There really is such a thing as a broken heart says cardiologist Ilan Wittstein, of Johns Hopkins.  Hopkins researchers have isolated a phenomenon called “stress cardiomyopathy” (known colloquially as “broken heart syndrome”), which is triggered by sudden emotional shock.  Shocking news, such as learning of the unexpected death of a loved one, can result in a heart condition that mimics a massive heart attack. 

It seems that such patients are often misdiagnosed.  What they are suffering from is a surge in stress hormones which temporarily “stun” the heart.  The overly stimulated nervous system of the individual releases large amounts of adrenalin and noradrenalin into the blood stream, along with their breakdown products.  These chemicals can be toxic to the heart, producing symptoms similar to a classic heart attack, such as chest pain, fluid in the lungs, shortness of breath, and even heart failure.  But the good news is that the effect is reversible, and recovery is generally quick.

When I read about these researchers and their discovery, I began to consider more comprehensive effects of a broken heart.  It’s not just momentary stunning.  Sometimes people experience a loss that they simply cannot overcome.  I’m thinking of my grandparents, with whom I grew up.  They were married for 67 years, and then died in their late 80′s within 6 months of each other.  As I have observed in my ministry, this is not an uncommon story with elderly couples.  The two seem to have become one in such a way that when one leaves, the other simply loses incentive to stay, and the body responds by letting go of life.

Grief is more difficult on our physical systems that we may yet understand.  It is not uncommon for one who has lost a loved one to be disoriented, to get in an accident, to fall seriously ill.  One of my congregants who lost her husband of many years failed to report this event to her doctor, and yet her deep grieving inevitably will affect her physically, so I encouraged her to let him know what she is going through emotionally.

Serious loss shakes us to the core.  We are likely to feel not only sadness, but anger and guilt.  Our brain and entire nervous system are working overtime, so we become distracted, spacey.  We are forgetful, and we don’t think clearly.  The right words just won’t come anymore.  Physiologically, we may feel heavy and tired, and pain or discomfort may emerge in those systems which are our weakest, whether it’s a back or a neck or a stomach.

Remember that bumper sticker that used to encourage us to practice “random acts of kindness”?  We never know what people may be going through.  Sometimes a clerk may be rude, or a driver may cut us off in traffic.  Would it make a difference if we knew that this person had just lost a spouse or a child?  We never know when we might be dealing with someone who has just had his heart broken in two, someone who desperately needs to heal. Kindness rather than judgment may be the better way. 

The headline in this morning’s Oregonian is “Health care: Who gets left out?”  Then the writers pose the question: since Oregon can’t cover the needs of both the young and the elderly and the disabled, who should be left out?

This question is an example of faulty logic–a false dilemma, if you will.  After all, Oregon is paying for a wide variety of things, including keeping a record number of prisoners in jail, even those who have committed non-violent and/or victimless crimes.  And then there is the assumption that we have only so much revenue and can raise no more.  If we need more money for basic services such as health care for disabled persons, we always have the option of raising taxes. 

I realize that raising taxes is not a popular move in Oregon or any other place on the planet–especially during an economic downturn.  But let me ask you this: when some of us have more than we need–in fact quite a bit more than we need–why shouldn’t we share more of what we have with those who are in dire circumstances?  Some people would cry out, “This is socialism!”  Actually, no, it could be called “following Jesus.” 

I’m not for a socialist state with an economy planned from the top down–that has proved to be a failed concept everywhere it has been tried.  But I am for re-distributing the wealth of this land in a more equitable manner, so that some people don’t have to suffer and even die while others have three homes and four automobiles. 

Right now, the disparity in wealth is this country is greater than it has been since the late1920′s–just before the Great Depression.  An equitable tax structure would help.  And bringing unions back to power.  And raising the minimum wage to a living wage for all workers.  And building an economy based on production and service instead of finance. Of late, 80% of the economy of the United States has been based on finance–that is, shuffling papers and counting.  Let’s get real.

Let’s pose a situation.  Imagine, just imagine, that you sat down to a sumptuous meal one evening and there suddenly appeared right next to you a child eating only a bowl of thin soup.  Your heart would be moved, and you would immediately offer to share your food with this child.  The problem is, we who have more than enough do not sit down with poor people–they are abstractions to us, they are numbers.  We sit down with our own kind.  And so we are more likely to say, “No more taxes!”  We are more likely to believe that our money is for ourselves, to use as we please–after all, didn’t I work for it?

Who gets left out?  It’s always the same: poor people, old people, disabled people, mentally ill people, people with chronic illnesses.  The most vulnerable among us.  Why is this the case?  Where is the logic in that?  Why shouldn’t we who have more than we need share what we have with those whose needs are the greatest?  You tell me. 

You know, we’ve just done Christmas, haven’t we?  What was that story about, anyway?

Those of you who have been following my blog know that my cat Molly has been having problems with urination–or rather, I have been having problems with Molly’s urinating on my rugs.  I tried punishing her by calling her attention to the wet spot and saying, “Bad kitty, bad kitty!”  I know she understood, because the behavior would stop for a while–but then it would start again.

You may remember that I took my little Molly to the vet, who suggested that Molly might be having problems adjusting to my new human friend, who she believes has stolen my affection from her.  Well, it is true that she is no longer #1–that would be accurate.  So what to do?  The vet suggested that maybe she should go on kitty Prozac.  He said, however, that the drug “might change her personality.”  I can imagine that I might have a cat that would sleep all day, with a silly grin on her face.  I didn’t want to go that route. 

One friend suggested that I contract the services of a “cat whisperer” (the cat equivalent of a “horse whisperer”).  Another said that Molly should have cat psychotherapy.  Still another said that I should try to engage an “animal intuitive.”  All of these solutions sounded if-fy to me, not to mention expensive. 

So I decided on another approach.  I decided to give Molly . . . LOVE!  I reasoned that if she was feeling rejected, then telling her she was a bad kitty would just make her feel even worse.  So instead my new friend and I decided to shower her with love and affection.  We say things to Molly like, “Molly, you are the most beautiful cat in the world!” and “Molly, you darling kitten, I just love you so much!”  We pet her as soon as she comes round, and naturally keep her food dish full and her water dish fresh.  After only a few days of this LOVE treatment, Molly stopped her bad behavior and started purring most all the time we come near her.

Why didn’t I think of this earlier?  Isn’t this what all living creatures want–love, I mean?  No one wants to feel displaced.  No one wants to be told that they are “bad.”  Everyone likes to have a full food dish given to them–and fresh drinks prepared.  Everyone likes to be stroked and petted by those they love.  What a simple and pleasant solution!  And much cheaper than Prozac.  

Many liberals have taken Barack Obama to task for choosing the evangelical preacher Rick Warren to pray at the coming inauguration.  Many gays and lesbians, who strongly supported Obama, feel betrayed.  It is true that Rev. Warren came out for California’s Proposition 8, which disallowed gay marriage, and it is true that he has been an outspoken opponent of abortion.  Why would Obama make such a choice?

I believe such a choice is consistent with Obama’s core message: “I want to be everyone’s President–I want to bring this nation together.”  Whereas George Bush said that and did just the opposite, I believe that Obama will genuinely try to be inclusive.  For eight years we have had an administration for whom the only qualification for office, whether it be Attorney General or a lowly intern, was that you were pro-Bush.  Everyone else was methodically winnowed out.  I for one never want another such administration.  I want a President who is strong and confident enough to engage those who disagree with him, considering their perspective, and possibly pulling them into his sphere of influence.

Who is Rick Warren, anyway?  He is one of the “new evangelicals”–more like Jim Wallis than Jim Bakker.  He is serious about Jesus, and that means being serious about poverty and being serious about global warming.  He doesn’t understand Christians who dwell in the “end times” or pray for prosperity for themselves.  As I hear him, he believes that the Kingdom of God is to be made among us, here and now.  He is not one of your charismatic TV evangelists who is mainly an entertainer, collecting money from vulnerable people.  He is a man of integrity, so far as I can tell, who wants to follow the will of God.  And he is enormously influential with literally millions of American church-goers.

Do I agree with his theology?  Well, a big NO.  Am I looking forward to his prayer on the day of the inauguration?  No, again.  And I think I understand the hurt and disappointment of my gay and lesbian friends.  I personally would have preferred, say, Rev. James Forbes, the Emeritus Minister of Riverside Church in New York, where he succeeded William Sloan Coffin.  Forbes was the first African American to pastor this church, which is the pre-eminent American protestant pulpit; he is an amazing preacher; and he is a flaming liberal.  But after the Rev. Wright furor, perhaps another black liberal minister wouldn’t have cut muster. 

Obama made a logical and consistent choice.  He chose a minister who would be known and admired by evangelicals, signaling to them that he cares about them–that they, too, are part of the America that he will serve.  He made an appropriate political choice.  This inauguration is not like a wedding, where you choose your best friends for the various roles, so they can be there to love and support you.  The inauguration signals to the whole country that all are welcome in this administration.

Consider also that Rick Warren will not be making policy–he’ll be saying a short prayer.  Is the choice of Warren symbolic?  Well, yes.  But will Warren’s theology influence this administration?  I think it may be the other way around.  I think Obama’s friendship with Warren may make inroads for Obama into the evangelical community, as nothing else could.  I believe that this country is turning around on the question of gay marriage–the movement is toward inclusivity, toward acceptance of many kinds of love.  Rick Warren could change his mind.  Stranger things have happened. 

Yesterday the NY Times published an amazing photographic article called “The New Team” (p. A12), and it was a full page picturing 25 of the choices Obama has made to help him forge policy for our country.  Of the 25, there were only 12 white men.  Consider that–only 12!p  When have you ever seen anything like it?  There were 10 people of color, and there were 7 women.  I would have preferred more women, of course.  But you know what?  I’m ecstatic about our new President.  He’s moving carefully and well, and I for one am not going to try to second-guess him all the time.  Liberals have been known forever to fail because of internal squabbling.  Just this one time–let’s hang together and let this good man have a break and find his feet.  He has enough challenges before him, don’t you think, without having to constantly fend off criticisms from his friends.  

A ferocious conversation about shoe-throwing is taking place all over the Middle East just now.  It appears that there are two schools of thought at the moment regarding the action of Muntader al-Zaidi, the journalist who threw two shoes at President Bush during a press conference.  Some people are saying that the act was wrong, that traditional Arab hospitality towards a guest demands respect, even if a person disapproves of the guest (as most Arabs apparently do, of this guest).  Far more people, however, seem elated by the defiant act–in fact, Muntader al-Zaidi has become something of folk hero to many.  In the Sadr City section of Baghdad, people are taking off their shoes and sandals and putting them on long poles, and waving them high in the air, demanding that Americans immediately withdraw from their country.  (See NYTimes, 12/16)

I must say that it was pretty amazing to see repeated television images of someone throwing a shoe at the President, hard and fast, and the President ducking, and then, whoops, here comes another one, again just barely missing.  Bush made light of it, saying “This is how democracy works.”  Well, actually, no–being in a democracy doesn’t give a person permission to fling shoes at their President.  The act, no doubt, was disrespectful.  But was it brave and appropriate–or rash and foolish?

I grew up in the South, in a society in which politeness was paramount–rules were followed.  It was “Yes, Ma’am” and “Yes, Sir.”  It was speaking softly and slowly, it was moving gently in the world.  And yet often, out of the mouths of these good and gentle people, who would stretch and strain never to offend, came horrendous remarks and acts of racism.  The rules about black and white were clear: “Nigras” were fine so long as they “stayed in their place.”  When they did not, when they dared to violate the rules, violence erupted.

Well, who makes the rules, and for what purpose?  And when should rules be broken? 

I am of two minds of this.  I am all for rules of decorum.  I prefer polite behavior.  Let me tell you, that a man can open the door for me any time.  And I like to visit the South, where children have been saying “Yes, Ma’m” to me since I was 35.  I believe that these rules of behavior are there for a reason, and generally that reason is so that society can remain civilized, and people will remain respectful of one another.

On the other hand, sometimes rules and traditions need to be broken, and their very breaking shines a light on something that is awry in the society.  Martin Luther King, Jr., taught his followers to practice civil disobedience, and so they sat in restaurants and at drugstore counters that were “White Only.”  Rosa Parks did not follow the rules of the city bus line.  The Berrigan brothers poured blood on draft records during the Vietnam War.  Every year demonstrators go to the School of the Americas in Georgia, where the U.S. trains foreign soldiers to terrorize their own citizens, and these demonstrators break the rules–they step over the government “line” and are arrested, and many have been jailed, some for as long as six months–nuns and priests and ministers, among them.

Every person must discern for himself or herself when it’s right and appropriate to break the rules.  One rule of thumb would be your motive, of course–are you breaking the rule for your own benefit, or to grandstand–or because you believe a statement must be made that cannot better be made another way. 

I myself–well, I’m a good girl and always have been.  I follow the rules.  That’s why I was elected “Best Christian” in my senior year in high school.  And then I became an English teacher, and you know how they are about rules.  Now I’m a minister, and we all are aware of the rule-bound-ness of religion.  Except there’s one rule in religion that’s bigger than all the others–it’s called the Rule of Love.  So when we face a dilemma, we can ask, “What is the most loving thing to do?”  Sometimes it’s fasting.  Sometimes it’s not eating British salt.  Sometimes it’s speaking the truth to power, even though that’s going to get you in a mess of trouble. 

Sometimes it’s throwing a shoe.