Explainer
Care
Creed
6 min read

Bed rotting and an old art of rest

In a culture where “exhaustion is seen as a status symbol,” bed-rotting is an emerging trend. Lianne Howard-Dace reflects on self-care and how to rest and refresh.

Lianne Howard-Dace is a writer and trainer, with a background in church and community fundraising.

a sleeper pulls a blanket up over their head.

There’s a trend doing the rounds on TikTok which is attracting a fair amount of comment; the practice of taking (at least) a day in bed to recuperate when you’re running low on energy. Gen Z are - with characteristic directness - calling it ‘bed rotting’.  

At first, this sounds like nothing new. People have been taking to their bed for centuries. Gen X might’ve called it vegging out, millennials would call it a duvet day.  

From the discourse that’s sprung up about bed rotting though, it seems like some bigger questions are being explored around this trend. Firstly, Gen Z are reclaiming the need to stay in bed by branding it as a form of self-care. This picks up on some broader wellbeing trends online, where people are trying to decouple their sense of worth from their productivity. This train of thought picked up steam during the Covid-19 pandemic, and seems to continue to be something people are wrestling with. 

As others are pointing out... is getting to the point of needing a day to rot in bed is really a good approach to self-care?

I rather like the visceral nature of the phrase ‘bed rotting’ and I’m sure that, whichever generational cohort we fall into, we can all relate to the occasional need to totally switch off to refresh and recalibrate. However, as others are pointing out, a second consideration is whether getting to the point of needing a day, to rot in bed, is really a good approach to self-care. Or would more preventative measures be the better way to care for yourself? Some commentators on TikTok have suggested that a combination of other gentle activities would actually be better at delivering the desired results than lounging in bed alone. 

Dr Saundra Dalton Smith suggests in her book Sacred Rest that there are seven types of rest: physical, mental, spiritual, emotional, sensory, social and creative. Whilst bed rotting provides perhaps three or four of these types of rest, it may not provide the long-term refreshment sought if it doesn’t nurture the other parts of us as well. 

Should we all just be expected to mindfulness our way out of a mental health crisis or yoga our way out of chronic pain? 

While framing this extreme need for rest as self-care may give people permission to stop and reduce the stigma of doing nothing, it also puts the onus on the individual. I think the risk of self-care narratives in general is precisely in the focus they put on the self. While it can be healthy and empowering to take action to improve your wellbeing, it also draws attention away from the societal systems and structures that are contributing to everyone feeling so exhausted all the time. Should we all just be expected to mindfulness our way out of a mental health crisis or yoga our way out of chronic pain? Or should we be looking more widely at what is going on in the world? 

This tension between taking responsibility for my own wellbeing but also reflecting on how I relate to the wider concepts of work, productivity and success is a very live, everyday issue for me. I have fibromyalgia, a chronic health condition characterised by fatigue and widespread muscular pain. Whilst conventional medicine gives some relief, I have to manage my energy levels very closely and intentionally pace myself to avoid my symptoms flaring up, though sometimes it is out of my control.  

Unfortunately, if I were to let myself get to the point of desperately needing to bed rot it might take me a week or two to fully recover. I have to resist the urge to say yes to every invite and make sure I have a balance of work, rest and play in each week. This is helped by the privilege of being able to schedule my work around my own needs, it would certainly be much harder if I was tied to a very strict working pattern. In a way, it's like I have an early warning system for burnout, and I’ve become very attuned to fluctuations in my mood, energy or pain levels that might indicate the equilibrium is off. 

As part of my energy management strategies, I have also found that the ancient practice of sabbath from the Judeo-Christian tradition has helped me to both take regular time to rest and to remind myself that I am a human being, not a human doing. 

In Genesis, the opening poem of the Hebrew scriptures, we hear that after six days of hard work creating the universe, God rested on the seventh day. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians have attempted to learn from this and incorporate a day of rest into each week. The practice also exists in Islam.  

 

Each Sunday I try to do as little as possible and particularly to disconnect from digital channels, because I know they often take more energy than they give me. 

The way that this plays out in people’s lives ranges from very strict observance to more loosely held rules and rituals. However, you approach it, there is much to be learned from this ageless wisdom. I initially began practicing sabbath myself when I went freelance and realised how easily I could end up working seven days a week if I didn’t pay attention. This was six months or so before the first Covid-19 lockdown in the UK and I was extremely grateful to have established this habit in my life when that occurred. 

For me, sabbath isn’t just ensuring I’m squeezing rest into each week but also creating rhythm. It punctuates my week and gives everything else breathing space. Each Sunday I try to do as little as possible and particularly to disconnect from digital channels, because I know they often take more energy than they give me. 

In The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry, John Mark Comer helpfully suggests two simple criteria to decide whether something is permissible on the sabbath. Is it rest or worship? If it’s not one of those two things then it can wait. For me, worship usually means going to church, but for you that could be something else that helps you connect to something bigger than yourself and experience a sense of wonder. Perhaps immersing yourself in nature, or engaging with an awe-inspiring work of art.  

Another helpful piece of advice about sabbath I heard from Annie F. Downs on Instagram:

“If you work with your hands, sabbath with your mind. If you work with your mind, sabbath with your hands.”

As someone who spends most of my working week creating content on a computer, this is a useful reminder not just to read and journal on my sabbath but to swim, crochet or cook as well.  

Lastly, Jesus said “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath”. This reminds me to do sabbath in a way that is life-giving for me, even if that looks different to what works for others. These guidelines have helped me establish a practice of sabbath which provides clarity and routine, whilst being expansive enough to allow me to give myself whichever type of rest I need at a given time. Occasionally I do just bed rot, but usually I do things that restore me and bring me joy, whether that’s taking a walk or cycle if I have the energy or simply taking my lunch to the beach. 

Of course, I’m not always perfect in the way I sabbath. That’s why it’s called a practice. But I do notice I flag later in the week if I’ve skip it. So, even if I occasionally switch the day or bend one of my rules for a practical reason, I keep coming back to it.  

If you don’t already, I really encourage you to try the routine of sabbath for yourself. Pick a day of the week that works for you, put some boundaries in place, try it for a few weeks and adjust accordingly. Treat it as an experiment, a gift to yourself and perhaps as a little way to opt out of the madness of modern life for a beat. And by all means, bed rot if you need to. As Brené Brown says:

“It takes courage to say yes to rest and play in a culture where exhaustion is seen as a status symbol.” 

Article
Belief
Creed
Education
7 min read

The myth of secular neutrality

Where academia went wrong.

Alex Stewart is a lawyer, trustee and photographer.  

A phrenology head is shown with its eyes closed.
David Matos on Unsplash.

In the recent horror-thriller Heretic, Hugh Grant plays Mr. Reed, a sharp-witted psychopath who imprisons two missionaries, subjecting them to ceaseless diatribes about the supposed irrationality of all religions.  Mr. Reed is also a terribly smug, self-righteous bore, a caricature of the fervent atheist who dismisses faith as mere superstition while assuming atheism is objective and neutral.  

This kind of assumption lies behind the criticisms directed by secularists at those who argue from a position of faith, as we saw recently with the debates on the Assisted Dying Bill. Yet, the notion of secular objectivity is itself a fallacy. Secularism, like any worldview, is a perspective, ironically one that is deeply indebted to Christianity, and humanity’s history of abandoning faith and its moral foundation has had disastrous consequences.  

Secularism is a bias, often grounded in an ethical vanity, whose supposedly universal principles have very Christian roots. Concepts like personal autonomy stem from a tradition that views life as sacred, based on the belief that humans are uniquely created in God's image. Appeals to compassion reflect Jesus’ teachings and Christian arguments for social justice throughout history. Claims that the Assisted Dying Bill was "progressive" rely on the Judaeo-Christian understanding of time as linear rather than cyclical. Even the separation of the secular and sacred is derived from Jesus’ teaching to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”. Authors like Tom Holland in Dominion and Glen Scrivener in The Air We Breathe have shown how Western societies, though often disconnected from their Christian roots, still operate within frameworks shaped by centuries of Christianity.

The antidote to human pride and self-deception was to be found in the Almighty.  Ironically, it was this humility, rooted in a very theological concern about human cognitive fallibility, that gave birth to the scientific method. 

A political secularism began to emerge after the seventeenth century European religious wars but the supposed historical conflict between science and religion, in which the former triumphs over superstition and a hostile Church, is myth. Promoted in the eighteenth century by figures like John Draper and Andrew White, this ‘conflict thesis’ persists even though it has been comprehensively debunked by works such as David Hutchings and James C. Ungureanu’s Of Popes and Unicorns and Nicholas Spencer’s Magisteria. Historians now emphasize the complex, often collaborative relationship between faith and science. 

Far from opposing intellectual inquiry, faith was its foundation. Medieval Christian Europe birthed the great universities; this was not simply because the Church had power and wealth but because knowledge of God was viewed as the basis for all understanding. University mottos reflect this view: Oxford’s "Dominus illuminatio mea" (The Lord is my light), Yale’s "Lux et Veritas" (Light and Truth), and Harvard’s original "Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae" (Truth for Christ and the Church). This intertwining of faith and academia fuelled the Enlightenment, when scientists like Boyle, Newton, and Kepler approached the study of creation (what Calvin described as ‘the theatre of God’s glory”) as an affirmation of the divine order of a God who delighted in His creatures “thinking His thoughts after Him”.   

Their Christian beliefs not only provided an impetus for rigorous exploration but also instilled in them a humility about human intellect. Unlike modernity's view of the mind as a detached, all-seeing eye, they believed man’s cognitive faculties had been diminished, both morally and intellectually, by Adam’s fall, which made perfect knowledge unattainable. Blaise Pascal captures this struggle with uncertainty in his Pensées.  

“We desire truth, and find within ourselves only uncertainty....This desire is left to us, partly to punish us, partly to make us perceive from whence we have fallen.”  

For Pascal and his believing contemporaries, the antidote to human pride and self-deception was to be found in the Almighty.  Ironically, it was this humility, rooted in a very theological concern about human cognitive fallibility, that gave birth to the scientific method, the process of systematic experimentation based on empirical evidence, and which later became central to Enlightenment thinking. 

Orwell was not alone in thinking that some ideas were so foolish that only intellectuals believed them. 

Although many of its leading lights were believers, the Enlightenment era hastened a shift away from God and towards man as the centre of understanding and ethics. Philosophers like David Hume marginalized or eliminated God altogether, paving the way for His later dismissal as a phantom of human projection (Freud) or as a tool of exploitation and oppression (Marx), while Rousseau popularised the appealing idea that rather than being inherently flawed, man was naturally good, only his environment made him do bad things.  

But it took the nihilist Nietzsche, the son of a Lutheran pastor, to predict the moral vacuum created by the death of God and its profound consequences. Ethical boundaries became unstable, allowing new ideologies to justify anything in pursuit of their utopian ends. Nietzsche’s prophesies about the rise of totalitarianism and competing ideologies that were to characterise the twentieth century were chillingly accurate. Germany universities provided the intellectual justification for Nazi atrocities against the Jews while the Marxist inspired revolutions and policies of the Soviet and Chinese Communist regimes led to appalling suffering and the deaths of between 80 and 100 million people. Devoid of divine accountability, these pseudo, human-centred religions amplified human malevolence and man’s destructive impulses.      

By the early 1990s, the Soviet Union had collapsed, leading Francis Fukuyama to opine from his ivory tower that secular liberal democracy was the natural end point in humanity's socio-political evolution and that history had ‘ended’. But his optimism was short lived. The events of 9/11 and the resurgence of a potent Islamism gave the lie that everyone wanted a western style secular liberal democracy, while back in the west a repackaged version of the old Marxist oppressor narrative began to appear on campuses, its deceitful utopian Siren song that man could be the author of his own salvation bewitching the academy. This time it came in the guise of divisive identity-based ideologies overlayed with post-modern power narratives that seemed to defy reality and confirm Chesterton’s view that when man ceased to believe in God he was capable of believing in anything.  

As universities promoted ideology over evidence and conformity over intellectual freedom, George Orwell’s critique of intellectual credulity and the dark fanaticism it often fosters, epitomized in 1984 where reality itself is manipulated through dogma, seemed more relevant than ever.  Orwell was not alone in thinking that some ideas were so foolish that only intellectuals believed them. Other commentators like Thomas Sowell are equally sceptical, critiquing the tenured academics whose lives are insulated from the suffering of those who have to live under their pet ideologies, and who prefer theories and sophistry to workable solutions. Intellect, he notes, is not the same thing as wisdom. More recently, American writer David Brooks, writing in The Atlantic, questions the point of having elite educational systems that overemphasize cognitive ability at the expense of other qualities, suggesting they tend to produce a narrow-minded ruling class who are blind to their own biases and false beliefs. 

It was intellectual over-confidence that led many institutions to abandon their faith-based origins. Harvard shortened its motto from "Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae" to plain "Veritas” and introduced a tellingly symbolic change to its shield. The original shield depicted three books: two open, symbolizing the Old and New Testaments, and one closed, representing a knowledge that required divine revelation. The modern shield shows all three books open, reflecting a human centred worldview that was done with God. 

However, secular confidence seems to be waning. Since the peak of New Atheism in the mid-2000s, there has been a growing dissatisfaction with worldviews limited to reason and materialism. Artists like Nick Cave have critiqued secularism’s inability to address concepts like forgiveness and mercy, while figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Russell Brand have publicly embraced Christianity. The longing for the transcendent and a world that is ‘re-enchanted’ seems to be widespread.  

Despite the Church’s struggles, the teaching and person of Christ, the One who claimed not to point towards the truth but to be the Truth, the original Veritas the puritan founders of Harvard had in mind, remains as compelling as ever.  The story of fall, forgiveness, cosmic belonging and His transforming love is the narrative that most closely maps to our deepest human longings and lived experience, whilst simultaneously offering us the hope of redemption and - with divine help – becoming better versions of ourselves, the kind of people that secularism thinks we already are.   

Join with us - Behind the Seen

Seen & Unseen is free for everyone and is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you’re enjoying Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?

Alongside other benefits (book discounts etc.), you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing what I’m reading and my reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin

Editor-in-Chief