Covenant Leadership vs Contractual Leadership

There are many distinct differences between covenantal leadership and contractual leadership. Below are seven differences.

Covenant leadership models how God relates to us. Covenantal language permeates the bible, from Noah to Abraham to Jesus. The word covenant is mentioned 300 times in the bible. Even the old and new testaments are accurately called the old and new covenants. God’s covenant is repeated throughout the bible as “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” (Deuteronomy 31: 6, Joshua 1:5. Hebrew 13:5). These were even the very last words of Jesus before the ascension in Matthew 28:20. Covenant is not a secular concept and cannot be correctly and fully understood outside of the bible. Bowling (2011) indicates that the leadership of a Christian should be markedly different than our secular counterparts. The word for this is “holy.” It means “set apart” or “different.” As Christian leaders, who desire to lead like Christ, it is right for us to understand covenant leadership through a biblical worldview and to lead in a manner that reflects our heavenly Father. We want our leadership to be civil, but more significantly, we want it to be covenantal. I’d also add that this level of leadership requires being led by the spirit in addition to the law.

A contract is thing-oriented whereas a covenant is person-oriented. This means the covenant must be understood in a personal manner rather than a legal manner. Covenant leaders understand that people are made in the image and likeness of God (Bowling, 2011) and treat them as such. For the covenant leader, concern is for the relationship not on the breach of contract. This approach tends to build relationships rather than territories and fosters mutual growth rather than individual growth.

Covenant leadership is transformational, contractual leadership is transactional. In covenantal leadership both followers and leaders become something more than they were previous to the relationship. In contractual leadership no one is transformed, duties are simply executed.

Covenantal leadership is marked by redemption as opposed to contractual leadership in which breach of contract might mean loss of employment. God, in response to the sin of mankind, first gave his covenant to Noah in Genesis 9. God's response to our sin was not to condemn us but to enter into covenant with us in order for our redemption. Contracts, however necessary, limit relationships. When employees violate their contract, they may be terminated. In this sense, contracts limit relationships and have expiration dates.

Covenant leadership is marked by commitment. Bowling (2011) clarifies this by writing “the all-encompassing element of covenant relationships is fidelity” (p. 26). I believe it then to be imperative that we as leaders do not hire anyone whom you are not willing to be in covenant with. To do that you must work slowly to hire rather than quickly. I am not saying once you hire someone they should remain your employee forever, yet in covenant leadership you maintain contractual aspects yet you add a layer of commitment and dedication not required by the contract.

Trust is central to covenantal leadership. In contractual agreements a certain level of fear is always in play for the followers. Cloud (2006) writes is this way “the truth is that I will fail you in some way somewhere along the path, and at that moment I need you to help me, not turn against me. But if you are going to turn on me when I fail to do my part well, then I am always in fear and protection mode, thinking that I could lose your support at any juncture. Then we live not in trust, but in mutual fear” (p. 83). And while contracts are necessary and prudent in all situations, a contract is based on mutual distrust whereas a covenant is based on mutual trust.

Contractual leadership limits my responsibility and increases my rights. Covenant leadership places me in the role of a servant where I am more concerned with my responsibility to my followers than my own rights. I believe the right motivation for leadership is not the rewards that come from it but the responsibility for others that is required by it.

References

Bowling, J. (2011). Grace-full Leadership. Kansas City: Beacon Hill.

Cloud, H. (2006). Integrity. New York: HarperCollins.