No it isn’t. He is saying that Christianity survives because Christ survives. He is also stating that if you have trouble defending the Bible against those with minds like Dawkins, then maybe you should try defending the movement that produced the Bible as proof of Christ instead.
You probably also have a problem with the statement that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. After all there is more credit given to the blood of the Saints for building the church than the word of God.
It wasn't a “movement” that produced the Scriptures but the operation of God's spirit. It is the instruction and teaching book for Christians, as Paul called it, “Sharper than any two edged sword”.
Of course some may not like the idea that the “sword of the spirit”, God's Word, is alive and so want a view of the Bible as unnecessary or even a hindrance to their brand of Christianity.