In his 2019 article in the Journal of Mennonite Studies, titled The Gospel of All Creatures: An Anabaptist Natural Theology for Mennonite Political Theology, Maxwell Kennel discusses how he believes the Anabaptist doctrine of “The Gospel of All Creatures”, introduced by Hans Hut in his tract written in the mid-1520s titled On the Mystery of Baptism (p. 355) , can be applied to Mennonite political theology in current times.

The Gospel of All Creatures theology contradicts theologies of notorious Mennonite theologians of the twentieth century, and Maxwell points to a number of scholarly criticisms of these more recent theologies that lead him to believe that the Gospel of All Creatures is more in line with Mennonite thinking today about the relationship between the church and the world. ​

To start off his essay, Kennel gives a history of how the The Gospel of All Creatures came to be pointing out that it is an amalgamation of beliefs of early Anabaptists as well as influences such as German mysticism and that it is interconnected with Hut’s ideas about baptism (p. 355-357). 

He then outlines the main points of the theology and clarifies the meaning of “The Gospel of All Creatures” based on Hut’s grammar in the language he wrote in, German, which explicitly communicates that the term is in the dative case whereas in English or other languages it could be interpreted differently and this has implications on how the theology is interpreted (p. 357-358). 

Kennel then examines John Howard Yoder’s theology about the distinction between the church and the world, which was influential in the Mennonite church, as well as a critique of Yoder and his theology by Hans-Jürgen Goertz, and then outlines contemporary Mennonite theologies by Paul Martens and Neal Blough (p. 359-365).

From all this, Kennel makes the argument that the Gospel of All Creatures is a theology that would be worth it for Mennonites today to wrestle with if not adopt completely and he believes Martens and Blough’s arguments provide a basis for doing so and theologies like Yoder’s need to be dismissed (p, 365). 

Kennel also adds a reflexive argument, albeit a weak one since it’s in the form of a question, that there is a fundamental flaw in Mennonite political theology and the Mennonite church in general including Martens and Blough’s theology and his own argument about focusing on The Gospel of All Creatures: Mennonites are too concerned with establishing and communicating their own identity and are not open enough to learning from “other worlds" (p. 365).

According to Kennel, Martens was critical of what he saw as a pattern of theologians trying to “distill Mennonite theological identity into a group of central and particular markers – usually ethical markers – that make it uniquely or specifically Mennonite”(p. 361) such as H.S. Bender’s The Anabaptist Vision (1942), John Howard Yoder’s expansion on this in his The Politics of Jesus (1972), J. Denny Weaver’s The Nonviolent Atonement (2001), and as Kennel adds, Stuart Murray’s The Naked Anabaptist (2010) and Palmer Becker’s Anabaptist Essentials (2017) (p. 361) *. 

* (I would also add Bruxy Cavey and The Meeting House’s “Jesus Collective” movement to this list after I attended a regional gathering information session about it last fall, although I would say it is trying to be more inclusive than these other statements.)

Martens’ main encouragement to Mennonite theologians though was to stop reducing their theology to pacifism which was the main focus of Weaver’s work as well as Yoder’s, although Kennel argues that Yoder’s theology – in essence seeing “the church” as good, and “the world” as evil – was not of a pacifist nature because true pacifism is being open to listening to others or as Kennel puts it “the necessity of understanding the other as the bearer of truth.” (p. 361).

Kennel also points out that Blough believed first and foremost that Mennonite theologians should be applying their theology to the phenomena of globalization and multiculturalism in the world (p. 363). Blough argued that it was arrogant of Swiss Mennonites who continued to try to be separate from the world even when there were no longer drastic differences in beliefs with the society around them, although he pointed out that a lot of Swiss Mennonites did assimilate to the culture around them (p. 362-363). Kennel also notes that Blough denounces all “political and economic sectarianism" (p. 363).

I agree with this sentiment by Martens, Blough, and Kennel. Jesus says in Matthew 7:3, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? – and I think Mennonites have actually often been counter-pacifist in their forceful statements on pacifism and other core doctrines as well as their insistence to stay separate from the world.** 

**(Although I think this would probably a controversial opinion in Mennonite circles, I’d argue the Mennonite Central Committee ("MCC") “To Remember is to Work For Peace” buttons go against working for peace because they are passive-aggressive and can easily be perceived as disrespectful and offensive by those with different views.)

Kennel insists that Mennonites focus on both history and theology and separate its ‘identity’ enough to be critical of the church and the world (p. 364) which I also agree with*** – this would be noticing the log. 

I think substituting “Mennonite nor non-Mennonite” or “people of the church nor people of the world” for “Jew nor Greek” in the apostle Paul’s line in Galatians 3:28 would also summarize Martens, Blough, Kennel, and my beliefs well as well as the theology of the Gospel of All Creatures.

(***I believe I did a good job of this if I can say so myself, while on the Bechtel Lecture panel on Young Adults and the Church at Conrad Grebel University College in 2019: https://youtu.be/xgt9vYDEaOA.)

I do think Kennel is right that the Gospel of All Creatures theology is something that we as Mennonites should be re-examining today. Hut’s main scriptural basis for this theology was Mark 16:15 and Kennel clarifies based on the interpretation of translator of Hut that although many translations of this verse say “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation”, Hut reads it as meaning that the gospel is “manifest in all creatures” rather than it being about preaching the gospel to all creation (p. 356). 

Kennel summarizes the Gospel of All Creatures theology as being that all creation is good and in fact all creation is the gospel; it doesn’t create antagonism between the church and the world like other Anabaptist theologies such as Yoder or Goertz’ (p. 364).

Kennel mentions that Hut does refer to other verses as well to support the Gospel of All Creatures theology (p, 356) but it is curious to me that he doesn’t mention Genesis 1: “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” 

Maybe the Old Testament isn’t as trustworthy or valid as the New Testament for Anabaptists but if you’re trying to find common ground with other groups of people, this is from a book that people of all Abrahamic traditions read that clearly states the thesis of the Gospel of All Creatures. 

I don’t think we need to call ourselves “Mennonites” to preach this gospel and I think we can learn about this gospel by talking and learning from all people, and all creatures.