Cool Christianity and Cool Scouting

Interesting article on the perils of "cool" Christianity and churches. I think the same idea applies to Scouting. The last two paragraphs could have a few words changed, and apply to Scouting (IMO).

The Perils of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704111704575355311122648100.html

The last two paragraphs, with the [words] changed....

If the [bSA] leadership thinks that "cool [scouting]" is a sustainable path forward, they are severely mistaken. As a twentysomething, I can say with confidence that when it comes to [scouting], we don't want cool as much as we want real.

If we are interested in [scouting] in any sort of serious way, it is not because it's easy or trendy or popular. It's because [the Ideals] are appealing, and what [they] say rings true. It's because the world we inhabit is utterly phony, ephemeral, narcissistic, image-obsessed and sex-drenchedand we want an alternative. It's not because we want more of the same.

Yes. "Cool", among the young, is just the fad of the moment. "Cool", among the old, is just bogus.

Dishonest is fake, uncool, and bogus.

So, yes, to both real Xianity, and real Scouting.

(This message has been edited by tnscouttroop)

What does "cool" mean, in this context? Fun? Appealing? An enjoyable activity that people want to be involved in? Doesn't that describe Scouting? Of course there are messages behind the fun, but the fun is what makes boys want to join. An 11-year-old is not thinking of all the life lessons he will learn along the way. He wants to go camping, hiking, swimming, etc. You want to put on your recruiting flyers, "Join Scouting and be instilled with moral values", good luck.

I'm not going to comment on the religious aspect of your post or the cited article, except to say that, taking the article at face value, I don't see any useful analogy to Scouting here.

NJ,

As a 53 year old evangelical Christian who feels abandoned due to the trendiness of churches today, this article hits home with me both from a religious and a scouting standpoint.

The trick to both is staying true to the core values while making your message relevant to society. It can be a fine line that is easy to cross. Like our parents used to tell us, if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, is that any reason for you to do it?

My personal history included a church that was a community. We knew each other and we ministered to each other's needs. I can't imagine how being the member of a "church" where I watch a pastor two towns over on my computer screen is going to minister to me when I have lost a loved one. Can you imagine holding a troop meeting or a campout online where the boys can't interact?

Can you imagine holding a troop meeting or a campout online where the boys can't interact?

No, but I don't see anyone proposing that for Scouting, either. (Although the phrase "Lone Scouts" is ringing a bell, I'm not sure if there are any of those left. But that's a special case of a program to fill a special need.)

As I said, I am commenting on the Scouting aspect of this, not the religious aspect. Brent seemed to be saying that Scouting is going down the same road as the churches that the article-writer is finding fault with. I don't see it.

NJ,

Cool and fun are very different.

Go back and look at some of the threads posted here over the years, regarding Scouting not being cool and the solutions offered to save us from collapse. Soccer programs, Kudu's favorite Mazuca quote about Scouts sitting at computers instead of being outdoors, all we need are new "cool" uniforms. There are many in Scouting who think our membership would grow if we could just make Scouting "cool." I'm sure we all know families that won't let their son get involved in Scouting because it isn't "cool". In that vein, this articles rings very true for Scouting. We don't do it to be cool. We do it because the ideals (Oath and Law) matter.

I don't see it either, but I know it is a matter of perception. A good case in point is electronics and the struggle to keep them out of scouting.....be it meetings or campouts. Adults like the image of a kid interacting with his patrol as they cook dinner in camp or do KP or hike along a trail. What they don't want to see is a kid texting, playing a game or sitting with earphones plugged into each side of his head in his own little world.

We had three contingent troops fpr Jamboree. One SM had an ongoing dialog with parents concerning letting kids bring their phones. The troop I was with, it never came up other than the SM saying we wouldn't be allowing them. He took the old school approach of summer camp that a kid and parents will survive and thrive with a week of seperation. It got down to it and we had a single parent who evidently didn't listen in the troop meetings throw a hissy fit to the council. He insisted on immediate access to his son whenever he desired and if the SM wasn't going to allow phones, then the SM HAD to be near his son at all times so he could talk to his son if he "needed" to talk to him.

The council asked our SM to reconsider his stance.....especially since the BSA finally started firming up their "most connected Jambo ever" plans. Before, they alluded to things. At the last minute, they began revealing contests as such for kids to facebook, twitter, etc. Thanks BSA for letting us know 18 months after we started down this road.

For the most part, BSA delivered on their intnet of making it the most connected Jamboree ever. They leveraged the latest technology available.

Is that a bad thing? Depends on who you talk to. Did kids like it? You bet. Will it cause problems back home when little Billy insists on using his phone to text his buddies during KP time since the BSA now endorses electronics on outings? Yes.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for or against. Just that I see cultural changes taking place in BSA just like they have in the church and some people will welcome it while others will lament it. Personally, a preacher with spiked colored hair, earrings and tattoos drinking a Starbucks is a turn off for me. For others, that kind of preacher draws them where a more traditional guys doesn't.

Bottom line, it all boils down to substance over style. If you do the style to draw them in, you still have to have the substance to ultimately fulfill your mission. When you resort to gimmicks, you have to continually out gimmick yourself.(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

"Brent seemed to be saying that Scouting is going down the same road as the churches that the article-writer is finding fault with. I don't see it."

Look more closely. This has been happening since 1972, when the BSA introduced the "no-camping Eagle." And while at least that has been corrected, we are still seeing many aspects of this "modernization" of Scouting moving ahead full force. We see Cub awards for video games. We see the Handbook get watered down with every revision since Green Bar Bill's 9th Edition, and we see more of these professionally-trained yet outdoors-impaired folks running the show.

Those of us at the ground level get it, but it would be nice if the powers that be listened to us now and again.

NJ,

I think the issue or misunderstanding is from: What your definition of cool.

As a 39 year old, I define cool as something I really like, that I really enjoy and while possibly a physically active thing, brings relaxation!

But when I was younger...say between 12 and 19 years old, cool was anything that was looked upon as okay by everybody else.

Guys wanted to be cool so girls would like them, other boys would respect them, and such.

So, cool wasn't actually any particular quality other than acceptance and appeal by others.

So I do get the comparison: If BSA wants scouting to be cool for the sake of coolness, then scouting will change - and as a result lose/gain a tremendous amout of scouts every 6 or 7 years.

Sherminator (or anyone else): Do you actually know of anyone who made Eagle without going camping? I understand that it was possible. As I have mentioned before, I was a Scout in 1972. I did not notice any kids saying, hey, I can make Eagle without going camping, so I'm not going to go. We ''wanted'' to go camping, backpacking, hiking, etc. And I don't think it really affected us that somewhere, in some faraway unit, some other Scout might be taking a no-camping route to Eagle. I guess we were too busy going to Philmont to worry that, in theory, someone could make Eagle without going camping. But did anyone, really?

And today, nearly four decades later, what is the focus of the program, and the requirements for lower ranks? Camping, cooking, first aid, map and compass, swimming, some citizenship, etc. Sounds pretty familiar. Sure, there's no more tracking (or did they still call it stalking in the late-60's handbook?) or signaling -- but in my opinion, the similarities far outweigh the differences. In the "troop I serve" (technically I can't say "my son's troop" anymore), what do the kids want to do? They want to go camping! So if some people think the BSA has been taking the emphasis off camping for almost four decades, it sure is taking the kids a long time to get the message.

So now I guess a Cub Scout can win a pin or a belt loop for playing video games? My reaction is, so what. The pins and belt loops aren't really part of the advancement program. They're just extras. It isn't hurting anything.

So I don't see all the doom and gloom. The BSA does have opportunities to improve itself, however, like changing one or two bad membership policies...(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Cool and fun are very different

No they aren't.

The terms cool and rad have been obsolete now for quite a few years. The in term now is tight, if it is tight it is fun and cool for all you old timers out there, lol.

However scouting will never be cool or rad or tight, it never was intended to be and not every teen will ever be attracted to scouting period.

Even Mazzuca's ridiculous ideas to transform scouting into some type of futuristic computer online oriented program will be doomed to FAIL. Why, because those, youth and adult, who love scouting truly know what it is all about and no one wants to see it change into some form of geek space camp.

It isn't possible to earn Eagle without camping, sherm. And those Cubby awards you are referring to are optional awards.

It isn't now, because they fixed the loophole. But if you have a copy of the 8th Edition Handbook, 1st or 2nd printing, you'll notice that Camping MB is missing from the required list for Eagle. This was not a misprint - they actually took it off. You'll also notice that Camping skill award was not required for the lower ranks (then "progress awards") either.

As for anyone who actually earned Eagle without camping, I'll admit I haven't actually met one. Then again, I haven't met someone who actually sat all the way through Legally Blonde 2. That was a really bad movie...(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

For lower ranks, you may have been able to progress without camping, but how long has the camping MB been Eagle required? Has the requirement of 20 days and nights camping changed over those years? If camping has always been required, and that requirement has been there the whole time, then you could not get Eagle without going camping.