Reformation Testimony Garnet Milne www.reformationtestimony.org.nz

Helen Clark lacks all the qualities needed for ethical political leadership.

What sort of political leadership are we entitled to? Paul writing to the first-century church at Rome gave his inspired account of the ideal government. “[R]ulers are not a cause of fear for good behaviour, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority?

Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil”(Rom. 13:3-4). The ideal government is to distinguish between good and evil. When a government fails to do so, we end up with the sort of dysfunctional society we have in New Zealand.

Considering the personal ethics of any leader is an obvious starting point if we are to consider the virtues of any government under that leadership. US President Bill Clinton is an example of a modern democratically elected leader who was both popular and immoral at the same time. This tells us something about those who elected him, of course. In our own back yard when we consider the personal ethics of Prime Minister Helen Clark, it is difficult to conceive how she could be any further away from what God demands ethically of the “powers that be”.

There are two areas where Clark reveals her “moral” values which need looking at. These areas are the ground or source of her ethical standards and Clark’s speech. First of all, Clark has bought into the atheistic notion that “man is the measure of all things”. Brian Edwards in his hagiography of Helen Clark, entitled, Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister (Auckland, Exisle, 2001), identifies Bob Chapman as “mentor, sounding-board and valued friend”. Chapman was the left-wing founder of the Political Studies Dept at Auckland University and Clark’s supervisor for her M.A. thesis on political attitudes in rural New Zealand (Edwards, Helen, 94). Clark eulogises her mentor as a “renaissance man”, a term defined by Leon Alberti (1404–72): “a man can do all things if he will.”

This ideal of the well-rounded man made him the centre of the universe and so carried with it the seeds of atheism. In principle God has been replaced by “renaissance” man; and since the renaissance man understood man’s capacity for development to be unlimited, he was assumed to have access to authentic social and personal ethics without recourse to a divine law-giver.

Consistent with this ideal, for Helen Clark, Chapman as the “renaissance man” was “a highly ethical man”. Clark lauds his opposition to nuclear weapons and his “public stand on the immorality of nuclear weapons”.

As a young student, she has an ethical system already, but it is tied very much to the notion than man is the centre of the universe and that man is the measure of all things. Clark admits that her beliefs were “shaped” by Chapman and not by her morally conservative father. It is intriguing to notice that Clark’s family were worried by Chapman’s influence.

They obviously saw something wrong in Chapman’s views which were having an influence on an impressionable young woman. Edward’s biography describes how Clark’s liberal and “radical” views were in conflict with her father’s conservative views on politics and morality. This is, of course, the classic case of the teenager rebelling against the moral order of society; a youngster wanting to let go of what she considered shackles that restricted her freedom and the freedom of others. Clark was also a strong-minded rebel. Indeed her father accuses the youthful Helen of being unable to compromise (Edwards, Helen, 97).

Some teenagers never grow up, and this is true of Clark. We see her abhorrence of her father’s political views in her obsessive self-confessed hatred of the National Party. We have a woman who has been led down the pathway of atheism, believing that man is the measure of all things; exhibiting a character that resists compromise on major ethical issues; and an avowed hater of her political opponents, who for the most part usually did believe that God had defined morality. Helen Clark demonstrates intolerance towards the National party in a remarkably immature manner: “The one thing I hate is the National Party. I think they're loathsome people. I do” (Edwards, Helen, 144).

Radio NZ political editor Al Morison considers that the interest some had in what was happening internationally “fed into that whole feminist, anti-war, hate my parents, generation-gap movement”, implying that this applied to Clark as well. This, at least, partly explains her zeal for rejecting the Christian values of her parents (Edwards, Helen,108).

A Christian analysis of Clark needs to admit at the outset that she, like all men, is a fallen creature. This is why Edwards’ comment about Clark’s personal integrity is very telling: Edward’s pleads somewhat obsequiously that to Helen’s cerebral source of her political activism must be added “a rigorous personal integrity, an innate sense of right and wrong that goes beyond the intellectual, that is felt, and that expresses itself in a deep concern for people and for social justice” (Edwards, Helen, 109).

If her moral judgement is innate, then it must be part of her nature, for innateness is something one is born with and therefore supposedly one possesses by nature. If Edwards is right Clark’s personal and social ethics, therefore, are derived from what she is by nature.

And just what is Helen Clark by nature? We have just observed that a Christian, and therefore an authentic, analysis understands universal human nature to be tainted through the fall in the Garden of Eden. Yes, it is true that all human beings are made in the image of God, but it is equally true that the image has been defaced. We are made in the image of God reflecting His “knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness” (Gen. 1:26; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24), but since the fall this image is so seriously distorted that all men by nature are considered by God to be darkened in their understanding, unrighteous and unholy.

It is true that the Law of God (that is the moral law of the universe) is imprinted upon the heart of each individual (Rom. 2:14-15), but now it is fatally distorted in depraved man. All parts of his nature are tainted with sin and evil. Anyone who is unregenerate, therefore, who is making ethical decisions based upon their own “innate sense of right and wrong” is basing them on a heart which is deceitful. As Jeremiah put it: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer 17:9).

Since Mrs Clark rejects the Word of God which is able to correct the faulty ethical viewpoints now pervasive in fallen human nature, it is inevitable that her ethics will be depraved. Her innate sense of right and wrong will produce ethical conclusion which are consistent with fallen human nature.

Language reveals what is in the heart

One of the signs of depravity is the way language is used. This can involve the clever manipulation of language to attack Christian culture, but it usually includes straight-out obscenity and blasphemy. Edwards reveals in his biography of Clark that she frequently uses profanity we would normally expect to hear in the public bar of the local pub:

She uses phrases such “what the hell are you on about” (196); “I was pretty bloody good to Mike”(225); “who the hell” (228); “bugger it”(263)“; “shit” (246) and “crap”(248). This filthy language also includes the “F” word according to the Investigate magazine who reported this astounding statement from Clark: Responding to a complaint about the government, she allegedly explodes: “I finally flipped and said, ‘Don’t you f...ing well speak to me like that! If you knew how many bloody hours a day I worked and now I come to a party at midnight on a Saturday night and have a f...ing fool like you screaming at me about how hard you work!’.” This, of course, is absolutely atrocious and is language decent New Zealanders would want to shield their ears from, and certainly those of their children.

When men and women use these kinds of dirty expletives to express themselves, it is often attributed to a limited vocabulary. But as this example shows there must be another reason why an educated woman with an adequate vocabulary descends to the use of gutter slang and obscenity. It quite simply represents what is inside her. Jesus Christ talked about this matter when He explained: "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" (Mt 15:11

And again in Luke’s gospel: "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart” (Luke 6:45). We know that obscenity fills the heart of Helen Clark. Her use of filthy language would, in an earlier generation, have brought about her fall politically, but this does not seem likely in our own day.

One of the reasons for that is that the media is mostly enamoured with Labour’s socialism and anti-Christian position on moral questions and they do their best to portray Clark in a positive light. If many of the pensioners and others who do not share a dirty tongue and heart with the PM were aware of the true state of her soul, they would likely withdraw their allegiance.

We know that a Prime Minister who has no compunction to being portrayed as an someone who uses obscene language will most likely exhibit other immoral traits. We know that this is indeed true of both Clark and her party and those like the Greens whose only point of difference is that they are socialists who have muesli for breakfast – when people are watching.

Therefore, knowing the heart of the leader of our nation, it is completely to be expected that those she leads would also champion the cause of abortion on demand; the cancelling of parental rights; the undermining of the family and the definition of marriage; as well as positively encourage prostitution and other sordid sexual activities that spread disease, crime and suicide.

The use of blasphemy is a symptom of the spirit of the antichrist,

Much has been made of Labour’s commitment to tolerance and they have, purportedly on our behalf, signed UN conventions concerning tolerance including tolerance of religious viewpoints. What is patently clear to anyone who has their eyes open is that this avowed commitment to tolerance is a smokescreen.

The neo-pagans of our day will be tolerant towards everyone except that religious viewpoint which challenges their own immorality. Indeed, the Government has signed a UN declaration of tolerance which specifically encourages outlawing any religious viewpoint which asserts that there is ultimate or absolute truth and therefore a fixed morality revealed by a Deity. We know that Helen Clark is completely opposed to the Christian faith and to the Christian God. How do we know this? Quite simply, we know what her heart contains, because its quality is again reflected by her speech

We only have to turn to Edwards’s sycophantic biography, written by an atheist about an atheist. There we see God openly blasphemed by Clark as she takes His name in vain: “God knows” (229); and “god it was awful” (238), for example. Interestingly usually Edwards puts god’s name all in lower case; presumably because he and the PM do not believe that there is a God with an upper case “G”.

One could argue that perhaps Mrs Clark is only innocently taking God’s name in vain and therefore she isn’t really anti-Christian at all. But, no we cannot conclude that. Why? Because she blasphemes the name of the Lord Jesus Christ pointedly with the phrase: “For Christ’s sake leave the room” (257). If she had an ounce of integrity which Edwards claims is innate to her, then she would not blaspheme God in any way and she would be mindful that there are many Christians who are deeply offended by her vile blasphemy.

The only conclusion we can draw, is that Helen Clark is totally dismissive of Christianity and Christians, and she arrogantly thinks that she can blaspheme and utter obscenities and so trample on the sensibility of believers. Our leader likes to characterise herself as an agnostic, but if she was truly neutral towards whether God existed or not, she would not go out of her way to offend those who believe in God and not go out of her way to blaspheme God. Neither would she cavalierly do away with institutions like saying “grace” before meals in front of a Christian Queen, if she was truly agnostic – she would maintain the status quo. No, she is an atheist, and because she is not alone in government, the fabric of a decent society is being shredded before our very eyes.

Aunty Helen decides what your values are

Clark’s answer to a question from Edwards is very revealing. He poses, “so you want to change people’s values?”; to which Clark responds: “I don’t think you have to shape their values. I think that the basis is already there. You’re merely elevating it, You’re saying, this is a public value. It’s a mainstream value and as a society this is how we want it to be” (Edwards, Helen, 323).

Clark is saying that she understands what values people already have. She shares those values and “elevates” them, which presumably means she makes the values more prominent. She claims to understand what true values are: She is saying “this is a public value, it’s a mainstream value and as a society this is how we want it to be”. She speaks for all society. How conceited!! We have seen what those values are.

Helen Clark is certainly not “elevating” Christian values. Instead she is uplifting the values of pagan hedonism and self-consciously playing her part in tearing down the boundary markers of a wiser age. We can only pray that New Zealanders will wake up and begin to understand how in a few short years Clark and her collaborators have succeeded in engineering the anti-Christian agenda of feminism, homosexual depravity, and atheism.

Garnet Milne

ENDS

© Scoop Media