At that service, the Queen was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who put to her the following questions:
Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?That explains a lot about the Queen - not least, her Christmas messages, which of late have been the best public evangelistic messages at that time of year.
Queen: I will.
Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen: All this I promise to do.
I do find myself wondering, though, at judges who say that Christianity has no special place in our laws. I also find myself wondering, however, at what will be the nature of the next coronation service. It is not just the past that is another country, it is that country of which Elizabeth was crowned Queen which is now 'another country'.
The connection with Palm Sunday? Christ is the true King, and all earthly rule either descends legitimately from him or eventually usurps itself against him.
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:
Often the judges who say 'Christianity has no place in our law' are the same people who want a cozy Established church, that can maintain the beautiful cathedrals and village churches, and provide ecclesiastical pomp and circumstances at public occasions like coronations.
ReplyDeleteThey can't have it both ways: if the church is Established, if it informs and bolsters your public life and ceremony, then you have to listen to what it says.
I'm a tad lazy... so haven't looked around to find the evidence... So please can someone give chapter and verse WHERE a judge has said 'Christianity has no place in our law'?
ReplyDeleteThat said, what does it matter what the monarch ‘promises’ to do? The reality is that the monarch does as s/he is told to do and will sign into law whatever is placed before her/him (as history demonstrates again and again). Any monarch who didn’t so as s/he was told would have his/her reign cut short!
I would suggest it is not the law that makes a country Christian or otherwise, but the conduct of its peoples. The irony for many European nations is that as the power of the church has waned, there has been an increase in social morality. I know there is a putative belief that we live in far more immoral times than our forebears, but this is just wishful thinking and twaddle. There is little evidence to think this – apart from a re-writing of history - and just a cursory delve into recently history demonstrates that the lot of the working classes, the poor, the orphaned, the widowed, the prisoners, the elderly, the alien, the disabled, the mentally ill etc. is a good deal better now, than a century ago. And yes, although Christians helped achieve this (tho’ often Non-Conformists, before Anglicans swell with pride, claiming the work of others) it is certain other factors, rooted in Humanist and Enlightenment thinking greatly influenced the social reforms of the late 18th and the 19th centuries. After all Reformed Christianity had been the official (or LEGAL) form of Christianity from the death of Henry VIII (barring the brief reign of Mary Tudor) to the 19th century Reform Acts - so why was it that we only saw social reform in the 19th and 20th centuries? Surely if ‘Christian Law’ was pervasive and effected the lives and behaviour of its citizens, a society wouldn’t have needed such militant social reform in the first place, would it?
Just a thought...
P.D.
typo 'was pervasive and effected' - should read 'was pervasive and affected'
DeletePD
"Any monarch who didn’t so as s/he was told would have his/her reign cut short!"
ReplyDeleteHmmm, that sounds like an historical allusion... ;o)
But, how can you cut someone short for failing to do something, if they never promised to do it in the first place? If the monarch hasn't promised to obey the law, why on earth should they face reduction in height for not obeying it?
"The irony for many European nations is that as the power of the church has waned, there has been an increase in social morality."
I know you keep posting this, backed up by HIGHLY selective use of "evidence". But for those of us who don't find you persuasive on this point, doesn't the rest of your post fall with it?
"That said, what does it matter what the monarch ‘promises’ to do? ... Any monarch who didn’t so as s/he was told would have his/her reign cut short!"
ReplyDeleteErrr, on what basis do we 'cut short' a monarch for failing to obey the law, if they never promised to do so in the first place? ;o)