Pensacola Outpouring

CONTENTS

1.      Introduction

2.      History

3.      Aftermath

4.      Criticism

5.      Brownsville Revival is not of God'

6.      MANIFESTATIONS VERSUS MESSAGE

7.      BIBLICAL PRETEXTS

8.      CONCLUSSION

9.      BIBLIOGRAPHY

Introduction

The Brownsville Revival (also known as the Pensacola Outpouring) was a widely reported religious phenomenon that began within the Pentecostal movement on Father's Day June 18, 1995, at Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida Characteristics of the Brownsville Revival movement, as with other Christian religious revivals, included acts of repentance by parishioners and a call to holiness, said to be inspired by the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Some of the occurrences in this revival fit the description[1] of moments of religious ecstasy. More than four million people are reported to have attended the meetings from its beginnings in 1995 to around 2000.[2]

One writer offered this description of the revival in 1998:

All told, more than 2.5 million people have visited the church's Wednesday-through-Saturday evening revival services, where they sang rousing worship music and heard old-fashioned sermons on sin and salvation. After the sermons were over, hundreds of thousands accepted the invitation to leave their seats and rush forward to a large area in front of the stage-like altar. Here, they "get right with God." . . . Untold thousands have hit the carpet, where they either writhe in ecstasy or lie stone-still in a state resembling a coma, sometimes remaining flat on the floor for hours at a time. Some participants call the experience being "slain in the Spirit." Others simply refer to receiving the touch of God. Regardless of what they call it, these people are putting the "roll" back in "holy roller."[3]

History

In 1993, two years before the revival began, Brownsville's pastor, John Kilpatrick, began directing his congregation to pray for revival Over the next two years, he talked constantly about bringing revival to the church,[4] even going as far as to threaten to leave the church if it didn't accept the revival Supporters of the revival would also cite prophecies by Dr. David Yonggi Cho, pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church, as evidence that the revival was inspired by God. According to Cho, God told him he was "going to send revival to the seaside city of Pensacola, and it will spread like a fire until all of America has been consumed by it

On the Sunday the revival began, evangelist Steve Hill was the guest speaker, having been invited by Kilpatrick. A video of the Father's Day service shows that the Father's Day service went rather badly for Hill. However, he and Kilpatrick spread stories of "a mighty wind" that blew through the church. This account rapidly spread across the Pentecostal community, but gained little attention in the mainstream media until the Associated Press wrote about it in March 1997. In truth, Kilpatrick had been talking "revival" for several months and had gotten word that Hill wanted to lead a big revival [5] As word spread of what was happening at Brownsville, Hill canceled all plans to go to Russia, and preached several revival services each week for the next five years.

It was claimed that hundreds of those who attended services that day were moved to renew their faith during Hill's sermon. In time, the church opened its doors for Wednesday-through-Saturday evening revival services to accommodate the thousands of people who arrived and waited in the church parking lot before dawn for a chance to enter the packed sanctuary

By 1997, it was common to have lengthy and rapturous periods of singing and dancing and altars packed with hundreds of writhing or dead-still bodies from a variety of ages, races and socioeconomic conditions [6]As the revival progressed the testimonies of people receiving salvation were joined by claims of supernatural healings. In Steve Hill's words, "We're seeing miraculous healings, cancerous tumors disappear and drug addicts immediately delivered However, the church told local news reporters that it did not keep records of the healings. In 1997, leaders of the revival such as Hill, Kilpatrick, and Lindell Cooley (Brownsville's worship director), traveled to cities such as Anaheim, California; Dallas, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; Lake Charles, LA; Toledo, Ohio; and Birmingham, Alabama naming it "Awake America[7]

The primary part of the revival ended in 2000 when Hill moved on to pursue other works In 2003, Hill founded a church in the Dallas area where he now serves as senior pastor.[8] Cooley left in October 2003. Kilpatrick resigned as senior pastor in 2003 to form an evangelistic association of his own.[9] Until 2006, the church continued to hold special Friday-night services that were a continuation of the event.

Aftermath

During the revival, nearly 200,000 people claimed they gave their lives to Jesus, and by fall 2000 more than 1,000 people who experienced the revival were taking classes at the Brownsville Revival School of Ministry. Thousands of pastors visited Brownsville and returned to their home congregations, leading to an outbreak of mini-revivals that helped the Assemblies of God recover from what some saw as a denominational decline.[10]

Years after the events, the AP reports Brownsville is over $11 million in debt, largely due to the surge of people in the 90s and the drastic drop-off in donations and people attending in the 2000.[11]

Criticism

The meetings were criticized by some Christians and by the local news media. The Pensacola News Journal ran a series of investigative articles which focused on the donations raised during the meetings and where those funds went, as well as the claims of miraculous healings at the services and the spontaneity of the revival's beginnings.[12]For example, the News Journal revealed that a videotape of the Father's Day service that sparked the revival showed the service went rather badly for Hill.

The News Journal had initially written favorable reports about the revival from the time it started but began a four-month investigation after former members told reporters that all was not as it appeared at the church. The series won George Polk awards from such groups as National Headliner, Scripps-Howard Foundation, and Society of Professional Journalists..[13] Brownsville Assembly of God responded the paper's allegations by publishing a paid advertisement (thus shielding them from a response from the paper) in the News Journal entitled, "The Facts of The Brownsville Revival.[14]

Hank Hanegraaff, author of the book Counterfeit Revival, criticized the revival for "serious distortions of biblical Christianity" in the meetings, comparing the physical manifestations to pagan practices.[15] Kilpatrick responded by issuing a prophecy aimed at Hanegraaff, claiming "within 90 days the Holy Ghost will bring you down." This prophecy proved to be false.[16]

J Lee Grady, editor for Charisma Magazine, was critical of the excesses and personal divisions that had grown within leadership. He also suggested that numerous former attendees were now at local Baptist churches after the traumatic events[17]

Critics attack tactics, theological basis

Brownsville Revival is not of God'

Pensacola -- Pensacola's Brownsville Revival not only has drawn more than a million people over the last 2 1/2 years, it also has attracted the scrutiny of many Bible scholars and theologians. They all say they hoped to find that the Brownsville Revival was a genuine move of God indeed, many people who have attended the revival have said they felt touched by the Holy Spirit there. A number of theologians who understand and do not denounce the Pentecostal movement have concluded that the revival is not a move of God. Worse, the revival is actually pulling people away from God, they say.

"Too much emphasis is being placed on the experiences and the positive testimonies, to the point where the negative effects are largely ignored," said Albert James Dager, who heads Media Spotlight, a nondenominational Christian watchdog organization based in Redmond, Wash.

Dager's 20-year-old, nonprofit, independent Media Spotlight analyzes, from a Biblical perspective, the Christian messages that appear in the media. University religion departments, Bible scholars, theologians and some 5,000 pastors of many denominations subscribe to the Media Spotlight newsletter. The Brownsville Revival, which airs three times a week on regional television and sells thousands of videos, attracted Dager's scrutiny, and he spent months studying the revival's methodology and messages.[18]

MANIFESTATIONS VERSUS MESSAGE

As Pensacola promoters endeavor to spread their movement worldwide, they dogmatically declare that bizarre manifestations are not the focus of this revival. The facts say otherwise. One of the videos used by Pensacola promoters is entitled “Honey, Where Are We From?” It features the testimony of a pastor and his wife who become so spiritually inebriated that they can’t remember where they are from. First, the wife becomes incoherent, and her husband intervenes to explain what she is attempting to say. Then he, too, becomes disoriented and is unable to think or speak rationally.

The sensational physical manifestations of Alison and Elizabeth Ward are also strategically utilized to arouse people’s expectations for similar experiences. The sisters have been brought up before the entire congregation to describe and display their mysterious experiences, thus giving the people a sense that they are having a close encounter with the divine. Peer pressure is brought to bear as Elizabeth tells prospects, “After standing there so long watching those people being touched by God, I guess my spirit got hungry.” When she finally threw caution to the wind, she said, “The shaking went on for about three days….I couldn’t eat and I was shaking in my sleep. My family had to feed me through a straw. My whole body was convulsing for three days.” Her sister, Alison, says she shakes in the sanctuary because “it feels good.”

Baptisms at Brownsville are used as yet another promotional gimmick. In a widely used promotional video some of the baptized jerk so violently that baptizers can no longer control their behavior. In one clip the subject shakes so severely that someone is actually kicked in the face. Physical danger is part and parcel of the process. Pensacola leaders point out that “the power of God falls during the Friday night water baptisms, and sometimes even the workers are overcome by the Spirit and have to be carried out of the water.” Ironically, a word of caution has come from the Brownsville pulpit about not sitting too close to other people during the time of ministry out of concern that someone under the influence of a manifestation might injure nearby worshipers.

Thousands who have viewed the videos and subsequently experienced the manifestations testify to radically changed lives. Nevertheless, my 11-year-old son David and I recently attended a Christian convention during which the manifestations of Pensacola were promoted. He rode on an elevator with a couple of ladies who were still glowing from their spiritually intoxicating experience. They were delirious over the life-transforming work that the manifestations had produced in them. Suddenly, one of the ladies noticed my son’s name tag. Instantly she began shrieking, “I know who you are. You’re the son of the Bible Answer Man. You are a cursed child.”

My son David is not the only child who has tasted the fruit of Pensacola. Several children from a youth group traveled to Pensacola and experienced such severe twitching that when they returned to their classrooms, they were unable to do their schoolwork. After these children were dismissed from school, their pastor encouraged them to view their expulsion as persecution for the sake of Christ.[19]

BIBLICAL PRETEXTS

More bizarre than the manifestations themselves are the biblical pretexts that are used to validate them. As a case in point, Charisma magazine recently ran a series of articles designed to undermine my credibility and integrity. One article was a critical review of my book, Counterfeit Revival titled “They Called Jesus a Counterfeit, Too.” Even more telling than the overt deceptions contained in the article were the texts author Jon Ruthven used to legitimize the manifestations of counterfeit revival hotspots, such as Pensacola. Ruthven, an Assemblies of God minister and associate professor of systematic theology at Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, writes,

Hanegraaff demands proof for the biblical grounds of charismatic revivalism. Yet he seems to ignore that many times in Scripture people who were influenced by the Holy Spirit acted in unusual ways. When the Spirit “rushed” upon Saul in 1 Sam. 19:20-24, he stripped off his clothes, prophesied before Samuel and “lay down naked all that day and all that night” (v. 24, NKJV). Ezekiel displayed even more bizarre behavior after God told him to lie on his side, put “the iniquity of the house of Israel” on himself for 390 days, burn his hair and cook his food over human excrement! (Ezek. 4:4-5, 12; 5:1-2, 4). Isaiah was told by God to walk naked through Jerusalem for three years proclaiming judgment on the city (Is. 20:2-3)….We can only imagine how Hanegraaff would react to these types of behavior if they were to appear today. He seems to assume that Christian orthodoxy is a rationalistic, sterilized Calvinism that functions entirely on an intellectual level — devoid of the subjective spiritual dimension.

Before examining Ruthven’s abuse of Scripture, it should be noted in passing that his stereotyping of me in this review as an anticharismatic Calvinist and an antispiritual rationalist is disingenuous at best and, at worst, dishonest. A closer look at my background or a careful reading of my books would forever dispel this myth.

As for his use of the Bible, while at first blush his arguments from 1 Samuel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah may appear compelling, a careful examination will expose their absurdity:

1 Samuel 19:20-24. The fact that Saul stripped off his clothes, prophesied before Samuel, and laid down naked all day and night (v. 24) provides no validation for the peculiar manifestations in places like Pensacola.

First, as should be obvious, Ruthven’s interpretation of Saul’s nakedness cannot be used as normative behavior for Christians today. If it were, we would be compelled to endorse counterfeit revivalists who decided to parade around naked as a sign of spiritual enlightenment!

Furthermore, as a professor of systematic theology, one would presume that Ruthven is aware of the basic hermeneutical principle that narrative passages must always be interpreted in light of didactic or teaching passages (e.g., Scripture records Judas hanging himself, but it teaches that suicide is wrong).

Finally, this passage clearly reveals God’s judgment against Saul, not his blessing. In context, Saul is seeking to destroy David but instead is humiliated by the Holy Spirit. While the Holy Spirit had once come upon Saul to minister through him, on this occasion the Spirit came upon Saul to resist his evil intentions.

Ezekiel 4–5. Professor Ruthven claims that Ezekiel displayed even more bizarre behavior than Saul. By this reasoning, the precedent is in place for today’s revivalists to push the envelope beyond even nakedness.

First, the very fact that Ezekiel was engaged in an unusual process is precisely why it should not be considered normative for us today. If, indeed, it were the norm, it would not be much of a sign.

Furthermore, what Ruthven labels “bizarre behavior” is in reality extraordinarily meaningful. One need only take the time to read this passage in context to grasp God’s explanation for the symbolism of Ezekiel’s behavior. While unusual, it is neither random nor bizarre.[20]

Finally, as with Saul, Ezekiel’s actions represent God’s judgment, not His blessing.

Isaiah 20. In yet another vain attempt to justify the radical behavior of today’s counterfeit revivalists, Ruthven uses the fact that God told Isaiah to walk naked through Jerusalem for three years.

First, as should be obvious to Professor Ruthven, the wording in Isaiah does not necessitate the notion that the prophet was stark naked. Complete nakedness would have been considered religiously, as well as socially, unacceptable — particularly in light of Middle Eastern culture.

Furthermore, as Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch point out, “With the great importance attached to the clothing in the East, where the feelings upon this point are peculiarly sensitive and modest, a person was looked upon as stripped and naked if he had only taken off his upper garment. What Isaiah was directed to do, therefore, was simply opposed to common custom, and not to moral decency.”

[21]Finally, as previously noted with regard to Saul, if God had instructed Isaiah to walk around stark naked and if that is justification for Pensacola proclivities today, then if they really do start stripping, God can be blamed for setting the precedent for their bizarre behavior.

Tragically, Ruthven’s reasoning process is the norm rather than the exception for counterfeit revivalists. One need only scan books by Pensacola leaders, such as John Kilpatrick, Steve Hill, and Michael Brown, to find even more outrageous examples of texts taken out of context and used as pretexts for Pensacola extravagances.

 CONCLUSSION

True revival will not necessarily look the same in form, cultural expression, or style of worship. But when God is at work in the midst of His people, Jesus will be glorified, the “pure celestial fire” will burn in the hearts of men, the preaching will be marked with conviction, brokenness and holy authority, the burden for the lost will break out, heaven and hell will become real to men’s hearts, a passion for the Scriptures will increase, the Spirit of prayer and intercession will be kindled and will spread, the joy of the Lord and the fear of the Lord will mark the Church in a remarkable way. These are some of the fruits of authentic revival, and it ought to alarm our souls that they are so scarcely seen in the Church of our day.

When the Lord is at work in your midst, it won’t be identical to Brownsville, Wales, the New Hebrides, the Great Awakenings, or any other historic moving of His Spirit. But the reality of God, which purifies and revives the hearts of His people, exalts the Lord, and turns transgressors into saints will soon be evident. Do you long for Him to come to your community, dear Christian, or are you cool and content with the gravitation toward moral blurriness, prayerless Christianity, and a low view of the majesty of God?

We are in radical need as the Church in these days, particularly in Europe and America. As the moral tone of society continues to decline, as the saints find themselves more and more distracted by technological advances and novel forms of ministry, as strange doctrines and fraudulent gospels are introduced to the religious landscape of our nation, we are in need of true revivals again. O, that a cry would ignite in the hearts of His people! O, that the fire of God would again fall! O, that conviction would grip the house of God! O, that the tide of prayer and worship would rise again! O, that repentance and mercy would flow again in a watershed revival!

We’ve got to give ourselves to prayer, saints, that the Lord would quicken and awaken our hearts and our churches, that our cities would know something of His reality. I don’t know about you, but I’m dusting off my old revival books, and “remembering the deeds of the Lord.” I am not content merely to read about them. I want to weep and pray, repent of my own sin, respond to the Lord in obedience, turn to Him afresh, and cry out for an outpouring of mercy, “waters upon the dry ground.” He is stirring His people afresh in these days. Prayer is increasing, and something is happening in many hearts. We must take the “ancient paths” of prayer, worship, and obedience. We must pursue the knowledge of God, contending for revival and a recovery of foundations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.      Fire From Above". Charisma Magazine. June 2005. Retrieved 2012-02-12.

2.      "Pastor orchestrated first revival". The Pensacola News Journal. November 19, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

3.      Steve Rabey as quoted in Margaret M. Poloma and John C. Green (2010). The Assemblies of God: Godly Love and the Revitalization of American Pentecostalism. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-6783-2

4.      a b c "Timeline of the Revival at Brownsville". RevivalatBrownsville.com. 2006. Retrieved 2008-07-16

5.      "Pastor orchestrated first revival". The Pensacola News Journal. November 19, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

6.      "No medical proof of 'miraculous healings'". Pensacola News Journal. November 20, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

7.      "On the road: Pleas for money intensify". The Pensacola News Journal. November 16, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

8.      "Heartland World Ministries Church". Retrieved 2008-07-16.

9.      Church History". Brownsville Assembly of God. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

10. "Brownsville Revival: Five Years Later 2". cbn.com. Retrieved 2008-07-17.

11. "Brownsville Revival: Five Years Later 2". cbn.com. Retrieved 2008-07-17.

12. www.ajc.com/lifestyle/ap-enterprise-church-of-1402139.html. Missing or empty |title= (help)

13. Brownsville Revival:The Money and the Myths". Pensacola News Journal. November 16–20, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-22. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

14. "Pensacola Pursued Brownsville Revival Investigation in Two Steps". Gannett.com. 2008. Archived from the original on 1999-10-21. Retrieved 2012-02-12

15. "Official Brownsville Response To Pensacola News Journal Articles". 1997. Retrieved 2009-08-31.

16. The Counterfeit Revival (Part Three) Separating Fact from Fabrication on the Pensacola Outpouring

---

[1] Fire From Above". Charisma Magazine. June 2005. Retrieved 2012-02-12.

[2] "Pastor orchestrated first revival". The Pensacola News Journal. November 19, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

[3] Steve Rabey as quoted in Margaret M. Poloma and John C. Green (2010). The Assemblies of God: Godly Love and the Revitalization of American Pentecostalism. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-6783-2. Page 1.

[4] a b c "Timeline of the Revival at Brownsville". RevivalatBrownsville.com. 2006. Retrieved 2008-07-16

[5] Crann, Alice "Pastors orchestrated first revival" Pensacola News Journal, 1997-11-19.

[6] "Pastor orchestrated first revival". The Pensacola News Journal. November 19, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

[7] "No medical proof of 'miraculous healings'". Pensacola News Journal. November 20, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

[8] "On the road: Pleas for money intensify". The Pensacola News Journal. November 16, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

[9] "Heartland World Ministries Church". Retrieved 2008-07-16.

[10] Church History". Brownsville Assembly of God. 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

[11] "Brownsville Revival: Five Years Later 2". cbn.com. Retrieved 2008-07-17.

[12] "Brownsville Revival: Five Years Later 2". cbn.com. Retrieved 2008-07-17.

[13] www.ajc.com/lifestyle/ap-enterprise-church-of-1402139.html. Missing or empty |title= (help)

[14] Brownsville Revival:The Money and the Myths". Pensacola News Journal. November 16–20, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-22. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

[15] "Pensacola Pursued Brownsville Revival Investigation in Two Steps". Gannett.com. 2008. Archived from the original on 1999-10-21. Retrieved 2012-02-12

[16] "Official Brownsville Response To Pensacola News Journal Articles". 1997. Retrieved 2009-08-31.

[17] The Counterfeit Revival (Part Three) Separating Fact from Fabrication on the Pensacola Outpouring

[18] Edythe Draper, Edythe Draper’s Book of Quotations (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 305

[19] Steve Rabey as quoted in Margaret M. Poloma and John C. Green (2010). The Assemblies of God: Godly Love and the Revitalization of American Pentecostalism. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-6783-2. Page 1.

[20] Brownsville Revival:The Money and the Myths". Pensacola News Journal. November 16–20, 1997. Archived from the original on 2008-06-22. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

[21] Pensacola Pursued Brownsville Revival Investigation in Two Steps". Gannett.com. 2008. Archived from the original on 1999-10-21. Retrieved 2012-02-12

Pease making principle

Contents

1.      Introduction

2.      THE PEACEMAKING PRINCIPLE

3.      Clarify the Conflict Situation

4.      Define a "Yes able" Interest

5.      Invoke Over riding Interests

6.      Emphasize Legitimacy

7.      Keep Issue and Power Proportional

8.      Display Commitment

9.      Consider Creating Distance

10. Resist Aggression

11. Promote Cross-Pressures

12. Conclusion

13. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Introduction

It is one thing to pose a just peace as an end and standard of policy; it is another to try to achieve it. The natural and critical question is, "What should we do?" This question can be asked about our global society of international relations and about national societies and interpersonal relations. And this begs a prior question about the scope of the just peace.

While the social contract model focused upon a global society, the same logic and conceptual approach are applicable to any society that lacks a fair and impartial consensus on first-order sociocultural and sociopolitical principles. The Just Package has great horizontal and vertical applicability, with suitable reinterpretation of the Constitutional Principles necessary to apply them to societies within nation-states.

We can make peace. And we can try to keep it. But to foster nonviolent peace is a primary goal. As illustrated in Figure[1], this means treating not a specific conflict and its resolution, but the ecology of peace: the general causes and conditions that produce and aggravate conflict and inhibit peace, peacekeeping, and peacemaking. Peace fostering means nurturing a healthy environment within which we can make incremental progress toward a just peace. It is encouraging the conflict helix. Change creates conflict, violence, and war. Specifically, change in interests, capabilities, and will produces a gap between a structure of expectations defining a status quo and an associated balance of powers. This gap is a measure of dissatisfaction with the prevailing understandings, rights, benefits, or obligations. It is a pressure toward change in expectations more in accord with what people want and can and will do.

The roots of peace lie in expectations and perceptions, in interests, and capabilities, in will. As more accommodation to change in these roots is facilitated through accepted procedures, needed adjustments are institutionalized, achieved compromises are imbedded in a larger framework of agreements, and required lower-level conflicts are free to modify expectations,. the more likely it is that a stable peace--especially a nonviolent peace--will develop.

THE PEACEMAKING PRINCIPLE

If extreme conflict or violence over a status quo erupts, the central problem is to achieve a new, just balance with minimum conflict. Whether from the perspective of a partisan or third party, the Peacemaking Principle is this:[2]

You make peace by balancing powers.

Conflict over the status quo is a breakdown of what people and groups want and can and will do. It is a balancing of different powers. To make peace, then, is to achieve a balance of powers--an interlocking of mutual interests, capabilities, and wills.2 The means to accelerate or facilitate this process must therefore be focused directly on the balancing of these elements or the conditions influencing them. These means are diverse and involve a number of considerations,

Clarify the Conflict Situation

Conflict is a dispute in a situation defined by the parties' underlying goals and beliefs, mutual perception and communication, and the facts involved. The conflict itself is a process of communication--an engagement of fields of expression.4 Passions and beliefs become evident; the nature and intensity of hidden interests surface. In the process of achieving a new structure of expectations, conflict integrates underlying goals and mutual perceptions into a balance among the central interests at stake, the resolution, and the ability of the parties to support them. The balancing process can be shortened, intensity reduced, antagonism lessened, and the resulting expectations made more realistic by clarifying the conflict situation. In this four rules should help the parties[3].

Uncover the underlying or hidden goals and beliefs. Look beneath the conflict. A dispute really may be about hidden, perhaps even unconscious, beliefs and values. Determine the facts. Fact finding is essential to resolving conflict, for often conflicts are generated by a misperception or misunderstanding of the facts involved. Be sensitive to the other's position and perspective. See the conflict through his eyes. Resolving conflict is partially empathizing with the other, understanding his5 frame of reference, and sensing this reading of one's field of expression. State the other's argument and demands. Miscommunication and misperception can play a large role in conflict. One way to reduce these problems is to seek mutual agreement on the issue, claims, and justifications. These four rules--look underneath, look at the facts, look at oneself, and look at the other--alone will not make peace, but they help to focus on the real issues and reduce the emotional content.

Define a "Yes able" Interest

Peacemaking partially involves a party separating what they want the other to do from the conflict's self-assertive and emotional contents. To this end, phrase demands or requests so that the other can respond with a simple "yes" or "no." Focus on the decisions the other should make and clarify the outcome of these decisions. That is, what will happen if their answer is "yes"? Or no?

Moreover, divide a large interest into smaller ones In some conflict situations agreement is easier on several small issues than on a big one. Concessions on some issues then can be exchanged for a yes on some others. In any case, avoid making principle an issue. Demanding or requesting specific behavior is less conflictful than requiring agreement on a principle. Indeed, some of the most intense national and international conflict--the bloodiest massacres, revolutions, and wars--have occurred over religious and ideological principles. In the final analysis one still may have to stand on principle, but this should be a conscious and rational decision.

Finally, whatever the demand or request, phrase it such that the other's self-esteeem is unaffected. For example, demands that would implicitly concede one's superiority or demean the other invite intense and antagonistic opposition. If esteem related, "yesable" demands must be made, couple them with face-saving, "yesable" offers.[4]

Invoke Over riding Interests

Invoking overriding common interests with the opposing party may reduce the conflict's intensity and scope and make it easier to resolve. One such paramount interest can be shared loyalty to church, party, country, or cause. A common goal may also be invoked. The more important this goal, the more likely it will help to avoid or dampen conflict that might hamper it. For this reason some elites have fomented foreign conflict to unify a nation driven by internal violence. In other situations leaders have raised the specter of a potential aggressor to spur cooperation between ideologically hostile states.

Focus on an Exchange

Conflict over the status quo usually involves force and coercion. Violence is their manifestation. To win or frustrate the other's goals is the intention. Often, however, more will be achieved out of such a conflict and its resolution furthered by (1) making attractive offers and (2) rewarding agreement--that is, by seeking an exchange in which interests are mutually satisfied. This can provide a more durable balance of powers for subsequent cooperation and contribute to a peace of mutual satisfaction.

Of course, one may not always be able to focus on an exchange, especially if the other insists on altering the status quo in his favor, or if making an offer in response to aggression or threats communicates weakness or appeasement. Moreover, the other may make completely unjust demands in the hope that through compromise he will get something. Nonetheless, one should have a disposition toward an exchange. It is the use of force and coercion in a particular situation that should always require the most careful justification.

Emphasize Legitimacy

The more one can establish some legitimate reason, explanation, or justification for the decision one wants the other to make in a conflict situation, the more likely one is to induce a "yes," not because he fears the consequences of a no, nor because he desires what is promised for a yes. Because he believes a yes is right.

To invoke legitimacy, seek precedent for a solution. Showing that what is wanted has been agreed to before by the other party, or by those the other respects, tends to make a demand or request legitimate. Precedent can exist in previously made formal decisions (as in judicial settlement), previous agreements (as in formal contracts), or in previous behavior (as in previous practices or procedures).[5]

Besides invoking legitimacy, recognize a conflict's legitimacy. The other, of course, will see the issues in light of his own interests. But it will hardly facilitate peacemaking to scorn, ignore, or ridicule him for this. To say or imply that his demands or requests are meaningless or silly is unnecessary and intolerant; it raises the heat of conflict and may prolong it. Acknowledge the significance of what the other believes important enough to argue or fight about. Accept the legitimacy of the issue. And accept the legitimacy of the other.[6]

It may also help to involve a legitimate third party. A third party can provide objective fact-finding, encourage hidden interests or beliefs to surface, clarify misperception and miscommunication, and propose compromises. Even the mutual acceptance of a third party and the process of clarifying the issue for him can be first and second steps toward conflict resolution.

Keep Issue and Power Proportional

Excessive promises, threats, or appeals to authority weaken credibility and defeat their use when a vital issue comes along that merits extreme power. And even if successful, excessive power may only buy an expensive, temporary victory, creating resentment and sullen acceptance. Whatever sanctions, threats, offers, or promises are made, keep them in line with the demand or request. That is, make them consistent with the interests involved.

Display Commitment

Attention to how the other perceives one's will is essential to peacemaking. Whether he believes one's promises or threats, questions one's legitimacy, or accepts one's capability will help determine if he escalates or settles the conflict. To avoid unnecessary escalation and misunderstandings, therefore, strive for credibility: the basis of demands, requests, or offers should be believable; threats or promises clearly intended and performable. Moreover, protect one's reputation for power. The image of power projected in a conflict substantially influences its resolution. Do not make demands, requests, or offers that question one's power, for the strength and duration of the resulting peace and the nature of future conflicts partially depend on the image of power fostered in this conflict. Finally, through relevant actions and preparations, display a readiness to react to the other's positive or negative responses.

Consider Creating Distance

Creating distance in space from the other party and distance in time from a conflict can calm emotions and facilitate a more rational perspective on the issues. This can be done by temporary withdrawal from the conflict. Of course, in collective social or political conflict and violence, withdrawal can concede moral and physical ground to the other side and thus seriously endanger one's interests. But where the parties are relatively equal, a mutual withdrawal may be workable. A ceasefire in place could be negotiated; a third party (such as United Nations peacekeeping forces) invited to interpose itself between belligerents.

The parties could also be separated. In fact, this may be the only solution to irreconcilable differences between majority and minority racial, religious, ethnic, and nationality groups. As a matter of social justice (the Free Choice Principle)8 groups should be free to form their communities and independently pursue their interests. As a matter of resolving protracted and violent conflict, minorities should have self-determination. For these reasons, voluntarily formed racial or cultural neighborhoods, ethnic reservations, or autonomous regions can contribute to a just peace.

In sum, conflict may be resolved simply by allowing it to fade out or by eliminating the conflict situation. This is achieved by a withdrawal or separation of the parties that allows the heat of battle to cool, rational perspectives on the issues to develop, and the underlying interests to change; or which gives each party an opportunity to satisfy independently their conflicting interests.

Resist Aggression

Violent conquest is usually wrong (the Just Package). Forcibly imposing one's values and goals on another, aside from its general immorality, can create smoldering resentment, grievance, and hostility that later may burst into greater conflict and violence. Nonetheless, in some exceptional conflict situations, the only resolution possible or desirable may be through conquest: a test of strength and the unambiguous violent defeat of the other side--as of Hitler's Germany. To believe that conflict should always be resolved through negotiation, mediation, and compromise invites an aggressor to assume that what is his is his, but what is yours is negotiable. Resisting aggression forces a test of interests, capabilities, and will--if the aggressor so wants it. And this may be a faster, ultimately less conflictful, less violent way of resolving conflict than conciliation or appeasement.

In resisting aggression, gauge different power responses. Do not automatically respond to aggression in kind. The most effective response is one which shifts power to bases which can be employed more effectively, while lessening the risk of violent escalation. And respond proportionally. To meet aggression in equal measure is legitimate, while overreaction risks escalation to a more extended and intense conflict, and underreaction appears weak and risks defeat and repeated aggression.

Subject Recurring Issues to Fair Decision Rules[7]

Some disputes will continually arise, as between minority ethnic regions and a central government, or among states concerning their common border. Since the disputes recur, there should be rules to help decide who gets or does what. Such rules require a number of characteristics.

The rules should be unbiased, as in settling minor issues by tossing a coin. They must define who, what, when, and where; that is, they should be as specific as possible to avoid new disputes over what the rules themselves mean. They should be known, well communicated to the parties, and clear. They must be consistently applied. Rules erratically used are worse than no rules, for they confuse, tend to aggravate a conflict situation, and themselves create conflicts over the rules. They must be credible. This means that the rules should seem workable; that the parties involved will follow them.

Additionally, any sanctions that back the rules should be realistic and clearly, consistently, and invariably applied to violators. It is especially important to assure that violations will be quickly known and, if appropriate, sanctioned.

But of even greater importance is rewarding adherence. Rules obeyed only for fear of the consequences of disobedience create a coercive order, and potentially a most violent one. Therefore, rules should be positive: the parties should follow them because they are sensible, right, and rewarding.[8]

Promote Cross-Pressures

The institutionalization of conflict is most effective when interests are diverse and the issues nonvital. In a polarized society the formal routes for managing and deciding conflicts tend to break down, encouraging raw violence--the final arbiter--to take their place. Therefore, avoid this dangerous polarization by promoting cross-pressures. Facilitate the diversity of interests that naturally create a plurality of overlapping and autonomous groups and cross-cutting ties among groups and individuals. To do this enhance mobility. Free individuals to change status, job, residence; to socially or politically move up, down, or sideways; to cross any border, whether city, region, or state. High positions and great wealth, power (authority), or prestige should not be foreclosed by virtue of unchangeable characteristics (race, sex, family background, religion, or ethnic group). Thereby, advance pluralism, enhance an entangling web of cross-pressures.[9]

Conclusion

Such are major sub principles of peacemaking. Conflict engages what the parties want and can and will do in a situation in which relevant status quo expectations are disrupted. Situational perceptions, expectations, interests, capabilities, and will are the elements of the conflict--and of peacemaking. Material things--land, people, wealth, ports, borders--are merely the tools or objects of conflict.[10] And material conditions, such as the topography of a country or a mountainous border between states, only frame and physically limit conflict. The essence of conflict is an opposition of minds. The arena of conflict is the mental field. The principles and rules for its resolution are psychological.

Now, peacemaking is not necessarily the best and most immediate response to conflict. Doubtlessly, some conflicts are unnecessary, some needlessly intense and long-lasting. But some also are a real and unavoidable clash, the only means through which one, as a partisan, can protect or further vital interests and achieve a more satisfactory and harmonious just peace. For example, war against Hitler's Germany from 1939 to 1945 cost millions lives, but it prevented the greater misery, the terror, the executions, the cold-blooded murders which probably would have occurred had Hitler consolidated his control of Europe and subjugated the Soviet Union.

We always can end a conflict when we want by surrender. But some ideas are more important than peace: Dignity. Freedom. Security. That is, peace with justice--a just peace.

Peacemaking is not necessarily one's highest goal in a conflict, then. But the peacemaking principle and sub principles ease this process. They help avoid pointless escalation and aggravating conflict interaction. They speed up the trial-and-error adjustment of opposing interests. And they help establish a more acceptable, more stable peace permitting incremental progress toward social justice.

There is another relevant qualification. The term "peacemaking" is well established, and I used it accordingly. Unfortunately, the verb "make" can imply that peace is designed and constructed, as a house is planned and erected brick by brick or a road engineered and built. This implication is especially seductive in this age when society is seen as manmade (rather than having evolved),9 and many believe that communities should be centrally planned and managed.[11]

But peace is not constructed like a bridge. Peace emerges from the balancing of individual mental fields. What the leaders of a group or nation honestly believe, actually want, truly are willing to get, are really capable of achieving are unknown to others--and perhaps only partially to themselves. Nonetheless only they can best utilize the information available to them to justly satisfy their interests. For a third party to try to construct and enforce an abstract peace imposed on others is foolhardy. Such a peace would be uncertain, forestall the necessary trial-and-error balancing of the parties themselves, and perhaps even create greater conflict later. The best peace is an outcome of reciprocal adjustments among those involved. At most, peacemaking should ease the process.[12]

A final qualification. Pacifists believe that violence and war cannot occur if people laid down their arms and refused to fight. But this ignores unilateral violence. Under threat, a state or government may try to avoid violence by submission. The result may be enslavement, systematic execution, and elimination of leaders and "undesirables." The resulting genocide and mass murder may ultimately end in more deaths than would have occurred had people fought to defend themselves.

I agree that in some situations nonviolence may be an effective strategy for waging conflict,10 as in the successful Black civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s in America; or the successful nonviolent, civil disobedience movemen[13]t for Indian independence from Britain begun by Mahatma Gandhi in 1922. In some situations refusal to use violence may avoid unnecessary escalation and ease peacekeeping. However, there are also conflicts, especially involving actual or potential tyrants, despots, and other such oppressors, in which nonviolence cannot buy freedom from violence by others or a just resolution of a dispute. Then a down payment on such a peace requires public display of one's capability and a resolve to meet violent aggression in kind.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.      Collins, Cindy. "Critiques of Humanitarianism and Humanitarian Action." In Humanitarian Co-ordination: Lessons learned: Report of a Review Seminar, 12-26. Stockholm: OCHA, April 3-4, 1998.

2.      Augsburger, David. 1992. Conflict Mediation Across Cultures: Pathways and Patterns. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.

3.      Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

4.      Youth Justice Board for England. search for "restorative justice". Abu- Nimer, Mohammad. 1996. “Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context: Some Conceptual Questions”, Peace & Change. Vol. 21, No. 1. January,.

5.      Abul-Fadl, Mona. 1987. “Community, Justice, and Jihad: Elements of the Muslim Historical Consciousness”, The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. Vol. 4, No. 1,

6.      Bateson, Gregory and Mary Catherine Bateson. 1987. Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred. New York: Bantam Books.

7.      urton, John. 1990. Conflict: Resolution and Provention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

8.      BDallmayr, Fred R., ed. 2000. Border Crossings: Toward a Comparative Political Theory. New York: Lexington Books.

9.      Falk, Richard. 1997. “False Universalism and the Geopolitics of Exclusion: The Case of Islam”, Third World Quarterly. Vol. 18, No. 1

10. Irani, George E. and Nathan C. Funk. 1998. “Rituals of Reconciliation: Arab Islamic Perspectives”, Arab Studies Quarterly. Vol. 20, Issue 4,

11. Bush, Robert A. Baruch. "Defining Quality in Dispute Resolution : Taxonomies and Anti-Taxonomies of Quality Arguments." University of Denver Law Review 66 (1989): 335-80.

12. Esser, John P. "Evaluations of Dispute Processing: We Do Not Know What We Think and We Do Not Think What We Know." Denver University Law Review 66 (1989): 499-562.

13. Carment, David, and Dane Rowlands. "Three's Company: Evaluating Third Party Intervention in Intrastate Conflict." Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (1998):

14. Duffield, Mark, "Evaluating Conflict Resolution. Context, Models and Methodology." In NGOs in Conflict - an Evaluation of International Alert, R 1997:6, edited by Gunnar M. Sørbø, Joanna Macrae and Lennart Wohlgemuth, Bergen: Ch. Michelsen Institute, 1997.

15. Esser, John P. "Evaluations of Dispute Processing: We Do Not Know What We Think and We Do Not Think What We Know." In The International Library of Essays in Law and Legal Theory, edited by Michael Freeman. New York: New York University Press; Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1995.

16. Hoffman, Mark. "Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment Methodology: Evolving Art Form or Practical Dead End?". In Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Berlin, Germany: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, 2001. Available online (pdf) at http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/dialogue1_hoffman.pdf

---

[1] Youth Justice Board for England. search for "restorative justice". Abu- Nimer, Mohammad. 1996. “Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context: Some Conceptual Questions”, Peace & Change. Vol. 21, No. 1. January, pp. 22-40.

[2] Abul-Fadl, Mona. 1987. “Community, Justice, and Jihad: Elements of the Muslim Historical Consciousness”, The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 13-30.

[3] Augsburger, David. 1992. Conflict Mediation Across Cultures: Pathways and Patterns. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

[4] Bateson, Gregory and Mary Catherine Bateson. 1987. Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred. New York: Bantam Books.

[5] urton, John. 1990. Conflict: Resolution and Provention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

[6] BDallmayr, Fred R., ed. 2000. Border Crossings: Toward a Comparative Political Theory. New York: Lexington Books.

Falk, Richard. 1997. “False Universalism and the Geopolitics of Exclusion: The Case of Islam”, Third World Quarterly. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 7 23.

[7] Irani, George E. and Nathan C. Funk. 1998. “Rituals of Reconciliation: Arab Islamic Perspectives”, Arab Studies Quarterly. Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp. 53-73.

[8] Bush, Robert A. Baruch. "Defining Quality in Dispute Resolution : Taxonomies and Anti-Taxonomies of Quality Arguments." University of Denver Law Review 66 (1989): 335-80.

[9] Esser, John P. "Evaluations of Dispute Processing: We Do Not Know What We Think and We Do Not Think What We Know." Denver University Law Review 66 (1989): 499-562.

[10] Carment, David, and Dane Rowlands. "Three's Company: Evaluating Third Party Intervention in Intrastate Conflict." Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (1998): 572-599.

[11] Esser, John P. "Evaluations of Dispute Processing: We Do Not Know What We Think and We Do Not Think What We Know." In The International Library of Essays in Law and Legal Theory, edited by Michael Freeman. New York: New York University Press; Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1995.

[12] Hoffman, Mark. "Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment Methodology: Evolving Art Form or Practical Dead End?". In Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Berlin, Germany: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, 2001. Available online (pdf) at http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/dialogue1_hoffman.pdf

[13] Duffield, Mark, "Evaluating Conflict Resolution. Context, Models and Methodology." In NGOs in Conflict - an Evaluation of International Alert, R 1997:6, edited by Gunnar M. Sørbø, Joanna Macrae and Lennart Wohlgemuth, 79-112. Bergen: Ch. Michelsen Institute, 1997.