Ideology Behind Ceremony Changes

The proposed changes to Order of the Arrow ceremonies didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They reflect a broader ideological shift within the Boy Scouts of America: one that prioritizes modern educational frameworks over traditional Scouting values. Understanding this ideology is essential to understanding why these ceremony changes are being proposed and what they represent.

---

The Admonition Proposal: A Case Study

The proposed “Admonition” ceremony provides a clear example of this ideological shift in action.

The Traditional Practice: In the traditional Ordeal ceremony—after candidates complete their Ordeal—Meteu whispers the Lenape word (the Admonition) and its meaning: “Which means to love one another.” This occurs:

• At the moment of sashing, immediately before the sash is placed
• Only in the presence of those who have received the Admonition or are receiving it
• Whispered privately to each candidate
• Protected in “Safeguard” ceremony pamphlets distributed only to committed ceremonial team members

The Proposed Change:

• A new daytime ceremony where members face each other
• One places their hand on the other’s shoulder
• They exchange the words “To love one another” aloud
• The Lenape word is eliminated
• Anyone within earshot can hear it

What This Reveals: This single proposed change embodies multiple ideological shifts: elimination of Native American language (cultural appropriation concerns), replacement of mysterious ritual with therapeutic language, mandatory physical contact replacing respectful distance, public performance replacing private reverence, and destruction of the conditions that made the transmission meaningful.

---

Problems with the Proposal

Creating a Ceremony That Never Existed

There is no traditional “Admonition ceremony” during the daytime Ordeal activities. The Admonition has always been part of the Ordeal ceremony itself, given after completion of the Ordeal at the sacred moment of sashing.

The new proposal creates something entirely new while claiming to preserve tradition.

The “To Love One Another” Language

The proposed ceremony requires members to face each other, place a hand on the shoulder, and exchange the words “to love one another” aloud.

Why this strips away reverent context:

The traditional practice protected the Admonition not through secrecy but through the conditions that made the transmission meaningful: the whisper, the circle of those who had earned it, the sacred moment of receiving the sash.

The new proposal removes all these protections. What was transmitted with reverence in proper context becomes something spoken aloud during casual daytime activities, available to anyone within earshot. The meaning remains the same; the power to transmit that meaning is destroyed.

Additionally, the face-to-face exchange with physical contact during ordinary daytime activities invites discomfort and potential mockery—especially among teenage boys—that the traditional whispered transmission prevented.

The Physical Contact Contradiction

This proposal reveals a glaring contradiction in how Barriers to Abuse policies are applied:

What was banned: About a decade ago, National prohibited the traditional shoulder taps between ceremonial officers—symbolic touches (three taps for the Scout Oath, 1+2 taps for the Scout Law’s twelve points) that occurred between trained, consenting team members who practiced together.

What is now required: The proposed Admonition mandates that members place their hand on another member’s shoulder—unauthorized physical contact between people who may not know each other, with no consent obtained, during daytime activities rather than solemn ceremony.

The obvious question: If consensual shoulder taps between trained team members violated Barriers to Abuse, how can mandatory shoulder contact with candidates possibly be acceptable?

This contradiction reveals that Barriers to Abuse concerns are being selectively applied—used to dismantle traditional practices while new practices that serve nidern educational goals are rubber-stamped without the same scrutiny.

The Elimination of Native American Words

The proposed ceremonies systematically remove Native American words, apparently based on “cultural appropriation” concerns.

The absurdity of this logic:

• 25 of our 50 states have Native American names—should we rename them?
• Thousands of cities, rivers, and landmarks carry Native American names
• The word “Elangomat” must be eliminated, despite being the name of a program, not just the name of a role
• By this logic, no one can use words from cultures they weren’t born into
• I cannot use words like “marinara” or “spaghetti” because I have no Italian blood

The deeper irony: Scouting and the OA encourage us to see all as brothers and sisters. Eliminating Native American words doesn’t show respect. It shows capitulation to an ideology that sees all cross-cultural appreciation as exploitation.

The Ideological Framework Driving These Changes

These ceremony proposals don’t exist in isolation. They reflect the same ideological framework that has driven dramatic changes throughout the BSA in recent years.

The Pattern: Over the past decade, the BSA has increasingly moved indoors and trumpeted controversial ideals that fundamentally contradict traditional Scouting values:

The BSA’s Ideological Transformation

• Classroom education over experiences: Many outdoor requirements removed or have indoor alternatives
• Eagle merit badges over Scout skills: Advancement to First Class is no longer the core of troop programs
• Identity categories over universal brotherhood: Modern DEI defines people primarily by race, gender, and sexual orientation rather than shared values and character
• Safety culture over challenge: Prioritizing emotional comfort over character-building difficulty
• Therapeutic language over traditional values: Replacing “Clean” and “Reverent” with “authentic self” and “emotional wellness.”

The Result: This ideological shift has coincided with catastrophic membership collapse:

• BSA membership has dropped from over 4 million to under 1 million
• The OA has similarly hemorrhaged members
• As the program became “safer,” “more inclusive,” and “less culturally inappropriate,” families stopped joining, Many find this new emphasis contrary to their core religious beliefs.

Why this matters to the OA: The same ideology driving BSA-wide changes is now being applied to OA ceremonies. These ceremony changes follow the logic of the DEI programming of the 2023 National Jamboree and the increasingly indoor character of Scouting.

Core Elements of the Ideology

1. Cultural Appropriation as Framework

The elimination of Native American words from OA ceremonies flows directly from this ideological principle: Using elements from another culture—even respectfully—constitutes “appropriation” and exploitation.

The problem: This treats culture as property that can only be “used” by those born into it. It’s fundamentally divisive and even racist, treating humanity as separate groups rather than as a universal brotherhood. It turns appreciation into offense and shared heritage into theft.

2. Therapeutic Culture Replacing Challenge

Modern educational ideology prioritizes emotional safety and self-affirmation over challenge and growth through difficulty. This explains:

• Short silence periods rather than throughout the Ordeal
• Elimination of meaningful physical challenges
• Replacement of mysterious rituals with explanatory narratives
• Focus on feelings and educational frameworks rather than learning by experience

The Billy Clark Principle: Why Their Methods Cannot Work

In 1913, two years before founding the Order of the Arrow, E. Urner Goodman watched a Scout named Billy Clark slip and fall while carrying a bedpan for a sick friend. In Goodman’s words, Billy “took the wrong kind of bath, if you know what I mean.” Goodman, peaking out of his tent, expected Billy to curse and was prepared to pretend he hadn’t heard. Instead, Billy came up smiling.

That moment became the foundation of the OA’s Cheerfulness principle.

Why? Because Billy Clark demonstrated what genuine cheerfulness actually is: the ability to find joy even when your good deed goes spectacularly, disgustingly wrong. [Link: The Story of Billy Clark]

You cannot teach what Billy Clark demonstrated through forced laughter exercises.

The new proposals include activities where candidates are instructed to laugh together as a “team-building” exercise. This approach fundamentally misunderstands what cheerfulness is and how it’s learned:

Forced laughter teaches:

• Performance of emotions on command
• Fake happiness rather than genuine joy
• That cheerfulness means pretending
• Compliance with authority’s emotional demands

Billy Clark’s experience teaches:

• Real cheerfulness emerges from genuine difficulty
• Joy can be found even in the worst circumstances
• Character is what you do when things go wrong
• Service has meaning even when it brings discomfort

The pattern repeats throughout their proposals: They believe you can teach authentic qualities through inauthentic methods. Force people to laugh and they’ll learn cheerfulness. Make them say “to love one another” and they’ll learn brotherhood. Eliminate challenge and they’ll develop character.

None of this works. You cannot teach genuine responses through required performance. You cannot develop character by removing difficulty. You cannot create authentic experience through theatrical direction.

Billy Clark wasn’t told to be cheerful. He wasn’t given explicit instruction on maintaining positive attitude. He wasn’t asked to perform happiness. He faced real difficulty in genuine service, and his character emerged naturally.

That’s how the traditional OA Ordeal worked. That’s what these proposals destroy.

3. Business and Classroom Methods as “Superior”

The ideology assumes modern educational and business principles produce better outcomes than Scouting’s outdoor methods.

The truth: Scouting’s methods are far better at teaching leadership, self-reliance, and ethics than school systems or the business world. Arguably, neither schools nor businesses teach these things at all. Business leadership tends toward manipulation and control. Schools teach relativistic ethics. Both teach obedience and dependence, not leadership and self-reliance.

When we’re talking about the real things we want to teach, there is scant evidence that their “superior” ways work in the slightest.

Their methods don’t just fail to achieve the goals—they actively undermine them:

• You can’t teach brotherhood by saying “to love one another” on command
• You can’t teach self-reliance by eliminating challenge
• You can’t teach character through explicit instruction
• You can’t teach reverence by explaining everything

4. Process Over Principle

The ideology values inclusive processes and diverse voices over objective standards and timeless principles. This explains why:

• Ceremony changes are presented as “improvements” without clear problems being solved
• Traditional practices are scrutinized for potential offense while new practices are rubber-stamped
• “Modernization” is treated as inherently valuable regardless of what’s being modernized

---

How This Ideology Manifests in OA Proposals

Understanding the broader ideological framework helps explain specific elements of the proposed ceremony changes:

Language and Symbolism

What’s being eliminated:

• Native American words (Lenape, etc.)
• Traditional symbolic actions (shoulder taps, etc.)
• Mysterious elements that require explanation over time
• References to specific cultural or religious traditions

What’s being added:

• Therapeutic language (“love one another,” “authentic self,” “emotional wellness”)
• Explicit explanations replacing mystery
• Contemporary values language replacing traditional Scout Law terminology
• Generic spiritual references replacing specific traditions

Why: The ideology sees traditional language and symbolism as exclusionary, culturally appropriative, or outdated. Modern therapeutic language is viewed as more “inclusive” and “relevant,” even though it strips away the very elements that made the ceremonies powerful and distinctive.

Structure and Experience

What’s being eliminated:

• Extended periods of silence and solitude
• Physical challenges and discomfort
• Mystery and the gradual revelation of meaning
• The “ruse” that protects deeper principles (the Ordeal as “test” when it’s really teaching)

What’s being added:

• Shorter, more comfortable experiences
• Explicit instruction and explanation
• Theatrical performance elements (narrators, background music, lighting effects)
• Team-building exercises (forced laughter, dancing, etc.)

Why: The ideology prioritizes emotional comfort, explicit understanding, and inclusive participation over challenge, mystery, and earned revelation. Difficulty is seen as barrier rather than teacher.

Physical Contact and Space

The contradiction exposed:

• Traditional consensual practices (shoulder taps between team members) are banned as violations
• New mandatory contact (hand on shoulder during Admonition) is required
• Whispered transmission is replaced by face-to-face exchange

Why: This isn’t about consistent application of Barriers to Abuse principles—it’s about dismantling traditional practices (using Barriers to Abuse as justification) while installing new practices that serve ideological goals (therapeutic intimacy, explicit verbal affirmation).

The Pattern of “Improvement”

Every proposed change is presented as an “improvement” or “clarification,” never as fundamental transformation. This rhetorical strategy:

• Obscures the ideological nature of the changes
• Makes opposition seem like resistance to “progress”
• Prevents honest debate about whether these changes serve OA’s actual mission
• Protects the changes from scrutiny by framing them as merely technical adjustments

---

Why This Matters

Understanding the ideological framework behind these changes is essential for several reasons:

1. It explains the pattern: These aren’t isolated adjustments—they’re part of a comprehensive reimagining of what the OA should be.

2. It reveals the trajectory: If these changes are implemented, they won’t be the last. The ideology driving them won’t be satisfied with partial transformation.

3. It clarifies the stakes: This isn’t about whether we use a Lenape word or an English one. It’s about whether the OA will continue to embody its founding principles or will be reshaped to serve contemporary educational ideology.

4. It helps us respond effectively: Opposing specific changes without understanding the underlying ideology means fighting symptoms while the disease spreads.

---

The Fundamental Question

The Order of the Arrow was built on certain principles:

• Universal brotherhood transcending differences
• Character development through genuine challenge
• Respect for tradition and heritage
• Mystery and gradual revelation of deeper meanings
• Honor, duty, and service over self

The ideology driving these proposed changes holds different principles:

• Identity categories and group differences as primary
• Emotional safety and comfort as highest values
• “Progress” and “relevance” over tradition
• Explicit explanation and therapeutic language
• Self-affirmation and “authenticity” over duty

These two frameworks are incompatible.

The proposed ceremony changes aren’t neutral improvements. They represent one framework replacing the other. They represent a fundamental transformation of what the Order of the Arrow is and what it’s for.

The question every Arrowman must answer: Which framework do we want to guide our Order?

---

The ideology driving these changes has already transformed the BSA, correlating with catastrophic membership collapse. Do we want the same ideology to complete its transformation of the Order of the Arrow? Or do we believe the traditional principles that built this organization for over a century deserve to be preserved?

---

For documentation of the proposed induction changes, visit Commentary on the Proposal

For evidence of BSA’s broader policy failures, visit https://theriseandfallofscouting.org