Promoting Mutual Understanding through the Golden Rule: A Social Reading of Matthew 7:12 at SMA Negeri 1 Gomo
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study explores the promotion of mutual understanding among students at SMA Negeri 1 Gomo, South Nias, through a quantitative descriptive approach informed by a social reading of Matthew 7:12, commonly known as the Golden Rule. In contemporary educational settings, mutual understanding is a critical component of positive school climate, social cohesion, and ethical development. Within Christian Religious Education (CRE), biblical ethics provide a normative framework for shaping students’ relational attitudes and behaviors. Matthew 7:12 offers a foundational principle of reciprocity and empathy that is highly relevant for fostering respectful and inclusive social interactions in school communities. This study employed a quantitative descriptive research design involving Christian students at SMA Negeri 1 Gomo. Data were collected using a structured Likert-scale questionnaire measuring key dimensions of mutual understanding, including empathy, respect for others, perspective-taking, reciprocity, and constructive communication. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to examine overall levels and patterns of students’ mutual understanding. The findings indicate that students generally report high levels of mutual understanding, particularly in empathy, respect, and basic reciprocity. The study concludes that Matthew 7:12 provides a relevant and effective ethical framework for promoting mutual understanding in school contexts. Nevertheless, the translation of biblical ethics into lived social practice requires intentional pedagogical strategies that integrate moral reflection with social-emotional skill development. This study contributes to Christian education scholarship by offering empirical evidence from the Indonesian context and highlighting the importance of combining theological reflection with quantitative educational analysis to strengthen character formation and social harmony in schools.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Bevans, S. B. (2002). Models of contextual theology (Rev. and expanded ed.). Orbis Books.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). Prosocial development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 610–656). Wiley.
France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament). Eerdmans.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Green, J. B. (2005). Scripture and theology: The new testament and the people of God. In J. B. Green & M. Turner (Eds.), Between two horizons: Spanning New Testament studies and systematic theology (pp. 1–30). Eerdmans.
Hagner, D. A. (1995). Matthew 1–13 (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33A). Word Books.
Keener, C. S. (2009). The Gospel of Matthew: A socio-rhetorical commentary. Eerdmans.
Lickona, T. (2012). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. Bantam.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Stassen, G. H., & Gushee, D. P. (2016). Kingdom ethics: Following Jesus in contemporary context (2nd ed.). InterVarsity Press.
Wentzel, K. R. (2012). Teacher–student relationships and adolescent competence at school. In T. Wubbels, P. den Brok, J. van Tartwijk, & J. Levy (Eds.), Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 17–36). Sense Publishers.
Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2–3), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410701413145