UPDATED: ACNA misrepresents its level of participation in #Primates2016

Updated in an addendum adding material from ANiC (ACNA’s Canadian subsidiary)

The website for #Primates2016, managed by the Anglican Consultative Council’s Anglican Communion Office, says media reports are mistaken about the extent of the participation of ACNA’s Foley Beach.

Link to that #Primates2016 statement:

Statement on votes given to Primates at the meeting in Canterbury

17 Jan 2016

On those occasions when the discussion required Primates to privately record a preference or a decision, slips were informally distributed around the tables and then collected. Apart from when the meeting agreed the agenda at the start, it was made clear to Archbishop Foley Beach that it would not be appropriate for him to take part and he was not invited to do so. Given the spirit of the meeting at all times, it is unfortunate that this is misrepresented in recent reports.

The Church Times did the original reporting on the votes given to Beach at the gathering.

@ChurchTimes tweets that ACNA disputes the statement on the #Primate2016 website. Here’s the thread. Dan Joslyn-Siemiatkoski got the ball rolling when he tweeted on statement.

“C of E’s head of comms” would be the Church of England’s Director of Communications, Rev. Arun Arora, who tweeted:

And Arora then retweeted,

Take note of the time stamps on the tweets.

Update: @JustinWelby’s Director of Reconciliation, David Porter (@baldynotion), retweeted Arora,



ANiC (ACNA-Canada) continues to spread ACNA’s misinformation on whether Beach had voting privileges. Here’s what ANIC said on January 29:

The decision to discipline TEC finally came to a vote on Thursday. Archbishop Foley has made it clear that, while he chose not to participate in that vote, it was passed by a very large majority….

All these steps taken, including the decision of Archbishop Foley to not vote on the discipline motion although he was given a ballot, were taken as faithful applications of wise principle.

Nowhere in ANiC’s statement is it made clear to its readers that should not read this to mean Foley did not have the right to vote.

Past Posts