When Christians Disagree: Lessons from the Relationship Between Baxter and Owen

[RamistThomist]

Cooper, Tim. When Christian Disagree: Lessons Learned from the Fractured Relationship Between John Owen and Richard Baxter.

When we disagree with each other in theology, is it mainly for theological reasons, or are there other factors at play? Without downplaying the importance of theology, other factors are often as illuminating. John Owen, to use modern terminology, was a born “networker.” Richard Baxter, being self-taught and growing up somewhat isolated, never really developed those nuanced personal skills. Both were alpha males. It is doubtful they ever could have worked together.

The English Civil War was certainly not the cause of Richard Baxter’s and John Owen’s fractious relationship, but it is a good place to begin. Owen could eloquently preach that the liberties were bought with a cheap price. No one on the front lines would have said such a thing. Baxter saw the war firsthand. Although Owen would become Cromwell’s chaplain for a while, and preach sermons to the defeated Scottish Presbyterians, he was not “in the camps” like Baxter was. Even more, Baxter lived in royalist territory.

Interlude: this is similar to how “big shot” RUF church planters leave the Presbyterian strongholds of Mississippi and South Carolina and come to Louisiana and cannot fathom why there is not an equivalent to RUF Jackson. Even more frustrating, the church planting boards are even more clueless. Baxter would have understood.

Having seen the heterodox preaching in the New Model Army, Baxter feared this preaching would lead to licentious living, which it probably did to an extent. It is here, so Cooper suggests, that he probably developed his Neonomian tendencies. Indeed, so he reasoned, if the Antinomians rejected the kingship of Christ, they would not have any qualms about executing an earthly monarch.

Owen, by contrast, saw Socinianism as the true enemy. As a result, he stressed a proper doctrine of God, the atonement, and justification. In this latter point, Owen probably had the better of Baxter.

Baxter, however, is more interesting on church unity. Seeing that each group in England–Independents, Presbyterians, and some Anglicans–differed on ecclesiology, he perceived that the moderates in each party could more or less get along. Is that a watering-down of ecclesiology? Maybe, but it seems to have worked in America.

In conclusion, this is a great primer to the explosive period of the English Civil War. Cooper provides helpful questions at the end of each chapter, making it ideal for small groups.

 

[SojourningSøren]

Thank you for reviewing that! I’m interested in studying that particular time period anyway, for my own understanding of how the church unfolded in that region of the world. I’ll have to get a copy

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

That's interesting indeed. I personally think the church needs to be more united and working together, though I respect the differences different denominations have. For example, I don't need to worship the same way a Lutheran does or at a Lutheran church, but I want to be friends and united with the Lutherans. With the broader mission of the church and defending it, we should all work together as one and defend each other and assist each other. It would be nice to see some sort of network where leaders from different denominations can come together and pray for each other, see where help is needed, work together, and things like that. I think the line needs to be drawn though where a denomination promotes sin or denies primary doctrinal truth.

 

[MW]

This treats theological disagreements as if they were personality conflicts, and it uses a range of modern categories that do not belong in the 17th century. Calling Owen a "networker" or Baxter socially awkward is a projection of 21st‑century categories onto early modern theologians. This is sociology pretending to give historical insight. The fact is, Owen and Baxter themselves would have said their conflict was doctrinal.

 

[Christodulus]

The fact is, Owen and Baxter themselves would have said their conflict was doctrinal.

Would they not also have said it was pastoral, in light of the differences about the war?

 

[MW]

Would they not also have said it was pastoral, in light of the differences about the war?

Sure; but for them pastoral practice is doctrinal reasoning applied to souls. They viewed the world theologically. Both men thought in terms of Christendom. And both had different views on the nature of faith, the place of the law, and their idea of the church. So their pastoral reactions were expressions of their doctrinal systems. Baxter's Neonomian tendencies did not arise because he saw chaos in the Army. He was already moralistic. Owen's view of free grace was shaped by his own experience of it and his strong reaction to Arminianism.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Calling Owen a "networker" or Baxter socially awkward is a projection of 21st‑century categories onto early modern theologians.

So? One of the many advantages of being able to look back is that we have labels to identify latent realities that they didn't perhaps have labels for. Like many men struggle with emotional language... they feel the emotion and they manifest the symptoms of the emotion... but they don't know how to label it. In the same way, I'm sure back in the day they would have piously attempted to make everything out as a mere intellectual/doctrinal disagreement, operating with remarkable lack of self-awareness about how experiences shape perspectives and how personalities influence behaviors, etc. Thankfully, we don't do history hamstrung and bereft of these insights. Though we need to be sensitive to how they understood the nature of their differences, whether we believe they were in denial or oblivious or not.

 

[Ed Walsh]

This treats theological disagreements as if they were personality conflicts, and it uses a range of modern categories that do not belong in the 17th century

I can't remember the title but I read a whole book that was devoted to the fact that their differences went beyond what you say above. Surely conflicts with different theological opinions are legitimate even when heated. Do you know anything more about whether it got real personal or not?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Baxter's Neonomian tendencies did not arise because he saw chaos in the Army. He was already moralistic.

He may have been moralistic... but surely you're not going to seriously doubt that his experiences in war were profoundly formative for him and what may have been a tendency or inclination beforehand became a settled conviction afterward. Remember, war affects people profoundly. Everyone from Tolkien to Tillich to Lewis to Moltmann to Barth all testify to to the profound influence the experiences of war have on a person and their ideas.

Having been to war myself, and seeing people turned to a mist, etc etc, I confirm that there were tendencies I had previously, that became concretized as a result.

 

[MW]

So? One of the many advantages of being able to look back is that we have labels to identify latent realities that they didn't perhaps have labels for. Like many men struggle with emotional language... they feel the emotion and they manifest the symptoms of the emotion... but they don't know how to label it. In the same way, I'm sure back in the day they would have piously attempted to make everything out as a mere intellectual/doctrinal disagreement, operating with remarkable lack of self-awareness about how experiences shape perspectives and how personalities influence behaviors, etc. Thankfully, we don't do history hamstrung and bereft of these insights. Though we need to be sensitive to how they understood the nature of their differences, whether we believe they were in denial or oblivious or not.

For over a century historical theology has suffered from this kind of thing, supposing religion is a sociological issue and refusing to recognise the real religious convictions under which the people operated in their time. There has been a bit of a change in this regard in recent times. I don't deny there are sociological factors but the fact is this was a doctrinal controversy. Besides, sociological factors must be understood from the times in which the people operated, not imposed from a later age. People today live in an environment of social uncertainty where they are are emotionally sensitive to these kinds of things. Owen and Baxter were operating within a well established culture and well grounded categories of rationality. They were not influenced in the pop psychology of Holywood.

 

[SolaScriptura]

For over a century historical theology has suffered from this kind of thing, supposing religion is a sociological issue and refusing to recognise the real religious convictions under which the people operated in their time. There has been a bit of a change in this regard in recent times. I don't deny there are sociological factors but the fact is this was a doctrinal controversy. Besides, sociological factors must be understood from the times in which the people operated, not imposed from a later age. People today live in an environment of social uncertainty where they are are emotionally sensitive to these kinds of things. Owen and Baxter were operating within a well established culture and well grounded categories of rationality. They were not influenced in the pop psychology of Holywood.

I just knew you were gonna absolutize, ignore common sense. and drive it to an imagined absurd extremity.

Imagining that the categories of a particular place and time are the only categories that can be used and understanding them is simply immature and ignorant. Of course, be careful mind exercises, caution list. The barometer of his own day is perceived to be the metric by which all other errors are judged… One can make use of the insights and categorical helps of one’s day and interpreting other days without lapsing into total disregard for the norms of the era in question.

 

[MW]

He may have been moralistic... but surely you're not going to seriously doubt that his experiences in war were profoundly formative for him and what may have been a tendency or inclination beforehand became a settled conviction afterward. Remember, war affects people profoundly. Everyone from Tolkien to Tillich to Lewis to Moltmann to Barth all testify to to the profound influence the experiences of war have on a person and their ideas.

Having been to war myself, and seeing people turned to a mist, etc etc, I confirm that there were tendencies I had previously, that became concretized as a result.

I can understand your personal perspective on this. But Baxter's convictions were already well formed. He was passing moral judgment on the men. It was not the formative experiences of war that shaped his perspective on this.
[automerge]1772843569[/automerge]

I just knew you were gonna absolutize, ignore common sense. and drive it to an imagined absurd extremity.

In this case you need to read the history. Your "common sense" is not going to tell you the facts of an historical period. Start with the lives of the two men.

 

[RamistThomist]

This treats theological disagreements as if they were personality conflicts, and it uses a range of modern categories that do not belong in the 17th century. Calling Owen a "networker" or Baxter socially awkward is a projection of 21st‑century categories onto early modern theologians. This is sociology pretending to give historical insight. The fact is, Owen and Baxter themselves would have said their conflict was doctrinal.

That's true, and with issues like justification, that can't be ignored. Nonetheless, John Owen had people skills. Baxter might have been a bit unpolished.

 

[MW]

That's true, and with issues like justification, that can't be ignored. Nonetheless, John Owen had people skills. Baxter might have been a bit unpolished.

Baxter was "the Reformed Pastor." He wrote the book on it. Owen was embroiled in controversies, dismissed from posts. Modern sociology would find that problematic.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I can understand your personal perspective on this. But Baxter's convictions were already well formed. He was passing moral judgment on the men. It was not the formative experiences of war that shaped his perspective on this.
[automerge]1772843569[/automerge]


In this case you need to read the history. Your "common sense" is not going to tell you the facts of an historical period. Start with the lives of the two men.

And interpreting those facts with categories and labels that have been identified and named subsequent to their own day enables us to see how their personalities and experiences shaped their respective ministries and messages. These matters are not indifferent, though the more cerebral types like to pretend they are,

 

[MW]

And interpreting those facts with categories and labels that have been identified and named subsequent to their own day enables us to see how their personalities and experiences shaped their respective ministries and messages. These matters are not indifferent, though the more cerebral types like to pretend they are,

The more cerebral types are likely to read the actual history rather than go off their common sense. Common sense should tell a person that distinct personalities within a specific time period is a matter that requires knowledge of the distinct personalities within their own time period, and is not a province of a sense that is claimed to be "common."

 

[SolaScriptura]

The more cerebral types are likely to read the actual history rather than go off their common sense. Common sense should tell a person that distinct personalities within a specific time period is a matter that requires knowledge of the distinct personalities within their own time period, and is not a province of a sense that is claimed to be "common."

I wasn’t using cerebral in a good way referring to someone who reads original sources… I was referring to the socially awkward tendencies of someone who imagines themselves as particularly intelligent to diminish the significance and importance of the intangible facets of human experience.

Anyway, the point is that the observations that Owen was a networker whereas Bunyan was not are legitimate observations and categories. So too, are comments about the nature of influencing factors on their various trajectories.

 

[MW]

Anyway, the point is that the observations that Owen was a networker whereas Bunyan was not are legitimate observations and categories. So too, are comments about the nature of influencing factors on their various trajectories.

Except that the observations are not historical, and I think you mean Baxter, not Bunyan. Strangely enough Owen had an admiration for the tinker's preaching, which is a valid point for sociological study. But making things up to reflect one's modern sociology is not history.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Anyway, the point is that the observations that Owen was a networker whereas Bunyan was not are legitimate observations and categories. So too, are comments about the nature of influencing factors on their various trajectories.

Except that the observations are not historical, and I think you mean Baxter, not Bunyan. Strangely enough Owen had an admiration for the tinker's preaching, which is a valid point for sociological study. But making things up to reflect one's modern sociology is not history.

You’re right, I meant Baxter not Bunyan.

 

[Wyres]

This may be a good book on such topics: Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage By Gavin Ortlund

Finding the Right Hills to Die On

Pastor Gavin Ortlund uses four basic categories of doctrine to help church leaders consider how and what to prioritize in doctrine and ministry, encouraging humility and grace along the way.

www.crossway.org