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 this play out in practice? To date, I’ve heard no genuine answers to these questions. What I hear is essentially emotional or partisan rhetoric, the same language that dominates the escalating cultural tragedy between Māori and Pākehā. There is a cultural revival stirring within Māoridom, but the social and political discourse surrounding it is shaped by a different spirit, one that sows division and discord. Its purpose appears to be the advancement of a separatist political agenda.
What some perceive as a return to cultural significance, others are using to promote predominantly animist spiritual values through the woke appropriation of language. Within the Church, the conversation around biculturalism is not centred on embracing a biblical culture, or a Christian worldview. Instead, it seeks to integrate two parallel secular cultures, as if such an approach had biblical precedent. There are some, who see no issue with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks and view biculturalism as little more than a set of aesthetic changes. This naïveté reflects a lack of awareness or concern about the underlying implications and the ideological assumptions embedded in the language itself. The deeper question, of why must biculturalism be established in the first place, is rarely asked.
Language is a political and ideological weapon. If we pay attention to public discourse, we’ll see how it is wielded daily. In New Zealand, politicians are reframing language through an LGBTQ lens to suggest "people get pregnant" rather than "women", to advance ideological narratives. 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 being used to describe and justify those changes.
The Hebrew Vine
Culture is synonymous with life. Whether it's ethnicity, family, business, church, or community activities, every sphere 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-centered culture, but it’s not one we invented or created in our image. Christians are grafted into a Hebrew vine, not a Māori or Pākehā 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 Māori or Pākehā congregations. Social affinity isn’t the issue here. The issue is the introduction of secular language, a language rooted in ideological activism, that installs policy as doctrine, embedding a non-biblical framework within the Church.
The Decline of Māori Christianity
Advocates of biculturalism often cite the declining number of Māori Christians as a reason to adopt bicultural practices. In the 1960s, around 80% of Māori identified as Christian; today, that number has dropped to about 30%. But the same drop, from 80% to 30%, has occurred among non-Māori. 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 dualism is both spiritually and intellectually problematic. It casts non-Indigenous cultures as inherently colonizing while elevating Indigenous culture to near-divine status. Biblically, this reflects 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 religious 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 the Church
The ideal of biculturalism, melding the best of two cultures into a unified, diverse identity, may serve civil society, but it should not serve 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 morality 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. Public discourse has redefined language: the victim is glorified, the perceived oppressor is vilified. The Church cannot adopt this politicized language without reshaping its theology and compromising its ecclesiology.
The Illusion of Unity
Have Māori and Pākehā ever truly shared a united national identity? Increasingly, extremist elements within Māoridom reject this possibility outright, promoting separatism and rejecting any thought of finding a common interpretation of the Treaty. This separatist spirit, when imported into the Church, will eventually undermine the Gospel. It's the same spiritual conflict Paul faced in, cultural idolatries, mythologies, and legalism, and 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 for the 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 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, they stir resentment and reinforce victimhood. In this climate, biculturalism corrodes the Church's mission and unravels the social fabric.
The Christian Scriptures
Scripture is often invoked in support of biculturalism, but such usage 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 “Māori interests cannot be subsumed.” Yet the Gospel demands the opposite: that all interests be submitted (subsumed) to Christ.
Colossians 3:11 offers no special legal status to Jews or Gentiles . There is no acceptable spiritual dimension apart from the one revealed in Scripture. The Church’s pursuit of biculturalism does not reflect a biblical mandate, but a pseudo-political ambition, a quest for power disguised as cultural justice.
This language and ideology embedded in the language resists submission to any higher authority, least 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 crucifixion of self and resurrection in Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 9:19, Paul says he became a slave to all, not to endorse or elevate cultural identities, but to bring all into submission to Christ. He didn’t suggest blending cultural traditions; he demanded transformation.
Galatians 3:28–29 and Colossians 3:11 leave no room for parallel cultural systems. There is no Jew or Gentile, no Māori or Pākehā, only a new humanity in Christ.
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.
