Dear Editor,
As we reflect on the regal splendour of the King’s coronation, there is much to give thanks for. The Bible was read, great hymns were sung, and the gospel at the heart of the liturgy was clear and powerful. At the same time, I am left wondering about the sincerity and convictions of the participants.
I was struck by the King’s oath to ‘maintain and preserve inviolably … the doctrine, worship, discipline and government’ of the Church of England ‘as by law established in England.’ I am left wondering whether these words could have a greater bearing than was realised, the reason being that we have to ask: ‘Which Church of England?’ Is it the Church of England as led by the current House of Bishops and General Synod with their liberal and pro-LGBT agenda, which is contrary to the doctrine of the church, the truths proclaimed in its worship, the discipline that must flow from it, and the standards of orthodoxy that must be required of those who govern it? Or is it the Church of England at parish level where local churches still adhere to the historic doctrinal standards of the Church?
In UK law it is the latter. In the historic case of Bannatyne v Aberdour [1904], where the Free Church of Scotland had split over issues fundamental to their ecclesiology, the House of Lords affirmed the larger denomination resulting from the split, the United Free Church, was not the residual church. They had violated the Free Church’s standards of doctrine, did not constitute the Free Church and were not entitled to any of its property or assets. The congregations that remained faithful to its doctrine were the true Free Church.
In vowing to maintain and preserve the doctrine and worship of Church of England, King Charles may have promised more than he realised. Those who reject the recent moves of the bishops and refuse their oversight can lawfully claim to be the Church of England, and should be those who conduct the next coronation, whenever that day shall come.
Yours sincerely
Jim Sayers Grace Church Didcot
