Christian Hamaker

What are we to make of the daredevil mentality? A Scriptural case can be made that we’re to live life to the fullest. That’s part of the abundance of which Jesus speaks. But where do we draw the line? When does pushing one’s limits cross over into something that’s unhealthy?

I’m a reticent person in any number of areas. I’m not physically adept at anything and have never excelled at sports, although I’ve enjoyed soccer and racquet sports over the years. My current favorite sport is football, at which I’m an expert spectator. No physical contact for me, thank you very much. I enjoy the game most when I’m taking it in from my recliner.

Then there are those who ride motorcycles. Why risk the extra damage if you’re involved in an accident? I spent years wanting a motorcycle when I was a young man, but now I look at bikers with some measure of skepticism. I respect their right to ride as they please, but I think they’re a bit crazy.

What about those who run marathons? Why do they push themselves so? I don’t understand it. Never have. But I admire anyone who can run 26 miles. My hat’s off to them.

Next step up on the crazy train? Parachuting. Looks cool, very exhilarating. Relatives have invited me to join them on jumps. Nope. Not a chance.

I came to all those conclusions when I was single. Maybe I was being prudent, or maybe I was just a wimp. Now that I have a wife and kids, I can’t see any way to justify optional activities that have so much potential for long-term damage.

Still, there’s part of me that wants to experience what I’m missing—the thrill of the freefall after jumping out of airplane, or the feel of the open road from the seat of a motorcycle. Even more exotic and exciting than those things are the trapeze artists and tightrope walkers at the circus, with or without a net. I watch those folks in amazement. What drives them to do what they do?

Maybe that’s why I was so fascinated by “Man on Wire,” the new documentary about Philippe Petit, a Frenchman who in 1974 orchestrated a spectacular stunt: He ran a wire between the top of the two World Trade Center towers and, in the early morning light, walked between the buildings. He and his team broke the law, then taunted the law-enforcement officers who arrived on the scene to put an end to Petit’s escapades. But the awestruck onlookers were dazzled by Petit’s audacity, and the grace of his stunt. More than 30 years later, the act is celebrated. But what, exactly, are we celebrating?

Petit recounts his own adventure. From the beginning we know he survived—he’s right there on screen to tell us about his escapades. The logistics of his team’s efforts to pull off the feat are riveting. But it’s Petit personality that proves most fascinating. What drove this man to do what he did?

We see Petit walking on a wire years earlier, rehearsing for the big event. We see footage (the film includes reenactments, and I wasn’t always sure which footage of earlier events was actual and which wasn’t) of Petit walking a wire at Notre Dame Cathedral and in Australia. High above the ground, with no net to catch him, he walks forward, then backward, then lies down on the wire! It’s breathtaking.

So, why’d he do it? He Petit says he was always obsessed with the Trade Towers, that to walk between them was his destiny. Was he afraid of dying? No! He tells us that “to die in the exercise of your passion” would make for “a beautiful death.” When he steps out onto the cable between the Trade Towers, he informs us that “something I could not resist called me up on that cable.” He knew, in that moment, that “death [was] very close.”

A girlfriend explains that Petit had “a very strict upbringing” and took “great pleasure from taking certain liberties.” But Petit can’t explain why he had to walk between the Towers. “It was magical. It was profound,” he says. “I didn’t have any ‘why.’ There is no ‘why.’” (Petit’s impulsiveness and lack of regret extend to a one-night stand that is briefly depicted—something that might put it out of bounds for viewers not interested in that behavior. It didn’t need to be shown, although it underscores Petit’s willingness to t ake chances and live in the moment.)

“Life should be lived on the edge,” Petit tells us. “Live your life on a tight rope. You have to exercise rebellion.”

Petit’s lifestyle choices weren’t always wise, but his willingness to take chances—even to the point of death—can teach us something about how to live boldly. Do we live our life of faith fearlessly? Does death frighten us? Do we rebel against a world system that seeks to keep us from pressing on toward our high calling in Christ Jesus?

These aren’t questions that “Man on Wire” is trying to raise directly. It’s not interested in a life of faith and obedience. But Christians know that we’re tested in many ways, every day. As one of my seminary professors once said, the trick of living the Christian life is finding how to live in the tension between extremes.

The kingdom of God has come, but has not yet fully arrived. We live in the world but are not of it. We walk a tightrope. And when we do it well, without tipping to one extreme or another, our lives—just like Petit’s wire walks—are beautiful to behold.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

Pardon my long absence from this blog—I’ll be more frequent, I promise—but I’ve been roused from my long blog slumber to call your attention to a new book. Hired@Home: The Christian Mom’s Guide to Working From Home, has just been published by my lovely wife, Sarah Hamaker. If you’re a Christian woman who works from home, or know someone who is—or who would like to be—then this is the book for you.

Sarah discusses the concept of “calling,” and where work falls in the hierarchy. But she also addresses the practical steps involved with launching and sustaining home-based businesses. Along the way, she profiles dozens of Christian women across numerous fields who work out of their homes.

The book is available through Amazon.com. Your local bookstore also can order a copy. Oh, and if you’d like to know more about Sarah and her book, try her home page. You can even sign up for her monthly newsletter!

OK, I think I’ve done my husbandly duty.

I”ll be back soon with a movie-related post.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

The writers’ strike ended several days ago, in time to salvage this year’s Oscars telecast. This matters to the industry, but the buzz on the telecast is that it may score record-low ratings, the victim of the network TV’s supposedly slow slide into irrelevancy (don’t tell that to the near record number of viewers for last month’s Super Bowl, broadcast on network TV).

Then there’s the tone of this year’s Best Picture nominees. Can you say “downbeat”? With the exception of “Juno”—which has developed into a $100-million-plus hit—the major nominees are gloomy.

All we ask is that the show entertains, maybe even makes us laugh. If anyone can do that, it’s Oscar host Jon Stewart. So … here we go.

8:30—Diet Coke is a proud supporter of “The Heart Truth.” Who knew?

8:32—First joke: “make-up sex.” Oooo-kay. Maybe he’s just warming up. Ah, there it is! A crack about this year’s “psychopathic” Best Picture nominees.

8:35—First Clinton joke. The Jewish “Atonement” joke gets some laughs—including a hearty one from me. A “Norbit” joke scores! And with a decent lawyer joke, Stewart is officially on a roll.

8:38—An Iraq War joke—and a zinger about the age of the Republican nominee for president. A partisan joke about the assumption that the next president will be a Democrat, with a funny line about disaster movies.

Monologue over. It took a while for Stewart to warm up, but this outing turned out better than his last.

8:42—BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Winner: “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” The speech is much shorter than the presentation of the nominees. Can we get this woman to produce the next Oscars telecast? She’s on to something.

8:47—George Clooney introduces a clip reel encompassing 80 years of highlights. That was nice, but … no clips of Robert Altman’s eloquent acceptance speech of his honorary Oscar shortly before his death?

8:52—BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Presenter Steve Carell reminds us of how funny he can be.

Winner: “Ratatouille”

8:56—BEST MAKEUP

Winner: “La Vie en Rose” Great choice! Not to underrate Marion Cotillard’s performance, but the makeup was superb.

9:07—BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Winner: “The Golden Compass”! I was sure it would go to “Transformers.” The four winners are, again, a model in brevity when it comes to their acceptance speech.

9:12—BEST ART DIRECTION

My wife comments about presenter Cate Blanchett’s hair: “I’m disappointed. It looks like something I’d wake up in.”

Winner: “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.” Well deserved. Dante Ferreti’s Italian accent is thick.

“But look at her hair!” my wife exclaims, still distracted by Blanchett. “Her dress looks great, but look at her hair!”

9:14—Here comes the first acting award.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Winner: Javier Bardem, “No Country for Old Men” Not unexpected, but maybe a sign of a big night for “No Country.” Beautiful reaction shot from Bardem’s mother in the audience.

9:22—Biggest laugh yet for the Oscar salutes to binoculars and periscopes, followed by a salute to bad dreams. These are the best laughs the Oscar broadcast has seen in years, monologues included.

9:26—The second Best Song nominees to be performed is, like Amy Adams’ performance of the first nominee, well executed. These presentations can be dreary, but so far, this year’s Best Song performances have been exciting.

9:28— BEST SHORT FILM

Owen Wilson presents. It’s good to see Owen in front of a camera again.

Winner: “Les Mozart des Pickpockets”

Another foreign-language acceptance speech. Not bad!

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM

Jerry Seinfeld’s bee character isn’t very funny.

Winner: “Peter and the Wolf”

9:35—BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Winner: Tilda Swinton, “Michael Clayton.”

My wife says, “Now that is the ugliest dress in Oscar history. It looks like a gunny sack, a yard trash bag.” My wife is catty tonight. Look out!

9:46—BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Winner: Joel and Ethan Coen, “No Country for Old Men”

10 p.m.—A baby joke. Not so hot. But here come Judi Dench and Halle Berry to present … no, scratch that. It's two comic actors instead. Kinda funny, but 90 minutes into the broadcast, the “let’s get on with it” sentiment has started to take hold.

BEST SOUND EDITING

Winner: “The Bourne Ultimatum”

No “No Country” momentum yet.

BEST SOUND MIXING

Winner: “The Bourne Ultimatum”

Big “Bourne” momentum! Could it take Best Picture later tonight?

No. It couldn’t. Because it wasn’t nominated in any major categories.

BEST ACTRESS

Already?! It’s “only” 10:07. The pacing of this year’s telecast is pretty good, although I suspect I’m jumping the gun in saying that. Check back with me in an hour.

Winner: Marion Cotillard, “La Vie en Rose”

Major surprise! “You truly rocked my life!” “Thank you life, thank you love. It is true there are some angels in this city.” What a great speech!

10:20—Returning from a bathroom break, I catch the tail end of a performance of “Falling Slowly,” from “Once.” Rats! I wanted to see that.

Instead, I get the montage of Best Picture winners—a reminder of how underwhelming so many of the choices have been over the years. Will this year’s winner be a proud addition to the canon, or a film that, years from now, makes viewers of a similar montage shrug their shoulders when a clip from it appears?

10:27

BEST FILM EDITING

Funny picture of Roderick Jaynes, editor for “No Country for Old Men”—a person who doesn’t exist.

Winner: “The Bourne Ultimatum”—which is cleaning up in the categories in which it’s nominated.

10:31—Honorary Oscar to Production Designer Robert Boyle

Long speech, but the guy’s nearly 100 years old and is more poised than most of the other presenters and award recipients tonight. Cut him some slack!

10:42

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

My wife has gone to bed, so no comment on Penelope Cruz’s dress. Me, I think Cruz is gorgeous, as always. She could wear a gunny sack, and I'd be fine with that.

Winner: “The Counterfeiters”

It’s the first Austrian film to win the Best Foreign Film Oscar.

10:45—The final Best Song performance, nicely done if a bit pat. So if you’re part of the “Enchanted” team, with three songs nominated in a category with five nominees, how disappointed will you be if your film doesn’t win an Oscar tonight?

The Oscar goes to “Falling Slowly,” from “Once”—a great song, a great movie moment, an outstanding film. Very, very gratifying.

10:56—How nice! Stewart calls back to the stage Marketa Irglova to give the acceptance speech she started to give for her song from “Once,” before she was cut off. “Hope connects us all,” she says. It’s a cliché, but the warmth of the moment conquers all.

10:58

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Great work all around this year. Tough to pick a winner here.

Winner: Robert Elswit, “There Will Be Blood”

11:04—The “In Memorium” feature ends with a lingering shot of Heath Ledger. Ingmar Bergman, meanwhile, gets a two-second shot sandwiched between two other industry folks near the end of the segment, and only after the segment notes the passing of several Hollywood agents. Sigh.

11:08—BEST SCORE

Winner: “Atonement”! But will it, like “Babel” last year, have to settle for a victory in this category only?

11:12—BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT FEATURE

Presented from Iraq!

Winner, “Freeheld”

That woman’s expression—shocked delight—as she heads to the podium says it all, doesn’t it?

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Winner, “Taxi to the Dark Side”

11:20—OK, it’s been over an hour since I asked you to check in and see if I held to my notion that the show was well paced. And I had, until they just said that the Original Screenplay awards remain. Which means Best Director remains. And maybe another honorary Oscar, or a montage or two, before the Best Picture award. I’m hangin’ in.

11:24

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Winner: “Juno”

You know things are strange when I notice how, ummm, strange a dress looks on someone. That leopard-print thing—don’t know what to say about that.

So “Juno” can’t be counted out as Best Picture.

11:29—BEST ACTOR

Winner: Daniel Day Lewis, “There Will Be Blood”

11:40—BEST DIRECTOR

Winner: Joel and Ethan Coen, “No Country for Old Men”

Only one more award to go.

11:45—BEST PICTURE

Hey, it’s 15 minutes before midnight! Way to go, Gil Cates, or whoever produced this year’s telecast.

Winner: “No Country for Old Men”

Big night for the Coen Brothers. An excellent film that forthrightly addresses evil, and the presence, or lack, of God in the lives of its characters. It’s a challenging film, but a dark one.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

The children who escaped—dubbed the “Lost Boys” because they were mostly unaccompanied males—marched through their war-torn country for years, threatened by lions and starvation. Years later they arrived in several American cities only to experience another sort of hardship: the struggle to make ends meet and to further their education.

Valentino’s harrowing, bittersweet story has been brought to life by Dave Eggers in the book “What Is the What,” recently released in paperback. The author recently stopped in Washington, D.C., to promote the ongoing work of rebuilding in Sudan and field questions about Valentino’s life, including the role of the church.

Valentino was baptized a Catholic as a child in the Sudan, although other Lost Boys are Episcopalian and Lutheran, Eggers says. After arriving in Atlanta, “Valentino had quite a church community,” Eggers said. He still does—at Allegheny College, where he’s pursuing further education.

“Churches have been incredibly important in all cities where these refugees are,” Eggers says, because the refugees were given just three months of assistance after resettlement. Further help has been necessary. “Churches and foundations stepped in,” Eggers says. “Without them, I don’t know what would have happened.”

Eggers tells of a woman from a Charlotte, N.C., Baptist church who invited a few of the men she encountered at the local grocery store to stop by the church for further help, only to discover 35 Lost Boys at the church the next day.

Although the church is present through the services offered, Eggers paints a portrait of Valentino as someone still searching for the sort of community many Christians find in the church. The book is not primarily a commentary on the church’s outreach to these men, but the spiritual aspect of Valentino’s life takes a back seat to the daily struggle to make ends meet and to avoid being taken advantage of.

The novel is based almost entirely on Valentino’s recollections, although Eggers labels the book a novel because he used the experiences of other Lost Boys to fill in Valentino’s vague memories of family life before his village was attacked. It painfully reveals how the struggles of these men continue in the States, where they find it difficult to achieve their hopes for more learning and for marriage. “His story is representative of millions of other immigrants,” Eggers says.

Today, people are beginning to return to Southern Sudan. There’s a hopefulness now, after years of war and bloodshed.

Part of that is due to a Bush-administration-backed peace agreement between the north and the south in Sudan, but is cautious about the increasing number of violations to that agreement. “The Bush administration really did a lot to broker that peace,” Eggers says. “But this is a terrible government [in Sudan]. It’s incumbent upon the Bush administration to keep a close eye on it. I know they’re trying to do that.”

Valentino has returned to his hometown of Marial Bai, where he hopes to build a school. He faces a shortage of trained teachers, and those who remain are trained to teach in Arabic—not English, as Valentino wants. The work is still in the early stages.

Meanwhile, Valentino pursues his education at Allegheny College. “He wanted to be here with me today,” Eggers says, “but he had to drive back to Allegheny for a test.”

Valentino’s story is one of courage, a triumph of hope over despair. But many of his hopes remain unfulfilled, and despair is always lurking, threatening to overwhelm him. So far, he hasn’t let despair consume him.

Eggers says the purpose of writing the book was to foster understanding between those in the United States and the Lost Boys. It is a story that needs to be read—by Christians in particular, who can help supply spiritual comfort in addition to physical needs, and who can pray for these Lost Boys. It’s also a reminder of the tremendous blessings we have here in America, and a path to better understanding the immigrant experience, especially among these African refugees.

In short, “What Is the What” is a must read.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss