On Monday, March 9, I had a little “aha!” moment. It happened while I was thinking about the nature of “special” relationships—those beyond the ordinary, especially romantic ones.

MYSTERIES

I don’t remember the exact path of my thoughts, but it started, I think, with reflecting on my own past relationships with young women, and the ambiguous nature of most of these relationships, particularly during my college years. What made these relationships so mysterious is that I never really understood what they were about. I knew what I wanted from them: I was looking for a future spouse — someone to love, and vice versa. But it was never really clear what any of these fine young women thought of me, and whenever I thought I knew, circumstances seemed to prove me wrong. What’s more, even though I had never expressed my intent, at times it appeared that one young woman or another felt we had something going, and seemed hurt if the “relationship” was breached. It always frustrated me that there seemed to be expectations, but never clear communication (from me or them) about those expectations.

It’s worth noting that at the college I attended, being more forthright about romantic intentions could get a person put on probation or expelled. Still, even after graduation, to a lesser degree these mysteries continued. On the one hand, during the friendship stage of a relationship, the girl I was getting to know might seem to expect more than what we were; and then, not finding it, lose interest. But on the other hand, being more proactive also had the unfortunate consequence of pushing female friends away. Was I being too warm, or too cold? It was too touchy-feely for me, completely hit-or-miss, shooting in the dark. I got the sense that a love relationship required some hidden magic formula that you just had to get lucky and guess. Any attempt to negotiate or figure out the nuances of the relationship would destroy it. But I could never bring myself to shoot for such blind love, because for me relationships are always built on clear intents, and built up by degrees.

MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND LOYALTY

In my mind, an emotional attachment never begins as a special relationship. A special relationship is something arrived at, and agreed upon. Emotions may start the relationship, but if it is ever to become anything “special,” there are stages to pass through. I would never consider a girl my girlfriend unless I thought that she also considered herself my girlfriend. We would have to agree on it (whether that means discussing it and shaking hands is another matter). I’ve always thought it is important to be explicit about such things. Furthermore, I would never ask a girl to be my girlfriend if I didn’t think we were already on the same terms about how a relationship should work (which would normally be deduced through casual interaction). Each stage has a foundation.

At some point I was hit with the word “loyalty.” Loyalty is very important to me. I consider myself a very loyal friend. In fact, I consider myself highly loyal even to people whom I don’t think of as friends — even with people who have become “enemies” or antagonists. As I thought about loyalty, it occurred to me that loyalty is a covenant concept. And loyalty is a critical element in any special relationship. Disloyalty, apart from forgiveness, will always destroy a relationship, or at least the emotional or social substance of it.

Loyalty does not mean anything without a clear, mutually understood relationship. A citizen of a kingdom cannot be loyal if he does not understand his relation to his ruler and his ruler’s expectations of him. A married couple has no basis for evaluating marriage loyalty apart from their vows. A child’s and parent’s loyalty to one another depends not merely on their physical connection, but on a clear understanding of each other’s expectations.

As I thought about this, I realized that all loyalty — from devotion to God to casual friendship — requires mutually agreed upon expectations. This means you cannot have a serious relationship without understanding the terms of it. The moment a relationship moves from general to special, the terms of the relationship become even more important.

Loyalty, by definition, is binding — you can’t get out of it on a whim. Loyalty in a relationship means that two people have made an agreement that they are determined to stand by. Such an on-going relationship governed by mutually agreed upon terms is a covenant, plain and simple.

The components of a covenant are so essential to a viable special friendship, that it is not possible to have such a friendship without having a covenant. In other words, forming a covenant is not something people in a special relationship do; it is the substance of what they already have. Whenever two parties move into a genuine special relationship, they always form a covenant (whether formal or not, whether conscious or not); and it is not possible to have a real relationship without a covenant.

I realize the word “covenant” may sound old-fashioned, and my statement that “it is not possible to have a real relationship without a covenant” may sound arbitrary. However, I am using the word in a broad sense. For more about my choice of the word “covenant,” please see the end of this post.

THE NEED FOR COVENANTS

Many people (myself included) have gotten into a quandary over whether they are “in a relationship” or not. However, the thought hit me that the very asking of this question is itself a negative answer. Relationships operate on mutual understanding. Without mutual understanding, there can be no assurance that the needs of either party are being met. While it is possible for two people to have secret feelings for each other, there is no basis for loyalty (relative to their expectations) without mutual understanding of the terms of the relationship. Without a basis for loyalty, there is no special relationship — nothing to be loyal to. False expectations arise. The young man may expect only from himself and his girl what he would expect from a close friendship; while the young woman may expect “something more,” and will judge the ebb and flow of the relationship based on what she thinks “something more” ought to look like. At times their expectations may correspond — after all, there is much in common between close friends and lovers. But at other times their expectations will differ, leading to frustrations and doubts.

The only stable, mature relationship is one in which both parties understand the terms of the relationship. When both parties are able to express and mutually agree on the terms of a relationship, an agreement is formed: a covenant. The terms of a covenant vary, whether it is dating, courtship, engagement, or marriage. But a covenant, formal or informal, must exist. This covenant may be simple: “We will love and respect one another. We will maintain this special relationship exclusive of all others.” It may be formally stated, or it might simply reflect the sum of lots of small exchanges of words over time. (But formally stated is safer.) If both parties do not share a mutually agreed upon relationship (a covenant), their relationship is an illusion. It is broken, even when it appears to be working.

The problem with many apparently special relationships is that there is no covenant. Neither party knows what to expect of the other. Nothing is clearly promised, nor clearly denied. The relationship simply flows through various undefined forms, which each party is at various times satisfied and unsatisfied with. The most obvious sign of such a poor relationship is the simple question: “What is this relationship that we have?” Or, “Are we a couple? I’m not sure.” It can be said with certainty that in all such cases, the terms of the relationship have never been settled; there is no covenant; there is no solidity to the relationship; what one or both parties may secretly hope for, is presently nothing more than a desire, a dream, a wish. Fond aspirations do not constitute a special relationship. A mature relationship requires mutual understanding, loyalty, resolve — in short, a covenant.

To summarize what this means for me, it is that I must be intentional in every special relationship, and clearly convey what my expectations are. I must also learn from the other person what their expectations are. Only in that way can we work through the difficulties of our relationship successfully, only then can we have confidence in the direction of the relationship, and only then can our proven loyalty to one another be the ground for deepening love.

* * *

ABOUT THE WORD “COVENANT”

I am using the word “covenant” for at least two reasons. First, it is a biblical term. Throughout the Bible we find both God forming covenants with people, and people forming covenants with each other. Examples include Hebrews 8:10; Ruth 1:16-18. Second, recently I was reading about the Protestant concept of the covenantal nature of rulership, which is a kind of relationship. In the classic Protestant view, the governing principle between rulers and people is not nationality or blood or force of arms or history, but covenants — mutually agreed upon, and mutually beneficial. The word “covenant” sounds a bit old-fashioned today, but I still like it.

According to the dictionary, a covenant is an agreement or contract. In legal or theological circles, these words — covenant, agreement, contract — are sometimes used interchangeably. However, I prefer the word “covenant” because of the connotations it carries, which are more than the mere dictionary definition or contemporary legal meaning. In my mind, the word “covenant” carries more weight than a mere agreement, and does not bear the legalistic overtones of a contract. Let’s consider each of these words, and a couple others, briefly:

AGREEMENT: An agreement is the basis of any covenant. Still, the word “agreement” by itself misses the sense of a promise or binding obligation. The word “agreement” falls short in conveying commitment. People may agree one day, and disagree another. A covenant, on the other hand, clearly expresses the idea of two people or entities pledging their fidelity to one another over time.

CONTRACT: Contracts generally are not based on loyalty, but on self-interest. Therefore they are usually enforced with legal deterrents, even threats. For example, if you choose to break your cell phone contract, you can usually expect to pay an early termination fee. A business that violates its contract with another business or individual might be sued. But a covenant is grounded in loyalty. Although there are often bad consequences for breaking a covenant, these are usually not detailed in advance or emphasized. A covenant implies personal commitments and the interest of each party in each other. A contract is something businesses do; a covenant is something friends or lovers do. (You’ve never been asked to sign a cell phone covenant, have you?)

VOW: Another word used, especially in the Bible, for binding personal commitments is “vow.” Vows and covenants share common ground. In fact, a wedding covenant is often called a vow. The reasons I prefer the word “covenant” to the word “vow” are: First, personal vows are so strongly connected to marriage that it is hard to broaden the use of the word in people’s minds. Second, non-marriage vows are often related to accomplishing a single, time-limited objective, whereas a covenant is an ongoing relationship. Third, vows are often used in a negative context (“I vow my revenge!”). Fourth, a vow is often used to mean an unconditional pledge, whereas covenants are usually based on conditions, including loyalty.

COMMITMENT: “Commitment” is a word often used in the context of special relationships. Although commitment is a big part of what a covenant is about, I have some reservations about this word. Many lovers enter into commitments (often one-sided) without ever coming into agreement on mutual terms. A covenant, in contrast, is all about mutual terms that are mutually agreed upon. Relationship advice is full of emphasis on commitment — but commitment to what, exactly? In practice, the what is often undefined (friendship? preparing for marriage?). In such cases, commitment becomes little more than commitment to be disappointed. In short, poorly defined special relationships are prone to brokenness, despite the sincere commitment of either party.

In summary, the ideas of agreements, contracts, vows, and commitments can help us understand what a covenantal relationship is. But the word “covenant,” I believe, best describes the whole.