I don't say much for the artistic merits of this but after lurking as the germ of an idea in my head for a while a version of it unfolded very definitely one evening so I wrote it down. I might revise and tidy it at a later date.

She Keeps Getting These Letters

Bang! - the Letterbox flap.

She winces when they hit the mat.

She gets a lot of letters – but she can tell this kind just from the thud.

Shuffling down the hallway, stoops and gnarled hands gather.

Back to the lounge, drops heavy in armchair

Takes a deep breath, then begins to tear

The thick white envelope – her finger’s cut

A pause -  a bead of blood wells up.

Once open she sees

– it’s a greetings card – they all are

Some in exquisite taste – some rather less.

Many are cheap – some are cheerful.

To Mum, To Mommy, dearest Mother

With love and thanks and by the way

I killed my brother

- I didn’t like what he said about you or how he said it.

Mum – I hate my brother

– only strike him down and I will love you – Forever.

Mam – I killed our sister – she was a slag.

I thought of you when I did it. You taught us right from wrong.

Mummy – my little brother is annoying me –spoiling my game

So I blew up his house – with him in it - What else could I do?

Mum, mum – am I your favourite now?

Tears run down the old woman’s cheeks

Staining the gaudy card

Runnels mar the formal lettering.

Only when she remembers the heap on the table can she smile again

She does get other letters.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Paris on holiday, with my mum, staying there for a day on the way to La Rochelle. We decided to visit Notre Dame although I have visited it a few times on previous visits. When we got there however, there was a giant queue of tourists stretching back many metres. We decided we didn't want to stand in line for hours and then go into the church when it was terribly crowded, so we sat down for a minute on a wall outside the church where lots of other people were also sitting. At first I was consumed with disapproval for a small boy who continually chased after pigeons, running at them agressively as though he wanted to stamp on them. He was very pleased with himself and his parents laughed indulgently. Now perhaps my indignation seems an over-reaction but at the time his behaviour seemed entirely malevolent and I thought his parents should have suggested to him that the pigeons should be left in peace, not applauded him. He wasn't a toddler, he was about six.

Anyway, while we were sitting there, a Roma woman came up holding a card and begging. She appoached the woman sitting next to us. Normally these exchanges seem to me to involve great mutual contempt. The person making the plea speaks in stereotyped repetitive phrases, not really looking at the person they are speaking to and the person addressed either dismisses them scornfully or gives out of embarassment. This time the woman she addressed broke the code and said in English "What happened?" Getting no response she returned to speaking French. My French isn't very good but she spoke clearly and simply, presumably guessing that French wasn't the Roma woman's first language. She said something like "I speak English or French, tell me what happened" - "I don't have any money" She added in response to the Begging Woman's standard address something like "Pity Me". However, just as the Roma woman was about to give up and was turning away, the other woman's questionings finally caught her attention and she responded and spoke about herself like a real person (I could only pick up something about her being from Sarajevo)and the two women had a conversation. I felt very moved and uplifted by this little event, that a barrier between human beings had been broken down. I could say I felt closer to the presence of God than if I had actually gone into the church.

Rereading the Gospels, I find that new elements catch my attention each time. Recently, the phrase "Elijah who is to come" resonated with me - it was a phrase used queryingly about Jesus and John the Baptist at various points (Perhaps I will dislodge my tortoiseshell cat who is peacably washing herself on my lap and go and find my Bible and give proper references rather than hazard from memory- I'm back - I carried the cat with me, she is a little annoyed but has remained in place.) Mark 9 11-14 etc. I realised I didn't know what specifically this referred to, so I actually checked the footnote of my edition of the New Testament, which told me that this was a quotation from the book of Malachi. I haven't really got to grips with the Prophets as yet so decided it was time to read Malachi, a short book right at the back of the "Old Testament". The book commenced in a fashion I have come to recognise as generically typical; Malachi speaking on behalf of the Lord exorts the people to mend their ways. What attracted my notice before I got on to the relevant Elijah reference was Malachi's comments on divorce. Something that had been a source of interest and concern for me was  the quixotic and absolute nature of Jesus' teaching on divorce - other than for adultery a marriage cannot be ended, any future marriage to be considered adultery. This seemed to have little precedent in either Jewish or Greco-Roman marriage. From my own observations, it seems clear to me that many people are condemned to a lifetime of misery by remaining in a partnership in which there is no positive mutual connection, only a constant low-level warfare. Why would Jesus with all the compassion he shows elsewhere, deliberately consign followers to such a life? I am aware that traditional Jewish Law differs either from Greco-Roman or modern secular marriage law in that only a man can issue a writ of divorce. I also have some knowledge of the dispute between the Rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai as to the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 which states that a man may divorce his wife if he find some unseemly thing in her. According to Shammai this unseemly thing can only refer to adultery whereas according to Hillel it can refer to anything displeasing for example burning the dinner. Bearing these factors in mind we could understand Jesus as responding to a contemporary sexist discourse in which wives were regarded as disposable chattels. Malachi I think serves to support this line of thinking. The text says

"And did he not make one? ...Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth." Malachi 2 15

It looks as though Jesus has Malachi's text  in mind when he reminds us that God joined man and woman as one flesh and seems that like Malachi he is imagining divorce exclusively as a man exerting unjust power over a woman by treating her as a disposable object or as someone from whom he can simply withdraw his obligations. They are simply not envisaging a situation in which a man and a woman do not get on together and in which it might be best for both of them to go their separate ways. Of course Jesus' central teaching as I understand it, was that we should all prepare ourselves for the coming Kingdom of God (however this is envisaged) . He was not primarily concerned with how people's lives could be made easier as such.

The reference to Elijah who is to come in Malachi 4.5-6

"behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord

And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of thechildren to their fathers, let I come and smite the earth with a curse."

So this establishes the context in which both John the Baptist and Jesus were understood in the role of Elijah who was to come.