Christians in Media Conference, 9 October 2026
Justin Brierley’s talk explored how Christians can engage meaningfully with people who hold very different beliefs, particularly in an increasingly divided and confrontational media environment. He is a writer, broadcaster and Christian apologist
Here are the 12 principal points from his address.
- We have lost the art of good conversation. Modern public debate increasingly resembles a contest in which participants seek to defeat their opponents rather than understand them.
- Listening is more important than winning an argument. Genuine conversation begins with a willingness to understand another person’s position, rather than simply preparing a response.
- Understanding does not mean agreement. We can listen sympathetically to views we strongly oppose without compromising our own convictions.
- The example of Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins. Brierley recalled a conversation in which the former Archbishop of Canterbury expressed Dawkins’s understanding of the natural world so accurately that Dawkins responded, “Absolutely spot on. Yes, that is exactly what I feel.” This illustrated the power of making another person feel genuinely understood.
- Present the strongest version of an opposing argument. Rather than attacking a distorted or weakened version of someone’s beliefs, we should seek to understand and articulate their strongest case. This is sometimes called steel-manning.
- Truth and grace belong together. Drawing upon the Christian understanding of Jesus as being full of grace and truth, Brierley argued that truth without grace can become harsh, while grace without truth risks becoming empty.
- Social media rewards conflict. Online platforms increasingly favour outrage, confrontation and emotionally charged material. The movement from clickbait to rage bait has made thoughtful discussion more difficult.
- Christians should resist the culture of outrage. Rather than allowing algorithms and media pressures to dictate their behaviour, Christians can demonstrate a more generous and constructive way of communicating.
- Disagreement need not destroy relationships. People can hold fundamentally different views while retaining mutual respect, friendship and a willingness to continue talking.
- Personal encounters are especially valuable. Face-to-face conversation allows people to recognise one another’s humanity in ways that are often lost through screens and social media exchanges.
- Christian faith offers a theological foundation for dialogue. The Incarnation — God entering human experience through Jesus Christ — provides a model for approaching others personally rather than treating them merely as arguments to be defeated.
- Speak truth with gentleness and respect. Drawing on 1 Peter 3:15, Brierley emphasised that Christians should be prepared to explain their faith while maintaining humility, courtesy and respect for those who disagree.
The central message:
Brierley’s argument can be condensed into one guiding principle:
The purpose of a good conversation is not simply to persuade another person that we are right, but to create the understanding and trust through which truth can be communicated.
For Christians working in the media, this means resisting the temptation to become another angry voice in an already divided society. Instead, they have an opportunity to demonstrate that conviction and compassion, disagreement and respect, truth and love can coexist.
Christians in Media Conference, Sky Studios, Osterley — 9 October 2026
Justin Brierley opened the Christians in Media conference with a thoughtful and challenging address on the importance of genuine conversation in an increasingly divided society. Drawing upon more than twenty years of experience as a broadcaster, interviewer and Christian commentator, he argued that one of the greatest needs of our time is not simply for more people to express their opinions, but for people to recover the ability to listen properly to those with whom they disagree. His address was both a reflection on the changing nature of the media and a theological exploration of how Christians might contribute to a more generous and constructive public conversation.
Brierley is particularly well known for his long-running programme Unbelievable?, originally broadcast on Premier Christian Radio, in which Christians, atheists and representatives of other worldviews were brought together to discuss fundamental questions about God, science, faith, morality and the meaning of life. When he began the programme more than twenty years ago, the idea of regularly inviting atheists onto a Christian radio station was regarded by some listeners as distinctly controversial. Surely, they argued, there were already enough atheistic voices in the mainstream media without giving them additional opportunities on Christian radio.
Brierley took a different view. He believed that Christianity had nothing to fear from serious intellectual engagement and that believers needed opportunities to hear arguments from outside their familiar religious environment. The purpose was not necessarily to resolve every disagreement, but to allow participants and listeners to explore difficult questions honestly and intelligently. He recalled the observation of the French writer Joseph Joubert that it is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it. This principle became something of a guiding philosophy for his broadcasting career.
Underlying this approach was a particular understanding of Christian witness. Brierley referred to the familiar passage in the First Letter of Peter, chapter three, verse fifteen, which encourages Christians to be ready to explain the reason for the hope that is within them, but to do so with gentleness and respect. Those final words were especially important to him. Christianity, he suggested, cannot be adequately represented merely by presenting arguments that are logically persuasive. The manner in which those arguments are communicated is itself part of the message. A person may be intellectually correct yet fail to demonstrate the qualities of the faith they profess.
This led naturally to the central theological theme of his address: the relationship between truth and grace. Referring to the opening chapter of St John’s Gospel, Brierley reminded his audience that Jesus Christ is described as being full of grace and truth. These two qualities are frequently separated in contemporary discussion, almost as though they are competing virtues. Truth is associated with exposing error, confronting wrongdoing and insisting upon justice, while grace is associated with forgiveness, mercy, generosity and understanding. In much public debate, particularly in the media, truth is invoked as a justification for aggressive language, personal denunciation and the humiliation of opponents.
For Brierley, however, the Christian understanding of Jesus refuses this separation. In Christ, truth and grace are brought together, most profoundly in the events of the Crucifixion, where justice and mercy meet. Christians are therefore called to undertake the difficult task of holding both qualities together in their own lives. They must be prepared to speak truthfully, even when doing so is uncomfortable, but they must also resist the temptation to use truth as a weapon against other people. This is not simply a matter of politeness or good manners. It goes to the heart of what it means to represent Christ in the world.
Perhaps the most memorable illustration of this principle came when Brierley introduced an extract from his new podcast, Uncommon Ground. Having spent several years concentrating on his book and podcast series The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God, he has returned to the task of bringing together people with opposing convictions. His new programme is designed not merely to produce entertaining debates, but to encourage a deeper understanding between participants who may disagree profoundly about religion, science, history and culture.
One of the innovations in Uncommon Ground is an exercise that takes place before the main discussion begins. Each participant is invited to explain the other person’s position as fairly and accurately as possible. The person whose views are being described must then confirm whether the explanation is satisfactory. Only when both participants have demonstrated that they understand the other’s position does the conversation proceed to the substantive disagreement.
This is sometimes described as steel-manning, the opposite of the more familiar practice of constructing a straw man. Instead of presenting an opponent’s argument in a weakened or exaggerated form that is easy to demolish, the speaker attempts to express it in its strongest and most convincing form. It requires patience, intellectual honesty and a willingness to recognise that people who hold different convictions may nevertheless have carefully considered reasons for doing so.
Brierley illustrated the exercise with a conversation between Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, and Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. The two men have very different understandings of the universe and of the place of religion within it, yet both possess formidable intellectual abilities and a long history of engagement with questions of science and faith.
In the recording, Williams was asked to explain Dawkins’s position. Rather than immediately defending Christianity or attempting to expose weaknesses in atheism, he began by acknowledging the profound sense of wonder that Dawkins finds in the natural world. He recalled having quoted Dawkins in an Easter sermon at Canterbury Cathedral because of the beauty with which the scientist had described the mystery and magnificence of existence.
Williams then went on to explain why Dawkins regarded scientific explanation as sufficient in itself. The natural universe, with its intricate relationships, its coherence and its astonishing beauty, provides both intellectual satisfaction and a deep sense of awe. From this perspective, introducing God as an additional explanatory agency does not necessarily enhance our understanding. It may instead appear to diminish the wonder of the natural world by suggesting that its beauty and intelligibility require something beyond themselves to make them meaningful.
Williams presented this position with such care and sympathy that Dawkins immediately acknowledged its accuracy. He responded enthusiastically that Williams had captured precisely what he believed and thanked him for expressing it so well. Brierley regarded this as an almost ideal demonstration of the art of listening. Here was a Christian theologian describing an atheist’s understanding of reality with such generosity that the atheist felt completely understood.
The significance of the exchange lay not in the resolution of their differences, for their differences remained considerable, but in the quality of their encounter. Williams had not surrendered his Christian convictions, nor had Dawkins moved towards religious belief. Nevertheless, a moment of genuine understanding had occurred. Each could recognise the other as a serious thinker rather than merely as an adversary to be defeated.
Brierley suggested that this ability to understand another person’s position accurately is a sign of intellectual confidence rather than weakness. Those who are secure in their own convictions should not need to distort the arguments of others. Indeed, the willingness to listen carefully may create the conditions in which a much more substantial conversation becomes possible. His approach could be summarised as establishing a human connection before attempting to correct another person’s ideas.
This principle has considerable implications for Christian evangelism and public witness. Religious discussion can too easily become a contest in which each participant is waiting for an opportunity to present a prepared argument. Genuine listening, by contrast, requires a willingness to discover what another person actually believes, how those beliefs were formed and what experiences may lie behind them. It also requires accepting that a person’s worldview may contain insights worthy of respect, even where fundamental disagreement remains.
Brierley then turned his attention to the contemporary media environment, which he believes increasingly discourages this kind of encounter. Social media platforms, in particular, are structured around systems that reward attention, engagement and emotional reaction. Anger, fear and controversy are frequently more successful in attracting audiences than patient explanation or careful analysis. What began as the age of clickbait has, in his view, developed into an age of rage bait, in which provocation becomes a commercial strategy.
He observed that the internet had originally promised an unprecedented opportunity for the free exchange of information and ideas. People would be able to communicate across geographical and cultural boundaries, discover unfamiliar perspectives and collaborate in ways previously unimaginable. Yet the same technology has also made it possible for individuals to retreat into ideological communities where their existing beliefs are continually reinforced.
Algorithms learn what attracts our attention and then supply more of it. Over time, this can produce an increasingly distorted understanding of the wider world. People who disagree with us may cease to appear as fellow human beings with their own experiences and convictions. Instead, they become caricatures, threats or representatives of hostile groups. The resulting atmosphere encourages polarisation, suspicion and resentment rather than curiosity and mutual understanding.
Brierley was particularly concerned about the pressures this creates for Christians working in the media. Journalists, broadcasters, producers and online content creators are often employed within organisations whose success depends upon ratings, advertising revenue, audience figures and commercial growth. These pressures cannot simply be ignored, and Brierley acknowledged that his own production company, Think Faith, must work hard to attract audiences and distribute its material effectively.
The difficulty arises when the pursuit of attention begins to determine the nature of the message itself. A provocative headline may attract more readers than a balanced account. A sensational video may reach a much larger audience than a careful examination of a complicated subject. A public disagreement may generate greater interest when presented as a personal conflict rather than an honest difference of opinion. The temptation is to sacrifice nuance, fairness and generosity in pursuit of visibility.
Brierley therefore challenged his audience to consider where their own boundaries should lie. What material would they refuse to produce, even if it promised substantial commercial success? At what point does the desire to reach a wider audience begin to compromise the integrity of the message? These are not questions with simple answers, but they are particularly important for Christians whose professional lives place them at the centre of public communication.
He drew upon St Paul’s Letter to the Romans, chapter twelve, verse two, which warns believers against conforming to the patterns of the world. Brierley suggested that people working in the media are not only shaping public opinion but are themselves being shaped by the culture and commercial expectations of their industry. The challenge is to recognise those influences and resist them when they conflict with Christian values.
Towards the end of his address, he proposed three practical responses. The first was to resist the influence of the algorithm by deliberately seeking out a wider range of information and opinion. Christians should read publications with which they disagree, question the reliability of material before sharing it and cultivate the habit of examining evidence rather than accepting stories simply because they reinforce existing convictions.
His second recommendation was to speak the truth in love. This means neither concealing one’s beliefs nor presenting them aggressively. It requires a recognition that important questions are often more complicated than public debate allows and that genuine conviction can coexist with humility. The purpose of speaking should not simply be to win approval from those who already agree, but to contribute something truthful and constructive to the wider conversation.
His third recommendation was to rehumanise our conversations. Brierley expressed concern that modern life is steadily reducing the opportunities for direct human encounter. He referred to his experience of travelling in a driverless taxi in San Francisco and wondered whether society was moving towards a future in which people could pass through an entire day without needing to interact meaningfully with another human being.
The development of artificial intelligence, including increasingly sophisticated artificial companions, added another dimension to this concern. Although technology offers many advantages, Brierley questioned whether a society that substitutes digital interaction for personal relationships might lose something essential to human flourishing.
Here he returned to theology. Christianity is founded upon the extraordinary claim that God entered human history in the person of Jesus Christ. The Incarnation was not simply the transmission of divine information or the communication of a set of abstract principles. It was a personal encounter between God and humanity. For Brierley, this provides a powerful reason for Christians to value embodied relationships, personal presence and face-to-face conversation.
The Church, in this understanding, has an important role to play in restoring human connection. Christians are not merely representatives of a religious institution or members of a particular intellectual tradition. They are called to bring something of the character of Christ into their workplaces, communities and relationships. In the media industry, this might mean treating colleagues with greater generosity, resisting the temptation to demonise opponents or making space for perspectives that would otherwise be excluded.
What I found particularly significant about Brierley’s address was his distinction between winning an argument and creating the conditions in which truth can genuinely be heard. His example of Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins demonstrated that disagreement need not destroy respect. Indeed, when someone feels that their position has been understood accurately and sympathetically, they may become more willing to listen in return.
There is a wider lesson here that extends beyond Christianity and the media. Much of contemporary public life appears to operate on the assumption that the purpose of conversation is to establish who is right and who is wrong. Brierley offered a different possibility: that conversation can itself be a means of discovery, even when no final agreement is reached. The willingness to enter another person’s intellectual and emotional world may reveal dimensions of an issue that would otherwise remain hidden.
This does not mean that all opinions are equally valid or that truth is merely a matter of personal preference. Brierley was clear that Christians have convictions they are called to uphold. His argument was that the search for truth is strengthened, rather than weakened, by intellectual generosity and a willingness to listen.
The address was particularly appropriate as an opening contribution to a conference devoted to the theme of One Voice. The challenge was not to make everyone think alike, but to explore how people with different experiences, responsibilities and perspectives might nevertheless pursue a shared commitment to truth, grace and human dignity.
Brierley left his audience with a demanding but constructive vision. Christians working in the media have opportunities, both individually and collectively, to influence the tone and character of public conversation. They may not be able to change the entire media landscape, but they can make choices about the way they conduct interviews, prepare programmes, report disagreements and relate to those whose opinions differ from their own.
Ultimately, his message was that Christian witness should be recognised not only through the convictions that believers express, but through the quality of the relationships they create. Truth without grace can become a weapon; grace without truth can become empty sentiment. The Christian calling is to hold both together.
If that principle were more widely practised, it might transform not only the way Christians communicate their faith, but the way society itself conducts its increasingly difficult conversations.
