The muddle of the King’s coronation oath

There’s been an interesting discussion about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s addition to the coronation service, but has anyone actually tried to parse it? 

It goes as follows: ‘Your Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The coronation oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law. Are you willing to take the oath?’ The King: ‘I am willing.’

Right. We get the gist, but it doesn’t make sense.

‘The Church is…committed to X…and in so doing will seek to…’ Being committed to something is a state, an intention, not an act, so the follow-up clause, ‘in so doing’ is just odd.

The subject of the sentence is ‘The Church’, as in ‘The Church…whose settlement you will swear to maintain…will seek to foster an environment in which…’ Then there follows an apparent non-sequitur: ‘The coronation oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law. Are you willing to take the oath?’

OK, so the logic of the thing is that the Church, being committed to the gospel, is also committed to seeking an environment hospitable to all faiths. The Anglican settlement is enshrined by law. Is the King willing to take the oath to uphold it? If he is, that therefore means that he, pledged to support the church’s settlement, is also committed to fostering an environment in which all beliefs can flourish.

Wouldn’t it be clearer just to ask the King directly to swear that he will protect people of all faiths and beliefs rather than, in a spectacularly convoluted way, trying to frame it as an extension of his oath to uphold the settlement of the Church of England? Simply being very emphatic doesn’t make for clarity.

God knows, I get my syntax muddled all the time but I think in this case, syntactical muddle is an expression of intellectual muddle. Well meant though, mind you.