Here is another response to the Protest Committee's Report and Carl Lawrenz's Report to the Protest Committee.
The two pastors', Jonathan P. Schaller and John H. Lau, chief concern is that the 'official interpretation' is NOT the one that Carl Lawrenz put forth and subsequently the Protest Committee promoted, but that the official interpretation is the one the whole synod was working under and clearly understanding from 1955 to 1957. Their argument is also that there is "a clear and definite distinction between the action of the Synod pertaining to the Preamble and the action of the Synod in dealing with the Resolutions."
Quotes of note:
"... no other interpretation of the 1955 Convention had ever come to our desks from the Praesidium preceding the Recessed Session of 1956."
"... official interpretations of the SAME Synodical resolutions cannot be changed from year to year. Once officially given, such interpretations stand."
"The Recessed Session in 1956 did NOT interpret the meaning of the 1955 resolutions. That is no where IMPLIED, INTIMATED, or PLAINLY STATED... This also explains why the DEBATE throughout the Synod after August 1955 was NOT in regard to what the Synod said, but in regard to this: Is there a TIME ELEMENT between 'mark' and 'avoid'?"
November 11, 1958, A Response To The Protest Committee, by Jonathan P. Schaller and John H. Lau