The Church is not a Bicultural Experiment

The Body of Christ belongs to Christ. Is the Church trying to be all things to all people, and if so, why? Does the idea of biculturalism make us feel better about ourselves, or do we imagine it will grow the Church? What is the endgame, and how does biculturalism play out in practice? To date, I’ve heard no genuine answers to these questions. What I hear is essentially emotional partisan rhetoric, the same language that dominates the escalating cultural tragedy between Maori and Pakeha. There is a cultural revival stirring within Maoridom, but the language used in social and political discourse is shaped by a different spirit, one that sows division and discord. Its purpose appears to be advancing a separatist ideological interpretation of national identity.

What some perceive as a return to cultural significance, others are using to promote predominantly animist spiritual values through the woke appropriation of language. Biculturalism is a loaded descriptor to begin with, and Church conversation on his matter isn’t focused on setting aside culture and assuming a Christian worldview. Instead, it seeks to integrate two parallel secular cultures, as if such an approach were possible, or had biblical precedent. Some see no issue with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks and view biculturalism as little more than a set of aesthetic changes. This naivete reflects a lack of awareness or concern about the underlying implications of ideological assumptions embedded in the language itself. The deeper question of why biculturalism must be established in the first place is rarely asked.

Language can be a political and ideological weapon; we see it daily if we pay attention to public discourse. In New Zealand, politicians are reframing language through an LGBTQ lens to suggest "people get pregnant" rather than "women", to advance an ideological view of how we interpret reality. Language is the soft underbelly of social change; it shifts meaning, redefines cultural norms, and distorts truth. If we are to consider aesthetic changes in the Body of Christ, we must first reject the secular language used to describe and justify those changes.

The Hebrew Vine

Culture is synonymous with how we live. Whether ethnicity, family, business, church, or community activities, every activity or group has its own culture. Culture is the sum of our historical stories, a history of shared experiences that shapes values, beliefs, and behaviours passed down through generations. Humanity engages in different cultures daily but doesn’t feel the need to change them into extensions of its own. The Body of Christ already possesses a distinct, Christ-centred culture that participates in a story not invented or created in our image. Christians are grafted into a Hebrew vine, not a Maori or Pakeha vine. Biblical culture exists outside of time; it tells the story of Christ and calls all cultures into a singular, redeemed unity, not a blend, but a transformation.

This isn’t to deny distinctions within predominantly Maori or Pakeha congregations. Social affinity isn’t the issue or point of this commentary. The point of contention is the installation of secular language in the Church, a language washed in ideological activism, that installs non-biblical frameworks that undermine the ecclesiastical message.

The Decline of Maori Christianity

Advocates of biculturalism often cite the declining number of Maori Christians as a reason to adopt bicultural practices. In the 1960s, around 80% of Maori identified as Christian; today, that number has dropped to about 30%. But the same drop, from 80% to 30%, has occurred among non-Maori. The non-Maori demographic is never mentioned, but combined, it's clear this is not a cultural crisis; it’s a spiritual one.

What we’re witnessing is a cultural catastrophe: the death of God in the public square and the Church’s failure to embody the countercultural witness Christ called it to be. Worse, the Church now seems to believe that a secular, non-biblical framework like biculturalism can solve the problem.

The Animist Spirit

The Treaty Resource Centre in New Zealand defines biculturalism as a framework grounded in two core cultures: the Indigenous and the metropolitan. Indigenous culture is said to be rooted in mythology, divine origin, and a spiritual view of nature (e.g., Mother Earth and Sky Father), while metropolitan culture is framed by capitalism, bureaucracy, and commodification. This dualistic interpretation is a classic example of the spiritual and academic problem with the language. It casts non-Indigenous cultures as inherently colonising while elevating Indigenous culture to near-divine status. Under this interpretation, indigenous culture demonstrates an animist worldview, one entirely incompatible with the God of Scripture.

The implied moral authority and spiritual infallibility given to Indigenous culture allows it to function with impunity, less like a shared social contract and more like a form of religious absolutism. This is not just sociological; it’s theological. The rhetoric surrounding biculturalism increasingly carries a spirit of entitlement cloaked in spiritual language. When churches adopt this language, they abandon the Gospel’s call for all cultures to submit to Christ, not to celebrate one over the others.

Biculturalism Is Antithetical to Christianity

The ideal of biculturalism, melding the best of two cultures into a unified, diverse identity, may serve civil society, but it has no place in the Church.

Institutions like the Baptist Union (2018) and the NZ Anglican Church have embraced biculturalism through policy. These policies often rest on emotionally charged language like justice, love, inclusion, and fairness, which are framed more like weapons of social responsibility than meaningful theological concepts. Few stop to consider the ideological foundations behind these terms, yet these foundations influence how Christians interpret biculturalism. The result is a drift away from the Gospel narrative. Public discourse has redefined language: the victim is glorified, the perceived oppressor is vilified. The Church cannot adopt this politicised language without reshaping its theology and compromising its ecclesiology.

The Illusion of Unity

Have Maori and Pakeha ever truly shared a united national identity? Increasingly, extremist elements within Maoridom reject this possibility outright, promoting separatism and rejecting any thought of finding one common, shared interpretation of the story embodied in the Treaty. If we can't agree on the story, unity devolves into chaos, and chaos will write its own story. It's the same spiritual conflict Paul faced in cultural idolatries, mythologies, and legalism, which is being replayed today. And once again, it threatens to replace the sufficiency of Christ with cultural constructs.

Not in the Church

If New Zealand has no option but to pursue a bicultural framework as a nation, so be it. But not in the Church.

The Church is not a sociopolitical experiment. It is a spiritual body that transcends ethnic, tribal, and national identities. Hobson’s declaration, “We are one people”, has since been dismissed by some Maori as "the one people myth". The resulting discourse is marked by instability and division. Terms like biculturalism, identity, and Treaty partnership have become ideological battlegrounds, co-opted by radical voices that stir resentment and reinforce victimhood. In this climate, biculturalism corrodes the vision and mission of the Church, as it unravels the social fabric of national unity.

Some years ago, this sociopolitical experiment was adopted by the New Zealand Apostolic Church movement, as it was then known. The initiative failed ultimately, and the movement gradually distanced itself from the idea. However, the consequences were not unifying as several churches chose to leave the movement and form their own predominantly Maori congregations. This shift reflects more than just organisational realignment, it reveals an underlying ideological creep that continues to influence the spiritual direction of various denominations. A similar pattern of compromise and spiritual decline can be observed in the Church of England, now marked by DEI confusion and theological corruption, along with a monarch who appears to have lost his spiritual moorings in the pursuit of Gaia.

The Christian Scriptures

Scripture is often invoked to support biculturalism, but its use is overstated theologically and frequently contradicts biblical truth. The Baptist Union’s 2018 Treaty Affirmation includes statements such as the need for a “bicultural spiritual dimension,” “special legal status,” and that “Maori interests cannot be subsumed.”

Colossians 3:11 offers no special legal status to Jews or Gentiles. There is no acceptable spiritual dimension other than the one revealed in Scripture, and all cultures must be submitted/subsumed in Christ, and Maori has no biblical exception. The Church’s pursuit of biculturalism does not reflect a biblical mandate, but a pseudo-spiritual quest for power, disguised as cultural justice.

The words and ideology embedded in the language imply a resistance to submission to any authority, most of all to Christ. Christ does not conform to our political constructs. We are called to conform to Him.

Christ Is Not Bicultural

Paul, writing to the Galatians, addressed perhaps the deepest cultural divide in history, Jew and Gentile. His answer was not coexistence, but the crucifixion of self and resurrection in Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 9:19, Paul says he became a slave to everyone, not to endorse, subsume, or elevate cultural identities, but to bring all cultures into submission to Christ. He didn’t suggest blending cultural traditions; he demanded transformation. Those using this to endorse bicultural integration ignore Paul’s use of the word “like”, meaning he didn’t become a slave literally, but submitted himself like a slave, to preach the gospel message.

Galatians 3:28-29 and Colossians 3:11 leave no room for parallel cultural systems. There is no Jew or Gentile, no Maori or Pakeha, only a new humanity in Christ. Christians are Abraham’s seed, grafted into a Hebrew vine.

The Church is not called to preserve cultural identities. It is called to create a new identity: a people conformed to the image of Christ. He is the head of the Church, not the state, not the culture, and not the Treaty.