Ed Hurst’s series: Return to Eden

Get the vision of a brighter faith community model!

Readership: Regulars who are following our development of Courtship Models

Ed Hurst, at Do What’s Right, has expressed an interest in our study of Courtship Models. In response, he has written a series of posts, well worth reading, which describe the socio-spiritual environment of a successful community. Based on Biblical studies of an Ancient Near East social ontology, which are contrasted against the Aristotelian social philosophies of Enlightened, Western society, Ed describes a structural model which may be refitted and adapted to our present age. The social model he describes as “a return to Eden” is presumed to be the best social environment attainable in a fallen world, this side of eternity.

The posts in this series are listed here.

  1. Do What’s Right: Boundaries with women (January 29, 2019)
  2. Do What’s Right: The best this life has to offer (January 31, 2019)
  3. Do What’s Right: We know we need it (March 1, 2019)
  4. Do What’s Right: Outreach to the Red Pill Community (March 1, 2019)
  5. Do What’s Right: Foundation of a Covenant Community of Faith (March 2, 2019)
  6. Do What’s Right: A kingdom of awareness (March 3, 2019)
  7. Do What’s Right: Courtship and longing (March 4, 2019)
  8. Do What’s Right: Treasures in a far country (March 5, 2019)
  9. Do What’s Right: A few returning to Eden (March 6, 2019)
  10. Do What’s Right: Our Brand of Evangelism (March 7, 2019)

The comprehensive message from Ed’s writings is the vision of a patriarchal social structure consisting of a benevolent local authority (i.e. the patriarch) combined with a hierarchical structure of leadership.

The overriding purpose of this structure is to maintain the peace and order, and to impart a sense of belonging (i.e. shalom). Ideally, the social structure should be limited to a geographically concentrated tribe of people who share the same values and beliefs.

Other RP authors (most ribaldly, Chateau Heartiste), stress the importance of having racially similar people within a community. Fulfilling this condition would certainly make social interactions go more smoothly, but Ed concludes that genetic homogeneity is not entirely necessary for the success of a community.

The proscribed social structure may be longitudinally perpetuated through generational blood and inheritance. However, the emphasis is on living relationships – relying not so much on blood kinship as on covenant kinship. That is to say, community members need not be blood relatives, but need only to remain faithful towards maintaining the shalom of the community.

In a private correspondence, I asked Ed to further elucidate the concept of a covenant kinship, since this is a socio-spiritual state that is completely foreign to western society, and will therefore be difficult for most of my readers to absorb (myself as well). He wrote in reply,

“The most powerful bond between any two or more humans is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit speaks most loudly and clearly through covenant communion. The notion of “covenant” is not easily understood from a Western context, but it is a personal commitment to something larger than the self, and represents a family or tribal sense of identity. The closest American equivalent is a powerful sense of nationalism, which tends to scale up too far, whereas covenant is much more close and personal. All faith covenants begin with a covenant commitment to God, so it rests on the identity He gives, unlike one that rests on shared DNA. It’s rather like spiritual DNA, or moral DNA.

The other analogy popularly cited is “contract”, but that’s inherently impersonal. A contract is a commitment of resources and labor, whereas a covenant is a commitment of the person regardless of resources or performance. In contrast, Covenant is about the persons and their commitment to the welfare of the whole. This type of social structure is the heart of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) feudalism. Western feudalism can also be personal, but instead of shalom, the nexus is property and performance to maintain the sovereign’s favor.”

Ed uses the word shalom frequently, because this is an important concept which has no English translation. (After studying this word/concept for a time, I too have found a deep appreciation in it.) I might describe shalom in my own words as a state of belonging; being a part of something important, something larger than one’s self. It includes a spatial environment in which everyone and everything has a structured, ordered place. Acceptance, encompassing disciplinary mentorship and unconditional love, is available (ideally from one’s immediate family). Even though the external world may be far from being perfect, shalom can be experienced discretely in one’s subjective life experiences, thereby yielding the impression that the people, and space, and everything within one’s immediate proximity can be relatively meaningful, joyful, and peaceful. Shalom is also the intended reward of spiritual obedience.

Those who have crawled through the hood of hard knocks may scoff at the above description of shalom. But those who have, even once, had a glimpse of eternal glory will believe in the Truth of it, and may even hope to achieve the experience on a daily basis. So believe it if you can!


“Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden”, by Johann Wenzel Peter, ca. 1820’s.

A review of Ed’s short essays reveals how far off the path western society has wandered, in relation to God’s proscribed ideal. Moreover, it seems to be an impossible undertaking to Do What’s Right. However, Ed points out that the journey to restoration begins within each man’s heart. As such, it is available to anyone who wishes to pursue it.

Ed takes the time to point out that this approach is inter/non-denominational, because there is no demonImotivational group that has yet latched on to this vision.

Ed also attacks medieval Western feudalism, which includes the social construct of chivalry, just as Dalrock has gone to great lengths to expose. Most Red Pill bloggers have been deconstructing chivalry, thereby revealing some harrowing insights.

Ed suggests that men should be marrying women who are younger than themselves, as opposed to peerage romances. In the RP sphere, there is a rule of thumb that says a man should choose a woman who is younger than he is, but not younger than half his age plus 7. There is also the idea that couples should get married young, but also old enough to be fully mature. Putting these two ideas together, the ideal marriage arrangement would be between a woman in her early twenties, and a man in his late twenties.

These are all important findings that should be emphasized in our pursuit of a better courtship model, nested within a robust faith covenant community.


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Collective Strength, Courtship and Marriage, Cultural Differences, Faith Community, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Racial Relations, Relationships, The Power of God and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Ed Hurst’s series: Return to Eden

  1. Pingback: Unconditional Atonement, Limited Election | Σ Frame

  2. Pingback: What is Shalom? | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s