Does a monarch have a divine right to rule over you? No matter where you stand on the question, the framing is that there is godly and ungodly power and authority. When a British king or queen is installed they agree to serve as both head of state and the established church. We don’t hire the person into a role in the same way we get a plumber in to fix a leaking pipe. The oath of lifetime service to the monarch’s subjects places us all under the same deity (in theory).

This last week I have (with help) been offered an insight that I feel is life changing. It is one of those “once you see it you cannot unsee it” things. The power of the insight comes from its deep nature: a category error. What this means is that you are looking at a situation through the wrong paradigm, and until you widen your conceptual universe you cannot resolve the problems you have. I have been through this before in telecoms — “networks don’t do ‘work’” — and it is both a powerful and isolating place of raised understanding.

The essential insight is this: the Babylonian debt slave society we inhabit is based on contracts, whereas the one we want to inhabit has a foundation of covenants. Becoming conscious of the current default, and naming the better alternative, has great power. Contracts are the pervasive norm in our world, covenants are rarely discussed, and this benefits those who have ruled over us. The path to freedom in mind, body, and spirit demands that we both grasp the difference, and act differently as a result.

The problem with contracts is not only a case of having a “legal doppelgänger” as the straw man persona, which fraudulently removes our birth rights. All of our relationships are infected with contracts, which confuse us as to their (and our) real nature. The most important one is that of marriage, although the (enslaving) idea spreads everywhere with the notion of a social contract. By their nature contracts attempt to take as much as possible while giving as little as possible, and require lawyers and judges. That is an unhealthy and unhelpful way to be together.

What is the difference between a contract and a covenant? I am not a theologian, so please excuse the roughness of this initial attempt to answer. A contract is a constraining agreement between two (or more) parties. It can be used for good or evil, as it is just a tool like a hammer or a gun. Contracts are loveless by default, and focus on what can go wrong. They have to be renegotiated to accommodate changed circumstances. A covenant is an agreement to act in a holy manner, and to follow “the way” of the narrow path. You align not to each other, but to the highest. It is freeing, since you can discount the desire for unholy outcomes, and hence engenders lasting trust. A covenant raises what can go right, and is flexibly loving by design.

The easiest way to understand the practical difference is with marriage. In a traditional common law situation, if a man and woman lived together and were having sex, then that counted as being married under covenant. Producing children in a committed relationship is a sacred bond. The ultimate authority governing the marriage is godly. The primary commitment is not to each other, but to the same ultimate ends of furthering the family. They stay together not just through mutual affection, but because they are spiritually aligned to the same (higher) goal.

What we have instead done is substitute the state for the sacred, so issue Official Breeding Licenses where you track the linage of any debt slaves produced. The couple promise to register any births with the tax farmer. What counts as “married” is defined by administrative processes under contract; a tax deduction is the metric of marriage in law. In a contractual marriage the parties may or may not have any affection for each other. In aristocratic or arranged marriages that is understood — it is a business deal between families. How close or far apart they are personally is irrelevant to whether they fulfil their roles in the Human Breeding Scheme™.

Some people have covenant marriages, but are pressured by “normal” society to become “respectable” and get an official contract. This is insane once you see clearly: it takes a true holy union and defiles it with a business agreement. How many hours working in the corporate world will be exchanged for how many dinners and orgasms? Dissatisfaction is built in, as both parties (unconsciously) strive to get the best “deal”. If one party becomes more spiritually alive and aware of the tension, then the couple may grow apart. That is because they are now at different levels of consciousness, not because anyone has done wrong.

A covenant marriage can be annulled if one of the parties was not qualified to get married. They can divorce only because of abandonment of the seeking of the highest way; becoming a Satanist or murderer is a good reason to part. But the common pursuit of the almighty means that they should over time grow together spiritually as they seek the highest purpose — together. Closeness is built in, but it is the “ultimate threesome” with the godly. It is intrinsically generous: for instance, sex celebrates the common union with the highest purpose, so you should have as much as possible. It is not a grudging squish offered occasionally to keep the contract going, with some reluctant laundry afterwards.

The extent to which a contract and covenant can coexist is an interesting question. I can think of people in my life who have a covenant relationship and no contract; others who have a contract and definitely no covenant; as well as the confused who don’t really understand the question — and are struggling as a result. A population that is spiritually dead and pair bonded into the “mini psychosis” of a contract marriage is easily manipulated and shorn of its assets via mass psychosis.

Elderly spinsters who live together should have inheritance rights even if they cannot marry; they owe the state nothing when one dies. They can be in covenant without a contract endorsed by the state. “Gay marriage” is meaningless: you can contract anything you like anyway, and the covenant is likely irrelevant. The involvement of tax authorities in marriage is a nonsense if you believe the parties to be free and independent human beings. It only makes sense if we are enslaved and seen as chattel by the ruling class. I think you get the hint about our predicament!

Once you see the category error it puts into perspective a lot of the crashes and chaos in your own life, as well as those around you. People everywhere have marriages where they are aligned in mind and body, but not in spirit. The dotted line to sign upon has displaced the divine, and the consequences are pervasive and problematic. In a contract marriage the complaint is “I thought you loved me!”, whereas in a covenant one it is “I thought you loved the same God!”. The difference seems minor, but it is everything. How can you divorce your deity if you are a person of faith?

We collectively consented to have a three way with the taxman, and that’s gone very wrong. Now imagine the consequence of all our governments for the last hundred years being proven to be the result of (election and voter) fraud. Every piece of legislation on marriage is repealed, and the state authority of each licensed “performer of vow ceremonies” is revoked. If fraud vitiates absolutely everything, then those contracts no longer have legal force, since they were personas being joined, not man and woman. Would we regard the offspring of those unions to be bastards and unholy? I think not; we understand that the humans were largely striving for covenants, but were deceived into (slave bond) contracts.

Contracts have become “normal” in the same way that wearing a face covering became “normal” — for a while. There is nothing normal at all in humans of infinite worth abandoning their individuality to gain the approval of a corporation or the state. I can now see how the legal “face covering” is the basis for our society, forcing people to act as products, so we can be commoditised and traded under contract. This all seemed to be acceptable right up to the moment you know and the name what it was we really wanted all along: the covenant. Then the (invisible) covering comes off.

A contract can keep the peace where tensions may otherwise arise. A covenant can be subverted by wickedness, such as with mass marriages to the service of a cult. Switching from a contract to a covenant society is not a panacea, nor is it quick and easy. That said, a covenant society naturally leads towards unity and peace if you worship the right thing together, and follow the path of righteousness. A contract one is provably divided and riven with conflict. A covenant by its construction aims for the sacred, whereas a contract is easily subverted towards unholy ends. It is no wonder we are not taught about covenants at school.

Most modern “Christian” marriages are profane contracts, but with covenant outcome aspirations, and are unhappy as a result. The “marriage” ceremony was an unholy joining, because it admitted a dead third party — the state — into a living relationship. Such contracts lead to “my way or the highway” as they play out, and the divorce rate reflects this. A covenant is “our way is the highest way”, and thus avoid this trap. The stability is engineered in from the outset with a covenant, to the benefit of the individuals, family, and society.

Contracts try to turn the force of life into a dynamic commodity market, which can be regulated and taxed. We need to seek covenants in preference, because covenants are spiritually liberating and practically stabilising. Not just in marriage, but in all our personal relationships. The first step is to recognise that these concepts have been conflated and confused on purpose, to our detriment. When we accept that we are in a painful mess as a consequence, then we can begin to fix it and move on.