After we heard Brother Nee’s fellowship, we asked why we should not invite Brother Austin-Sparks to come and visit us, since Brother Nee spoke so highly of him. Brother Nee answered in a wise way: “The time has not come.” At that time we did not quite understand what he meant. About fifteen years later, in 1954, our work in Taiwan was very much blessed by the Lord. At that time a brother visited England and America and met with Brother Austin-Sparks. After his visit, he wrote three letters, one to Manila, one to Hong Kong, and one to Taipei, highly promoting Brother Austin-Sparks. He said that Brother Austin-Sparks was a spiritual giant and that he had a strong burden to come to the Far East to witness for the Lord.
In the first part of 1955, I was conducting the life-study training in Taipei. Brothers Chang Yu-lan and Chang Wu-cheng took the letter and showed it to me. After I read the letter, I considered a little. Then I told them that for many years we had learned a certain thing before the Lord: In knowing a person we should not look at the big matters but at the small matters. It is not very easy for a person to expose his flaws in the big things; the problems are always with the small things. Brother Austin-Sparks published a bimonthly magazine called A Witness and a Testimony. In the January 1955 issue there was a column acknowledging the Christmas cards that he had received from readers. His magazine was altogether on spiritual subjects, yet there was such an acknowledgment. This was a small point. By the Lord’s leading, we had completely dropped the celebration of Christmas, but Brother Austin-Sparks, whom we had always respected so much, published an acknowledgment thanking his readers for Christmas cards. From this small matter I could tell that there must still be some distance between him and us. If we were to invite him to come, it would be hard to guarantee that there would be no friction between us; perhaps the better thing to do would be to keep our distance and remain cordial to each other.
At that time the two elders agreed with what I said, but two weeks later, they said, “Brother Lee, we feel that on the spiritual side, we still need the spiritual help from Brother Austin-Sparks.” The phrase spiritual help made it difficult for me to say no to them. Since the brothers had felt that the small differences did not matter and that they needed spiritual help, how could I insist on not inviting him? I then suggested that if we were to invite him, it would be better not to bring up the subject of church practice, because Brother Nee had discussed this matter in detail with Brother Austin-Sparks already and had not been able to get through. The two Brothers Chang agreed and said, “We will only receive the spiritual help from him.” I then drafted the letter in English myself. The Taipei brothers signed it and sent it to Hong Kong and Manila for their signatures. In this way, Brother Austin-Sparks came.
At the end of 1955 Brother Austin-Sparks came for the first time. He restricted his speakings to spiritual subjects. The messages helped many people. Everyone was happy and decided to invite him to come again. In the spring of 1957 he came again at our invitation, but this time it was different. He told us clearly regarding his feelings. After visiting for about a month, one morning we asked him to have a time of fellowship with the hundred or more co-workers that we had. One brother among us took the lead to ask, “Brother Austin-Sparks, you have been staying with us for some time, and you have observed our situation. What is your feeling concerning us?” As soon as I heard this, I knew at once that this brother had dissenting thoughts within him. It turned out that my feeling was correct. Right after this brother asked the question, Brother Austin-Sparks replied, “The last time I came, I did have some feelings, but I was determined not to say anything. I was waiting for another opportunity to come again to speak regarding them.” Later I found out that this dissenting one was echoing Brother Austin-Sparks. He took the initiative to ask that question in order to provide Brother Austin-Sparks the opportunity to speak what he had prepared.
The first thing that Brother Austin-Sparks disagreed with was the way we conducted the bread-breaking meeting. He thought that our bread-breaking meeting was too disorderly. There was no proper order. One person could call a hymn, and another could pray. I did not say much regarding this because I was the translator. However, I will speak in detail regarding the second matter with which he did not agree. We need to realize that if one’s vision is not clear, he can be very spiritual, but he can become quite confused in certain matters. The second thing that Brother Austin-Sparks mentioned shows that he was somewhat confused. He said, “Please tell me why the brothers among you who are in the military service put on their uniform cap even before they leave the meeting hall?” At that time we had many brothers among us who were in the military. They all came to the meetings dressed in military uniforms. After the meetings they would put on their caps and fellowship with the brothers and sisters in the meeting hall. When Brother Austin-Sparks saw this, he began to criticize.
At the time this happened, one brother answered Brother Austin-Sparks, saying, “According to the Chinese tradition, a soldier does not take off his cap when he is standing up, whether or not he is inside a building. These brothers remove their caps when they sit down for the meetings in accordance with the biblical teaching concerning not covering their head, but when an announcement is made that the meeting is dismissed, they put their caps back on.” When Brother Austin-Sparks heard this, immediately his countenance changed. He asked, “Are you here to keep the tradition, or are you here to keep the Bible?” When I heard this, I was not too happy inside. I realized that he was wrong. It was he who was following the Western tradition and not we who were disobeying the Bible. The Bible says that when a man prays or teaches, he should not cover his head (1 Cor. 11:4, 7), but it does not say that a man cannot put on his cap inside a building. To take off the cap inside a building is a Western tradition. Brother Austin-Sparks was imposing on us a tradition that Western unbelievers keep.
I did not have any prejudice against Brother Austin-Sparks. Before that day, I supported that elderly brother almost completely. He did render us quite an amount of help, and he also received some help from us. For a long time we communicated with one another and fellowshipped with one another, but from that day onward, I became alarmed. First of all, for him to say such a word lowered his spiritual ministry. Why did he need to touch such outward matters? At his invitation I went to London in 1958 and met with his group for four weeks. Their bread-breaking meeting lasted for an hour. During that whole time Brother Austin-Sparks took the lead. At the beginning he took the lead to pray, to call a hymn, and to speak. Afterward everyone prayed for about ten minutes. At a certain point, he would break the bread and give it to the congregation. He would first give it to the seven deacons; then the seven deacons would distribute it to the others. After everyone had the bread in his hand, Brother Austin-Sparks would say, “Now we can eat.” Only after he had announced this, was anyone allowed to eat. After the eating, they did the same with the distribution and drinking of the cup. At the end he stepped in and monopolized the meeting again by announcing, “Now the time for public worship is over,” which meant that no one could do anything anymore. This was his way. It is no wonder that he considered our bread-breaking meeting to be somewhat disorganized.
Brother Austin-Sparks came to our meetings and started questioning such practices among us as the breaking of bread. He even touched on such insignificant matters as the donning of military caps. Was it not too much for him to touch such matters? These were traces that gave us a hint that his way and our way could not be reconciled because what we saw was different.