1959 "A Call for Decision" Memorial

This memorial was written in February of 1959 by six protesting pastors in a response to the WELS Protest Committee's letter and especially to Carl Lawrenz's A Report to the Protest Committee.

After sending this to WELS President O. J. Naumann and the synod secretary, the signers let them know that they will be circulating this memorial to other interested parties and see if they will want to sign as well. Many would.

February 8, 1959, A Call for Decision, a memorial for the upcoming convention in August.

Quotes of note:

"Termination of fellowship is called for when Scriptural correction has been offered and rejected and the erring brother or church body have continued in their error despite admonition. This is the persistence which distinguishes an errorist (Romans 16:17-18) from an erring brother (Galatians 2:11-14)."

"We affirm that the document entitled A Report to the Protest Committee is in its nature and content divisive, despite its conciliatory tone, becaue it does violence to clear Scripture."

"In its historical presentation, the Report distorts plain, documented facts relative to the action of the Saginaw Convention of 1955. We consider this distortion of historical facts to be a lesser offense, however, than the abuse of Scripture upon which it is based."

1959 WELS Board for Information and Stewardship Newsletter

The WELS Church Union Committee wanted the following statement to be released in its January, 1959 newsletter.

January 14, 1959 Board for Information and Stewardship Newsletter

Quote of note:

"Your Committee wants to reemphasize what it recently stated in its Report to the Protest Committee that the Saginaw resolutions do contain certain unclarities which have made possible a number of conflicting interpretations as to how Rom. 16:17,18 was applied to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod..."

1955 Report of the President (WELS, Oscar J. Naumann)

Every convention begins with a report from the synod's president. Sort of a "State of the Union Address" as it were? Oscar J. Naumann was the newly elected Wisconsin Synod president in 1955 and here is the part of his report dealing with the topic of the Missouri Synod.

1955 Report of the President, Oscar J. Naumann

Quotes of note:

"I believe it can truthfully be said that [the WELS and LC-MS] have been growing apart instead of being drawn closer together."

"The differences that have arisen between us... have not been removed. They have increased."

"For those of us who have been closest to these problems, it appears quite definite that we must now obey the Lord's Word in Romans 16:17."

"Yet I am sure that each of us diligently and fervently prayed that some ray of hope might appear."

"...whether the Lord would now have us apply His definite command 'Avoid them!' or whether we still have an unpaid debt of love to those whose fellowship we cherished for so many years."

1957 A Report from the Protest Committee

The WELS Protest Committee was "called into existence through [an] election by the General Synodical Committee in October, 1956, pursuant to a resolution of Joint Synod in August of 1956."

Here is their first report to the convention in 1957.

1957 A Report from the Protest Committee (WELS proceedings, p. 146-148)

Quotes of note:

"... nor let it be forgotten that in resolutions of earlier conventions our Synod did speak the kind of language concerning the gravity of the issues involved and concerning the interpretation and application of Romans 16:17,18 which gave the protesters reason to expect final action at Saginaw."

"... yet we would plead that hte protesters in charity trust that there was an honest uncertainty at Saginaw concerning Missouri's having received ample opportunity in convention assembled to react to the testimony which our Synod had given since Missouri's 1953 convention..."

1957 Winfred Schaller Jr. Resignation

Since 1953, Professor Winfred Schaller, Jr. had been in a protesting fellowship with the WELS. On the resulting decision of the 1957 Convention, he withdrew from fellowship on the basis of Romans 16:17,18.

1957 Winfred Schaller, Jr. Resignation

Quote of note:
"Since Romans 16:17,18 is a clear passage of Scripture and a sedis doctrinae, the confession of the Wisconsin Synod is wrong, and I cannot confess before men that I in any way approve or tolerate the false views held by the Synod."

1957 Paul Albrecht Statement at the end of Convention

Here is another pastor who served on the WELS Union Committee disagreeing with the Synod's rejection of Committee No. 2's report.

1957 Paul Albrecht Statement at the end of Convention.

Quotes of note:

"I shall never be through with the Wisconsin Synod as little as I can ever be through with any member of my own family. BUT I cannot follow the course which the Synod has chosen..."

"While I do not refuse the hand of fellowship to all members of the Synod, I cannot fellowship with those who have advocated the position which the Synod made its own last night. II Thess. 3:6, 11, 14, 15."

1958 Another Response to the Protest Committee (Schaller/Lau)

November 11, 1958, A Response To The Protest Committee, by Jonathan P. Schaller and John H. Lau

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'?"