Why the King's US visit matters more than we think

CARE is politically neutral. The views offered here are those of the author.

The state visit to the United States by King Charles III and Queen Camilla had been long anticipated. In the weeks leading up to it, there was no shortage of debate about whether it should go ahead at all. Recent global tensions, and strains in the relationship between the UK and US governments only added to the sense that this would need to be approached carefully. Many observers recognised the delicate balancing act required, and navigating a path between inflaming tensions on the one hand and the temptation toward empty flattery on the other.

And yet, by the end of the four-day trip, the King’s visit to the US has been widely received as a success on both sides of the Atlantic.

Before going further, perhaps a brief disclaimer is in order. Like my colleague James did in last week’s long read, I should be clear about where I am coming from. I have always been something of a moderate republican. Whether shaped by the Welsh-speaking community I grew up in, the political circles I have been part of, or simply a conviction that we are all made equal in God’s image, I have often felt unease about leadership based on inherited privilege. And yet, at the same time, I have long admired the late Queen’s model of service and quiet witness, and I respect the present King’s integrity and willingness to champion causes that are not always popular, but are often, in their own way, prophetic. Nevertheless I am not a natural champion of royalty!

It is in that context that I have found myself greatly encouraged by what we have seen this past week because the King has offered a compelling model of public leadership; one that is worth paying attention to, and perhaps even recovering more broadly.

As John Stott argued in a lecture he gave at the founding of CARE and then later reproduced as the conclusion to Issues Facing Christians Today, Christian engagement in public life must never be careless or second-rate. If we are to contribute meaningfully to society, we must do so not only with integrity and compassion, but with genuine excellence and competence, and I think we could see each of these at work during this state visit.

For example, there has been a sense of excellence in every aspect of how the trip has been managed from the UK side. His speeches in particular have been viewed as a triumph – some even suggesting that they will be studied as case studies in diplomacy. They were carefully crafted, alongside a programme that was thoughtfully constructed, and the engagements handled with precision. This was not simply the work of one individual, but of a team drawing on deep experience across government, diplomacy, and public life. It was a reminder that good leadership is rarely accidental; it is prepared, deliberate, and attentive to detail.1

Bringing weight to the professional excellence was the King’s integrity and respect he showed his hosts. He did not shy away from the values and convictions that he represents, nor from the positions held by the government he serves. And yet, these were expressed in a way that never felt confrontational or dismissive. There was a consistent tone of respect, both in word and in action, that elevated the conversation rather than diminishing it. In a political culture that can so easily slip into caricature or contempt, this kind of posture matters.

Then there was the humour. At several points, the King’s speeches included moments of lightness and personal warmth. It is said that he has a playful sense of humour and often contributes to his own remarks. Far from being incidental, this kind of humour can be a powerful tool. It disarms, it connects, and it allows difficult or challenging ideas to be heard without provoking immediate defensiveness. There is something deeply human, even compassionate, about it. One is reminded that Jesus himself often refused to take the lofty or authoritarian tone and approach, teaching in parables (Matthew 13), and inviting his hearers to reflect rather than react and to wrestle with truth rather than simply resist it.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, there was the use of power.

The King is Head of State, but he does not govern. The United Kingdom is an influential nation, but it is not the global superpower that the United States is. And yet, this does not mean there is no power at play. Much has been said about “soft power” in recent years, and this visit demonstrated what that can look like when exercised well. Relational influence, moral authority, and even a certain cultural visibility were all deployed with care.

As Andy Crouch has argued, power is not something to be avoided, but something to be used well - to serve, to create, and to enable others to flourish. This resonates deeply with the example of Christ himself (Mark 10:45). In that sense, one of the most striking features of this visit was the way in which power was exercised differently - not as selfish domination, but as service and stewardship.

What is striking, however, is that these characteristics of excellence, integrity, humility, relationality, and a careful use of power are not simply matters of personality or good training. They are deeply rooted in a much older vision of what it means to lead well.

The Bible consistently presents leadership not as the accumulation of power, but as the faithful stewardship of it. Again and again, those entrusted with authority are called to act with wisdom, justice, humility, and a concern for others above themselves. Throughout the bible, whether embodied in leaders like king David, the wisdom of psalms and proverbs, or the New Testament letters leadership is always seen as moral before it is merely functional.

Supremely, this vision is embodied in Jesus himself, who redefines leadership not through status, but through service: “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:43). In him we see that power is never an end in itself. It is a trust to be exercised for the good of others.

And it is here that we begin to see a second, equally important dimension of leadership. To lead well is not only to exercise power rightly, but to recognise and pursue what is for the wider common good. Leadership is not simply about advancing interests, whether personal, political, or national, but about seeking the flourishing of others, including those beyond our immediate circle or concern. One of our favourite verses in CARE is Jeremiah 29:7, and God’s command for all of his people, including, and especially our leaders to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” (Jeremiah 29:7).

It is into this space that the King’s own reflections on Christian faith and values begin to make sense. In his address to Congress, he spoke of his Christian faith as a “firm anchor” in his life, and something that shapes not only personal conviction, but also how we live together in society.

What was striking, however, was not simply that he referenced Christianity, but how he did so.

There was no sense of attempting to impose belief, no suggestion that Christian faith should be used to dominate or diminish other cultures or traditions. Instead, it was expressed with a quiet confidence with an understanding that the values shaped by the Christian story have something genuinely good to offer our shared public life.

Values such as humility, service, compassion, and the inherent dignity of every person are not presented as tribal possessions, but as gifts to be shared. They reflect a vision of society in which power is exercised responsibly, relationships are grounded in respect, and the vulnerable are not overlooked or ignored. When Jesus summarised the law, it was not in terms of control, but of love - “love the Lord your God… and love your neighbour as yourself” (Matthew 22:37–39). And when he modelled leadership, it was not through coercion, but through service, kneeling to wash his disciples’ feet (John 13).

To affirm the Christian foundations of many of our shared values is not to argue for a theocracy, nor to deny the contributions of others. It should not be a means of cultural arrogance or excluding others, but rather an invitation into a better story and opportunity for generosity and hospitality. It is to recognise that the moral framework which has shaped both the United Kingdom and the United States did not emerge from nowhere, and that our understanding of dignity, responsibility, and justice are universally good things. But if we read the whole bible and are willing to be open to its radical message, sometimes we are challenged about what these values mean as much as those of other faiths and none.

In a time when faith is often pushed to the margins of public life, or treated with suspicion and fear, the example set during this visit offers a different way. It is possible to speak openly about Christian belief in public life with humility rather than arrogance, with generosity rather than defensiveness, and with a genuine respect for those of all faiths and none.

And yet, we return to the question of how can rwe eflect on the Kings visit to the US. Was it a success? If so, what do we mean by success?

Commentators have been quick to proclaim it as a triumph. But what lies behind that judgment? Was it successful because no major offence was caused? Because difficult political tensions were navigated without escalation? Because a few well-placed lines landed effectively? Or because certain tangible outcomes – like lowering tariffs on Scottish whiskey – were secured?

None of these things are insignificant. But they are not the only way to measure success, and perhaps not the only metrics we should use.

The Bible does offer a different lens on this question. Figures like Joseph are described as prospering not simply because of what they achieved, but because “the Lord was with him” (Genesis 39). David, for all his flaws, is remembered as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14) and if David experienced success it was “because the Lord was with him” (1 Samuel 18:14). Their lives were marked not by unbroken success in worldly terms, but by a deeper orientation towards God. And so it should be with us.

This reframes success in a profound way. It shifts the focus from results, outcomes and “wining” to one of character, obedience, and faithfulness.

And if we apply that lens to this recent visit, a different picture begins to emerge. Its success may not ultimately lie in social media clips, standing ovations, or what was gained, avoided, or negotiated, but in how power was exercised. If I conclude the Kings visit to be a success it will be that he has role modelled leadership in a different tone; in showing restraint and self-control, and in the commitment to relationship over transaction.

My prayer is that this visit offered politicians and others on both sides of the Atlantic a glimpse of a better way of leading rooted in a deeper moral vision that calls us to humbly and graciously seek the good of others as well as ourselves.