{"id":107275,"date":"2019-12-16T09:33:19","date_gmt":"2019-12-16T08:33:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=107275"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:24:37","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:24:37","slug":"all-economics-students-would-attend-theology-lessons-if-it-were-up-to-these-professors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2019\/12\/16\/all-economics-students-would-attend-theology-lessons-if-it-were-up-to-these-professors\/","title":{"rendered":"All economics students would attend theology lessons, if it were up to these professors"},"content":{"rendered":"

Recently, Erasmus University opened an actual Institute for Theology, which is affiliated with the Erasmus School of Economics. Its mission is to get economists and theologians to learn from each other. How are the two newly appointed full professors planning to merge these two seemingly completely different worlds? And how does an institute for theology end up at a faculty of economics, anyway?<\/p>\n

\"\"

Paul van Geest (l) en Lans Bovenberg.<\/span><\/p>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLevien Willemse<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

There are two people who can answer that question: Professor of Theology and Economic Thought Paul van Geest (a theologian and a Catholic) and Professor of Relational Economics, Values and Leadership Lans Bovenberg (an economist and a Pentecostalist). Van Geest and Bovenberg have known each other for years and know each other inside out.<\/p>\n

They have no difficulty finishing each other\u2019s sentences, take the mickey out of each other, love reminiscing about shared experiences and take their inspiration from each other\u2019s words. We got them to discuss the usefulness and necessity of theology for economists \u2013 among other things, by presenting them with well-known assertions about economics. \u201cPeople need a story that is about more than just earning as much money as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

How do you know people need an economic story that is about more?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Van Geest: \u201cWhen I teach seminars on St Augustine (a major theologian, philosopher and church father active in the 4th century AD \u2013 ed.), I can tell that today\u2019s students understand that crass materialism isn\u2019t going to get them anywhere. Nowadays, how many people want to work at a particular company because of the wages it pays? This generation is less into that. Unlike my generation, which was much more motivated by money and status.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bovenberg: \u201cThese days the things we need are different from the things people used to need. My parents lived at a time when life was difficult. They experienced the Great Depression and World War II. Many resources were very scarce. People basically wanted to be less hungry, so it made sense that there was a focus on earning a decent salary. But my generation, thanks to our successful economy and global cooperation, created a very high level of prosperity. The biggest problem the West is currently facing isn\u2019t hunger, but rather obesity. As a result, there is now a dearth of other things, such as peace and quiet, and happiness. Values play a major part in meeting the demand for those things.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/svg>\n\t\t<\/button>

Paul van Geest (l) en Lans Bovenberg.<\/span><\/p>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLevien Willemse<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>

So, ten years ago, this institute did not have a raison d\u2019\u00eatre?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Van Geest, without hesitation: \u201cTen years ago, we didn\u2019t have a leg to stand on. It was pretty obvious to me, in my capacity as a theologian: I was never invited by companies to give presentations. At the time, everything was about turnover and shareholders. Things have changed since then. I\u2019m on supervisory boards now. Me, a theologian! If you\u2019d told me that ten years ago, I would have said: \u2018You have a few screws loose. I\u2019ll be appointed bishop of Rome before that ever happens.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

What are you hoping to achieve by establishing this institute?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Van Geest: \u201cThe idea behind interdisciplinary collaboration between theologians and economists is that we can help each other by asking each other questions inspired by our own discipline. This will help us get a different perspective on one of our objects of research \u2013 human beings \u2013 which will give us a more realistic perspective.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018Companies are increasingly focusing on happiness and meaning in life\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

Bovenberg: \u201cIn Tilburg, where I also hold a chair, I mainly seek to innovate the way economics is taught. I try to incorporate a more inclusive view of human beings in our teaching, focusing on values, collaboration and love. This approach has proven to be interesting for the business community, as well. You see, in many respects, companies and leaders now play a different type of role. It\u2019s increasingly about inspiring their employees and making sure their work is meaningful. Companies are increasingly focusing on happiness and meaning in life. We wish to make a contribution to that. Which is why it\u2019s great that this institute is located in what Paul calls \u2018the Rome of economics\u2019: Rotterdam.\u201d<\/p>

What role does theology play in happiness and finding a meaning in life?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Van Geest: \u201cTraditionally, we had homo economicus<\/em>: a calculating person who is always consistent and always focuses on doing things that will benefit him, in accordance with rational, well-argued preferences. However, economists have realised that that\u2019s not how human beings actually work.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo give you an example, people have feelings and wish to feel loved and safe. That, too, affects the way they act, in terms of economics. When that happens, psychologists, sociologists and yes, theologians will raise their hands and say: We\u2019ll be happy to broaden your view of human beings. We won\u2019t overrule them with moralistic talk, but we\u2019ll broaden their horizons by asking each other questions.\u201d<\/p>\n\t

\n\t\t

To put this to the test, we put some well-known assertions about economics to Van Geest and Bovenberg and asked them how theology added to that particular belief. <\/em><\/p>\n

Max Weber said: \u201cWishing to earn a lot of money does not equal crass materialism.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Van Geest: \u201cI agree. St Augustine said: \u2018Money is neutral, but it shouldn\u2019t be an objective in its own right.\u2019 In other words, it\u2019s all about how people deal with it. If it becomes an end in itself, you will alienate others and become unhappy and aggrieved. So, for greedy people, money is bad. However, for people who seek to use it for charitable purposes, money is actually a good thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bovenberg: \u201cMoney is the most important social innovation of all time. After all, it is related to our faith in reciprocity, which is the notion civilisation is founded on. But sometimes, people do indeed regard money as an end in itself, rather than as a means to an end, which can make it very harmful. That\u2019s what makes it so dangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s talk about Adam Smith, who posited that egoism actually benefits society.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bovenberg: \u201cIt\u2019s true that there\u2019s nothing wrong with self-interest, but only if you use a broader definition of the word, rather than just the material sense of the word. Self-interest should be interpreted as wanting to get some meaning from your life. If you do that, you\u2019ll want to benefit others, as well, because from an evolutionary point of view, that\u2019s what we were made to do. For that reason, I believe there is no conflict between self-interest and altruism.\u201d<\/p>\n

Van Geest: \u201cAs the Stoics said back in antiquity: As an individual, you can live your life in such a way that you and you alone lead a very comfortable life, but if you live in a beautiful house while others live in poverty, there will be no social cohesion, and people will get more aggressive. That\u2019s why everyone ultimately benefits from a distribution of riches, as it means that everyone who is part of our society \u2013 the house we have in common;, the world \u2013 will be better able to make the most of themselves. I\u2019d go so far as to say: You, in your capacity as an individual, won\u2019t be happy until those around you are happy, too.\u201d<\/p>\n

That sounds like Jan Tinbergen, who said \u201cprofits follow from a distribution\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bovenberg: \u201cCooperation results in prosperity and benefits, but these benefits will only happen if all parties involved get to profit. That\u2019s the only way they will voluntarily collaborate. That was Tinbergen\u2019s message, as well. By the way, this is one of the main challenges posed by the current economy, because in some ways it\u2019s mostly \u2018the winner takes it all\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

Van Geest: \u201cTinbergen\u2019s assertion can be easily underpinned with some knowledge of theology. Many theological stories have the following moral: human beings are not just homo economicus<\/em>, but social beings, as well. For example, in monasteries, people sought to establish community property. They shared their belongings and ended up gaining freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n

You are combining economics with things such as theology, biology, sociology and psychology. Why did we teach and implement economics \u2018in splendid isolation\u2019 for so long?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bovenberg: \u201cIt\u2019s a matter of ongoing changes and zeitgeist, comparable to increasing inclusiveness in society. Just like we\u2019ve changed our minds about economic concepts, we now have very different ideas on slavery or the position of women than our parents or ancestors did back in the day. However, that doesn\u2019t mean that they were wrong or were worse people than we are. It was a different era, and as things change over the course of time, we feel differently about things, too.\u201d<\/p>\n

Things changing over the course of time sounds like progress. Are our economy and society heading in the right direction, morally speaking?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bovenberg: \u201cWe\u2019re mainly seeing humankind evolve in logical terms. We are evolving into a more complex society and economy. This also requires changes to our moral sensitivity, because our values develop in tandem with the economy and are related to economic and societal issues. Take the climate problem, for instance \u2013 it has caused us to be more appreciative of nature. That\u2019s a logical response to the problem.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat is dangerous about our current society is the fact that we are so incredibly self-righteous. When I open my newspaper, I\u2019m bound to see someone who is said to be doing something wrong, every single day. I think that\u2019s harmful. Many people are suffering burnouts, because deep down people have the feeling that they\u2019re not good enough. And people \u2013 young people, too \u2013 are experiencing a great deal of psychological pressure, because we have lost that understanding. The core belief of Christianity is that we are imperfect, but still valuable. It\u2019s an intensely Christian concept: \u2018I may make the odd mistake, but even so, I\u2019m OK\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018Many people are suffering burnouts, because deep down people have the feeling that they\u2019re not good enough\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

You make a point of mentioning Christianity. Is there a correlation between the type of religion practised in a particular area and the level of economic prosperity it enjoys?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bovenberg: \u201cI wouldn\u2019t say that the type of religion practised correlates to prosperity. However, studies have shown that a country\u2019s level of prosperity is largely determined by its level of faith in reciprocity. If institutions aren\u2019t inclusive and the country is being governed by thugs, the economy won\u2019t flourish, either. Reciprocity is not an exclusively Christian concept.\u201d<\/p>\n

Van Geest: \u201cMake no mistake, though. Values such as solidarity \u2013 that is, supporting those who are voiceless and weak \u2013 were recorded by Jews and practised in a radical manner by Christ. Liberty of conscience is a Christian invention. These values were then relieved of their transcendental dimension during the French Revolution, but they are (and have always been) ultimately very Christian.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

De redactie<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t