Covenants and Contracts are They Different?

A Covenant is Not a Contract

Webster’s notes that a contract is “an agreement between two or more people to do something, a formal agreement enforceable by law.” Legal experts tell us that contracts involve an offer, acceptance, a promise to perform, a promise to pay for performance (what experts call consideration) and a time period by which performance must be completed. Terms and conditions in a contract dictate the details of both performance and consideration. What I find interesting is that the same dictionary defines a covenant as a form of a contract. Webster’s says it is, “a binding and solemn agreement to do or keep from doing a specified thing, a compact, a formal contract.”

I believe the definitions are similar because we’ve lost the language of covenant in our society. There are lots of reasons for this, but suffice it to say that covenants are quite different than contracts. They’re far more complex and demand more interpersonal commitment but they also promise more benefits than a contract does.

Contractual Limitations

By illustrating differences here, I’m not suggesting that contracts are inherently bad. On the contrary, contracts are an integral part of business in companies and nonprofits. However, considering the frequency of their use, it’s important to understand contractual limitations. First, they encourage people to negotiate terms based on their own self-interest. Consequently, as the contract is fulfilled, each party tends to evaluate value in the relationship based primarily on the performance of the other party. Second, if one party believes his or her self-interest is not being served, then that constitutes justification for either breaking or renegotiating the contract. Finally, a relationship defined solely in contractual terms can and often does breed mistrust, commodification of relationships and commitment only to self.

As we’ve seen in case after case, when trust is missing in relationships, contracts quickly deteriorate. In fact, most lawyers freely admit that for a contract to work, it has to be supported by an underlying basis of “good faith.” That “good faith” is really the foundation of a covenant.

In contrast to a heavily contractual environment that commodifies and mistrusts people, covenants assume good faith on the part of everyone involved. This is not to suggest that leaders should be naïve in their relationships. Certainly, at times there will be individuals who don’t operate in good faith, and it’s necessary to deal with those “bad faith” people appropriately. That said, it’s important to note that a few people dealing in bad faith, doesn’t justify being guarded with everyone.

Trust is the Key

However, dealing in good faith requires a certain amount of trust. For relationships to work that trust must be embraced by everyone. There simply can be no good faith and therefore no covenant if there is no trust. Consider the results of a marriage in which the partners don’t trust each other. It’s bound to set up anger, frustration, jealousy and eventually a breakup. While we understand the results of mistrust in marriage, many people lack that same understanding in a contract-laden business or nonprofit environment.

Thus, while contracts are binding legal agreements, covenants are binding and committed relationships. Contracts are bound by law, and covenants are bound by the character, values, and mutual goals of the people involved. I believe the failure of our society to differentiate between the two concepts contributes heavily to our leadership crisis. True, in some ways covenants are far more demanding on relationships than contracts, but they are also far more flexible, powerful and productive than contracts. In fact, as fundraising consultants, we encourage our clients to strive for covenant relationships with donors.

So what does this all look like in daily life? That’s what we’ll discuss next week.