The Letter and Spirit of the Law

Christian leadership in statutory interpretation requires submitting case law to common law principles under natural law structure and divine command ethics.

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:8).”

We face many difficulties today, among the most pressing is judicial overreach and activism.

Statutory interpretation is an important task. Courts and judges undertake a profound responsibility to discern the true scope of a law by harmonizing its literal text with the intent of its makers. When they screw up the pain and devestration is felt far and wide and for generations.

A balance between the spirit and the letter of the law is rooted in reason and justice. We need to understand what good jurisprudence looks like, so that we can combat the fraudulent version of judicial imprudence around us today. We do not endorse the supremacy of courts as if good rulings overrule bad ones. Instead, we should look to the reasoning in some cases as an example of courts that are under the authority of God. Then we can resist the tendency of some judges to act like gods and make a law unto themselves.

This godly approach mirrors the Christian principles of wisdom and discernment that have shaped Western Civilization. In The Constantine Doctrine, the interplay of law and faith is examined. Jesus calls leaders to prioritize the spirit of governance over rigid legalism, a principle vividly illustrated in statutory interpretation.

Moreover, this process reveals a deeper truth: all laws codify a form of morality. Our laws and legislature reflect the values of the society they govern. In the United States, this moral foundation is inseparable from its Christian heritage, a legacy that informs both legislation and its interpretation. This is most clearly demonstrated in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The core rule of statutory interpretation holds that an act may fall within a statute’s literal wording yet lie outside its scope if it contradicts the legislature’s spirit or intent. This is not judicial overreach but a safeguard against absurdity, injustice, or oppression, as Proverbs 31:8-9 urges leaders to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute… defend the oppressed.”

Historical examples clarify this principle. The Bolognian law forbidding blood in the streets did not punish a surgeon saving a life, aligning with the biblical call to “do good to all people” (Galatians 6:10).

A statute punishing prisoners for breaking prison spared those fleeing a burning jail, reflecting the mercy of Psalm 146:7, which praises God who “sets prisoners free.” In State v. Clark, a man breaking a fence to access his land was not condemned, echoing the justice of Deuteronomy 16:20, “Follow justice and justice alone.” Similarly, in United States v. Kirby, a mail carrier’s lawful arrest was not an “obstruction” of the mail, as the statute’s intent did not encompass such incidental acts, a sensible construction rooted in common sense and fairness.

To uncover legislative original intent, courts rely on several guides. The title of an act, while not overriding clear text, can resolve ambiguities.

In Church of the Holy Trinity, the title of the law stated the purpose “to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor.” This suggests a focus on manual labor, not the spiritual work of ministers. The “evil to be remedied” further sharpens this focus. The statute aimed to curb cheap, unskilled foreign labor degrading the American market, a concern rooted in protecting the dignity of work, as Colossians 3:23 exhorts, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart.”

Congressional reports expressed hope that the law would target only manual labor, despite broader language retained for passage, aligning with the principle of interpreting laws to avoid unintended consequences.

The Christian heritage of the United States provides the deepest context for such interpretations. The nation’s founding documents and practices—colonial charters like the Virginia Charter of 1606, which sought to propagate the “Christian Religion”; the Mayflower Compact of 1620, invoking “the Glory of God”; and state constitutions requiring Christian oaths—affirm its religious character. The Declaration of Independence appeals to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” while George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796) declares religion and morality “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.

These “organic utterances,” as noted in Church of the Holy Trinity, make it unthinkable that Congress would criminalize a church contracting a foreign minister. Such an act, though within the statute’s letter, defies its intent and the nation’s moral foundation, which Ecclesiastes 7:15 warns against undermining through overly rigid justice. “In this meaningless life of mine, I have seen both of these: the righteous perishing in their righteousness, and the wicked living long in their wickedness.”

All laws, by their nature, codify morality, reflecting a society’s understanding of right and wrong. As Romans 13:1-4 teaches, governing authorities are “God’s servant for your good,” tasked with upholding justice. In the United States, this moral framework is deeply Christian, evident in laws protecting life, property, and liberty, which echo the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17). The statute in “Church of the Holy Trinity” sought to protect workers’ dignity, a moral aim rooted in biblical calls to fair treatment. “‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor. “‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight. (Leviticus 19:13).

Yet, when literal readings threaten absurd or unjust outcomes, such as punishing a church for hiring a minister, courts must prioritize the law’s moral purpose, ensuring it aligns with the nation’s Christian ethos and the command to “do what is just and right” (Jeremiah 22:3). As my good friend Steve Deace says “We are not a nation of laws, and we never have been. We are a nation of political will, and we always will be.”

Statutory interpretation is a delicate balance, harmonizing a law’s letter with its spirit. This challenge is much like the Christian call to blend justice with mercy (Micah 6:8). By considering the title, the problem addressed, legislative history, and the nation’s Christian heritage, courts ensure laws serve their moral purpose without violating sacred values. This process reflects the leadership ethos of The Constantine Doctrine, where faith-informed governance seeks the common good. As Christian leaders, we must emulate this discernment, crafting and interpreting laws that uphold justice, honor God’s truth, and preserve the moral legacy of our nation.