Abstract
Educational institutions are expected to play a significant role in preparing people to function well in society. Although critical thinking and problem-solving skills are necessary, people also need to have a social conscience. Educators should, therefore, pay more attention to moral education. Jesus Christ developed and implemented a moral education curriculum and there is a record of that in the New Testament. An examination of it reveals that Jesus built his training around social issues and that he employed a strategy that bears some similarity to Mezirow’s transformation learning theory: his audience was adult and he called upon his students to process disorienting dilemmas, drawing them to reflect critically on assumptions from which was to come mindset change and, ultimately, behavior change. Whereas Mezirow focused on individual experiences and individual transformation, Jesus planned to impact the world—Jewish society and far beyond it—through bands of disciples working in concert. Educators who seek to contribute to social transformation through moral education should consider following the Jesus model which is outlined in this paper.
Introduction
“Educators are … fond of saying ‘It takes a village to raise a child’, but the real question for school leaders is ‘What does it take to raise a village?’” (Houston, 2010: 130).
The popular mantra “It takes a village to raise a child” is based on the recognition that parents need the support of the community in which they live and every other agent of socialization to partner with them in the challenging task of raising children. But what, indeed, does it take to raise a village?” It is a good question to ask because if the village is dysfunctional then it will raise dysfunctional children, and there will be a cycle of dysfunction in a society. Citizens want to live in a context that can be said to be flourishing and it is, generally, the expectation that the future will be better than the past.
Governments, therefore, engage themselves in the development of policies, legislation, and regulations that will help achieve the goal of social transformation. Those initiatives have to be implemented and enforced by various sectors of a society. The education sector is one such sector. In fact, in the Jamaican context, it is accepted to be the sector that is most critical and pivotal for achieving social transformation. As much as other institutions such as the family, the media and religious organizations are recognized for their impact on people, the school (whether primary, secondary, or tertiary) is that one institution which
Jamaica has a national development plan called Vision 2030. It “provides a comprehensive planning framework in which the economic, social, environmental, and governance aspects of national development are integrated” (Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2009: para. 1). The Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) which was tasked to put the plan together canvassed the perspectives of average citizens and received essential input from 31 sectors in the economy. Each sector had to devise a plan, which was incorporated into the national development plan but was also there as a stand-by-itself document to guide that sector to fulfill its role in actualizing specific goals and objectives. Of course, the education sector made its contribution. In its plan, it underlined its intention to have a “well resourced, internationally recognized, values-based system that develops critical thinking, lifelong learners who are productive and successful and effectively contribute to an improved quality of life at the personal, national, and global levels” (Task Force on Education, 2009: 4). Noteworthy is the fact that all the national goals identified in Vision 2030 were also a part of the sector plan for education. Education is the cornerstone of national development not just an important contributor.
In 2020, the government commissioned a committee to conduct a study of the education sector and make recommendations for its transformation as the sector seeks to contribute to social transformation. The Jamaica Education Transformation Commission (JETC) report, according to Murphy (2023) of the Jamaica Information Service, “provides a blueprint for establishing a comprehensive strategy to improve student performance and educational productivity across the sector” (para. 2). At a parent training and information session on education transformation held in August 2023, the Chief Transformation Officer in the Ministry of Education and Youth, Dr Faith Alexander, contended that “parental involvement will be crucial in the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the … JETC report” (Murphy, 2023: para. 1). Dr Alexander asserted that where there is parental involvement, there is less absenteeism, better behavior, and better academic performance and, thus, a lower incidence of unattached young men involved in criminal activities (Murphy, 2023).
An initiative to train and mentor parents addresses, in part, the call to raise the village. In asking the question, “What does it take to raise a village?” Houston (2010) did specifically have parents in mind. He too saw the academic and behavioral benefits of school-parent engagement. However, a number of questions arise from an examination of Dr Alexander’s comments. These questions are not intended to undermine initiatives that focus on parent engagement and parenting skills but are meant to broaden the scope of the discussion on the role of the education sector in social transformation: 1. Is too little attention being paid to possible solutions to youth involvement in criminal activities (about which Dr. Alexander was concerned) that go beyond good academic performance and an outward display of conformity to rules? In the education sector, is enough consideration being given to devising plans to undercut the role the educated play in criminality even as there is justifiable concern about unattached young men? 2. How do we engage a wider cross section of the adult population whose conduct also affects children and whose input is vital to laying the foundation for social transformation in the near and distant future? 3. What should inform the approach to be taken to “raise the village”?
The answers lie not only in cognitive development and behaviour modification but in character formation through moral education, with educators well positioned to meet the challenge.
Moral obstacles to national development
“Moral education is an educational process of the
Although, as Vision 2030 says, Jamaica is “home to a warm-hearted, talented, and diverse people” (2009: xxi), corruption and violence are two moral issues which are greatly inhibiting the achievement of the national developmental goals.
Corruption has been a perennial problem. Robinson (2024), of Radio Jamaica, reported that Jamaica from 2020 to 2023 had a Corruption Perception Index (CPI) score of 44 out of 100, a mark it has never exceeded, with Transparency International highlighting the fact that the nation has had an average score of 38 over the last 22 years. “A CPI score of below 50 means a country has a serious corruption problem” (Robinson, 2024: para. 8).
There are grave ramifications. It is hard to register improved lifestyle for citizens commensurate with good macro-economic indicators when roads repaired do not remain in good condition for long, when regulations are breached in order to sure up the profit, when money saved becomes money stolen by fraud from financial institutions, and when pollution of rivers, streams, and seas makes them unsafe for domestic use and rob fisher folk of their livelihood.
Jamaica has also gained notoriety for violence. According to the Gleaner, for the year 2023, the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) reported that there were 1393 murders and that was a 7.8% decline over 2022 (1,393 People Murdered, 2024). And, research done in prisons by the JCF in 2012 found that the typical inmate had breached the Firearms Act in their first
Violence in the society is so pervasive that it has found its way into schools, places once thought to be safe havens away from domestic and gang-related violence. And the children are not just victims but perpetrators. No society can function properly much less optimally with such a high level of violence. The current state of affairs has stifled economic development; caused physical harm, even death; and undermined the psychological health of the nation, with many experiencing direct or indirect trauma.
Concern about violence in schools, added to the statistics coming out of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (2012) report (cited above), showing that most inmates were either dropouts or completed school but did not get a passing grade for any subject in external examinations, has led to a focus on “unattached youth.” Those are young people, mainly boys, who have not performed well in school and are not engaged in productive activity. Thus, the conducting of parenting workshops such as the one referred to earlier, as engaged parents usually mean engaged youth. The government has also sought to develop programmes such as the Sixth Form Pathway Programme and the Learning and Investment for Transformation (LIFT) Programme (an internship programme for graduates of fifth and sixth forms) which are meant to improve the social as well as economic condition of the underprivileged.
The expectation is that no young person will feel disaffected from the society and so get involved in non-productive and even criminal activities. The youth will develop job-related skills, as well as critical thinking and problem-solving skills (which will include the abilities to communicate and resolve conflict). The society will then have well-adjusted, productive adults who would not only have benefited from developmental programmes but will themselves “participate in the responsibilities … of national development” (Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2009: 13) which include a safe and secure society.
Notwithstanding the data on the background of the prison inmates, improved academic outcomes, behavior modification, and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills are necessary but not sufficient to produce good citizens. One does not have to personally act violently to contribute to violence. Take contract killings as an example. The person who has hired someone to kill another is as much a murderer as the one who carried out the act. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to prove a case against the contracting party who could very well have the appearance of a respectable and upright citizen. Likewise, corrupt people in high places do not often serve sentences in prison. They are intellectually astute and financially secure enough to evade capture or conviction, taking advantage of weaknesses in the systems that were designed to hold them accountable. According to Transparency International, poor CPI scores, such as Jamaica's score of 44, are indicative of such a problem (See Robinson, 2024). More and more stringent legislative and punitive measures have not helped to resolve the issue, but, with greater emphasis being placed on strengthening the capacity of anti-corruption bodies, the authorities anticipate that there will be improvement over time. Systems, however, do not operate independently of human agency and so any attempt to solve the problem must address the heart of the problem (pun intended).
“Children learn what they live,” said Nolte (1954) in her popular poem. With corruption and violence so prevalent at all levels of the society, that is what many children (from all spheres of life) are learning. The solution must be to change the mindset of the community. As Vision 2030 declares: At the heart of this vision for Jamaica is the transformation of the society. This transformation will only take place if there is a change in the mindset of the nation which addresses those traits that are likely to inhibit progress toward development. This change is vital if we are to significantly reduce crime and violence, improve education and training outcomes, advance the development of our infrastructure, increase productivity, and manage our national debt (2009: 15).
So, while moral education has its place in primary and secondary schools, it must also be an adult education initiative. What could that look like? Jesus Christ, arguably the most influential figure in human history, provides educators with a model. He took a direct approach to the inculcation of values and his target audience was adults.
The mission of Jesus Christ: An overview
It could be said that his was a religious and spiritual mission of which educational institutions should be wary in this pluralistic age as one religious ideology should not be promoted above others. That his mission was spiritual is indeed true. However, the means by which he went about accomplishing it is worthy of consideration by anyone interested in social transformation.
The writers of the Gospels, which recount key events in Jesus’ life and ministry up to the time of his post-resurrection appearances, identified Jesus as the Christ. The title was imbued with the recognition that Jesus was the one to save the world from eternal condemnation. However, “Christ” was a title that also identified Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
The Jews expected a political figure to re-establish their kingdom and place them in a position of power in the world; they looked forward to a reordering of power relations. That was the social transformation that they anticipated. Jesus did have social transformation in mind; however, he defined it differently. His understanding can be summed up in His mission statement: The Spirit of the Lord … has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor … to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor (English Standard Version, 2016, Luke 4:18–19). Jesus framed his mission in terms of people and not simply their condition. His concern was people.
Jesus’ task was as follows: To proclaim good news to the poor – addressing the plight of the poor. To proclaim liberty to the captives – freeing the captured from enslavement and incarceration. To proclaim recovering of sight to the blind – addressing the needs of people with disabilities. To set at liberty those who are oppressed – fighting against injustice. To proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor – inspiring hope in the midst of seemingly hopeless circumstances. All of the points in the mission statement were made from an eternal perspective with the last one understood as a reference to the end of the age when all the others would be fully realized. Nonetheless, the Gospels bear out the fact that they also had temporal significance.
Shaping the curriculum: The problems to be addressed
Jesus, the deliverer, in recognizing that social transformation in the then and there required social engagement and that for it to be significant and sustained, it needed a growing band of advocates, took on the role of educator, as well, and developed a curriculum around his mission, a curriculum that was relevant to the times in which he was living. In his mission statement, Jesus had incorporated ideas from Isaiah 42:7 and 58:6 into the core expression of Isaiah 61:1–2a in order to identify problems that were being faced by the people living under Roman rule at the time.
Poverty
Scholars such as Kanagaraj (1997), Hakkinen (2016), and Rosenfeld and Perlmutter (2016) have highlighted the fact that there was great disparity between the rich and poor in the Roman Empire and the system ensured that gap was maintained.
Ironically, people living in poverty were disproportionately affected by taxation. Kanagaraj (1997) pointed out that “the ‘poor’ in the first century were … affected politically by Roman taxes, and religiously by the imposition of tithes which amounted to between 17 and 23% of one’s gross income” (p. 44) to such an extent that, according to Harris (2011), many became destitute. Despite the exploitative situation that led to destitution for some, many in Jewish society were disdainful of those who were unable to sustain themselves through gainful employment and, according to Rosenfeld and Perlmutter (2016), “the rabbis related positively primarily toward poor who were ‘sons of good’ citizens. The other poor were ‘others’ and were left to charity and tithes” (p. 411).
Counted among those who had little means were people with disabilities, but Jesus placed them in a distinct category because they faced peculiar challenges. He mentioned the blind specifically, but they can be seen to be representative of the broader category of people with disabilities.
Disabilities
Apart from challenges posed by the disability itself which family and friends could help them to navigate, people with disabilities had to contend with stigmatization. According to Marini (2017), Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle even proposed infanticide for the benefit of the person with the disability and the society, respectively. That is significant because the political shift to Rome as Empire did not lessen the Greek influence in the realm of ideas. It was, therefore, generally believed, Marini (2017) explained, that there was a link between physical disabilities and spiritual impairment. Again, of interest, as pointed out by Laes et al. (2013), is the exception given to the ruling class. If the leader could function intellectually and his mobility was assured because he was being carried around by slaves, he was still given honor. There was a double-standard based on status.
The Jews also believed in a connection between people’s disabilities and their spiritual condition. The religious leaders seemed not to have made a distinction between moral and ritual blemish. However, they and the general Jewish population recognized that they were bound by Leviticus 19:14 not to ill-treat people with disabilities.
Captivity
Jesus did not mention only poverty and disabilities as issues to be addressed, he also identified captivity. In the context of Roman imperialism, captivity spoke of the capture and enslavement of people from conquered territories.
Huemoeller (2021) and Bradley (1994) have shown that from the time of the Roman Republic to that of the Empire, the status of the captured person was a consideration when determining the nature of his enslavement. For instance, in the epistle of Galatians, slaves are seen to hold honorable positions such as tutors. Most slaves, however, did more menial domestic tasks or contributed more directly to the economy through work on the land or even through fishing.
But, no matter his or her status, no slave had bodily autonomy; the master did as he wished with him. The treatment of the enslaved was frequently brutal, according to Bradley (1994), as it was presupposed to be the way to ensure compliance: “the slave had to be coerced and worn down into obedience by his master; his spirit had to be broken” (p. 345).
Although Jewish slaves did exist, Jewish reality was very different from other peoples under Roman rule. Bentwich (1915) explained that: [T]he Jews had first come into contact with Rome as an allied people ... They came thus into the Roman Empire as a privileged nation. ... [W]hen the Jewish people as a whole came later under their rule ... but were a subject people, there was scarcely any attempt to change their legal condition (p. 327).
Oppression
Why add the all-embracing category of oppression to a list with poverty, disabilities, and captivity? By adding it, Jesus was saying that no injustice would be overlooked no matter the type but also no matter the source, for it can be meted out at various levels along a continuum—even within and across the other specified categories. And by not subsuming all the other categories under it, he was showing that not everything can be blamed on oppression. Sometimes, people’s condition was a result of their own action, but, even so, he was compassionate toward them and expected others to be as well.
Teaching strategies and the art of disorientation
Having identified the issues to be addressed, Jesus determined the teaching strategy that would best achieve the desired learning outcomes. James et al. (2015) asserted that “the contemporary theory of transformative learning helps us reflect on the overall process of Jesus’s teaching” (p. 134). Specifically, they had in mind Jack Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning which emphasizes behaviour change coming out of critical reflection as a result of a disorienting dilemma which occurs when an individual is brought to “a state of disequilibrium when familiar beliefs are inadequate for dealing with new circumstances” (James et al., 2015: 134). There are clear similarities between Jesus’ approach and that of Mezirow. However, for Mezirow, “a disorienting dilemma happens through a significant personal life event such as the death of a loved one, or losing a job” (E, 2019: 814). Jesus, on the other hand, paid great attention to societal issues and not just the personal experiences of the learners as he confronted ingrained ways of thinking.
How did Jesus get people to re-examine what had shaped their worldview since childhood? He created disorienting dilemmas or cognitive dissonance through his sermons and talks, his stories, and, very importantly, through practical experiences. This was another way in which Jesus’ approach was different from Mezirow. Jesus was willing to “create the experience” that would lead to disorientation.
Sermons
Through his sermons and talks, Jesus got across his lessons in a very forthright way. Two of his more well-known sermons are called the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain. In both, he addressed many issues, including poverty.
In his declaration of blessings in his sermon on the plain, recorded in Luke 6, Jesus indirectly placed responsibility on his hearers who wanted to participate in the kingdom to themselves make those who were poor and oppressed contented by satisfying their hungry and by comforting the brokenhearted and despondent. Although the thought that those who were poor were blessed by God would have been somewhat perplexing, even more disorienting was the contrast between the blessings and the woes. How could Jesus say “Woe to the rich”? Was not their wealth an indication of God’s blessing on them? Answers to those questions required reflection on what God esteemed. It called for a reassessment of value and status.
Jesus’ sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) provided some answers to the questions that were raised by the sermon on the plain. Using the same imagery related to poverty, Jesus made some qualifications. People who were poor in spirit and who hungered after righteousness were blessed. Expanding on that appeal to the right attitude, he also spoke of the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peace maker. It is that mindset that will be evident in the kingdom of God and which is necessary for poverty and other social ills to be overcome. Jesus, in chapters 5 and 6, gave an example of that mindset in action. First, there is a desire to give to the needy (6:19–21, 24), but it is a desire fueled by compassion and not personal benefit (6:1–4). One should not give only to the son of the good citizen who is making a positive contribution to the Jewish economy and from whom financial benefits could be reaped (5:42, 46–48).
In Matthew 25, as well, Jesus reinforced the importance of tangibly supporting the poor and destitute and the alienated. In Luke 6, “Blessed are the poor” explained God’s attitude to the poor and inferred what the attitude of the listeners should be. In Matthew 5 and 6, he explained what the motivation behind kindness should be. Then, his pronouncement in Matthew 25 made it an obligation of God's kingdom, one with spiritual and eternal consequences (v. 46) because giving to the poor was giving to the King, and, strikingly, not giving to the poor was denying the King what was due to him. Visiting the imprisoned was tantamount to visiting the King, as he desired, and not doing so the same as abandoning him. Welcoming strangers/foreigners was the same as welcoming him and rejecting them amounted to rejecting him. Jesus sought to reorient the people’s way of thinking. The “least of these” mattered.
Stories
Jesus spoke with conviction in his sermons as he presented perspectives that were not necessarily new but which had not been considered sufficiently to change attitudes and behaviors. His sermons were compelling (Matt. 7:29). But Jesus was not only a master preacher; he was also a master story teller. His stories had that element of surprise which was not there to make them exciting but to make them disturbing. Two such stories are found in Luke 16:19–31 and Luke 15:11–32. The stories asked the audience to answer the question: “What do you value?” and had implications for all the people Jesus had identified in his mission statement.
In Luke 16:19–31, a rich man was consumed with his material possessions and so self-absorbed that he neglected to help a destitute man named Lazarus. One is left to infer that starvation was the cause of Lazarus’s death. He had yearned even for crumbs from the rich man’s table but received not even that. Even worse, some may have thought, his wounds were licked by the dogs. The listeners must have imagined the scene. “The dogs here appear to be the usual kind Palestinian Jews knew: scavengers, viewed as if they were rats or other unhealthy creatures (also in the Old Testament, e.g., 1 Kings 14:11; 16:4; 21:24; 22:38). They were considered unclean …” (Keener, 2014: 224). That would have made Lazarus unclean. Knowing the attitude of the Pharisees, one wonders what may have concerned them more: the ritual uncleanness of Lazarus or the moral decadence of the rich man. Jesus answered the question from God’s perspective.
It must have struck the audience that Jesus named the poor man but not the rich man. That was such a deviation from how parables were told that St Jerome thought that the story was not a parable but a historical account (Sister Marie Liguori Ewald, 1966). Whether or not Jerome was right, in identifying Lazarus by name but not his nemesis, Jesus personalized the poor man as he made a point that lay at the heart of the story: God notices those who live in poverty. In fact, “Lazarus,” according to Walvoord and Zuck (1987), means “God, the Helper” (p. 247).
More importantly and graphically presented was their residence after death. The more than likely ritually unclean Lazarus found himself in the arms of Abraham while the rich man went to Hades and was in more torment than the poor man had ever been. Those who claimed to be the sons of Abraham were being asked to reorder their priorities. People must be valued above possessions. Earlier in the chapter, Luke made it known that the Pharisees loved money (v. 14).
Disregard for those who were poor or, even worse, exploitation of them was only one example of misplaced values. There were other expressions. The parables Jesus told in Luke 15 make that clear. In the parables, everyone in the community rejoiced when a lost sheep and lost coin were found, but when a rebellious son returned home, his older brother saw no reason to rejoice. Instead, he was upset. Yet the father accepted his prodigal son. By framing the story in that way, Jesus was painting a picture of God that was contrary to the outlook of the hearers, for it was obvious that the father represented God. Jesus’ repetition of the idea that rejoicing took place in the realm of heaven whenever a sinner repented was meant to lead the Jews to that conclusion. And the religious leaders would also recognize that they were the older son. Jesus had told the parables in response to their grumbling about his association with sinners; it was an indictment against them. The third of the triad of parables that Jesus told in Luke 15 was a reversal of any normal order.
Though more directly a response to the attitude of the self-righteous religious leaders, the parable also challenged the thinking of the so-called sinners. “I am no longer worthy to be called your son” (Luke 15:19, 21), said the younger son, and though true in relation to God, Jesus wanted to show that they were no less worthy than the esteemed Pharisees and their value was not to be seen in relative terms. They needed to recognize their own God-given worth. A distinction needed to be made between “worthy” as in deserving and “worth” as in inherent value.
If worth is based on status in a society, then when the poor become rich and when the sinner becomes the “righteous,” there will be little if any difference in the nature of the relationships from that which existed before.
Everyday life experiences
If sermons and stories could be disorienting, how much more could real-life engagements be. The way Jesus related to people on a personal level could be said to be even more instructive than his preaching and story telling.
First, for him to live out what he taught was itself a lesson. He treated people the way that he said they should be treated. He fed the hungry. He associated with sinners, eating and drinking with them. He talked openly to women against Jewish custom. He went through Samaritan villages instead of going another way. Jesus was no hypocrite; he modeled the values that he was teaching. That had to be striking to onlookers as that was not true of many of the religious leaders. Of the Pharisees, he said: “You must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matt. 23:3).
Secondly, his outside-of-the-norm response to the plight of the people created teachable moments. Jesus placed himself and his followers in situations from which lessons could be learned. One example is found in John 9. In that account, the common belief that disabilities were punishment for sins comes out clearly in the question that the disciples asked Jesus: “Was it this man who sinned or was it his parents that he was born blind?” (v. 2). Keener (2014) pointed out that “suffering, including blindness, was … associated with sin, though Jewish law provided protection for a blind person. Jewish people acknowledged punishment for ancestral sin; many believed in prenatal activity; and, some allowed even for prenatal sin” (p. 278). Jesus debunked both the ancestral and prenatal theories. He gave instead a reason that was not at all under consideration: The man was born blind “so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3).
Restoration of the sight of someone born blind was clearly supernatural and added force to Jesus’ verbal rebuttal. It also brought into sharp focus the issue of spiritual blindness. “The reversal of physical and spiritual blindness is a motif in the prophets (e.g., Isa. 42:16–19)” (Keener 2014: p. 278) and that was not lost on Jesus. As part of his lesson, he juxtaposed the condition of the man who had been born blind against that of the religious leaders. The assumptions had clearly been misdirected as those who were thought to have spiritual insight were the ones who were spiritually blind, not the man who had been physically blind. Jesus identified them as “blind guides” (Matt. 15:14), an oxymoron which by itself made the point but which was reinforced by a clear diagnosis. “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; now that you say, ‘We see’, your guilt remains” (John 9:41), said Jesus to the religious leaders. Not only was that a call for his followers to reconsider their assumptions in that particular case, it was also a call to adopt critical reflection as a lifestyle choice.
The ultimate experience
From everyday life experiences to the ultimate life experience, the call grew yet louder. Prior to his last Passover feast which was, not incidentally, a celebration of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, Jesus took on the role of a slave, washing his disciples’ feet. Jesus had always taught that lording one’s supposedly superior status over others was to be eschewed (See Matthew 20:20-28). It is the servant who would be exalted. That was not a message to keep servants servile but a message for everyone to serve everyone else. Jesus had consistently spoke out against oppressive power relationships.
Then at his crucifixion, he identified with slaves in the most significant way. He experienced the death of a slave described thus by Holland (2021): Exposed to public view like slabs of meat hung from a market stall, troublesome slaves were nailed to crosses. ... No death was more excruciating, more contemptible, than crucifixion. To be hung naked, 'long in agony, swelling with ugly weals on shoulders and chest', helpless to beat away the aclamorous birds: such a fate Roman intellectuals agreed, was the worse imaginable. This in turn was what rendered it so suitable a punishment for slaves (p. 2).
After such a death, the resurrection accounts would have to be seen as a declaration of the victim becoming the victor, and the idea of the last becoming the first and the first becoming the last was not only seen as applicable to Jesus but to all who have been victimized. To the end, Jesus was teaching.
Moral education: Expanding the scope of the mission
Jesus’ reputation as a Master Teacher is justified. He had a detailed plan of how he would make his mission of social transformation a reality. He would clearly articulate his goal and implement a culturally relevant, learner-centered instructional strategy that would challenge the status quo. However, that was too limiting. Jesus empowered his followers to “do greater works.” He democratized education, recruited and appropriately deployed dedicated, conscientious teachers who were expected to equip succeeding generations of teachers to reach their own target audiences and expand the scope of the mission as successive learners expanded their own horizons.
Democratizing education
According to Fine et al. (2019): the Jesus Movement depends on three concentric circles. The first was a small group of the most devoted followers (the circle of the Twelve). Surrounding them was a wider circle of supporters devoted to the leader …: those who did not give up everything but were committed advocates (Luke 10:1). This circle—the Seventy—are differentiated from the wider circle of more casual supporters, Judeans who provided local support (p. 102).
Not a part of the committed group but participants in the teaching-learning process were the “multitudes.”
Fine et al. (2019) identified the 12 as Jesus’ devoted followers, but how they came to follow him is important in understanding the kind of educational leader Jesus was. From the outset of his teaching ministry, Jesus sought to democratize education. First, he
Secondly, many of the individuals whom he called were at the margin of society and some were anything but respectable citizens. Peter, James, and John, for example, were not known for civility. The latter two were called sons of thunder and Peter’s propensity to impetuous and even intemperate conduct was noteworthy. Then there was Simon, the Zealot, so-called because of his association with a group that violently resisted Roman occupation. Jesus’ choice of these slow of hearing, ill-tempered individuals was not surprising, bearing in mind his mission to transform lives. The wonder of it lay in the role that he planned for them to assume. They were a part of his succession plan. They were the ones whom He intended to carry on his mission upon his departure. One could say, up to the day before, it did not seem that they were up to the task (See Acts 1:6–8).
Where the other two concentic circles were concerned, there is not much said in the gospels about the Seventy. What we do know is that just as Jesus sent out the 12 into various communities to heal and teach, so he commissioned the Seventy to do the same. Although their identities are not known from the biblical record, they had to be male. Women definitely would not have been accepted by the wider community as messengers. Jesus, however, included women in the last of the concentric circles. According to Fine et al. (2019), “the presence of women in the Jesus faction reflected a deviant culture within Judean society, even if male dominance remained” (p. 103).
Jesus recognized the limitations imposed by culture, but he sought to counter it by openly acknowledging the capacity of women to learn at a high level and encouraging them to do so. Jesus revealed significant theological truths to women. For example, he revealed a fuller understanding of resurrection to Mary and Martha (John 11:23–26). In addition, he complimented Mary for sitting at his feet to learn from him and rebuked Martha for not making use of the opportunity but instead focusing on household chores (Luke 10:38–42). That constituted a significant reversal of the normal expectation.
Extending his teaching to the masses was also counter-cultural. The average citizen did interact with religious leaders, but it was a belittling experience as they were not in a position to meet their standard for holy living (See Matt. 9:11–13; Luke 7:36–39; Luke 15:1–2). In addition, the rabbis’ approach to teaching did not accommodate people with the educational deficiencies the Jewish population had. The story telling of Jesus was, therefore, a good way to teach the multitudes. His messages affirmed them but also called for them to reconsider how they understood themselves and others.
Recruitment and deployment
Opening up education to the masses in the Jewish society was necessary for Jesus considering his mission. But as has been said before, he had an even wider audience in mind and His disciples were tasked to broaden the reach but without his physical presence. When Jesus retired from teaching face-to-face because of his relocation (his ascension), he remained an educator. He remained the architect of the expansion of the mission. The work of the Holy Spirit is the work of Jesus continued and extended (Acts 1:2).
The plan for social transformation on a worldwide scale was arguably the most counter-cultural of all Jesus’ doings. According to Johnson (2020) “by transgressing contemporary religious and social boundaries in his ministry, he [had] planted the seeds of the church’s later inclusion of non-Jews” (p. 18). The nations were “uncircumcised dogs” from a Jewish perspective. It was such a deeply ingrained outlook that even after Jesus commissioned the disciples to make disciples of all nations, Peter still did not understand it until the Holy Spirit made him have a disorienting vision where he was commanded to eat unclean animals and this was followed up by the disorienting experience he had when he ministered to the Gentile, Cornelius. The following comments by Peter are instructive: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right” (Acts 10:34–35).
Despite Peter’s change of attitude, Jesus chose Saul of Tarsus to expand the mission to the Gentiles. Saul, whose name was changed to Paul, had the background socially, academically and spiritually, as well as the capacity to adjust quickly upon critical reflection, all of which made him an ideal candidate to reach a Gentle audience. Jesus actually made a personal appearance to recruit him.
Paul was an exception. Recruitment was done mainly through human agency. The disciples, now called apostles because they were now responsible for the mission, were the primary agents. Thereafter, those whom they equipped would assign others. For example, Timothy whom Paul had recruited was instructed to teach others who would then teach yet others and that cycle was to continue with systems of accountability embedded. This criticism leveled at Mezirow’s learning theory could not be laid at Jesus feet. According to Tisdell et al. (2001): For Mezirow, and those who rely on his work, the unit of analysis is the individual, the apparent assumption being that social transformation is the sum of the parts, where the parts are transformed individuals. Many have critiqued Mezirow’s work as being more a theory of individual rather than social transformation (p. 3).
Jesus’ concept, however, was a missionary one, and Peter and Paul were to be at the forefront. Through both of them, but especially Paul who was known as the apostle to the Gentiles, the world that Jesus did not reach was now open for significant social change. As Bradley (1994) put it, “because of the emphasis Christianity placed on others as well as on the self, the new religion promised a new social awareness of limitless potential” (p. 145).
And so although Jesus’ teaching, as expressed in the Gospels, continued to be spread, the new audience meant the exploration of ideas that Jesus did not address in detail due to the fact that his audience was primarily Jewish. One such was captivity. Paul interacted with people who were not just captives but capturers. His teaching had implications for both.
Paul tackled the issue of captivity and slavery from various angles. He sought to maintain social order while undermining acceptance of the system. Social transformation cannot take place in a context of anarchy. In addition, it was important that the movement build up momentum before the Roman authorities tried to destroy it. Only when the value system is changed will the system of oppression truly be dismantled. Thus, Paul followed Jesus’ example of considered, systematic moral education.
The cross was central to his teaching. That which was meant to humiliate slaves and to dissuade them from revolting and so was supposed to ensure the economic stability of Rome and the leisure of the Roman elite was now a symbol and a source of power. The cross which to Gentiles was foolishness and to Jews a stumbling block (1 Cor 1:23) was the means of deliverance from social and spiritual oppression. That was certainly a disorienting dilemma. Paul also made it clear that in Christ all were equal; even slaves had the same status as the free (Gal 3:28). He continued to upend the society’s understanding of status by establishing criteria for church leadership that meant that a slave could be a bishop in a church where his master was a member (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). Then, in the book of Philemon, Paul addressed the issue of slavery with a friend whose slave, Onesimus, had run away and, according to Roman law, was deserving of death. In pleading Onesimus’s case to Philemon, Paul appealed to the two grounds on which equality of master and slave could be established: in Christ, that is, by way of a common relationship with Christ (as he had expressed in Galatians) and in the flesh, that is by virtue of their common humanity (Philemon v. 16). The addition of the latter was significant. Paul was helping people to question the moral basis on which they justified slavery. Although not deemed radical in the 21st century, Paul’s teachings were radical at the time.
Paul was so serious about the transformation of society that he declared the good news of Jesus Christ to slave and master alike and to commoner and king alike. Paul had ready access to commoners and slaves, but he had limited options for direct contact with those at the helm of government and when one opened up for him, he took it. Contact came as a consequence of Jewish persecution and his Roman citizenship. One could argue that Paul was strategically positioned by Jesus to spread the message of transformation to the political representatives of Ceasar (Acts 9:15; 23:11).
Paul had the opportunity to challenge the thinking of governors, Felix and Festus, and even King Agrippa. On each occasion, he told his story. In other words, he gave his testimony of the dramatic change to the course of his life because of a significant change in his perspective. It was from that platform that a call was made for the political leaders to follow his example. Paul, of course, wanted them to accept the salvation Jesus offered. However, his pronouncements were also a repudiation of corruption and injustice in high places (See Acts 23–26). Paul
The moral education in which Jesus engaged and which was continued by the apostles, with most of the biblical documentation centered on Paul, still had a disorienting effect after the New Testament period. Augustine who lived from 354 to 430, “pointed out that the outward looking objectives of reforming the sinner, freeing the afflicted from sorrowful suffering and saving those in danger from death were quite at odds with the self-oriented cast of traditional Greco-Roman philosophy” (Bradley, 1994: 146). Historian, Tom Holland, in his assessment of Christianity, recognized it to be “the most enduring legacy of classical antiquity and the index of its utter transformation” (2019: 10). Since then, the history of the Western world, where Christianity took root more than any other, has shown that each generation has built on the progress made by preceding generations such that the concept of human rights has become ingrained in the Western worldview. Judson, writing in the nineteenth century affirmed it: “If men are equal before God, why should they not have equal rights before human law? This is the political truth which is interwoven in Christianity.” (1898: 238). Holland (2019), a century later, in speaking of himself, declared that though his “belief in God had faded,” he had to acknowledge that the assumptions that [he] had grown up with -- about how a society should be properly organized, and the principles that it should uphold -- were not bred of classical antiquity, still less of 'human nature', but very distinctively of that civilisation's Christian past” (p. 17).
Holland (2019) was not suggesting that Western societies where Christian influence was profound should be considered beacons of virtue, but he did argue that even the criticisms levied against their moral vices have their basis in Christian ideals. The fact is that there should be continual critical reflection on assumptions, attitudes, and actions.
Implications for higher educational institutions in Jamaica
The declaration of Vision 2030 that “transformation will only take place if there is a change in the mindset of the nation which addresses those traits that are likely to inhibit progress toward development” (2009: 15) is a call to urgent action. Higher education institutions may be the best place to start the process of renewal as they are where national leaders are trained and developed. Jesus, in addressing the leaders of the Jewish people, said: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” (Matt. 23:15). Jamaica wants a different outcome and so those who will help shape the nation should have critically reflected on their own moral standards and consciously determined to walk in integrity for the good of the nation. It is important to get tertiary students to think about moral agency and the implications of moral actions.
Apart from faith-based institutions and teachers colleges, Jamaican universities and colleges have followed the path of higher educational institutions in North America and Europe which, according to Oxenham, have departed from the “in loco parentis structure” that once obtained and so “restrictions such as dress codes, restrictions on food, disciplinary systems, and curfews were removed” (2019: p. 39). He contended that “although students did not obtain more power, they did obtain more freedom, but with this freedom came a diminished level of moral behaviour [which] according to analysts, led to a moral crisis in the university” (2019, p. 39). Educators who have seen the need for change must act with urgency, recognizing that what is not sown at a point in time cannot bear fruit in the future. It will be an uphill challenge in this pluralistic and more liberal age to introduce moral education in such a setting. Some may argue that it cannot be done, but there may be an approach that can be accommodated even in this day and age and it should be undertaken with a tomorrow in mind. That approach is the Jesus Model.
The Jesus Model provides a template which can guide the development of a moral education curriculum that suits a college/university setting and can be adopted and adapted to meet the needs of adult learners in other environments. The aim is to expand the reach, thus creating a wholesome social environment in which children can be brought up in a morally upright way. Educators and students at tertiary institutions, along with educators at primary and secondary schools must take moral education into the communities to their adult population. Community leaders must be prime targets.
Those who commit to such an initiative will need to creatively apply the Jesus model to varying contexts while being faithful to its core tenets: • Jesus emphasized valuing others. If critical thinking and problem-solving skills are to be used for the benefit of society and not just the self, people need to develop them in tandem with a social conscience. Yudkin et al. (2021), in their examination of the concept of moral identity, posited that people’s sense of moral obligation tended to lessen the weaker the emotional bond. It is those in whom a strong moral identity is formed that one finds consistency in the exercise of their moral conscience. Blasi, a theorist cited by Yudkin et al. (2021), defined the moral person as “one for whom moral categories or moral notions are central, essential, and important to self-understanding” (p. 85). For them (moral persons), Jesus’ concept of neighbor as the moral agent/actor (Luke 10:36–37), rightly refers to them because they believe that they have a moral obligation to all. • Jesus used contextually-relevant strategies as he employed disorienting dilemmas as a tool. Following the Jesus model, educators would adopt a disorienting dilemma approach, but they would adapt it to the audience. However, all of Jesus’ strategies with their dramatic effect are suited to a Jamaican audience. Tomlinson (2017), recognizing the value of dramatic presentations in shaping thought and action, concluded that “the cultivation of an African-Jamaican aesthetic plays a key role in inspiring community activism” (p. vii). She was speaking specifically of “African-Jamaican esthetic impulse in diasporic dub poetry and fiction” (p. vii). Storytelling (on the part of the tutor but also from the perspective of the students’ own life) and immersing students into the life experiences of others, as well as musical rhythmic presentations in song and poetry, are options available to educators who want to impact a predominantly oral society Even so, the approach should be tailored to each cohort of students as logical argumentation must not be discounted and was, indeed, a part of the Jesus model in oral and written form. • Jesus called for critical reflection and accountability. Whereas the means by which disorienting dilemmas are presented may vary, challenging people to engage in critical reflection on and of assumptions and actions must remain constant. That is what the dilemmas are supposed to engender. For moral education more than any other discipline, educators are facilitators who are also learners. They too must reflect on their belief system and behaviour. In addition, if moral education is to be effective, educators must be exemplars. There will need to be systems of accountability as was the case in the Jesus model. • Jesus made moral education accessible to the general population. If a mission similar to that of Jesus is to be accomplished in Jamaica, then leaders in the education sector will have to move beyond the inner circles to the general public in a deliberate and structured way. Educators seem to have the necessary mindset to be agents of change. From their analysis of data obtained from focus groups and semi-structured interviews, Floyd and Fuller (2014) have concluded that Jamaican school leaders who participated “had a strong sense of agency in attempting to change the social structures within the institutions they lead and in the surrounding local communities, which in turn, they hope, will have a lasting effect on the nation as a whole” (p. 251) Using theological institutions as an example, theology students could constitute one circle, para-church organizations another, churches another, outward to select communities. Note that Jesus interacted with his circles concurrently. Of course, the intention is that each learner will create their own circle of learners and so the vision will continually be spread. • Jesus was patient. While the society is looking for immediate results, educators will have to be patient and remain committed to the task. They will need to be cognizant of incremental changes in order to encourage themselves and the learners. The problems may seem intractable, but a sustainable solution is possible if educators do not only try to modify behaviour but persevere in their attempt to change mindsets.
Conclusion
Jesus wanted to bring about social transformation through spiritual transformation. His primary aim was to reconcile humanity with God through his death and resurrection. Undoubtedly, there will be disagreements about that and other aspects of the message that he and his disciples espoused, but even those who have such contentions should feel constrained to examine his approach to moral education. He identified culturally relevant issues. He determined a comprehensive and coherent approach in helping people to rethink the presuppositions that formed the basis of their interpretation of reality and their treatment of people. He operated on multiple fronts, some simultaneously.
With no political or economic power, Jesus has influenced generations of people partly because he was committed to developing the social conscience. Self-actualization and problem-solving capabilities are necessary but not sufficient to effect transformation. What Jamaica needs is a moral education plan.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
