John Owen and Richard Baxter are two giants of the Reformed tradition, and were almost exact contemporaries and fellow leaders during the height of English Puritanism in the seventeenth century.
Yet many might be surprised to learn about the bitter and acrimonious relationship they had with one another. Owen described Baxter’s writings as full of “pride and passion, magisterial insolence, pharisaical, supercilious self-conceitedness, contempt of others,” while Baxter called Owen “a messenger of Satan to harass” him. How could two godly men and heroes of the faith be such hostile rivals?
Tim Cooper’s excellent little book When Christians Disagree explores this question, tracing who they were and how their relationship deteriorated so badly.
Baxter and Owen
At first glance, Owen and Baxter seemed destined to be best friends. Born about a year apart, they were both committed Calvinists, gifted preachers, devoted pastors, prolific authors, and passionate advocates for church reform, evangelism, and, ironically, Christian unity.
So what went wrong?
Their disagreements were ostensibly theological, but Cooper shows that other differences had already set them on a collision course long before they ever interacted with one another.
For example, Baxter was largely self-taught, while Owen received a prestigious education at Oxford. Owen served as Oliver Cromwell’s chaplain and later became vice-chancellor of Oxford, whereas Baxter spent most of his ministry pastoring a local church in the small town of Kidderminster.
Their life experiences also shaped their theological priorities. Baxter’s challenging experiences on the ground during the English Civil War led him to be deeply concerned about antinomianism—the idea that Christians need not obey God’s commands because salvation is by grace alone. On the other hand, since Owen was associated with people at high levels of government, he devoted his attention to combating what he perceived to be larger national threats, such as Roman Catholicism, Arminianism (which opposed God’s sovereign election to salvation), and Socinianism (which rejected the Trinity and penal substitution).
Finally, personality-wise, the two men could not have been further apart. Owen was reserved, ambitious, politically astute, and sensitive to criticism. Baxter was open, outspoken, earnest, stubborn, and highly self-confident.
Collision Course
Given these differences in background, experience, and temperament, their relationship would require considerable grace and understanding. Sadly, neither man was able to display those qualities towards the other.
Their conflict began quietly when Baxter briefly criticised one of Owen’s theological positions in one of his books (on page 123 of an 188-page appendix!). Owen responded publicly in his next book, defending himself while adding personal criticism of Baxter. When they finally met in person in 1654, the encounter only deepened their estrangement. Over the following decades, they continued to attack one another in print, with increasing bitterness. Even after Owen’s death, Baxter continued criticising both his theology and what he perceived to be his political actions.
Ironically, as their hostility grew, so did their influence. Baxter emerged as the leading Presbyterian nonconformist, while Owen became the leading figure among Congregationalists. Their partnership could have greatly strengthened the English church, but sadly, their personal animosity prevented this from happening.
Learning from Owen and Baxter
Their story offers several important lessons for us in India today, especially for those in leadership roles in the church.
1. Theological debate is never just about theology.
Behind every theological conviction stands a person with a unique background, personality, and set of experiences. Taking time to understand where others are coming from helps us engage disagreements more wisely and graciously.
2. How we express our theology is often shaped by the opponents we are trying to answer.
Baxter was primarily responding to antinomianism, while Owen focused on Arminians, Socinians, and Roman Catholics. As Cooper observes, they stood back-to-back but facing different enemies. In other words, they shared far more theological agreement than their disputes suggested, but their different concerns led them to emphasise different truths.
The same dynamic appears today. For example, some Christians have come from churches that have sound theology but are coldly legalistic. Others are from theologically weak backgrounds but now espouse strong biblical convictions. Though they may agree on most doctrinal essentials, what they are reacting to can make them seem farther apart than they really are.
3. We should emphasise common ground as well as differences.
Cooper notes that the closer people are in belief, the more painful small disagreements can become. If we remember our shared convictions, theological disputes are more likely to remain proportionate and charitable (Eph. 4:4-6).
4. Relationships matter.
Owen and Baxter had genuine theological differences that deserved discussion, and such dialogue could have sharpened both men. Instead, they allowed relatively secondary disagreements to destroy their relationship, costing the church a powerful partnership. Truth and love belong together, but in their pursuit of truth, love was largely lost (Eph. 4:15-16).
5. Humility is indispensable.
Cooper writes, “I see far too much pride in both men…. This is a story of pride, willfulness, and self-blindness when it could, potentially, have been a story of forgiveness, understanding, and generosity even in the face of legitimate difference.” Pride made genuine understanding impossible. Had either man humbled himself at any point, the story might have been very different.
If genuinely godly men like John Owen and Richard Baxter could fall into such a bitter conflict, none of us is immune. May God help us learn from the lessons of history, so that even amid real theological differences we can pursue both truth and love for the good of Christ’s church.
