In Praise of Idleness, Censorship in the Mennonite Brethren Church, and a Disaffected Architect - Dinner Table Digest № 22
The Dinner Table Digest is an intermittent collection of interesting material from around the internet, curated by Peter Thurley at Dinner Table Don'ts. Subscribe today!
Today’s Dinner Table Digest features a classic piece of writing from the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, some reporting on the censorship of support for LGBTQ+ people within the Mennonite Brethren denomination, and a short story about a disaffected Icelandic architect. Also included are three stories on Canadian conservatism.
In Praise of Idleness - Bertrand Russell - Harper’s Magazine, October 1932
Noting that the great Bertrand Russell was writing in 1932 - that is, near the beginning of the Great Depression and before the hostilities of WWII - he was remarkably prescient about the Virtue of Idleness and the prospect of the 4 Hour Work Day
“The War1 showed conclusively that by the scientific organization of production it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world. If at the end of the War the scientific organization which had been created in order to liberate men for fighting and munition work had been preserved, and the hours of work had been cut down to four, all would have been well. Instead of that, the old chaos was restored, those whose work was demanded were made to work long hours, and the rest were left to starve as unemployed. Why? Because work is a duty, and a man should not receive wages in proportion to what he has produced, but in proportion to his virtue as exemplified by his industry. …
The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich. In England in the early nineteenth century fifteen hours was the ordinary day’s work for a man; children sometimes did as much, and very commonly did twelve hours a day. When meddlesome busy-bodies suggested that perhaps these hours were rather long, they were told that work kept adults from drink and children from mischief. When I was a child, shortly after urban working men had acquired the vote, certain public holidays were established by law, to the great indignation of the upper classes. I remember hearing an old Duchess say, “What do the poor want with holidays? they ought to work.” People nowadays are less frank, but the sentiment persists, and is the source of much economic confusion. …
I shall not develop the fact that in all modern societies outside the U. S. S. R. many people escape even this minimum of work, namely all those who inherit money and all those who marry money. I do not think the fact that these people are allowed to be idle is nearly so harmful as the fact that wage-earners are expected to overwork or starve. If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day there would be enough for everybody, and no unemployment — assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization. This idea shocks the well-to-do, because they are convinced that the poor would not know how to use so much leisure. In America men often work long hours even when they are already well-off; such men, naturally, are indignant at the idea of leisure for wage-earners except as the grim punishment of unemployment, in fact, they dislike leisure even for their sons. …
The wise use of leisure, it must be conceded, is a product of civilization and education. A man who has worked long hours all his life will be bored if he becomes suddenly idle. But without a considerable amount of leisure a man is cut off from many of the best things. There is no longer any reason why the bulk of the population should suffer this deprivation; only a foolish asceticism, usually vicarious, makes us insist on work in excessive quantities now that the need no longer exists."
A pillar in the Waterloo Region, Fauzia Mazhar, was in a major accident while on vacation in Dubai last week. She is in intensive care there, and will need significant medical and social support as she recovers from her injuries. Fauzia was engaged in many of the fundraisers that benefited me after I became sick in 2015, so it is only right and fair that I amplify the GoFundMe that has been put together in support of Fauzia and her family. Please give generously!
On Holy Ground Book Reprinted at Request of USMB and CCMBC Boards
I grew up in the Mennonite Brethren Church, an evangelical denomination that has its roots in the Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition. Typically more conservative than other mainstream Mennonite denominations, the American and Canadian MB churches have recently been cracking down on dissenting views, especially and particularly when it comes to LGBTQ+ affirmation and inclusion. I left the largest local MB congregation in October 2014 after a change of pastor resulted in a sharp right-ward turn and a focus on evangelism and conversion. A few years after I left, members were forced to re-commit to the MB Confession of Faith, and, when some (including several friends of mine) objected to the disapproving LGBTQ+ stance, they were quietly discharged of their memberships. In February, three pastors lost their jobs at a Delta, B.C. church over their views on LGBTQ+ inclusion, including Darren DeMelo, a former staff member at the large local MB church I once attended. More recently, in July, the Executive Boards of the American and Canadian branches of the Mennonite Brethren Denomination took it upon themselves to remove three pages of material from a book that was commissioned to tell the stories of women in leadership, in their own words. In other words, the Joint Boards chose to silence the words of women they were claiming to support.
“These three pages move beyond the recording of personal experience about being encouraged and/or discouraged in leadership, to more of a brief theology essay advocating for a type of LGBTQ+ inclusion in conflict with a straightforward reading of our MB Confession of Faith. While the book’s disclaimer acknowledges that the book may contain material that is not affirmed by the MB Historical Commission, USMB, and/or CCMBC, this disclaimer does not seem robust enough to justify a credentialed leader including a brief theology essay on something other than women in ministry leadership.”
The editor of the censored volume, wrote thusly in the comments:
As editor of this volume, I have tried to be gracious in describing my reaction to this action of the executive boards — my sense of deflation, discouragement, and so on — in a letter I wrote to two Canadian leaders about it, but to read this justification of the action and process this morning, subsequent to all that, has me stunned. And angry. It badly mis-characterizes both the book (making it narrower than described in the invitation to the contributors) and the portion that was removed. Anyone who reads the entire essay will see that it has not “suddenly departed,” will see that it is of a piece with the story of a long ministry, of struggle and change. To say it “proceeds” to make OT analogies within “a mini-theology essay” is simply false. The writer is recounting the experience of being asked by “a sincere young man” studying heresy what it was like to be “rebuked,” and then giving the context for his question. It was about speaking at a study conference, something that is very much a part of her history as a leader in the denomination. There is narrative throughout, this is *her* story! And can the executives not read the pain and complication here? And the bit about Esau, which runs throughout this writer’s piece, it’s a parallel, can’t they see?
And the waste of time and money and goodwill in destroying new books — accepted and cleared by the Historical Commission and already printed — and reprinting! And to simply “regret” that the “urgent timeline” didn’t allow for “personal conversations directly with the author, editor, and others involved”? This is tepid almost beyond belief. Perhaps it felt urgent then, but in the interval between when the action was taken and the need to explain themselves as leaders became apparent, there was plenty of time in which I, for example, could have been consulted. I could have helped them read this passage properly, could have explained why it belonged. Could have tried to make them see that this collection of life-writing is, essentially, historical document. The decision was wrong, the process was wrong. And there could have been conversation!
I also left a comment. See if you can guess which one it is 😀
Giantstone - Andri Snær Magnason - Emergence Magazine
This incredible short story features a Reykjavik architect who allows himself to be worn down by the demands of the market.
I’m not an extremist. I’m very ordinary, just to make it clear. I’ve never gotten into trouble with the law and never broke windows during my time at Árbæjarskóli, my elementary school—probably the only one in my group of friends who didn’t dare do it. I’m critical but not unfair, and sometimes I’m far too cooperative. I say “mmm-hmm” to this and that, when I should be setting clear boundaries, professionally and personally. So it wasn’t exactly like me to hurl a big stone at the side window of this car. Something major must have happened, and yes, a great deal has happened. The stone is now touching the window, and although it’s a rather new Range Rover and the damage could be considerable, I didn’t throw the stone on a whim. I threw it trusting that the damage would be worth the cost. But, because this is one of those moments I can cut down into split seconds, no harm has yet been done. The stone is perched against the window; it’s traveling at high speed but the window is still intact. There’s a man just inside the window. I can zoom in on him and see how he’s looking at the stone.
And finally, three stories on Canadian conservatism:
Where would Poilievre take the Conservatives? Not to the far right, but the far out - Andrew Coyne
Did a Conservative leadership hopeful compare COVID-19 vaccines to Nazi atrocities? - Alex Ballingall
Canada is about to undergo an extreme stress test, administered by the Prairies - Gary Mason
All FREE subscribers have access to Dinner Table Digests, and to any past content that has been pulled from behind Peter’s Support (Pay)Wall.
Content behind Peter’s Support (Pay)Wall will include Special Edition Digests (like this recent edition on Abortion Rights), my Peter, What Books Are You Reading series, original essays, and acerbic social commentary.
What I do know is that I am grateful for your support, and your eyeballs; I look forward to producing interesting and engaging content in the future. I would be especially honoured if you would consider donating $5 per month so that I can continue to create more excellent work in the future. And, of course, if you have any ideas about what you would like to see among the special content, I am all ears!
That is, the First World War, the War that was supposed to End All Wars