It is unfortunate that the comments contained in the preface were not communicated at the presentation you read to us because at that time assurances and explanations could have been provided in order to alleviate the concerns you have expressed.

You appear to express concern that you “had been given little opportunity to share perspectives with brethren involved in the PRU in the 3.5 years since the Unity Agreement 2008 (UA08) was implemented”. It should be understood that this was not deliberate on our part, neither was it our choice. Initially our concerns were with Amended ecclesias that had entered into the agreement, then in 2009 a fellowship study was proposed following the pause of the four Toronto ecclesias. Despite numerous efforts to hold an all-inclusive ecclesial fellowship study this was turned down by the three Unamended ecclesias (minutes of Unity meeting January 23, 2010). It would appear therefore that your ecclesias were the ones that created the lack of opportunity.

It is also incorrect to suggest that the Book Road study day was scheduled after the January 25th meeting had been arranged. The date for the study day was agreed upon at a joint meeting of the five concerned ecclesias (described as the PRU ecclesias) on October 1, 2011, whereas your invitation was emailed to us on October 16, 2011. We saw no reason to cancel the study day because of a personal invitation sent to some of our brethren.

You make reference to “serious charges concerning the integrity both of the NASU/UA08 and of brethren involved in this unity initiative”. We believe this to be an unfair comment; at no time during the Book Road study day was there any comment directed towards the integrity of individuals. Any concerns we may have with brethren, both Amended and Unamended, results from statements that have been made privately which appear to contradict those made in public, creating an air of uncertainty. Assurances have been provided by certain Amended brethren suggesting that statements made at the January 2010 meeting in Toronto regarding the Clarifications are no longer valid yet your presentation offers little by way of confirmation. Having said this our concern is and has always been the integrity of the NASU/UA08 document in its present form, believing it to be ambiguous concerning the doctrines that have historically divided our two communities and inadequate in establishing a clear fellowship practice. That the unity document is ambiguous is clearly evidenced by the fact that the original signatories to the UA08 agreement (the four Toronto Amended ecclesias) viewed the doctrinal content and understood the fellowship practice differently than yourselves, as you made quite clear in your January 23, 2010 presentation.