Increasingly I feel uncomfortable with the term ‘spiritual direction’, with its implication of a one-sided meeting with an authoritative person. Instead, I prefer to talk of a ‘spiritual conversation’ which implies to me a mutual meeting of friends. Both terms are concerned with a meeting in which God is felt to be present. An obvious Biblical example of such a thing is the meeting of Mary and Elizabeth described in Luke’s Gospel

Luke provides the back story.  Elizabeth’s husband Zechariah was a priest, but of a group whose role in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem had been severely curtailed many centuries before. Zechariah’s role was now reduced to an annual trip to the Temple along with many others, to perform a largely ceremonial role of no great importance. Moreover, he had no male heir, so he was the last in his line. He must have cut a sad figure: a man with a great name, but of little current significance and no male heir. His wife Elizabeth is no better off, an elderly barren woman, whose barrenness would have been seen as a punishment from God. 

But one year, on his annual visit to the Temple, Zechariah finds himself chosen to enter the ‘holy of holies’, a rare honour, to offer the incense of prayer: [perhaps an opportunity for a prayer for an heir?], and there an angel tells him that his wife Elizabeth will conceive a son who will bring him joy. He doubts the message and is struck dumb.  Luke doesn’t tell us what happened when he got home, but we learn later that he can write & Elizabeth can read, so maybe with that and some sign language, he was able to share something of what had happened to him in the Temple. Elizabeth was no doubt incredulous until her body gave her food for thought.

In the 6th month of her pregnancy an angel appeared to Mary announcing that she too would conceive a child. Luke tells us that Mary went to see Elizabeth on the angel’s instructions, and a spiritual conversation took place at Elizabeth’s home.  It must have been a momentous occasion for both the elderly Elizabeth and the young Mary. What a coincidence that they were both being unexpectedly blessed by God with a child. They would each have told their stories, sharing their amazement at what was happening to them, and each would have been encouraged.

Luke provides few visual clues, so artists have had to use their imaginations to visualise the encounter and then to articulate it in paint. Others have used the iconography to develop the image of a spiritual conversation between two women.

In el Greco’s ‘Visitation’ we see two women, moving to embrace each other in welcome. Indeed are they about to dance?

They are of a similar build and height. You can glimpse the face of one more than the other. They wear identical shiny blue robes. Why? Are they in some sense one & the same? The one on the right has some red edging to her garment.

They stand on a plinth, and again I wonder why? The figure left is coming out of a decorative doorway. It might even be the entrance of an elaborate tomb. If she is Elizabeth then her womb had been a tomb, and the kicking of her child in response to Mary, might be the first sign of the new life within it.

The picture is divided vertically into three: the tomb on the left, a blank meeting space in the middle, and on the right, a place of resurrection light. 

The meeting has two women supporting each other into new life under God: they are engaging in a spiritual conversation.

In Odilon Redon’s ‘Mystical Conversation’, we see two women meeting, in the centre of the image, slightly offset to the left.

The woman on the left is in a blue dress with a gold overgarment that also covers her head. Her left arm is by her side, but the fore finger of her right arm is pointing at the second woman, as if advising her about something. [Her forefinger reminds me of Michelangelo’s ‘Creation’ painting} 

Might she be an angel? Her right foot points forward, as if she is encouraging the other to move forward into the new life and colourful beauty ahead of her.

The woman on the right is dressed in a garment of various light colours, shades of blue & gold. Her head is bowed & she appears to be the younger of the two. Her right arm is almost touching/holding the other woman’s left hand. Her left arm, pointing straight down might be holding something, but it isn’t clear what. She is paying attention to what the other is telling her.

They stand, framed by two pillars, in what looks like the external framework of a building on the right, on a plinth which can just be discerned. On the ground in front of them is an impressionist collection of flowers into which the younger woman is being encouraged to advance. There is blue sky in the background, with white & pinkish clouds.

Could these two women be Elizabeth and Mary? I guess that they could, but they might very well not be.  Luke provides so few visual clues about their meeting, that almost any image of two women talking could be a ‘Visitation’.

In ‘The Two Friends’ by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, we see two women, of similar age, seated on a couch/ settee, reddish brown in colour. The floor is red, the walls a light brown. There is a pink frame on the wall facing us

The woman nearest to us has a warm garment wrapped around her upper body and her arms, as if she is not well. It is light purple in colour.  She has a light blue dress, black stockings, and high heeled shoes. Her reddish-brown hair is brushed back. Her face is looking down and her eyes appear closed. She doesn’t speak & appears immersed in her own inner world.

The woman furthest away from us has her left arm resting on the others right hip. She wears a dress of the same light blue colour and a jumper of the same light purple. She has blonde hair, brushed up. She sits upright and is concerned and caring of her friend. They converse by their close proximity to each other and through touch. I wonder why are they dressed so alike?

Could this be a painting of Elizabeth and Mary? Probably not, but maybe it could be.?

In Elin Danielson-Gambogi’s painting ‘Mother’, we see a young woman sitting on the edge of a double bed, on which there are two sets of double pillows. Each with white pillowcases covering a striped pillow.

The young woman’s hair is tied up. She wears a white blouse, & a dark green skirt. She looks down at the child her left breast is feeding. She is totally focused on her baby. Her left arm holds the child. Her right encourages the connection of her breast with the child’s mouth, who is clothed in white. At her feet is a dark wooden cot, with white material within it.

Behind her on the right is a long window with white gauze curtains. Directly behind her is a wall painted a green lighter than her skirt. Above the bed the green wall merges into yellow. The headboard is of a polished darker wood. Next to it is a wooden table on which is a round tray with a light blue bottle and glass on it.

The room is a safe place for the woman, and her embrace and breast is the best possible safe place for her baby. As the mother looks and the baby sucks is this not also a spiritual conversation, albeit again one without words?

There is much emphasis in the Church these day on spiritual directors needing to have been trained & supervised, being in receipt of DBS clearance and having undergone safeguarding training. I can understand why. But most of the people I look to for a spiritual conversation satisfy none of these requirements, and some of those who would, I steer clear of.  Spiritual conversations, ones where God is present, are taking place all the time mostly between people who wouldn’t name them thus. Such is the gracious activity of the God Who is present in all of creation. The conversations don’t require words to be spoken, and don’t even require another person to be present. I’ve had meaningful spiritual conversations with a dog, a cat, a rabbit, a painting, a piece of music, a poem. I even had one this morning with some trees as I strolled down a leafy path.