The Church is not a Bicultural Experiment

A New Zealand story - The Body of Christ belongs to Christ, not the pursuit of biculturalism. Does the pursuit make us feel better about our Christian faith, or think “mission statements” will change the cultural narrative? The Body of Christ has everything now, to be Christ, if it projected Christ, instead of a platform for cultural disunity. What is the endgame, and how does biculturalism play out in reality? To date, I’ve heard no pragmatic answers to these questions. What I do hear is the same provocative language that dominates the escalating cultural tragedy between Maori and Pakeha. There is a cultural awakening within Maoridom, but a spirit of division and discord shapes the language used in the social/political discourse. Its purpose is not unity but the advancement of a separatist ideological interpretation of national identity.

What some perceive as a return to cultural significance, others use to promote predominantly animist spiritual beliefs through the woke appropriation of language. The word biculturalism is a disunifying label in the first place, and Church conversation naively assumes it means the same to both sides of the debate. The Church attempts to integrate two parallel secular cultures within a Christian construct as if such an approach were possible, let alone having biblical precedent. Some see no issue with diversity, equity, and inclusion frameworks and view biculturalism as little more than a set of aesthetical changes. This low-resolution view of reality reflects a total lack of awareness or concern about the underlying ideological assumptions embedded in the language itself. The deeper question of why biculturalism needs to be established is rarely asked.

Language is being used as an ideological weapon; we see it daily if we pay attention to public discourse. For example, 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 it.

The Hebrew Vine

Culture is synonymous with how communities function. Whether it be ethnicity, family, business, church, or community activities, every activity or group has its own culture. Culture is the accumulation of 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 and participates in a story not invented or created of itself. 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 who identify with Christianity as a reason for adopting bicultural practices. In the 1960s, around 80% of Maori identified as Christian; today, that number has dropped to about 30%. However, over the same period, this decline, from 80% to 30%, also occurred among non-Maori. The non-Maori demographic is never mentioned in these conversations, but combined, it's clear this is not a cultural crisis; it’s a spiritual one.

What we’re witnessing is a spiritual 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 based 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 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 equalise, or celebrate one over the other.

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 appear 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 vague 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 cultural battlegrounds, co-opted by radical voices that stir resentment and reinforce victimhood. In this climate, biculturalism corrodes the vision and mission of the Body of Christ, 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 dramatically, 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 wildly provocative 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 significance, disguised as cultural justice.

The words and ideology embedded in the language above demonstrate 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.