蜜芽传媒

Yesterday for one hour, politicians stopped campaigning in the General Election to honour the memory of Jo Cox who was killed last year. Instead of delivering stump speeches, they agreed, to visit church projects, arts centres, and community events to affirm in the words of her maiden speech that we have more in common than whatever divides us, even in the midst of a campaign. It sounds good 鈥� that slogan 鈥� more in common 鈥� it sounds like it should be right. But it鈥檚 difficult to remember. Of course wherever we鈥檙e born, there are some ways in which we鈥檙e all the same; we need water to survive, clean air to breathe; and we will all sometimes be afraid, wonder what it鈥檚 all about, or feel glad to be alive. But these common human needs and experiences are often subsumed under the more sharply drawn differences between us. Skin colour, language, economic circumstance, religious belief are often ways in which we feel different from one another; sometimes irreconcilably so. And there are further ways in which each individual is absolutely unique; my fingerprint, the unique mixture of nature and nurture that makes me me. And makes me alone. We can shift rapidly between these categories of difference depending on who we鈥檙e talking to. And it takes emotional effort and commitment to keep trying to find points of connection, especially when the views of another seem incomprehensible to us. Not surprising then that most of us choose to read newspapers or websites that will affirm our existing views rather than challenge us. Not surprising that the phrase 鈥渆cho chamber鈥� has become popular to describe the spaces we create on social media platforms; subscribing to websites populated by PLU 鈥� people like us 鈥� whoever that is. Perhaps it reveals a hesitancy, an under confidence in us, that we need so much shoring up. Life magazine published a story in 1945 about an exchange between the economist John Maynard Keynes and Winston Churchill. During the Quebec conference of 1943, Churchill sent Keynes a telegram: 鈥淎m coming around to your point of view鈥�. Keynes replied 鈥淪orry to hear it. Have started to change my mind.鈥� It鈥檚 not difficult for our search for consistency to become inflexible dogmatism; for a desire to be loyal to become shrill tribalism, to the extent that we simply stop listening to another鈥檚 voice, refuse ever to change our minds, forget that we have more in common than we think. Religions, not least Christianity, can easily fall into this trap too. But the best kind of religious sensibility will want to deepen trust between us, in order that we鈥檙e able to be open hearted and open minded; listening hard for the stirrings of another鈥檚 spirit, the better to hear the stirrings of God, ever creative, and ever new.