Personality Clash: John Owen And Richard Baxter In Conflict

When I think of recent feuds, musicians like Drake and Kendrick Lamar or athletes like Kobe and Shaq come to mind. I’m surprised by how hot the emotions get when observers choose sides. The substance of these trivial beefs rarely leaves the circles of pop culture, yet their effects seep into our lives. We get so accustomed to the silliness of these debates that we sometimes underestimate substantive divisions in our circles and fail to navigate them well.

In When Christians Disagree: Lessons from the Fractured Relationship of John Owen and Richard Baxter, Tim Cooper, professor of church history at the University of Otago, delves into the contentious relationship between two prominent 17th-century Puritan figures. Despite their shared commitment to reforming the Church of England, their lifelong rivalry was marked by deep animosity. Cooper’s exploration of their contrasting views on salvation and confessions reveals the destructive power of theological division, even among those who share a common faith.

By examining the complexities of Owen and Baxter’s relationship, Cooper challenges us to consider the importance of Christian unity. He reminds us that genuine disagreement, rooted in deeply held convictions, can lead to substantial fractures—but it’s possible to maintain loving relationships even when we disagree.

Underlying Personality Clash

Baxter and Owen, though both Puritans, differed significantly in their backgrounds and personalities. Born a year apart in the early 17th century, they occupied different spheres of influence and life trajectories. Their experiences influenced their approaches to the issues that divided them.

For example, Owen, a well-educated scholar and ambitious networker, viewed the English Civil War (1642–51) as divine liberation. Baxter, a less formally educated but deeply passionate believer, experienced the war firsthand and saw it as divine judgment. Neither fought in the war, but Baxter’s geography brought him face-to-face with hostility, death, and destruction. Owen’s war experience was calm and distant as he served as a chaplain to Oliver Cromwell.

Despite their different backgrounds, both men were sometimes proud and stubborn. Owen, the son of a clergyman, preached sermons to Parliament on three occasions and was an intimate of Cromwell. He was determined and “desirous of honour and preferment” (47), and he didn’t take kindly to disagreement. In contrast, Baxter evinced the cloistered thinking found in autodidacts. He came across as “haughty . . . impervious to correction . . . incapable of self-doubt” (51). He said, “Though I offend, I must say that which cannot be hid” (53). Baxter would rather have “the discord of the saints” than the “concord of the wicked” (120).

According to Cooper, “The difficulties between John Owen and Richard Baxter represented, as much as anything else, a personality clash” (41). So one lesson from this historical disagreement is that our personal biases tend to intensify conflict. By understanding the role of personality traits, we can work to mitigate their effects and foster more constructive dialogue.

Substantive Theological Disputes

One lesson from this historical disagreement is that our personal biases tend to intensify conflict.

Baxter and Owen held divergent theological views that formed the substance of their quarrel. A major contention was their approach to Socinianism, a heresy that denies the Trinity. Owen, a staunch defender of orthodox Trinitarianism, wrote extensively against Socinianism and viewed Baxter’s theology as inadvertently encouraging it. Baxter claimed to be orthodox; however, he spoke much like a Socinian and wouldn’t accept any formulation of authorized doctrine that went even one syllable beyond Scripture’s words.

The Socinian controversy revealed a major divide between the men on their views of church confessions. Baxter favored a more informal approach, emphasizing the importance of personal faith and spiritual experience. As Cooper observes, “Baxter wondered if a believer from the early church who firmly held to the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed could even be accepted as a Christian in this later, contentious, confession-ridden age” (89). Owen, on the other hand, preferred a more formal approach, emphasizing the importance of doctrinal orthodoxy and confessional subscription. The issue seemed to hinge not merely on principle but also on each man’s place within the church’s hierarchy.

The men were even divided on the issue of salvation. Yet here Cooper argues there was more than theology at play. He notes, “Their different experiences infiltrated each one’s theology of salvation: Baxter hammering away at human responsibility, Owen constantly arguing that the only merits that mattered were those of Christ alone” (70). Each man’s theological emphasis, Cooper argues, was influenced by his confidence in his ability and social position.

These theological disagreements, coupled with Owen and Baxter’s personal differences, created a toxic dynamic that prevented meaningful dialogue and cooperation between the two men. Their inability to bridge their differences serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unhealthy theological division and the importance of maintaining healthy debate within the church.

Seek Faithful Disagreement

This historical account is helpful in our contentious age. However, there are points where Cooper’s presentation of Baxter’s theology seems overly generous. For example, Cooper argues, “We can see both men as Calvinists” (69). Yet, as pastor Andrew Belli writes, “[Baxter’s] views on justification and atonement were not in step with the Reformed tradition,” and “Baxter leaned toward Arminian sentiments in major areas.” While both Owen and Baxter were godly and committed to the gospel, their theological disagreements were substantive.

Each man’s theological emphasis, Cooper argues, was influenced by his confidence in his ability and social position.

Additionally, nonhistorians may find some of the debate hard to follow. There’s too little context on the Nonconformists, the Church of England, and the aims foiled by the monarch returning to power. The book’s emphasis is, rightly, on the interpersonal clash between the two men. However, it’d be helpful to get more information on the debate’s stakes.

In balance, When Christians Disagree is a fascinating case study of the personal and theological factors that can fuel division within the church. As Cooper reminds us, “Not all disagreement stems from a high-minded concern for the truth” (120). Baxter and Owen’s rivalry demonstrates how even the most devout believers can be blinded by their prejudices. The book doesn’t offer definitive solutions to theological conflict, yet it’ll benefit pastors and church leaders as it encourages humility, charity, and commitment to truth even as they pursue faithful disagreement within the church.