[OBW]

And while I realize that Paul sort of said what you did to the Corinthians about taking all the teachers, I don't think he was talking about the ones that shouldn't be teaching. I think he was honestly opining in 1 Corinthians 3 about the risks and rewards of teaching in the ultimate scheme.

It is not just about what you think sounds good. Or that conforms to your cultural view of things (and without talking about the Chinese, we Americans very often imbue the church with our cultural every man for himself, pulled up by his own bootstraps, everyone is literally equal, etc., way). It is not about what gives us goose bumps. Or allows for my frailties while striking out against those of others.

Paul was talking about himself, Apollos, Peter, and some unnamed others when he wrote that bit about wood hay and stubble.

Yes, the Corinthians were to take it all. At least sort of. In a few places, he also suggested the kinds of things that should simply be rejected (in other letters). John said some similar things. Within some bounds, lesser teaching (wood hay, and stubble) was just baggage that teachers needed to try to deal with. But not the Corinthians themselves. They were told to quit squabbling over who was better and take it all. (Some words that Lee clearly disputed.) But elsewhere Paul told some — at least the leaders — that certain ones should be refused. Don't let them teach to the people. Don't give them an audience.

And if he was saying to refuse them, do you think he was also saying to have someone else go ahead and teach their stuff for them?

Don't answer. It is rhetorical. And not to any particular "you."

If we consider the very core of Nee and Lee to be corrupt in some way in which Paul would have refused to allow them to teach, do we think he would have then given their books to someone else and just said "you go teach their stuff for them."