King Charles of England has an interesting relationship with the Church of England. Officially, he is the head of the church. He doesn’t lead it theologically or administratively, but he does have a ceremonial and constitutional connection. As such, he participates in coronations, church dedications, and various services. He also formally appoints bishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury (the actual leader of the church), though he doesn’t actually pick them.
In practice, the Prime Minister advises the King on appointments, and the church’s own committees and the Crown Nominations Commission make recommendations. The King’s role is simply to give formal approval and enact the appointment. Those things preserve the church’s historic link to the monarchy. Because his role is both spiritual and ceremonial (as head of the Church of England), his theological voice is partly shaped by constitutional and institutional responsibilities.
There have been a couple of major happenings recently with King Charles that have created a bit of controversy. One was that he went to Rome and prayed with the Pope. With that, became the first reigning English monarch to ever pray publicly with a Pope during an ecumenical service. (You can read about it at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/protestant-minister-king-charles/2025/10/24/id/1231760/)
The Roman Catholic Church and progressive Christians hailed the event as a landmark step toward Christian unity. On the other hand, it drew sharp criticism from certain other Protestant leaders, especially in Northern Ireland, where he was accused of betraying his Protestant vows.
Another recent controversial event was the appointment of Sarah Mullally as archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the senior bishop and principal leader of the Church of England, and is also recognized as the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She is the first woman to hold this office. Theologically she is an extreme liberal. You can read about this at (https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/the-archbishop-who-drove-the-gospel-out-of-england) While her appointment was hailed as a triumph for “equity” and “representation” among the progressive wing of the church, the churches in Africa and the Global South were so incensed that they have declared they will no longer recognize Canterbury’s authority.
Both of these things, though, fit in nicely with King Charles’ personal approach to faith. He is, fully, a theological liberal. His theology has been characterized as “spiritually serious, intellectually open, and socially inclusive.” This represents a blending of Anglican tradition and modern pluralism. In other words, his faith can be characterized as Anglican-liturgical and moral, rather than evangelical-personal. What that means is that he envisions Jesus Christ primarily as the divine model of love, service, and reconciliation, rather than emphasizing individual salvation or conversion.
He believes that people of different faiths can all serve God sincerely, and that divine truth may be reflected through multiple traditions. As such, he believes Jesus is central to divine truth, but that others may experience God’s grace without explicitly confessing Christ as Savior and Lord. In other words, he is of the opinion that, spiritually speaking, “there are many paths up the mountain (leading to God), but they all lead to the top.” His theological focus is on Christ’s moral example (love, service, compassion, and reconciliation) rather than His atoning work of salvation.
That being the case, his praying with the Pope and the appointment of an extreme theological liberal as head of the Church of England are completely consistent with his personal approach to religion.
In looking at the various people involved and their approach to religion, it is obvious that there is something wrong. With King Charles and Sarah Mullally, their beliefs focus their faith on the institutional strength of the church and human works to reform society. The Pope’s interest is also related to the church’s institutional strength – though that of the Catholic Church, not the Church of England. In his case, there is still the hope that they can bring the Church of England “back into the Roman Catholic fold under the headship of the Roman Church.” Their sacramental theology also focuses on salvation by works. As for the church in Northern Ireland, their focus is to protect Protestantism above all. There is no particular interest in pointing people to salvation in Jesus Christ.
An institutional focus is political in nature. And when the focus is on politics the concern always regards temporal matters – the integrity of the institutional church, reforming society, determining who can pray with who, and controlling the masses.
But that does not reflect a biblical worldview. Rather than a political or institutional focus, the Bible teaches a focus on the individual. It is individuals who need to be saved, not societies. When it is right with the individuals in society, society as a whole takes care of itself.