Moral education and social transformation: The Jesus model

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.

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.

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 called disciples—at the seaside (Matt. 4:18–22), at a tax booth (Luke 5:27), in Galilee (John 1:43–49), and various other places. On the other hand, the rabbis in Jesus’ time chose disciples from among an elite group of graduating scholars who expressed a desire to follow them. From that already well-educated cohort, they chose those whom they considered the best. Jesus, in calling his 12 disciples, recognized that they were not all, if any at all, mentally prepared to take on the learning challenge. In choosing them, Jesus demonstrated the seriousness of his conviction: He was willing to engage and re-engage the same minds until lessons were learned (Compare Matt. 14:13-21 and Matt. 15:29–39). Transformation takes time and, therefore, requires patience.

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 21^st 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, in his words and his person, was representing those who were incarcerated unjustly. But, his condemnation of injustice must be seen as even broader than that. Just as he did in the churches and on the mission field, it could be said that Paul was addressing the issues that Jesus higlighted in his ministry on earth: the plight of the poor and persons with disabilities, as well as those who were oppressed in other ways. He was issuing a moral challenge.

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.