When was America a Christian Nation? with Dr. Daniel Scalberg

Oh, yeah. Back in the studio.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are back. Your favorite podcast in the world, back with another episode. And Renee, please help us get to know today's guest.

That's right, here we are today again, excited to have with us a new guest. We welcome Dr. Daniel Skahlberg to the Mutalks discussion. Dr. Skahlberg is a professor of history at Multnomah University. His research and writing has focused on the church in the 17th century New France, including key cultural encounters of that time period. Thank you for being here, Dr. Skalberg. We're looking forward to the discussion today.

Yeah, my pleasure. Glad to be here.

Dr. Skahlberg, we are so thankful that you join us now for the people that have been watching us and listening to us faithfully. Dr. Scalber has been with us before in season one. We've had Dr. Scobber one time, I think, and, and I'm, I've not even looked. I'm not looking back on the list. And I remember it. I haven't really sketched etches sketched in my memory. It was five lessons from history for the church and ministry. And I, I really enjoyed that conversation. Now today we are here because we want to read the Miranda rights to you. Every word you wrote in the Cultural Encounters can and will be day in this episode.

That's right. Used against me.

Cultural Encounters. Cultural Encounters is actually an academic journal launched by our center, New Wine. New Wine, New Wine, Skin center for Integration and Cultural Engagement. And in volume 16, number number one in 2019, Dr. Skullberg, you wrote, and these are your words, you wrote something that I think it's really powerful. An article on the formation and fragmentation of the idea of America as a Christian nation. Now you start with something that feels like you wrote in 2021 and 2022.

Yes. And 2020 will still be true in 2023.

The political polarization and partisan bickering that has become a byword of popular political climate is reflected in contemporary popular opinion about American or Americans religious past. We are really ready to hear your thoughts on the fragmentation and, and really the history as a, as a true historian. Welcome.

Yeah, glad to be here. Looking forward to it.

Your thoughts? Yes.

Oh, gosh, yes. So here we go. Well, I wrote the piece in the hopes that I would be able to say something about what I consider to be the overly simplistic views of America's religious past that prevail in both conservative political discussion and more liberal leaning political discussion that I see that both sides of the partisan debate oversimplifying. Of the past oversimplify the history of the United States. And they do it. I understand why they do it. They do it for, you know, to make partisan points, useful sound bites for the. In support of the cause. But. But what it results is in the abuse of the past and the silencing of the past. You may have heard the. The phrase that the winners write the history. That's only partially correct. What the winners do, or the people who hope to be the winners in the partisan debate, they silence the past. They don't write the past. They silence it. Or they see, maybe I should say they seek to silence it. Because if the past speaks truthfully, the past rises up and cries out against the partisan passions of our time. Because I like to quote one of my graduate school advisors, he passed away. Now, Dr. Earl Cairns @ Wheaton College did my Master of Arts thesis under his guidance. And I remember a statement he made there to these young graduate students. We were there at Wheaton College, and he said, ladies and gentlemen, historical causation is always multiple and complex. It is never single and simple. So therefore, proper historical causation, the truth about the past, is complex. Why? Because God made the world in all its complexities and he is the Lord of time and space. So there's not some simple, easy, partisan answer on this question of America's religious history. America's religious history is complex. America's religious history is diverse. America's religious history is derived primarily from Europe, and it is transplanted from Europe by those Europeans who brought their Christianity and their baggage. Now what we need to realize is the Christianity they brought with them was diverse from the very beginning. So just think of this within the first three decades of permanent European settlement in North America. This is just North America. We're not talking about central. We could, we could bring in Central America and South America, but I'm just thinking of the North American European settlement, 1607 to 1637. That's the first 30 years, first three decades of the European settlement. Six different denominations are transplanted in the first 30 years. And unlike today, today we like to think of. We are kind of tolerant or I'm talking about the Christians. So these are Christians bringing their Christianity with them in their baggage. So today we like to think ecumenically. Those. That's kind of the. The virtue of our time, you know, to, to work across the denominations in Christian endeavor. 17th century was not that age. It was not an age of ecumenism and religious tolerance. So you have six different denominations, each of those denominations believing they've got it right. Everybody, all the other Christians have it wrong. We're the only Christians doing it right. And several of those denominations believe the other denomination or denominations are the Antichrist. So these are what you have. You have six pockets of Christianity being planted. So therefore that says something about the diversity of that religious experience, but also immediately the beginning of the fragmentation of the, even the idea of a Christian America. I can keep going. Yes, yes.

No, we want to. I mean, this is the foundation and for the people that are not going to take the time to read your article, which is, is, I really think you're missing out. Can you provide a brief overview of the, the partisan views that are, I think they're still the foundation of the discussion and the political debates that are happening today.

Yeah.

Because these are, these are views of old right. So, so you have, you have the right and then you have, I think you called it the secular left.

Yeah.

What are, what are those views?

Yeah. Not trying to, to stereotype. I actually in the, for those of you who have the chance to read the article or you just trust me, you know, the one, what I'm saying about, about my own article is accurate. I, I am admitting that these, that these are stereotypes. You know, this idea of Christian right is actually a stereotype. Not all Christians are right wingers. You know, not all Christians buy whatever the agenda is of the Christian right. I don't even really know. You try and figure out what the agenda is. You know, but it's a handy label that's used to kind of categorize of maybe conservative, politically conservative leaning Christians. And then you have a, you know, also an equal stereotype of this secular left, you know, but using those kind of paradigms, I guess.

Yes.

What I, what I've suggested is that stereotypes do prevail. They are stereotypes, but, but they're cultural stereotypes that are well used. They're labels that are thrown around and they become useful. Again, they're not useful for me, the historian, because I'm the historian who tears them apart. But, but as what I mean is that they're useful in society. So on the one hand, on the one side calling it the Christian right, conservative Christians will tend to think of early America. The history of early America was a time in which the Christian church had profound, not only profound influence in American society, but very positive influence in that society. And a kind of Christian golden age prevailed from which over time, slowly, over time, America has abandoned its Christian underpinnings. And then that explains, it's a helpful narrative to Explain the current political troubles and travails, maybe culture, social, cultural, political troubles and travails and divisiveness in the nation. Okay. The other side, the so called secular left, actually agrees with this idea that in early colonial America, Christianity was the prevailing dominant worldview. So they're agreeing with this, with the sort of Christian idea of a golden age. But the left says, yep, Christianity, very influential, but many of its influences are negative. And thankfully over time, as the country has evolved, the nation's history has evolved, we have learned to get over the overly doctrinaire positions of early colonial Christianity that justified all kinds of abuse of individuals and of minority groups. We've been able to get past that and bring about greater social justice as a result of more liberal influences. Okay. So the one side to call it the left has said, yep, early America, strong Christian influence, but it was a dark age. The conservative Christian side, yep, definitely golden age, positive thing. So period of light, period of darkness. Now that's a really easy way to interpret the past. Anybody can understand it. The problem with it, it's neither, neither of you is accurate. So it would be really great if it was. If it was that easy. If it was that easy, no one would ever have to take another in American history course again. American history was that easy to understand and follow.

You also talk in your article speaking about these two stereotypes and the concept of American exceptionalism.

Yeah.

Can you also touch on that and how that plays into both sides of this?

Yeah. So it's the one thing again that the left and the right, to put it that way, find common ground on common ground. As we've already said on this, the influence of Christianity. Now what? The quality of that influence, that's where they disagree. The other area that they find agreement on is that America is an exceptional nation. On the conservative side, America is an exceptional nation because of these Christian underpinnings, these Christian foundations. God blessed America and America is a light to the nations. On the liberal side, America is also a light to the nations. Why? Because of its liberal democratic values in capitalist global economy that it seeks to promote. And we should, we should promote these, these value, these American values globally. And thanks to corporate America, we do seek to promote American values globally in terms of the global economy and then politically through our diplomatic core and our State Department, we're seeking to promote American values and we should. So that's where there's common ground. America's an exceptional nation, a light to the nation. For the one side, it's because of its liberal democratic values. For the other side is because of its Christian moral underpinnings. So that's where there's the common ground. And the term is American exceptionalism. It's a term. I. I'm a Christian because I'm a Christian and I take the scriptures seriously. I don't think America is an exceptional nation. That is, we're thinking of a nation of. That's so much better than. By the way, I'm an American citizen. I love my country. I do. I love my country. But God loves all the nations. I'm glad I live in America. But God loves the nations. God has a chosen nation. It's not the United States of America. And. And my Canadian side of the family understands that really well. My mother is French Canadian, so she would always say, you know, yeah, yeah, there are those American Christians who think America's Christian nation. And she said, these Canadian Christians, we never make that. Canadian Christians know that America's not the exceptionalism.

Sometimes, you know, I. I definitely see. I kind of see two sides of this because, like, as a foreigner, as a Canadian, this is a truly impressive country.

Like.

Like, America is a country that has done things really well in a lot of ways, and it's hard to know why it succeeded as well. I can. I could imagine a lot of determinants. Right. Like, you can imagine. I mean, you know, we're sitting on a continent where we have very few enemies. You have all kinds of natural resources. We got a lot of scientists after World War II. There's, you know, and even just the. When folks started coming over from Europe, who comes over? Probably the ambitious, the courageous, those ready to, you know, take a chance and.

Yeah, exactly.

And they've built, you know, I mean, there's. There's a hundred, probably.

Yeah, the young, the energetic. Yeah, yeah. You know, the Dr. Skullbergs don't show up in those kind of ventures. Dr. Skullberg's too old. Dr. Skullberg needs to be really close to a library, you know, and. And he also, by the way, he. He loves opera and, you know, he loves, you know, symphony music. So. So Scalper is going to say in London or Paris, you know, he isn't going to go to the. The new colonies where there are no libraries and no universities, Trek to the West.

Even the content, like, if. When folks are more content, they're kind of like, ah, this is good. But the ones that are like, let's go get this thing. I mean, so on that sense, yeah, the exceptionalism, you know, I can, like, you know, kind of. On the other Hand when people start thinking that just because we're American, we're smarter or we're writer or better or, you know, that's to me where I get a little troubled.

Yeah, exactly. It's a superiority complex. So American exception, exceptionalism over the long haul. Historians, you know, there have been really excellent studies on the idea of American exceptionalism over the long haul. It's. It certainly has had some, some benefits. It's. It's also had some, some real downsides. And it's again a kind of superiority complex or a kind of.

Egocentrism.

Yeah, egocentrism. And it has negative political outcomes. It, it also had in the hands of a kind of a British Israel thesis that was pioneered by, by Crawford and Hunt who were British sociologists in the. Their 19th century. British sociologists had Anglo British connections with, with the United states in the 19th century when racial theory was being pioneered because of this idea of exceptionalism that if you have exceptional people, you also have primitive people. And so the primitives then are defined racially through various racial typologies and that, that create. For a time, thankfully those days are over. But that created a time in which you have this sort of social scientific racial theory which is just a kind of racism, kind of an intellectual racism.

Sure.

A Hunger Games approach to life.

Yeah.

Where some people lived in this.

Yeah. Survival of fittest.

We started, we started directly and enforced. And I could see how some people listening to this are uncomfortable first to, to even talk about the history of the church. That's the first part of the being uncomfortable. I could see some people in the circles that sometimes I serve and all this not even wanting to and thinking it's sacred ground. You can't even question the history of the church, which we should really own and we should actually talk quite a lot about because I think we're repeating some of the things I love in the Book of Revelations. It starts with letter to this church and letter to this church and letter to this church. And if you don't do this, you're going to disappear. And we don't have churches on those places where they didn't actually listen and learn from what they were supposed to change and do. Second conversation was really talking about the, the, the political and the, the mess that we're in. The fact that there is a, there's a partisan discussion and faith is a partisan, partisan topic apparently in the United States of America. And you've provided two views. And here's my question after this long introduction. How does. And there's another massive issue of our generation, and that is on Facebook. Somebody said that there are a lot of lawyers and doctors. That's all you have on Facebook. Everybody knows they're so good. Opinionism is just at all time high. How does a historian get to its conclusion? Because I love the, I really love the fact that you specify today. History is complex and I, the, the oversimplification of history is really painful and it hurts us and it's going to hurt us in long term. How do you come to a conclusion as a historian, as a researcher? How do you get to somewhere? What does it mean for you to say, I'm looking at the history and these are the facts that I will have to accept before I make any opinion? I'm curious.

Well, historians, as a historian, I'm trained to not make up my mind about the past before I look at the past. And here's the reason why. The past can't defend itself. The people who made the past can't come back from the dead and tell everybody that Dr. Skullberg's wrong, that he misinterpreted it. So. And all professional historians are well aware of that. Professional historians, that is goes, you know, if you go to college and go through the training and get a PhD in history, you're taught in graduate school to never to as much as humanly possible. And it's not, you know, you know, you know, we're human, we're fallible, and biases creep in and miss, you know, but as much as humanly possible, we're to set aside our assumptions about the past and let the past speak for itself through its own voice. Or the idea of the historian is to allow that voice to come forth. That's called what's what historians call redeeming the past. The past must be redeemed in order for it to speak to the present. And in redeeming the past, of course, sometimes that voice is very uncomfortable, can make us nervous because there is a difference. There is change over time. And so sometimes it's very uncomfortable. We tend to not. The problem is we tend to not set our biases and values and assumptions aside when looking at the past. So what the mistake that we make, the popular mistake, is a term called what historians call presentism. Presentism is a logical fallacy in which I take my present way of thinking and force it on the past. Of course, I do that to try and make sense of the past, but I also do that to try to, in a fallacious way, try to find something in the past. That will prove my present view point correct. Okay, but that's not the job of the historian, you know, that is the job of the political editorialist. It is partly the job of the social reformer, but the social reformer, the editorialists don't really care all that much about what really happened in the past because what they deeply care about is what's going on in the present. So historians are know that it's the historians who really want to get at the truth about the past because nobody else really wants to get at the truth about the past one, because it's really difficult because the past is so complex. Why is it so complex? Well, it's the past, actions, attitudes, ideas of humanity. And you know, I think sometimes I don't even understand myself, you know, so how am I going in my motivations? You know, why did I do this? You know, and then I kick myself afterwards. I was like, gosh, that was really, you know, not a good decision, you know, so, yeah, it's just the way, it's the, the way God, God made things to me. Oh. So here it is. For those feeling uncomfortable, there's really great comfort in the past because the past, yes, the past can be, it can be very provoked, can be very thought provoking and there can be some conviction, but also it can be very. It is also very inspiring. It's what historians call the clean sea breeze of the past. Because the past gives context, it gives perspective, it reminds us that, well, this isn't the first time, you know, whatever we're going through right now is not the first time humanity has gone through this. And so, you know, whether it's a global pandemic. Last semester I had students study the 14th century global pandemic. It's called, popularly called the bubonic plague. But I wanted them to look at it, you know, accurately. Not a Monty Python esque, bring out your dad version. By the way, I'm a historian. I love satirical comedy. So I laugh with everybody else. But at the same time I realized, no, that's not an accident. Actually accurate, you know, account of the 14th century Bubonic plague in England. You know, where they have the washer woman come out, bring out your dad. So, yeah, so, but, you know, we. But the past offers comfort, it offers solace. When the past is redeemed, the past has already been judged. Our Lord, our, our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ, you know, our God judged the past, judged humanity, found it wanting, you know, and therefore it's, it's. Humanity needs to be redeemed. And so that's why, as I think as a Christian historian, I have to worry about the judgment man. It's already been judged, found wanting. What the past needs, what humanity needs, is redemption. And so that's how I see the job of the Christian historian is to redeem the past by telling the truth about the past. As a Christian and as a historian, what does God want me to do? He wants me to tell the truth about the past as much as possible because I don't need to lie for God. And I see unfortunately, sometimes some well meaning Christians.

Job's friends.

Yeah. Who think they have to twist the past to make God look better. It's not a good thing to be doing that. It really backfires.

It's exceptional.

Yeah.

From when exceptionalism.

Certainly the Old Testament doesn't whitewash.

Yeah. Yeah, it does. Yeah. Matter of fact, if I was writing the Book of Kings and Chronicles, I. I kept it. Gosh, God needed a press secretary, some.

Bad heroes, somebody in the PR lousy.

Why pick this Motley Cruen, you know, almost all of them.

It's encouraging. Here's, here's my question. So, you know, when you hear the question, it was America a Christian nation, and as an immigrant, I, man, I don't have, you know, I wouldn't even join the discussion in the early years, since the time I've been alive, you know, the last 50 years, you guys know, I'm a youth. Men is my, is my area. One of the things youth men do fairly well or they try to do fairly well is read the Zeitgeist and study culture and how culture is changing and media is changing. So, for example, in one of my classes, I have my students watch sitcoms over the different decades, last five decades, and watch them like the most popular sitcom, you know, describing the family like a Leave it to Beaver or a Simpsons or Modern Family or Cosby show or whatever. And then I try to ask them, you know, what are you seeing in the way, you know, what are the differences in roles of the genders and how do people interact with each other and the parents and the kids and all of that? You can see incredible movement in, in views, in the view of the family. And. And now here's my conservative bent showing itself not necessarily in a positive way. Like you look at the families, you know, and so I can understand how a person would look at that change just over this very short, you know, time frame and think, man, we're slipping or something. What would you say to that? Is that too short of a span and Obviously, TV shows are not, you know, definitive or.

Well, I would say, I would say another. A number of things. We're, we're seeing the outcome of, in the present. We're seeing the outcome of, of, of the, of the role of secularization in American society. Now, secularization doesn't mean fewer and fewer Christians. Maybe this would be helpful in American history. If you study it. You have several groups that have influence in the course of American history, and you do have a profound Christian influence in terms of theological values that prevail. And there are. For a person like myself who's, who's a very devout Christian, I find early American history and the study of its theology to be very inspiring. You know, I think of a figure like Jonathan Edwards. I think of his important role in terms of integration of faith and scholarship. He's the first president of Princeton University. The first four universities established in America that we now call Ivy League are all established by Christians, very devout Christians who really were committed to higher education. They believed in higher education. Why? Because higher education is the place where the future leaders are trained. And in order to be a good leader, you have to know some stuff. You know, it just doesn't happen automatically. So, and, and they understood that if you have poor leadership, you have poor followers, and, and you have disruption in society, you have divisiveness. You know, good leaders unite, lousy leaders divide. So I'm not surprised that we have divisiveness in American society. We have a lot of lousy leaders. Why? I know they're lousy. Not because of the position. It isn't because of the position they have on Social Security. You know, that's not. It's because they don't know how to speak properly to their fellow human being who sits in the seat next to them in the legislative house. If they're calling each other names, then the followers are going to call each other names. As Americans, we need to ask more, demand more of our politicians. Positive character is essential in leadership, in anything, whether it's the school board on the local level or the nation.

In.

The governing institutions of Washington, D.C. so, so I got a little preachy there, but got off track. But what Letters and emails back to the history side. As Christians, we have a lot to be proud of in terms of early American history. Christianity does a lot of really positive things. I just mentioned these. Harvard, William and Mary, Yale. You know, just think of Harvard. Harvard is established six years after the Boston colony is planted. That's how fast it happens. Within six years of the very first English Puritan Christians arriving in Salem, Boston, they have established Harvard College. They call it Harvard College, its original name. And they say in their charter why they're establishing Harvard College. They say we are establishing the college lest our leadership, lest the colony become leaders, leaderless. When our current generation of leaders lie in the dust. That's the phrase that they use. I love, I love 17th century. The way they explain it. Lie in the dust. Okay, exactly. Lie in the dust. Okay. So. So we're establishing the college to train leaders not just for the church, which is important because they need, they need a trained pastoral leadership, but for the state, the civil government, to use their term. And we use the state today. But they, they said for the civil commonwealth, you know, so that the commonwealth, those things that everyone has in common, that that commonwealth will prosper because it will have good leadership. So these were. Harvard was established by Christians who understood God's economy, that it rains on the just and the unjust alike. And the commonwealth, the church, of course, that's where you hope to have the Christians, you know, but not everybody is a church person, you know, but you still have the. But they're still in the commonwealth. They're still the citizenry, they're still the body public, the body politic, to use the old 17th century terms. So everyone needed good leadership, Christian in backslider alike or whatever, you know, or the lukewarm, you know, Christian who didn't go to church much. They also need good leadership. And they have that in civil society, or they. Hopefully they do. So there's much to be proud of for Christians. And looking back to the past now, if the question is, was America a Christian nation, say in colonial Massachusetts? The answer is no. If we mean by that question a society that reflects in every way the principles and teaching of Scripture, if that's what's meant by Christian nation, then clearly no. The answer is no, you know, because God's, you know, for all kinds of reasons, but God's got a chosen nation and it's not, not, not, you know, wasn't Massachusetts isn't the United States. If, but if we mean by Christian, was America Christian? You know, if we mean by that, was Christianity a vital influencing factor in society and culture, then the answer is yes. There are significant Christian underpinnings to the values that shape early American history. And again, those values had both positive outcomes in as much as they aligned with the teaching of Scripture, and then sometimes they had negative outcomes because they didn't always align with the values, the moral, ethical values of Scripture. And it just simply means sometimes they got off track. And the Bible is used proof text to justify race based slavery. It is, it's just a sad fact in the past and you know, if the history makes, it makes us feel guilty, you know, it seems like all there are people worried about history making us guilty right now and that we shouldn't, we shouldn't teach certain things about the past because some people are going to feel guilty. You know, I'm thinking wow. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Talk about, talk about a little, a little over sensitivity there.

It's like, like the mirror makes me feel un unattractive sometimes.

Yeah, yeah. So get rid of all the mirrors now because then I'll be attractive. So, so, so yeah. Christianity was a force for tremendous good and occasionally it went off the rails and became a void, a force for, for something terrible like, like, like centuries of race based slavery. And God I, this is how I view it. And God is judging America for that and he continues to judge America for that. America is paying the price and it is a heavy price for race based slavery. So when we have today race riots, when we have racism, race ism.

Sure.

When we have a long history of Jim Crow, a long history of racial segregation and all of the problems that were the result of that. When the Supreme Court of the United States, you know, was, you know, and Brown v. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court said Brown versus Board of Education, when the Supreme Court just finally acknowledged, you know, the elephant in the room and said separate does not mean equal. It clearly historically is, does not mean equal. You know, so that's a part of the price that America is paying for, for the crime of race based slavery. So I, I to me, I and to acknowledge that, to acknowledge sin, I, that's healthy.

Agreed.

Because if you can acknowledge the sin, then you can. That's the first step towards restoration, redemption.

Healing, building a better world.

Yeah.

I can't believe we are, we are time. Thank you Dr. Skullberg, not only for being on MU talks, but thank you for taking the time to actually research and provide a very well researched and supported article in Cultural Encounters. I want to put it out there. Culturalencounters.com actually you can go to culturalencounters.com look for volume, volume 15 and the article called the Formation and Fragmentation of the Idea of America as a Christian Nation. It might be a good place to start there because in America, being here in this country for going on 20 years now, history is not in front of us almost anywhere. And if it wasn't for dedicated people, historians that are actually going to find their way may sometimes working countercultural these days to find a voice and bring the voice of that history in front of us. We would struggle to actually and start repeating a lot of the mistakes that we've done through through the past. We cannot let you go, Dr. Skullberg. We cannot let you go. Before we find out who find out a little bit more about who Dr. Scarber is or who Daniel Skullberg is behind the the, the doctor and the professional professor that we have at multi university. So here we are. Rapid fire a few minutes and let's go.

Favorite college sports team?

University of Oregon Ducks.

Go Ducks. He knew.

Look at that.

Look at that. That was a setup.

My alma mater when I was a PhD student there. They were terrible, but which is great because I got all the games for free.

Yeah.

Right.

When you were a child, what did you want to be when you grew up?

A race car driver.

Okay.

Race car.

Yeah. Formula one. The European. I wanted to be European circuit.

He still does. That was a really quick answer.

Yeah, I still do.

He's still what you watch.

In my next career, I'm going to be a race car driver on the European circuit. Yeah.

Favorite thing about France.

Oh, my goodness. The sidewalk cafes. Gosh, it's as close to heaven as you can get without being actually in heaven.

Is it because the people. Because the croissants was it.

What is it? It's the people. It's the people watching. It's the, you know, it's, it's anyway.

You know, the closest, the closest experience I've had in America to the, the European like, you know, the friends. Is New Orleans.

Oh, yeah.

Tuesday night, people on the streets, music, like walking. It was just the closest. And even the architecture, you know that. Do you have a secret talent?

Secret talent? I play a lot of golf and most people don't know that I play what I, I, I'm not this time of year.

Okay.

Yes. Starting next month, I'll go back to my. I'm playing. I play twice a week.

That's great.

Do I dare to ask about a handicap?

March. March through. Well, in my best score, I was, I was on the golf team for two years in high school and then in my glory days. Okay. My, my, my handicap was when I was an eight. I was an eight handicap and really good. The trouble is I, I'm now 69 years old and I've lost a little trouble. But yeah, I still, I absolutely love the game. I fell in love with the game. As a teenager.

And how close to par have you ever gotten? Have you ever gotten par?

I shot on a regulation championship golf course. I shot a 74. That was the best.

Wow, look at that.

Okay, but that is.

Yeah, no it's not. It's all day.

You know, know somebody's a great golf player because they know their handicap. That's all you need to do. That's all you need to know.

Yeah. So I have an established, established GA handicap. You can look it up. You just go. Yeah. You have to have your code. You have to be a member. But.

And you have to play 318 holes.

Yeah, you have, you have to renew it each year and you record and the USGA keeps track of it. It's based on which courses you're playing. Cuz every course has a different rating. All that slow parading, what they call. Yeah.

Yep.

Okay.

If you could go to outer space, would you.

That's a good question.

There are no libraries there.

Just, just. No, no, here's. Because what I would rather do is go on a Viking river cruise.

Oh, there you go.

What?

Okay, okay, okay, last one. What's the strangest thing you ate? Strangest, Strangest for somebody that loves sidewalks, cafes.

That's not like. Yeah, well, that's not strange. I mean a lot of people.

No, I'm saying like, you know, if.

You like go or something, but it's not strange. You know, my French Canadian mother, you know. You know. Yeah, I, I. All the things that, that come to mind. Yeah.

Beef tartar.

Yeah, yeah. Beef tart. Yeah. But again, it's not strange to me.

So hard for me, doesn't feel good.

It seems like like normal food, you know, But I guess, I guess to maybe a traditional American diet. Yeah, that, that would be a little, that'd be a little different.

That's a little out there. It's a little out there raw. Well, thank you once again, Dr. Sculver, for being with us and I, I really look forward to having you again on, on MU talks, at least in season three. We look forward to having your thoughts, your, your, your, your passion come out and educate us in, in things of history and redeem history with us here in, in Enemy Talks. Thank you once again for being with us. And if you don't mind, Dr. Reverend Dr. Robert J. Hildebrand. If you don't mind. If you don't mind. Just if you don't mind.

The views expressed on the previous podcast have come from the individual hosts and guests. They in no way reflect the official positions of Multnomah University or its affiliates. Please email your comments to Dr. Daniel.

Oh, thank you.