Quakers like words, and produce plenty of them, but if there’s one form of words they might be skeptical about, it’s probably that kind called ‘Apologetics’. Apologetics has been with Christianity from the beginning; Christ himself compromised with them with his disputes against the Pharisees and Sadducees, and Saint Peter himself, as Justin Brierley points out, advises Christians to ‘always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks the reason for the hope that have’. (1 Peter 3.15). In fact, Christianity has been arguing with the world since its founding; and whereas in the first century AD the opponents were mainly Jewish legalists or pagans, now the enemy at the door tends to be atheists with their assault on Christianity in particular and religions in general. But as I say, Quakers tend to be reluctant to apologize, and for two very good reasons: First, because they are not a creedal type of religion, and just as this makes them harder to attack, they have less reason to refute. and argument; and this leads to the second reason, which is that the lack of creeds is quite deliberate because the Quakers soon realized that words and forms of words led to incessant quarreling, and even actual violence, which contradicted the spirit of Christ and what His inner meaning is: namely, peace and love. For these reasons, then, Quakerism does not engage much in apologetics, preferring to be more experiential than intellectual in its approach to true religion.

I’m also a Quaker, so obviously I think this is a good thing. But I can also see the danger in him; and one of those dangers that I frequently encounter and that can be directly attributed to a lack of apologetics – or ‘reflecting’ – is the acceptance of a vapid kind of love that accepts everyone and proclaims that all religions are equal, we are all on the same path, and we are all – eventually – going to the same destination. To me this (not the acceptance of all people, but the consequent belief) is blatant nonsense because, if it were true, there would be no reason to become a Quaker; in fact, why adopt any religion if all roads lead to the same place? The answer that one simply prefers to be a Quaker is so weak because it leads one into the wilderness of all subjectivism, and all that goes with it, including profound atheism and the undermining of all true morality (which the Quakers, wishing to emphasize the power of love, are most willing to hold).

Therefore, a book like “Unbelievable” by Justin Brierley, at first glance, is not a book that many Quakers are going to like. It’s published by SPCK, so it has an evangelical flavor to it anyway; is openly argumentative (albeit in a deeply respectful way, later); and explicitly supports traditional Christianity and creed (anathema to many Quakers). So should you buy it or read it?

Well, in my opinion, absolutely yes: I loved the book, and I think every fair Quaker will. I didn’t know before I read it that there is a radio station in Oxford called Premier Christian Radio (available on podcasts, so you don’t have to be in Oxford) whose flagship show is called Incredible? For the past ten years or more, Justin Brierley invites two guests (started with an atheist and a Christian, but expanded to include other religions) to debate their beliefs, and he is the host/referee. He has led to some phenomenal guests appearing on the show or in his contact and interview capacity; for example, famous guys like Derren Brown and Richard Dawkins on behalf of atheists, and the likes of Alister McGrath and William Lane Craig on behalf of Christianity. The thing is, and what’s so refreshing, is the respect and devotion almost, that Brierley gives to the ‘opposition’. There is no doubt that he is a Christian and where his loyalties lie, but it is also clear that the best arguments for atheism have seriously challenged his position, his beliefs, and he has had to fight very hard to be able to stand. in your faith

What we get in this book is a wonderfully respectful account of the best arguments for atheism, often using the words of the “expert” atheists themselves; and we also get some of the retorts and gems of wisdom from his adversaries; and we have Brierley in the middle trying to make sense of it and, critically, really anxious to avoid trivializing matters or appearing cocky about them. Towards the end of the book, he observes, perhaps sadly, but accurately: “In the end, no one enters the kingdom of heaven by argument.”

Because it starts from this respectful, open, and listening foundation, the net result is that I think this is one of the best books on apologetics I’ve ever read, and I’ve read a lot. There is a clarity here that is a joy to read, and especially to follow your thought as it emerges. It would be too much to describe everything it covers, but in my opinion, there are 4 main arguments (‘main’ in the sense that ordinary people can understand it, not just philosophers and theologians) for the existence of God and later of Christianity . : one, the argument from the design and structure of the cosmos; two, the argument for the existence of objective morality; three, the historical argument, which includes discussion of the Bible and other related historical documents; and four, the Quaker favorite, the argument from personal experience. The pros and cons of each of these arguments are excellently covered in this book, and I found myself gaining new insights and perspectives from reading it.

For example, he quotes Os Guinness revealingly: “The Christian faith is not true because it works; it works because it is true.” Now, let’s take the surprising answer to atheism’s most effective argument against God, the problem of pain and suffering. Brierley, while showing due compassion and humility in the face of what often appears to be all its enormity, then turns his vanguard squarely against atheists themselves: “Within Christian belief, suffering is at least a mystery to which we can turn.” hope to make sense of it.” .In atheism, it just doesn’t make sense.” That – that – is perfectly said. It’s all very well for atheists to say ‘How can a loving God allow…’, but what do they offer in exchange? nothing, except that we die, we rot.for me, you can’t imagine.If the situation of human life is bad with Christianity, then, suggests Brierley, atheism only makes it worse.

There are nuggets of insight and information throughout the book. I was amused towards the end by a statistic Brierley cites that, despite the disproportionate noise atheism makes, globally atheism is shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population: “In 1970, atheists made up 4.5% of the world’s population.” That figure dropped to 2% in 2010 and is projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020.” However, Brierley certainly doesn’t wish they didn’t exist! On the contrary, he fully acknowledges what he has learned from them, and how their existence sharpened their own Christianity, because the truth is that it is very easy to become complacent with religion and disdain other people’s perspectives, and retreat into private spiritual ghettos.The Dawkins of this world, then, toast, despite their intentions , a salutary wake-up call to Christianity to get its act together and have right thinking.

Finally, there is a lot in this book – for I already mentioned Dawkins – about science and its alleged incompatibility with God. Clearly Brierley rejects this notion and adds many authorities and ideas that also reject it. But there is a wonderful quote that he uses as an epigraph to Chapter 2 that is worth quoting in full: “The first drink from the glass of natural science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” you.” This is attributed to Werner Heisenberg. How wonderful, how timely!

If you are interested in strengthening the intellectual foundation of your Christian faith, I recommend that you read this book.