all South Africans a country in slavery to its Communist overlords.  US President Joe Biden said that Tutu’s legacy would “echo through the ages.”  It sure will – but not to Tutu’s honour.  Even Buckingham Palace sent a message of condolence in the name of Queen Elizabeth, which said of Tutu that he was “a man who tirelessly championed human rights in South Africa and across the world.”  It is significant that he was not praised as a champion of the Bible, of biblical Christianity, of preaching the Gospel!  “Human rights”: a legacy of the diabolical French Revolution, championed by Communists and Socialists the world over.  This is what Desmond Tutu is praised for.  And considering his support for terrorism, and for the murder of the unborn in their mothers’ wombs, in truth he did not even champion “human rights”, for he had no respect for “the right to life”.

Tutu stands condemned by the solemn words of the Lord in Lk. 6:26: “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”  Beloved of the men of the world because he was a part of the world, Tutu knew nothing of what is written of the true ministers of Christ: “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.  Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets” (Lk. 6:22,23).  Tutu was loved by the wicked of this world.  But Jesus said, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (Jn. 15:18,19).  Desmond Tutu was not hated, but loved by the world, because he was of the world, and the world always loves its own.

Conclusion

The evidence speaks with a very loud voice: Desmond Tutu was not a true Christian, and he was not a true minister of Christ.  He was an unregenerate, worldly heretic who preached a political “gospel” of political “liberation”, which is not the true Gospel of Christ at all.  The Anglican meaning of the word “bishop” is not its meaning in the English Bible: within Anglicanism it refers to a particular rank within the unscriptural Anglican ecclesiastical hierarchy; whereas, in the English Bible it is used to refer to the pastor, or minister, of a local church: the overseer, the one who has the pastoral oversight of the local church (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1; Tit. 1:7).  But since Tutu was a bishop, then an archbishop, in the Anglican institution, which professes (albeit falsely) to be a Christian church and the bishops of which profess to be Christian ministers, it is instructive to compare his life and teachings with the qualifications of a true bishop in the biblical sense (i.e. pastor, overseer, elder): see 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9, and 1 Pet. 5:1-3.  When these Scriptures are carefully studied, it is easily seen that Desmond Tutu did not possess the qualifications of a biblical bishop.  He himself, in fact, was an utter stranger to the grace of God, a minister of Satan, a deceitful worker (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

In 1984 Tutu said, “Thank God I am black.  White people will have a lot to answer for at the last judgment.”[44]  Tragically, he has now found out just how much he has to answer for!  Unless he called upon the Lord in true repentance and saving faith before he died – and death-bed conversions, though extremely rare, do occur – he would have learned, immediately after death, the fearful state of his never-dying soul.  Eternity, a never-ending existence to be spent in the torments of hell along with all who die in their sins, stretched before him, without mercy, without mitigation, without end.

He publicly declared his loathing for the sovereign God of the Bible, and his desire to spend eternity as far removed from that great, good, and holy God as he could get.  And truly, truly, unless he repented and called upon the Lord Jesus Christ to save his sinful soul at the eleventh hour, he has now had his wish: he has indeed dropped into the hell he preferred to the heaven he spurned.

Enlarged January 2022

Shaun Willcock is a minister, author and researcher.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.  For other articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below.  If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, to receive all future articles, please send your details.

Bible Based Ministries
info@biblebasedministries.co.uk
www.biblebasedministries.co.uk

This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full

ENDNOTES:

[1]. Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, by Peter Hammond.  Frontline Fellowship, Cape Town, South Africa, 2022.  mission@frontline.org.za.

[2]. Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[3]. Cape Times, 24 October 1980.

[4]. Rapport, 20 April 1986.

[5]. Cape Times, 14 February 1987.

[6]. The Archbishop and the Bible, by the Gospel Defence League.  Sea Point, Cape Town, 1986.

[7]..The Daily Maverick, July 29, 2013.

[8]. Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[9]. Tutu: Voice of the Voiceless, by Shirley Du Boulay, 1988; quoted in Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[10]. Ecunews, 11/1980.

[11]. Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[12]. “Holy War” against South Africa, by Shaun Willcock, pgs. 246-247. Bible Based Ministries, 2011.

[13]. “Holy War” against South Africa, pgs. 379-380.

[14]..The Daily Maverick, July 29, 2013.

[15]. Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[16]..www.bbc.co.uk, July 28, 2013.

[17]. “Holy War” against South Africa, pgs. 197-198.

[18]. Sunday Times, 29 December 1985.

[19]. Inside South Africa, 1988, quoted in Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[20]. “Holy War” against South Africa, pg. 130.

[21]The Archbishop and the Bible.

[22]. The Star (Johannesburg), 16 August 1985.

[23]. Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[24]The Archbishop and the Bible.

[25]. “Holy War” against South Africa, pg. 127.

[26]. Daily Telegraph (London), November 1984; quoted in The Archbishop and the Bible.

[27]. “Holy War” against South Africa, pgs. 137-138.

[28]. Sunday Times, 26 January 1986.

[29]. “Holy War” against South Africa, pg. 130.

[30]. Cape Argus, 3 April 1986.

[31]. “Holy War” against South Africa, pgs. 167-168.

[32]. “Holy War” against South Africa, pgs. 178-179.

[33]. The Archbishop and the Bible.

[34]. Volkskrant (Holland), 15 November 1984.

[35]Sunday Times, 26 January 1986.

[36]. Cape Times, 23 July 1986.

[37]. “Holy War” against South Africa, pgs. 287-288.

[38]. Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[39]. Catholic News Agency, December 26, 2021.

[40]. The Christian Post, December 26, 2021.

[41]. The Christian Post, December 26, 2021.

[42]. The Christian Post, December 26, 2021.

[43]. Evaluating the Legacy of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[44]. Cape Argus, 19 March 1984.