Hamnet in the Pitt Waiting for Godot

One of my most eager reads growing up as an aspiring playwright was Samual Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”. The philosophy and minimalist structure searching for meaning and salvation kept me turning each page waiting for that sweet rush of inner beauty and divine energy, Beckett calls upon in so many ways, eloquently humorously and with a thrilling deeply pensive anticipation but it never comes. The existentialist dread of nothingness like Albert Camus finding peace during a weeklong wake they sulk the meaning of all that’s good in favor of self-gratifying emotion, as if that in itself is worthy of salvation or justification. After reading the play my 20-something-year-old self tore it up and promptly dumped it in the garbage. There is no sweeping speech and bold sounding phrases that heal outside of positive delusions even if the drama is bold in scope and tantamount to emotions that fill us with great expectations, as in Hemingway’s “Old Man in the Sea”, there is no meat on the bone in the end. This instinctual resolution based on heroics and hopeful clamor even when masterfully presented like Alec Baldwin’s winners only speech in “Glengarry Glen Ross” is dangerous fantasy that seeks only to entertain our misgivings and ill found faiths. This was the sentiment that shook my head after watching the Hamnet, a fictional portrayal of William Shakespear’s life and loss equating the later to Hamlet’s relationship with his father’s ghost and soliloquy at Yorick, the former court jester’s, grave. The film Hamnet is incredibly well written, acted and directed. Jessie Buckley playing Shakespear’s wife brings out an amazing range of natural emotions that fill us with a deep understanding of all the subtle feelings of this fanciful character. Being a product of the 16th century her bold ravenous choices made in the script can be excused but it’s unfortunately socially unjust and dangerous. Paul Mescal likewise turns a brilliant performance digging us profoundly into a pitt of his substance as a writer who conveys and resolves his most intimate grief through Hamlet’s dialogue but these sentiments were not what the Dane prince’s play was about. Although I haven’t read the Book the film is based on it seems it was all conceived from one scene from Hamlet, as his dead father the king bids adieu to his son as a ghost. The film’s story is heart wrenching and entertaining, unrooted in reality for a unique surrealism but the interaction between the couple is erroneous. Agnes is presented as an enlightened soul with the natural divine energy of a druid but then turns around and shuts out Shakespeare and their communication breaks down after a tragic family loss. This isn’t Donald Sutherland ending his marriage with Mary Tyler Moore in “Ordinary People” while discussing their understanding of substance during their son’s wake. In Hamnet the clear view of decent hearts are abandoned. The tragedy swoons and cradles us with surprise and thrilling drama at the expense of our identities as human beings and superstitions struggling to make things right. There's an enchanting abandonment of reality here that isn’t explored but we don't care because the story is told so wonderfully sublime. Towards the end of the film when she finally discovers his art she initiates a very powerful scene epitomizing the most ideal virtue of theater, continuing the extraordinary tone, she reaches out and touches Hamlet on stage as he dies. He takes this cue and uses it to embody the final line as others also touch him, then he holds out his hands to the rest of the crowd as if to give them all a hug. It was such a powerful display of how the grandeur of art speaks from soul to soul as if contentment can be achieved together but the main characters did not. This is what makes the film so ironically special and unique but are we all to go about our lives embracing unhinged reactionary emotion? You can't embrace such divine beauty and then cut it off without explanation or even some closure. Was it a treatise on the exposition of how cult-like belief blinds us from the source of love? If that's the idea, that Agnes was so swept up in her blind beliefs that they became her harmful id that shielded her from a healthy openness, then bravo, but to have such symbolism hidden is detrimental to those that come away unself actualized to their identity. I dare say most would come away thinking her defiance caused by ill-conceived rules of faith were not discord but disjointed harmony they not only can relate to but now desire to act out. People release their anger, cut off their own love and peace for a stringent falsehood thinking their situation is somehow unique or separate from grace, the only thing that holds hearts together, as that final scene with Hamlet yet Chole left the Shakespeares' closure to a mere smile. Don’t we need more as a society? Don’t we need are most in-depth meaning to be a part of our peace and harmony or do we want it unhinged from time to time so that we can better appreciate when it’s at a loss. Sounds like an excuse, an ironic scapegoat to being real; afraid of being even remotely vulnerable when in fact it’s that open cohesion that protects us. During the backstage speeches at the Oscars director Paul Thomas Anderson, whose Oscar worthy film “One Battle After Another” won best picture, was asked about racial politics. While he didn’t directly answer the question he talked about Teyana Taylor’s Oscar nominated performance of Perfidia revealing how the character was flawed and made decisions that were detrimental to the revolution. How she started as a hero but became the anti-hero in fact fleeing the nation because she had killed someone. They owned up to the flaws with an eye on a future, one in which her daughter could be a better person. This integrity is missing from Hamnet during which we are robbed of a beacon of moral clarity. A few lines owing up to this or explaining the issue would have been enough and taken the film to a unifying effect. Instead, Jessie Buckley during her extremely worthy best actress winning speech said. “Chloé [Zhao] and Maggie [O’Farrell, the film’s screenwriters], to get to know this incandescent woman and journey to understand the capacity of a mother’s love is the greatest collision of my life. It’s Mother’s Day in the U.K. today, so I would like to dedicate this to the beautiful chaos of a mother’s heart. We all come from a lineage of women who continue to create against all odds.” The chaos though, indeed extremely heart felt and beautiful, was not explored or explained leaving the viewer with a misconception. How can we move forward as a married couple when one of the greatest writers of all time and one of the most soulful spiritual characters ever on screen, as so conveyed by Jessie, do not communicate with reason and accountability. This at a time in our history where ignorant disgruntled voters are still angry about how the president they voted for is treated by the media, the context of his actions unknown to them. Their souls mute to the damage wrought. Oscar winning actor Cillian Murphy recently expressed his strong aversion to entertainment media that dictates emotional responses to the audience during an interview with the Sunday Times saying, "The last thing I want to be involved in is preachy or dogmatic work because films should never tell you how to feel. They should just ask questions". I’d argue the opposite and in Hamnet, Chloe and O’Farrell give us questions no one should be asking. We don’t need to discover ghosts or gaping holes in the earth harping on superficial superstitions waiting for Godot; we need Godot to show up and help us up by pointing out what’s wrong in the proper context and showing us what needs to be done. The film’s director, Chloé Zhao relied on her genius eye for sound and frame as well as award winning earnest acting to lead the way as she masterfully searched for answers without any reality-based structure. Zhao expressed a divine tone and timing rarely seen in cinema, her efforts to bring out beauty and serene simplicity is quite magical, but the script gives bad advice. On the flip side the hospital drama series “the Pitt”, streaming on HBO MAX, bags a relentless emotion based on truth, justice and profound meaning. While Hamnet oozes fanciful yet profound emotion the Pitt bangs us on the head with humanity constantly bringing us to the brink of soulful existence so that we can love ourselves and our fellow man. It challenges our ill-gotten corrupted preconceived norms and practices as individuals and as a society in an earnest simplicity even a child can understand and grow from. We as a society are better when we come to terms with our own substance not dance around it like a court jester killed for speaking out. “To be or not to be” indeed. While we continue to hang million dollar de Koonings and Picassos let us not forget Basquiat’s warnings or Dali’s melting clocks as we embrace truth and justice; concepts that our slipping from us into a soulless abyss.

Pluribus our only hope

Pluribus the si fi series which recently finished airing its first season on Apple tv, is simply put the greatest and most thought-provoking dramatic writing to ever grace a screen. At its core it is about what it is to be human, but its tragedies the failures to communicate properly. The "collective” consciousness evolves, but all the greatest minds of the world couldn’t stop Carol, efficiently played by Rhea Seehorn from failing to warn Manousos, stoically played by Carlos-Manuel Vesga of the dangers involved in disruption. It’s a shockingly realistic view, painting a grim picture for humanity. If the entire world’s conscious as one cannot communicate safeguards properly then do the leaders of the world have it worse off? Carol asked Manousos, “do you know how many people you just killed?” at first the ambiguity of Manousos with his back to the camera, seemed like a mistake, the only flaw I could find in the writing but that is life, that is the essential challenge, to communicate warnings preventing the loss of life or freedom. The series is working to find a balance exhausting all cross connections between want and need, free will and harmony, science and spirituality. How connected is the soul to the frequency of the universe as opposed to the mind's connection will other humans? (are they the same?) Perhaps the collective will see a different method or way to bond with each other, one that communicates with individual perspectives, to act like a child as opposed to reacting like one. There are many prospectives yet to explore and I hope it all leads to a more triumphant humanity that communicates differently, perhaps at a level that can actually be achieved in real life just as the collective needs to evolve in order to survive. Pluribus strips us of heroes and villains squeezing the essence of life and the importance of being into a divinity that empowers with free will. All are vulnerable and the entertainment value of this epic timeless series rests in how 12 characters, the last of which is the entire population of earth, figure out how to create utopia or extinction. How many world leaders do we have in real life that can save us this way? Writer and creator Vince Gilligan is one.

The Lowdown Shines Over a City on the Hill

It is with absolute giddy admiration and excitement to present a review of one of the most satisfying dramatic comedy series ever created in the Lowdown, currently on Hulu. One of Ethan Hawks’ most important works touching upon his western sentiments as a Texan himself in Tulsa. The story checks all the most intriguing boxes like corruption, racism, predatory capitalism, classism, redemption, friendship, loneliness, parenting, literature, gender equality, cultural appropriation, empathy, charity, and political vigor but most of all it tackles personal substance and how it’s effected by society. Hawke brings his usual gritty muckraking intellectual Greenwich Village hippy to a small town making a mountain out of careless corruption as so beautifully shot in the final scene; his failing bookstore in the shadows of a growing city in the backdrop. Tulsa, as the series touched on, was once a booming black city, a triumph of post-civil war reconstruction until mass murderous race riots filled the streets with blood and despair. Hawke’s character as if an afterthought is there to pick up the pieces in a modern era bent on forgetting its roots and respect for Native Americans. Hawke’s, Lee Raybon, is a comical Don Quixote of journalists touting a new brand of “truthstorian"-ism he holds on to and cherishes as his own identity, one the new world of alternate realities should instill. His acting as always entrenched in nervous thrill and bravery is surpassed in one scene by the teenager, Ryan Kiera Armstrong, who plays his daughter, Francis. “Don't patronize me by saying I’m not old enough to know you are good" a hero for the people as Lee wrestles with his indulgent dangerous passions wanting desperately to be a good example for his daughter but perhaps from a far not so close that she would see his warts and constant pot smoking I’d add. Perhaps the only flaw in the writing was neglecting to point out how he deals with stress as a reporter that lays it all on the line for the Lowdown nature of ultimate justice and equity. The acting overall aims for the heavy heart. A bevy of great performances like a final tearful swansong by a regretful, Jeanne Tripplehorn, the poetically stringent acts by Keith David, and Peter Dinklage, all relating to a masterful reconciliatory grace from the echoes of Tim Blake Nelson. Where are the Lee Raybons’ today? How soon we forget the massive corruption and insider trading that’s setting up a massive economic crash, turning cities on hills into tear gassed trenches for powershifting whims. The cruelty of public policy lost in headline news pushing talking points that entertain. The tattered notions of justice crumbling and decaying without repetition. The action-packed thrilling Lowdown climaxes with the importance of sensitivity as the strongest proponent of democracy. Bravo, Sterlin Harjo, whose timeless heart graced us with this series and others like Reservation Dogs, always striving to help us understand our reality, which can never change despite the greed and corruption that enslaves us all.

Yellowstone and the American Identity

Of the three western series beginning with the story of pioneer James Dutton and his family’s legacy, “Yellowstone” is the weakest in terms of structure and acting, despite a few great performances. The prequel “1883” was more pure drama, depicting pioneering settlers with an astonishing reality, the heroine in the limited series, a daringly brave lady carving a way of life, and a way to live in nature for what’s best in man, Isabel Day playing Elsa Dutton preserved the tactile subtleness of substantive living, even through sacrifices and danger, where all is equitable and free - the show’s main characters adhering to a moral structure and tradition of modesty. In my past review of the limited series 2nd prequel “1923”, I write about the superb realism bent on a just order, the cowboy order of things, free spaces and wild nature in harmony with a dream, to rest among the stars and the land whole. Perhaps inspired by Native Americans, the new cowboy, like Ted Williams, John Wayne, Roy Rogers and Clint Eastwood was duty-bound by honor to put the word brave in home of the brave. It’s what we all aspire to if we live with nature and do what’s right, even if not technically legal. He is at once against authorities that gather for profit without catering to the ramifications. The “Yellowstone” series set in the 21th century began with acts of brutality which in the end comes close to heading in the right direction before death with only several characters adhering to what is right - a break from the cowboy ethic to the good ole boys’ rule of reckless brashness. The lead role in the 5 season Yellowstone series, John Dutton comes off as a cowboy mafia soap opera committing atrocities to keep the biggest ranch in Montana building a legacy to keep his promise to his father, to never let the ranch go. Yellowstone entertains from start to finish despite adding several unrealistic plot points, and denying common sense approaches and occurrences although it stays true to a realistic approach. The acting in this series, topped by Kelly Reilly playing Beth Dutton, was not enough overall, and towards the end suffered some sluggish directions, showcasing horse sales got in the way of a thrilling ending scenes instead used to show how important being a cowboy is, working the land to feed people. The biggest dilemma of the series, a pipeline headed under a reservation’s water was left with unresolved after criminal vigilante action; its consequences ignored. Reilly tore through the fabric of her own psychosis, a symptom of living with the utmost truth and hard hand of justice, the cowboy creed distorted. Beth Dutton’s character on paper sounds like a dysfunctional egotist, but she cried like an Apache during fight scenes and sought solace in quiet moments within herself, although seemingly over the top, her choices are sublime and suspenseful in a poetically abstract way, taking her promises like a cowboy cliche of fabricated honor. She adds a surreal drama like Julia Schlaepfer’s bad choices as Alexandria Dutton in 1923 yet only with Harvey Dent’s two face streak of cruelty, its examination worth the effort in order to expose gluttonously cathartic ironic grandeur to bare all of its ugliness and test the boundaries of self-respect - a tough love redefined from a “cowboy” not a “lady cowboy”, like her mother, the backbone of necessity though from Beth warped and overly harsh. She was obsessed with winning, the end result always justifying the ugly means yet clinging to whatever good beauty she could find. Beth adored good people and wanted to make a place for them away from the harsh reality of human setbacks and sin, with no patience for erroneous behavior, especially any that taints the aura of majesty that can only be productive if it is feared. She is described as an assassin for quickly seeing the faults in others and using it to punish them for their own good, to strip evil cowardness or ill repute of its false dignity, forcing rebirth in humility. Her victims are left of their own devices exploited to triumph over their worth. The worth of everything is questioned, and the most flawed character in terms of danger is the only one that can articulate the proximity to goodness which defines us but in the end she could not save her adopted brother, because she let her anger cloud her judgement. With all her appeal Reilly’s acting was so good we forget her major flaw - how her cruelty and relentless thirst for revenge made him into a monster. The ending of the series set forth a definition of good-natured living, the cowboy as a citizen, middle class empowered rancher. Beth choosing a home where she could visit the local pub on horseback away from tourists. Her legacy’s giant 140-year-old Dutton ranch was too much to hold against the might of development without affordable housing or inclusionary zones, raping the resources of the state’s modest cowboys. Gentrification without inclusion leaves us divided and angry, poor or worse, incapable of living. John Dutton’s son Kayce, played modestly by Luke Grimes, at one point when estranged he suffered on the reservation struggling to make ends meet on his small piece of land he rented with his distractingly beautiful wife, Monica, acted with delight and enchantment, by Kelsey Asbille. Kayce Dutton almost loses his identity crossing the line slightly, but through and through Kayce is the consummate role, carrying the banner for our true American identity as a fearless super soldier who would die for what is right. He could have been rich but instead chose the American Dream, a neglected American identity. One that is fair and yet sacrificing for the greater good of things. Yellowstone as a whole could have been much better. Kevin Kostner, who portrayed John Dutton, wasn’t up to showing us how cruel the mistakes were, the failure to reach out when needed and speak. The role seemed unreal, fabricated perhaps because Kostner played him too gently. Almost as if Kevin Kostner’s face, much like Gimes’, is too kind and welcoming to get at a complex redemption. John Dutton, a man who used ruthless tasks for the greater good was at time a tyrant masking himself with unwritten rules. In contrast the many faces of Dawn OlivieriI, marvelously playing Sarah Atwood, a corporate fixer seductress who takes John Dutton’s adopted son and turns him into Macbeth whose character, Jamie Dutton, lacked a realistic redemption which in the end was denied for empty power, out of character as if the climax of his cruelty was also his demise. One of the other failures of the Yellowstone series is not bringing this character back from evil’s final embrace but in a fairy tale sense it certainly entertains. Olivieril’s eyes in turn mastered the perplexity of the dilemma, true to herself, her American dream of excess and elitism. John Dutton’s American dream was that of conquest, his son Kayce’s, that of a regular cowboy that just wants to love his immediate family, something his father could not hold together because of his tormented acts. His daughter Beth turning the drama to stage level for a show of absurd truths, her tongue constantly looking to change people’s mind with ridiculing sarcasm. Beth’s American dream is the most refreshing climax of the series, abandoning millions not just for her on a modest ranch in the coldest parts of Montana away from the ill effects of corruption and greed, but in spite of it, yet we don’t know how much she has tucked away with that Bentley in the barn; the righteous American is not cruelly gluttonous over excess and luxury, especially the kind that exploits. I can’t wait for the next limited series, “1944” but there is so much more Yellowstone could delve into, this time hopefully with a proper perspective, never losing its grip on what’s right. The late great American writer James Baldwin wrote and spoke about our nation not being able to attain the American dream because it had no identity without embracing the diversity that shaped us. He talked about how we hate history because we cling to nostalgia instead. During his time there was great political upheaval and violence because of racism and our war in Vietnam but that nostalgia he talked about at the very least kept us mostly rooted in a general understanding of liberty and human rights despite blatant racism unlike today. While politicians always lied or subterfuged to get their agenda through, today and I’d argue since Sarah Palin something else is eroding at what little nostalgia we have that forms a basis for democracy as mendacity and false propaganda in the form of alternate realities have become commonplace place among non-racist Trump supporters. They cling on to MAGA talking points playing into this false dichotomy that is now leaving us vulnerable to authoritarianism at the whims of “project 25”; its agenda of cruelty to serve white elitists. Perhaps it’s time to discover some nostalgic news from our past that can help shape a neglected American identity, never fully formed in the minds of our forefathers. Most people don’t know that the “bill of rights” was not in the original constitution. For this reason, Patrick Henry railed against the first constitution’s ratification, and the people demanded it be included until it was a year and a half later in 1791. As I’ve written many times in this blog, the founding of modern democracy began with two schools of thought. Before Palin’s embrace of fact less rhetoric we were republicans vs democrats having evolved from aristocracy vs reasoned logic. John Adams wanted Washington to be a king and he even suspended the free press because he envisioned a nation where good men of character would make the right choices based on traditions and norms. Thomas Paine and Ben Franklyn on the other hand wanted reasonable laws that served all the people, catering to their wants and needs. I can respect John Adam’s and legacy republicans’ conservative views as much as I disagree with them because that was part of who we are; the cowboy protecting the open spaces against development while welcoming his good faith neighbors as long as they didn’t change their way of life, as long as they earn it with respect and kindness. But that way of life is threatened just as opportunities for all sought by progressive thought is being threatened with political and judicial violence. Neglecting to regulate greed and corruption is violence and apart from the physical pain and hardship it causes it is also eroding the very core of our existence, albeit as Baldwin said an incomplete dream. That pledge of allegiance we made every morning as kids is in jeopardy, “…indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." We're losing our identity, to love and respect all beliefs and cultures, enriching our society, strengthening democracy, and empowering every individual (something that terrifies the corrupt.) All because the con for don and project 25 is so deep they are using all they can, as many narratives as possible, to create an alternate reality based on imaginary erroneous objectives built on lies - be white like us cause we don't share - no poor people allowed - no loud culture making noise next door - dominion over freedom- land over liberty - tradition over reason - mansions over community- elitism over lunch trucks and taco stands - what kind of country do you want? What a handful of forefathers got aristocrats to approve by divine force of will or what the racist aristocrats had in mind - for white men to rule all? Theres no such thing as DEI hiring. There are only tax incentives for businesses that hire disabled people and veterans. Theres no funding for immigrants in extended Obama care subsidies. Massive cuts in Medicaid will force hospitals to raise health care costs for all because of emergency care. Migrants help the economy; they are consumers who pay taxes without federal assistance. Presidential executive orders are meant to be emergency measures mostly affecting only the administration’s cabinet procedures. The facts go on and on constantly ignored or misunderstood by the public because news outlets merely report news as it happens, it doesn’t refer to them every time they are challenged by lies and hidden agendas. To the non-racist Trump supports I say, democrats are all ears over your concerns and your way of life but the current group of republicans in power are mute to them as farmers and ranchers alike wait for subsidies, and soldiers are forced to wage war on migrants for cruelty’s sake to discourage people from coming to America. Targeted tariffs properly passed by congress could help ranchers and farmers instead of the blanket taxes that help wall street volatility gains. Orangestone, a big ranch of graft, is killing the cowboy way of life.

a ritual for healing in the name of Jesus

Cousin Reinaldo explaining how you can pick up dirt and during a moonlit night kiss it as if it can hold warts, and toss it back without letting any fall on you to get rid of warts. Send those warts to hell in the name of Jesus he says. We must be able to perfom miracles through Jesus's salvation. It is a clear tenet of the Gospels. Whatever faith you can muster with an authentic attempt at a sinless life filled with positive energy. 1. Which Apostle Performed the Most Miracles? While Jesus performed the greatest number of miracles in the New Testament, among the apostles, the two most prominent miracle workers were: 🕊️ Peter Miracles: Healed a lame beggar (Acts 3) Raised Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead (Acts 9) His shadow healed the sick (Acts 5:15) Struck Ananias and Sapphira dead for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5) Role: Central leader in the early church, especially in Jerusalem. Seen as a foundational apostle. Focus: Preaching, healing, and delivering powerful signs among Jews. ✨ Paul Miracles: Healed the crippled man in Lystra (Acts 14) Cast out demons (Acts 16) Raised Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20) Survived a viper bite and healed many on Malta (Acts 28) Role: Apostle to the Gentiles, theological teacher, and prolific letter-writer. Focus: Evangelism, planting churches, teaching on spiritual gifts. 🔥 2. Who Focused the Most on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit? 📝 Paul Undoubtedly the apostle who wrote the most about the Holy Spirit’s gifts. He taught extensively on charismata (spiritual gifts) in: 1 Corinthians 12–14 – Teaching on prophecy, tongues, healing, miracles, wisdom, etc. Romans 12 – Gifts like leadership, encouragement, mercy. Ephesians 4 – Roles of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Paul's theology of the Holy Spirit is the most detailed. He emphasized that: All believers receive gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ. Prophecy and love are more important than flashy signs like tongues without interpretation. He also insisted that gifts must be used with order and love.

chat gpt - tracking holy gifts

Can we track the amount of holy gifts being used in a timeline, to compare the most miracles and holy gifts being used from the apostolic church till now. perhaps using the formation of the Pentecostal church as well on the timeline? ChatGPT said: It’s an intriguing idea to track the usage or manifestation of holy gifts (charismata like healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues, etc.) over time from the apostolic age to the present, and it’s definitely possible to map it conceptually or historically, though not quantitatively in a strict sense. Here's how we could approach building a timeline of holy gifts use, tied to major movements like the Apostolic Church and Pentecostalism: 🕊️ Timeline of Holy Gifts and Miracles in Christian History 1. Apostolic Church (c. 30–100 AD) High activity of holy gifts. Documented in the New Testament: tongues (Acts 2), healings (Acts 3), prophecy (Acts 11), etc. Considered the normative experience of early Christians, as per Paul’s letters (1 Corinthians 12–14). 2. Post-Apostolic Era / Early Church Fathers (100–300 AD) Continued but declining charismata. Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr testify to miracles, exorcisms, and healing. Some debate over whether gifts were still normative or fading. 3. Nicene/Post-Nicene Era (300–600 AD) Charismata largely formalized or institutionalized. Augustine initially skeptical of miracles, later revised his view (e.g., City of God). Shift toward sacramentalism rather than spontaneous Spirit-led acts. 4. Medieval Church (600–1500 AD) Miracles tied to saints and relics, not general believers. Gifts mediated through hierarchy (bishops, monks). Rise in pilgrimage miracles, visions (e.g., Hildegard of Bingen), but not “gifts” as in NT. 5. Reformation (1500–1700s) Most Reformers (Calvin, Luther) suspicious or cessationist about miracles. Some Anabaptist groups claimed visions, but were often persecuted. Holy gifts seen as non-normative or ceased. 6. Radical Movements / Mystics (1600s–1800s) Quietist and Pietist groups experienced private revelations, prophecy, and healings. Shakers, early Methodists, and Quakers emphasized direct experience of the Spirit (often non-charismatic but contemplative). Pre-Pentecostal Holiness Movement emerges in the 1800s, emphasizing sanctification and sometimes divine healing. 7. Pentecostal Revival (1901–1920s) Explosion of gifts: tongues (glossolalia), healing, prophecy. 1901: Agnes Ozman speaks in tongues in Topeka. 1906: Azusa Street Revival in LA sparks global movement. 8. Charismatic Renewal (1960s–1980s) Holy gifts enter mainline denominations (Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran). Emphasis on baptism in the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts in personal and communal life. 9. Third Wave / Neo-Charismatics (1980s–present) Gifts seen as normal part of Christian life in many evangelical and independent churches. Prophecy, deliverance ministries, healing services widespread. Rise of “Power Evangelism” (e.g., John Wimber, Vineyard Movement). 10. Present Day (2000s–2020s) Global Pentecostalism is now over 600 million strong. Africa, Latin America, and Asia are hotspots of charismatic growth and claimed miracles. Continued emphasis on supernatural gifts, often tied to revival or spiritual warfare themes. 🔍 Interpretation Considerations Measuring “use” of holy gifts is subjective—based on written records, testimonies, theology, and church reports. Historical silence on gifts doesn't mean they didn’t occur—just that they weren’t emphasized or were downplayed. Theological stance (Cessationism vs. Continuationism) heavily shapes how periods were interpreted. No file chosenNo file chosen ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Good Night and Good Luck

Good Night and Good Luck is a remarkably epic stage play, and elaborate docudrama about the legendary news anchor Ed Murrow’s clash with the junior senator from Wisconsin and his fascist delusional fight against the intellectual threat of communism in the 1950’s. George Clooney delivered an authentic Murrow composing his mannerisms and subtle emotions with vigorous realism although some scenes required more over the top passion as could be felt in his closing speech after a collage of media malfeasance addressing a timeline of our current march to autocracy. Without directly mentioning President Trump the final backdrop of news highlights pop culture failures and tendencies can be dissected and discussed for hours on end, analyzing and parsing the projected impact. The carefully crafted script at one point went after the dangers of commentary asking what would happen when Murrow isn’t around to guard and check blatant mendacious rhetoric posing as news. As such it comes full circle, the final scene somewhat exasperatingly added for proper intent and purpose. It is a play that should be required viewing or reading for high school students adding to important social studies. I cannot recommend it more but it’s missing a glaring reality. Ed Murrow for all his epic sacrifice and defining work lacked the resources and time that is needed to properly cover issues. An eloquent presentation of facts added to curated sound bites goes a long way in a society where you had the “1949 fairness doctrine” and most of its politicians were honest. At one point in the play Murrow says that McCarthy lied about him being a communist sympathizer but that was the only backlash the senator got from them on air for presenting a report that was filled with lies. They played a clip of congress’s censure of McCarthy after mentioning his illegal communist witch hunt which lost him support. The use of historical film was a poignant gift and a production choice I wish more historical work would use. Waxing poetic to inspire the soul of the viewer like Shakespear did is admirable and highly entertaining as is the constant redundantly futile daily talking points news presents today but where is the investigation into the blatant corruption? Where is the bold confrontation with deception? Without cameras in politicians’ faces asking blunt questions, or without reporters getting kicked out of the oval office for asking obvious questions that would not get answered, we lack the proper perspective. The pivotal role McCarthy’s report ushered in as well as the work of Roy Cohen, his instigator was not hammered home or made evident in this play. Today’s media likewise misses essential developments, dismissed as merely a news of the day mention and not a long form examination or repetitive issue that should be brought up extensively like the hidden provisions of the “big beautiful bill” hampering court orders or election suppression. Where are the segments on how the bill wants to require bonds to ensure court enforcement or the provisions. Why aren’t reporters asking republican senators how they feel about that before they vote on this disastrous bill? Where are the questions about how migrant handlers bribed the president for more detainees? How about a reporter on the virtually closed border or on the companies that bribed the administration for more migrants to be detained? A simple nuts and bolts report with one or two curated sound bites isn’t enough. The outrages come across as passé commentary not a hammering that blue collar workers can hear or a dissection of the facts confronting culprits that cannot be ignored. The goal posts have changed as is their relationship with advertisers. News media is still as quaint as Murrow was and we are losing badly because the corruption, lies and hidden dangers are inadequately exposed. Waxing poetically about it isn’t journalism. Good Night and Good Luck indeed.