Can We Make America Good? with Philip Gulley

Download the transcript and discussion questions.

Discussion Questions

1. In response to the Make America Great Again movement, Philip Gulley says, “I would settle for making America good.” How does this statement sit with you?
2. Phil says that Quakerism’s message “resonates well with people who are seeking, who are exploring, who are trying to discern how best to live their lives. And as long as we keep doing that, I think there will be a place for Friends in the world….” What drew you to Quakerism? Why do you think it is still necessary today?

Philip Gulley: A concern for the “least of these” is certainly, to me, evidence of one’s commitment to grace and the presence of God.

I don’t think we can, as Friends, improve upon what Jesus taught, that forgiveness, that radical love, that caring for the poor are the signposts of true faith. 

Jon: I’m Jon Watts and today we’re continuing our extended offseason where we post a new conversation with a different notable Quaker about once a month. Today I’m speaking with a Friend that we’ve been really eager to have on the show — Philip Gulley. A lot of people know Phil as the author of wholesome fiction stories, but lately he’s also known for writing books that challenge the present-day church, such as his recent book If The Church Were Christian.

In the past few months Phil has been outspoken — on his blog and in his church in Indiana — about the dangers of Christian nationalism and how the evangelical church has lost its way in today’s political environment.

Phil and I had a great conversation about his journey into discovering Quakerism, his passion for writing, and what motivates him to speak truth to power. Let’s get into it!

Jon: Phil, we really appreciate you joining us. I’m looking forward to the conversation.

So Phil, I wonder if we could start with a brief introduction. What’s your name, where do you live, and tell us a little bit about your work.

Philip: My name is Phil Gulley. I live in Danville, Indiana, where I grew up. And I’ve been a Quaker pastor for 40 years now, and I’ve been pastoring at Fairfield Friends Meeting for 25 years in addition to writing books and essays and columns.

Jon: Give us a little bit more of the background on those two different streams. How did you come to be a Quaker pastor? And also, when did you start putting it into writing and publishing it?

Philip: My mother was a principal of our local Catholic school. And so I was really steeped in Catholicism but starting to struggle with it, especially around the issues of the power of the clergy and what I saw as kind of a lopsided ecclesiology. And providentially, I began bumping into Quakers and it really resonated with me. 

One of my most enduring memories is my first meeting for worship when I attended a program meeting. Most of the Quakers around here are programmed. And so the minister gave a message and then we entered into silence and a woman present stood up and challenged him to think a bit more deeply about what he was saying. And I thought to myself, well, she will be killed because you don’t do this in the churches that I was familiar with. You’d get thrown out if you said that to a Catholic priest, you would be shown the door. We entered back into silence and five or 10 minutes later, he stood up and thanked her and said she was probably right and took her advice seriously. And it just blew me away that there would be a spiritual community where people could actually participate and comment without being chastised or punished. I was in, after that I was in. 

As you know in the Quaker tradition, it isn’t appropriate to stand and say, I feel called to be a minister. Others have to notice your gifts for ministry and approach you. And so that happened at Plainfield Friends meeting when I was 22. And so I quit my job and went away to college and began studying theology and sociology and sociology of religion.

And then I was pastoring a church in Indianapolis and they asked me to write a newsletter. And so I began writing the front page of the newsletter and discerned that those days on which I wrote were my favorite days. I’d wake up that morning full of energy and I thought, well, maybe I can write too.

And so I began writing and started out with an evangelical publisher. That marriage was short-lived. Once I failed to pass their theological test, so began writing for HarperCollins, where I spent most of my writing life.

Jon: I love that story about the first time you attended that someone spoke back and critiqued the message that day. That reminds me of the stories of early friends who would go into these big Anglican churches and start having arguments with the preacher right in the church, which was not a welcome theological debate at the time.

Philip: To this day, I will have people stand up at Fairfield and say, perhaps you need to think about this or have you considered this? And I like that. I like what that says about our freedom to question.

Jon: Yeah. So Phil, the last time we spoke was in 2017 when I came and visited with my cameras to put some videos up on YouTube. You had just released the book Unlearning God. And we put up two videos with you from that conversation and together they have over 50,000 views. 

One of the things that you said in that interview that really stuck with me and I think with a lot of people based on the comments section is, and I’m going to quote you here, you said, “religion has often been a poor advertisement for the reality of God.”

And so I wanted to take this opportunity to start out here and just ask you what you meant by that.

Philip: Well, I think that time and again throughout not only Christian religion, but the history of all religion is that they quickly become yoked with empire. And just as soon as that happens, we lose our moral compass, we lose our way. I was reading the other day, I think the statistics for the latest statistics on Trump’s election victory, 78%. I think it was I So it’s clear that religion at this point in time is a poor advertisement for the reality of God.

What are we thinking? It boggles the mind.

Jon: And I want to get more into today’s political environment and your take on sort of the church’s relationship in building that political environment. What would be a good advertisement for the reality of God?

Philip: Well, justice is always a nice start. And a concern for the”least of these” is certainly, to me, evidence of one’s commitment to grace and the presence of God.

I don’t think we can, as Friends, improve upon what Jesus taught, that forgiveness, that radical love, that caring for the poor are the signposts of true faith. And at any time, any movement away from those priorities, reflects poorly not only on us, but on our understanding of who God is and who we are as people of God.

I have a friend who’s a district superintendent in the Methodist tradition here in the Midwest, and he had a pastor come to him. He was in trouble with his congregation because he had recently preached a sermon series on the Sermon on the Mount, and many of his congregants were infuriated, accusing him of taking a political stand when preaching on the sermon on the Mount.

Since when did that become a political issue? I always thought that was just a spiritual issue. But that’s the world we inhabit now.

Jon: I want to talk to you about that because this idea of where the culture is and where the society is going and where the church is going has always been of concern to Quakers, right? And you know, the very early Friends called it the Lamb’s War, that there was a struggle for the soul of the nation. I think for some people who hear about that or who encounter Quakers nowadays think that being Quaker is all about just being nice to everybody all the time and being passive.

And so I’m excited about this conversation with you because you’ve waded into some of these more controversial waters and some more confrontational conversation with the church. I was just looking at one of your early stories where you tell the story of being fired from your first gig as a pastor for not affirming the existence of hell and then you turned around the next week and preached a sermon at another Friends church titled, “If You Can’t Love Homosexuals, You Can’t Love God.”

Phil: Right.

Jon: And you’ve got a book titled If the Church Were Christian and another forthcoming one called If Religion Were Spiritual. So it seems like of all people, you’re leaning into it a bit. And I just wanted to ask, what’s with the confrontationalism? I thought Quakers were all kindness and passivity.

Philip: Hahaha!

Well, I have never liked bullies. And when I see people behaving like bullies. I am determined to say something about that. In the process of that, I don’t want to become what I despise. I don’t want to become belligerent and hateful myself. But I’ve decided that I won’t be silent. 

I grew up with a gay brother in a small conservative Indiana town and saw him ridiculed and hurt. And something just clicked in me and I just decided a long time ago that when I saw people being treated unkindly that I would not be quiet about that. I mean, what can they do? Kill me? So why not speak up?

Why not talk clearly about what the church ought to be? We have an obligation to do that. 

Jon: After the break, Phil and I discuss heaven and hell, the MAGA movement in America, and the future of Quakerism.

Jessica Manly Bucciarelli: Hi, I’m Jessica Manley Bucciarelli. My pronouns are she and her. And I am a member at Bridge City Friends Meeting, which is an unprogrammed meeting in Portland, Oregon, which is my hometown. I’m married. I am full time in the workforce. I have a dog.

Jon: Jessica is a monthly supporter of Thee Quaker Podcast, and we called her up to learn more about her spiritual journey.

Jessica: I grew up Catholic in Portland in the ’70s, and I drifted away from faith for about 10 years, and in my 20s I was starting to explore.

So fast forward to Berkeley in the ’90s, and I got involved in something called the Quaker Lesbian Conference at Ben Lomond Quaker Center, which is in the mountains south of San Francisco. And that led me to start going to unprogrammed meeting in Berkeley. So for about 30 years, I have been part of Quaker meetings and Quaker communities and Quaker organizations in a variety of places in the U.S.

I think what drew me was seeking direction from God and seeking to align how I’m living this life on earth with what’s good and what’s desired in life.

For me, the main drive is to show up and gather and listen for God together. And lo and behold, that’s not how it always feels every time.

I have the good fortune of being married to another Quaker, and so, to some extent, we have a practice in our home, but I 100% recognize that that is no substitute for meeting, you know, and neither is listening to Thee Quaker, I do not recommend that people bail on their meetings and do these other things instead. But when I listen to Thee Quaker, I’m around the kind of Quakerism that I like to be around. To some extent that has helped me show up for monthly meeting a little more often than I had been for a while.

It’s not that Thee Quaker is exactly like my Quaker life. That would be boring.

But Thee Quaker, in my experience, is rooted in unprogrammed practice, but It’s definitely connected to a larger world of Quakerism and a larger world of faith and seeking.

The podcast format and the way that you all do it helps bring it to life for me.

There’s this issue in a lot of faith communities, including among Quakers of the spiritual versus the political or the mystical versus the practical or whatever. And I feel that the range of — not just the topics you’ve done, it’s not like, there was a mystical episode and then an activist episode and then a mystical and then an activist — it feels relatively woven together and that’s how I want my life to be and that’s the kind of stuff I want to be around where they’re not fighting with each other. 

And to bring us into the presence of that, albeit over the audio waves, is really, really amazing.

Jon: Last year we asked you, our listeners, to help us reach one hundred monthly supporters, and Jessica took that nudge to heart. Like many of you out there who signed up to give $5 or $10 or $20 a month, she joined our team of supporters who make this show possible.

Jessica: Part of it is, as someone who makes pretty small donations, it did feel that I could make a difference. I really liked what I was supporting and I think this is what we need, and it provides a support around the week that I think can be part of people growing spiritually and growing in their ability to act in the world.

Jon: If you’ve had a similar experience of finding connection and spiritual encouragement from this podcast, we’d like to ask that you please consider joining Jessica and becoming a monthly supporter. Find out how at QuakerPodcast.com and click on Support in the upper right hand corner. Thank you.

And now back to the show.

Jon: Welcome back. I want to dig a little bit down into some of the topics of outspokenness. You know, we get a lot of, we do a lot of research on sort of what people are asking about Quakers, you know, how they find us. And for a lot of people, their first Google search is what do Quakers believe?

We’ve been trying to answer some of these questions and talking to a lot of different Friends about it. One of the topics, sort of subtopics of that is Quakers and the afterlife.

That’s something that you’ve weighed in on. So I wonder if I could ask you, what do Quakers believe about heaven and hell?

Philip: I used to have very set ideas about that. And I now realize I spoke with too much certainty about things that no one can be certain about. Which isn’t to say that our beliefs about the afterlife aren’t important. I think they are because they inform how we conduct ourselves in this present life. That is, if we believe someone is going to hell, we give ourselves tacit permission to treat them like hell. And so what we believe about heaven and hell and afterlife and human destiny is important in so far as they affect how we live in the present day. But am I sitting around yearning for the day when I will be magically transported? up in the air to see everyone who I’ve loved, who’s died before me? I don’t even think about that anymore. And if that doesn’t happen, I don’t have the first complaint. This isn’t to say I don’t hope that it’s true on some level.

As for hell, I’ve noticed, as I’m sure you have too, its weaponization.

Our tendency to use it to manipulate and coerce others into doing what we want them to do, and hoping they will agree with us, that they will affirm what we believe. once we start using, once we start weaponizing that, I think we lose moral credibility.

It just doesn’t ring my bell the way it used to.

In fact, the longer I live, the less inclined I am to posit a belief in God as the core of my life. I am becoming as I age more of a humanist. That is I really deeply believe in the dignity of human life and created life and see much goodness and beauty in it, much potential and my need to posit that in an authority beyond us is fading. It just isn’t as meaningful to me as it once was. I’m inspired by people who live and act with nobility, who love deeply, who see the world beyond and outside themselves and embrace it, who cherish it. Those are the things that inspire me these days.

Jon: Amen.

Philip: which I think is utterly consistent with Quakerism, because to me, Quakerism is increasingly not about what we say about God, but about embracing truth wherever we find it, which allows us to talk with people who might outwardly be different from us. But when we believe that our allegiance should be the truth, then we can sit down with anyone and engage them and talk with them and learn from them and they in turn can learn from us. So it really opens one’s world and it has certainly opened up mine.

Jon: Thank you. Yeah, I want to ask about your next, your upcoming project here. I saw that your next book is set to be published in February. Is that right?

Philip: That would be nice. That won’t be happening.

Jon: Well, I did find a blurb on it online. The book is called If The Church Were Spiritual.  The blurb quotes the American suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton as saying “the Bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation.”

And in the blurb, you take this a step further and say that institutional religion is a stumbling block for human emancipation. So walk me through this idea. Why is institutional religion a stumbling block for human emancipation, and what’s the solution?

Philip: Well, the Southern Baptist preacher, Will Campbell, said it best in a lecture to the Whitsett Society, I think it was in 1998. He said something to this effect, that every institution is evil. For shortly after its inception, it will forget the motives that gave it birth and it will exist only to serve its own purposes. So that very shortly after any institution, whether it’s a religious, financial, educational institution, once it starts, its primary concern is no longer doing that which drove its creation, but instead, becomes focused on its own ongoingness, its own preservation, to the exclusion of everything else. And I think that has clearly happened in religion. I would argue it’s happened in Quakerism, because we’re a human institution. I hear Quakers say, oh Quakerism must go on as if, the things we value will die if we’re not here. Well, that’s just very egotistical. How are we the soul bearers of peace and compassion and equality? We’re not, there are people working on these things. It isn’t contingent upon us. So there’s a certain arrogance. And I think there’s this…

and institutional arrogance in most religions that the world absolutely needs us, that the world will be lost without us. And I think such arrogance is antithetical to love and to the practice of compassion and certainly to the practice of equality. Because if I begin to think that I’m so necessary and I’m so important in the group that I belong to is so essential for human happiness, then that causes me to think poorly then of people who aren’t in that same community, who aren’t in the same group. They become somehow lesser than whose work and lives is as important as my work and life. So I think it’s just inherent, sociologically inherent to institutions in general whether you’re talking about a church or a nation, you know.

My gosh, there are many things that concern me about the MAGA movement in this country, many, many things. And I think one of the most alarming things about it is the hubris of it. This conviction that we will make America great. What’s that gonna look like? Who’s that gonna leave out?

And what do you mean by great? Yeah, no thank you. I would settle for making America good.

Jon: Yeah, that’s a good segue into my next question here. I’ve been looking through your substack a bit, and of course you haven’t been shy about weighing in on America’s politics. So I wanted to ask you, you know, why is a Quaker pastor wading into these waters? What concerns you about the current state of our politics and particularly the church’s role in where we find ourselves today?

Philip: What concerns me about today’s political climate is the role of religion and nationalism, specifically Christian nationalism, and the power that that gives religious actors and political actors in our country. I find it really frightening. so, I’ve made that a focus of what I’m doing these days. Yeah. Which explains a bit about my book’s delays because I’ve been having ongoing conversations with my publisher who are reluctant to anger, you know, the 48% of them voting public who voted for Donald Trump. And so they want me to soften my language around this and I refuse to.

I said, I’m not gonna be hateful, but I am gonna be clear. And it’s a danger. And I need to speak about it plainly. And they see that killing my market. And I think there are more important things than my market. So we’ll see how that goes. I had originally offered a book to them called, If America Were Great, Our Common Quest for a More Perfect Union. And they refused to publish it. It’s no surprise that Harper Collins is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

I’m seeing patterns there that concern me.

Jon: Well, we’re not worried about you killing our market. I think that our listeners are going to resonate with what you’re sharing. If you could speak plainly here, what concerns you about the rise of Christian nationalism and where the country is going politically?

Philip: Well, I think inherent in Christian nationalism is the conviction by those who hold it that they are doing the work of God. And it’s been my experience that people who thoroughly believe that and who are not willing to consider the possibility that they might be wrong have the potential to give birth to all sorts of evil. That the first thing evil must do is convince others that it is being conducted on behalf of God. So that concerns me, whether it’s unfolding in Iran or America, wherever I see it, I’m alarmed by it.

It just has the potential for such abuse.

Are we gonna be the kind of people who compel religion? And my argument is any government who can compel a religion today can condemn a religion tomorrow.

Jon: You wrote on your Substack. You said, “I’m not surprised a mean-spirited theology inspired a mean-spirited political movement. American evangelicals now have the leader they’d hoped for. Too bad it isn’t Jesus.”

Philip: And I grew up in the heart of the American evangelical movement. My earliest days among friends was in an evangelical Quaker meeting and I imbibed deeply from its well.

And so imagine my shock when I see the people supporting the very things they’ve been railing against for years, for decades, willing to overlook fraud and cheating and the abuse of women and inequality. All of these things that we purportedly cherish and honor, jettisoned in an effort to gain political power. It’s beyond understanding and why more pastors aren’t standing and saying so is beyond me.

It is so utterly inconsistent with what we are to cherish that

I just don’t know what to do other than to say no to that.

Jon: You recently shared a series of do’s and don’ts in times of change. I think we’re all thinking about times of change and times of upheaval. So tell us a little bit about that. What are your do’s and don’ts and what prompted that series?

Philip: That series began before the election, but then took on new meaning after the election because I was almost certain that Kamala Harris was going to win. But a friend of mine, Jim Mulholland said, Philip, never underestimate the depths of racism and misogyny in America. And he was right. And I had forgotten their abiding power.

And I think these times tend to be created by economic anxiety, by an increase in xenophobia and a fear of the other, and a tendency of cultures to scapegoat. In Germany, it was the Jewish people who were controlling wealth and the equivalent today is the immigrant who’s taking your job rather than the oligarchs and the billionaires who are amassing such vast personal fortunes that it leaves less and less for everyone else.

People worry about what kind of nation their children will inhabit. And there are people whose motives are not good, who understand that fear and manipulate it and weaponize it in order to achieve personal power. It is no surprise to me that the preponderance of Donald Trump’s new cabinet consists of very wealthy people, that those who have entree into his White House are obscenely rich, and that the cares and concerns of the poor will simply not be a priority for the modern Republican Party. So that’s the genesis of that sermon series. If this is our reality, then what is it incumbent upon us to do and be?

In times of great change it is incumbent upon us to accept moral responsibility for who we are and what we do.

Jon: Yeah. Well, thank you for that series. We’ll certainly put a link in the podcast episode so that our listeners can go check out your substack and your ongoing work there. I just have one more question for you, I wanted to take a long view here.  What is your hope for the future of the Church and what role do you see Quakers potentially playing in that conversation?

Philip: Well, if social research is any indication, the church in America, as far as participation in the church in America, will continue to decrease. From what we know about younger adults, they are simply not interested in church community, and I totally get that.

If I’m looking, if I am living in this nation right now and looking around at who is championing what, and I knew nothing about the differences in denominations, in religious movements. If I thought that one church was the same as another, I would absolutely want nothing to do with the church. This is why work like yours is so important, because what you’re doing with this broadcast and with your series on Quakerism is you’re raising your hand and you’re saying we’re not all like that.

And people need to hear that. And the fact that you’re doing that through a medium which young people use and employ is very encouraging, which gives me hope for Quakerism. That there are people in Quakerism who get that and who realize that the future of the Quaker meeting, of the Quaker movement isn’t gonna be found in small rural meetings that haven’t had a new thought in a hundred years. It’s gonna be found in community of thoughtful people who participate and engage in a variety of ways and who find great meaning and hope in that. 

And I think the Friends message is so distinctive in a good way that it will resonate with people who are passionate about these things. We’re a young people’s religion. We are. And for all our talk about valuing the elders and our stereotypes about Quakers being old and gray.

At the heart of our Quaker message, I think, is a message that resonates well with people who are seeking, who are exploring, who are trying to discern how best to live their lives. And as long as we keep doing that, I think there will be a place for Friends in the world, a need at a necessary place.

If all we’re gonna do is sit around in a small building and keep doing the same old thing, I don’t have much hope for us. And quite frankly, if that version of Quakerism dies, it’s no big deal to me. But the heart, the essence, the seeking, the testimonies, I think have a timeless quality about them and will always appeal to people. They won’t appeal to everyone, but they will appeal to enough.

Jon: Well said, thank you. You just gave my thesis statement for the existence of this organization.

Philip: Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

Jon: Thank you for listening and thank you to Philip Gulley for joining us today. Phil is the author of a number of books and also a very lively Substack called Plain Speech with Philip Gulley. We’ll provide a link in our show notes and as always we’ve got discussion questions and a transcript of this episode at QuakerPodcast.com.

This episode was produced by Georgia Sparling and me, Jon Watts. I also wrote and performed the music. Studio D mixed the episode. Your Quaker Quote of the Week will be read by Grace Gonglewski.

If you believe in the work you’re doing and want it to continue, consider becoming a Podcast supporter — you can do that on a monthly or a yearly basis. Head to QuakerPodcast.com and click on Support to learn more.

Hosted by Jon Watts. Original music and sound design by Jon Watts (Listen to more of Jon’s music here.)

Produced by Georgia Sparling.

Mixed and mastered by Studio D.

Supported by listeners like you (thank you!!)

Flag image by FreePik

Referenced in this episode:

• Follow Philip Gulley’s Substack newsletter, Plain Speech, and learn more about his book and sermons.