This occasional weekend column called ‘Pondering:…’ is where people from within the 'Team of 40,000 Baptists' can share issues they are thinking about in a way that opens up a topic from a particular perspective. Feel free to comment on these pieces by sending us an email or letter to our Letters (‘Letters to the Editor’). These opinion pieces are the views of individuals and need to be considered within the context of the diversity of our union of Baptist churches in New Zealand. When responding or contributing, please follow our Guidelines for articles, opinion pieces and online comments.
There has been a robust and respectful debate in the Pondering column of this Baptist website over past months about matters pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi and the idea of a bicultural church in New Zealand. It’s clear that we Baptists hold a variety of often-conflicting views on the topic. In this short opinion piece, I’d like to add my voice to the conversation hoping only to contribute to a sound and sustainable outcome to the debate.
Grant Buchanan is my name. I’m married to Shelley and we are members of Franklin Baptist Church (FBC).
My secular work experience has included working both as a solicitor, accountant and in IT retail.
I am now retired.
My Christian ministry has included completing a two-year diploma in Theology at the Assembly of God Bible College. We assistant-pastored a church in Kerikeri and planted another in Waiuku which is a thriving church today. I have served two terms on the FBC eldership. Shelley served for a number of years as a school chaplain and on FBC staff responsible for Life Groups and pastoral care.
For the last fifteen years, we have led an urban mission into Pukekohe North with a particular engagement with Māori in that locality. We also pioneered prison ministry into Springhill Prison from FBC and we are very active in that ministry today.
My deepest concern on the subject of the Treaty, and the main point I want to make in this piece, is there appears to be no biblical authority for the notion of a bicultural church or being on a bicultural journey. In my opinion, we are importing a secular or political concept into an ecclesiastical structure, and I’m concerned that this might be to the detriment both of our denomination and of the wider body of Christ.
In order to explain my concerns, I will ask and answer a series of questions.
What is the authority within the Baptist denomination for the notion of church being a bicultural church or on a bicultural journey?
The following quotes are from our Treaty Affirmation Statement (Baptist Assembly Council 2018) – emphaisis mine:
1.3 Our role in bringing reconciliation and development between Tāngata Whenua and Pākehā also includes the bicultural spiritual dimension as expressed in the Christian Scriptures:
“Nā reira ehara koutou i te tāngata kē, i te manene rānei; engari he tāngata whenua koutou tahi ko te hunga tapu, nō te whare hoki o te Atua”. – Epiha 2:19
“So then, you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God”. – Ephesians 2:19
2.4 Affirm the development of systems within our churches, ministries and mission, appropriate to Tāngata Whenua. Treaty issues involve special legal status for Māori as indigenous people with ‘Treaty Rights’. Māori interests should not be subsumed within multi-ethnicity.
What does the Bible say about the notion of a bicultural spiritual dimension and Māori having a special status?
I refer to the scripture Ephesians 2:19 quoted above. That scripture does not give scriptural validation for entertaining the notion of being a bicultural church. Indeed, it is saying the opposite! There is one household and all of us are members of that with the same status.
In the following verses, the Bible teaches that, in Christ, we all enjoy the same spiritual status. These verses teach that the notion of differing types of status for different ethnicities is inappropriate within the church:
"Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all". (Colossians 3:11 )
"So, in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise". (Galatians 3:26-29)
In my opinion, the above two scriptures are authority for the fact that, in Christ, different spiritual status for a people group based on ethnicity does not apply, even to the extent that the different spiritual status that used to apply between Jews and Gentiles has been obliterated in Christ.
"Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called 'uncircumcised' by those who call themselves 'the circumcision' (which is done in the body by human hands)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit". (Ephesians 2:11-18)
In New Testament times, there was no greater social or ethnic division than the one that existed between Jew and Gentile. Yet, even such a distinct and longstanding division was obliterated by the gospel!
Scripture appears to explicitly teach that, in Christ, one new humanity has been created out of the believing Jewish and Gentile ethnic groups. In Christ, this is the basis for peace, reconciliation and cessation of racial hostilities between Jew and Gentile. By implication, in Christ these very same blessings can apply to all conflict, division and racial hostilities that may exist between any ethnic groups. Is this not the antidote for racial division that Aotearoa New Zealand needs at present? To me, this same blessing can be applied to any racial division that may exist between Māori and non-Māori in New Zealand.
We would do well to remember John Wesley and the Methodist awakening in England, which prevented the type of revolution that France endured.
How close to revolution do you think we are in Aotearoa New Zealand and how might a similar awakening here avoid much of the tension that currently wracks our nation?
Should not this be the focus of our message? Of course, this spiritual blessing in Christ “in heavenly places” needs to find its way to earth as a reality through Kiwi believers’ lifestyles of faith, revelation, prayer, service and preaching. The theme that Jesus breaks down the dividing wall of hostility and is the source of reconciliation, healing, peace and racial harmony is what needs to energise our prayers and our actions in this difficult time. In my opinion, to adopt a bicultural mindset rather than a monocultural one will hinder us experiencing those blessings. The verse in Ephesians above has at its heart the creation in Jesus of one new humanity out of the two. A bicultural church notion is opposite to that!
"And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you". (Romans 11:17-18)
In Christ, Gentiles have been grafted into the root stock of Israel to create one spiritual people group. This is opposite to the notion of a bicultural spiritual dimension!
This is what Paul meant in Romans 11 by the believing Gentiles being “grafted” into the “olive tree” and nourished by the “root” (the promises to Abraham). The tree thus signifies the collective people of God; the “wild branches” grafted in are Gentile believers; the “natural branches” that are cut off are the Jews in unbelief. Jewish believers remain in the tree but are joined with Gentiles and “made” into a “new body,” the Church.
In the light of the foregoing, there appears to be no biblical authority for the Kiwi church to be on a journey made up of two people groups, namely tāngata whenua (Māori) and tāngata Tiriti (Pākehā, or everyone else). Such a concept, at its heart, means tāngata whenua have a more significant spiritual status than other people groups in the life of the Church. On the contrary, it appears scripture gives authority for the notion of a monocultural church. In other words, all ethnicities are one culture in Christ as the people of God.
Of course, the clear teaching of scripture is that, as between different ethnic groups, we ought to love one another and, in particular, value the diversity that our respective cultures bring to the body of Christ. Having said that, though, no one people group has the pre-eminence as is implied in the notion of a “bicultural spiritual dimension” as outlined above.
Do the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi confer a special status on tāngata whenua in the life of the church?
Those who argue for a bicultural church or for the church being on a bicultural journey appear to lean on the Treaty to support this view. However, the Treaty is a secular political document (notwithstanding the desire of some to characterise it as a ‘sacred covenant’) designed to regulate political affairs, especially the relationship between Māori and the Crown. It was entered into by the Crown and a majority—but by no means all—of the hapū in existence at that time.
The church did have a significant role in drafting the Treaty and in advising hapū in regard to what it meant. As respective parties to the Treaty, the Crown and Māori are constrained by the rights and obligations contained within it. However, the church was not a contracting party to the Treaty so is not constrained by any of its rights and obligations particularly insofar as importing the notion of biculturalism into the life of the Church.
In my opinion, therefore, the Treaty ought not to regulate the spiritual affairs of the church, nor should it be seen to require the church to become bicultural. We are all one in Christ!
Having said that, the Church and individual believers should not turn a blind eye to injustices inflicted on Māori through the Crown’s breaching of its Treaty obligations. Indeed, we should seek to be fully informed about our history. The church should be a voice against injustice and a catalyst to put wrong things right. We are called to love one another and to bear each other’s burdens. However, that sort of action is different to giving Māori a more significant spiritual status within the life of the Church.
Finally, I will leave you with these thoughts:
When Jesus came, His focus was not to address the political injustice of the Roman colonising occupation but to have His Kingdom come into that world. His disciples had difficulty grasping that!
Do we grasp that notion?
As Kiwi Christians, our focus must be to seek first the kingdom of God in our society and not engage in the secular political fights of the day. We must beseech God to pour out His spirit in a fresh way on our nation, resulting in peoples’ spiritual eyes being opened, them being turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that forgiveness of sins and entrance into the family of God may be experienced.
The church, on the one hand, must be an advocate for the oppressed and see injustices remedied, and on the other hand hold out the message of reconciliation and forgiveness.
So, I encourage us as a Bible-believing fellowship to think carefully before taking steps in the organisation of our denomination which may lack a sound foundation in scripture.
I encourage those of you who are interested to further explore this topic at nzhistory.govt.nz (Treaty in Brief).
Image: Painting by Hillary Currie, originally displayed in the Franklin Baptist Church 24/7 Prayer Room – John 14.18. Used with permission.
For other 'Pondering:...' opinion pieces from people in New Zealand Baptist churches, click here.
