Lemmons Confuses Issue
In the September 12, 1961 issue of the Firm Foundation, brother Lemmons writes: "Another of the new doctrines that have sprung up to plague the church in the past ten years is this new doctrine that the church cannot help, out of its treasury, any but needy saints. We do not believe the New Testament teaches any such doctrine." He states that this is the very same thing the Roman Catholic nations (Italy, Cuba, etc.) have been practicing. But just here brother Lemmons switches issues. He says that since these predominantly Catholic countries have not been helped by the Catholic Church, they are all going Communistic. This may be true; but here you have a church (the Roman Catholic) which is not even helping its own needy out of its own treasury. That is not parallel to what you started out to prove, brother Lemmons! If your argument means anything at all, it would disprove your affirmation and establish the fact that if the Roman Catholic Church had helped her needy "saints" out of her church treasury, then those countries would not have gone to the Communists. What has this got to do with your original point regarding the church helping outsiders? In your examples, the Catholics in Italy and Cuba would not be "outsiders" to the Catholic Church, would they? You are merely stating cases where a church did not help its own people. Over ninety percent of the population in Cuba and Italy are Catholic in religion.
The other point brother Lemmons attempts to make is equally as far-fetched. He argues that since the Good Samaritan helped the man on the Jericho road, the church may take money out of the treasury to help outsiders. You didn't prove the two cases parallel, brother Lemmons. What connection is there between an individual helping an individual and your argument that "the New Testament teaches" we are to help the needy outsider from the church treasury? I thought you recognized a difference between the individual and the church. (If an individual can contribute to a college; can the church from its treasury also contribute to a college?) That is your reasoning with the Good Samaritan. Better be careful.
Now, you state that "we do not believe the New Testament teaches any such doctrine." Why didn't you tell the readers what the New Testament does teach on this matter? Give all the examples, commands, and inferences to justify the church supporting outsiders. That would have made a stronger Editorial. Personally, I am still "studying" this matter; but I could readily see that your recent Editorial confuses the issue.
(Editor's postscript: Anent that Lemmons editorial, some of the Chicago brethren pointed out an amusing "conclusion" as follows: Lemmons argues that the Good Samaritan represents a "congregational" charity to non-saints, If the Good Samaritan represents a "charity to all comers" church, then, obviously, the Priest and the Levite are to be equated with the "anti" churches who distribute only to "the saints". From which it follows that these "anti" churches outnumber the others by two to one! 0, Logic, Logic.)