Well, for some reason you decided to comment on a side issue, rather than my main point. But, since you insist, I disagree with your basic thrust that they had nothing to offer. I think there were some things about the movement and what Nee and Lee emphasized that God wanted us to run with.
I flatly do not believe we would still be talking about this movement 30 years later if there wasn't something about it that was compelling--and that goes back to more than just the fervor of the group, it goes back to some things Nee and Lee taught.
Some of the things Nee and Lee, IMHO, were onto include:
A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.
A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.
A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.
Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.
Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.
I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.
Now you might argue that all these things were out there somewhere already and still can be found. I won't argue with that, but I don't think it matters. My point is that I heard them from Nee and Lee, not others. I think God was trying to emphasize certain things through Nee and Lee, but they got off track with their own vision of their movement and how things should come about and the enemy basically torpedoed the thing.
The fact is, OBW, if I didn't feel that in some ways the LC movement imparted some quite amazing things to me, I would not have had a problem leaving it. In fact, it was the mixed feelings about it that confused me--that I knew some very heavenly things had been imparted to me, while at the same time knowing that I could not exist there, was the confusing matter.
Now I know better. I know that just because someone has some good things doesn't mean everything is good, or that I need to pledge my life to him. I also know that just because someone has some bad things, some really bad things, doesn't mean I feel the need to find fault with everything he taught. When I watch you, I seem to see this compulsion. It just doesn't work for me, because I know that many good things were imparted to me. To say otherwise would simply be lying, at least the way I see things now.
The bottom line is, all things our ours. If Nee and Lee had good things, they couldn't do anything to make them bad, in essence. And if they had bad things, we should leave those behind.
The point of this thread is that the reputation of the men and the validity of their teaching are two separate issues. The LC tries to make them the same thing.