Retractions?

What does it mean to make a retraction?  It is the disavowal of something spoken.  In light of some fresh insight the previous words are revealed as harsh or erroneous.  'Retractions' can of course also be false.  They can also be made under duress, as Anabaptists are acutely aware. Outside of radref I have said many things I later regretted.  There is nothing in this blog I would want to ‘retract’.  That is not to say I would not say some things differently.     

Firstly, in hindsight I don’t think I should have used ‘absolute pacifism’.  That expression is exclusive in a way I did not intend.  Pacifism shouldn’t be a creed or a tickbox confession for the righteous.  Peacemaking is a living practice established in the real world; not a code for the perfect.  It is something to do with the ‘feel’ of phrase.  Aren’t ‘absolutes’ another way of saying ‘dogma’?  Isn’t dogma tainted by coercion and violence?  Put that way, ‘absolute pacifism’ is a nonsense phrase – an archetypal square circle.  So, in future I shall remain pacifist and let the absolutes look after themselves. 

Secondly, reading over my posts on persecution there is something of a disconnection between the earlier and later material (i.e. 'The End of Martyrdom' and  'Ways of Remembrance').  In the later posts I critique the ideological use of martyrdom.   I think the earlier posts are vulnerable to my own critique.   That Catholics or Anglicans might make reparations to Anabaptists in relation to persecution in England is arguable.  It isn’t however, up to me to make the case.  I am grateful for more enlightened times and better relations between Anabaptists and ex-oppressor churches.  There is considerable potential in the development of that relationship.